{"docs": [{"id": 0, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1063565920-20251003-163219617.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2025-10-03 (doc 1063565920)", "pages": 30}, {"id": 1, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1063771365-20251103-080432430.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2025-11-03 (doc 1063771365)", "pages": 2}, {"id": 2, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1063842267-20251113-104918170.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2025-11-13 (doc 1063842267)", "pages": 16}, {"id": 3, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1064173486-20251215-083550567.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2025-12-15 (doc 1064173486)", "pages": 31}, {"id": 4, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1064174281-20251215-154155560.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2025-12-15 (doc 1064174281)", "pages": 2}, {"id": 5, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1064309612-20251230-090342470.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2025-12-30 (doc 1064309612)", "pages": 2}, {"id": 6, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1064341755-20251231-113509990.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2025-12-31 (doc 1064341755)", "pages": 8}, {"id": 7, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1064378622-20260108-082644460.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-01-08 (doc 1064378622)", "pages": 14}, {"id": 8, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1064494725-20260121-084308817.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-01-21 (doc 1064494725)", "pages": 5}, {"id": 9, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1064510494-20260128-125616997.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-01-28 (doc 1064510494)", "pages": 179}, {"id": 10, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1064588416-20260202-160905137.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-02-02 (doc 1064588416)", "pages": 5}, {"id": 11, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1064717268-20260223-085052240.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-02-23 (doc 1064717268)", "pages": 2}, {"id": 12, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1064817827-20260302-163856477.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-03-02 (doc 1064817827)", "pages": 13}, {"id": 13, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065181650-20260402-150850250.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-04-02 (doc 1065181650)", "pages": 2}, {"id": 14, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065188644-20260406-082127623.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-04-06 (doc 1065188644)", "pages": 12}, {"id": 15, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065317617-20260416-083924130.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-04-16 (doc 1065317617)", "pages": 47}, {"id": 16, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065430151-20260424-082258097.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-04-24 (doc 1065430151)", "pages": 8}, {"id": 17, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065612964-20260513-160857860.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-05-13 (doc 1065612964)", "pages": 14}, {"id": 18, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065662311-20260519-160701203.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-05-19 (doc 1065662311)", "pages": 6}, {"id": 19, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065666613-20260521-160705247.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-05-21 (doc 1065666613)", "pages": 4}, {"id": 20, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065677711-20260526-150058890.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-05-26 (doc 1065677711)", "pages": 4}, {"id": 21, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065678714-20260527-095953230.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-05-27 (doc 1065678714)", "pages": 244}, {"id": 22, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065705740-20260528-102755080.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-05-28 (doc 1065705740)", "pages": 375}, {"id": 23, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065705766-20260528-103738073.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-05-28 (doc 1065705766)", "pages": 3}, {"id": 24, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065729194-20260602-100701050.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-06-02 (doc 1065729194)", "pages": 9}, {"id": 25, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065731615-20260602-134543743.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-06-02 (doc 1065731615)", "pages": 2}, {"id": 26, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065744778-20260604-093333180.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-06-04 (doc 1065744778)", "pages": 8}, {"id": 27, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065746172-20260605-125222223.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-06-05 (doc 1065746172)", "pages": 4}, {"id": 28, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065781759-20260608-163535480.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-06-08 (doc 1065781759)", "pages": 7}, {"id": 29, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065797326-20260609-101600927.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-06-09 (doc 1065797326)", "pages": 78}, {"id": 30, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065822663-20260610-143658700.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-06-10 (doc 1065822663)", "pages": 3}, {"id": 31, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065824676-20260612-085839950.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-06-12 (doc 1065824676)", "pages": 40}, {"id": 32, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065833672-20260616-084218350.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-06-16 (doc 1065833672)", "pages": 6}, {"id": 33, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065837310-20260616-160906373.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-06-16 (doc 1065837310)", "pages": 2}, {"id": 34, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065899974-20260622-084403880.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-06-22 (doc 1065899974)", "pages": 13}, {"id": 35, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065920596-20260623-081835550.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-06-23 (doc 1065920596)", "pages": 11}, {"id": 36, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065970582-20260624-080809930.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-06-24 (doc 1065970582)", "pages": 7}, {"id": 37, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1065970583-20260624-080810027.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-06-24 (doc 1065970583)", "pages": 8}, {"id": 38, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1066005285-20260626-142538003.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-06-26 (doc 1066005285)", "pages": 14}, {"id": 39, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1066199952-20260717-090757620.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-07-17 (doc 1066199952)", "pages": 12}, {"id": 40, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1066199958-20260717-090944757.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-07-17 (doc 1066199958)", "pages": 7}, {"id": 41, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1066199966-20260717-091344640.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-07-17 (doc 1066199966)", "pages": 12}, {"id": 42, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1066210883-20260722-111649907.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-07-22 (doc 1066210883)", "pages": 6}, {"id": 43, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1066259521-20260728-151843667.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-07-28 (doc 1066259521)", "pages": 41}, {"id": 44, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1066259567-20260728-153548310.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-07-28 (doc 1066259567)", "pages": 7}, {"id": 45, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1066259568-20260728-153548417.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-07-28 (doc 1066259568)", "pages": 85}, {"id": 46, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1066259569-20260728-153548540.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-07-28 (doc 1066259569)", "pages": 12}, {"id": 47, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1066275198-20260729-144050960.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-07-29 (doc 1066275198)", "pages": 3}, {"id": 48, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1066393783-20260807-081417420.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-08-07 (doc 1066393783)", "pages": 7}, {"id": 49, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1066410778-20260810-154749823.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-08-10 (doc 1066410778)", "pages": 26}, {"id": 50, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1066497644-20260817-162748187.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-08-17 (doc 1066497644)", "pages": 20}, {"id": 51, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1066506201-20260818-150910127.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-08-18 (doc 1066506201)", "pages": 70}, {"id": 52, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1066506202-20260818-150910233.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-08-18 (doc 1066506202)", "pages": 58}, {"id": 53, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1066593514-20260824-095333773.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-08-24 (doc 1066593514)", "pages": 4}, {"id": 54, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1066618085-20260825-091744707.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-08-25 (doc 1066618085)", "pages": 4}, {"id": 55, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/1066619139-20260826-081328600.pdf", "title": "Comanche County CJ-2025-135 docket filing — 2026-08-26 (doc 1066619139)", "pages": 446}, {"id": 56, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/20260828-1066702317-amended-notice-to-take-deposition.pdf", "title": "20260828-1066702317-amended-notice-to-take-deposition.pdf", "pages": 5}, {"id": 57, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/20260903-1066727900-state-farm-motion-extension-re-designation.pdf", "title": "20260903-1066727900-state-farm-motion-extension-re-designation.pdf", "pages": 24}, {"id": 58, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/20260910-1066814308-state-farm-reply-protective-order-consolidating-depositions.pdf", "title": "20260910-1066814308-state-farm-reply-protective-order-consolidating-depositions.pdf", "pages": 39}, {"id": 59, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/20260914-1066829569-state-farm-reply-deposition-protocol-west-ress-excerpts.pdf", "title": "20260914-1066829569-state-farm-reply-deposition-protocol-west-ress-excerpts.pdf", "pages": 35}, {"id": 60, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/20260921-1066890212-state-farm-withdrawal-of-motion-for-extension-re-designation-deadline.pdf", "title": "20260921-1066890212-state-farm-withdrawal-of-motion-for-extension-re-designation-deadline.pdf", "pages": 2}, {"id": 61, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/20260922-1066923343-defendants-state-farm-fire-and-casualty-company-and-nancy-holcomb.pdf", "title": "20260922-1066923343-defendants-state-farm-fire-and-casualty-company-and-nancy-holcomb.pdf", "pages": 32}, {"id": 62, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/20260923-1066928340-motion-to-associate-counsel.pdf", "title": "20260923-1066928340-motion-to-associate-counsel.pdf", "pages": 9}, {"id": 63, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/20261002-1067062790-defendant-state-farm-fire-and-casualty-company-s-opposition-to.pdf", "title": "20261002-1067062790-defendant-state-farm-fire-and-casualty-company-s-opposition-to.pdf", "pages": 61}, {"id": 64, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/20261008-1067089354-response-in-opposition-to-plaintiffs-motion-to-reconsider-the-entry.pdf", "title": "20261008-1067089354-response-in-opposition-to-plaintiffs-motion-to-reconsider-the-entry.pdf", "pages": 20}, {"id": 65, "file": "Comanche%20County%20CJ-2025-135%20FULL%20DOCKET/20261008-1067089355-exhibits-to-response-in-opposition-to-plaintiffs-motion-to-reconsider.pdf", "title": "20261008-1067089355-exhibits-to-response-in-opposition-to-plaintiffs-motion-to-reconsider.pdf", "pages": 6}, {"id": 66, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260825-1066534216-plaintiffs-application-for-leave-to-file-under-seal.pdf", "title": "20260825-1066534216-plaintiffs-application-for-leave-to-file-under-seal.pdf", "pages": 5}, {"id": 67, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260825-1066534272-state-farm-reply-protective-order-deposition-protocol.pdf", "title": "20260825-1066534272-state-farm-reply-protective-order-deposition-protocol.pdf", "pages": 8}, {"id": 68, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260826-1066521447-plaintiffs-reply-strike-confidentiality-de-designate.pdf", "title": "20260826-1066521447-plaintiffs-reply-strike-confidentiality-de-designate.pdf", "pages": 60}, {"id": 69, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260831-1066636659-state-farm-emergency-motion-extension-of-time.pdf", "title": "20260831-1066636659-state-farm-emergency-motion-extension-of-time.pdf", "pages": 41}, {"id": 70, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260903-1066723892-notice-of-hearing.pdf", "title": "20260903-1066723892-notice-of-hearing.pdf", "pages": 3}, {"id": 71, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260908-1066642089-plaintiffs-response-motion-to-strike-de-designate.pdf", "title": "20260908-1066642089-plaintiffs-response-motion-to-strike-de-designate.pdf", "pages": 9}, {"id": 72, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260910-1066643875-plaintiffs-application-for-leave-to-file-under-seal.pdf", "title": "20260910-1066643875-plaintiffs-application-for-leave-to-file-under-seal.pdf", "pages": 3}, {"id": 73, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260910-1066812795-plaintiffs-motion-to-compel-non-party-accenture-llp-s-compliance-with.pdf", "title": "20260910-1066812795-plaintiffs-motion-to-compel-non-party-accenture-llp-s-compliance-with.pdf", "pages": 89}, {"id": 74, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260910-1066813214-order-granting-plaintiffs-application-for-leave-to-file-under-seal.pdf", "title": "20260910-1066813214-order-granting-plaintiffs-application-for-leave-to-file-under-seal.pdf", "pages": 2}, {"id": 75, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260915-1066364651-notice-of-filing-transcript-aug-4-hearing.pdf", "title": "20260915-1066364651-notice-of-filing-transcript-aug-4-hearing.pdf", "pages": 1}, {"id": 76, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260915-1066829456-state-farm-withdrawal-deposition-subpoena-a-plus-roofing.pdf", "title": "20260915-1066829456-state-farm-withdrawal-deposition-subpoena-a-plus-roofing.pdf", "pages": 3}, {"id": 77, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260918-1066807581-motion-for-admission-pro-hac-vice-of-kathy-j-huang.pdf", "title": "20260918-1066807581-motion-for-admission-pro-hac-vice-of-kathy-j-huang.pdf", "pages": 11}, {"id": 78, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260918-1066866819-motion-for-admission-pro-hac-vice-of-samuel-j-park.pdf", "title": "20260918-1066866819-motion-for-admission-pro-hac-vice-of-samuel-j-park.pdf", "pages": 11}, {"id": 79, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260921-1066815707-plaintiffs-application-for-leave-to-file-under-seal.pdf", "title": "20260921-1066815707-plaintiffs-application-for-leave-to-file-under-seal.pdf", "pages": 3}, {"id": 80, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260922-1059176546-agreed-scheduling-order.pdf", "title": "20260922-1059176546-agreed-scheduling-order.pdf", "pages": 1}, {"id": 81, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260923-1066793064-plaintiffs-notice-of-supplemental-authority-regarding-plaintiffs.pdf", "title": "20260923-1066793064-plaintiffs-notice-of-supplemental-authority-regarding-plaintiffs.pdf", "pages": 56}, {"id": 82, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260924-1066793355-order-granting-plaintiffs-application-for-leave-to-file-under-seal.pdf", "title": "20260924-1066793355-order-granting-plaintiffs-application-for-leave-to-file-under-seal.pdf", "pages": 2}, {"id": 83, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260925-1066869826-non-party-accenture-llp-s-response-in-opposition-to-plaintiffs-motion.pdf", "title": "20260925-1066869826-non-party-accenture-llp-s-response-in-opposition-to-plaintiffs-motion.pdf", "pages": 89}, {"id": 84, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260928-1059176570-court-minute-de-designation-granted-in-part.pdf", "title": "20260928-1059176570-court-minute-de-designation-granted-in-part.pdf", "pages": 1}, {"id": 85, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260928-1066969493-notice-of-supplemental-authority-on-state-farm-s-executives-knowledge.pdf", "title": "20260928-1066969493-notice-of-supplemental-authority-on-state-farm-s-executives-knowledge.pdf", "pages": 42}, {"id": 86, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260928-1066969515-defendant-state-far-fire-and-casualty-companys-motion-for-protective.pdf", "title": "20260928-1066969515-defendant-state-far-fire-and-casualty-companys-motion-for-protective.pdf", "pages": 59}, {"id": 87, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260929-1066970007-notice-of-withdrawal-of-deposition-subpoena-and-subpoena-duces-tecum.pdf", "title": "20260929-1066970007-notice-of-withdrawal-of-deposition-subpoena-and-subpoena-duces-tecum.pdf", "pages": 3}, {"id": 88, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260929-1066970008-notice-of-withdrawal-of-deposition-subpoena-to-r-turley-roofing.pdf", "title": "20260929-1066970008-notice-of-withdrawal-of-deposition-subpoena-to-r-turley-roofing.pdf", "pages": 3}, {"id": 89, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260929-1066970009-notice-of-withdrawal-of-deposition-to-republic-roofing-company.pdf", "title": "20260929-1066970009-notice-of-withdrawal-of-deposition-to-republic-roofing-company.pdf", "pages": 3}, {"id": 90, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260929-1066970010-notice-of-withdrawal-of-deposition-subpoena-to-jesse-chambers.pdf", "title": "20260929-1066970010-notice-of-withdrawal-of-deposition-subpoena-to-jesse-chambers.pdf", "pages": 3}, {"id": 91, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260929-1066970123-defendant-state-farm-fire-and-casualty-companys-amended-motion-for.pdf", "title": "20260929-1066970123-defendant-state-farm-fire-and-casualty-companys-amended-motion-for.pdf", "pages": 70}, {"id": 92, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260929-1066970697-defendant-state-farm-fire-and-casualty-company-s-amended-motion-for.pdf", "title": "20260929-1066970697-defendant-state-farm-fire-and-casualty-company-s-amended-motion-for.pdf", "pages": 70}, {"id": 93, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260930-1066798393-corrected-notice-of-supplemental-authority-on-state-farm-s-executives.pdf", "title": "20260930-1066798393-corrected-notice-of-supplemental-authority-on-state-farm-s-executives.pdf", "pages": 42}, {"id": 94, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260930-1066798397-plaintiffs-application-for-leave-to-file-under-seal.pdf", "title": "20260930-1066798397-plaintiffs-application-for-leave-to-file-under-seal.pdf", "pages": 4}, {"id": 95, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20260930-1066971952-motion-for-admission-pro-hac-vice-kristin-a-shepard.pdf", "title": "20260930-1066971952-motion-for-admission-pro-hac-vice-kristin-a-shepard.pdf", "pages": 12}, {"id": 96, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20261001-1066868974-order-granting-plaintiffs-application-for-leave-to-file-under-seal.pdf", "title": "20261001-1066868974-order-granting-plaintiffs-application-for-leave-to-file-under-seal.pdf", "pages": 2}, {"id": 97, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20261001-1066869224-court-minute-october-1-2026.pdf", "title": "20261001-1066869224-court-minute-october-1-2026.pdf", "pages": 1}, {"id": 98, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20261002-1066797021-plaintiffs-motion-to-compel-re-production-of-electronically-stored.pdf", "title": "20261002-1066797021-plaintiffs-motion-to-compel-re-production-of-electronically-stored.pdf", "pages": 159}, {"id": 99, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20261002-1066797025-plaintiffs-response-in-opposition-to-defendant-state-farm-fire-and.pdf", "title": "20261002-1066797025-plaintiffs-response-in-opposition-to-defendant-state-farm-fire-and.pdf", "pages": 84}, {"id": 100, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20261002-1066797762-plaintiffs-application-for-leave-to-file-under-seal.pdf", "title": "20261002-1066797762-plaintiffs-application-for-leave-to-file-under-seal.pdf", "pages": 3}, {"id": 101, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20261002-1066798123-order-granting-plaintiffs-application-for-leave-to-file-under-seal.pdf", "title": "20261002-1066798123-order-granting-plaintiffs-application-for-leave-to-file-under-seal.pdf", "pages": 2}, {"id": 102, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20261002-1066869071-plaintiffs-motion-to-compel-re-production-of-electronically-stored.pdf", "title": "20261002-1066869071-plaintiffs-motion-to-compel-re-production-of-electronically-stored.pdf", "pages": 150}, {"id": 103, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20261002-1067062715-reply.pdf", "title": "20261002-1067062715-reply.pdf", "pages": 90}, {"id": 104, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20261005-1066797184-motion-to-associate-counsel.pdf", "title": "20261005-1066797184-motion-to-associate-counsel.pdf", "pages": 11}, {"id": 105, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20261005-1067072296-defendant-state-farm-fire-and-casualty-company-s-brief-in-support-of.pdf", "title": "20261005-1067072296-defendant-state-farm-fire-and-casualty-company-s-brief-in-support-of.pdf", "pages": 38}, {"id": 106, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20261006-1067073287-entry-of-appearance-nix-patterson-llp-andrew-pate-and-trey-duck.pdf", "title": "20261006-1067073287-entry-of-appearance-nix-patterson-llp-andrew-pate-and-trey-duck.pdf", "pages": 2}, {"id": 107, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20261006-1067073667-notice-of-deposition-subpoena-and-subpoena-duces-tecum.pdf", "title": "20261006-1067073667-notice-of-deposition-subpoena-and-subpoena-duces-tecum.pdf", "pages": 6}, {"id": 108, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20261007-1067005908-plaintiffs-application-for-leave-to-file-under-seal.pdf", "title": "20261007-1067005908-plaintiffs-application-for-leave-to-file-under-seal.pdf", "pages": 3}, {"id": 109, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20261008-1066985477-supplement-to-plaintiffs-motion-to-compel-re-production-of.pdf", "title": "20261008-1066985477-supplement-to-plaintiffs-motion-to-compel-re-production-of.pdf", "pages": 19}, {"id": 110, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20261008-1066985854-order-granting-plaintiffs-application-for-leave-to-file-under-seal.pdf", "title": "20261008-1066985854-order-granting-plaintiffs-application-for-leave-to-file-under-seal.pdf", "pages": 2}, {"id": 111, "file": "Hursh%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2025-2626%20DOCKET/20261008-1067089350-affidavit-of-service.pdf", "title": "20261008-1067089350-affidavit-of-service.pdf", "pages": 5}, {"id": 112, "file": "Oklahoma%20AG%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2026-1066%20DOCKET/20260722-1066246099-notice-of-hearing.pdf", "title": "20260722-1066246099-notice-of-hearing.pdf", "pages": 2}, {"id": 113, "file": "Oklahoma%20AG%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2026-1066%20DOCKET/20260728-1065819958-unopposed-motion-for-extension-of-time-for-plaintiff-to-respond-to.pdf", "title": "20260728-1065819958-unopposed-motion-for-extension-of-time-for-plaintiff-to-respond-to.pdf", "pages": 3}, {"id": 114, "file": "Oklahoma%20AG%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2026-1066%20DOCKET/20260731-1065809023-agreed-order-granting-unopposed-motion-for-extension-of-time-for.pdf", "title": "20260731-1065809023-agreed-order-granting-unopposed-motion-for-extension-of-time-for.pdf", "pages": 2}, {"id": 115, "file": "Oklahoma%20AG%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2026-1066%20DOCKET/20260805-1066390214-entry-of-appearance.pdf", "title": "20260805-1066390214-entry-of-appearance.pdf", "pages": 2}, {"id": 116, "file": "Oklahoma%20AG%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2026-1066%20DOCKET/20260820-1066287705-plaintiff-state-of-oklahoma-s-response-to-defendant-state-farm-fire.pdf", "title": "20260820-1066287705-plaintiff-state-of-oklahoma-s-response-to-defendant-state-farm-fire.pdf", "pages": 28}, {"id": 117, "file": "Oklahoma%20AG%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2026-1066%20DOCKET/20260918-1066867563-motion-to-disqualify-whitten-burrage-as-counsel-for-plaintiff.pdf", "title": "20260918-1066867563-motion-to-disqualify-whitten-burrage-as-counsel-for-plaintiff.pdf", "pages": 114}, {"id": 118, "file": "Oklahoma%20AG%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2026-1066%20DOCKET/20260921-1066914258-state-farm-s-reply-in-support-of-its-motion-to-dismiss.pdf", "title": "20260921-1066914258-state-farm-s-reply-in-support-of-its-motion-to-dismiss.pdf", "pages": 43}, {"id": 119, "file": "Oklahoma%20AG%20v%20State%20Farm%20CJ-2026-1066%20DOCKET/20260922-1066928183-notice-of-hearing.pdf", "title": "20260922-1066928183-notice-of-hearing.pdf", "pages": 2}, {"id": 120, "file": "oklahoma-ag-v-state-farm-petition-CJ-2026-1066.pdf", "title": "State of Oklahoma v. State Farm — AG's Petition (Cleveland Cty. CJ-2026-1066, filed 6/24/2026)", "pages": 21}, {"id": 121, "file": "state-farm-amended-motion-summary-judgment.pdf", "title": "State Farm's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment in West (filed 8/24/2026)", "pages": 446}, {"id": 122, "file": "state-farm-deposition-subpoena-roofing-contractor.pdf", "title": "State Farm's Deposition Subpoena to a Roofing Contractor (8/24/2026)", "pages": 4}, {"id": 123, "file": "west-v-state-farm-response-31-unsealed-exhibits.pdf", "title": "West v. State Farm — Response & Counter-Motion with the 31 Unsealed Exhibits (filed 8/21/2026)", "pages": 285}], "pages": [{"d": 0, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED DISTRICT COURT NEIL and LACY WEST, Plaintiffs, ) COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA ) October 3, 2025 4:14 PM J ) v. ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. Case No. CJ-2025-135 ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 ) JUDGE SHEPERD ) _) ) ) Kosa Young — ) DEFENDANT NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 CROWE & DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7700 Facsimile: (405) 239-6651 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. do"}, {"d": 0, "p": 2, "t": "When Judge Palk remanded this case, he found only that, applying the “heavy burden of proving fraudulent joinder” State Farm had “not met its burden to demonstrate Plaintiffs’ inability to establish a cause of action for negligent procurement.” Willard v. State Farm, CIV-25-337-SLP, 2025 WL 2419274, at *2, 3 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 21, 2025). The Holcomb Agency does not have to satisfy that high standard to prevail on a Motion to Dismiss.! Barlow v. State Farm, CIV-25-44-R, 2025 WL 1139489, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 17, 2025) (fraudulent joinder standard “‘is more exacting than that for dismissing a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)’” (citation omitted)), Ex. 1. Rather, it must show, as it has done, that Plaintiffs’ Petition fails to set forth either a cognizable legal theory of liability or facts to support any cognizable legal theory. Lockhart v. Loosen, 1997 OK 103, 74, 943 P.2d 1074, 1078. Further, since the Holcomb Agency filed its Motion, three federal district court judges in at least 10 separate opinions, considering allegations identical to Plaintiffs’ in this case and accepting them as true, agreed with the legal arguments asserted by the Holcomb Agency here, and found State Farm did meet its “heavy burden” to show the agents were fraudulently joined. /d.? These opinions apply with force to the Holcomb Agency’s Motion. 1. Plaintiffs received the Policy they allege they requested, and no act by the Holeomb Agency caused the purported damages. To prevail on their negligent procurement claim, Plaintiffs must plead facts to show their Policy was “not procured as promised.” Swickey v. Silvey Cos., 1999 ' The cases cited on pages 18-20 of Plaintiffs’ Response involved motions to remand based on fraudulent joinder and were thus reviewed under the more “exacting” standard. ? Order, Stafford v. State Farm, CTV-25-0008-HE (W.D. Okla. May 27, 2025), ECF #25 (“Stafford Order”), Ex, 2; Order, Cline v. State Farm, CIV-25-367-HE (W.D. Okla. Aug. 21, 2025), ECF #18; Order, White v. State Farm, CIV-25-561-HE (W.D. Okla. Aug. 21, 2025), ECF #19; Cisneros v. State Farm, CIV-25-42R, 2025 WL 1151685, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 18, 2025); Newell v. State Farm, 5:25-cv-562-R, 2025 WL 2649661 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 15, 2025); Weichbrodt v. State Farm, CIV-25-360-R, 2025 WL 1848819 (W.D. Okla. July 2, 2025); Gamble v. State Farm, CIV-25-396-R, 2025 WL 1848818, at *1 (W.D, Okla, July 2, 2025); Order, Stone v. State Farm, CIV-25-7-D (W.D. Okla. Aug. 20, 2025), ECF #25 (“Stone Order”), Ex. 3; Porter v. State Farm, C1V-25-187-R, 2025 WL 1151682 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 18, 2025). Judge Heaton recently denied remand in a case brought by Plaintiffs’ counsel against an Allstate agent using a petition substantially similar to the one here, even though the allegations were against a different insurer. Order, Casillas vy. Allstate, CIV-25-0752 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 18, 2025), ECF #22."}, {"d": 0, "p": 3, "t": "OK CIV APP 48, § 8, 979 P.2d 266, 268. They allege they requested a replacement cost policy that covers “wind and hail damage.” Resp. at 6. Critically, Plaintiffs do not then explain how the Policy procured was different. The Holcomb Agency demonstrated in its Motion Plaintiffs’ Policy is an RCV Policy that covers hail. Mot. at 6-8.> Plaintiffs do not dispute that in their Response. In fact, they admit in their Petition the Policy covers hail (Pet., 131) and admit State Farm estimated more than $6,000 to replace “gutters, window screens, [and] outdoor fencing” damaged in the storm, as well as repair interior water damage, which proves the Policy covers wind/hail (id. at | 40(d)-(e), (g)). When faced with the same allegations, Judges Russell and Heaton recently found agents were fraudulently joined because the insureds received the exact policy requested: “an all-risk replacement cost policy that provides coverage for any accidental direct physical loss, including wind and hail damage.” Barlow, 2025 WL 1139486 at *3, Ex. 1; Stafford Order at 4, Ex. 2. Admitting the Policy covers hail, Plaintiffs complain “State Farm{] [applies an] overlynarrowed and undefined definition of hail ‘damage’” and “State Farm has a “pattern and practice of [] attributing hail damage to wear and tear.” Resp. at 5 n.5, 8 (emphasis added). Those complaints speak to State Farm’s application of the policy language in the claims administration process, which if established, may be a basis for a claim against State Farm but “is something different from proving that the agent failed to deliver the policy promised.” Marino v. State Farm, CIV-22-0885-HE, 2023 WL 11915691, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 7, 2023). Plaintiffs’ citation to deposition testimony of adjusters in other litigation, which they allege “evidences” State Farm’s “Scheme” to underpay hail claims, proves the point. See Resp. at 7-9. The Holcomb Agency “procured replacement cost insurance. Plaintiffs’ alleged damages arose, not because of the type of insurance procured, but because State Farm refused to replace Plaintiffs’ roof.” Rain Drop 3 The Holcomb Agency likewise showed that Plaintiffs had more than sufficient coverage to replace their roof if it were totaled (Mot. at 9-10), and Plaintiffs do not dispute that either. 2"}, {"d": 0, "p": 4, "t": "Foundation v. State Farm, 24-1101-D, 2025 WL 582562, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 21, 2025).4 As stated in Goebel, Marino, Steinkamp, Rain Drop, Cisneros, Porter, and Barlow, Plaintiffs’ alleged damages flowed from State Farm’s claim decision and not “from the breach of the agent’s duty of care,” Castens v. Conseco Life Ins., 11-CV-628-TCK-FHM, 2012 WL 610001, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 24, 2012); Rain Drop, 2025 WL 582562 at *4; Steinkamp vy. State Farm, CIV-22-47-PRW, 2023 WL 11920886, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 29, 2023); Marino, 2023 WL 11915691 at *4; Goebel v. State Farm, CIV-22-882-HE, 2023 WL 11883977, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 7, 2023); Cisneros, 2025 WL 1151685 at *3; Porter, 2025 WL 1151682 at *3; Barlow, 2025 WL 1139486 at *3. State Farm showed causation is absent. Plaintiffs have no answer. Talk of “pre-existing damage” is a diversion. Resp. at 12-13. Nowhere do Plaintiffs allege they requested a policy that covered “preexisting damage” and the Holcomb Agency failed to procure such a policy. They allege they requested a policy that covered hail and wind damage, and that is what they received. 2. Plaintiffs have not shown the Holcomb Agency owed them an underwriting duty or that they have been injured by its violation of it. Plaintiffs’ claims against the Holcomb Agency are premised on the notion Ms. Holcomb, who is an insurance agent and not a home inspector, had a duty to inspect Plaintiffs’ roof and verify its condition. The Holcomb Agency showed in its Motion the law imposes no such duty on agents. Stafford Order at 7, Ex. 2 (“Oklahoma cases do not support the idea that an agent is required to personally inspect.”). And the Policy makes plain State Farm has no obligation to “make inspections and surveys of the insured location at any time,” provide insureds with “reports on conditions,” or “recommend changes.” Policy at 32, Ex. 3 to Mot. Plaintiffs make no attempt to refute this authority. Further, 4 «(PJurchasing a policy ‘does not mean that an insured is guaranteed that its claims will always be paid in full.” Rain Drop, 2025 WL 582562 at *5. “To argue otherwise is to suggest that having a replacement cost policy entitles Plaintiff[s] to a full replacement of the roof upon submission of virtually any claim.” Jd. 3"}, {"d": 0, "p": 5, "t": "to the extent an inspection was required, and Ms. Holcomb tasked with performing it, any such duty would be a contractual duty owed to State Farm, not Plaintiffs. Goebel, 2023 WL 11883977 at *3. None of this is relevant to this case. State Farm found roof replacement was not necessary because hail did not damage the roof’s shingles. Even if Holcomb had a duty to inspect, and even if she told Plaintiffs the roof was in good condition in 2021 when they purchased their Policy, Plaintiffs fail to show the alleged misrepresentation caused the alleged injury two years later. 3. Plaintiffs have not shown the Holcomb Agency had a duty to speak to establish their constructive fraud claim. The Holcomb Agency demonstrated in its Motion that Plaintiffs’ fraud claim is based on allegations the Agent made implied representations about inspections or condition of their house by the mere act of selling their Policy. Mot. at 12-13. Plaintiffs do not dispute that, confirming in their Motion their allegation is that “by virtue of marketing, procuring, selling, and binding State Farm replacement cost insurance coverage—that the property met State Farm’s underwriting rules, qualified for full replacement cost coverage at 100% of its value, and was free from any defect(s) that would negate that coverage.” Resp. at 8. The Holcomb Agency further showed Plaintiffs failed to plead the agent made affirmative representations regarding State Farm’s alleged claim-handling scheme, pleading only that it did not tell them about the scheme. Mot. at 12-13. Plaintiffs do not dispute that either, reiterating that the Holcomb Agency “omitted material facts about the scheme” and “withheld material information pertaining to how State Farm handles claims of property damage, hidden definitions and standards, and facts regarding State Farm’s scheme.” Resp. at 17. Allegations of eee “‘inherent’ or ‘implied insufficient to state a claim for constructive fraud. Barlow, 2025 WL representations” are 1139489 at *3 n.5; Pratt v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., No. CIV-20-93-D, 2020 WL 4735350, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 14, 2020)."}, {"d": 0, "p": 6, "t": "4. As the Holcomb Agency showed in its Motion, the Petition establishes the alleged misrepresentations were indisputably true (Mot. at 16): e Plaintiffs’ house did satisfy underwriting and qualified for replacement cost coverage as evidenced by State Farm’s issuance of the Policy. Stafford Order at 7, Ex. 2. ¢ Plaintiffs’ Policy covers wind and hail damage. Policy, § II, p.12, Ex. 3 to Mot.; Rain Drop Found., 2025 WL 582562 at *5 (no possible claim against agent based on same alleged misrepresentations policy was RCV policy providing coverage for weather-related damage because representations were true). ¢ Plaintiffs admit that in evaluating their claim, State Farm found hail damage and estimated for it; Plaintiffs just claimed more damage. 5. The Court should not consider documents and testimony outside of Plaintiffs’ Petition. Plaintiffs cite to testimony and exhibits from other cases in an attempt to prove State Farm has a scheme to deny hail claims and the Holcomb Agency knows about it, none of which involve or mention the Holcomb Agency. The Court should reject Plaintiffs’ attempt to revise their Petition via their Response. Snow v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, No. CIV-14-911-HE, 2014 WL 7335319, at *7 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 19, 2014). The so-called “evidence” is entirely irrelevant, as the presence or absence of a “Scheme” by State Farm as to claim handling is material to the claims against the Holcomb Agency only if it had a duty to advise Plaintiffs about claim handling, a claim handling scheme existed, the Holcomb Agency knew about it and believed it material to these Plaintiffs, and then failed to disclose it, which the Holcomb Agency has shown is wrong.’ 5 The spuriousness of the theory is reflected in the documents Plaintiffs attach to their Response to try to prove it. Plaintiffs cite to inadmissible hearsay emails between different agents and insureds regarding their particular claims (Exs. 7 & 8), testimony by claim specialists who were not involved in the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim about their handling of claims for other insureds and practice of simply requiring approval to total a roof (Exs. 5 & 6); Senate testimony by a State Farm insured in North Carolina regarding his hurricane claim (Ex. 3), statements from a self-described insurance company “watchdog” about alleged bad acts by the insurance industry at large and referring to a State Farm settlement relating to claims arising from Hurricane Katrina 20 years ago (Ex. 4); and an unsigned, unauthenticated statement from a “licensed insurance adjuster” who has “inspected property damage and prepared estimates on behalf of over 17 insurance carriers, including Allstate and State Farm,” about his experience handling claims for Allstate following Hurricane Helene (Ex. 2). One exhibit proves Plaintiffs’ entire premise—that an agent is obligated to inspect the property to inform the insured of the condition of the house and that, based upon those obligations, the act of binding the policy constitutes a representation as to the condition of the house— is wrong (Ex. 8)."}, {"d": 0, "p": 7, "t": "Respectfully submitted, TIMILA $/ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA # 31142 CROWE & DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7700 Facsimile: (405) 239-6651 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 3rd day of October, 2025, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne ‘WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS Yip 6082867 O.40odan"}, {"d": 0, "p": 8, "t": "Barlow v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Slip Copy (2025) 2025 WL 1139489 insurance policy) for negligent procurement of insurance and constructive fraud/negligent misrepresentation. 2025 WL 1139489 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma. State Farm removed the case contending that Mr. Hagar and Heidi BARLOW the Agency were fraudulently joined, and their non-diverse citizenship may therefore be disregarded for purposes of and Doug Barlow, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM establishing diversity jurisdiction. ? Plaintiffs seek to remand the action, arguing that State Farm has not met its burden of showing that either defendant was fraudulently joined. FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Case No. CIV-25-44-R | Signed April 17, 2025 STANDARD Attorneys and Law Firms Blake Sonne, Hannah Whitten, Jake Denne, Johnathon Scott Sanders, Michael Burrage, Reggie N. Whitten, Whitten Burrage, Oklahoma City, OK, George E. Gibbs, I, Gibbs & Armstrong, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiffs. The standard for establishing that a defendant has been fraudulently joined is a difficult one: “the removing party must demonstrate cither: (1) actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts, or (2) inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against the non-diverse party in state court.” Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980, 988 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting Cuevas v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, Paige A. Masters, Timila S, Rother, Crowe & Dunlevy, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. Michael W. Brewer, William W. Whitehurst, Hiltgen & Brewer, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendants Brent Hagar, Hagar State Farm Agency LLC. L. RUSSELL, UNITED plaintiff's favor. Montano v. Allstate Indem., 211 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2000) (unpublished); 3 see also Dutcher, 733 F.3d at 988, “{R]emand is required if any one of the claims against the non-diverse defendant ... is possibly viable.” Montano, 211 F.3d at *2. ORDER DAVID JUDGE LP, 648 F.3d 242, 249 (Sth Cir. 2011)). This standard “is more exacting than that for dismissing a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P, 12(b)(6)” and requires all factual disputes and all ambiguities in the controlling law to be resolved in the STATES DISTRICT Although the fraudulent joinder standard presents a “high hurdle,” Dutcher, 733 F.3d at 989, it *1 Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 12] seeking to remand this case to the District Court of Oklahoma County. The motion is fully briefed [Doc. Nos. 21, 24, 30] and at issue. ! is not an insurmountable one. Where a defendant's “non-liability is ... established as both a matter of fact and law,” the defendant's joinder is fraudulent and remand is appropriately refused. Dodd v. Fawcett Publications, Inc., 329 F.2d 82, 85 (10th Cir. 1964). Further, “it is well settled that upon allegations of fraudulent joinder designed to prevent removal, federal courts may look beyond the pleadings to determine if the joinder, although fair on its face, is a sham or fraudulent device to PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs initiated this action in state court against State Farm, Brent Hagar, and the Hagar State Farm Agency, LLC. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, bad faith and constructive fraud/negligent misrepresentation against State Farm based on its alleged wrongful denial of their insurance claim. Plaintiffs also assert claims against the Hagar State Farm Agency and Mr. Hagar (the agent that that sold them the prevent removal.” Smoot v. Chicago, RI. & P. R. Co., 378 F.2d 879, 882 (10th Cir. 1967). But courts must be careful not to “pre-try, as a matter of course, doubtful issues of fact to determine removability; the issue must be capable of summary determination and be proven certainty.” Jd. at 882. with complete EXHIBIT ! WESTLAW © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works."}, {"d": 0, "p": 9, "t": "Barlow v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Slip Copy (2025) 2025 WL 1139489 A. Negligent Procurement of Insurance DISCUSSION Oklahoma *2, The claims against Mr. Hagar and the Hager Agency* are premised on an alleged scheme by State Farm and its captive insurance agents to underpay and deny hail damage claims. See Pet. [Doc. No. 1-2] $9] 1-4. The scheme purportedly works as follows: the agent sells an insurance policy to the customer and in doing so “expressly and/or impliedly represents” that the property meets State Farm's underwriting guidelines, the replacement cost value the agent calculated is accurate, and the policy covers wind and hail damage. /d. at {| 4. State Farm issues the policy, the insured suffers a loss from wind or hail, and State Farm then denies the claim based on an undisclosed and narrow definition of hail damage and a variety of bad faith claims handling tactics. Jd. Plaintiffs allege they were subjected to the scheme in this case. They contacted the Hagar Defendants and “specifically requested full coverage on the roof considering the amount and severity of severe storm weather that Oklahoma receives.” Pet. ff] 25. The Hagar Defendants “confirmed that Plaintiffs were receiving a full replacement cost policy” and told them this was the best coverage they could get with State Farm. Jd. The Hagar Defendants then independently calculated the policy's coverage, purportedly insuring it at 100% of its replacement cost value, using State Farm's valuation software. Id. In doing so, the Hagar Defendants never inspected the property, never told Plaintiffs the property had pre-existing damage or other conditions that would exclude it from or make it ineligible for replacement cost coverage, never told Plaintiffs that the value and coverage limits did not represent 100% insurance to value, and never disclosed that State Farm utilized narrow definitions of hail damage. Approximately three years after purchasing the policy, Plaintiffs submitted a claim to State Farm for hail damage. State Farm partially denied the claim and attributed the damage on the roof to “granule loss, weathering, age, deterioration, manufacturer defect, and installation error.” Id. 740. law recognizes that an insurance agent has a “duty to act in good faith and use reasonable care, skill and diligence in the procurement of insurance.” Swickey v. Silvey Co., 979 P.2d 266, 269 (Okla. Civ. App. 1999). “This duty rests, in part, on specialized knowledge about the terms and conditions of insurance policies generally.” Rotan v. Farmers Ins. Grp. of Companies, Inc., 83 P.3d 894, 895 (Okla. Civ. App. 2004) (internal quotations marks and brackets omitted). An insurance agent can therefore be liable to the insured in negligence “if, by the agent's fault, insurance is not procured as promised and the insured suffers a loss.” Swickey, 979 P.2d at 269, However, Oklahoma courts are in agreement that “the scope of the agent's duty to use reasonable care, skill, or diligence in the procurement of insurance” is limited to needs disclosed by the insured. Rotan, 83 P.3d at 895. Agents “do not have a duty to advise an insured with respect to his insurance needs” and “a general request for adequate protection and the like does not change this duty.” Jd. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Thus, “[t]o discharge their duty to act in good faith and use reasonable care, skill, and diligence in the procurement of insurance, including use of their specialized knowledge about the terms and conditions of insurance policies, insurance agents need only offer coverage mandated by law and coverage for needs that are disclosed by the insureds, and this duty is not expanded by general requests for ‘full coverage’ or ‘adequate protection.’ ” Jd. See also Cosper v. Farmers Ins. Co., 309 P.3d 147, 149 (Okla, Civ, App. 2013) (holding that plaintiff had not stated a negligence claim where agent calculated a replacement cost value that exceeded the coverage needed because the agent “did not fail to procure insurance” and “Plaintiffs did not allege that they requested a specific coverage limit and Defendants disregarded the request and issued a policy in some other amount”); Mueggenborg v. Ellis, 55 P.3d 452, 454 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002) (holding that plaintiffs had not stated a negligence claim where the agent did not advise then about the availability of higher limits because plaintiffs simply requested “adequate protection” which is a “typical As explained below, based on these allegations and the other material in the record, State Farm has met its burden request by an insured” and permitting such a conversation to of showing with complete certainty that Plaintiffs do not agent a blanket insurer for his principal”). have a potentially viable claim for negligent procurement of insurance or negligent mistepresentation/constructive fraud against the Hagar Defendants. expand the scope of the duty “would in substance make the *3 In this case, Plaintiffs allege that they requested “full coverage on the roof considering the amount and severity of severe storm weather that Oklahoma receives” and the Hagar Defendants confirmed that Plaintiffs were receiving WESTLAW © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2"}, {"d": 0, "p": 10, "t": "Barlow v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Slip Copy (2025) 2025 WL 1139489 a full replacement cost policy. According to Plaintiffs’ own allegations, this is exactly what they received: an all-risk replacement cost policy that provides coverage for any accidental direct physical loss, including wind and hail damage. Pet. {| 4(c), 31-33. Further, Plaintiffs alleged request for “full coverage” on the roof given the likelihood of severe weather is the type of general, typical request that Oklahoma courts have indicated does not expand the scope of the agent's duty to procure the requested insurance. 5 This is not a situation where Plaintiffs’ insurance claim was denied because the type of policy, type of coverage, or coverage limit was different than what was requested. See, eg., Yeary v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ain., No. 22-CV-0250-CVESH, 2022 WL 3447120 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 17, 2022) (finding that the plaintiff stated a viable claim against agent where they requested a homeowner's policy that would replace their fishing dock in the event of a loss but policy procured did not mention the dock and contained numerous exclusions that did not provide realistic coverage for the dock). Rather, Plaintiffs indisputably received the replacement cost value policy they requested. Plaintiffs cannot show that, “by the agent's fault, insurance [was] not procured as promised,” Swickey, 979 P.2d at 269, and they therefore do not have a potentially viable claim for negligent procurement of insurance against the Hagar Defendants. See Rain Drop Found., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No, 24-1101-D, 2025 WL 582562, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 21, 2025) (no viable claim against agent because “Plaintiff's alleged damages arose, not because of the type of insurance procured, but because State Farm refused to replace Plaintiff's roof”); Steinkamp v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-22-00047-PRW, 2023 WL 11920886, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 29, 2023) (no viable claim against agent because “Plaintiff's claim against State Farm depends upon what damage her roof sustained, not the terms of her policy”); Gellner v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., No. 21-CV-0401CVE-JFJ, 2021 WL 5789146, at *3 (N.D. Okla. Dec. 7, 2021) (no viable claim against agent because the policy procured provided the requested collision coverage and the dispute concerns “the cause of the damage to the boat, not the lack of collision coverage in the insurance policy”); Smith v, Alistate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co., No. CIV-14-0018-HE, 2014 WL 1382488, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 8, 2014) (no viable claim against agent where “plaintiffs acknowledge that coverage was obtained and do not allege that the amount of coverage was not what they had requested”); Rivera v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, No, CIV-14-1082-HE, 2014 WL 7335320, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 19, 2014) (no viable claim against the agent because “plaintiffs do not allege in their complaint WESTLAW that they actually requested specific coverage which Hartford failed to provide”). B. Negligent Misrepresentation/Constructive Fraud *4 Oklahoma defines constructive fraud as “any breach of duty which, without an actually fraudulent intent, gains an advantage to the person in fault, ... by misleading another to his prejudice, ....” Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 59(1). Such a duty “may arise ifa party selectively discloses facts that create a false impression.” Specialty Beverages, L.L.C. v. Pabst Brewing Co., 537 F.3d 1165, 1181 (10th Cir, 2008) (applying Oklahoma law). Put another way, “{cJonstructive fraud is the concealment of material facts which one is bound under the circumstances to disclose.” Bankers Tr. Co. v. Brown, 107 P.3d 609, 613 (Okla, Civ. App. 2005). Here, Plaintiffs identify several misrepresentations in support of their constructive fraud claim, but all fail for one reason or another. First, Plaintiffs assert that by calculating the replacement cost value, the Hagar Defendants “inherently conveyed” that the coverage limit was accurate and represented 100% insurance to value. Pet. 4 25. But Plaintiffs admit that they were not underinsured, and they do no contend that they were overinsured. Thus, “any issue as to coverage amounts did not lead to any of the damages that plaintiffs assert via their claim for damage to the roof.” Goebel v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-22-0882-HE, 2023 WL 11883977, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 7, 2023), Plaintiffs also assert the Hagar Defendants misrepresented that the property met all underwriting requirements, all property inspections occurred, and the property was eligible for full replacement cost coverage. Plaintiffs further assert the Hagar Defendants never disclosed that the property had a defect, pre-existing damage, or other condition that would limit coverage. Notably, Plaintiffs do not identify any express statements by the Hagar Defendants regarding its underwriting duties or the property's condition but instead suggest that these representations were implied by the act of calculating the RCV, binding coverage, or procuring the policy. Accepting for the sake of argument that an agent impliedly makes such representations to the insured when it takes these actions, these representations do not have a causal connection to the damage alleged here, State Farm issued Plaintiffs a replacement cost policy, so the property did meet the underwriting guidelines and was eligible for replacement cost coverage. See Steinkamp, © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2023 WL 11920886, at *4 3"}, {"d": 0, "p": 11, "t": "Barlow v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Slip Capy (2025) 2025 WL 1139489 (“This cannot be a misrepresentation because there is no indication that Plaintiff's property did not meet State Farm's underwriting requirements.”), Further, there is no indication that the coverage values are wrong or that the property had some pre-existing condition that negated or limited coverage for the roof. The policy provides coverage for hail damage, but the parties disagree about the extentof the hail damage and whether some of the damage was caused by hail or another them the best coverage they could get with State Farm, Plaintiffs do not identify any affirmative statements by the Hagar Defendants concerning State Farm's claims handling or policy interpretation. Under these circumstances, Plaintiffs cannot establish that the Hagar Defendants breached a duty of full disclosure. See id. peril. Thus, any “implied” representations by the agent about the property's condition or its eligibility for a replacement cost value policy were either true or not the cause of Plaintiffs’ losses. See Rain Drop Found., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 24-1101-D, 2025 WL 582562, at *5 (W.D, Okla. Feb. 21, 2025) (“{T]he Court is unable to make out a causal nexus between [the agent's] actions at the procurement stage CONCLUSION *5 State Farm has met its burden of establishing that and Plaintiff's alleged prejudice at the coverage determination Plaintiffs are unable to establish a cause of action against the Hagar Defendants. The Court concludes that Brent Hagar and the Hagar State Farm Agency, LLC are fraudulently joined defendants, and their citizenship must be disregarded for purposes of determining subject matter jurisdiction. stage.”). Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand Last, Plaintiffs contend the Hagar Defendants failed to disclose State Farm's bad faith claims handling tactics or its narrow internal definition of hail damage. “Although an agent [Doc. No. 12] is therefore DENIED. The claims against these defendants are dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED this 17\" day of April, 2025. may be held accountable for failing to answer an insured's coverage questions accurately, he or she generally is not obligated to explain the policy terms to the insured.” Stith, 2014 WL 1382488, at *3. Other than an alleged assurance that they would receive a replacement cost policy that afforded All Citations Slip Copy, 2025 WL 1139489 Footnotes The Cout has also reviewed Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority [Doc, No, 31]. State Farm also contends that the citizenship of Mr. Hagar and the Agency may disregarded because neither was “properly joined and served” at the time of removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). The Court need not address this issue because it is has determined that these Defendants were fraudulently joined and should be dismissed. Unpublished decisions are cited for their persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1. Plaintiffs’ Petition refers to the Hagar Agency and Mr. Hagar collectively and does not differentiate between their conduct. This Court has recently remanded other cases involving negligent procurement and constructive fraud claims against State Farm insurance agents. The Court finds it unnecessary, at this time, to revisit any of the legal conclusions reached in those cases because the allegations presented in this action are different. Plaintiffs in this case do not plead that the insurance agent made affirmative statements about the scope of coverage, the condition of the property, or the agent's underwriting duties. Instead, they primarily rely on “inherent” or “implied” representations that insurance agents purportedly make every time they market, bind, and sell WESTLAW © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4"}, {"d": 0, "p": 12, "t": "Barlow v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Slip Copy (2025) 2025 WL 1139489 a policy. See, e.g. Pls.’ Br, at 1 (“In every instance of the Scheme, State Farm's captive agents inherently represent to the insured—by virtue of the act of marketing, selling, and binding State Farm replacement cost insurance coverage—that the property at issue meets State Farm's underwriting guidelines, qualifies for the coverage stated in the policy, and is free from any defect that would negate that coverage.\"). End of Document WESTLAW © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works."}, {"d": 0, "p": 13, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00008-HE Document 25 Filed 05/27/25 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA AMBER STAFFORD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) -vs- NO. CIV-25-0008-HE ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY and MIKE MUECKE ) INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ) Defendants. ) ) ORDER Plaintiff Amber Stafford (Stafford) has moved to remand this case to state court. It was previously removed by defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm) from the District Court of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. According to the state court petition, Stafford purchased a homeowner’s policy from State Farm providing replacement cost coverage. The policy was purchased through State Farm’s alleged “captive agent,” defendant Mike Muecke Insurance Agency, Inc. (MMIA). Subsequently, Stafford’s property sustained wind and hail damage during a storm. She timely filed a claim in accordance with the policy. State Farm prepared an estimate of $9,695.27 for repair or replacement of the damage. After applying the policy deductible, State Farm issued payments totaling $5,421.81. According to Stafford, the payments were drastically below the amount required to cover the total roof replacement that her property ‘tabbies EXHIBIT LZ"}, {"d": 0, "p": 14, "t": "4 Case 5:25-cv-00008-HE Document25 Filed 05/27/25 Page 2of8 needed,' and State Farm manipulated its loss findings to avoid paying her all the amounts due under the policy pursuant to a “systematic and pervasive” scheme. Thereafter, Stafford filed this case in state court. She asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation against State Farm. MMIA In addition, she asserted claims against for negligent procurement of insurance and constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation. State Farm removed the case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. While acknowledging Stafford and MMIA’s citizenship is not diverse, State Farm contended MMIA’s citizenship was immaterial to the diversity of citizenship determination because MMIA. was fraudulently joined as a defendant. Stafford’s motion argues MMIA was properly joined as a defendant and that diversity is therefore lacking as a basis for jurisdiction. continuing to assert MMIA State Farm has responded, was fraudulently joined as a defendant, and Stafford has replied. Both parties have also submitted notices of supplemental authority in support of their respective positions. Upon review, the court concludes that State Farm has met the heavy burden of proving MMIA was fraudulently joined within the meaning of the applicable removal standards. See Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980, 988 (10\" Cir. 2013) (“The defendant seeking removal bears a heavy burden of proving fraudulent joinder[.]”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). ! Stafford’s contractor had submitted a damage estimate of $29, 148.18."}, {"d": 0, "p": 15, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00008-HE Document 25 Filed 05/27/25 Page 3of8 “To establish fraudulent joinder, the removing party must demonstrate either: (1) actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts, or (2) inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against the non-diverse party in state court.” Dutcher, 733 F.3d at 988 (quotation marks, citation and alteration omitted). State Farm relies on both prongs of this test. Because the court concludes State Farm has satisfied the second prong—inability to establish a cause of action against MMIA—the court need not address the first prong. Under the second prong, State Farm must demonstrate “there is no possibility that [Stafford] would be able to establish a cause of action against [MMIA] in state court.” Montano y, Allstate Indemnity, Case No. 99-2225, 2000 WL 525592, at *1 (10\" Cir. April 14, 2000) (citation omitted); see also Brazell v. Waite, 525 Fed. Appx. 878, 881 (10\" Cir. 2013) (“In general, the removing party must show that the plaintiff has no cause of action against the fraudulently joined defendant.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The nonliability of MMIA must be “proven with complete certainty.” Smootv. Chicago, RJ. & P.R. Co., 378 F.2d 879, 882 (10\" Cir. 1967), In deciding the fraudulent joinder issue, “the court may pierce the pleadings, consider the entire record, and determine the basis of joinder by any means available.” Dodd v. Fawcett Publications, Inc,, 329 F.2d 82, 85 (10\" Cir. 1964). The court, however, may not “pre-try, as a matter of course, doubtful issues of fact to determine removability; the issue must be capable of summary determination[.}” Jd. As noted above, Stafford asserts claims against MMIA for negligent procurement of insurance and constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation. With respect to the first claim, Oklahoma law recognizes that “an insurance agent may be liable . . . in tort for"}, {"d": 0, "p": 16, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00008-HE Document25 Filed 05/27/25 Page 4 of 8 failure to . . . use reasonable care, skill and diligence in the procurement of insurance . . . if, by the agent’s fault, insurance is not procured as promised and the insured suffers a loss.” Swickey v. Silvey Companies, 979 P.2d 266, 268-69 (Okla. Civ. App. 1999). An agent must “offer coverage mandated by law and for needs that are disclosed by the insureds[.]” Rotan v. Farmers Ins, Group of Companies, Inc., 83 P.3d 894, 895 (Okla. Civ. App. 2003). Stafford alleges she contacted MMIA to “procure full replacement cost homeowners insurance coverage from State Farm” and requested MMIA to “obtain a replacement cost policy that would provide coverage for the Insured Property in the event of a loss.” Doc. #1-2, q 25(a). In addition, she alleges MMIA was “aware that [she] need[ed] coverage under a policy that would fully replace the [property’s] roof in the event of a loss, without exclusion of any weather-related loss.” /d., | 25(b). But it is completely certain, from the record, that Stafford received the policy she requested—a replacement cost value policy. There are no factual allegations to show the issued policy excluded a “weather-related loss.” Indeed, the policy covered wind and hail damage. State Farm’s estimate provided for replacement of Stafford’s property damaged by hail, specifically, “the roof’s soft metals, siding, windows, outdoor fencing, and a small section of [the] gutter system.” Id., | 40(e). However, State Farm also determined that “only the replacement of small patches of [the roof’s] shingles, predominantly on a per-shingle basis” was required. Id. There are no factual allegations, or evidence in the record, to support a conclusion that this determination was based on any pre-existing condition or defect. The court concludes that Stafford has not shown a basis for establishing that MMIA failed to procure insurance as promised. And while Stafford asserts that the coverage she received was “illusory,” she"}, {"d": 0, "p": 17, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00008-HE Document 25 Filed 05/27/25 Page 5 of 8 provides no factual allegations to support the assertion. The fact that a claim under a policy is denied, or paid at a level less than that sought by the insured, does not, without more, render the policy illusory. Here, the court concludes there is no possibility of recovery against MMIA for negligent procurement of insurance. As to the misrepresentation — remaining claims — for constructive the court reaches the same conclusion. fraud and negligent Under Oklahoma law, constructive fraud results from any “breach of duty which, without an actually fraudulent intent, gains an advantage to the person in fault, or any one claiming under [it], by misleading another to [her] prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under [her].” Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 59. Thus, Stafford must establish a duty which has been breached by MMIA, that MMIA benefited from that breach, and that Stafford was prejudiced by the breach. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has stated that although “a party may keep absolute silence and violate no rule of equity, . . . if [the party] volunteers to speak and to convey information, which may influence the conduct of the other party, [the party] is bound to disclose the whole truth.” (Okla. 1988). Uptegraft vy. Dome Petroleum Corp., 764 P.2d 1350, 1353-54 In other words, “[a] duty to speak may arise from partial disclosure, the speaker being under a duty to say nothing or to tell the whole truth.” Jd. at 1353. “One conveying a false impression by the disclosure of some facts and the concealment of others is guilty of fraud even though [the party’s] statement is true as far as it goes, since concealment is in effect a false representation that what is disclosed is the whole truth.” Id."}, {"d": 0, "p": 18, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00008-HE Document 25 Filed 05/27/25 Page 6 of 8 Stafford has not alleged, and the record does not contain, any factual allegations of a partial disclosure by MMIA which gave tise to a duty to speak and convey the information Stafford asserts should have been conveyed. In her pleading and papers, Stafford asserts that MMIA failed to disclose all material information about State Farm’s “bad faith claims handling tactics,” its reliance on “undisclosed definitions and standards” outside the policy, and “internal and external complaints” about State Farm’s handling of wind and hail claims. However, there are no factual allegations that demonstrate MMIA disclosed any information that would have required MMIA to convey the information Stafford asserts was not disclosed. The court concludes that Stafford cannot show any duty to speak on the part of MMIA. As a result, the court concludes there is no possibility of recovery against MMIA for constructive fraud. Under Oklahoma law, a claim for negligent misrepresentation requires “[1] a material misrepresentation by defendant made in the course of its business; [2] defendant’s breach of a duty . . . in making the misrepresentation; [3] and reasonable reliance by the plaintiff, to her detriment, on the actions or words of the defendant.” Sullivan v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., Case No. 21-7003, 2021 WL 5822690, at *2 (10\" Cir. 2021) (quotation marks, citation and alteration omitted) (unpublished decision cited as persuasive pursuant to 10\" Cir. R.32.1(A)). Stafford does not provide any factual allegations to show MMIA made any express statements which constitute representations by MMIA. Instead, she asserts that MMIA’s actions of procuring the policy and binding coverage and of -renewing the policy impliedly represented to Stafford the property met State Farm’s underwriting requirements and was eligible for coverage; the replacement cost value"}, {"d": 0, "p": 19, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00008-HE Document 25 Filed 05/27/25 Page 7 of 8 MMIA had calculated was accurate, commensurate with actual reconstruction costs; and represented 100% “insurance to value;” the policy coverage included coverage for loss arising from wind or hail, and no condition, pre-existing damage, deterioration, wear-and- tear, or other defect negated the property’s eligibility for full coverage under the policy. Contrary to plaintiff's suggestion, the Oklahoma cases do not support the idea that an agent is required to personally inspect a premises before binding a policy or that, merely by binding or delivering a homeowner’s policy, the agent impliedly or “inherently” represents that no exclusions in the policy potentially apply or that a claim will be paid. However, even if MMIA’s acts constituted the representations asserted, the court concludes that Stafford cannot show that the representations were untrue or resulted in detriment to her, State Farm issued a homeowners policy providing replacement cost coverage to Stafford. As such, her property satisfied State Farm’s underwriting requirements and was eligible for replacement cost coverage. There are no factual allegations to demonstrate the replacement cost value MMIA had calculated was inaccurate, not commensurate with actual reconstruction costs, or not representative of 100% “insurance to value.” Moreover, the policy issued by State Farm included coverage for loss arising from wind or hail. There are also no factual allegations that the property had any preexisting condition or other defect that negated or limited the coverage for the property, specifically the roof. In sum, the alleged implied representations by MMIA detriment. were either true or not to Stafford’s The court therefore concludes that there is no possibility of recovery against MMIA for negligent misrepresentation."}, {"d": 0, "p": 20, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00008-HE Document 25 Filed 05/27/25 Page 8 of 8 For the reasons stated, the court concludes that State Farm has established MMIA was fraudulently joined as a defendant and MMIA’s citizenship must be disregarded for purposes of determining the existence of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [Doc. #15] is therefore DENIED. Plaintiffs claim against defendant Mike Muecke Insurance Agency, Inc. is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. In light of this disposition, defendant Mike Muecke Insurance Agency, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Petition [Doc. #4] is STRICKEN as MOOT? IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 27th day of May, 2025. JO# HEATON UNITEY STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. ? The court previously stayed briefing as to MMIA’s motion, pending disposition of the motion to remand [Doc, #17]."}, {"d": 0, "p": 21, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00007-D Document 25 Filed 08/20/25 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA Plaintiff, (1) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY (2) ALFRED TOM CILIO, and Case No. CIV-25-7-D Ne (3) REBECCA LAFEVERS STATE FARM AGENCY, INC., SSeS (1) BRIAN D. STONE, Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 11]. In the motion and subsequent briefing, the parties dispute the joinder of two in-state Defendants, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company agents Alfred Tom Cilio (“Mr. Cilio”) and Rebecca LaFevers State Farm Agency, Inc. (“LaFevers Agency”) (together, “the agents”). In its notice of removal [Doc. No. 1], State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) alleges Plaintiff fraudulently joined the agents to defeat diversity jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, the Court agrees with State Farm and denies Plaintiffs motion to remand; claims against the agents are dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend, Background In 2023, Plaintiff purchased a State Farm homeowner’s policy through State Farm’s agent and Oklahoma resident Tom Cilio. Mr. Cilio later retired, and the LaFevers Agency 1 y EXHIBIT 3"}, {"d": 0, "p": 22, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00007-D Document 25 Filed 08/20/25 Page 2 of 10 inherited servicing of the policy. On May 21, 2024, a hailstorm damaged Plaintiff’s property. State Farm sent an adjuster to inspect. The adjuster and State Farm then estimated that the roof required the replacement of five shingles, three roof vents, and one rain cap. Because the cost of the repair was less than the policy’s deductible, State Farm did not issue a payment on the claim. Plaintiff then sued State Farm for breach of contract and bad faith.! Importantly here, Plaintiff also sued the agents on a theory of negligent procurement of an insurance contract and constructive fraud / negligent misrepresentation. According to the complaint, Plaintiff is the victim of a “systematic and pervasive Scheme” by which State Farm’s “captive agents” 29 &6, “expressly and/or impliedly represent” that “the property meets State Farm’s underwriting requirements” and is eligible for a policy covering the property’s “replacement cost value[.]” More specifically, State Farm (1) “considers its agents to be the first line of its underwriting division[;]” (2) those agents “undertake the calculation of replacement cost [coverage] for the insured[;]” and (3) the agents “represent[] that no condition, pre-existing damage, deterioration, wear-and-tear, or other defect negates the property’s eligibility for full coverage under the policy.” The agents repeat that representation “each time the policy renews.” The “captive agents” are required to “inspect the property to determine [ ] eligibility[,]” but neither the “[a]gent[s] nor State ' Plaintiff also alleges one count of constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation against State Farm."}, {"d": 0, "p": 23, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00007-D Document 25 Filed 08/20/25 Page 3 of 10 Farm ever inspected the Insured Property or procured such an inspection from a third party.” To round out the scheme, when the property suffers a loss, State Farm’s “adjusters misattribute damage to non-covered causes” such as “‘wear and tear,” “‘pre-existing damage,” 29 or “‘manufacturer defect[.]’” The claim is then denied. Standard of Decision To establish fraudulent joinder, the removing party “must demonstrate either: 1) actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts, or 2) inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against the non-diverse party in state court.” Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980, 988 (10th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation omitted). Defendant bears the burden of establishing that federal jurisdiction exists. See McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947, 955 (10th Cir. 2008). Removal statutes are “strictly construed, and all doubts are to be resolved against removal.” Fajen v. Found. Reserve Ins. Co., 683 F.2d 331, 333 (10th Cir. 1982) (internal citation omitted).? Typically, “removability can be determined by the original pleadings and normally the statement of a cause of action against the resident defendant will suffice to prevent removal.” Smoot v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. R.R. Co., 378 F.2d 879, 882 (10th Cir. 2 To satisfy the “heavy burden on the party asserting fraudulent joinder,” State Farm must show that there is no possibility that Plaintiff would be able to establish a cause of action against the agents in state court. See Montano v. Allstate Indem., No. 99-2225, 2000 WL 525592, at *1 (10th Cir. Apr. 14, 2000) (unpublished) (quotations and citation omitted); Brazell v, Waite, 525 F. App’x 878, 881 (10th Cir. June 4, 2013) (unpublished) (citation omitted) (“[T]he removing party must show that the plaintiff has ‘no cause of action’ against the fraudulently joined defendant.”)."}, {"d": 0, "p": 24, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00007-D Document 25 Filed 08/20/25 Page 4 of 10 1967) (internal citations omitted), But where a party specifically alleges fraudulent joinder, “the court may pierce the pleadings, ... consider the entire record, and determine the basis of joinder by any means available.” Dodd v. Fawcett Publications, Inc., 329 F.2d 82, 85 (10th Cir. 1964) (emphasis added) (citations omitted); see also Smoot, 378 F.2d at 881-82. The Court may not, however, “pre-try...doubtful issues of fact to determine removability; the issue must be capable of summary determination and be proven with complete certainty.” Smoot, 378 F.2d at 882.3 Analysis The Court here returns to the familiar topic of an in-state insurance agent joined in a complaint that otherwise alleges bad faith conduct by an insurer. As Plaintiff points out in his brief, federal courts in this state have addressed the topic over twenty times (Motion [Doc. No. 11, at p. 3 n.2]) and frequently remand to state court. In response, State Farm points out that the “pervasive scheme” allegedly at issue in this case has disturbingly convenient contours for a litigant seeking to foreclose federal jurisdiction. For example, according to deposition testimony in another case where the 3 Plaintiff here alleges two causes of action against the agents: negligent procurement and constructive fraud / negligent misrepresentation. Under Oklahoma law, an insurance agent may be liable for negligent procurement “if, by the agent’s fault, insurance is not procured as promised and the insured suffers a loss.” Kutz v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 189 P.3d 740, 744-45 (Okla. 2008). The agent is therefore required to “act in good faith and use reasonable care, skill and diligence in the procurement of insurance[.]” Id. (citation omitted). The agent engages in constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation if he or she “[1] breach[es] [a] duty which, without an actually fraudulent intent, [2] gains an advantage to the person in fault, or anyone claiming under him, by [3] misleading another to his prejudice...” Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 59, ."}, {"d": 0, "p": 25, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00007-D Document 25 _ Filed 08/20/25 Page 5 of 10 plaintiff is represented by identical counsel, the alleged scheme began around “2019 or [20]20[.]” Response [Doc. No. 12 at p. 20] (citing to Exh. 7, Discovery in Hosier v. State Farm, No. CJ-2021-1741 (Okla. Cnty. Dec. 13, 2022)). In Moore v. State Farm, CIV-25- 1814 (W.D. Okla. Feb 11, 2025) (Doc. No. 1), however—where the plaintiff was also represented by the same counsel—the scheme began closer to 2000. Moreover, Defendant cites a series of cases where the scheme extends beyond State Farm to include Allstate’s and Hanover’s agents. See e.g., Strahan v. Allstate Indemnity Co., No, CIV-14-1392-C, 2015 WL 730055 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 19, 2015); Parkison v. Hanover Ins. Co., et al., 2023 WL 8452436 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 20, 2023). Lastly, Defendant points out that, in cases where a court has granted jurisdictional discovery, allegations against the in-state defendants turned out to be fraudulent. Goebel v. State Farm, No. CIV-22-0882-HE, 2023 WL 11883977 at *2-3 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 7, 2023) (“[The] petition filed by plaintiffs [wa]s replete with false statements” and there was “no good faith basis for a substantial portion of the facts alleged”); Marino v. State Farm, No. CIV-22-885-HE, 2023 WL 11915691 at *3 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 7, 2023) (“There are, in short, multiple allegations going to the potential liability of [the agent] for which there is zero evidence, indicating that those allegations were made without a valid, good faith basis.”). In his reply, Plaintiff contends the scheme is pervasive and based in fact. Plaintiff cites testimonial evidence in another case supporting the existence of a State Farm-wide scheme to deny hail damage claims. See Reply [Doc. No. 13 at p. 2] (citing the testimony"}, {"d": 0, "p": 26, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00007-D Document 25 Filed 08/20/25 Page 6 of 10 of an adjuster); see also Sur-Reply [Doc. No. 20 at p. 2] (contesting the relevance of the cited testimony).4 In a previous order, the Court addressed “the cookie-cutter character of the allegations” in these cases and found them “suspicious” but “not necessarily suggestive of fraud in this particular action.” Rain Drop Found., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 24-1101-D, 2025 WL 582562, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 21, 2025) (citing Norman v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-24-1132-R, 2025 WL 342871, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 30, 2025)). Considering the high bar required to find fraudulent joinder, the Court does not depart from that practice here. Although the trend to recycle nearly identical complaints is troubling, the Court does not deem the practice currently sufficient to find actual fraud. Piercing the pleadings, however, the Court is convinced here of fraudulent joinder. Plaintiff’s claims against the agents are premised on three overarching allegations: (1) State Farm and the agents failed to “inspect{] the Insured Property” or “procure[] such an inspection from a third party[;]” (2) the agents failed to “undertake [an accurate] calculation of replacement cost [coverage] for the insured[;]” and (3) Plaintiff suffered a loss because State Farm later “misattribute[d] damage to non-covered causes” such as ‘wear and tear,’ ‘pre-existing damage,’ or ‘manufacturer defect[.]” As Defendant’s attachments to its briefing demonstrate, all three allegations lack a basis in fact. Concerning the first allegation—that State Farm and the agents failed to inspect the property—State Farm attached an inspection report. See Sur-Reply [Doc. No. 20-2]. The 4 The Court may take judicial notice of the cited public records. See Warnick v. Cooley, 895 F.3d 746, 754 n.6 (10th Cir. 2018)."}, {"d": 0, "p": 27, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00007-D Document 25 Filed 08/20/25 Page 7 of 10 report demonstrates that a State Farm underwriter ordered an inspection from a third party, Myriad Risk Manager. The inspection was completed on May 25, 2023, and was performed “for the limited purpose of underwriting the risk and determining eligibility for insurance[.]” See Sur-Reply [Doc. No. 20-2, at p. 3]. The report found damage to the foundation of the home, but no pre-existing damage to the roof. Jd. The report thus undercuts a primary reason Plaintiff alleges he is entitled to relief against the agents.> Plaintiff’s second central allegation—that the agents failed to “undertake [an accurate] calculation of replacement cost [coverage]”—-is either false or irrelevant. A review of the contract demonstrates that, as is most commonly the case, Plaintiff provided information to State Farm and was involved in selecting his own coverage limits. See Notice of Removal [Doc. No. 1-18, at p. 1] (the policy). More importantly, accepting the complaint as true and assuming that the agents were involved in calculating coverage, it is undisputed that Plaintiff’s policy provided up to $257,000 in coverage. In Plaintiff’s own words, “this isn’t an underinsurance case.” Motion [Doc. No. 11 at p. 17]. If, as Plaintiff admits, the contested policy provided adequate coverage, it is unclear how the agent’s alleged miscalculations could bring about a cause of action against them here. See Porter v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-25-187-R, 2025 WL 1151682 5 The Court is further puzzled by portions of Plaintiff’s complaint. As quoted above, Plaintiff alleges the agents failed to inspect the property. In other portions of the complaint, however, he also alleges the agents failed to disclose the existence of “[a] defect, preexisting damage, or other conditions that would exclude [the property] from replacement cost coverage.” Petition [Doc. No. 1-2, { 26(d)]. If, as Plaintiff first alleged, the agents failed to inspect the property, they could not have gained awareness of any “defect” or “pre-existing damage” that they would then have to disclose. 7"}, {"d": 0, "p": 28, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00007-D Document 25 _ Filed 08/20/25 Page 8 of 10 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 18, 2025), (“Plaintiffs indisputably received the replacement cost value policy they requested.”); Rain Drop Found., Inc.,2025 WL 582562, at *4 (“Plaintiff's alleged damages arose, not because of the type of insurance procured, but because State Farm refused to replace Plaintiff’s roof”); Steinkamp v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-22-00047-PRW, 2023 WL 11920886, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 29, 2023) (“Plaintiff’s claim against State Farm depends upon what damage her roof sustained, not the terms of her policy”); Gellner v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., No. 21-CV-0401-CVE-JFJ, 2021 WL 5789146, at *3 (N.D. Okla. Dec. 7, 2021) (the dispute concerns “the cause of the damage to the boat, not the lack of collision coverage in the insurance policy”); Smith v. Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co., No. CIV-14-0018-HE, 2014 WL 1382488, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 8, 2014) (“plaintiffs acknowledge that coverage was obtained and do not allege that the amount of coverage was not what they had requested”); Rivera v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, No. CIV-14-1082-HE, 2014 WL 7335320, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 19, 2014) (plaintiffs do not allege in their complaint that they actually requested specific coverage which Hartford failed to provide”). Plaintiff’s third overarching allegation—that Plaintiff suffered a loss because of the agent’s actions—is similarly false. Plaintiff alleges State Farm “misattribute[d] damage” to previously undisclosed “non-covered causes” such as “‘wear and tear,’ ‘pre-existing damage,’ or ‘manufacturer defect’[.]” Although Plaintiff puts these phrases in quotation marks, the complaint does not cite which communication from State Farm Plaintiff is quoting—presumably the denial letter. The denial letter is, however, available for the Court to review, See [Doc. No. 12-2]. The letter acknowledges that Plaintiff suffered a “toss[,]” 8"}, {"d": 0, "p": 29, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00007-D Document 25 Filed 08/20/25 Page 9 of 10 but then asserts the loss “d[id] not exceed [his] $2,577.00 deductible.” “[N]on-covered causes” are not mentioned. Moreover, considering the previously described underwriting inspection did not find any pre-existing roof damage, it strains credulity to assert that State Farm’s decision was based on secret and undisclosed “preexisting damage” not mentioned in the denial letter. Lastly, the complaint alleges the agents, including the LaFevers Agency, made the same fraudulent representations described above each time the policy renewed. Mr. Cilio, however, retired shortly before the alleged loss in this case, and the LaFevers Agency was not involved in any of the policy’s relevant renewals. See Notice of Removal [Doc. No. 1, at p. 5] (citing Renewal Declaration [Doc. No. 1-17 at p. 5] (showing Mr. Cilio was the renewal agent prior to May 21, 2024)). More importantly, the policy automatically renewed. See Renewal Declaration [Doc. No. 1-17 at p. 4] (“If the POLICY PERIOD is shown as 12 MONTHS, this policy will be renewed automatically subject to the premiums, rules, and forms in effect for each succeeding policy period.”). It is therefore clear that allegations based on representations made during the policy’s renewal have no basis in fact. Conclusion In arriving at these findings, the.Court is aware of the exacting standard required to prove fraudulent joinder. As stated previously, the Court may not “pre-try...doubtful issues of fact to determine removability” and claims “must be capable of summary determination and be proven with complete certainty.” Smoot, 378 F.2d at 882. The Court may, however, “pierce the pleadings, ... consider the entire record, and determine the basis of joinder by"}, {"d": 0, "p": 30, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00007-D Document 25 Filed 08/20/25 Page 10 of 10 any means available.” Dodd, 329 F.2d at 85 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Having done so, the Court is certain that Defendants have established fraudulent joinder. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 11] is DENIED. Claims against Alfred Tom Cilio and Rebecca LaFevers State Farm Agency, Inc., are DISMISSED without prejudice but without leave to amend.® IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of August, 2025. iby Q.O,Pat TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge 6 “Where a plaintiff does not move for permission to amend the complaint, the district court commits no error by not granting such leave.” Burnett v. Mortg. Elec. Regis. Sys., Inc., 106 F.3d 1231, 1238 n.4 (10th Cir. 2013). 10"}, {"d": 1, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA October 31, 2025 3:20 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK NEIL and LACY WEST, ) Case Number CJ-2025-135 ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 v. ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. ) _) ) JUDGE SHEPERD AGENCY, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANTS STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY AND NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.’S OFFER OF JUDGMENT Pursuant to 12 0.8. § 1101.1(B), Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) and Defendant Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. (“Holcomb Agency”) offer to allow judgment to be taken against them on all of Plaintiffs Neil and Lacy West’s (“Plaintiffs”) claims against State Farm and the Holcomb Agency as set forth in his Petition in the amount of Eighty Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($80,000), exclusive of all attorneys’ fees and costs. Though established by law, to negate any arguments to the contrary, this amount is inclusive of all potentially applicable interest. If accepted, this amount will resolve all of Plaintiffs’ claims against State Farm and the Holcomb Agency in this action. This offer will expire by the terms of 12 O.S. § 1101.1(B) if not accepted within ten (10) days from the date of filing. This offer is made solely for the purpose of attempting to settle, compromise, and resolve this action without further litigation, and is not to be construed or used as an admission of any fault, responsibility, or liability and, if accepted, shall have no collateral estoppel or res judicata effect in any other proceeding. Evidence of this offer is not admissible in this or any other proceeding."}, {"d": 1, "p": 2, "t": "fest ri A \\ : Timifa S,ALL OBA #14310 ~ Paige A. Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OBA #34650 CROWE & DUNLEVY, P.C. Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY AND NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 31st day of October 2025, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 a f C aren SHU } | \\ . Timila . Rother / 6094627 j oN"}, {"d": 2, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, Plaintiffs, FILED DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA November 12, 2025 12:43 PM ) ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2025-135 vs. ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY —-)-_—s«©@8@ No. CJ-2025-135 ) COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ ) AGENCY, INC., ) Defendants. ) ) DEFENDANT NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION Defendant Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. (“Holcomb Agency”), through its undersigned counsel, hereby files its answer and defenses to Plaintiffs’ Petition (the “Petition”). The Holcomb Agency denies each and every allegation of the Petition unless hereinafter specifically admitted. I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Holcomb Agency acknowledges that Plaintiffs’ Petition alleges a “systematic and pervasive Scheme” by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) and the Holcomb Agency. The alleged scheme and all other allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Petition are denied. 2. The allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Petition appear to be directed at a Defendant other than the Holcomb Agency such that no response by the Holcomb Agency is required, To the extent a response from Holcomb Agency is required, the Holcomb Agency admits that State Farm engages in advertising that includes the slogan “Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there” and other promotional materials which are written or recorded materials that speak for themselves. The Holcomb Agency is without sufficient information to either admit or deny that State Farm is a"}, {"d": 2, "p": 2, "t": "“household name” and therefore the allegation is denied. All other allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Petition are denied. 3. The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Petition. 4, The Holcomb Agency denies all allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Petition, including subparagraphs a-f, except the Holcomb Agency admits that State Farm sells, via agents, a form insurance policy as required and approved by the Oklahoma Department of Insurance (“DOI”) which provides coverage for accidental direct physical loss from wind and hail. The policy is a written document that speaks for itself and all allegations inconsistent therewith are denied. The allegation of a scheme is specifically denied and all other express or implied allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Petition are also denied. IL. PARTIES 5. As to the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Petition, the Holcomb Agency admits that State Farm issued to Plaintiffs homeowners insurance Policy No. 36-CR-X405-8 (the “Policy”), which provides coverage as stated and speaks for itself. The Holcomb Agency also admits that the Policy was in force for the alleged date of loss of June 15, 2023, and, upon information and belief, admits that Plaintiffs owned the property insured. The Holcomb Agency, upon information and belief, also admits that Plaintiffs filed a claim for damage to the property insured under the Policy which was assigned Claim No. 36-53Q1-13C. All other allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Petition are denied. 6. The allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Petition are directed at a Defendant other than the Holcomb Agency such that no response by the Holcomb Agency is required. To the extent a response from Holcomb Agency is required, the Holcomb Agency is without sufficient"}, {"d": 2, "p": 3, "t": "information to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 6 except admit upon information and belief that State Farm is registered to do business in Oklahoma. 7. The Holcomb Agency admits it is an insurance agency that sells State Farm policies, that its office is located at the address stated in Paragraph 7, and that service is proper at that address. Any other allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Petition are denied and/or they are legal conclusions to which no factual response is required. 8. The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Petition. 9. The allegation as to venue in Paragraph 9 of the Petition is a legal conclusion to which no factual response is required, To the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied. Il. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 10. The allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Petition appear to be directed at a Defendant other than the Holcomb Agency such that no response by the Holcomb Agency is required. To the extent a response from Holcomb Agency is required, the Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Petition. 11, The allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Petition appear to be directed at a Defendant other than the Holcomb Agency such that no response by the Holcomb Agency is required. To the extent a response from Holcomb Agency is required, the Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Petition. 12. The allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Petition appear to be directed at a Defendant other than the Holcomb Agency such that no response by the Holcomb Agency is required. To the extent a response from Holcomb Agency is required, the Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Petition."}, {"d": 2, "p": 4, "t": "13. The Holcomb Agency admits the State Farm policies it sells are form policies approved by the DOJ. All other allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Petition are denied. 14. The Holcomb Agency admits the State Farm policies it sells are form policies approved by the DOI, some of which provide replacement cost value (“RCV”) coverage. All other allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Petition are denied. 15. The Holcomb Agency admits agents play an important role in selling State Farm policies to individuals or entities who then become State Farm insureds. The remaining allegations in subparagraphs a-d of Paragraph 15 of the Petition, including footnote 2, are legal conclusions which require no factual response from the Holcomb Agency. However, the Holcomb Agency denies that the legal obligations are as stated in those subparagraphs, denies the implication associated with the alleged duties, and denies all other allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Petition. 16. The Holcomb Agency admits that agents are to act in accordance with the training and contractual requirements to which they agree in becoming a State Farm agent, including compliance with industry standards if applicable. All remaining allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Petition are denied. 17. The Holcomb Agency admits that agents, including the Holcomb Agency, have websites that include marketing about the insurance agency, which are written materials that speak for themselves. The Holcomb Agency denies all allegations inconsistent with the written materials and denies all other allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Petition. 18. The Holcomb Agency admits that not all homes automatically qualify for State Farm homeowners policies. The Holcomb Agency denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Petition."}, {"d": 2, "p": 5, "t": "19. The allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Petition appear to be directed at a Defendant other than the Holcomb Agency such that no response by the Holcomb Agency is required. To the extent a response from Holcomb Agency is required, the Holcomb Agency admits that the insurance policy is a contract under which State Farm is obligated to indemnify the insured for damages arising from a covered loss, subject to the terms and conditions of the Policy, which speaks for itself. The Holcomb Agency denies any allegations inconsistent with the Policy and denies all other allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Petition, including any footnotes applicable thereto. 20. | The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Petition. 21. The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Petition. 22. | The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Petition. 23. The Holcomb Agency admits that agents do not “inspect” the insured property or retain third-parties to do so. The Holcomb Agency denies all other allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Petition. 24. The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Petition. 25. As to the allegations in Paragraph 25, subparagraphs 25(a-d) of the Petition, the Holcomb Agency is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the alleged intentions or motives of Plaintiffs in communicating with the Holcomb Agency, but the Holcomb Agency admits that it assisted Plaintiffs in obtaining a State Farm homeowners insurance policy, that the policy issued included replacement cost value (“RCV”) coverage, and that the Holcomb Agency utilized State Farm’s systems and tools in assisting Plaintiffs in procuring said Policy. All remaining allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Petition, including all subparagraphs, are denied."}, {"d": 2, "p": 6, "t": "26. While the Holcomb Agency admits that it did not inspect, verify, or notify Plaintiffs of the condition of their property as alleged in subparagraphs 26(a-e) of the Petition, the Holcomb Agency denies that the obligations implied in the allegations existed as to the agents or State Farm; the obligations referenced, if they existed at all, were Plaintiffs’ and Policy issuance negates the premise of Plaintiffs’ allegations. As to the allegations of subparagraph 26(f), the Holcomb Agency admits that no one advised Plaintiffs of a scheme; that is because no scheme existed. As to Paragraph 26(g-h), the allegations are denied along with the non-existent obligations upon which they are premised. All remaining allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Petition, including all subparagraphs, and/or all assumptions upon which the alleged “failed disclosures” are based are denied. 27. The Holcomb Agency admits that a Policy was issued to Plaintiffs, the terms of which speak for themselves. All remaining allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Petition are denied. 28. The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Petition. 29. The allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Petition appear to be directed at a Defendant other than the Holcomb Agency such that no response by the Holcomb Agency is required. To the extent a response from Holcomb Agency is required, the Holeomb Agency admits that State Farm issues a homeowners policy with RCV coverage, the form of which is required and approved by the DOI and speaks for itself. All other allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Petition are denied. 30. The Holcomb Agency admits that State Farm issues a form Policy with RCV Coverage, as stated in response to Paragraph 29, and that it represents the Policy to provide RCV coverage as stated in the Policy because it does. The Holcomb Agency also admits that the replacement cost value for the property can be the amount necessary to replace the property to its pre-loss condition, less the deductible, if Plaintiffs choose to insure it for the full replacement cost"}, {"d": 2, "p": 7, "t": "value. That is a decision of the insured. All other allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Petition are denied. 31. The allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Petition purport to quote and/or summarize the terms of the Policy, which is a written document that speaks for itself. All allegations inconsistent with the terms of the Policy are denied. All other allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Petition are also denied. 32. The allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Petition purport to summarize the terms of the Policy, which is a written document that speaks for itself. All allegations inconsistent with the terms of the Policy are denied. Any other allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Petition are also denied. 33. The allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Petition purport to quote and/or summarize the terms of the Policy, which is a written document that speaks for itself. All allegations inconsistent with the terms of the Policy are denied. All other allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Petition are also denied. 34. | The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Petition. 35. | The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Petition. 36. | The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the Petition. 37. The allegations in Paragraph 37 of the Petition are directed at a Defendant other than the Holcomb Agency such that no response by the Holcomb Agency is required. To the extent a response from Holcomb Agency is required, the Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 37 of the Petition. 38. The allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Petition are directed at a Defendant other than the Holcomb Agency such that no response by the Holcomb Agency is required. To the extent"}, {"d": 2, "p": 8, "t": "a response from Holcomb Agency is required, the Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Petition. 39. The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Petition. 40. As to the allegations of Paragraph 40, subparagraphs a-p of the Petition, the Holcomb Agency, upon information and belief, admits that Plaintiffs made a claim for storm damage to State Farm on July 28, 2023. The Holcomb Agency is without sufficient information, however, to either admit or deny ali other allegations in Paragraph 40 and therefore the allegations are denied. IV. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT 41. | The Holcomb Agency herein incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1-40 of the Petition. 42. The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Petition. 43. The allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Petition appear to be directed at a Defendant other than the Holcomb Agency such that no response by the Holcomb Agency is required. To the extent a response from Holcomb Agency is required, the Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Petition. 44. | The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Petition. V. COUNTS COUNT I: BREACH OF CONTRACT 45. The Holcomb Agency herein incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1-44 of the 46. The Holcomb Agency admits that Plaintiffs entered into a contract of insurance Petition. with State Farm that was in force on the alleged date of loss. The Policy is a written document that"}, {"d": 2, "p": 9, "t": "speaks for itself. All allegations inconsistent with the terms of the Policy are denied. Any remaining allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Petition are also denied. 47, The Holcomb Agency is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 47 and therefore the allegations are denied. 48. The Holcomb Agency admits that Plaintiffs entered into a contract of insurance with State Farm; the Policy is a written document that speaks for itself. All allegations inconsistent with the terms of the Policy are denied. Any remaining allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Petition are also denied. 49. The Holcomb Agency is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 49 and therefore the allegations are denied. 50. The allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Petition are directed at a Defendant other than the Holcomb Agency such that no response by the Holcomb Agency is required. To the extent a response from the Holcomb Agency is required, the allegations are denied. 51. The allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Petition appear to be directed at a Defendant other than the Holcomb Agency such that no response by the Holcomb Agency is required. To the extent a response from Holcomb Agency is required, the Holcomb Agency the allegations are denied. 52. The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Petition. COUNT II: BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 53. The Holcomb Agency herein incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1-52 of the 54. Paragraph 54 of the Petition states a legal conclusion, which is directed at a Petition. Defendant other than the Holcomb Agency, such that no response by the Holcomb Agency is"}, {"d": 2, "p": 10, "t": "required. To the extent a response from Holcomb Agency is required, the Holcomb Agency disagrees with the legal conclusions as stated and applied and therefore the allegations are denied. 55. The allegations in Paragraph 55, including subparagraphs a-b and all roman numerals thereunder, of the Petition are directed at a Defendant other than the Holcomb Agency such that no response by the Holcomb Agency is required. To the extent a response from the Holcomb Agency is required, the allegations are denied. 56. The allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Petition are directed at a Defendant other than the Holcomb Agency such that no response by the Holcomb Agency is required. To the extent a response from the Holcomb Agency is required, the allegations are denied. 57. The allegations in Paragraph 57 of the Petition are directed at a Defendant other than the Holcomb Agency such that no response by the Holcomb Agency is required. To the extent a response from the Holcomb Agency is required, the allegations are denied. 58. The allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Petition are directed at a Defendant other than the Holcomb Agency such that no response by the Holcomb Agency is required. To the extent a response from the Holcomb Agency is required, the allegations are denied. 59. The allegations in Paragraph 59 of the Petition are directed at a Defendant other than the Holcomb Agency such that no response by the Holcomb Agency is required. To the extent a response from the Holcomb Agency is required, the allegations are denied. COUNT IE: NEGLIGENT PROCUREMENT OF INSURANCE 60. The Holcomb Agency herein incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1-59 of the 61, The Holcomb Agency admits it is a State Farm agent but denies that it is, or ever Petition. was, an employee of State Farm. The allegation of vicarious liability is a legal conclusion to which 10"}, {"d": 2, "p": 11, "t": "no factual response is required by the Holcomb Agency, but the Holcomb Agency denies the presence of any misconduct for which State Farm would be vicariously liable. The Holcomb Agency denies any other allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Petition. 62. The allegations in subparagraph 62 (a-d) of the Petition are legal conclusions to which no factual response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Holcomb Agency disagrees with the legal conclusions as stated and applied and therefore the allegations are denied. 63. The allegations in subparagraph 63(a-b) of the Petition and all roman numerals thereunder are denied. 64. | The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 64 of the Petition. 65. The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 65 of the Petition. 66. | The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 66 of the Petition. COUNT IV. CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 67. The Holcomb Agency herein incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1-66 of the 68. The allegations in Paragraph 68 of the Petition purport to state legal conclusions to Petition. which no factual response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Holeomb Agency denies the legal statement as here applied and denies that it breached any legal obligation to Plaintiffs. Any other allegations in Paragraph 68 of the Petition are denied and/or they are legal conclusions to which no factual response is required. 69. The allegations in Paragraph 69 of the Petition are legal argument to which no factual response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Holcomb Agency denies the correctness of the legal argument generally and as here applied and denies that it breached any 11"}, {"d": 2, "p": 12, "t": "legal obligation to Plaintiffs. Any other allegations in Paragraph 69 of the Petition are denied and/or they are legal conclusions to which no factual response is required. 70. The allegations in Paragraph 70 of the Petition are legal argument to which no factual response is required. To the extent a response ts required, the Holcomb Agency denies the correctness of the legal argument generally and as here applied and denies that it breached any legal obligation to Plaintiffs. Any other allegations in Paragraph 70 of the Petition are denied and/or they are legal conclusions to which no factual response is required. 71. The allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Petition are legal argument to which no factual response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Holcomb Agency denies the correctness of the legal argument generally and as here applied and denies that it breached any legal obligation to Plaintiffs. Any other allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Petition are denied and/or they are legal conclusions to which no factual response is required. 72. The allegations in Paragraph 72 of the Petition are primarily legal argument to which no factual response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Holcomb Agency denies the legal argument generally and as here applied and denies that it breached any legal obligation to Plaintiffs. Any other allegations in Paragraph 72 of the Petition are denied and/or they are legal conclusions to which no factual response is required. 73. The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 73(a-g) of the Petition. 74. The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 74 of the Petition. 75. The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 75 of the Petition. 76. | The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 76 of the Petition. 77. The Holcomb Agency admits that it was a State Farm agent at the time the Policy was issued but denies that it was an employee of State Farm at any time. 12"}, {"d": 2, "p": 13, "t": "78. | The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 78 of the Petition. 79. | The Holcomb Agency denies the allegations in Paragraph 79 of the Petition. VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF The Holcomb Agency denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief requested by their prayer for relief. Instead, the Holcomb Agency asserts that judgment should be entered in favor of the Holcomb Agency and against Plaintiffs and that the Holcomb Agency should be awarded its attorney fees, costs, and all other relief to which it is entitled. DEFENSES The Holcomb Agency asserts the following defenses and reasserts its answers to each and every paragraph of the Petition, as set forth above, incorporating them by reference herein. By pleading these defenses, the Holcomb Agency does not concede that it has the burden of proof or persuasion on any of these issues, such determination to be made by applicable law. The Holcomb Agency reserves the right to amend its answer to assert additional defenses if appropriate in light of information disclosed during discovery. L. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s use of nearly identical form Petitions in numerous cases against State Farm and other insurers and agents without consideration of how the facts of that case impact the form allegations alone demonstrates the failure to state a claim. 2, Plaintiffs have failed to plead fraud with particularity. 3, Plaintiffs received a copy of the Policy and were on full notice of the terms and conditions contained therein. Thus, Plaintiffs have waived and/or are estopped from asserting any claim based on any alleged misstatement of the terms of the Policy. 13"}, {"d": 2, "p": 14, "t": "4. Given their receipt of the Policy, Plaintiffs cannot have reasonably relied upon any representation as to the Policy terms by the Holcomb Agency. Any prior representations were merged into the Policy. 5. The Holcomb Agency owed no duty or other obligation to Plaintiffs upon which Plaintiffs can assert a claim for negligent procurement of insurance or constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation. 6. As to their claims against the Holcomb Agency, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations and/or the limitations period in the Policy. 7. Plaintiffs have been paid all amounts owed under the Policy by State Farm. 8. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of waiver, laches, and/or estoppel. 9. Plaintiffs have not suffered damages as a result of any conduct by the Holcomb Agency. Any damages suffered by Plaintiffs were not proximately caused by any act or omission of the Holcomb Agency or breach of any legal duty by the Holcomb Agency. 10. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages. 11. Plaintiffs are not entitled to prejudgment interest. 12. Plaintiffs are not entitled to attorneys’ fees and/or costs. 13. Plaintiffs have acted vexatiously in adding the Holcomb Agency to this lawsuit, thus entitling the Holcomb Agency to its attorneys’ fees and costs. 14, | The Holcomb Agency did not engage in any activity that would entitle Plaintiffs to punitive damages. An award of punitive damages under the facts and circumstances alleged would deny the Holcomb Agency its rights and violate the Constitutions of the State of Oklahoma and the United States of America, and such an award would be a penalty in violation of the laws of the 14"}, {"d": 2, "p": 15, "t": "State of Oklahoma and the United States of America. Further, to the extent Plaintiffs attempt to recover punitive damages under 23 O.S. § 9.1, such statute is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution and the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. WHEREFORE, Defendant the Holcomb Agency prays that Plaintiffs recover nothing by way of the Petition, that judgment be entered in favor of the Holcomb Agency and against Plaintiffs, and that the Holcomb Agency be awarded its costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief as appropriate under the law and the discretion of this Court. _--~Regpect i sub om Ke “Tima S| pL On #14310 Paige A. Rother OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OBA #34650 CROWE & DUNLEVY, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8273 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT THE NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. 15"}, {"d": 2, "p": 16, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 12th day of November 2025, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 y — ' Timila S. Rother 6114668 16 = ie a“"}, {"d": 3, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE NEIL AND LACY OF OKLAHOMA WEST, Plainti ffs, FILED DISTRICT COURT COUNTY COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA ) December 12, 2025 4:32 PM ) ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2025-135 ) ) v. ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”), moves to compel discovery responses from Plaintiffs, for the reason that the Plaintiffs have wholly failed to timely provide required discovery responses. 1. State Farm served its First Set of Discovery Requests on Neil and Lacy West by US. Mail on August 29, 2025 (the “Discovery Requests”). Discovery Requests attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Responses to the Discovery Requests were therefore due on October 1. 2. On September 25, Plaintiffs’ counsel requested a 2-3 week extension for responses and on September 26, counsel for State Farm agreed to a 20-day extension to October 16, 2025. See Exhibit 2, 09/25-26/2025 Email chain between Timila Rother and John Sanders. State Farm’s counsel received Responses to Requests for Admission on October 17, 2025. See Exhibit 3, 10/17/2025 Email from John Sanders to Timila Rother.! However, State Farm’s counsel have not received, to date, any Responses to First Interrogatories or Requests for Production of Documents. ' State Farm reserves the right to have the admission requests deemed confessed given that they were not served on the agreed extended date."}, {"d": 3, "p": 2, "t": "3. Having not received any Responses to First Interrogatories or Requests for Production of Documents, State Farm’s counsel emailed Plaintiffs’ counsel on October 18, 2025 inquiring about when Responses to First Interrogatories or Requests for Production of Documents would be received. See Exhibit 3, 10/18/2025 Email from Timila Rother to John Sanders. 4, On November 25, 2025, State Farm’s counsel sent a letter by electronic mail and U.S. mail to Plaintiffs’ counsel stating that “[State Farm] received Plaintiffs’ response to State Farm’s request for admissions on October 17, 2025” but that “[yjou did not also respond to State Farm’s interrogatories or document requests on the 16\" or 17\", and now almost 40 days later you still have not responded.” See Exhibit 4, 11/25/2025 letter from Timila Rother to Whitten Burrage. The letter requested responses be provided by December 3, 2025 or that a meet and confer be scheduled. Id. 5. December 3, 2025 came and went with no Responses to First Interrogatories or Requests for Production of Documents from the Plaintiffs and with no date to confer provided. State Farm brings this Motion because it appears there is no other way to obtain cooperation in discovery by Plaintiffs’ counsel. 6. Also, Plaintiffs were required by 12 O.S. §3226(A)(2) to, within 60 days of service of the Summons and Petition, “provide to other parties a computation of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party, making available for inspection and copying the documents or other evidentiary material ...on which such computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered.” This action was served on March 7, 2025. While it was removed and then remanded, the remand occurred on August 25, 2025. Thus, the matter is well past the 60-day service period required by §3226(A)(2). State Farm has asked Plaintiffs to provide"}, {"d": 3, "p": 3, "t": "the Initial Disclosures (see Exhibit 4), but as of the filing of this Motion, no disclosures have been received. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES It is fundamental to Oklahoma’s Discovery Code that parties respond to proper discovery requests as well as the independent requirements of the Code. If, as here, parties fail to respond to discovery requests, the discovering party “may move for an order compelling an answer, ..., or an order compelling inspection and copying in accordance with the request[s].” 12 O.S. §3237(A)(2). As set out above, State Farm has attempted in good faith to confer with counsel for the Plaintiffs to obtain the discovery responses without court action as required by 12 O.S. §3237(A)(2). Counsel has been and continues to be non-responsive. The very purpose of these and other provisions of the Code is to “secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.” 12 O.S. §3225. Accordingly, where, as here, “a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under” 12 O.S. $3233, or “a party, in response to a request for inspection and copying submitted under” 12 O.S. §3234 “fails to permit the inspection or copying as requested ..., the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer, ..., or an order compelling inspection and copying.” 12 O.S. §3237(A)(2). If such “motion is granted, the court shall, after opportunity for hearing, require the party ... whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney fees, unless the court finds that the opposition to the motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” 12 O.S. §3237(A)(4) (emphasis added). State Farm provided an agreed extension but the responses were not received on the extended date. State Farm has followed up repeatedly, and there has been no response. Thus, State"}, {"d": 3, "p": 4, "t": "Farm has given Plaintiffs more than “reasonable time” to answer the interrogatories and produce the documents and information requested. 12 O.S. §§3233(A) and 3234(B)(2)(b). An order compelling Plaintiffs to respond is necessary to “secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of [this] action.” 12 O.S, §3225. And the law mandates that State Farm be awarded fees and expenses, due to the lack of justification for Plaintiffs’ inaction. 12 O.S. §3237(A)(4). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court compel the Plaintiffs to respond to the Discovery Requests and to provide the Disclosures required by 12 O.S. § 3226(A)(2) by a date certain and award State Farm its fees and costs incurred in having to file this Motion. ully su inittcs ath OBA‘'#14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA\\'M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE & DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 3, "p": 5, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by USS. Mail, postage prepaid, this 12th day of December, 2025, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John 8. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF"}, {"d": 3, "p": 6, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) ) ) STATE FARMFIREAND CASUALTY —-)_—« COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS.) AGENCY, INC., ) Defendants. ; C88 No. CJ-2025-135 ) ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO PLAINTIFES Pursuant to 12 0.8. §§ 3223, 3234, and 3236, Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”), submits the following interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admission (collectively, the “Discovery Requests”) to Plaintiffs Neil and Lacy West. Plaintiffs are required to answer each interrogatory separately and fully in writing under oath and serve a copy of the same upon counsel for State Farm within thirty G0) days after service of the Discovery Requests. The document requests shall also be answered separately and responses served on counsel for State Farm within 30 days after service of the Discovery Requests. The requested documents shall be produced at a mutually agreeable time at the offices of Crowe & Dunlevy, 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102, or at such other location as the parties agree. With respect to the requests for admission, Plaintiffs must, within 30 days after services of these requests, specifically admit or deny the matter of which admission is sought. DEFINITIONS 1. “Agent” refers to the defendant Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc., and its employees, officers, directors, representatives, and agents. EXHIBIT |"}, {"d": 3, "p": 7, "t": "2. “And” as well as “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope. 3, “A ppurtenance(s),” as used herein means items on, near, or part of the roof of your House other than shingles including, but not limited to, rain caps, vents, boots, pipes, valley metal, gutters, downspouts, or any similar metals, fixtures, or plastics. 4, “Claim” refers to the insurance claim submitted by Plaintiffs to State Farm for coverage under their Policy on or around July 28, 2023 for alleged damage to their roof and related items with a claimed date of loss of June 15, 2023 and assigned Claim No. 36-53Q1-13C. 5, “Communication” means the transmittal of information (in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries, or otherwise). 6. “Counsel” refers to the counsel representing you in This Litigation (as defined herein), Whitten Burrage, as well as any other members, lawyers, employees, or agents of your Counsels’ law firms. 7. “Defendant” refers to the State Farm Fire and Casualty or “State Farm” Company, as well as its agents and representatives. 8. “Defendants” refers collectively to State Farm and Agent. 9. “Document” and “documents” are used in the broadest permissible sense under the Oklahoma Discovery Code and include, but are not limited to, all electronically stored information (including active files and deleted but electronically recoverable files). 10. “House” means the property situated at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Oklahoma, 73505, for which You made a Claim for property damage under the Policy. ll. “Identify” Lawton,"}, {"d": 3, "p": 8, "t": "(a) “Identify” with respect to a document means to state the form of the document or writing, the date of its preparation, the author, recorder or sender, each addressee or recipient, its subject matter, and the name and address of any person presently having custody or control of the same or a copy thereof. If you wish, you may produce any document in lieu of identifying it, provided you designate, with respect to each such document furnished, the number of the interrogatory or interrogatories to which such document is responsive; (b) “Identify” with respect to a natural person means to state the last known contact information, business or personal, of such person including their name, address, and telephone number and the person’s last known place of employment; (c) “Identify” with respect to an entity means to state the complete name of the entity, any acronym under which such entity functions, the present or last known address of the entity, and the name(s) of its principal officer(s); (d) “Identify” with respect to an oral communication means to state whether such communication was in person, by telephone, or otherwise, list the date, place, and persons present or involved, summarize the communication of each person, and identify and produce each document within your possession, custody, control, or knowledge that reports, summarizes, or in any way memorializes or refers to such oral communication or the subject matter of anything discussed or considered in such oral communication; and (ce) “Identify” with respect to acts, omissions, facts, instances, incidents, events, quantities, and locations means to describe as specifically and as fully as possible. Such description should include the dates, places, times, and persons present or involved; the nature of the transactions or occurrences that were part of or related to the act, omission, fact, instance, incident, event, quantity, or location being identified; and an identification of each document"}, {"d": 3, "p": 9, "t": "within your possession, custody, control, or knowledge that reports, summarizes, or in any way memorializes or refers to such act, omission, fact, instance, incident, event, quantity, or location. 12. “Person” includes any natural person or any business, legal, fictitious, governmental, or public entity, or any association, group, or organization of any kind. 13. “Petition” refers to the Petition filed by counsel on Plaintiffs’ behalf in This Litigation on February 28, 2025 in Comanche County, Oklahoma, and any subsequent amended petitions you may file in This Litigation. 14. “Plaintiffs” refer to Neil and Lacy West. 15. “Policy” means Policy Number 36-CR-X405-8 issued by State Farm to Plaintiffs on the property located at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, Oklahoma, 73505, and in force, as applicable here, for the period December 29, 2022 to December 29, 2023. 16. “Relating to” and “relate to” mean and include any information concerning, comprising, identifying, summarizing, evidencing, containing, discussing, mentioning, describing, reflecting, comparing, analyzing, memorializing, or pertaining in any way to the subject matter of the discovery request in which such term is used. 17. “This Litigation” refers to the above-styled case. 18. “You,” “your,” and “yours” and “yourself” refers to the Plaintiffs, as well as their representatives, agents, attorneys, and anyone else acting on behalf of such party, as may be indicated. INSTRUCTIONS L. These Discovery Requests are directed toward all information known or available to Plaintiffs, either individually or through their agents, representatives, employees, attorneys, or any other person acting on their behalf, including information contained in the records and documents in Plaintiffs’ custody or control or available to them upon reasonable inquiry. 4"}, {"d": 3, "p": 10, "t": "2. Each Discovery Request is deemed a continuing one. If after serving a response to the Discovery Requests Plaintiffs obtain or become aware of any further information pertaining to that Discovery Request, Plaintiffs are requested to serve a supplemental response setting forth such information in accordance with 12 O.S. § 3226(B). 3. Where interrogatories cannot be answered in full, they shall be answered as completely as possible, and incomplete answers shall be accompanied by an explanation of the reasons for the incompleteness of the answer. 4, The documents requested shall be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall be organized and labeled to correspond to the categories in the request. Electronic documents shall be produced in their native format. 5, Your response to the document requests shall state, with respect to each item or category, that the documents shall be produced or that inspection and related activities shall be permitted as requested, unless You object to the request, in which event the reasons for objection shall be stated. If objection is made to part of an item or category, the part shall be specified, and inspection permitted of the remaining parts. 6. If an interrogatory is not answered or a document is withheld for any reason, including but not limited to a claim of privilege or confidentiality, or for any other reason or objection, please provide the following information: a. The portion of the interrogatory, if applicable, to which information is being withheld; b. The date of the document or communication; c. The author of the document or communication; d. The recipient of the document or communication,"}, {"d": 3, "p": 11, "t": "e. All persons to whom the communication was made or to whom copies of the document have been furnished; f. The subject matter of the document or communication; g. The file in which the document is kept in the normal course of business; h. The current custodian of the document; and i. The nature of the privilege or other reason for not answering the interrogatory or producing the document and sufficient description of the facts surrounding the contents of the communication or document to justify withholding the document under said privilege or reason. For the avoidance of confusion, this Instruction is meant to establish baseline obligations and does not eliminate, modify, or supersede the requirements set forth in any court-filed orders, including, but not limited to, any protective orders or ESI protocols. 7. If any document responsive to the interrogatories or document requests was, but is no longer, in Your possession, custody, or control, or in existence, state whether it (1) is missing or lost; (2) has been destroyed; (3) has been transferred voluntarily or involuntarily to others; or (4) has been disposed of otherwise. In each instance explain the circumstances surrounding the authorization of such disposition and state the date or approximate date thereof. 8. With respect to each request for admission, You must specifically admit or deny the matter of which admission is sought, or set forth in detail the reason why You cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. If You cannot admit any matter in its entirety, You must admit so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder."}, {"d": 3, "p": 12, "t": "9. Whenever a noun appears, it shall be construed either to be singular or plural in order to bring within the scope of these Discovery Requests any information that may otherwise be construed to be outside their scope. 10. If your response to a Discovery Request (or subpart thereof) is “without knowledge,” “not known,” “unknown,” or any similar phrase, please confirm that your response was formed after a reasonable, good faith inquiry. 11. If the response to any Discovery Request (or subpart thereof) is not within Your personal knowledge, please identify each person to whom You believe the response is a matter of personal knowledge. 12. The documents responsive to these Discovery Requests, ifany, should be produced to State Farm’s counsel or made available for inspection and copying at the offices of Your counsel of record in This Litigation or at such locations as the documents are kept in the usual course of your business within thirty (30) days after service of these requests or some other reasonable time specified in your responses, Any documents produced should be provided in a manner consistent with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. For the avoidance of confusion, this Instruction is meant to establish baseline obligations and does not eliminate, modify, or supersede the requirements set forth in any court-filed orders, including, but not limited to, any protective orders or ESI protocols. INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify when the House was built, when You first owned the House, and the periods of time (if any) in which you rented the House to others. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify all surveys, inspections and/or appraisals that were made of the House by anyone on Your behalf or on behalf of Your lender, bank, mortgage company or any other entity at any time."}, {"d": 3, "p": 13, "t": "INTERROGATORY NO, 3: Identify all repairs to the roof of Your House and its Appurtenances for the last fifteen (15) years (to include the replacement of any portion thereof), the circumstances prompting each repair, the date of each repair, the scope of each repair, who made each repair, and how much was paid for each repair and by whom it was paid, INTERROGATORY NO. 4: State why You made a claim for damage to Your House to State Farm on or around June 15, 2023, including any event that prompted the report, any physical conditions of Your House that prompted the report, and/or any communications with others about those events or conditions or the need for a claim. INTERROGATORY NO. 5; Identify the facts on which You rely for Your position that Your Roof and its appurtenances were damaged by a storm and the source of the factual information. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: State by whom You were referred to Counsel in This Litigation and when Counsel was first retained. INTERROGATORY NO, 7: State the name, address, and telephone number of each Person who has knowledge of any of the factual allegations contained in Your Petition and, for each such Person, summarize the factual information You believe such Person possesses regarding the claims and allegations in Your Petition. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify all Communications You have had, written or oral, with State Farm or anyone You believed to be acting on behalf of State Farm about Your Policy or Your Claim for benefits under the Policy, and provide the date of each Communication, who was talking to whom, and the substance of the Communication. INTERROGATORY NO, 9: Identify all Communications You have had, written or oral, with any other Person relating to Your Claim for benefits under the Policy or damage to"}, {"d": 3, "p": 14, "t": "Your House for which You submitted the Claim, and provide the date of each Communication, who was talking to whom, and the substance of the Communication. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify all facts, Documents, and Persons with factual knowledge relating to Your breach of contract claim against State Farm. INTERROGATORY NO, Il: Identify all facts, Documents, and persons with factual knowledge relating to Your bad faith claim against State Farm. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: List all items of property that You claim were damaged by the storm, and state whether that damage still exists or has been repaired (to include replacement) and the cost, or any estimated cost, to repair or replace those items. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify each item of damaged property for which You assert payment is owed but is unpaid, in full or in part, including a specific description of the item and how much You claim is owed for each. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Identify all ways in which You allege State Farm’s investigation and evaluation of Your Claim was inadequate. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify all ways in which You allege State Farm’s estimate for the storm damage to Your House was deficient. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Identify all assessments, inspections, or estimates of the nature and extent of the damage to Your House and fence from the June 15, 2023 storm, which you allege caused the damage, including the name of the person or entity who performed the assessment, inspection, or estimate, the date it was performed, and the findings or outcomes, including any statements regarding the cause of damage and the estimated cost of repair. Also state whether these assessments or inspections were relied upon in submitting Your Claim to State Farm."}, {"d": 3, "p": 15, "t": "INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Identify all entities or Persons who performed or supervised any work relating to damage to Your House from the June 15, 2023 storm, which you allege caused the damage, including: (a) the scope and nature of the work performed; (b) the dates on which the work was performed; and (c) whether the work has been completed or is still ongoing. INTERROGATORY NO, 18: Describe with particularity each item of damage You seek to recover in this action against State Farm for each of the claims You assert against it, including the amount of each claimed item of damage, and identify all Documents and Persons with factual knowledge relating to those claimed damages. This Interrogatory requires that You differentiate the damages You seek, and the facts or Documents supporting them, for each claim You assert against State Farm, This Interrogatory also requires that You differentiate the damages You claim were caused by the conduct of State Farm from the damages You claim against the Agent, and differentiate any supporting facts or documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: As to Your engagement of Coastal Claims with regard to the alleged damage to Your House and Your Claim, state: a. The date of Your first Communication with Coastal Claims and how and by whom it was initiated; b. When Your roof was inspected by Coastal Claims or someone on its behalf, who did the inspection, who was present, and how long it lasted, c, All Communications You have had with Coastal Claims regarding Your House or State Farm; and, d. The terms of Your agreement with Coastal Claims including how Coastal Claims has been or will be compensated. INTERROGATORY NO, 20: List all insurance policies, of any type, which have been issued to you by any insurer in the past 10 years. For each such policy, identify the policy number, 10"}, {"d": 3, "p": 16, "t": "the name of the insurer; the type of policy and effective date of coverage; and the name and address of the agent involved in the sale of the policy to you. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: For any of the insurance policies identified in your responses to Interrogatory No. 20 state: (i) whether you read the policy; (ii) any questions you had about the policy; (iii) | when you had any questions about the policy; (iv) the names and contact information of any individual(s) with whom you discussed any such questions, and (v) the date(s) on which you discussed any such questions with those identified individuals. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: For every claim you have made on any of the insurance policies identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 20 above, identify as specifically and as fully as possible the facts regarding those claims, including, but not limited to, the date and type of claim made, the name of the insurer and any claims personnel or agent(s) involved, the approximate amount of damages alleged, and the amount of payment made by the insurer, if any. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: For any of your responses to State Farm’s Requests for Admission to which your response is anything other than an unequivocal admission, state all facts in support of your response. INTERROGATORY NO, 24: Identify each person you expect to call as an expert witness at trial, and include in your response: (i) the subject matter on which each expert is expected to testify, (ii) the substance of the facts and opinions as to which each expert is expected to testify, 11"}, {"d": 3, "p": 17, "t": "(iii) a summary of the grounds for each such opinion, (iv) _ the qualifications of each expert, including a list of publications authored by each expert within the preceding ten (10) years, (v) the compensation to be paid to each expert for his or her testimony and preparation of such testimony, and (vi) a list of any other cases in which each expert witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four (4) years. INTERROGATORY NO, 25: List all civil lawsuits to which you have ever been a party, either as a plaintiff or a defendant, including in your answers the jurisdiction and style of the case, the case number, the court in which the suit was filed, the nature of the claims bought, the disposition of any such lawsuit. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 1: Admit that Your House was insured by the Policy, subject to the terms, conditions, and exclusions stated therein. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that State Farm provided You with the Policy at the time of contract and at the time of any renewal(s) of the Policy. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that You had a copy of the Policy in Your possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that the Policy covers hail damage. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5; Admit that the Policy specifies that “We [State Farm] have the right but are not obligated to perform the following: make inspections and surveys of the insured location at any time.” 12"}, {"d": 3, "p": 18, "t": "REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that under the Policy, State Farm is not obligated to perform an inspection on Your House at the time of contract or renewal of the Policy. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that the cover page of the Policy states: “Please read your policy carefully, especially ‘Losses Not Insured’ and all exclusions.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that You read the Policy. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 9: Admit that the Policy states the following under the section “Losses Not Insured”: “weat, tear, marring, scratching, deterioration, inherent vice, latent defect or mechanical breakdown.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that the Policy states the following under the section “Losses Not Insured”: “defect, weakness, inadequacy, fault or unsoundness in... design, specifications, workmanship, construction, grading, compaction.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that the deductible amount was $3,090 under the Policy during the policy period December 29, 2022 to December 29, 2023. Admit that the Policy states that State Farm REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: “will pay, subject to the specified policy limits, only that part of the amount of the loss that exceeds the deductible amount.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that You chose the company that performed the repairs on Your Property for damages related to the date of loss of June 15, 2023, REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that Your Claim with the date of loss of June 15, 2023 was reported on July 28, 2023 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that You are not aware of any involvement by Haag Engineering in the handling of your Claim. 13"}, {"d": 3, "p": 19, "t": "REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Produce all Documents identified, described, or relied upon in Your answers to the foregoing Interrogatories. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Produce all photographs, videos, diagrams, or recordings that You contend depict the alleged wind or hail damage, the cause of the damage, or any tepair work performed to any part of Your Property. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Produce all Documents in Your possession in any way relating to Your Claim for benefits under the Policy. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Produce all Documents relating to or reflecting Communications of any kind between You and State Farm, or anyone You believe to have been acting on behalf of State Farm, in any way relating to Your Claim for benefits under the Policy. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Produce all Documents relating to or reflecting Communications of any kind between You and State Farm, or anyone You believe to have been acting on behalf of State Farm, in any way relating to Your Policy. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Produce all documents relating to or reflecting Communications of any kind between You and any other person, including but not limited to roofing contractors or public adjusters, in any way relating to Your Claim for benefits under the Policy or the damage to Your House for which You submitted the Claim. As to any Documents or communications which You withhold in whole or in part on the grounds of privilege or confidentiality, please provide a privilege log in accordance with Instruction No. 6 above to validate the claim of privilege or confidentiality. 14"}, {"d": 3, "p": 20, "t": "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Produce all State Farm Documents that are in Your possession, or in the possession of anyone acting on Your behalf, including counsel, if You intend to rely upon them, directly or indirectly, in pursuing Your allegations in this lawsuit. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Produce all Documents evidencing or relating to the damages You seek to recover in this lawsuit, contractual, tort or any other. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Produce any and all Documents in any way evidencing, supporting, or related to Your claim that State Farm acted unreasonably and/or in bad faith. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Produce all Documents evidencing or in any way relating to the claim that State Farm’s conduct was “intentional, willful, malicious, and/or in reckless disregard of the rights of others.” REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. Ji: Produce all Documents in any way evidencing, supporting, or related to Your claim that State Farm breached its contract with You. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Produce all surveys, inspections, appraisals, and other evaluations or reports on the condition of the House in the last 10 years. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Produce any and all Documents relating to the inspection or investigation of Your House by any roofer, public adjuster, contractor, or professional, including but not limited to estimates, photos, and notes from the inspection. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 14: Produce a copy of any agreements You have with any roofing contractor, public adjuster, or professional for damage to Your House related to Your Claim. Also produce any other Documents You provided to or received from the contractor, public adjuster, or professional, including invoices. 15"}, {"d": 3, "p": 21, "t": "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 15: Produce all Documents which evidence or relate to Your Claim that Your roofing system was damaged as a result of the wind/hail. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Produce all Documents which evidence or relate to any claim that Your House suffered storm damage other than from hail, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Produce all Documents evidencing or relating to any estimates or assessments of the damage to Your House based upon which You have made the Claim in this action. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18; Produce copies of all Documents evidencing or relating to any repairs that have been made to the roof of Your House and/or its Appurtenances for the past fifteen (15) years. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Produce copies of all Documents evidencing or relating to any inspections that have been made of Your House for the past fifteen (15) years. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 20: Produce all Documents in any way relating to Your claims in Your Petition or relating to State Farm’s Answer and Defenses to those claims. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Produce a copy of any insuring agreement, other than Your policies with State Farm, that provide or have provided coverage for Your House for the past 10 years. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Produce copies of any social media posts, emails, or other internet postings made by You related to Your Claim, any storm event, any House damage or State Farm. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Produce all Documents received by You from third parties in response to subpoenas or other collection or discovery efforts in this lawsuit. 16"}, {"d": 3, "p": 22, "t": "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: For each person whom You expect to call as an expert witness at trial, produce the following: (a) acopy of each expert’s curriculum vitae or resume; (b) copies of all Documents provided to and/or relied upon by each expert in this case, including Documents relating to facts, data, or assumptions Your attorney provided and the expert considered in forming the opinions to be expressed, except for those Documents protected by the work-product doctrine; (c) copies of all articles or publications authored by the expert witness within the preceding ten (10) years; (d) a copy of any Document, whether in the form of a report, correspondence or otherwise, setting forth the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and grounds for each opinion; (e) Documents reflecting the compensation to be paid to the expert witness for the testimony and preparation for the testimony; and (f) copies of all transcripts of the expert’s trial or deposition testimony within the preceding four (4) years. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Produce all exhibits You intend to offer at the trial in This Litigation. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Produce all text messages You have sent or received relating to the allegations, claims, defenses, or issues in This Litigation. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Produce all documents in any way evidencing, supporting, or relating to the “systematic and pervasive Scheme” You allege that State Farm and/or Agent perpetrated or operated as alleged in Your Petition. 17"}, {"d": 3, "p": 23, "t": "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Produce all documents in any way evidencing or relating to any claim for mental anguish and/or physical or emotional suffering in This Litigation, including, but not limited to, medical records, mental health care records, forms, explanations of benefits, bills, statements, or charges evidencing or relating to any treatments You received for mental anguish or any medications You took for treatment of Your mental anguish and/or physical or emotional suffering. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 29: Produce all Documents relating to the condition, construction, design, maintenance, and/or value of the House, including, but not limited to, photographs of the interior or exterior taken at any time; mortgages, deeds, or liens; contracts for sale or lease; valuations; appraisals; tax assessments, statements, and bills; and construction documents of any kind, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, architectural drawings, estimates, invoices, repair bids, remodeling, inspections, evaluations, or proposals relating to the House whether such documents were for changes to the home before or after Your claims arose. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 30: Produce all Documents evidencing or related to the fair market value of the House before the loss. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Produce all documents evidencing or related to the fair market value of the House after the loss. REQUEST TO PERMIT ENTRY ONTO PROPERTY REQUEST TO PERMIT ENTRY NO. 1: Permit State Farm and its representatives to enter onto Your Property for the purposes of inspecting (i) the exterior of the House and garage; and (ii) the interior spaces of the Property, as further stated below, including every room that Plaintiffs contend has suffered damage for which State Farm must pay to repair or replace under the Policy. The areas of inspection shall be the roofs of the House and garage; Appurtenances to 18"}, {"d": 3, "p": 24, "t": "the roofs including, but not limited to, guttering, valley metal, vents, rain caps, ridges, and any other items next to, comprising or associated with the roofs, including the crawlspace or attic under the roofs as needed; windows; soffits; and all areas within the House that Plaintiffs claim have suffered insured damage, including but not limited to ceilings, attic spaces, walls, floor coverings, cabinets, light fixtures, appliances, woodwork, stone, and windows. The inspection shall include exterior surfaces such as columns, brick, concrete, fencing and like items and materials as useful in evaluating the existence, cause or scope of any damage. The date and time for entry shall be at an agreed time no longer than 60 days after service of this Request and shall continue until State Farm’s inspection is completed. In the event the inspection is not completed in one day, the same shall be continued and completed at a mutually agreeable date and time. Respectfully submitted, OWN atuy Timila S, Ruther, OBA #14310 Paige A. Masters, OBA #31142 CROWE & DUNLEVY, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8273 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 19"}, {"d": 3, "p": 25, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 29th day of August, 2025, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 + 20 WN wkua"}, {"d": 3, "p": 26, "t": "From: Sent: To: nee John Sanders -<jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com> Friday, September 26, 2025 2:56 PM Timila S. Rother; Paige Masters; Amanda Finch Ce: Blake Sonne; Hannah Whitten; Jake Denne; Brad Beskin; Karen Stratton Subject: RE: Giertz v, State Farm; CJ-2025-1132; West v. State Farm; CJ-2025-135 - plaintiffs’ discovery responses external send attachments fromains | ALERT: Email:cont Timila, 20 days is agreeable on Giertz and West. We will docket 20 days from today. While | wish not to respond to matters consistently raised that are well beyond the scope of a simple discovery extension request, | agree that we will do our best to work together and keep on track. Thank you and have a great weekend! Respectfully, John Scott Sanders Attorney WHITTEN BOARAGE 512 N. Broadway Avenue Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 jsanders(@whittenburragelaw.com www. whittenburragelaw.com If the recipient of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and unauthorized. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by return e-mail and delete this message from your computer. Thank you. From: Timila S. Rother <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2025 12:31 PM To: John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>; Amanda Finch <amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com> Cc: Blake Sonne <bsonne @whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Brad Beskin <bbeskin@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com> Subject: RE: Giertz v. State Farm; CJ-2025-1132; West v. State Farm; CJ-2025-135 - plaintiffs' discovery responses Hello John, We have no objection to a reasonable extension. You said 2-3 weeks but could we set a time certain? Maybe 20 days? | EXHIBIT a"}, {"d": 3, "p": 27, "t": "But, I do want to note to Blake and Hannah that I believe these extension courtesies need to be more mutual. While I appreciate that the CLUE hearing was moved due to Lance’s absence and that similar courtesies have been given, in response to my specific query, you have taken the position that noticed depositions will not be postponed if a Motion to Quash is filed absent an order from the Court. I know you all have said you will work with us on dates but these wide-ranging corporate notices will require court guidance and insistence that such occur on an expedited basis across multiple cases while we agree to 20 day extensions on discovery responses is not equitable. In short, you all are issuing notices, without prior date discussion, for about 30 days out and then insisting that we have it ruled upon or appear at the deposition. Thus, we have about 30 days to confer, file a motion and get a hearing and ruling, all the while preparing witnesses for deposition. In contrast, we have been agreeing to 20 day (or longer) extensions on top of the 33 days you have already to respond. Thus, you have 53 days to respond to basic discovery. Reggie called me earlier today mistakenly thinking I had objected to an extension request when it was a different firm. I told him on that call that, while J intended to agree to this extension, I did not think the courtesies were mutual, though J acknowledged cooperation on hearing dates and that I would be further flagging this issue. Hopefully we can work to keep all of this on track with mutual courtesies where needed, without any of us causing unnecessary fire drills or unnecessary delay. Thanks, Timila O CROW E oe _ core Be DUNLEVY simitas. Rother Sharehoider/Director 405.235.7757 ATTORNETS ANG: COUNBELOARG AT LAW Alin Mune Member \\) ¢ Chanihers 4t] RANKEOW XY« usa e P2025 ## rs Timda Rother This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or other privileges or protections. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read if. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you. From: John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2025 1:14 PM To: Timila S. Rother <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com>; Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>; Amanda Finch <amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com> Cc: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Brad Beskin <bbeskin@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com> Subject: Giertzv. State Farm; CJ-2025-1132; Westv. State Farm; CJ-2025-135- plaintiffs' discovery responses Be.cautious Timila,"}, {"d": 3, "p": 28, "t": "We are working through discovery responses in both of the Giertz and West cases. These are both newly remanded, have no Scheduling Order entered, and both have Motions to Dismiss pending hearings on October 8 and October 15. Additional time on these would be greatly appreciated. Would you be agreeable to 2-3 weeks for an extension? Thank you. Respectfully, John Scott Sanders Attorney WHITTEN BURRAGE, 512 N. Broadway Avenue Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: Facsimile: (405) 516-7800 (405) 516-7859 jsanders(@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com If the recipient of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and unauthorized. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by return e-mail and delete this message from your computer. Thank you."}, {"d": 3, "p": 29, "t": "> lee From: peas => *° Timila S: Rother Sent: To: Saturday, October 18, 2025 10:37 AM John Sanders; Paige Masters; Debra Lawson Ce: Subject: Reggie N. Whitten; Michael Burrage; Blake Sonne; Hannah Whitten; Brad Burgess; colby@burgess-hightower.com; Jake Denne; Brad Beskin; Karen Stratton RE: West v. State Farm - Plaintiffs’ Responses to RFAs Attachments: RE: Giertz v. State Farm; CJ-2025-1132; West v. State Farm; CJ-2025-135 - plaintiffs’ discovery responses Good Morning John, Thank you for the RFA responses. Per the attached email, we agreed to a 20 day extension for all responses, which you indicated on the attached that you would calendar for 20 days from September 26; thus October 16. On October 17\", we received only the RFA responses and no responses to interrogatories or document requests and no explanation or timeline. Also, we have asked for deposition dates for the Plaintiffs and have received no response. Therefore, please 1) provide the full discovery responses at least by Wednesday, October 22 and 2) please also at that time provide deposition dates for the Wests. Thank you, Timila Cc R OW E Timila S. Rother DU NLEVY 405.238.7757 1B ena enee Shareholder/Director ATTORNEY'S AND QOUNBELORS AT LAW Aloutnd Member \\ g Chattbers RANKEOIN é S usa J * 2058 Timlle Rother This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or other privileges or protections. if you believe that it has been sent fo you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you. From: John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 4:59 PM To: Timila S. Rother <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com>; Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>; Debra Lawson <debra.jawson@crowedunlevy.com> Ce: Reggie N, Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Brad Burgess <brad@burgess-hightower.com>; colby@burgess-hightower.com; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Brad Beskin <bbeskin@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com> Subject: West v. State Farm - Plaintiffs' Responses to RFAs JALERT: Email contains attachments from external Counsel, sendr. EXHIBIT 3"}, {"d": 3, "p": 30, "t": "Please see attached Plaintiffs’ Responses to State Farm’s RFAs. Thank you. Respectfully, John Scott Sanders Attorney -WHITIEN BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Avenue Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com If the recipient of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and unauthorized. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by return e-mail and delete this message from your computer. Thank you."}, {"d": 3, "p": 31, "t": "CROWE DUNLEVY Timila §. Rother Dhecl Tel: (405) 238-7757 Umifa.rother@crowedunievy.com November 25, 2025 Via EMAIL & U.S. MAIL Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Re: West v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and Nancy Holcomb Insarance Agency, Inc., Case No. CJ-2025-135, District Court of Comanche County, State of Oklahoma Counsel, We served written interrogatories, document requests and requests for admissions on you in this case on August 29, 2025. You asked for and we agreed to a 20-day extension to October 16. We received Plaintiffs’ response to State Farm’s request for admissions on October 17, 2025. You did not also respond to State Farm’s interrogatories or document requests on the 16\" or 17\", and now almost 40 days later you still have not responded. Please provide those responses by December 3 or provide a time to meet and confer so that we may move to compel the responses, Additionally, by letters dated September 25, 2025 and October 23, 2025 we have asked you to provide the damage disclosures required by 12 O.S. § 3226(A)(2). This is a separate disclosure independent of the discovery requests and not negated by the discovery responses (which we do not have in any event). Please separately provide those disclosures by December 3. or again provide a time to meet and confer in advance of a Motion to Compel. Also, we repeat our now three requests for deposition dates for the Wests —_ 6133409 A PROFESSIONAL GORPORATION OKLAHOMA GITY : Braniif Building » 324 N. Robinson Ave,, Ste. 100 + ONahoma City, OK 73102 DALLAS « HOUSTON + TULSA crowedunlevy.conm A EXHIBIT"}, {"d": 4, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA DISTR ouRt COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA December 15, 2025 3:30 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK NEIL and LACY WEST, ) Plaintiffs, ) Case Number CJ-2025-135 ) ) Vs. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. _ ) ) ©@S¢No. CJ-2025-135 ) NOTICE OF HEARING Please take notice that on the 26th day of February, 2026, at 10:00 o’clock a.m. a hearing will be held before Judge Grant Sheperd on Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Motion to Compel. Respectfully submitted, WM. (}. Walia Timila S. Rbther, OBA #14310 Paige A. Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OBA #34650 CROWE & DUNLEVY, P.C. Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC."}, {"d": 4, "p": 2, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 15th day of December, 2025, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Paige A. Misters 6151233"}, {"d": 5, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA ee” NEIL and LACY WEST, Saat December 29, 2025 3:56 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Smeg” Set Plaintiffs, VS. Case Number CJ-2025-135 CJ-2025-135 ee” eee Case No. Defendants. ae ee STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Smee” See ae i AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING Please take notice that on the 1 Sth day of January, 2026, at 3:00 o’clock p.m. a hearing will be held before Judge Grant Sheperd on Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Motion to Compel. i _ R¢spettfully submitted, i] i imila S, Rother, OBA #14310 Paige A.|Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OBA #34650 CROWE & DUNLEVY, P.C. Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 5, "p": 2, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 29th day of December, 2025, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Brad Burgess Colby Stephenson Burgess & Hightower 21 NW 44th Street, Room 201 Lawton, OK 73505 | lft NS ée fp. 3 ~__--Timila §, Rother 6153941 a ~"}, {"d": 6, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY FILED DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA WEST, December 31, 2025 9:42 AM Plaintiffs, VS. ) ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2025-135 ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB AGENCY, INC., Defendants. ) Judge Sheperd INS. _ ) ) ) ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, REQUEST FOR EXTENSION AS APPLICABLE, AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the first requirement for presenting discovery disputes to the Court—to meet and confer in person or by telephone to try and resolve them and then frame them correctly to the Court based on what remains at issue. 12 O.S. § 3237(A)(2). Their counsel are certainly aware of the requirement—they certified to the Court in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery filed on December 17, 2025 that they “in good faith, conferred with State Farm’s counsel in an effort to obtain the discovery at issue without court action.” Pls.’ Mot. to Compel Discovery at 1, Dec. 17, 2025. No such conference occurred in this case. Plaintiffs specifically did not comply with their § 3237 obligations, and instead continue to complicate rather than narrow the issues thereby burdening the Court and Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”). Given this disregard for the statute and the habit that is developing, State Farm moves to strike Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and asks the Court to order Plaintiffs’ counsel to comply with the Discovery Code. In the event that the Court does not strike the Motion, State Farm requests that its time to respond to the Motion to Compel be deferred until 10 days after the Court’s ruling on this Motion or as otherwise directed by the Court."}, {"d": 6, "p": 2, "t": "BACKGROUND This case involves a dispute between Plaintiffs and State Farm regarding the scope of damage to Plaintiffs’ house following a storm on or about June 15, 2023. Pet., | 40(a), Plaintiffs allege they submitted a claim to State Farm, and an adjuster inspected the property and “not[ed] damage to a portion of the ... gutters, window screens, outdoor fencing, and water damage to .... interior paint.” /d. at § 40(d). State Farm prepared an estimate “in the amount of $4,775.89 for the cost to repair and/or replace the damage.” Jd. at J 40(e). Plaintiffs disagreed with State Farm’s decision and requested a second inspection. /d. at { 40(f). They allege State Farm sent a different adjuster to conduct the inspection, who confirmed that there was no damage to the roof shingles but “slightly increased reported damage to the items identified in the first estimate,” resulting in a “payment of $1,274.67.” Id. at J 40(f)-(g). Plaintiffs contend their roof is a total loss and they are entitled to a total roof replacement that, according to their public adjuster, will cost approximately $51,000. Plaintiffs sued State Farm and their State Farm agent, the Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc., on February 28, 2025. State Farm removed the case to federal court on April 7, 2025, and the action was remanded on or around August 25, 2025. Two days later, on August 27, 2025, Plaintiffs served their First Set of Discovery Requests to State Farm, which included 30 interrogatories, 44 requests for production of documents, and 30 requests for admission (the “Discovery Requests”), seeking voluminous documents and vast amounts of irrelevant information that is in no way proportional to the needs of this case. Indeed, because Plaintiffs’ counsel simply copied and served discovery requests issued in other cases pending against State Farm, their Discovery Requests are untailored to this case. State Farm timely responded without requesting an extension on September 29, 2025. It objected to many of the excessive requests but responded to all case-specific requests, agreed to produce claim-specific information, including 2"}, {"d": 6, "p": 3, "t": "the claim file, policy, and underwriting file, and agreed to produce other institutional training and claim handling procedure documents subject to a protective order. State Farm attached to its discovery responses a proposed protective order, but Plaintiffs never responded to that proposed protective order. Plaintiffs counsel did not write State Farm with claimed deficiencies in State Farm’s discovery responses, nor did Plaintiffs’ counsel confer about the responses at any time. Instead, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel on December 17, 2025, certifying to the Court that a discovery conference had occurred in compliance with 12 O.S. § 3237(A)(2). This is one of many cases that the undersigned counsel has with counsel for Plaintiffs herein, and the discovery has been identical or nearly identical across all cases without regard to the facts or the forum. Counsel have in fact had discovery conferences about this same discovery in other cases, without resolution. However, there is no authority to support the notion that prior conferences in other cases excuse a conference here. Further, there are in fact points State Farm would make that should result in narrowing some requests in the Motion to Compel. Among the discovery requests Plaintiffs seek to compel are: e Interrogatory No. 3 seeking identification of cases where a total roof replacement was denied before litigation was filed but paid after. That did not occur here. e Interrogatory No. 14 seeking information about State Farm’s use of engineers on claims, There was no engineer engaged on this claim nor any argument that there should have been. These are only the most glaring examples of the requests on which there is no basis to move to compel (there are others), and which State Farm would have urged Plaintiffs’ counsel to withdraw in a conference, had it occurred. On December 22, 2025, counsel for State Farm emailed counsel for Plaintiffs advising of the failure to engage in a discovery conference, asking counsel to withdraw the motion, and offering to confer. See Email from Timila Rother to Pls.’ Counsel, Dec. 22, 2025, attached hereto 3"}, {"d": 6, "p": 4, "t": "as Ex, 1. As of the filing of this Motion, Plaintiffs had not responded. The Motion to Compel should be denied or stricken until the required conference under 12 0.8. § 3237(A)(2) occurs and the Motion to Compel is revised to at least eliminate matters on which Plaintiffs have no goodfaith basis to bring a Motion. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES Oklahoma law requires parties to make a “sincere attempt to resolve discovery differences” before seeking judicial intervention. Johnson v. Old Republic Ins. Co., No. 10-CV-460-THP-FHM, 2012 WL 1672995, at *1 (N.D. Okla. May 14, 2012); 12 O.S. § 3237(A)(2) (requiring that a motion to compel “include a statement that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer either in person or by telephone with the person or party failing to make the discovery in an effort to secure the information or material without court action); see also 12 O.S. § 3226.1(A) (obligating parties moving for an order authorizing discovery to certify that they have “in good faith conferred or attempted to confer ... with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action”).' This is for good reason: a genuine meet and confer process will narrow the issues, elucidate the parties’ positions, and ensure that time and expense are not unnecessarily wasted on things the parties could work out themselves. See Bush for Est. of Garland v. Bowling, No. 19-CV-98-GKF-FHM, 2020 WL 3073093, at *1 (N.D. Okla. June 10, 2020). Where, as here, a motion to compel is filed before the meet-and-confer process can be completed (or even started), the briefing presented to the Court is not meaningful and covers extraneous | This is even more true after the 2017 amendments to the Oklahoma Discovery Code, which were modeled after the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These amendments were designed to “make express the obligation of judges and lawyers to work cooperatively in controlling the expense and time demands of litigation,” and to “highlight[] the point that lawyers—though representing adverse parties—have an affirmative duty to work together, and with the court, to achieve prompt and efficient resolutions of disputes.” Roberts, C.J., “2015 YearEnd Report on the Federal Judiciary,” p. 6, Dec. 31, 2015, https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/201 5year-endreport.pdf. 4 available at"}, {"d": 6, "p": 5, "t": "issues, resulting “in nothing more than a waste of the Court’s time and resources.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. LaSalle Bank Nat. Ass’n, No. CIV-08-1125-C, 2010 WL 2594828, at *2 (W.D. Okla. June 22, 2010) (admonishing the parties for similar behavior and threatening to impose sanctions in the future). Thus, when faced with such premature motions, courts may either strike them or deny them altogether. See, e.g., United States v. Grose, No. CR-09-0191-F, 2014 WL 12687487, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 17, 2014) (striking motion to compel for failure to comply with meet-andconfer obligations, among other reasons). Plaintiffs have made no attempt, let alone a “sincere attempt,” to confer with counsel for State Farm about its discovery responses. Johnson, 2012 WL 1672995 at *1. Discovery conferences in identical cases without resolution do not satisfy the rule and regardless, there were, at a minimum, interrogatories and document requests that State Farm would have urged to be withdrawn because they have no good-faith basis, as the subject matter covered—post-litigation claim payments and engineers—do not exist in this case. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel raises vast discovery issues that violate all rules of proportionality and State Farm outright objects to many of them, though it has agreed to produce claim-specific documents and even more institutional training, policies, and procedures when a protective order is entered (the offer of which Plaintiffs have ignored). Given the volume of requests, the narrowing or elimination of even a few, as identified above, is meaningful. Plaintiffs’ counsel made no effort to do so, though they certify that they did. The Motion to Compel is premature, complicates rather than streamlines issues, and wholly fails to comply with the Discovery Code. It also represents an unacceptable pattern of unreasonable filings by Plaintiffs’ counsel, given that they have prematurely filed motions to compel on behalf of other plaintiffs in cases pending against State the Motion be stricken for failure to comply with Oklahoma statute. Farm. State Farm requests that"}, {"d": 6, "p": 6, "t": "In the event that the Court does not strike the Motion, State Farm requests that its time to respond be deferred until 10 days after the Court’s ruling on this Motion or as otherwise directed by the Court. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel should be stricken to be refiled if necessary after the process required by 12 O.S. § 3237(A)(2) has been completed. In the event that the Court does not strike the Motion, State Farm requests that its time to respond be deferred until 10 days after the Court’s ruling on this Motion or as otherwise directed by the Court. Respectfully submitted, Timila S, Rother, OBA #14310 Paige A. Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OBA #34650 CROWE & DUNLEVY, P.C. Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 6, "p": 7, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 31st day of December, 2025, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Brad Burgess Colby Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER 21 NW 44th Street, Room 201 Lawton, OK 73505 hinder Lebhy Timila S. Rother 6159567"}, {"d": 6, "p": 8, "t": "Paige Masters From: Timila S. Rother Sent: To: Monday, December 22, 2025 4:49 PM Blake Sonne; Paige Masters Ce: Amanda Finch; Debra Lawson; Karen Stratton; Brad Beskin; Hannah Whitten; James Warner; Jake Denne; Michael Burrage; Reggie N. Whitten; John Sanders; Colby Stephenson; brad@burgess-hightower.com;, Amanda Finch RE: West v. State Farm, No. CJ-2025-135, Comanche County District Court - Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Discovery Requests Subject: Counsel, I received your Motion to Compel in West on December 17. We did not have a discovery conference in West and so your certification in your motion is not true. The fact that we have not had much ability to compromise is not a reason to ignore the rule and tell the Court the requirements were met. There are things that can and should be narrowed in your motion including topics that are completely inapplicable — engineers and post-litigation claim payments, for example. Please withdraw your Motion to Compel and let me know when you would like to confer. Otherwise, we will file a Motion to Strike it. Thank you. Timila OR OWE DUNLEVY MA A Lex gh RES SCARIER LE, NNER Timila S. Rother | 408.235.7787 i s hare h al de 7 ADI Te ct OF ‘ Chambers ' Member Q RANKED IN ¢ x8 USA 2rl @2025% Timnila Rother This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or other privileges or protections. if you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you. EXHIBIT"}, {"d": 7, "p": 1, "t": "FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF COUNTY OKLAHOMA DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA January 7, 2026 4:46 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 NEIL and LACY WEST, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) vs. Case No. CJ-2025-135 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ ) AGENCY, INC., ) Defendants. ) ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH AND/OR STAY DEPOSITION NOTICE OF NICOLE MANDUCA AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”), pursuant to 12 O,S. §§ 3226(B)(2)(c), 3226(C), and 3226.1, respectfully moves for a protective order and to quash Plaintiffs’ December 22, 2025 Notice to Take Oral & Video Deposition of Nicole Manduca, a Claims Manager in State Farm’s Property & Casualty department, who had no involvement in the handling of Plaintiffs’ insurance claim or supervision of anyone involved (the “Manduca Notice”) (attached as Exhibit 1).! In issuing the Manduca Notice, Plaintiffs have failed to identify any claim-specific documents or testimony——or articulate any basis at all—that would justify their demand to depose Ms. Manduca. Plaintiffs have not even sought to depose the individuals who were actually involved in handling their insurance claim from which the Court and parties can evaluate whether the deposition of a senior State Farm employee uninvolved in this claim may be ' Plaintiffs issued Ms. Manduca’s deposition notice just days before the Christmas holiday on December 22, failing to provide the minimum 18 days of notice generally agreed upon with undersigned counsel, and ensuring that much of the notice period they did provide ran over the holidays. A Scheduling Order was just entered and there are no deadlines necessitating this haste. Notably this was only one of many similar notices and motions across several cases served during the holidays."}, {"d": 7, "p": 2, "t": "warranted, Thus, while State Farm disputes Ms. Manduca has any unique, relevant, or proportional information, taking her deposition is at the very least premature until and unless Plaintiffs can “describe with a reasonable degree of specificity, the information they hope to obtain and its importance to their case.” Schultz v. Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd., No. 4:15-CV-04160-LLP, 2016 WL 3149686, at *3 (D.S.D. June 3, 2016) (citing Cervantes v. Time, Inc., 464 F.2d 986, 994 (8th Cir. 1972)). They have not done so. Absent any such articulation, Plaintiffs’ demand to depose Ms. Manduca is based on speculation that she may possess some useful information. But “[mJere speculation that information might be useful will not suffice.” /d. BACKGROUND 1, This case arises from an insurance claim for damage Plaintiffs allege was sustained to their residence as the result of a storm on June 15, 2023. See Petition, { 40(a). 2. State Farm promptly and accurately investigated Plaintiffs’ insurance claim and applied the terms, conditions, and exclusions of Plaintiffs’ full replacement cost insurance policy (the “Policy”). State Farm found some minor hail damage to the more vulnerable components of the exterior of the house including gutters, downspouts, window screens and the stain on the fence. There was also some minor interior damage. However, there was no damage to the shingles. Plaintiffs were paid about $2,000 after the deductible. See generally, Pet. | 40. 3. Plaintiffs thereafter filed this lawsuit against State Farm and the Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. (“Holcomb Agency”). Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract and the duty of good faith and fair dealing, negligent procurement of insurance, and constructive fraud and misrepresentation. See Pet. {{ 45-79. Plaintiffs allege that State Farm “breached its contractual obligations under the terms and conditions of the Policy by failing to pay Plaintiffs all benefits owed under the terms and conditions of the Policy and for wrongfully underpaying and denying"}, {"d": 7, "p": 3, "t": "portions of the Claim” pursuant to an alleged scheme to underpay claims. /d. {{ 50-51. 4, With respect to the Holcomb Agency, the Petition identifies a laundry list of duties allegedly breached, as well as alleged misrepresentations and omissions, including allegations that the Agent procured illusory coverage and “mispresented the procurement of the comprehensive coverage Plaintiffs requested.” Id. {J 60-66, 73(d). 5, State Farm and the Holcomb Agency deny the allegations asserted against them. 6. To date, Plaintiffs have propounded on State Farm 59 requests for production of documents—seeking hundreds of thousands of pages of documents from State Farm—as well as 34 interrogatories (in excess of the limit of 30) and 30 requests for admission. 7. State Farm has also produced 964 pages of documents relating to Plaintiffs’ claim, including Plaintiffs’ insurance policy, and the claim and underwriting files. Significantly, Plaintiffs have not yet taken (or even attempted to schedule) the depositions of those individuals who actually evaluated Plaintiffs’ insurance claim, during which they could ask questions about the specific facts, events, and circumstances surrounding the claim handling decisions they are challenging. 8. As relevant here, Ms. Manduca is a Claims Manager in Property & Casualty for State Farm—several levels above the Claims Specialist whom Plaintiffs allege handled their insurance claim—and she was not involved in the investigation, evaluation, or decisions regarding Plaintiffs’ insurance claim. Indeed, as part of her role and responsibilities, Ms. Manduca does not evaluate individual insurance claims or have responsibility for substantively managing the adjustment of individual homeowners’ claims in Oklahoma. 9, Nonetheless, instead of taking the logical (and only defensible) step of exploring the knowledge of individuals close to the events underlying their insurance claim, Plaintiffs have noticed"}, {"d": 7, "p": 4, "t": "the deposition of Ms. Manduca. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITY I. THE MANDUCA NOTICE SHOULD BE QUASHED BECAUSE THE TOPICS ARE IRRELEVANT AND DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE NEEDS OF THE CASE. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has made clear that relevance—the threshold requirement for obtaining discovery—‘should be firmly applied.” Quinn v. City of Tulsa, 1989 OK 112, § 63, 777 P.2d 1331, 1342 (quoting Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979)), see also Nitzel v. Jackson, 1994 OK 49, 92 n.*, 879 P.2d 1222, 1223 n* (“Discovery is not without limitation. It must lead or tend to lead to relevant evidence.”). Information is “relevant” if it has a “tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” 12 O.S. § 2401. Relevance is not simply assumed: “[w]hen the request is overly broad, or relevance is not clear, the party seeking the discovery has the burden to show the relevance of the request.” Sfainsby v. Okla. ex rel. Okla. Health Care Auth,, No. CIV-21-1073-D, 2022 WL 1748263, at *1 (W.D. Okla. May 31, 2022). Nor does a “plaintiff’s broad theory of the case . . . necessarily justify broad discovery,” and courts should thus endeavor to “thwart fishing expeditions.” Willis v. Johnson, No. CIV-18-323-D, 2021 WL 8446071, at *2 (W.D. Okla. May 20, 2021); see also Ross v. Univ. of Tulsa, No. 14-CV-484TCK-PJC, 2015 WL 13622518, at *1 (N.D. Okla. Apr. 24, 2015). Moreover, as the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals has recognized, insurance cases should be handled according to their * Because “[t]he Oklahoma Discovery Code mirrors the Federal rules,” Meritor, Inc. v. State ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 2019 OK CIV APP 64, § 20 n.15, 451 P.3d 914, 922 n.15, Oklahoma courts often look to “discovery procedures in the federal rules when construing similar language in the Oklahoma Discovery Code,” Crest Infiniti, I, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, 4 2, 174 P.3d 996, 999."}, {"d": 7, "p": 5, "t": "circumstances. See City Nat’l Bank & Tr. Co. v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins., 1990 OK CIV APP 89, { 18, 804 P.2d 463, 469 (“[Blefore .. . bad faith may be submitted to the jury, the Trial Court must first determine, under the facts of the particular case ... whether [the] insurer’s conduct may be reasonably perceived as tortious.”). Proportionality is as critical as relevance to discoverability. The Oklahoma Discovery Code, like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure from which it is derived, requires that discovery must be “proportional to the needs of the case.” 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1)(a); Fed. R. Civ, P. 26(b)(1). In fact, “the proper scope of discovery is that which is both relevant to the claims or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the various factors.” Dodd v. Indian Health Care Res. Ctr. of Tulsa, Inc., No.24-CV-00327-SH, 2024 WL 4648150, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 1, 2024), The Oklahoma Supreme Court recently made clear that a trial court must specifically consider the proportionality of discovery requests as set forth in § 3226(B)(2)(c) before it may compel the production of documents. See Order, Werner Enters., Inc. v. Kirkland, No. 122, 385 (Okla. Sept. 24, 2024). The Oklahoma Supreme Court has cautioned that “pretrial discovery by depositions and interrogatories has a significant potential for abuse.” YWCA of Okla. City v. Melson, 1997 OK 81, { 24 n.41, 944 P.2d 304, 311 n.41. Accordingly, the Discovery Code requires a court to “limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed if it determines” that “the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by [§ 3226(B)(1)(a) regarding relevance and proportionality].” 12 | O.S. § 3226(B)(2)(c). As such, this Court may issue, “for good cause shown ... any order which 3 These factors include: (1) the importance of the issues at stake in the action; (2) the amount in controversy; (3) the parties’ relative access to relevant information; (4) the parties’ resources; (5) the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues; and (6) whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. See 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1)(a)."}, {"d": 7, "p": 6, "t": "justice requires to protect a party or person” from “oppression or undue delay, burden or expense,” including “that the discovery not be had” or “that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions.” 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(1). Here, as set forth below, the Court should quash the Manduca Notice because it seeks irrelevant information that is designed to harass and impose unreasonable burdens and expense on State Farm, and it is disproportionate to the needs of the case. A. Plaintiffs Have Not Demonstrated the Relevance of the Testimony They Seek. Plaintiffs have not established that the deposition testimony of Ms. Manduca would be relevant to their claims. Nor can they. The Petition makes clear that Plaintiffs are complaining about Defendants’ purported conduct in connection with Plaintiffs’ Policy and insurance claim—.e., the terms and application of the Policy and what Defendants said (or did not say) to Plaintiffs.’ But Ms. Manduca did not assist Plaintiffs in procuring the Policy’ or have any involvement in the investigation, evaluation, or decisions made by State Farm on Plaintiffs’ insurance claim. And Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Ms. Manduca has information regarding any of the claims asserted in their Petition. Indeed, as a Claims Manager, Ms. Manduca does not have responsibility for substantively managing the adjustment of individual insurance claims. She has a different role 4 See, e.g., Thurston y. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2020 OK 105, § 22, 478 P.3d 415, 421 (refusing to waive insured’s duty to read his insurance policy and rejecting insured’s argument to instead apply his “reasonable expectations” of what the policy covered); Estrada v. Kriz, 2015 OK CIV APP 19, { 15, 345 P.3d 403, 408 (stating that “an averment of fraud only exists where there is some ‘false suggestion or suppression of the truth’... .”). > Although Plaintiffs bring a negligent procurement claim against the Holcomb Agency, the crux of Plaintiffs’ claims do not relate to the underwriting, sale, marketing, or binding of the Policy. Rather, the Petition makes clear it is not the Policy or any of its terms about which Plaintiffs complain; instead, Plaintiffs complain of State Farm’s claim decision."}, {"d": 7, "p": 7, "t": "and is several levels above those who actually handled Plaintiffs’ insurance claim—1.e., those persons who could testify as to the investigation that led to State Farm’s claim determination Plaintiffs’ attempt to depose an individual with no involvement in their insurance claim suggests Plaintiffs are trying to advance their fictional theories regarding a purported enterprisewide “scheme” to deny policyholders’ insurance claims. Pet. § 51. But such far-reaching allegations—which Plaintiffs’ counsel has copied in identical fashion in numerous cases—do not justify deposing Ms. Manduca absent a logical, coherent showing that a purported scheme had an impact on Plaintiffs’ insurance claim, and that Ms. Manduca herself has specific knowledge of that impact on the single at-issue insurance claim. Johnson, 2021 WL 8446071, at *2 (stating that a “plaintiff’s broad theory of the case does not necessarily justify broad discovery”). Plaintiffs cannot establish that the testimony they seek from Ms. Manduca is relevant to this dispute, and the Court should quash the Manduca Notice for this reason alone—at minimum, until Plaintiffs have deposed those persons with actual involvement in the handling of Plaintiffs’ insurance claim and Plaintiffs show any ability to tie their insurance claim result to their broader scheme allegations. To the extent Plaintiffs seek to depose Ms. Manduca based on her involvement with the Wind/Hail Fire Model Enhancement (“FME”}—an effort State Farm first undertook in 2020 to improve consistency in handling wind/hail claims through training and documentation, and which addressed both overpayment and underpayment of insurance claims—they have failed to articulate a connection between the FME and the claim decision they challenge in this lawsuit. The claims here involve a dispute as to whether and to what extent a part of Plaintiffs’ house was damaged, and Plaintiffs have not explained how any testimony regarding the FME that Ms. Manduca could provide is probative of the reasonableness of State Farm’s claim handling and decision under the facts of this case, or whether Plaintiffs’ property, and which parts, were in fact damaged by wind"}, {"d": 7, "p": 8, "t": "and/or hail. Thus, while State Farm disputes Ms. Manduca has any unique, relevant, or proportional information, taking her deposition is at the very least premature until and unless Plaintiffs can demonstrate that the FME is relevant to their claims. B. The Deposition of Ms. Manduca Is Not Proportional to the Needs of the Case. Even assuming Plaintiffs could satisfy their burden of showing relevance, the Court should quash the Manduca Notice because Ms. Manduca’s testimony is disproportionate to the needs of the case, See 12 O.S. §§ 3226(B)(I)(a), 3226(B)(2)(c)(3).° This is a single homeowner’s case involving a dispute over damages to a single Oklahoma property, yet Plaintiffs are demanding that Ms. Manduca prepare for and appear for deposition despite never touching the insurance claim at issue. And as noted above, Plaintiffs have not deposed anyone with personal knowledge of the facts that they need to prosecute their claims. The Manduca Notice is an improper fishing expedition that this Court should quash. Evans y, Allstate Insurance Co. is instructive. In Evans, the plaintiffs sued Allstate, alleging it improperly denied their fire loss claim, and sought to depose three of its officers. See 216 F.R.D. 515, 516 (N.D. Okla. 2003). Allstate contended that the corporate officers whom the plaintiffs sought to depose had no unique personal knowledge of the matters at issue and that the requests were burdensome, irrelevant, and propounded solely for the purpose of harassment and abuse. Jd. at 518. Allstate also stated that the plaintiffs had taken the depositions of ail adjusters and supervisors ° See also Murphy y. Deloitte & Touche Group Ins. Plan, 619 F.3d 1151, 1163 (10th Cir. 2010) (“Rule 26(b), although broad, has never been a license to engage in an unwieldy, burdensome, and speculative fishing expedition.”); Chrisman v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Oklahoma Cnty., No. CIV-17-1309-D, 2020 WL 7033965, at *3 (W.D. Okla, Nov. 30, 2020) (“While the scope of discovery is broad, it is not unlimited and is further defined by proportionality considerations. A plaintiffs broad theory of the case does not necessarily justify broad discovery. Further, courts should thwart fishing expeditions.”) (internal cites omitted),"}, {"d": 7, "p": 9, "t": "involved in the handling of the plaintiffs’ insurance claim. /d. In response, the plaintiffs argued the depositions were necessary to prove their theory that a pervasive practice of inadequate supervision over Allstate claims adjusters existed within the corporation. /d. Considering both parties’ positions, the court found that even if the plaintiffs had a right to explore those themes, Allstate had already provided adequate information, or that the information could be obtained from other sources without the depositions of the officers sought. /d. Accordingly, the Northern District granted Allstate’s motion for a protective order prohibiting the depositions of the officers. /d. Like the officers in Evans, Ms. Manduca has no unique personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ insurance claim. Indeed, Ms. Manduca does not even manage those who were substantively involved in the investigation and determination of Plaintiffs’ insurance claim. To the extent Plaintiffs seek discovery regarding their allegations that the adjusters were influenced by some nefarious “scheme,” they should first test those theories via the individuals with knowledge of how Plaintiffs’ insurance claim was handled. Stated differently, this case presents an even easier factual scenario for the Court than Evans presented because, here, Plaintiffs have not deposed adjusters or supervisors with direct, substantive involvement in reaching the decision made for Plaintiffs’ insurance claim—a step which already had been exhausted in Evans but still was not sufficient to allow for the depositions of noninvolved managerial employees. Subjecting Ms. Manduca to a deposition based on mere speculation that she may have information not available from other sources exceeds the bounds of permissible discovery. Schultz, 2016 WL 3149686, at *3 (“Mere speculation that information might be useful will not suffice.”). At best, Ms. Manduca’s testimony would be cumulative of any testimony from those who actually handled Plaintiffs’ insurance claim."}, {"d": 7, "p": 10, "t": "Plaintiffs’ attempt to depose Ms. Manduca before deposing (or seeking to depose) a single member of the claims personnel who were directly responsible for the handling of Plaintiffs’ insurance claim is regularly rejected by other courts and should be rejected here. Cf Todd v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, Inc., No. 219CVOO085JMSDLP, 2019 WL 8272621, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 13, 2019) (“Plaintiff has yet to take a deposition in this case, but desires to start that process at the top of the food chain with the former CEO of the Defendant’s parent company .. . . [WJhat the Plaintiff forgets, however, is that this case is limited to a single-plaintiff consumer protection matter regarding the handling of [Plaintiff’s] mortgage loan. This is not a nationwide collective action; if it were, deposing an executive may potentially be relevant, proportional, and permissible.”).’ Plaintiffs have not established that Ms. Manduca had any connection to, or has any knowledge of, the handling of their insurance claim. See Evans, 216 F.R.D. at 518-19. Plaintiffs have available to them a much less intrusive and burdensome means to prosecute their claims, and until they avail themselves of that option and demonstrate what—if any—unique, relevant knowledge Ms. Manduca may have relating to their claims, the Court should not allow her deposition to proceed. WHEREFORE, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion to quash the Manduca Notice and for a protective order preventing the deposition of Nicole Manduca. Respectfully submitted, yt MN Lib) p u Y Timila S. Rdther, OBA #14310 Paige A, Masters, OBA #31142 7 Even though Oklahoma courts have not adopted the apex doctrine regarding high-level managerial employees, the Court retains its statutory ability and duty to prevent discovery which causes “annoyance, harassment, embarrassment, oppression or undue delay, burden or expense” under 12 O.S, § 3226(C). That is, even though Ms. Manduca’s deposition is not categorically barred, the Court still may quash the Manduca Notice based on the particular circumstances of this case, as well as the location of the parties within the suit’s overall progression. 10"}, {"d": 7, "p": 11, "t": "CROWE & DUNLEVY, PC Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7700 Facsimile: (405) 239-6651 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 7, 2025, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was sent via U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the following persons: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 44th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 Attorneys for Plaintiffs huge 0 oatuo 11"}, {"d": 7, "p": 12, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, Plaintiffs, Vv, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB AGENCY, INC., Case No. CJ-2025-135 Honorable Grant Sheperd INS. Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF INTENTION TO TAKE ORAL & VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF NICOLE MANDUCA TO: All Defendants and their counsel of record. Deponent: Date: Time: Location: Nicole Manduca Bloomington, IL January 8, 2025 9:30am CST State Farm Corporate Office Bloomington, IL OR Professional Reporters 511 Couch Drive, #100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 OR County in which deponent currently resides as agreed upon between the parties. Method: In person PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230(C), Plaintiffs will take the oral deposition of Nicole Manduca before a Certified Court Reporter or other officer authorized to EXHIBIT Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Kathy Ress Page | of 3 | \""}, {"d": 7, "p": 13, "t": "administer oaths, at the date, time, and location set forth above, and will continue from day to day until completed. This deposition will be recorded by stenographic and audiovisual means. Counsel for Defendant are invited to attend and cross-examine. All objections made at the time of any examination to the qualifications of the officer taking the examination, to the manner of the taking of the deposition, to the evidence presented, to the conduct of any party, or to any other aspect of the proceeding shall be noted by the officer upon the record of the deposition, but the examination shall proceed with the testimony being taken subject to the objections made. Any objection during the examination must be stated concisely and in a non-argumentative manner and non-suggestive manner. Dated: December 22, 2025 Respectfully submitted, Blake Sonne Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No, 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders(@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com &"}, {"d": 7, "p": 14, "t": "Brad Burgess Colby Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 44\" St. Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 580-355-8920 580-355-8999 (fax) brad@burgess-hightower.com colby@burgess-hightower.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | hereby certify that on the 22\"¢ day of December 2025, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Timila S. Rother Paige A. Masters CROWE & DUNLEVY, PC Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige. masters@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Bloke Senne"}, {"d": 8, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) FILED Plaintiffs, ) ) DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA ) y January 20, 2026 4:41 PM ) ‘ ) ) ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Case No. CJ-2025-135 Case Number CJ-2025-135 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS.) AGENCY, INC., ) Defendants. ) ) NOTICE OF SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE AND PERMIT INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS Please take notice that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C)(2), a subpoena will be served on Coastal Claims Services, LLC, c/o Registered Agents Inc., 7901 4th Street North, Suite 300, St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 to produce and permit inspection and copying of documents. Said inspection and copying will take place on February 11, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in the offices of Crowe & Dunlevy, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102. Coastal Claims Services, LLC is directed, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(A)(1}(b), to produce the documents listed on Exhibit A to the subpoena served upon it. A copy of the subpoena is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The Subpoena states that the witness need not appear in person, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C)(2)(a). Respectfully Submitted, AY Ze. TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE & DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102"}, {"d": 8, "p": 2, "t": "(405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 20th day of January, 2026, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, to: Reggie Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S, Sanders Jake Denne Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 44th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 6054701 pre."}, {"d": 8, "p": 3, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) ) v. ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ ) AGENCY, INC., ) Defendants, ) ) SUBPOENA TO COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC. TO PRODUCE AND PERMIT INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS TO: Coastal Claims Services, LLC c/o Registered Agents Inc, 7901 4th Street North, Suite 300 St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 GREETINGS - You are hereby commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of documents in the possession, custody and contro! of Coastal Claims Services, Inc. in the offices of Crowe & Dunlevy, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 on February 11, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. You need not appear in person, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C) (2)(a). The documents which shall be produced are described on the attached Exhibit A. In order to allow objections to the production of documents and things to be filed, you should not produce them until the date specified in this subpoena, and if an objection is filed, until the court rules on the objection. Hereof fail not under penalty of law. Issued this 20th day of January, 2026. TIMILA S, ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M., FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE & DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 EXHIBIT |"}, {"d": 8, "p": 4, "t": "(405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 6054702"}, {"d": 8, "p": 5, "t": "Exhibit A to Subpoena to Coastal Claims Services, Inc. . All documents, paper or electronic (including visual or audio recordings, photographs, etc.), relating to the house at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, Oklahoma 73505, now or previously owned and/or occupied by Neil and/or Lacy West (the “House”), and any inspections, estimates, evaluations, assessment, repairs, or other work or analysis by Coastal Claims Services, Inc., or any related entity, of that House, and all communications with any person relating thereto. . All agreements and written communications of any kind, paper or electronic, including emails and text messages, with Neil and/or Lacy West or anyone acting on their behalf (to include contractors or relatives) related to the House, to include hiring an attorney to represent them in recovering benefits for wind or hail damage under their State Farm policy or filing a lawsuit against State Farm, and all documents received from or provided to Neil and/or Lacy West or anyone acting on their behalf. . All written communications and agreements, paper or electronic, with Whitten Burrage, or any of the lawyers from the law firm, related to the House, or Neil and/or Lacy West (or anyone acting on their behalf), and all documents, including visual or audio recordings, photographs, etc., received from or provided to the law firm or lawyers relating to the House or Neil and/or Lacy West (or anyone acting on their behalf). . All written communications, paper or electronic, including emails and text messages, with any homeowner, law firm, attorney, or legal representative, regarding hiring an attorney to represent a homeowner in recovering benefits for wind or hail damage under their insurance policy from January 1, 2022 to the present."}, {"d": 9, "p": 1, "t": "FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT oy. cue OUNTY. OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA January 27, 2026 5:03 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK aga! Case Number CJ-2025-135 Plaintiffs, Defendants. Seaaatae”—a ieee Newer See STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Case No. CJ- 2025-135 Honorable Grant Sheperd aate ett cat! Vv. tag mat! NEIL and LACY WEST DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL"}, {"d": 9, "p": 2, "t": "Hail in Oklahoma is unpredictable; its size, associated wind speeds, density, directionality and a host of other issues inform the possibility of damage. It does not damage all property in the same way, and it certainly does not require a new roof every time it falls. But, Plaintiffs’ premise is that in each instance where the insureds or their contractor assert that the roof is totaled by hail and State Farm disagrees, State Farm is applying a scheme to deny claims. This also disregards the thousands and thousands of roof replacements State Farm pays for every year and the fact that Oklahomans can switch insurers if dissatisfied—yet State Farm remains the leading home insurer in Oklahoma. The point here is that Plaintiffs’ counsel cannot just declare the presence of a scheme because Plaintiffs’ roof claim was not paid and then obtain discovery based on that declaration and a misconstruction of documents. Plaintiffs’ counsel improperly seeks to leverage discovery ordered in a different case, asking this Court to substitute that judge’s ruling for its own judgment. Many judges—when confronted with such broad discovery—-would likely disagree with its vast scope and impose meaningful limits as required by the Oklahoma Discovery Code, which begins with the requirement that it “shall be construed, administered and employed by courts and parties to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.” 12 O.S. § 3225. Those words have meaning. Discovery must be proven, by the party requesting it, to be relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiffs’ demands here fail these requirements. This dispute centers on whether State Farm should have totaled Plaintiffs’ roof in the amount of $51,000 (according to a public adjuster estimate) and whether the failure to do so was bad faith. Yet, Plaintiffs seek vast amounts of irrelevant, disproportionate and/or burdensome information, often dating back 16 years. Plaintiffs move to compel on topics that are obviously inapplicable (engineering involvement and post-litigation claim payments), and otherwise rely on"}, {"d": 9, "p": 3, "t": "conclusory statements and speculative “pattern and practice” theories built on bad assumptions and false claims that the requested documents have been produced in other cases.! But “the mere fact that a plaintiff offers a ‘broad theory of the case’ does not automatically justify equally broad discovery, ‘unless the discovery is relevant to the plaintiff’s actual claims or defenses.” Ross v. Univ. of Tulsa, No. 14-CV-484-TCK-PJC, 2015 WL 13622518, at *1 (N.D. Okla. Apr. 24, 2015). Plaintiffs are entitled to dispute State Farm’s claim decision and to undertake discovery to attempt to prove the decision was wrong or in bad faith (State Farm denies both); but they are constrained by the Discovery Code. Tellingly, Plaintiffs fail to cite any claim-specific documents or depositions that would justify the discovery. Nor could they—because they have not taken a single deposition of anyone who worked on the claim, and only 10 of their 104 discovery requests are claim specific at all. Indeed, the discovery at issue is not about Plaintiffs, it is an agenda of pressure to induce settlement rather than the expense of this burdensome litigation. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs reported this claim on July 28, 2023, six weeks after the claimed June 15, 2023 date of loss. State Farm then wrote and called the insureds multiple times about their claim but were unable to reach them until September 16, 2023, even though they allege this was a devastating storm that destroyed their roof. See generally, Pet. 40. State Farm inspected the house on September 28, 2023 and estimated for damage to gutters, downspouts and window screens, as well ' Contrary to Plaintiffs’ claims, not all the requested documents have been produced in other cases, Only a limited subset was ordered in a few forums, were not tested in other cases, and State Farm objected to their proportionality and relevance at that time. Now, two years later, they are even less relevant and proportional. 2 Willis v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., No. CV-22-349-SLP, 2023 WL 4711080, at *2 (W.D. Okla, July 24, 2023) (denying discovery into other insureds on relevance and proportionality grounds because “the importance of other insured’s claim letters in resolving the issues in Plaintiffs case is low.”). Oklahoma courts look to “the federal rules when construing similar language in the Oklahoma Discovery Code.” Crest Infiniti, I], LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, { 2, 174 P.3d 996, 999."}, {"d": 9, "p": 4, "t": "as to stain the fence and repaint one bedroom. The damage totaled $4,775.89, which was reduced for depreciation and the deductible. Almost six months later, in March 2024, an Oklahoma roofing contractor requested a second inspection attaching photos of believed damage, followed months later by demands, photos and an estimate in the amount of $51,696.31 from a public adjusting firm in Florida. State Farm reviewed the photos but could not match the public adjuster photos with the other photos of the insureds’ roof, including specifically a beaten-up rain cap which the public adjuster had submitted as evidence of extensive damage missed by State Farm. State Farm called the public adjuster in September 2024 and asked for photos to show where that rain cap existed on the insured house, but the public adjuster did not provide the requested information and or indeed contact again at all. The lawsuit was then filed on February 28, 2025 (well outside the one year required by the Policy). Plaintiffs sued State Farm for breach of contract and the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and the Holcomb Agency for negligent procurement of insurance, and constructive fraud and misrepresentation. See Pet. §{ 45-79. Plaintiffs allege that State Farm breached its contract and acted in bad faith pursuant to an alleged scheme to underpay claims. Jd. §[ 50-51. With respect to the Holcomb Agency, in sum, Plaintiffs allege that State Farm and the Agency are engaged in a purported, enterprise-wide “scheme” to deny claims through inter alia, various claims handling “tactics” wherein State Farm “misattributes” damage to non-covered losses and fails to disclose this “scheme” at policy inception or renewal. /d. [ 60-66, 73(d). Plaintiffs have issued 44 requests for production (“RFPs”), 30 interrogatories (“Rogs”), and 30 requests for admission. State Farm promptly produced all claim specific information, including the Policy and the Claim and underwriting files. It agreed to produce additional documents — training materials, quality plans and personnel files (employee shields) upon entry of"}, {"d": 9, "p": 5, "t": "a protective order. Plaintiffs have not yet taken (or even asked to schedule) the depositions of individuals who actually evaluated Plaintiffs’ insurance claim, during which they could ask questions about the claim handling decisions they are challenging. State Farm served Plaintiffs with its Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Discovery on July 25, 2025 (Ex. 1). Plaintiffs took no action thereon until filing this Motion to Compel on December 17, 2025—before meeting and conferring with State Farm—and at the same time Plaintiffs’ counsel filed Motions to Compel the same discovery in five other cases, At State Farm’s insistence, the parties conferred in January 2026, at which time State Farm offered compromises on some requests (see e.g. Chart, Ex. 8), but no compromise was reached, State Farm served a proposed protective order with its discovery responses, but Plaintiffs have not responded. Il. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES A. The Oklahoma Discovery Standard The Oklahoma Supreme Court has made clear that relevance—the threshold requirement for obtaining discovery—“should be firmly applied.” See Quinn v. City of Tulsa, 1989 OK 112, 777 P.2d 1331, 1342 (quoting Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979)); see also Nitzel v. Jackson, 1994 OK 49, 879 P.2d 1222, n* (“Discovery is not without limitation. It must lead or tend to lead to relevant evidence.”). Relevance is not simply assumed: \"[w]hen the request is overly broad, or relevance is not clear, the party seeking the discovery has the burden to show the relevance of the request.” Stainsby v. Okla. ex rel. Okla, Health Care Auth. No. CIV-21-1073-D, 2022 WL 1748263, *1 (W.D. Okla. May 31, 2022); see also Chrisman v. Bd. Of Cnty. Comm'rs of OKa. Cnty., No. CIV-17-1309-D, 2020 WL 7033965, at *4 (W.D, Okla. Nov. 30, 2020) (“Plaintiff, as the party seeking the discovery, has the burden of demonstrating relevance here because relevance ‘is not readily apparent.’”). Accordingly, courts routinely deny discovery that is facially overbroad and irrelevant, such as when discovery requests “sweep in... all manner of organizational 4"}, {"d": 9, "p": 6, "t": "documents.” In re Kidd, No. 3:20-CV-0800 (KAD), 2020 WL 5594122, at *11 (D. Conn. Sept. 18, 2020); see also Conservation L, Found, Inc. y. All-Star Transportation, LLC, No. 3:21-CV-00201 (JBA), 2022 WL 16901999 (D. Conn. Nov. 11, 2022) (“[T]he Court does not need an affidavit to know that, in asking for substantially all information and documents related to the defendants’ vehicles, real estate, operations, employee job responsibilities, and environmental compliance efforts .. [plaintiff] has requested production of a significant percentage of all the documents the defendants created over the past seven years.”) (citing In re Kidd, 2020 WL 5594122, at *11), Nor does a “plaintiff's broad theory of the case ... necessarily justify broad discovery,” and courts should thus endeavor to “thwart fishing expeditions.” Willis v. Johnson, No. CIV-18-323D, 2021 WL 8446071, at *2 (W.D. Okla. May 20, 2021); see also Ross, WL 13622518, at *1. As the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals has recognized, insurance cases should be handled according to their circumstances. See City Nat’l. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Jackson Nat. Life Ins., 1990 OK CIV APP 89, J 18, 804 P.2d 463,468 (“[B]efore ... bad faith may be submitted to the jury, the Trial Court must first determine, under the facts of the particular case ... whether [the] insurer’s conduct may be reasonably perceived as tortious.”). The Oklahoma Discovery Code, like the Federal Rules from which it is derived, provides that discovery must be “proportional to the needs of the case.” 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1)(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Oklahoma Supreme Court has made clear that a trial court wiust consider the proportionality of requests before it may compel production. See Ex. 2, Order, Werner Enters., Inc. v. Kirkland, No. 122,385 (Okla. Sept. 24, 2024). “The proper scope of discovery is that which is both relevant to the claims or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the various factors.’ Dodd v. Indian Health Care Res. Ctr. of Tulsa, Inc., No. 24-CV-00327-SH, 2024 3 These factors include: (1) the importance of the issues at stake in the action; (2) the amount in controversy; (3) the parties’ relative access to relevant information; (4) the parties’ resources; (5) the importance of the 5"}, {"d": 9, "p": 7, "t": "WL 4648150, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 1, 2024) (emphasis in original). The Court’s analysis must go beyond determining whether specific requests seek relevant information. First Horizon Nat’l Corp. v. Houston Cas. Co., No. 2:15-CV-2235-SHL-DKV, 2016 WL 5869580, at *7 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 5, 2016) (“{E]ven if such information may be considered remotely relevant, ... its production would be unduly burdensome and disproportionate to this litigation.”). Instead, the Court must assess the importance of the discovery to the resolution of the disputes at issue and compare the potential benefit to the burden and expense.‘ Here, the Petition makes clear that Plaintiffs are complaining about Defendants’ purported conduct in connection with Plaintiffs’ Policy and claim—i.e., the terms and application of the Policy and what Defendants said (or did not say) to Plaintiffs. None of the disputed discovery requests shed any light on these issues. Instead, Plaintiffs seek discovery relating to “institutional” issues with no apparent connection to their claims in this case.° Further, the discovery requests define the “Relevant Time Period” as “January 1, 2010 to present,” but never use this term anywhere else in the requests (Ex. 1)—meaning Plaintiffs are seeking information and documents either for a 16-year or an unlimited time period. While Plaintiffs may argue the requested discovery relates to the enterprise-wide “scheme” alleged in the Petition, such far-reaching allegations— which Plaintiffs’ counsel has copied in identical fashion in numerous cases—do not justify the overly broad and burdensome discovery sought here and they have not shown it does. discovery in resolving the issues; and (6) whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. See 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1)(a). 4 Compare 12 O.S. § 2401 (defining relevant evidence) with 12 O.S. § 3226(B){1){a) (discussing proportionality factors). 5 State Farm objects to the requests to the extent they seek confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or protected by the attorney-client or other legal privileges."}, {"d": 9, "p": 8, "t": "B. Punitive Damages and Scheme Allegations are not Sufficient Plaintiffs’ bare-bones bad faith allegations do not justify their expansive requests for discovery about, inter alia, State Farm’s enterprise-wide operations, training and quality programs, and dealings with other insureds.° The Court must limit discovery based on the claims and defenses of the specific case at issue, not on allegations of other wrongdoings. E.g., Koch v. Koch Indus., Inc. 203 F.3d 1202, 1238 (10th Cir. 2000). No aspect of Plaintiffs’ Motion shows how the specific facts surrounding the adjustment of their claim—i.e., the “specific [alleged] wrongdoing” here—are an extension of any “scheme.” Jd. As stated in Morecroft v. Farmers Ins. Co., No. 09-CV-175-TCK-FHM, 2010 WL 1257579, at #2 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 25, 2010): Although relevancy is broadly defined for discovery purposes, it is not without bounds. The broad scope of discovery does not give a Plaintiff pursuing a bad faith claim unfettered license to examine all data regardless of how attenuated a relationship that data may have to the decision-making pertaining to Plaintiff's... claim. (emphasis added). In Morecroft, the court denied the plaintiff’s request for policies related to the insurer’s loss ratio for Oklahoma motor vehicle claims from 2004 to 2008, finding the burden and expense outweighed any likely benefit to the plaintiff. The Court noted: “Aside from expressing the theory that there may be such a connection, plaintiff has not provided the court with any information to support his theory or explain how it is applicable to this case.” /d. at 2. The same deficiency exists here. Plaintiffs offer no evidence from the documents State Farm has produced linking the handling of their claim to the alleged scheme, nor have they deposed anyone involved in the claim handling to establish such a connection. Instead, Plaintiffs rely on speculation modeled after allegations their counsel routinely makes against insurance companies and promote on their website.’ 6 On November 25, 2025, in the cases Hursh y, State Farm, et al., Case No. CJ-2025-2626, and Wong-Faust vy. State Farm, et al., Case No. CJ-2025-1675, the Hon. Amy Palumbo granted motions to compel discovery like that sought against State Farm here. State Farm respectfully submits that these decisions were erroneous and hold no precedential value in this Court. Motions to reconsider were filed on December 23, 2025. 7 See Whitten Burrage Law, https://www.whittenburragelaw.com/bad-faith-roofing-claims/. 7"}, {"d": 9, "p": 9, "t": "Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim also does not justify the invasive discovery sought. The real dispute at issue concerns the extent of shingle damage to Plaintiffs’ roof, and Plaintiffs have not deposed any fact witnesses to challenge State Farm’s judgment that no further damage existed. Thus, the notion that a punitive damages claim will reach the jury lacks any factual basis—only Plaintiffs’ speculation about an invented scheme. Further, State Farm cannot be penalized multiple times for the same alleged conduct: The trial court shall reduce any award for punitive damages awarded pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph c of this paragraph [when an insurer has been found to have intentionally and with malice breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith with the insured] by the amount it finds the defendant or insurer has previously paid as a result of all punitive damage verdicts entered in any court of this state for the same conduct by the defendant or insurer. Any award of punitive damages under this subsection awarded in any manner other than as required in this subsection shall be void and reversible error. 23 O.S. § 9.1(C) (emphasis added). C. The Discovery Sought Is Overly Burdensome, Disproportionate, and Irrelevant. As an organizational tool, State Farm herewith submits a chart of the requests organized by subject-matter with objections and agreed production noted as its final exhibit, Ex. 8. Claims Training Requests (Rogs 5, 18, and 19; RFPs 6, 30, and 42). While Plaintiffs concede that what is “directly relevant” is “the training [State Farm] provides its claims handling personnel who handled the Claim,” Mot. at 8, they demand broad categories of temporally, geographically, and topically overbroad training materials that have no relevance to the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek resources used to train claims handlers nationwide on wind and hailstorm claims as well as policies for training adjusters nationwide on “functional 8 The fact that the Oklahoma Attorney General (“AG”) was granted leave to intervene in a different lawsuit (Hursh v. State Farm, et al., Case No. CJ-2025-2626) does not justify the requested discovery. As the AG essentially conceded, his request to intervene was based solely on allegations of a purported scheme in that plaintiff’s petition, the same unsupported allegations copied here, not based on an independent investigation. See Mot. at Ex. 8, AG Mot. at 2."}, {"d": 9, "p": 10, "t": "damage” definitions for roof claims and related coverage limits—all for at least 15 years, as well as Wind/Hail Claims Guidelines from January 1, 2019 to present (the “Claims Training Requests”). State Farm has agreed to produce the relevant portions of its claim handling procedures, specifically the Estimatics and Claim Handling Practices (“ECHP”)'°, that were utilized in adjusting Plaintiffs’ claim arising from the weather event on the date of loss at issue. State Farm also agrees to produce training transcripts for the individuals involved in the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim, as well as the corresponding and relevant training materials from those transcripts.!! This is more than enough for Plaintiffs to fulfill their purported objective: assess how “State Farm [trains] its claims handling personnel who handled the Claim” insofar as it is related to the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim. Id. at 8. There is no viable argument for requesting production of all the training State Farm provides to its adjusters nationwide for at least 15 years, even if limited to wind/hail claims. See Young v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., No. CIV-24-1064-R, 2025 WL 837028, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 17, 2025) (‘Plaintiff’s discovery request is too broad in that it appears to seek training materials, guidelines, and procedures that [do not] relate in any way to the handling of Plaintiff’s claim, rather than the specific topics that are pertinent to the issues in this case.”). Training materials that were either obsolete at the time of Plaintiffs’ alleged loss or were not part of the relevant claim handlers’ training, are neither relevant nor proportional, and it is Plaintiffs’ burden to demonstrate that they are. See Stainsby, 2022 WL 1748263, *1. Agency Training Requests (Rog 10; RFPs 6, 30, and 42). Plaintiffs seek discovery into (1) training provided to State Farm’s “captive agents” regarding the sale and procurement of insurance ° Plaintiffs also seek discovery regarding the “Art of the Conversation,” but their Motion does not even address what they believe this term refers to or how it is relevant. '© The ECHP is a compilation of claim handling procedures prepared in connection with weather events. ' State Farm’s production of the relevant ECHP materials and training materials is subject to entry of a protective order. As addressed further below, State Farm is also willing to produce the Wind/Hail Guidelines the Fire Model Enhancement prepared in 2020 and 2021, despite their lack of relevance to this case. 9"}, {"d": 9, "p": 11, "t": "policies; (2) underwriting guidelines, binding rules, contractual agreements, and training materials related to selling and issuing the Policy; (3) purported duties of agents to “keep abreast of the condition of properties” and/or monitor and reduce risks to insured properties; and (4) purported discussions with Agency Leadership regarding “wind/hail topics.” Yet, the Motion is devoid of any justification for that discovery beyond the claim that State Farm holds its agents out as their “front line underwriters,” Mot. at 7-8. But Plaintiffs’ claims do not involve underwriting, sales, marketing, or policy issuance. The Petition clearly challenges only State Farm’s claim decision, over which Agent had no control. Indeed, Plaintiffs concede they obtained a full replacement cost policy (Pet. €§ 27-33, 48), and their dispute is thus with how State Farm handled the claim (id. {| 48, 50). Moreover, the requests for purported wind/hail training of agents and “Agency Leadership” discussions regarding wind/hail topics are irrelevant because, beyond sometimes taking in the initial report of a claim and communicating such to State Farm, agents have no role in claim handling— and Plaintiffs do not allege that Agent was involved in the handling of their claim. There is also no real dispute that the Policy issued provided sufficient coverage for full replacement of the Plaintiffs’ house—especially the roof, which is the claim Plaintiffs make. Pet., {| 48, 50; Miller v. Farmers Ins. Grp., No. CIV-10-466-F, 2012 WL 8017244, at *14 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 22, 2012) (“[T]he Oklahoma Supreme Court has concluded that ‘the conduct of the insurer and the agent in selling and issuing the policy, cannot give rise to the tort of bad faith breach of an insurance contract.’”).'? Haag Requests (Rogs 15-17; RFPs 8-12, 31, and 34). Plaintiffs have a laundry list of requests relating to State Farm’s relationship and utilization of global engineering and consulting 2 Additionally, “binding” authority “refers[s] to the insurance industry concept of an insurance agent’s ability to temporarily ‘bind’ coverage, which occurs prior to the insurer’s issuance of a policy.” Peerless Ins. Co. v. MASS. Servs., Inc., No. 806-CV-250T-27TGW, 2007 WL 2916386, at *7 n.1 1 (M.D. Fla, Oct. 5, 2007). Even if binding were at issue here—which it is not-——an agent’s act of “binding” a policy only serves as a representation to State Farm—not the insured—that based on the information from the insured, the property is worthy of consideration for coverage. 10"}, {"d": 9, "p": 12, "t": "company Haag and its subsidiaries, including State Farm’s: (a) relationship with Haag, including any indemnity agreements; (b) communications with and payments to Haag from 2012 onward; (c) a moratorium on using Haag after unrelated verdicts from 1997 and 2006; (d) internal investigations into Haag’s potential bias following unrelated cases and events from over two decades ago; and (e) use of Haag training, including Haag’s Hail and Wind Assessment Video Series (the “Haag Requests”). The Haag Requests are irrelevant and disproportionate to the needs of this case because State Farm did not use Haag’s engineering services—or any engineering services for that matter— to assess Plaintiffs’ claim. Moreover, with limited exceptions, State Farm has not used Haag to assess policyholder claims in Oklahoma since 2006. Rather, State Farm only uses Haag’s training materials (which have nothing to do with Haag’s engineering services).!? Thus, Plaintiffs’ broadly written requests regarding State Farm’s utilization of Haag are a fishing expedition for information they know does not further the resolution of the merits of their claims. See Jn re Hanover Lloyds Ins. Co., No. 05-17-00608-CV, 2018 WL 1127436, at *3 (Tex. App. Mar. 2, 2018) (finding inquiry into Hanover’s use of Haag engineering reports on claims of unrelated third parties was not relevant to the case and rejecting plaintiff’s claim that Hanover’s relationship and use of Haag training, investigation, and reports was relevant to the merits of the denial of plaintiff's claim), While Plaintiffs are trying to distort State Farm’s use of Haag ¢raining materials into some sort of nefarious scheme to defraud insureds based solely on a moratorium imposed nearly 20 years ago on engineering services, they have provided no evidence of such intent. The Haag Requests are irrelevant to any fact at issue. 3 State Farm has already informed Plaintiffs’ counsel of Haag’s position that these videos constitute Haag’s intellectual property. Absent a protective order and notice to Haag, State Farm does not have the authority to produce Haag’s proprietary materials in litigation. 11"}, {"d": 9, "p": 13, "t": "Fire Model Enhancement Requests (Rogs 6, 7, 9, 13, 28, and 29; RFPs 14, 15, 21-24, 27, 29, 33, 35-39, and 43). Numerous requests concern the Fire Model Enhancement (“FME”; the “FME Requests”)}—an effort State Farm first undertook in 2020 to improve the accuracy of claim handling, one that is neither sinister nor surprising but part of corporate responsibility. As part of the FME, State Farm identified potential ways to improve consistency in handling wind/hail claims and to address both overpayment and underpayment of claims, including by improving file documentation, conducting additional training, and increasing management involvement.!4 See Declaration of Nicole Manduca, at § 3, Ex. 3 hereto. The FME prepared guidelines in 2020 and 2021 (the “Wind/Hail Guidelines”), which were incorporated into the Operation Guide (“OG”) 75-160 by February 2022, over one year before Plaintiffs’ purported date of loss. Upon the entry of an approved protective order, State Farm is willing to produce the versions of OG 75-160 and relevant claim handling guidelines that were in place as of Plaintiffs’ date of loss, as well as the Wind/Hail Guidelines for the years 2020 and 2021, even though not in effect on the date of loss. The remaining FME Requests are overly broad and irrelevant, seeking years of nationwide information about FME and wind/hail initiatives, employees, teams, third parties, data dissemination, and metrics like roof replacement ratios, approval percentages, indemnity savings, and wind/hail payment volumes. Plaintiffs fail to connect the FME discovery to the claim decision in this case or explain how this discovery is relevant to the reasonableness of State Farm’s handling of their claim, especially as the claim handlers, Cedric Gooch, Max Balser, Kristin Haun, Temicka Collette, Christy Mebane, Jason Taylor, and Yasiin Bradley, were not involved with FME, The requests also improperly seek information about other insureds’ claims under different circumstances and policies, which is irrelevant and overly broad. See City Nat'l. Bank, 1990 OK 4 Tn particular, claim file data indicated that State Farm may have been replacing roofs where such damage was not expected, primarily due to the small hail and light wind events associated with the date of loss. 12"}, {"d": 9, "p": 14, "t": "CIV APP 89, § 18, 804 P.2d 463. Responding to these requests would also impose a disproportionate burden, requiring a search for documents nationwide across the enterprise from 2010 or 2019 (depending on the request)—predating the date of losses by 4 to 13 years. For example, RFPs 36, 37, 38, and 43 seek communications for the past six years from Nicole Manduca, Sharon Arnold, Tom Moss, and Susan Maynard—none of whom were involved in the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim—concerning the FME and other specified topics. Based on a preliminary assessment, these requests alone will require review of at least approximately 155,000 documents. Using a standard review rate of 35 documents per hour, it would take approximately 4,428 hours of attorney time to review these documents—excluding privilege review, privilege logging, and document processing—thus imposing a burden on State Farm which the Discovery Code is written to avoid. Manager Approval (Rogs 21, 28, and 29; RFPs 22, 25, 26, 36(vi), 38(vi), and 43(vi)). Plaintiffs do not explain why the discovery they seek regarding the requirement for managerial approval of total roof replacements in certain circumstances (which do not exist here), or how the tracking or cost-benefit analysis of full roof replacement approval percentages, is relevant. Rather, the Motion lists these requests next to a myriad of others on varying and different topics, without any argument or articulation regarding their relevance to the merits of this case. As a threshold matter, Plaintiffs falsely assert that “State Farm implemented a policy that claims adjusters could not issue a full roof replacement without Team Manager approval,” when their counsel is well aware that OG 75-160—the controlling rule—requires managerial approval for total roof replacements only in a certain subset of claims—i.e., when a claim involves low intensity weather events with conditions of light wind and small hail. Plaintiffs also do not, because they cannot, explain how any managerial review requirement impacted the adjustment of their specific claim. Indeed, no claims handler ever 13"}, {"d": 9, "p": 15, "t": "found that a total replacement of Plaintiffs’ roof was warranted, and Plaintiffs point to nothing in the already-produced Claim File indicating that totaling their roof was contemplated or subject to management approval. As such, even if these documents could be relevant to issues in another claim that is the basis for another lawsuit, they are not relevant to the issues in fhis lawsuit. Despite the lack of relevance and proportionality, upon entry of an approved protective order, State Farm will produce OG 75-160, Any additional production of information in response to the Managerial Approval Requests is neither relevant nor proportional. State Farm’s Enterprise Rules (RFP 25). RFP No. 25 seeks documents “memorializing any enterprise-wide rule ... regarding the need for any managerial approval of full roof replacements on wind/hail claims,” which is addressed immediately above. Plaintiffs’ Motion, however, seeks an entirely different category of information under this request relating to personal and program rules— features within XactAnalysis, a third-party reporting software related to the platform State Farm uses to assist its adjusters in estimating covered payments for covered damage. Mot. at 13-14. But the Petition is devoid of any reference to Xactimate or software “rules” State Farm allegedly uses to control adjuster behavior. This alone requires denying the Motion relating to RFP No. 25. While State Farm is willing to provide information on any personal rules (described below) that were triggered in the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim, logic alone dictates that rules beyond those actually triggered cannot be relevant. See City Nat'l. Bank, 1990 OK CIV APP 89, § 18, 804 P.2d 463. Personal and program rules are specific features available in XactAnalysis. Managerial level employees can create “personal rules” that “set up notifications to inform [users] when events occur within a specified dataset and category.” Personal rules that were created but not “triggered” for Plaintiffs’ claim are not relevant because the triggering event(s) did not occur. State Farm does not iS XactAnalysis, Personal Rules Notifications, /r466mg37b2-personal-rule-notifications-en-gb. 14 _https://xactanalysis.helpdocs io/l/enGB/article"}, {"d": 9, "p": 16, "t": "track personal rules that were created but not triggered, so no such document exists or can be created.'° In contrast, program rules are notifications related to claim assignments and service providers, which allow administrators “to set up notifications to inform [them] of issues with service providers and internal programs.”!’ Based on its diligent investigation to date, State Farm does not and has not used program rules and, thus, does not have any information or documents responsive to RFP No. 25 on program rules. In any event, State Farm has no capability to provide a report of all options for program rules in XactAnalysis. Moreover, even if State Farm could create a document listing all personal or program rules— which it cannot—compelling it to do so is contrary to not only Oklahoma case law, but also a bedrock principle of discovery that parties have no obligation to create documents that do not exist in the normal course of business. As numerous courts in this state have explained, “[i]f a responsive document truly does not exist, [a party] has no obligation to create one.” Hahn v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co., No. 22-CV-00369-GKF-SH, 2023 WL 4824919, at *4 (N.D. Okla. July 27, 2023); see also Terry v. Health Care Serv. Corp., No. CIV-18-0415-C, 2019 WL 1781420, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 23, 2019) (“Indeed, the Court cannot compel Plaintiffs to produce information that does not exist or that is not in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control.”). Quality Plans (RFPs 26, 32, and 41). RFPs 26, 32, and 41 (the “Quality Plans Requests”) seek 6 years’ worth of documents completely unrelated to the Quality Plan in effect at the time Plaintiffs’ claim was determined. State Farm is willing to produce its Fire Property Quality Plan that was in effect on the date of loss, upon entry of an approved protective order; but, simply put, '6 State Farm cannot produce a report of all personal rules that State Farm users have historically created, whether those rules were triggered or untriggered. The rules themselves are specific combinations of selections from drop-down menus, and users do not receive notifications when they simply create a rule. 7 XactAnalysis, Program Rules Notifications, _https://xactanalysis.helpdocs.io/l/enUS/article/ tpSbm5g4m |-program-rule-notifications. 15"}, {"d": 9, "p": 17, "t": "any State Farm plan that was either obsolete before Plaintiffs’ claim was processed, or implemented after the claim was resolved, is irrelevant to how State Farm handled Plaintiffs’ claim. As such, the Quality Plans Requests are overbroad, irrelevant, and disproportionate to the needs of this case in contravention of 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1)¢a). Indemnity Requests (Rogs 11, 12, 14, 20, 21, and 24-27; RFPs 7, 13, 16-20, and 28). Plaintiffs broadly seek information about State Farm’s alleged efforts to reduce indemnity payments on wind/hail claims, including cost/benefit analyses, data tracking, and metrics on roof replacements from 2010 or 2019 to present (the “Indemnity Requests”). In support, Plaintiffs misleadingly reference a 13-year-old document they allege shows that State Farm is engaged in a scheme to improperly lower indemnity payments. Mot. at 3. But Plaintiffs’ counsel is aware from prior litigation that this document has nothing to do with claims handling or indemnity payments. As State Farm has repeatedly explained (and as the produced metadata confirms), Analyst Gina Prine authored this memo in March 2012 while in Claim Automation & Procedures, addressing possible acquisition and adjustment expense savings tied to purchasing Xactware’s Service Pack 27.5 (for collecting roof dimensions), a product State Farm ultimately did not adopt. (Ex. 4, Declaration of Gina Prine).'® Yet Plaintiffs’ counsel continually mischaracterize this document as evidence of a scheme to improperly lower indemnity payments. Moreover, even if there was any evidence for such “scheme”-—and there is none, because Plaintiffs’ counsel have invented it— Plaintiffs do not explain how that “scheme” is relevant to this case, when there is no factual allegation tying State Farm’s decision-making on Plaintiffs’ claim to the alleged “scheme.” 18 Plaintiffs’ counsel is also aware of deposition testimony where State Farm Team Manager Jacqueline Draper, explained that the document discusses “adjustment expenses. These are not true indemnity,” and that “indemnity, in the true nature, is policyholder payments ... none of them reference anything to do with the policyholder payment.” (Ex. 5, Tr. of Deposition of J. Draper, Hosier v. State Farm, at 395:6-22). 16"}, {"d": 9, "p": 18, "t": "Setting aside that State Farm never attempts to improperly withhold payments it owes insureds and never incentivizes employees to do so—and that there is nothing wrong with improving quality to avoid overpayments, Plaintiffs’ speculative allegations of a supposed “scheme” do not warrant discovery into company policies or tracking of roof replacements nationwide over 6 to 15 years. Willis, 2021 WL 8446071, at *2; Ross, 2015 WL 13622518, at *1. “Mere speculation that information might be useful will not suffice; litigants secking to compel discovery must describe with a reasonable degree of specificity, the information they hope to obtain and its importance to their case.” Schultz v. Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd. No. 4:15-CV-04160-LLP, 2016 WL 3149686, at *3 (D.S.D. June 3, 2016) (citing Cervantes v. Time, Inc., 464 F.2d 986, 994 (8th Cir, 1972)). Here, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how the Indemnity Requests relate to State Farm’s handling of their claim, This deficiency is fatal to the requests. Likewise, Plaintiffs fail to explain how broad metrics on roof replacements or national tracking of payment volumes and ratios are relevant to State Farm’s claims decision in this case. Finally, analysis of engineering services is irrelevant, as State Farm did not use any such services when assessing Plaintiffs’ claim. Other Claims Requests (Rogs 3, 22, and 23). Despite the case specific inquiry necessary to evaluate a bad faith claim, Plaintiffs insist that State Farm identify, for the past 6 years across the state of Oklahoma: (1) all wind and hail claims, and related civil cases, where a full roof replacement was denied but later approved after litigation; and (2) the number of wind and hail claims where soft metal roof damage was found but did not qualify for a full replacement or did not exceed the deductible (the “Other Claims Requests”). Plaintiffs have not explained (nor can they explain) how other claims involving different policies and individuals, as well as different properties and different storms, are relevant to the issues in this case. See City Nat'l. Bank, 1990 OK CIV APP 89, 4 18, 804 P.2d 463. While Plaintiffs argue the requested discovery relates to the 17"}, {"d": 9, "p": 19, "t": "“scheme” alleged in the Petition, such far-reaching allegations do not justify burdensome discovery here absent a coherent showing that a purported scheme had an impact on this claim. Plaintiffs have not made such a showing. See Schultz, 2016 WL 3149686, at *3. Even ifinformation regarding other insureds’ claims had any relevance to this case, Rog 3 does not match the facts of this case where State Farm did not reverse its decision after Plaintiffs filed his lawsuit; and even if Rogs 22 and 23 possibly match Plaintiffs’ claim, they would be unduly burdensome and vastly disproportionate to the needs of the case. As set forth in the Declaration of Jacob Nimesgerm (Ex. 6),'° claims materials are stored in State Farm’s Enterprise Claim System (“ECS”). An electronic search of ECS identified 120,755 wind/hail claims in Oklahoma with a date of loss between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2024. Ex. 6 at §4. However, ECS cannot be searched to identify claims “wherein a Total or Full Roof Replacement was denied prior to a lawsuit being filed” but was approved or paid after litigation, as requested by Rog 3. Jd. at 6. While State Farm can filter for claims where a payment was made—92,146 claims—determining which meet the specific criteria of Rog 3 requires a manual review of each file. Similarly, ECS cannot identify claims with soft metal roof damage that did not exceed the deductible, as required by Rog 22. /d. at 7. State Farm can filter the 120,755 claims to those “Closed Without Payment”—27,764 claims—but further identifying claims that meet Rog 22’s criteria is only possible through manual review. The same applies to Rog 23, which seeks claims where soft metal roof damage was found but the roof did not qualify for full replacement. Jd. at 8. Of the 120,755 claims, 119,352 had a status of Paid or Closed Without Payment, but further filtering is not possible without manual review. 19 Identical Other Claims Requests were issued in Hush v. State Farm. Therefore, State Farm submits the Declaration of Jacob Nimesgerm produced in that matter in support of its claim of burden here. 18"}, {"d": 9, "p": 20, "t": "Claim file volume varies widely, from less than 100 pages to several thousand. Ex. 6 at 9. For context, the claim file at issue here totals 834 pages. Based on counsel’s experience, reviewing a single claim file to determine whether a post-litigation payment was made takes about 10 minutes. Reviewing the 92,146 claims identified in Rog 3 would require at least 15,357 hours. For Rogs 22 and 23, each file would require 20 minutes to assess Plaintiffs’ criteria. Reviewing 27,764 claims under Rog 22 would take over 9,254 hours, and 119,352 claims under Rog 23 would exceed 39,784 hours. Altogether, State Farm would spend more than 40,251 attorney hours reviewing claim files to identify the requested information. Complying with any one of these discovery requests would require multiple reviewers and could cost millions of dollars in attorney fees—an extraordinary burden considering the factual allegations and amount in controversy represent only a fraction of the compliance cost. See Hammond v. Lyndon S. Ins. Co., No. CIV-19-245-D, 2019 WL 6118269 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 18, 2019) (finding that the cost to review 6,753 responsive claim files outweighed any possible benefit, especially given the amount in controversy). The cases cited by Plaintiffs (Mot. at 14-15) also do not support the Other Claims Requests; instead, they underscore the excessive breadth of those requests.”° In Jones v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., No. CIV-11-159-R, 2012 WL 12863976, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 29, 2012), the court 20 See, Reibert v. CSAA Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 17-CV-350-CVE-JFJ, 2018 WL 279348, at *9 (N.D. Okla. Jan, 3, 2018) (specifically limiting requests relating to other claims to those directly in line with plaintiffs’ allegations regarding its use of a specific third party engineer for a period of three years); Magallan v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 16-CV-668-CVE-FHM, 2017 WL 3579209, at *1-2 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 18, 2017) (noting “the court defines similar claims much more narrowly,” expressly limiting the plaintiff’s requests for other claim files to those with fact patterns identical to the plaintiff's allegations); Providence Church, Inc. v. GuideOne Ins., No. CIV-06-1201-D, 2008 WL 11338501, at *4-5, (W.D. Okla. Jan. 18, 2008) (finding that information regarding other “code upgrade” claims was relevant only when confined to circumstances closely matching those of the plaintiffs claim). Vining v. Enters. Fin. Grp., Inc., 148 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 1998) and Metzger v. Am. Fid. Assur. Co., No. CIV-05-1387-M, 2007 WL 4342082 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 7, 2007) did not even address discovery disputes and, instead, involved evidentiary rulings limiting the admissible evidence to conduct and fact patterns similar to those at issue. Vining 148 F.3d at 1218. In Metzger, the court limited evidence to the specific policy and benefits at issue, excluding broader evidence relating to nationwide claims and unrelated policies as overly broad. 2007 WL 4342082 at *1. 19"}, {"d": 9, "p": 21, "t": "recognized that while pattern or practice evidence may be relevant, requiring a manual search of all “relevant” claims files imposed an undue burden. Upon reconsideration, the Court held that the burden of reviewing ali claims files outweighed their minimal relevance. See Jones v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., No. CIV-11-159-R (W.D. Okla. Apr. 20, 2012) ECF No. 86 (Ex. 7). The same reasoning applies here. Plaintiffs also misstate Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co. v. Russell, 2025 OK 79, 579 P.3d 728. There, the Oklahoma Supreme Court did not address the production of claim files as relevant to pattern and practice allegations. The writ only challenged whether insured addresses could be disclosed and whether the plaintiffs properly served their request. Al/state thus offers no support regarding the relevance or proportionality of other claim files. Productions in Other Lawsuits (RFP 44). Plaintiffs demand that State Farm produce every document it previously produced—or a court ordered it to produce—in six separate unrelated lawsuits. This “cloned discovery” is not only disfavored, but it also contravenes wellestablished authority holding that “wholesale duplicates of discovery produced in other litigation”-—based solely on overlapping issues—fails to meet the relevance and proportionality standards. TravelPass Grp., LLC v. Caesars Ent. Corp., No. 5:18-CV-153-RWS-CMC, 2020 WL 698538, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2020); see also Goro v. Flowers Foods, Inc., No. 17-CV-02580JLS-JLB, 2019 WL 6252499, at *18 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2019). Documents produced in other cases are not public materials, and RFP 44 thwarts the protective orders intended to safeguard confidential information in those cases. See, e.g., Good v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2023 OK CIV APP 28, § 14, 536 P.3d 961, 970, reh’g denied (Mar. 13, 2023) (Rejecting request for productions in a different lawsuit because discovery materials are not public materials until admitted into evidence.). I. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, State Farm respectively requests that this Court deny Plaintiffs’ Motion. 20"}, {"d": 9, "p": 22, "t": "ai ctfully submitted | yoo ; . \\ | ; imila S\\ Rother, OBA #14310 Paige A. Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OAB #34650 CROWE & DUNLEVY, PC Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7700 Facsimile: (405) 239-6651 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 27, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was sent via U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the following persons: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 44th Street, Suite 201 John S. Sanders Lawton, OK 73505 Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE f 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 7 — ~ “Attorneys ‘i Plaintiffs NV Timila im 6177792 21 . | |"}, {"d": 9, "p": 24, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL AND LACY WEST, Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) Vv, | ) Case No, CJ-2025-135 ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY; and NANCY HOLCOMB INS, _ ) AGENCY INC., Defendants, ) ) ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm” or “Defendant”) submits the following answers, responses, and objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS State Farm’s Responses are based on information and documentation presently available to State Farm and which State Farm believes, based on current information, to be relevant and reasonably responsive, State Farm anticipates that further investigation, research, and analysis will supply additional facts and documents, add meaning to known facts, and perhaps establish new factual conclusions, all of which may in turn lead to additions or changes to these Responses. Accordingly, State Farm reserves the right to amend these Responses as additional facts are ascertained, analyses are made, research is completed, and contentions become apparent. In addition, State Farm will fulfill its obligation to supplement these Responses pursuant to the ‘Oklahoma Discovery Code."}, {"d": 9, "p": 25, "t": "OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEFINITIONS Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—*Address/Telephone Number.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ request for “both the current business and residential address and telephone number” of natural persons on the grounds that such information constitutes personally identifiable information sought in violation of those individuals’ right-to privacy. The business addresses and business telephone numbers of natural persons are sufficient to identify and contact potential witnesses, Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Claim.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies. it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim.” State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code and seeks discovery regarding “all requests for indemnity to [State Farm].” State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent-it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Claim File.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “claim,” “document(s),” and “communication(s)” and applies each to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim file.” State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim file” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Cade and seeks discovery regarding any “claim for indemnity under a policy of insurance coverage [State Farm has] issued.” In addition, State Farm objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. State Farm further states that it does not maintain a physical file folder with respect to most claims. Information regarding"}, {"d": 9, "p": 26, "t": "Plaintiffs’ Claim is created, stored, managed, and accessed primarily in and through the Enterprise Claims System (“ECS”), a proprietary web-based system used by State Farm claims associates. “Claim File” has a distinct meaning to State Farm based upon the portion of its Claim Procedures Guide that provides instructions on what to retrieve from ECS to generate a Claim File for production outside the ECS environment. State Farm maintains the information for each claim as required by 36 O.S. § 1250.4 (“Such files shall contain all notes and work papers pertaining to a claim in such detail that pertinent events and the dates of such events can be reconstructed,”), Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Claims Handling Personnel.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claims handling personnel.” In addition, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition as vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “performing work or services related to,” 92°44 “receipt,” “response,” “adjustment,” “appraisal,” and “handling of formal and informal disputes.” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—‘Communication(s).” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “communication(s).” State Farm objects to the inclusion of “oral” exchanges in Plaintiffs’ definition of “communication(s)” on the grounds that the Oklahoma Discovery Code does not require State Farm to produce “communications” that do not already exist on a medium from which information can be obtained. State Farm also objects to the inclusion of text or instant messaging system(s) and social media platform(s) in Plaintiffs’ definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to produce such materials, which are not captured by State Farm in its ordinary course of business."}, {"d": 9, "p": 27, "t": "Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Custodian(s).” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “custodian(s).” Objection and Response to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Document(s).” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “communication(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s).” Additionally, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and to the extent Plaintiffs seek production of all identical copies of ESI. ESI is frequently duplicated and disbursed in the ordinary course of business, and discovery regarding all identical copies of ESI would be cumulative, duplicative, and impose unnecessary burdens without any benefit to the adjudication of this action. State Farm also objects to the extent that Plaintiffs seek production of ESI from sources that are not reasonably accessible, as such discovery would require extraordinary efforts that are not proportional to the scope of the matter. State Farm also objects to the extent this definition seeks discovery regarding ESI that is ephemeral in nature, such as temporary computer files, log/history files, or file fragments, as the preservation and production of such things is not proportional to the needs of the case. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and beyond the scope of permissible discovery to the extent Plaintiffs purport to include system information not created by State Farm users, such as caches, cookies, or logs, or otherwise seek to require State Farm to record and/or provide discovery regarding records and information that are not ordinarily captured and/or are overwritten in the ordinary course of operating State Farm’s computing systems. State Farm objects to the inclusion of “every copy” in Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” on the grounds that copies are not universally relevantto the claims and defenses"}, {"d": 9, "p": 28, "t": "of a case and are likely to be cumulative or duplicative. To the extent that a copy is not a business record stored in a central repository in State Farm’s ordinary course of business, discovery regarding “every copy” would not be proportional to the needs of the case. Finally, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” to the extent it would require the production or disclosure of information protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or other privileges recognized by law. Notwithstanding these objections, to the extent any responsive documents or ESI are produced, State Farm will produce reasonably accessible, relevant, non-privileged information in reasonably usable formats as set forth in State Farm’s objections to the ES! Protocol. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Employee.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “employee(s)” to the extent it purportsto impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code and seeks discovery from “all employees, past and present.” State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Engineering Services.” State Farm abjects to Plaintiffs” definition of “Engineering Services” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. In addition, State Farm objects to this definition as vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “any of which embraces such services or work.”"}, {"d": 9, "p": 29, "t": "Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to a corporation. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” when used in reference to a “corporation, firm, or other entity” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information thatis not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide, Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to a meeting or conference. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” to the extent it seeks information about “meeting[s] or conference[s]” that is overly broad and not relevant to the claims and defenses of any party. State Farm further objects to the definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to provide such detailed information for all “meeting{s] or conference[s].” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to a telephonic conversation. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” to the extent it secks information about “telephone communication[s}” that is overly broad and not relevant to the claims and defenses of any party. State Farm further objects to the definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to provide such detailed. information for all discoverable “telephone communication{s],” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to a “writing.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” when used in reference to a “writing.” State Farm further objects that while capitalized, “Writing” is not separately defined in Plaintiffs’ First Set of Discovery Requests."}, {"d": 9, "p": 30, "t": "In addition, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” with respect to “writings” as overly broad and not relevant to the claims and defenses of any party. State Farm further objects to the definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to provide such detailed information for all discoverable “writings.” State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ definition insofar as it seeks the “present location or custodian” of all discoverable “writings” on the grounds that the definition is overly broad and unduly burdensome and such information is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case. There are multiple ways that ESI may be held, stored, or used together by one or multiple custodians, such as on a shared or personal hard drive, in a container file, or in a database, and State Farm cannot reasonably catalogue and describe the information regarding any myriad of ways ESI may be held, stored, or used together without undue burden. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” insofar as it seeks details regarding “writings” that are “no longer [] in [State Farm's] possession or control” on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and purports to impose obligations greater than those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code, There is no basis to demand State Farm generally describe all requested information that may have existed at some time, State Farm further objects to this definition as unduly burdensome and beyond the scope of permissible discovery to the extent it purports to call for forensic investigation into computing devices or systems to determine or locate information indicating or evidencing ES! that was deleted or that is no longer accessible as active data on that device or system. State Farm further objects that ESI and/or documents that were deleted or no longer exist are not reasonably accessible, and-discovery about the same would require extraordinary efforts that are not proportional to the scope of the matter. Furthermore, State Farm objects on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ definition is not limited in"}, {"d": 9, "p": 31, "t": "time or scope and State Farm had no duty to preserve relevant information prior to the time this litigation was reasonably anticipated. Finally, State Farm objects to this definition to the extent that it purports to require State Farm to provide information more properly requested via separate interrogatory. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to an “Oral Conversation.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” to the extent it seeks information about “oral communication{s]” that is overly broad and not relevant to the claims and defenses of any party. State Farm further objects to the definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to provide such detailed information for all discoverable “oral communication{s].” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to an “individual natural person.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” when used in reference to an “individual natural Person” insofar as it seeks the “residential address” of natural peisons on the grounds that such information constitutes personally identifiable information sought in violation of those individuals’ constitutional right to privacy. To the extent required to address the claims and defenses at issue in this case, the business addresses and business telephone numbers of natural persons will be sufficient to identify and contact potential witnesses. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Relevant Time Period.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Relevant Time Period” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code, State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. State Farm"}, {"d": 9, "p": 32, "t": "will not produce any documents prior to one year prior to the date of loss or after the filing of the Petition unless otherwise stated in its responses. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“You.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “You” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm further objects to this definition as overly broad to the extent it purports to include individuals “purporting to act on behalf” of various entities, individuals acting on behalf of “any merged or acquired predecessors, successors, and/or divested facilities, division, or subsidiaries of State Farm,” and individuals “serving or having served on any governing board of any State Farm.” OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INSTRUCTIONS Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 1. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 1. State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 1 to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm will provide documents and information within its possession, custody, and control in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 2. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 2 to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm will fulfill its obligation to supplement these Responses pursuant to the Oklahoma Discovery Code, Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 4. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 4 on the grounds that it exceeds the parameters of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm"}, {"d": 9, "p": 33, "t": "will state its Objections and Responses to the Requests in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code and substantive law. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 5, State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 5. State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 5 on the grounds that it exceeds the parameters of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm will state its Objections and Responses to the Requests in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code and substantive law. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 6. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 6 on the grounds that it exceeds the parameters of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm will state its Objections and Responses to the discovery in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code and substantive law. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 7. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 7, State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 7 on the grounds that the inclusion of “no longer [] in [State Farm’s] possession or control” is overly broad and because it imposes obligations that are unduly burdensome and greater than those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm further objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 7 on the grounds that it exceeds the parameters of the Oklahoma Discovery Code and because State Farm had no duty to preserve relevant information prior to the time this litigation was reasonably anticipated. State Farm will state its Objections and Responses to the discovery in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code and substantive law, Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction Ne. 8. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8. 10"}, {"d": 9, "p": 34, "t": "In addition, State Farm restates and incorporates its objections to Plaintiffs’ ESI Protocol and applies them to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8. State Farm also restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 9 and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8. State Farm further objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8 to the extent it secks to unilaterally dictate a form of production. State Farm will produce documents and ESI in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 9. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s”) and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 9. In addition, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 9 to the extent it seeksto unilaterally dictate a form of production. State Farm will produce documents and ESI in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 10. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 10 to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. To the extent State Farm withholds any information on the basis of privilege, State Farm will provide a privilege log in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 11. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 11 as overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case on the grounds that it requires State Farm to provide information and documents relating to “all States of the United States in which [State Farm] conduct[s] business.” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 12. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Relevant Time Period” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 12. 11"}, {"d": 9, "p": 35, "t": "OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ ESI PROTOCOL Objection to Plaintiffs’ “ESI Protocol.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ attempt to unilaterally impose an “ESI Protoco!” in their Instructions and Exhibit 1 to govern the scope of discovery. The Oklahoma Discovery Code addresses the form of production of ESI and does not require parties to produce ESI in any particular way or allow requesting parties to unilaterally dictate a form of production. Instead, it allows the requesting party to specify a form of production and, in response, the producing party can object and state the form of production it intends to make. 12 OS. § 3234(B)(1)(c)-(d). In fact, Oklahoma law only requires that the format be “reasonably usable” and further provides that “a party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.” 12 0.8. § 3234(A)(1)(a) and § 3234(B)(2)(€). State Farm further objects to Plaintiffs’ “ESI Protocol” because it exceeds the scope of permissible discovery and imposes obligations above and beyond those set forth under the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ ESI Protocol to the extent it requires the production of documents or discovery of information that is not reasonably accessible to State Farm on the ground that such discovery would require extraordinary efforts that are not proportional to the scope of this matter. 12 O.S. § 3226(B); Werner Enter., Inc. v. Kirkland et al., No. 122,385 (Okla. Sept. 24, 2024) (“Respondent, any other assigned judge, ot a special master appointed by the district court shall review the discovery requests at issue and consider the proportionality facts stated in 12 O.S. Section 3226 (B)(2)(c) along with all other statutory requirements before ruling on the discovery disputes.”). State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ “ESI Discovery Protocol,” attached as Exhibit 1 for the same reasons. To the extent ESI is produced, State Farm will produce reasonably accessible, relevant, non-privileged information in image format, accompaniedby document-level text files containing 12"}, {"d": 9, "p": 36, "t": "searchable text (either extracted text or text created with optical character recognition (“OCR”). ‘The information pertinent to the claims and defenses in this case can be found in the text of the _ documents and is not generally found in metadata and Plaintiffs have not set forth any basis or arguments to the contraty. Notwithstanding State Farm’s objections and format set forth above, where applicable, metadata load files will be produced in .DAT file format and image load files in OPT format (i.e., industry standard “Concordance” formatted load files). The exceptions to this approach are: * State Farm will produce responsive, non-privileged, and unredacted spreadsheets (¢.g., Microsoft Excel files) in native format. e State Farm will produce responsive, redacted Excel-file documents in near-native format with redacted text, unless doing so would be unduly burdensome or render the file(s) unusable, in which case State Farm will seek to meet and confer with Plaintiffs on the proper redaction method. e State Farm will produce responsive, non-privileged, and unredacted ESI maintained in presentation formats (e.g., Microsoft PowerPoint) in native format if relevant information exists that cannot be displayed on an image (¢.g., animations or embedded audio files). © State Farm will produce responsive, redacted ESI maintained in presentation formats (c.g., Microsoft PowerPoint) as image files with redacted text, unless doing so would be unduly burdensome or render the file(s) unusable, in which case State Farm will seek to meet and confer with Plaintiffs on the proper redaction method. * State Farm may choose to produce ESI that is difficult or impracticable to render in Bates stamped image format, such as video or audio files, in native format. To the extent there is a need for any deviation from the above, State Farm will meet and confer and negotiate in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute with Plaintiffs’ counsel. Objection and Response to Plaintiffs’ Definition of “Electronically Stored Information.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “document(s)” and “communication(s),” and “Electronically Stored Information.” 13 applies each to Plaintiffs’ definition of"}, {"d": 9, "p": 37, "t": "Objection to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 1. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ ES] Production No. 1 on the grounds that the Oklahoma Discovery Code addresses the form of production of ESI and does not require parties to produce ESI in any particular way or allow requesting parties to unilaterally dictate the form of production. State Farm will produce ESI in a reasonably usable format as set forth above, which is all the Oklahoma Discovery Code requires. Objection to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 2. State Farm restates and incorporates its objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “document(s),” and “communication(s),” and applies each to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 2. State Farm further restates and incorporates its General Objection to Plaintiffs’ ESI Protocol and applies it to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 2. Objection to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 3. State Farm restates and incorporates its objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “document(s),” and “communication(s),” and applies each to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 3. State Farm further restates and incorporates its General Objection to Plaintiffs’ ESI Protocol and applies it to Plaintiffs’ EST Production No. 3. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ PROTECTIVE ORDER STATEMENT State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ unilateral and self-serving statements and conclusions concerning their hugely overly broad discovery requests seeking State Farm’s confidential and proprietary institutional documents that have no relevance to Plaintiffs’ claim and are vastly disproportionate even if they were relevant. State Farm objects further because, contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, Oklahoma law expressly grants courts permission to enter protective orders protecting the use of confidential information produced during discovery. 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(g); YWCA of Oklahoma City v. Melson, 1997 OK 81, ff 18-24 n.41, 944 P.2d 304, 310-11 n.41 (holding that the need for pretrial disclosure should “be harmonized” with a party’s “right of privacy,” and preventing public disclosure of sensitive information “is sufficient justification for 14"}, {"d": 9, "p": 38, "t": "the authorization of protective orders”); State ex rel. Oklahoma State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision v. Rivero, 2021 OK 31, | 79, 489 P.3d 36, 64 (explaining that courts’ authority under Section 3226(c) to enter protective orders has “conceptual origins in [its] counterparts found in” Rule 26 of the Federal Rules.”). State Farm will thus not produce documents it deems to be Confidential until the entry of a mutually acceptable protective order unless otherwise ordered by the Court, State Farm is submitting a proposed protective order with these discovery responses. For purposes of its below Responses to Plaintiffs’ specific Requests, and to avoid repeating its objections stated in these introductory sections, State Farm’s above General Objections, Objections to Plaintiffs’ Definitions, Objections to Plaintiffs’ Instructions, Objections to Plaintiffs’ ESI Protocol and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Protective Order Statement shall be collectively referred to as “State Farm’s Universal Objections.” INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Provide the name, address, and job title of any Claims Handling Personnel who were involved with, adjusted, managed, supervised, investigated, worked on, reviewed, or provided any work or oversight on any aspect of Plaintiffs’ Claim or the handling thereof. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. I: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds thatit is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad in scope. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks confidential, proprictary business information and/or documentation. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm states that the persons involved in the claim and their role is as reflected in the claim file being produced herewith, Bates numbered SFF&CC/West_000054-000887, and Plaintiffs can review the file and determine 15"}, {"d": 9, "p": 39, "t": "whose work meets the categories identified by Plaintiffs, However, the claim representative for this claim was External Claims Resource Cedric Gooch of Eberl. He was assigned to investigate and evaluate Plaintiffs’ claim with the supervision of External Claim Resource Team Manager (“TM”) Max Balser, As reflected in the claim notes, Gooch inspected Plaintiffs’ property on September 28, 2023 and prepared an estimate to reflect the damage identified. Thereafter, the claim was re-assigned to State Farm’s Wind and Hail Reconciliation Unit (“(WHRU”). The WHRU is a team environment and follow-up claim activity is undertaken by the individual in the group available at the time without individual claim assigninents, though with complete access to all prior claim activity. Some of the claim personnel are employees of State Farm and some are employees of external vendors who provide claim assistance to State Farm, Thus, there are multiple claim personnel in the file whose involvement was primarily to follow-up on information received from Plaintiffs, their contractor, or their public adjuster. The work of each of the individuals who reviewed of took any action on Plaintiffs’ claim and the specific action he or she took is reflected in the claim notes produced and Bates numbered SFF&CC/West_000069-000077, along with any related documents. In March 2024, Plaintiffs submitted a contractor’s estimate and photos and requested a second inspection. Claim Specialist (“CS”) Kristin Haun reviewed the submitted information and found it did not support a second inspection. CS Haun did update State Farm’s estimate to allow for additional payments related to repairs for interior damage and issued a supplemental claim payment. Plaintiffs submitted additional photos, which were reviewed by CS Temicka Collett who determined they did not reflect accidental direct physical loss to the shingles, so State Farm’s decision remained unchanged. CS Alexis Napoles later talked with Plaintiffs’ contractor and reviewed photos provided by the contractor and assigned the claim to the field to review for a possible second inspection, CS Christy Mebane reviewed the claim and photos, with the supervision of TM Jason. Taylor. They 16"}, {"d": 9, "p": 40, "t": "determined the pictures did not support a second inspection. CS Mebane conveyed the decision to Plaintiffs. The claim was reassigned to the WHRU. In April 2024, Plaintiffs’ public adjuster requested a copy of Plaintiffs’ policy and declaration pages, CS Erica Berndtson arranged for the documents to be sent to the public adjuster, Plaintiffs’ contractor submitted photos once again and requested a second inspection, These photos were reviewed by CS Yasiin Bradley, who determined they did not support a second inspection. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: If State Farm maintains Plaintiffs failed to comply with the terms of the Policy, please set forth (a) the facts that support such contention; (b) all persons with knowledge to support such contention; and (c) all documents or other evidence that may support such contention. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory as overbroad because it is not limited to the time period of the handling of Plaintiffs’ property claim or to the property claim that is at issue in this litigation. Further, discovery has just begun, and all facts and history regarding the insurance policy and property, Plaintiffs’ conduct following the loss, and other issues are not fully known. State Farm will produce information regarding the insurance claim at issue in the Petition only. State Farm additionally objects to this Interrogatory as invasive of the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine and because it improperly seeks a legal conclusion and application of law to specific facts, which is premature and is not required in the eatly stages of this litigation. State Farm also objectsto this Interrogatory because it improperly asks State Farm to marshal its evidence. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm states that Plaintiffs did not comply with the “Duties After Loss” provision of the Policy (Section I — Conditions, p. 20), requiring that “[a]fter a loss to which this insurance may apply, [Plaintiffs] must 17"}, {"d": 9, "p": 41, "t": "cooperate with [State Farm] in the investigation of the claim” and see that certain duties are performed, including but not limited to, “giv[ing] immediate notice” of the claim to State Farm. Plaintiffs also did not comply with the Suits Against Us provision (Section I — Conditions, 6, p. 22), providing that “[nJo action will be brought against [State Farm] unless there has been full compliance with all of the policy provisions. Any action by any party must be filed within one year after the date of loss or damage.” Plaintiffs reported that their property was damaged by a storm on June 15, 2023 but did not report the claim to State Farm until July 28, 2023. After receiving the claim, State Farm attempted to contact Plaintiffs multiple times by phone and letter. Claim representatives were not able to connect with Plaintiffs to discuss their claim until September 16, 2023. Additionally, the lawsuit was filed on February 28, 2025—more than one year after the date of loss. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ demand that State Farm pay to repair or replace items that did not sustain accidental direct physical loss as required by the Policy (Section [ ~ Losses Insured, p. 12) before requested benefits are owed does not satisfy the Policy’s terms. The information that supports being produced herewith, Bates numbered in the Policy, SFF&CC/West_000001-000053, and in the claim file also being produced herewith, Bates State Farm’s position is numbered SFF&CC/West_000054-000887. State Farm further states that the persons with knowledge of Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the terms of the Policy include ECR Cedric Gooch, ECR Max Balser, CS Kristin Haun, CS Temicka Collett, CS Christy Mebane, TM Jason Taylor, and CS Yasiin Bradley. State Farm is not presently aware of other provisions of the Policy with which Plaintiffs have failed to comply but reserves the right to identify other non-compliance if it becomes known. 18"}, {"d": 9, "p": 42, "t": "INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all Wind/Hail Claims and corresponding civil cases in Oklahoma since January 1, 2019 wherein a Total or Full Roof Replacement was denied prior to a lawsuit being filed, but was subsequently approved and/or paid to an insured after the insured filed a civil lawsuit against State Farm. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case, It is also overly broad and the search for and production of stich information would Specifically, the be unduly burdensome. Interrogatory is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks information regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates; relating to insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claim at issue in this litigation; and involving information about individuals other than the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in this action, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information, or information protected by the aitorney client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or other legal privileges. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Describe with specificity,in detail, and by date any and all inspection(s) conducted by any of the named defendants, or anyone acting on their behalf, of the Insured Property at the inception of replacement cost coverage being sold and upon any renewal. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because the condition, State Fatm’s knowledge of the condition, and inspections of Plaintiffs’ wt 19"}, {"d": 9, "p": 43, "t": "house, in addition to any other information encompassed in the discovery request, presume obligations that do not exist and encompass information that is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case. The scope and particularities of whatis requested are also vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome as written. State Farm objects to producing underwriting information on the ground that it is neither relevant nor proportional, as there is no dispute that the applicable policy was in effect on the date of loss. Also, it must be noted that “{tJhere are no Oklahoma cases which have concluded that the tort of bad faith encompasses non-claims related conduct—sales, pricing and underwriting practices . . . .” Moreover, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has concluded that “the conduct of the insurer and the agent in selling and issuing the policy, cannot give rise to the tort of bad faith breach of insurance contract.” Miller v. Farmers Ins. Grp., No. CIV-10-466-F, 2012 WL 8017244, at *14 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 22, 2012) (citation omitted). The Request also seeks information which may be in the possession of persons other than State Farm, including, in some instances, Plaintiffs, To the extent such information exists, it may also encompass confidential and proprietary information of State Farm or third parties and potentially information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine. and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm will produce Subject to these objections the Policy which describes the relationship with the Plaintiffs as it relates to policy issuance and inspections and the Underwriting File for this Policy, which will reflect underwriting inspections of the property if they exist. INTERROGATORYNO. 5: Identify all policies, procedures, guidelines, manuals and/or training materials, which You used to train any of the Claims Handling Personnel involved with the Claim in any way. 20"}, {"d": 9, "p": 44, "t": "ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, and overly broad with respect to the use of the terms “all policies, procedures, guidelines, manuals and/or training materials.” State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma); potentially unduly burdensome; and seeks information that is neither relevant to the claims/defenses of any party nor proportional to the needs or issues in this case. State Farm’s procedures are intended to provide guidance, but each claim is handled on its own merits. Moreover, training materials that were obsolete on the date of loss, pertain only to other losses, and/or pertain only to other areas of the country, are not relevant to the matters at issue in this case. State Farm additionally objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farin is not at liberty to produce. Finally, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, and upon entry of an approved protective order, State Farm will produce the relevant parts of the claim handling procedures that may have been used to adjust claims alleged to have arisen from the weather event that occurred on the date of loss. This includes the Estimatics and Claim Handling Practices (“ECHP”)—a compilation of claim handling procedures that State Farm prepares in connection with weather events, such as the one here. 21"}, {"d": 9, "p": 45, "t": "INTERROGATORY NO, 6: Identify all State Farm management and/or executive employees who served on the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail team and/or the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team and/or the Hail Focus Initiative team. Please include titles and job descriptions for all such employees and dates of service. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of this action. In particular, the requested information is not probative of the reasonableness of State Farm claim handling and determination under the facts of this case nor is it probative of whether Plaintiffs’ property, and which parts, were in fact damaged by wind and/or hail, State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, particularly with regard to what is meant by the conflated references to teams and initiatives as well as “management,” overly broad in time, and unduly burdensonie because State Farm does not maintain a historical and comprehensive list of individuals who assisted with Wind/Hail Fire Model Enhancement, and that changed over time. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identify all third-party entities or individuals who consulted with State Farm management and/or executive employees relating to the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail team and/or the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team and/or the Hail Focus Initiative team. Please include titles and job descriptions for all third-party entities or individuals and disclose whether there existed or exists any agreenient or contract with any such entity or individual. ANSWER TO INIERROGATORY NO. 7: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory becatise it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of this action. In particular, the requested information is not probative 22"}, {"d": 9, "p": 46, "t": "of the reasonableness of State Farm claim handling and determination under the facts of this case nor is it probative of whether Plaintiffs’ roof or other property was in fact damaged by wind and/or hail, and to what degree. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, particularly with regard to what is meant by the conflated references to teams and initiatives as well as “consulted,” overly broad in time, and uiduly burdensome because State Farm does not mairitain a historical and comprehensive list of individuals involved with Fire Model Enhancement. State Farm stands on its objections.. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: If State Farm contends that damage to the Insured Property was pre-existing or unrelated to the hail damage, please set forth (a) the facts that support such contention; (b) all persons with knowledge to support such contention; and (c) all documents or any other evidence that may support such contention. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: State Farm objects to Interrogatory No. 8 because it is vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “pre-existing” damage and assumes obligations of State Farm which do not exist. Inquiries as to “pre-existing” damage seek information which is not relevant to any party’s claim or defenses or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible eviderice, and discovery related theretd is not proportional to the needs of the case, The Policy requires the existence of accidental direct physical loss which did not exist as to the shingles and State Farm had no obligation to determine what it was instead, Further, the requested information is overly broad and unduly burdensome generally and for the same reason. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm’s assessment of the conditions of the roof as part of its claim inspectionis includedin the claim file being produced 23"}, {"d": 9, "p": 47, "t": "herewith, Bates numbered SFF&CC/West_000054-000887. State Farm further states that the persons with knowledge of State Farm’s assessment of the conditions of Plaintiffs’ roof as part of its inspection include ECR Cedric Gooch, ECR Max Balser, CS Kristin Haun, CS Temicka Collett, CS Christy Mebane, TM Jason Taylor, and CS Yasiin Bradley. INTERROGATORY NO, 9: Identify and describe all training, information, and/or the Fire Model dissemination of information provided to State Farm agents nationwide regarding Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative from January 1, 2019 until the present time. If such training, information or dissemination is conducted or transmitted via an entity other than State Farm, please identify and describe such entity and the process of dissemination to State Farm agents. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “all training, information, or dissemination of information” and the various conflated references to teams and initiatives. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory as it-has no relevance to the facts or handling of the claim underlying this lawsuit. The claim sued upon involves a dispute as to whether and what extent the roof of Plaintiffs’ house was damaged by wind and/or hail. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information of State Farm. State Farm stand on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify all training You have provided to any captive agent regarding the marketing, sale, procurement, and or binding of homeowners insurance coverage in Oklahoma since January 1, 2019. 24"}, {"d": 9, "p": 48, "t": "ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: State Farm objects to this Interrogatory as it seeks information that has no relevance to the facts or handling of the claim underlying this lawsuit or to a valid claim in the Petition. There is no question that the policy was issued and thatit applies ‘to wind and hail claims, The claim sued upon involves a dispute as to whether and what extent the roof of Plaintiffs’ house was damaged by wird and/or hail. State Farm’s underwriting requirements and sales training materials are not probative on that dispute. State Farm also objects to the Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous, State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory as oveily broad, unduly burdensome, andas secking information that is confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information of State Farm. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, Youconducted or commissioned concerning Your adjustment and/or handling of wind- and/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma since 2010. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, specifically with respect to the terms “Analyses,” “Analysis” and “commissioned.” State Farm further objects because this Interrogatory seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is seeking “all” with respect to vague and potentially broad categories of documents and information for a total of 15 years and is thus overly broad and unduly burdensome either in volume or in efforts to locate, or both. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secret information, and to the extent it seeks information potentially protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or 25"}, {"d": 9, "p": 49, "t": "other legal privileges, Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable, State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, You conducted or commissioned concerning Your use of Haag Engineering, Haag Education, and/or any other Haag enterprise or subsidiary with regard to wind- and/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, specifically with respect to the terms “Analyses,” “Analysis” and “commissioned.” State Farm also objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. Haag Engineering had no involvement in this claim. Further, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to not information applicableto the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secret information, and to the extent it seeks information potentially protected by the attomey-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable, State INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Farm stands on its objections. Identify and describe in detail the Fire Model Enhancement-Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative with a similar title. Please outline and 26"}, {"d": 9, "p": 50, "t": "describe how any such team or initiative was created and/or implemented and any Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, you performed regarding such implementation. State Farm objects to the Interrogatory ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous in its conflated references to teams and initiatives as well as “created and/or implemented” and “any Analyses.” State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications without any time or geographic restrictions, regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates, relating to insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to theit homes and homeowners’ claims at issue in this litigation; and involving information about individuals other than the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in this action, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information, or information protected by the attomey-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, conceming Your use of Engineering Services with regard to wind- and/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on 27"}, {"d": 9, "p": 51, "t": "the grounds that it improperly assumes facts and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. There were no engineers or engineering services involved in the inspection or evaluation of this claim. Further, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (secking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “Analyses,” “Analysis” and “use of.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attomey client or other legal privileges. Further, depending on the interpretation of the Interrogatory, it may be unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs have not established that such information, if any exists, is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned into HAAG following a. the jury’s verdict in Watkins v State Farm; b, the jury’s verdict in Nicolau ys State Farm; and/or. c. the Mississippi Attorney General’s Investigation and/or U.S Attorney’s investigation into Your handling of claims arising from hurricanes Katrina and/or Rita. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses 28"}, {"d": 9, "p": 52, "t": "or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time, given the events referenced in (a) — (c) above took place 18, 27, and 18 years ago, respectively, long before this action was filed; and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, Haag Engineering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claim. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned,” and to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. And, the search for any such information would be unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Identify any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned into the following: a. HAAG’S objectivity and/or bias b. Your relationship with HAAG c, Your continued use of HAAG d. Your moratorium on Your use of HAAG ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope 29"}, {"d": 9, "p": 53, "t": "(not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, Haag Engineering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claim. State Farm also objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned into... objectivity . .. relationship . . . continued use . . . [and] moratorium,” and to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. And, the search for any such information would be unduly burdensome. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Identify any date on which Your moratorium on Your use of HAAG, initiated June 5, 2006, was lifted, terminated, modified, or cancelled. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17: State Farm objects to this Request because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “use of” and “lifted, terminated, modified, or cancelled.” State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to» 30"}, {"d": 9, "p": 54, "t": "materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, Haag Engineering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claim. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or theréfore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Identify all training materials You have utilized (whether internal or from.an outside source like HAAG) to train Your Claims Handling Personnel on windand/or hailstorm claims. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “all. training materials You have utilized.” State Farm’s procedures are intended to provide guidance, but each claim is handled on its own merits. Moreover, training materials that were obsolete on the date of loss, pertain only to other losses, and/or pertain only to other areas of the country, are not relevant to the matters at issue in this case, State Farm additionally objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information 31"}, {"d": 9, "p": 55, "t": "and/or documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce. Finally, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, and upon entry of an approved protective order, State Farm will produce the relevant provisions of the claim handling procedures that may have been used to adjust claims alleged to have arisen from the weather event that occurred on the date of loss. This includes. the Estimatics and Claim Handling Procedures (“ECHP”)-a compilation of claim handling procedures that State Farm prepares in connection with weather events, such as the one here. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Identify all Your policies, procedures, and/or practices relating to the training of State Farm adjusters and third-party adjusters on the definition of “functional damage” for roof claims, as well as any coverage limitations based on the size and severity of the hail damage and the amount of wind speeds. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it improperly assumes facts and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurarice claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable periodof time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma), Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “all Your 32"}, {"d": 9, "p": 56, "t": "policies, procedurés, and/or practices relating to the training.” The interrogatory may also be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. State Farm’s procedures are intended to provide guidance, but each claim is handled on its own merits. Moreover, training materials that were obsolete on the date of loss, pertain only to other losses, and/or pertain only to other areas of the country, are not relevant to the matters at issue in this case. State Farm additionally objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce. Finally, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, and upon entry of an approved protective order, State Farm will produce the relevant provisions of the claim handling procedures that may have been used to adjust claims alleged to have arisen from the weather event that occurred on the date of loss. This includes the Estimatics and Claim Handling Practices (“ECHP”)—a compilation of claim handling procedures that State Farm prepares in connection with weather events, such as the one here. For information reflecting the application of claims procedures to Plaintiffs’ claim, see the Claim File for the claim at issue in this litigation. INTERROGATORY NO, 20: Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, You conducted or commissioned specifically targeting full roof replacements with regard to wind- and/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma from 2010 to present. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: State Farm objects to this Interrogatory because it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, specifically with respect to the 33"}, {"d": 9, "p": 57, "t": "use of the terms “commissioned” and “Analyses.” State Farm also objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issuein the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, You conducted or commissioned regatding State Farm adjusters’ and third-party adjusters’ authorization and/or ability to approve full roof replacements without managerial approval from 2010 to present. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague with respect to the use of the terms “commissioned” and “Analyses,” It may also be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. State Farm further objects that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and because this Interrogatory seeks information defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broadin scope (seeking “all with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject 34"}, {"d": 9, "p": 58, "t": "claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attormey work product and/or thatis protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it improperly assumes facts. Managerial approval of roof replacements is fact dependent including factors such as the experience level and therefore monetary authority of the adjuster and the nature of the storm. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections, INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Identify the total number of homeowners’ wind/hail claims from 2019-present in Oklahoma in which State Farm found damage the insured raof’s soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to exceed the policy’s deductible. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claim with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant, 35"}, {"d": 9, "p": 59, "t": "State Farm further objects because the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the. subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because itis vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “found damage the insured roof’s soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to exceed the policy’s deductible.” State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Identify the total number of homeowners’ wind/hail claims from 2019-present in Oklahoma in which State Farm found damage the insured roof’s soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to warrant a Full or Total Roof Replacement. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claim with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits, Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. 36"}, {"d": 9, "p": 60, "t": "State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). Moreover, State Farm objects because the Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “found damage the insured roof’s soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to warrant a Full or Total Roof Replacement.” State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Identify and describe any policies, procedures, and/or methods to review and/or track percentages of total or full roof replacements by individual adjusters and managers adjusting or working on Oklahoma wind/hail claims, including recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking, or analysis related to total or full roof replacementson wind/hail claims. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO, 24: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, which did not involve a total roof replacement. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “any” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents: not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable petiod of time). State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “policies, procedures and/or methods to review” and “recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking or analysis” and may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to 37"}, {"d": 9, "p": 61, "t": "the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Please identify, state, and describe (whether measured quarterly, yearly, or some other way) the Wind and Hail Full Roof Replacement Percentage from January 1, 2019 to the present in Oklahoma. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the résolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claim with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits, Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinentto the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “Wind and Hail Full Roof Replacement Percentage.”It may also be unduly burdensome 38"}, {"d": 9, "p": 62, "t": "depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extentit seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, and because Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Please identify, state, and describe (whether measured quarterly, yearly, or some other way) the Total or Full Roof Replacement to Partial Roof Replacement Ratio on Wind/Hail Claims from January 1, 2019 to the present in Oklahoma. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO, 26: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claim with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. State Farm further objects because this Interrogatory is unduly burdensome and overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time).” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business 39"}, {"d": 9, "p": 63, "t": "information and/or trade secrets, and because Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. It may also be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Please identify, state, and describe (whether measured quarterly, yearly, or some other way) the Total Roof Payment volumes on Wind/Hail claims from January 1, 2019 to the presentin Oklahoma. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO, 27: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claim with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is unduly burdensome and overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “Total Roof Payment volumes on Wind/Hail claims.” It may also be unduly burdensome 4)"}, {"d": 9, "p": 64, "t": "depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, and because Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. RY28: Please identify, state, and describe how the Fire Model NO. INTERROGATO Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative from January 1, 2019 until the present implemented such initiatives or plans in Oklahoma, including claims handling tactics or rules used, tracking of indemnity savings in Oklahoma, tracking of the total or full roof replacement fo partial roof replacement ratio in Oklahoma, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims in Oklahoma. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague with respect to the terms “Fire Model Enhancement . . . and/or any hail quality focus initiative,” “implemented such initiatives,” and “claims handling tactics or rules.” It may also be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent if seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates, relating to insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowners’ claimsat issue in this litigation; and involving information about individuals other than the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim. The investigation and evaluation of other 41"}, {"d": 9, "p": 65, "t": "claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in this action, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information, or information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. Y 29: Please identify, state, and describe how the Fire Model INTERROGATORNO, Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative kicked off in Texas, including how such initiatives or plans wete implemented in Texas, including claims handling tactics or rules used, tracking of indemnity savings in Texas, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio in Texas, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims in Texas. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 29: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague with respect to the terms “Fire Model ‘Enhancement .. . and/or any hail quality focus initiative,” “implemented such initiatives,” and “claims handling tactics or rules.” It may also be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad anid seeks information that is neither relevant fo the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates, in different geographies, relating to insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowners’ claims at issue in this litigation; and involving 42"}, {"d": 9, "p": 66, "t": "information about individuals other than the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in this action, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information, or information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work that such information product doctrine, and/or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO, 30: Please identify any and all duties of State Farm and/or its captive Agent(s) to keep abreast of the condition of the properties State Farm insures upon renewal, including but not limited to reducing the risk of insuring the property, maintaining the exterior of the property, reducing the risk of additional damage to the roof, replacing the roof, replacing shingles with granular loss, eligible roofing material used, and how the insured gets this information to State Farm and/or its captive Agent(s). ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 30: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because it impermissibly calls for a legal conclusion. It is also vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “duties,” “keep abreast,” and “how the insured gets this information to State Farm and/or its captive Agent(s).” It may also be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. It is also overly broad as it is unlimited as to time or geographic location or the type of property insured and for that reason also seeks information which is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case. State Farm additionally objects to this Interrogatory as invasive of the attorneyclient privilege and/or work-product doctrine and seeks confidential and proprietary information of State Farm. 43"}, {"d": 9, "p": 67, "t": "Subject to and without waiving these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm refers Plaintiffs to the Policy, including all declaration pages and notices, which are produced with these responses. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Produce color copiesof all Documents related to either Plaintiff, Plaintiffs’ Dwelling Policy, and/or the Claim in State Farm’s Enterprise Claims System (“ECS”), including, but not limited to the Claim File. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 1 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case to the extent it seeks information from policy periods prior to or beyond the policy period relevant to the Claim at issue. State Farm further objects to the Request insofar as it seeks production of ESI in “color” on the grounds that color does not convey meaning, is not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and is not proportional to the needs of this case and may’be unduly burdensome. Additionally, State Farm objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad in time (not limited by any reasonable period or to the timeframe for handling of the specific insurance claim at issue in this litigation) and scope (not limited to Plaintiffs’ insurance claim at issue in this lawsuit) and due to the use of the term “all” with respect to the broad categories of documents requested. Further, due to the overly broad nature of this Request, it is a potential invasion of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to these objections and State Farmi’s Universal Objections, State Farm will produce the Claim File for the claim at issue in this litigation in reasonably usable format as it is kept in the 44"}, {"d": 9, "p": 68, "t": "ordinary course of business. State Farm will also produce the underwriting file for the Policy covering the ptoperty at issue herein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Produce all Documents related to any inspection You conducted or arranged to be conducted of Plaintiffs’ Dwelling in relation to the Policy. This Request includes (but is not limited to) any inspection conducted by a third-party vendor at Your direction, instruction, or request. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 2: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 2 because the condition, State Farm’s knowledge of the condition, and inspections of Plaintiffs’ house, in addition to arly other information encompassed in the Request, presume obligations that do not exist and encompass information that is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case. The scope and particularities of what is requested are also vague, and ambiguous as to what is meant by “inspection . . . in relation to the Policy.” It is thus also overly broad and unduly burdensome as written. State Farm objects to producing underwriting information on the ground that it is neither relevant nor proportional, as there is no dispute that the applicable policy was in effect on the date of loss. The Request also seeks documents which may be in the possession of persons other than State Farm, including, in some instances, Plaintiffs. To the extent the documents exist, they may also encompass confidential and proprietary information of State Farm or third parties and potentially information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, in addition to the Claim File being produced in response to Request No. 1, State Farm will produce inspections of the house by third-parties as part of an underwriting review, if any, which should be in the underwriting file, which is being produced contemporaneously herewith. 45"}, {"d": 9, "p": 69, "t": "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 3: Produce all Documents You identified, relied upon, referred to, or consulted in preparing Your response to any Discovery Request in this Action. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 3 because it improperly asks it to marshal its evidence and amounts to at least a hundred separate Requests for Production because it requests documents relied upon. in responding to “any” discovery request and is therefore unduly burdensome as well. State Farm further objectsto the extent this Request is not limited to Plaintiffs’ insurance claim at issue in this lawsuit, seeks information thatis neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case, arid seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Moreover, State Farm objects to the Request as overly broad, vague, and lacking specificity and as an improper omnibus discovery request because it uses the terms, “all” and “relied upon, referred to, or consulted.” Subject to these objections and its Universal Objections, State Farm will produce documents identified as responsive to any request herein, subject to entry of an approved Protective Order where applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Produce all Documents containing any policies, procedures, guidelines, manuals and/or training materials, which You used to train any of the Claims Handling Personnel involved with the Claim in any way. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 4 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. The request. for “all Documents containing any policies, procedures, guidelines, manuals and/or training materials” and for any individual “involved with the Claim in any way” is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad and may be unduly 46"}, {"d": 9, "p": 70, "t": "burdensome depending on its interpretation. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claims and/or coverages at issue in this litigation), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). State Farm’s procedures are intended to provide guidance, but each claim is handled on its own merits. Moreover, training materials that were obsolete on the date of loss, pertain only to other losses, and/or pertain only to other areas of the country, are not relevant to the matters at issue in this case. State Farm additionally objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce. Finally, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secret. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections and upon execution of an approved protective order, State Farm will produce the relevant portions of the claim handling procedures that may have been used to adjust claims alleged to have arisen from the weather event that occurred on the date of loss, This includes the Estimatics and Claim Haridling Practices (“ECHP”)—a compilation of claim handling procedures that State Farm prepares in connection with weather events, such as the one here. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Produce all underwriting guidelines, binding rules, contractual agreements, and training materials which were relied upon or utilized by State Farm, and/or its captive Agent(s) with respect to selling and issuing Plaintiffs’ policy and for each renewal thereafter. 47"}, {"d": 9, "p": 71, "t": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 5 because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “underwriting guidelines, binding rules, contractual agreements, and training materials . . . relied upon or utilized . . . with respect to selling and issuing Plaintiffs’ policy and for each renewal thereafter” and may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. State Farm further objects to this Request on grounds the information sought is not relevant to any party’s claim or defense or proportional to the needs of the case. There is no question that the house satisfied State Farm’s underwriting guidelines because the policy issued. The Claim sued upon involves a dispute as to whether and to what extent the shingles on Plaintiffs’ roof were damaged by the weather event at issue, and State Farm’s underwriting requirements and sales training materials are not probative on that dispute. State Farm further objects to this Request as overly broad and to the extent it seeks privileged, confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information of State Farm. Subject to these objections and its Universal Objections, State Farm will produce the underwriting guidelines in effect on the date of issuance of Plaintiffs’ Policy, subject to an approved Protective Order. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6; Produce all documents You have utilized (whether internal or from an outside source like HAAG) to train Your Claims Handling Personnel on wind-and/or hailstorm claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 6 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. The request for “any training materials You have utilized... to train Your Claims Handling Personnel on wind- and/or hailstorm claims” is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad and may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials"}, {"d": 9, "p": 72, "t": "applicable to the specific insurance claims and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). State Farm’s procedures are intended to provide guidance, but each claim is handled on its own merits. Moreover, training materials that were obsolete on the date of loss, pertain only to other losses, and/or pertain only to other areas of the country, are not relevant to the matters at issue in this case, State Farm additionally objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents authored and/or copyrighted by éntities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce. Finally, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Subject to and without waiving these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections and upon entry of an approved protective order, State Farm will produce the relevant provisions of the claim handling procedures that may have been used to adjust claims alleged to have arisen from the weather event that occurred on the date of loss. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Produce all Documents from January 1, 2019 to the present relating to any review and/or tracking of percentages of total or full roof ‘replacementsby individual adjusters and managers adjusting or working on Oklahoma wind/hail claims, including recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking, or analysis related to total or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 7 because it improperly assumes facts, and is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, 49"}, {"d": 9, "p": 73, "t": "the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “any” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), State Farm further objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “review and/or tracking,” “adjusting or working on,” and “recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking or analysis” and may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attomey work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable, State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Produce all Documents related to any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned into HAAG following: a, the jury’s verdict in Watkins v State Farm, b. the jury’s verdict in Nicolau vs State Farm; and/or ¢. the Mississippi Attorney General’s Investigation and/or U.S Attorney’s investigation into Your handling of claims arising from hurricanes Katrina and/or Rita. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 8 because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of any party’s claims or defenses nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue 50"}, {"d": 9, "p": 74, "t": "in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time, given the events referenced in (a) — (c) above took place 18, 27, and 18 years ago, respectively, long before this action was filed; and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma.). Moreover, Haag Engineering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claim. State Farm also objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned” and it may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Further, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Produce all Documents related to any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned into the following: a HAAG’S objectivity and/or bias b. Your relationship with HAAG c. Your continued use of HAAG d. Your moratorium on Your use of HAAG RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9; State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 9 because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject Sl"}, {"d": 9, "p": 75, "t": "claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma), Moreover, Haag Engineering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claim. State Farm also objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned into . . . objectivity . . . relationship . . . continued use. . . [and] moratorium” and it may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Further, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable, State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Produce all Documents related to Your issuance of a moratorium on Your use of HAAG, dated June 5, 2006, following the jury verdict rendered in Watkins v State Farm. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 10 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or . coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, Haag Engincering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claim. 52"}, {"d": 9, "p": 76, "t": "State Farm also objects to this Request because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous with respect to the phrase “use of” and it may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secréts, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Produce all Communications You sent to or received from Haag Engineering, Haag Education, or any division, subsidiary, or parent thereof (including any representative thereof) from 2012 until Present relating to any payments You made or received from any such HAAG entity or representative pursuant to any Indemnity Agreement. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 11: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 11 because it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. The Request is also overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “any division, subsidiary, or parent” and “any payments” and it may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation, Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Moreover, Haag Engineering did 53"}, {"d": 9, "p": 77, "t": "not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claim. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Produce all Documents related to any Indemnity Agreement entered into between You and HAAG Engineering, HAAG Education, or any division, subsidiary, or parent thereof (including any representative thereof) from 2012 until Present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 12 because it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. The Request is also overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “any division, subsidiary, or parent” and it may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. In addition, Haag Engineering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claim. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. 54"}, {"d": 9, "p": 78, "t": "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Produce all Documents related to any Cost/Benefit Analysis concerning Your adjustment and/or handling of wind- and/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma since 2010. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 13 because it improperly assumes facts and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, Itis also vague and ambiguous and may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. The Request is also overly broad in scope (seeking “any Cost/Benefit Analyses”; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it secks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable, State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 14: Produce all documents related to the Fire Model Enhancement on Wind/Hail from January 1, 2019 until the present, including any and all presentations, memos, documents, or plans of the FME Wind/Hail, whether in draft or final format. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 14 because it impermissibly assumes facts, seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, and because it encompasses confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information of State Farm. It is also unduly burdensome. 55"}, {"d": 9, "p": 79, "t": "Specifically, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims insureds, of other arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation, The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the casé, as cach claim is handled on its own individual facts. State Farm also objects to the extent the Request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Plaintiffs have not established such information is probative of any issue in the case or, therefore, discoverable, State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Produce all documents related to the implementation of any measures, program rules, tactics, claims handling procedures or policies related to the Fire Model Enhancement on Wind/Hail from January 1, 2019 until the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 15 because it impermissibly assumes facts, seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, and because it encompasses confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information of State Farm. Jt is also vague and ambiguous and thus unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Specifically, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case,as each claim is handled on its: own individual facts, State Farm also objects to the extent the Request seeks information protected 56"}, {"d": 9, "p": 80, "t": "by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case or, therefore, discoverable, State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Produce all documents related to the Wind and Hail Full. Roof Replacement Percentage from January 1, 2019 to the present, including nationwide.and state specific tracking of such percentages. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 16 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claim with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harni Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. State Farm further objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “Wind and Hail Full Roof Replacement Percentage” and because it is overly broad in scope (seeking “alf documents related to . ..”; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); geographic area; and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). It is also unduly burdensome depending on 57"}, {"d": 9, "p": 81, "t": "its interpretation. Plaintiffs have not established that stich information is probative of any issue in the case or, therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Produce all documents related to the Total or Full Roof Replacement to Partial Roof Replacement Ratio on Wind/Hail Claims from January 1, 2019 to the present, including nationwide and state specific tracking of such ratios. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17: State Farm objects to Request No. 17 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and the burden or expense of the proposed discovery, which outweighs its likely benefit. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claim with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different Policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. State Farm also objects to this Request as overly broad in scope (seeking “ali documents related to... .”: not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); geographic area; and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). It 58"}, {"d": 9, "p": 82, "t": "is also vague and ambiguous and thus unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case or, therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Produce all documents related to the Total Roof Payment volumes on Wind/Hail claims from January 1, 2019 to the present, including . nationwide and state specific tracking of such ratios. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 18 because it is overly broad, improperly assumes facts, and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to rélevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and the burden or expense of the proposed discovery, which outweighs its likely benefit. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claim with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different Policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. State Farm further objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “Total Roof Payment volumes on Wind/Hail claims” and because it is overly broad in scope (seeking “all documents related to . . .”; not limited to information applicable to the 59"}, {"d": 9, "p": 83, "t": "specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). It is also unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case or, therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Produce all documents from January 1, 2019 until the present, relating to your review, monitoring, and/or tracking of the percentages of total or full roof replacements by individual adjusters and managers on wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 19 because it is overly broad, improperly assumes facts, and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (secking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); geographic area; and time (nat limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “review, monitoring, and or tracking.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attomey client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Depending on its interpretation, the Request may also be unduly burdensome, State Farm stands on its objections. 60"}, {"d": 9, "p": 84, "t": "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 20: Produce any policies, procedures, and/ot methods to review and/or track percentages of total or full roof replacements by individual adjusters and managers adjusting or working on Oklahoma wind/hail claims, including recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking, or analysis related to total or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20; State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 20 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defensesor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the clainis personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking or analysis” and may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Produce all Documents related to the Fire Model Enhancement-Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative for the kick off in Texas in 2020. 61"}, {"d": 9, "p": 85, "t": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 21: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 21 because it is overly broad and seeks information thatis not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses of proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use and conflation of the various references to teams and initiatives. It may also be burdensome depending on its interpretation. In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in ihe case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietaty business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 22: Produce all Documents related to the Fire Model Enhancement-Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative referencing Oklahoma from January 1, 2019 until the present, inchiding plans to implement such initiatives or plans in 62"}, {"d": 9, "p": 86, "t": "Oklahoma, implementation in Oklahoma, tracking of indemnity savings in Oklahoma, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio in Oklahoma, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims in Oklahoma. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 22: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 22 because it improperly assumes facts, is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scape (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use and conflation of the various references to teams and initiatives. It may also be burdensome depending on its interpretation. This Request is also overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstaices, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/ot that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections, 63"}, {"d": 9, "p": 87, "t": "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Produce all correspondence. sent to or by Nicole Manduca from January 1, 2019 to the present referring or relating to the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other wind/hail quality focus initiatives. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 23: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 23 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, As an initial matter, Nicole Manduca was not involved in the adjustment or handling of Plaintiffs’ claim. Moreover, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the use and conflation of the various references to teams and initiatives. It may also be burdensome depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attomey work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client 64"}, {"d": 9, "p": 88, "t": "or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Produce all Documents related to the Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives, including any presentations, metrics, claim handling tactics or rules, tracking of results, and/or Cost/Benefit Analyses You performed regarding any such initiative or program. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 24: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 24 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the use and conflation of the various references to teams and initiatives. It may also be burdensome depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade 65"}, {"d": 9, "p": 89, "t": "secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges, Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION.NO. 25: Produce all Documents memorializing any enterprise-wide rule You have stated, implemented, or enforced regarding the need for any management approval of full roof replacements on wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 25: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 25 because it impermissibly assumes facts, is overly broad, and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broadin scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Further, State Farm objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “enterprise-wide rule . _. stated, implemented, or enforced regarding the need” and may be overly broad depending on its interpretation, Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it secks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, invades the privacy rights of policyholders who are not parties to this lawsuit, or seeks information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. State Farm further objects to the extent this Request purports to imply that State Farm implemented an enterprise-wide rule that required management. approval of full roof replacements on all wind/hail claims. Rather, managerial approval for total roof replacements depends on the experience and level of authority of the adjuster and/or the nature of the weather event. Plaintiffs have not established that such 66"}, {"d": 9, "p": 90, "t": "information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Your Quality plan(s), program(s), and/or initiative(s) to reduce or track indemnity payments, reduce or track the total or full roof replacement to partial roof ratio, reduce or track full roof replacement approval percentages, and reduce or track nationwide total roof payment volume on wind or hail claims from January 1, 2019 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 26: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 26 because it impermissibly assumes facts and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to.materials applicable to Oklahoma). Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “Quality plan(s), program(s), and/or initiative(s)” and is unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. State Farm also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work. product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. 67"}, {"d": 9, "p": 91, "t": "Subject to these and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm agrees to produce State Farm’s Fire Property Claims Quality Plan that was in effect on the date of loss, upon entry of an approved protective order, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Your Wind/Hail claims Focus Models, including the Fire Model Enhancement — Wind/Hail, pertaining to homeowners’ claims from 2016 io present, including all presentations, internal memos, or related documents. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 27: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 27 because it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “Wind/Hail claims Focus Models” and “related documents” and is unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. State Farm further objects because this Request is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant fo the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts, Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is 68"}, {"d": 9, "p": 92, "t": "protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges, Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable, State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: The matrices which relate to or involve the tracking of Your financial savings (and future financial savings) tied to reduction in indemnity payments on wind/hail claims, reduction in the total or full roof replacement to partial roof ratio, nationwide total roof payment volume, and/or reduction of the full roof replacement percentage on wind or hail claims from January 1, 2019 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 28: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 28 because it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “matrices which involve the tracking of and may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. State Farm further objects to this Request because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited fo materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable, State Farm stands on its objections. 69"}, {"d": 9, "p": 93, "t": "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: way Produce all Documents related in any to “enhanced emphasis on Claim Handling Hygiene.” RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 29: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 29 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “all Documents related in any way”; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevantto the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation, The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “related in any way” and “enhanced emphasis on Claim Handling Hygiene” and therefore may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections, 70"}, {"d": 9, "p": 94, "t": "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Produce all Documents related to the “Art of the Conversation.” RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 30: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 30 because it improperly assumes facts and secks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “all Documents related to . ..\"5 not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). It is also vague and ambiguous and therefore may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation, Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Produce all Documents related to the “HAAG Refresher.” RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 31: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 31 because it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “all Documents related to... .”; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic 71"}, {"d": 9, "p": 95, "t": "area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). State Farm further objects to this Request as vague, specifically with respect to the use of the term “HAAG Refresher” and therefore may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. State Farm further states that its procedures are intendedto provide guidance, but each claim is handled on its own merits, Moreover, training materials that were obsolete on the date of loss, pertain only to other losses, and/or pertain only to other areas of the country, are not relevant to the matters at issue in this case. State Farm additionally objects to this Request to the extentit seeks information and/or documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce. Finally, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable, State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Produce all Documents related to the “2021 Fire Property Claims Quality Plan.” RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 32: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 32 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broadin scope and unduly burdensome (seeking “af? Documents related to . . . .”; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, 72"}, {"d": 9, "p": 96, "t": "circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handied on its own individual facts. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Subject to these and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm agrees to produce State Farm’s 2021 Fire Property Claims Quality Plan upon entry of an approved protective order. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 33: Produce full and complete copies of all communications on “MyBlock” for the last ten (10) years related to wind/hail claims, total roof replacements, and/or the Fire Model Enhancement ~ Wind/Hail or related Team. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 33: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 33 because it is overly broad and. seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope and unduly burdensome (seeking “a// communications”; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma), In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and . communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Moreover, State Farm objects to this 73"}, {"d": 9, "p": 97, "t": "Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges, It is also unduly burdensome to search for and/or produce such information. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Produce full and complete copies of all but not limited to: Chapter “HAAG Education Hail and Wind Assessment Video Series,” including 1 - Hail and Wind Basics contains four segments and is 1 hour and 28 minutes; Chapter 2 — Composition Shingles contains nine segments and is 2 hours and 33 minutes long. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 34: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 34 because, in requesting “full and complete copies of ‘HAAG Education Hail Assessment Video Series,” it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needsof the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope because it is not limited to trainings applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation. State Farm further objects to this Request because Haag has taken the position that State Farm does not have the authority to produce these videos. Accordingto Haag, the videos constitute its intellectual property, and State Farm’s license to use the videos “does not confer upon State Farm any authority or sufficient control over the videos to reproduce, disclose, or otherwise produce Haag’s proprietary materials in litigation.” See Decl. of R. Holdhusen, attached hereto. As such, Plaintiffs’ request should be directed to Haag. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST Documents FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: or Communications Produce full and complete copies of all pertaining to “Claims and Agency 74 Weather Event Topic"}, {"d": 9, "p": 98, "t": "Discussions” and any transcriptions of the following: “Claim managers will host calls with Agency leadership from mid-January 2021 through February 2021 to discuss wind/hail topics that were frequent points of discussion with Agency in 2020. These topics may include a review of 2020 claim wind/hail volume, additional inspections, matching, roofer inspections prior to a claim being submitted to State Farm, timelines for obtaining replacement cost benefits, Roof/Exterior Inspection Assist Program, SFPSP Roofing Services Program (RSP)/Contractor Services Program (CSP), Roof Surfaces Payment Schedule Endorsement, and Metal Roof Exclusion for Hail (Section 1 — Additional Coverage: Metal Roof Endorsement).” RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 35: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 35 because it is overly broad, improperly assumes facts, and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma), In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this Jitigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Additionally, in requesting “all” documents on the broadly described topics, the Request is vague and ambiguous and unduly burdensome. 75"}, {"d": 9, "p": 99, "t": "Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: Please produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or other correspondence or documents sent or received by Nicole Manduca from January 1, 2019 until the present time regarding or relating to (i) Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives, (ii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Texas; (iii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement ~ Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Oklahoma; (iv) claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans; (v) Fire Model Enhancement Guidelines; and/or (vi) tracking of indemnity savings, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 36: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 36 because it is duplicative of Request for Production No. 23. In addition, State Farm objects to this Request because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, Nicole Manduca was not involved in ‘any way with the handling or adjustment of Plaintiffs’ claim. 76"}, {"d": 9, "p": 100, "t": "Moreover, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “any and ail” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable time period); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive. information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the conflation in the use and references to various teams and initiatives as well as “claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans”; therefore, it may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Please produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or other correspondence or documents sent or received by Tom Moss from January 1, 2019 until the present time regarding or relating to (i) Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives, (ii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the 77"}, {"d": 9, "p": 101, "t": "Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Texas; (iii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Oklahoma; (iv) claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans; (v) Fire Model Enhancement Guidelines; and/or (v) tracking of indemnity savings, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio, tracking of full roof replacement approval peicentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 37: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 37 becauseit is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the of the case. As an initial matter, Tom Moss was claims and defenses or proportional to the needs not involved in the handling or adjustment of Plaintiffs’ claim. Moreover, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “any and all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject area (not limited to materials claim); time (not limited to a reasonable time period); and geographic applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts, Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, in the conflation 78"}, {"d": 9, "p": 102, "t": "of the use and references to various claims and initiatives as well as “claims handling tactics or rules used relatedto such initiatives or plans”; therefore, it may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation, especially as to the terms/phrases “Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives” and “claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable, State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Please produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or other correspondence or documents sent or received by Susan Maynard from January 1, 2019 until the present time regarding or relating to (i) Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives, (ii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Mode! Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Texas; (iii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Oklahoma; (iv) claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans; (v) Fire Model Enhancement Guidelines; and/or (v) tracking of indemnity savings, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims. 79"}, {"d": 9, "p": 103, "t": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 38: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 38 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to thé needs of the case. As an initial matter, Susan Maynard was not involved in the handling or adjustment of Plaintiffs’ claim. Moreover, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “any and all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinentto the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable time period); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant fo the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, in the conflation of the use and references to various claims and initiatives as well as “claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans;” therefore, it may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Additionally, State Parm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. 80"}, {"d": 9, "p": 104, "t": "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: Produce all Fire Model Enhancement Guidelines for Wind/Hail. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 39; State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 39 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who. adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). It is also unduly burdensome. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: Produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or other correspondence or documents duties of State Farm and/or its captive Agent(s) to keep abreast of the condition of the properties State Farm insures upon renewal, including but not imited to reducing the risk of insuring the property, maintaining the exterior of the property, reducing the risk of additional damage to the roof, replacing the roof, replacing shingles with granular loss, eligible roofing material used, and how the insured gets this information to State Farm and/or its captive Agent(s). RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 40: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 40 because it improperly assumes facts and seeks information which is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case. The Request is also vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “duties,” 81"}, {"d": 9, "p": 105, "t": "“keep abreast,” and “how the insured gets this information to State Farm and/or its captive Agent(s)” and therefore may be unduly burdensome depending on the interpretation. State Farm additionally objects to this Interrogatory as invasive of the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine and because it improperly seeks a legal conclusion. The Request is also objectionable because it is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case,as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attomey work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands onits objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: Produce any Fire Property Claims Quality Plan from January 1, 2019 until the present time. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 41: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 41 because it is overly broad and. seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly"}, {"d": 9, "p": 106, "t": "broad in scope (not limited to matérials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm agrees to produce State Farm’s Fire Property Claims Quality Plan that was in effect on the date of loss, upon entry of an approved protective order. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: Produce any Wind/Hail Claims Guidelines from January 1, 2019 until the present time. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 42: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 42 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attomey work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. 83"}, {"d": 9, "p": 107, "t": "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: Please produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or other correspondence or documents sent or received by Sharon Arnold from January 1, 2019 until the present time regarding or relating to (i) Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives, (ii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Texas; (iii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Oklahoma; (iv) claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans; (v) Fire Model Enhancement Guidelines; and/or (v) tracking of indemnity savings, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims, RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 43: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 43 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, Sharon Armold was not involved in the handling or adjustment of Plaintiffs’ claim. Moreover, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “any and all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable time period); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks doctiments and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising 84"}, {"d": 9, "p": 108, "t": "under different.facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner's claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “any hail quality focus initiatives,” “claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans,” “total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio,” “full roof replacement approval percentages,” and “total roof payment volume.” Therefore, it may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: Produce all documents previously produced and/or ordered by the respective court to be produced by You in the following cases: - Nidav, State Farm, CJ-2020-4453 (Oklahoma County) - Hosier v. State Farm, CJ-2021-1741 (Oklahoma County) - Kyger v. State Farm, CJ-2022-3990 (Oklahoma County) - McDowv. State Farm, CJ-2022-1857 (Oklahoma County) - Barnett v. State Farm, CJ-2020-141 (Grady County) - McNeil v. State Farm, CJ-2021-926 (Cleveland County) RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 44: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 44 as an improper attempt to circumvent the protective orders governing the disclosure of 85"}, {"d": 9, "p": 109, "t": "Confidential information in other cases and the relevance requirements for each case. State Farm further objects because this Request is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the résolution of any party’s claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, as each of the cases listed in this Request involves different insureds, policies, properties; weather events, and facts of loss. This Request is also overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to and not limited to materials the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it is improper “cloned discovery” and to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets or information. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 1: Admit that Plaintiff notified State Farm Fire and Casualty Company of the loss pertinent to the present action as required under the Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. i: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that Plaintiff complied with all provisions of the policy with regard to filing a claim for loss. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO,2: Denied. 86"}, {"d": 9, "p": 110, "t": "REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that it is standard practice in the insurance industry for claims departments to adjust claims in a manner that does not violate the provisions of the Oklahoma Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, 36 O.S. § 1201, et seq. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3: State Farm objects to Request for Admission No. 3 because it is vague and ambiguous, harassing, and serves no legitimate purpose. It is improperto ask State Farm to admit or deny information as to what is or is not “standard practice” of other insurers, which is how the request is framed. For that reason and others, the admission request seeks infotmation which is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm admits that it handles claims in accordance with the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act provisions that are applicable to the specific claim being handled and not prevented by circumstances outside of State Farm’s control. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that State Farm Fire. and Casualty Company must conduct a reasonable and prompt investigation of Plaintiffs’ insurance claim. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4: State Farm objects to Request for Admission No. 4 because it is vague and ambiguous. What is “reasonable” and “prompt” is subject to interpretation and prevents State Farm from admitting or denying the request with precision as written. The request also improperly asks State Farm to admit or deny a legal conclusion, Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm admits that it must conduct a reasonable and prompt investigation, the determination of which varies based upon the facts of each claim. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that State Farm Fire and Casualty Company must promptly pay Plaintiffs all benefits owed under Plaintiffs’ Policy. 87"}, {"d": 9, "p": 111, "t": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5: State Farm objects to Request for Admission No. 5 because it is vague and ambiguous, What constitutes “promptly” is subject to interpretation and prevents State Farm from admitting or denying the request with precision as written. The request also improperly asks State Farm to admit or deny a legal conclusion, Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm admits that it must pay Plaintiffs benefits State they are owed. Farm determines are owed under the Policy within a reasonable time of determining REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s claim file for Plaintiffs must contain contemporaneous and detailed documentation of each action taken and all work performed on Plaintiffs’ claim. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6: State Farm objects to Request for Admission No. 6 ‘because it is vague and ambiguous. What is “contemporaneous” and “detailed” is subject to interpretation and prevents State Farm from admitting or denying the request with precision as written. The request also improperly asks State Farm to admit or deny a legal conclusion. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm denies the request as written. What the statute requires is that State Farm include notes and papers in the claim file “in such detail that pertinent events and the dates of such events can be reconstructed.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that Plaintiffs’ Policy afforded coverage to Plaintiffs for the structural damage to the Subject Property and that said Coverage was active at all times relevantto this lawsuit. RESPONSETO REQUEST NO. 7: State Farm objects to Request for Admission No. 7 because it is vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “structural damage” and that “said Coverage was active.” It also assumes facts—“structural damage”—that do not exist. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, the request for admission is denied 88"}, {"d": 9, "p": 112, "t": "because there was no “structural damage” (as it is understood by State Farm) to the “Subject Property” from a June 15, 2023 date of loss (or otherwise based on the information known to State Farm). State Farm admits that the Policy was in force on the date of loss. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8; Admit that Plaintiffs have paid the premiums in full on the Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8: State Farm objects to Request for Admission No. 8 because it seeks information which is not relevant, likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, or proportional to the needs of the case. State Farm is not urging any defense based on any non-payment or late-payment of premiums. State Farm admits that the policy was in force on the date of loss. State Farm stands on its objection as to any further response to this admission request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit at the time of the inception of Plaintiffs’ Policy, State Farm required its agents, including Agent, to inspect all new business, including rewrites to new locations. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that State Farm utilized assumptive data regarding the characteristics of Plaintiffs’ Dwelling in the calculation of Plaintiffs’ replacement cost value. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10: State Farm objects to this Request as it is vague and ambiguous as worded, does not define the “assumptive data” referenced, does not distinguish whether it relates to the underwriting process or the claims handling process, and appears to be overly broad in time and scope, an incomplete hypothetical irrelevant to the Plaintiffs’ claim and/or policy, which is an improper request for admission. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s 89"}, {"d": 9, "p": 113, "t": "Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. ii: Admit the term “hail damage” is not defined in Plaintiffs’ Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11: State Farm objects to this Request because the policy is a written document that speaks for itself and it improperly assumes that a policy form must define hail damage. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Fatm’s policy states that it “will pay for accidental direct physical loss” to covered property “unless the loss is excluded or limited” in the policy and thus includes hail damage. State Farm otherwise admits that “hail damage” is not a defined term in the policy. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit the term “functional damage” is not defined in Plaintiffs’ Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12: State Farm objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous, and the policy is a written document that speaks for itself. State Farm also objects that this Request improperly assumes that functional damage applies and that a policy form must define functional damage. Subject to these objections and State Farm's Universal Objections, State Farm’s policy states that it “will pay for accidental direct physical loss” to covered property “unless the loss is excluded or limited” in the policy and includes hail damage. State Farm admits that “functional damage” is not a defined term in the policy. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that if there is an accidental direct physical loss sustained by Plaintiffs to the insured Dwelling under the Policy, then there must be a specific exclusion in the Policy to support any denial. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13: State Farm objects to this Request as calling for a legal conclusion. It is also vague and ambiguous and an incomplete hypothetical, Subject to these 90"}, {"d": 9, "p": 114, "t": "objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit You do not define hail damage in Plaintiffs’ Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14: State Farm objects to Request for Admission No. 14 becauseit is duplicative of Request for Admission No, 11. State Farm further objects to this Request because the policy is a written document that speaks for itself. State Farm also objects that this Request improperly assumes that a policy form must define hail damage. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm’s policy states that it “will pay for accidental direct physical loss” to covered property “unless the loss is excluded or limited” in the policy and includes hail damage. State Farm admits that “hail damage” is not a defined term in the policy, REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit You do not define “accidental direct physical loss” in Plaintiffs’ Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15: State Farm objects to this Request because the policy is a written document that speaks for itself. State Farm also objects that this Request improperly assumes that a policy form must define accidental direct physical loss, Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm’s policy states that it “will pay for accidental direct physical loss” to covered property “unless the loss is excluded or limited” in the policy, but admits that “accidental direct physical loss” is not otherwise a defined term in the policy. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit You train Your claims personnel that excessive granular loss to composition shingles caused by hail is not to be considered damage under the terms and conditions of State Farm’s homeowners policies. 91"}, {"d": 9, "p": 115, "t": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16: State Farm objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous as to “excessive granular loss” and “not ta be considered.” Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit a home with construction defects to the roof does not qualify for a State Farm homeowners policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17: State Farm objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to “construction defects.” Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REOUEST FOR ADMISSION 18: NO. Admit You developed the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other initiatives or programs to apply on first-party claims to seek a reduction in the amount You spent each year on total roof replacements, lower the ratio of total or full roof replacements to partial roof replacements, lower the full roof replacement approval percentage, and/or lower nationwide total roof payment volume. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18: State Farm objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. State Farm further objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 19: Admit You tracked the results of the Fire Mode! Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other initiatives or programs in the amount You spent each year on total roof replacements, the ratio of total or full roof replacements to partial roof replacements, the full roof replacement approval percentage, and/or nationwide total roof payment 92"}, {"d": 9, "p": 116, "t": "volume. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19: State Farm objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. State Farm further objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit that You targeted Oklahoma certain States to implement the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other similarly named initiatives or programs, RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20: State Farm objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. State Farm further objectsto this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit that You started implementation of the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other similarly named initiatives or programs in Texas. RESPONSETO REQUEST NO. 21: State Farm objects to this Request because is vague and ambiguous. State Farm further objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Subject to these objections and State Farm's Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admit that You targeted Oklahoma as a state to implement the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model 93"}, {"d": 9, "p": 117, "t": "Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other similarly named initiatives or programs after implementation in Texas. NO. 22: RESPONSE TO REQUEST State Farm objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. State Farm further objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 23: Admit that you have trained and/or made known the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other similarly named initiatives or progiams to State Farm captive agents since January 1, 2019. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 23: State Farm objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Admit You developed a team management approval system wherein adjusters who recommend a full roof replacement on a wind/ hail claim must get team manager approval for such full or total roof replacement. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 24: State Farm objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION ‘NO, 25: Admit that You compared the industry standards on percentage of Full Roof Replacements to Your internal standard on percentage of Full Roof Replacements and identified an opportunity for internal quality improvement by seeking to lower Your percentage of approvals for full roof replacements to the industry standard and/or to 94"}, {"d": 9, "p": 118, "t": "arelated benchmark. Staté Farm objectsto this Request because it is RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 25: irrelevant, improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: Admit that since January 1, 2019, You review and/or track the percentages of total or full roof replacements by individual adjusters and managers on wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 26: State Farm objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 27: Admit that you have policies, procedures, and/or methods to review and/or track percentages of total or full roof replacements by individual adjusters and managers adjusting or working on Oklahoma wind/hail claims, including recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking, or analysis related to total or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 27: State Farm objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28: Admit that You believe “negotiation” is an element of accurate claim handling. State Farm objects to this Request because it is RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 28: vague and ambiguous, Subject to these objections and the General Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 29: Admit You acted in direct opposition to any 95"}, {"d": 9, "p": 119, "t": "moratorium on the use of Haag. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 29: State Farm objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30: Admit that You created and/or implemented a claims handling Playbook and/or developed claims handling Tactics as part of the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind ahd Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other initiatives or programs for adjusting, handling, and/or investigating wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 30: State Farm objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. Respectfully submitted, ’ TIMILA MAROTHER, OBA #14310 PAIGE A, MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE & DUNLEVY, PC Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave,, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7700 Facsimile: (405) 239-6651 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 96"}, {"d": 9, "p": 120, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 29th day of September, 2025, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Brad Burgess Colby Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 44th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, OK. 73505 6077963 97"}, {"d": 9, "p": 121, "t": "VERIFICATION I, Jason Taylor, a duly authorized representative of State Farm Fite and Casualty Company (“State Farm”), which is 4 defendant in Westv, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, verify that I havé reviewed State Fatm’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ Intertogatory Nos. 1, 2, and 8 in Plaintiffs’ First Set of Discovery Requests to State Farm (the. “Responsés”). I atn informed and believe that the facts stated thetein are true and, on that ground, verify such matters as trueto the best of my knowledge. ‘The Responses. were. prepared with the assistance and advice of counsel for State Farm. The Responses were prepared with information available ‘from other sources and not based entirely upon. ny personal knowledge. The Responses are limited by the information presently recollected and thus far discovered in the course-of preparation of the ‘Responses. I state wider penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma trandue correct pursuant to 12 0.8. § 426. 1A Sigh SSN ase Name (typed or printed) Tone rat ty Tifton Moat hee Title Moen OC Date and Piace (City, State) 6077854 oe | H/ar pus"}, {"d": 9, "p": 123, "t": "ORIGINAL LOUIE 1059561 039% SUPRENE IN THE SUPREME ENTERPRISES, Petitioner, ATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 24 2024 JOHN D. HADD CLERK EN et INC., ee WERNER COURT OF THE STATE OF oKLaHoma® COURT No. 122,385 ee ee V. ee ee THE HONORABLE KORY KIRKLAND, et ee Respondent, and ee ae JODI CROSS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of RAE ANN DARROW, deceased, TIMOTHY CLEMONS and MICHAEL DENNIS PECK, mrad Mailed. TAA! pistrub____9¢\"1 Publish___ Nee Defendants. Posted ee and Ne ee ae Rec'd (date) AT yA yes” no ORDER Original Werner jurisdiction Enterprises, is assumed. Inc.’s Okla. Const. to assume application granted. A writ of mandamus art. 7, § 4. original Petitioner jurisdiction is is issued to Caddo County District Judge Kory Kirkland, or any assigned judge, in Jodi Cross, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rae Anne Darrow, deceased v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., et. Al., CJ-2021-47. Respondent’s certain documents proportionality December 20, 2023 compelling as Respondent is unenforceable, test as outlined Order in Title 1 12 O.S., did Section production of not consider the 3226(B)(2)(c), in"}, {"d": 9, "p": 124, "t": "determining the relevancy of the requested documents. Respondent, any other assigned judge, or a special master appointed by the district court shall review the discovery requests at issue and consider the proportionality factors stated in 12 O.S. Section 3226 (B(2)(c) along with all other statutory requirements before ruling on the discovery disputes. DONE BY THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE ON THE _23rd_ __—s DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024. CHIEF JUSTICE CONCUR: DISSENT: KANE, C.J., and WINCHESTER, GURICH, DARBY and KUEHN, JJ. ROWE, V.C.J., and KAUGER, EDMONDSON and COMBS, JJ."}, {"d": 9, "p": 126, "t": "DECLARATION OF NICOLE MANDUCA I, Nicole Manduca, make the following declaration pursuant to 12 O.S. § 426: 1. I am currently a Claims Manager at State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (‘State Farm”’) and have been in my current position since 2018. I have been a State Farm employee since 2000. Unless otherwise indicated, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and am competent to testify thereto if called as a witness. 2. As part of my work as a Claims Manager, I was part of the Wind/Hail Fire Model Enhancement (“FME”) which began in spring 2020. 3. The FME focused on quality claim handling and thus focused on both overpayment and underpayment of wind/hail claims. State Farm sought to improve consistency in handling wind/hail claims through training and documentation. 4. As part of its work, the FME prepared “Wind/Hail Guidelines” in June 2020, which provided guidance regarding claim handling and file documentation. The FME updated these guidelines throughout 2020 and into 2021. 5. The Wind/Hail Guidelines were incorporated into State Farm’s operative wind/hail determination guidance document, Operation Guide 75-160, as of February 2022. The guidelines have not been updated since June 2021. 6. I state under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma that the foregoing is true and correct. By:___ Nicole Manduca Nicole Manduca Date: 11/12/2025"}, {"d": 9, "p": 128, "t": "| DECLARATION OF GINA PRINE I, Gina Prine, make the following declaration pursuant to 12 O.S. § 426: l. I am currently a Technology Analyst at State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm’) and have been in my current position since 2018. My prior title, back to January 2012, was Business Analyst. I have been a State Farm employee since 1999. Unless otherwise indicated, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and am competent to testify thereto if called as a witness. 2. Prior to July 6, 2015, my name was Gina Russell. 3. Both in my former role as a Business Analyst and now as a Technology Analyst, | regularly assist in the evaluation and implementation of Xactware software products from Verisk Analytics that State Farm uses or considers for use. One of these Xactware tools, called Xactimate, provides estimates for the cost to repair or replace damaged structures, including roofs. 4, I do not have, and have never had, decision-making authority regarding State Farm’s selection of software products or State Farm’s tracking or analysis of indemnity payments. My role is limited to examining how a proposed software application works from a technical standpoint with other existing applications and whether proposed software will improve efficiencies in claims handling and be useful to claims adjusters. 5. In March of 2012, State Farm was evaluating whether to implement an update to Xactimate called Service Pack 27.5, and, as part of that evaluation, assessed the potential efficiency gains and impact on operating expenses of the “Aerial Sketch” tool included in the update. 6. As one of my first assignments in my role as a Business Analyst, I was asked to prepare draft talking points in March 2012 regarding the implementation of Service Pack 27.5, including potential impact on operating expenses from the use of Aerial Sketch, to present at an EXHIBIT 1"}, {"d": 9, "p": 129, "t": "internal State Farm meeting known as “DCAB.” Specifically, I was instructed to “provide a highlevel sketch on the reason for the change, impacts of not doing it and if there will be any impacts on production, and in particular ECS.” See Exhibit 1. 7. At the time, State Farm used a tool called EagleView, which cost $35-$45 per request, while Aerial Sketch promised to produce a roof estimate at $4.85-$6 per request. Aerial Sketch also promised to allow claim representatives to produce roof estimates immediately, which, as noted in the draft talking points | prepared, would hopefully “accelerate[] a payment to our customers.” In sum, State Farm evaluated whether the Service Pack 27.5 would help to “provide an accurate amount owed to the customer, no more and no less, pay what is owed.” 8. State Farm ultimately chose not to purchase the Xactimate Service Pack 27.5 because of performance issues and problematic features identified during testing. See Exhibit 2. Additionally, my talking points were never finalized or presented, as Service Pack 27.5 was removed from the DCAB meeting agenda. See Exhibit 3. 9. The introductory sentence in the talking points that I drafted in March 2012 states that “P&C Claims is focusing on what we can do to lower our indemnity payments related to Roofs.” See Exhibit 4; Exhibit 5. My use of the word “indemnity” was inaccurate as I intended to describe a focus on lowering the operational expenses associated with the adjustment of roof claims through the use of tools that were more cost-effective than those currently in use. That sentence does not accurately describe the goal or purpose of this project or my role as a Business Analyst. Rather, the focus of my work on this project was whether the Service Pack 27.5 tool would improve services to insureds and reduce the costs of such services. In drafting the document, | did not intend to convey an effort, through this potential tool or any other project, to reduce indemnity payments owed to insureds."}, {"d": 9, "p": 130, "t": "10. In using the word “indemnity,” | was not referring to payments State Farm makes to policyholders and, instead, was referring to operating expenses. 11. I state under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma that the foregoing is true and correct. By: Gina Prine Gina Prine Date: 6/27/2025 Gina Prine Printed Name of Gina Prine"}, {"d": 9, "p": 132, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT STATE OF Plaintiffs, VS. STATE FARM FIRE and AND DAVID CASUALTY HOFFINES, Defendant. VIDEO DEPOSITION TAKEN ON IN kek OF JACQUELINE OKLAHOMA COUNTY Case Number CJ-2021-1741 k* kek BEHALF ON OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) GARY HOSIER and TRACY HOSIER, COMPANY OF ke OF * THE CITY, APRIL COMMENCING KK 19, AT ELAINE DRAPER PLAINTIFFS OKLAHOMA 2023 9:49 A.M. kk CERTIFIED COPY REPORTED BY: CHERYL D. RYLANT, CSR, RPR INSTASCRIPT, 125 PARK OKLAHOMA CITY, LLC AVENUE, LL OKLAHOMA 73102 schedule@instascript.net Phone: (405) 605-6880 Fax: (405) 605-6881"}, {"d": 9, "p": 133, "t": "Jacqueline Draper 4/19/2023 1 Page 1 IN THE DISTRICT 2 3 , STATE COURT OF OKLAHOMA OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY GARY HOSIER and TRACY HOSIER, ; Plaintiffs, VS. Case Number CJ-2021-1741 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and DAVID HOFFINES, Defendant. 10 x kK kK Ke * 11 VIDEO 12 13 DEPOSITION OF JACQUELINE ELAINE DRAPER TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA ON APRIL 19, 2023 COMMENCING AT 9:49 A.M. 14 wk kK K Kk OK 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 INSTASCRIPT, LLC 125 PARK AVENUE, SUITE OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 23 LL 73102 405.605.6880 schedule@instascript.net 24 25 Reported by: Cheryl D. Rylant, schedule@instascript.net (405) 605-6880 instaScript CSR, RPR"}, {"d": 9, "p": 134, "t": "Jacqueline Draper 4/19/2023 Page 2 APPEARANCES FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: JEFF D. MARR CAROLE DULISSE MARR LAW FIRM 4301 Southwest Suite 110 Third Oklahoma OK City, Street 73108 405.236.8000 jeffdmarr@marrlawfirm.com cdulisse@marrlawfirm.com NICK MARR ASHTON POARCH NIX PATTERSON, 10 12 13 FOR 15 DEFENDANT: 499 West Sheridan Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.235.5500 lleffel@gablelaw.com bbarger@gablelaw.com 17 18 19 21 73102 LANCE E. LEFFEL BRENNAN T. BARGER GABLE GOTWALS 16 20 THE - LLP 513 N. Broadway Suite 200 Oklahoma City, OK 405.251.6866 nmarr@nixlaw.com apoarch@nixlaw.com 11 14 and VIDEO TECHNICIAN: JON WOMASTEK 22 23 24 25 schedule@instascript.net (405) 605-6880 instaScript"}, {"d": 9, "p": 135, "t": "Jacqueline Draper 4/19/2023 Page 3 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3 PAGE EXHIBIT INDEX... REQUEST(S) 4 CERTIFIED . FOR ee QUESTION STIPULATIONS. ee ew ee eee INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS.... 2... INDEX................ ee ee ce ee ee eee 3-5 5 ) ee 6 MARR............ 7 5 JACQUELINE ELAINE DRAPER: EXAMINATION BY JEFF 6 4 REPORTER'S 8 JURAT Lc. ERRATA MR. CERTIFICATE... ...... 0.02 ee eee ce cc cc SHEET. £1... ee eee ee eee ee cw cee ee eee ee eee et ee eens 403 A04 AQ5 9 10 EXHIBIT 11 NO. 12 1 INDEX DESCRIPTION Hosier vs. PAGE State Farm, et Second Amended Notice to Court-Ordered Videotaped 13 of 14 Jacqueline Section Draper, al. - 19 Take Deposition State Farm Manager 15 2 Verification 16 3 Hosier vs. State Farm, et al. Excerpt of Videoconference Hearing on Discovery, 2/22/23 4 Hosier 17 18 vs. of State Jacqueline Farm, et Draper al. - Decision of Discovery Master on Protocol and Defendants' Motion Quash Discovery on Discovery 19 37 65 ESI to 20 5 Hosier vs. State Farm, State Farm's Discovery 6 Certified 21 220 [SF.HOSIER Policy et al. Responses Record 71 76 000001-44] 23 7 24 Wind/Hail Roofing Guidelines 75-160 [HOSITERGAR00001146PROD-1166PROD] 25 schedule@instascript.net (405) 605-6880 instaScript 152"}, {"d": 9, "p": 136, "t": "Jacqueline Draper 4/19/2023 Page 4 EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION Haag Hail 10 INDEX PAGE Engineering - A White Damage to Composition Paper: Shingles 222 Haag Certified Inspector Residential Roofs 231 Underwriting 247 Basics - 4/19/15 [HOSIERGARO0001244PROD-1302PROD] 11 Underwriting Basics - 7/1/15 263 [HOSIERGARO0001303PROD-1361PROD] 12 Underwriting 2/16/20 266 Guidelines: 10 [HOSTERGARO0002056PROD-2068PROD] ; 11 5/1/2019 [HOSIERGARO0001931PROD-1980PROD] ; 7/1/2018 12 [HOSIERGAR00001766PROD-1779PROD] ; 4/16/17 13 [HOSIERGAR00001753PROD-1765PROD] ; 9/1/16 14 [HOSTERGAR0O0001644PROD-1704PROD] ; 4/17/16 15 [HOSTERGARO0001584PROD-1643PROD] ; 1/1/2017 16 [HOSIERGARO0001523PROD-1583PROD] ; 1/1/2016 17 [HOSITERGAR0O0001422PROD-1481PROD] ; 10/1/2015 18 19 [HOSTERGARO0001362PROD-1421PROD] 13 State Farm's \"Damage\" Definition /Haag's \"Functional Damage\" Definition 268 14 September Education Haag 271 15 Watkins, Farm, 281 20 21 2019 Blog Post vs. State - 22 23 et al. et al. - Verdict Questions Form on Class 24 16 25 Brown Order vs. State Farm - Opinion schedule@instascript.net (405) 605-6880 instaScript and 300"}, {"d": 9, "p": 137, "t": "Jacqueline Draper 4/19/2023 Page 5 EXHIBIT NO. 17 DESCRIPTION 315 1 Bates vs. State Farm - Deposition of Jacqueline Draper, 5/16/22 Volume 19 PAGE Bates vs. State Farm - Deposition of Jacqueline Draper, 4/5/22 Volume 18 INDEX Kelly 315 s Wienstroer Personnel File 356 [HOSTERGAR00003903PROD-16816PROD] 20 Jacqueline Draper Personnel File [HOSTERGAROOQ004569PROD, 4265PROD, 4302PROD, HOSTERGARO0017280] 391 10 11 12 REQUEST (S) 13 DESCRIPTION 14 Emails/Deposition FOR INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS PAGE Transcripts 16 15 16 17 CERTIFIED 18 QUESTION 19 Q. How of Counsel 20 saw INDEX PAGE/LINE did you to interrogatories already 21 QUESTION rely on the answer these when they completed before advice 51/24 - were you 52/1 even them? 22 23 24 25 schedule@instascript.net (405) 605-6880 instaScript"}, {"d": 9, "p": 138, "t": "Jacqueline Draper 4/19/2023 Page 394 1 on doing 2 to do 3 the and very thing that you're you're certainly evaluating people or promoting 4 and, that is lowering indemnity 9 are payments to 6 even worse because it's 7 related roofs; correct? to 8 not people foundation. 10 You can go ahead. 11 A. I can read 12 Q. (By Mr. Marr) this that, payments. Those And here it's payments form And this -- again, of this is the same -- is the same part 14 State Farm that's providing you with the 15 definition 16 hail damage; 17 18 read 19 me. the 20 21 first 22 the what what constitutes right? A. Give me just rest of the document Q. Okay. because it a second. I'm that you trying provided Well, answer my question doesn't pertain to the What was question? question was: rest of document. 23 A. Okay. 24 QO. My 25. -- and yes. 13. of be doing; Objection, 9 to for indemnity LEFFEL: supposed supposed policyholders. MR. not division within State Farm your - This P&C schedule@instascript.net (405) 605-6880 instaScript is the same Claims - where to"}, {"d": 9, "p": 139, "t": "Jacqueline Draper 4/19/2023 Page 395 1 you received 2 constitutes hail 3. defined the in the definition damage, A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. 6 A. Ultimately, to EagleView, 8 I 9 not mean, these what though it's P&C reading this speaks to are adjustment this, Aerial These -- 10 Q. So, P&C got wrong? 11 A. This is speaking to 12 ultimately, these -- 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. -- that mentioned are items adjustment 16 Q. Okay. Li A. These 18 nature, is 19 things that Q. All 21 A. -- 22 do with the 23 Q. 24 That's 25 the -- you -- indemnity, indemnity, in payments. references 20 are term are but, below expenses. policyholder it speaks expenses. this it this Sketch. I mean, here not Claims. indemnity. 15 true even to policy? 4 7 as the true JI mean, these -- right. none of them policyholder reference anything to payment. Right. your know, interpretation, the fact that schedule@instascript.net (405) 605-6880 instaScript you kind have of to like file a"}, {"d": 9, "p": 140, "t": "Jacqueline Draper 4/19/2023 Page 396 1 claim within 2 That's your a year A. My 4 Q. Have A. -- the 7 interpretation you page MR. answer 9 seen question Go ahead. A. that right. of single one CMSR -- documents, by Please on my also 13. those 14 they're speaking to 15 expenses, these things 16 lowering is way 17 adjustment expenses to 18 adjustment expenses behind 19 we stewards to 20 premium including things good the that kept ask the of indemnity that this if and adjustment they're talking handle using about their claims. It's scenes. It's the to Typically Overall, they're the one. appears expenses. separate. that witness another indemnity adjustment are let understanding 12 are appears you page, be it -- ll how policyholders' dollars. 21 Q. (By Mr. 23 A. No. You 24 Q. Okay. 25 the before Based yes, of LEFFEL: the 10 22 lose way? 6 8 you interpretation? 3 9 or Marr) Uh-huh. can continue. Anything else? Any other And interpretation is there that you schedule@instascript.net (405) 605-6880 instaScript anything else? want take to"}, {"d": 9, "p": 142, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) V. ) Case No. CJ-2025-2626 ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D._ WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) Defendants. DECLARATION OF JACOB NIMESGERN I, Jacob Nimesgern, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the following is true and correct: 1. I am over the age of 21 years, of sound mind, legally capable of making this Declaration, and have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Declaration. 2. Tam a Technology Analyst in P&C Claims Enterprise Technology at State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (‘State Farm Mutual”), the parent company for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”). In my role, I have access to and am knowledgeable about the regular practices and procedures of State Farm as to the storage and retrieval of claim data. 3. It is my understanding that State Farm received the following discovery requests in the above-mentioned case: INTERROGATORY_ NO. 3: Please identify all Wind/Hail Claims and corresponding civil cases in Oklahoma since January 1, 2019 wherein a Total Roof Replacement was denied prior to a lawsuit being filed, but was subsequently approved and/or paid to an insured after the insured filed a civil lawsuit against State Farm. Page 1 of 3"}, {"d": 9, "p": 143, "t": "INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Identify the total number of homeowners’ wind/hail claims from 2019-present in Oklahoma in which State Farm found damage the insured roof’s soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to exceed the policy’s deductible. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Identify the total number of homeowners’ wind/hail claims from 2019-present in Oklahoma in which State Farm found damage the insured roof’s soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to warrant a Full or Total Roof Replacement. 4. Materials relating to claims are kept on the State Farm Enterprise Claim System (ECS). To pull information from the ECS, certain queries need to be developed based on fields within ECS. 5. Relevant to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, an electronic search of ECS was conducted that included the number of wind/hail claims submitted to State Farm in the state of Oklahoma with a date of loss (“DOL”) between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2024. The report included the following parameters: fire line of business for the state of Oklahoma concerning wind and hail cause of loss. This query revealed a total of 120,755 property tnsurance wind/hail claims with a DOL between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2024 in the state of Oklahoma. 6. A query, however, cannot be structured to search among these 120,755 claims to identify the claims “wherein a Total or Full Roof Replacement was denied prior to a lawsuit being filed, but was subsequently approved and/or paid to an insured after the insured filed a civil lawsuit against State Farm,” as sought by Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 3. While State Farm can filter these claims to identify the ones that involved payment, further filtering is not possible to identify claims that meet the remaining criteria of Interrogatory No. 3. Specifically, of the 120,755 claims, a payment was made for 92,146 claims. But determining which of these claims meet the specific criteria Plaintiffs seek in Interrogatory No. 3 would require an intensive manual claim-byclaim review of 92,146 unique claims. Page 2 of 3"}, {"d": 9, "p": 144, "t": "7. State Farm also cannot identify the information sought in Interrogatory 22 (claims where “State Farm found damage to the insured’s roof’s soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to exceed the policy’s deductible) without a manual review of claims. State Farm can, however, filter the 120,755 claims to the 27,754 that were “Closed Without Payment” (although State Farm may have subsequently reopened and made a payment on those claim). There is no way to further identify which claims meet the additional criteria set forth in Interrogatory 22. 8. Likewise, State Farm cannot further filter the data to identify wind/hail claims responsive to Interrogatory 23 where “State Farm found damage to the insured’s roof’s soft metals (vent gap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc) did not suffer enough damage to warrant a Full or Total Roof Replacement”, as requested by Interrogatory 23. Of the 120,755 claims, 119,352 claims had a status of Paid or Closed Without Payment. 9. The volume of materials associated with an individual claim depends on a variety of factors, including the severity of the damages alleged, the number of experts and other vendors involved, whether the claim is in active litigation, etc. The documents and/or other materials are not uniform in size or content. Accordingly, the materials associated with an individual claim may vary from less than a hundred pages to thousands of pages when provided to counsel’s office for review in PDF format. For example, the claim files for the Plaintiffs two claims at issue here are approximately 204 pages and 453 pages. I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. b Mineager wn 12/22/2025 East Peoria, Illinois Gpece (Date and Place) (Signature) Page 3 of 3"}, {"d": 9, "p": 146, "t": "Case 5:11-cv-00159-R Document 86 Filed 04/20/12 Page 1 of2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ROBERT JONES and LORENE JONES, Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) ) VS. ) Case No. CIV-11-159-R ) FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., ) ) ) Defendant. ) Before the Court are Defendant’s motion to reconsider [Doc. No. 66] this Court’s Order of February 29, 2012 [Doc. No. 51] and Plaintiffs’ renewed motion to compel [Doc. No. 80]. Having reviewed these motions and the responses and replies thereto, the Court reconsiders its Order of February 29, 2012 and DENIES Plaintiff’ renewed motion to compel for the following reasons. The parties have been unable to or failed to agree on a method of sampling of Defendant’s claim files. The Court previously found that it would be unduly burdensome for Defendant Farmers to review all of its claim files to determine which of these files met the criteria set out by Plaintiffs so as to produce those files to Plaintiffs and answer Plaintiffs’ interrogatory. The Court, however, did find that the files sought by Plaintiffs were relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. The Court now specifically finds that the undue burden to Defendant of conducting the review process necessary to ascertain which, if any, of its claims files are responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery request exceeds the minimal"}, {"d": 9, "p": 147, "t": "Case 5:11-cv-00159-R Document 86 relevance those files have to Plaintiffs’ claims. Filed 04/20/12 Page 2 of 2 Defendant asserts that the shingles on Plaintiffs’ north roof’s slope had no compensable value, but acknowledges that even if they had any compensable value, Plaintiff's total contract claim would be for $4,000. Even if a jury found that Defendant’s denial of that claim was in bad faith, the potential damages and punitive damages do not justify the extraordinary expenditure of time and expense necessary to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. In summary, the Court finds that “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” F.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(c). Defendant’s motion to reconsider the Court’s Order of February 20, 2012 [Doc. No. 66] is GRANTED and the Court’s Order of February 29, 2012 is altered consistent with this Order and Plaintiffs’ motion to compel [Doc. No. 40] responses by Defendant to Interrogatory No. 20 and Requests for Production Nos. 28 and 29 is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ renewed motion to compel [Doc. No. 80] is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 20\" day of April, 2012. DAVID L. RUSSELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE"}, {"d": 9, "p": 149, "t": "West v. State Farm, No. CJ-2025-135 District Court of Comanche County, State of Oklahoma Basic Facts: Date of Loss: June 15, 2023 Date of Reporting: July 28, 2023 Decision: Estimated to replace gutters, downspouts, window screens, stain on fence, repaint bedroom. No damage to shingles. Discovery Request IROG #5 IROG #10 IROG #18 IROG #19 Identify all policies, procedures, guidelines, manuals and/or training materials, which You used to train any of the Claims Handling Personnel involved with the Claim in any way. Training to agents (see below) Identify all training materials You have utilized (whether internal or from an outside source like HAAG) to train Your Claims Handling Personnel on wind and/ or hailstorm claims. Identify all Your policies, procedures, and/or practices relating to the training of State Farm adjusters and third-party adjusters on the . . definition of \"functional damage\" for roof claims, as well as any coverage limitations based on the size and severity of the hail damage and the amount of wind speeds. Overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma); and Seeks irrelevant information In its responses, State Farm 15 years or an unlimited period of time State Farm asked at the meet and confer if Plaintiffs would limit the time frame. They agreed to limit only from 2015 to present. agreed to produce: o Relevant policies—including the Estimatics and Claim Handling Practices—used in adjusting Plaintiffs’ claim. At the meet and confer, State Farm offered to produce: © Training transcripts for the personnel who adjusted Plaintiffs’ claim and related training materials, including CS Kristin Haun, CS Temicka Collette, CS Christy Mebane, and TM Jason Taylor (initial inspection was by ECR"}, {"d": 9, "p": 150, "t": "Discovery Request RFP #4 Produce all Documents containing any policies, procedures, guidelines, manuals and/or training materials, which You used to train any of the Claims Handling Personnel involved with the Claim in any way. RFP #5 RFP #6 #30 RFP #42 State Farm is not in possession of any records for him) Plaintiffs’ counsel said this would not resolve the Produce all documents You have utilized (whether internal or from an outside source like HAAG) to train Your Claims Handling training offered by State Personnel on wind-and/or hailstorm claims. for a 10-year period Produce all Documents related to the “Art of whether or not the claim the Conversation.” representatives who handled their claim undertook such training Produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or #40 Cedric Gooch of Eberl, so other correspondence or documents duties of State Farm and/or its captive Agent(s) to keep abreast of the condition of the properties State Farm insures upon renewal, including but not limited to reducing the risk of insuring the property, maintaining the exterior of the property, reducing the risk of additional damage to the roof, replacing the roof, replacing shingles with granular loss, eligible roofing material used, and how the insured gets this information to State Farm and/or its captive Agent(s). Produce any Wind/Hail Claims Guidelines from January 1, 2019 until the present time. dispute, as they want all Farm on property claims"}, {"d": 9, "p": 151, "t": "Discovery Request IROG #10 RFP #5 RFP #40 Identify all training You have provided to any captive agent regarding the marketing, sale, procurement, and or binding of homeowners insurance coverage in Oklahoma since January 1, 2019. Produce all underwriting guidelines, binding rules, contractual agreements, and training materials which were relied upon or utilized by State Farm, and/or its captive Agent(s) with respect to selling and issuing Plaintiff’s policy and for each renewal thereafter. information; Produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or litigation), time (not other correspondence or documents duties of State Farm and/or its captive Agent(s) to keep abreast of the condition of the properties State Farm insures upon renewal, including but not limited to reducing the risk of insuring the property, maintaining the exterior of the property, reducing the risk of additional damage to the roof, replacing the roof, replacing shingles with granular loss, eligible roofing material used, and how the insured gets this information to State Farm and/or its captive Agent(s). limited to a reasonable Seeks irrelevant In its responses, State Farm Overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific agreed to produce the underwriting guidelines in effect on the date of issuance of Plaintiffs’ Policy, subject to a protective order. insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma); and Seeks information regarding other insureds. 2019-Present During the meet and confer, State Farm asked whether these requests could be limited by topic or scope. Plaintiffs agreed only to limit it to property damage of all kinds."}, {"d": 9, "p": 152, "t": "Discovery Request Identify any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned into HAAG following: IROG #15 a. the jury’s verdict in Watkins v State Farm; b. the jury's verdict in Nicolau vs State Farm; and/or c. the Mississippi Attorney General's Investigation and/or U.S Attorney's investigation into Your handling of claims arising from hurricanes Katrina and/or Rita. Identify any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned into the following: IROG #16 IROG #17 a. HAAG'S objectivity and/or bias b. Your relationship with HAAG c. Your continued use of HAAG d. Your moratorium on Your use of HAAG. Identify any date on which Your moratorium on Your use of HAAG, initiated June 5, 2006, was lifted, terminated, modified, or cancelled. No Engineer involvement; No Haag Engineer; Overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma); and Seeks irrelevant information. Preliminary reports suggested there are 2012-Present During the meet and confer, State Farm asked Plaintiffs to withdraw these requests because no engineer was involved in the investigation of Plaintiffs’ claim and therefore they were not relevant. They declined."}, {"d": 9, "p": 153, "t": "Discovery Request RFP #8 Produce all Documents related to any 155,000 emails investigation, audit, and/or review You encompassed by Plaintiffs’ requests for emails conducted or commissioned into HAAG following: a. the jury's verdict in Watkins v State Farm; b. the jury's verdict in Nicolau vs State Farm; and/or c. the Mississippi Attorney General's RFP #9 Investigation and/or U.S Attorney's investigation into Your handling of claims arising from hurricanes Katrina and/or Rita Produce all Documents related to any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned into the following: a. HAAG'S objectivity and/or bias b. Your relationship with HAAG c. Your continued use of HAAG d. Your moratorium on Your use of HAAG. Produce all Documents related to Your issuance of a moratorium on Your use of HAAG, #10 June 5, 2006, following the jury verdict rendered in Watkins v State Farm. dated"}, {"d": 9, "p": 154, "t": "Discovery Request Produce all Communications You sent to or received from Haag Engineering, Haag Education, or any division, subsidiary, or #11 #12 RFP #31 parent thereof (including any representative thereof) from 2012 until Present relating to any payments You made or received from any such HAAG entity or representative pursuant to any Indemnity Agreement. Produce all Documents related to any Indemnity Agreement entered into between You and HAAG Engineering, HAAG Education, or any division, subsidiary, or parent thereof (including any representative thereof) from 2012 until Present. Produce all Documents related to the \"HAAG Refresher.\" Produce full and complete copies of all \"HAAG Education Hail and Wind Assessment Video Series,\" including but not limited to: Chapter 1 - Hail and Wind Basics contains four RFP #34 segments and is 1 hour and 28 minutes; Chapter 2 - Composition Shingles contains nine segments and is 2 hours and 33 minutes long."}, {"d": 9, "p": 155, "t": "Discovery Request IROG #6 IROG #7 Identify all State Farm management and/or executive employees who served on the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail team and/or the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team and/or the Hail Focus Initiative team. Please include titles and job descriptions for all such employees and dates of service. Identify all third-party entities or individuals who consulted with State Farm management and/or executive employees relating to the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail team and/or the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team and/or the Hail Focus Initiative team. Please include titles and job descriptions for all third-party entities or individuals and disclose whether there existed or exists any agreement or contract with any such entity or individual. Overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and Seeks information regarding other insureds. o Inits responses, State Farm o agreed to produce the versions of OG 75-160 and relevant claim handling guidelines that were in place as of Plaintiffs’ date of loss. While not in effect on the date of loss, State Farm also 2019-Present agreed to produce the Wind/Hail Guidelines for the years 2020 and 2021. During the meet and confer, State Farm: o Offered to supplement Interrogatory No. 1 to include names and titles of the FME Team"}, {"d": 9, "p": 156, "t": "Discovery Request IROG #9 IROG #13 Identify and describe all training, information, members. Plaintiffs’ and/or dissemination of information provided to State Farm agents nationwide regarding the counsel could not say whether that resolved Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind the dispute. and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail State Farm offered to Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative from January 1, 2019 until the present time. If such training, information or dissemination is conducted or transmitted via an entity other than State Farm, please identify and describe such entity and the process of dissemination to State Farm agents. Identify and describe in detail the Fire Model supplement Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative with a similar title. Please outline and describe how any such team or initiative was created and/or implemented and any Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, you performed regarding such implementation. Interrogatory Nos. 9, 13, 28, and 29. Plaintiffs could not say whether this would resolve the dispute."}, {"d": 9, "p": 157, "t": "Discovery Request IROG #28 Please identify, state, and describe how the Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative from January I, 2019 until the present implemented such initiatives or plans in Oklahoma, including claims handling tactics or rules used, tracking of indemnity savings in Oklahoma, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio in Oklahoma, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims in Oklahoma."}, {"d": 9, "p": 158, "t": "Discovery Request IROG #29 Please identify, state, and describe how the Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative kicked off in Texas, including how such initiatives or plans were implemented in Texas, including claims handling tactics or rules used, tracking of RFP #14 indemnity savings in Texas, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio in Texas, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims in Texas. Produce all documents related to the Fire Model Enhancement on Wind/Hail from January 1, 2019 until the present, including any and all presentations, memos, documents, or plans of the FME Wind/Hail, whether in draft for final format. RFP #15 Produce all documents related to the implementation of any measures, program rules, tactics, claims handling procedures or policies related to the Fire Model Enhancement on Wind/Hail from January 1, 2019 until the present. 10"}, {"d": 9, "p": 159, "t": "Discovery Request RFP Produce all Documents related to the Fire #21 Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative for the kick off in Texas in 2020. RFP Produce all Documents related to the Fire #22 Model Enhancement-Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative referencing Oklahoma from January 1, 2019 until the present, including plans to implement such initiatives or plans in Oklahoma, implementation in Oklahoma, tracking of indemnity savings in Oklahoma, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio in Oklahoma, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims in Oklahoma. 11"}, {"d": 9, "p": 160, "t": "Discovery Request RFP #23 Produce all correspondence sent to or by Nicole Manduca from January 1, 2019 to the present referring or relating to the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus RFP #24 Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other wind/hail quality focus initiatives. Produce all Documents related to the Fire Model Enhancement-Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/ or Hail Initiative and/ or any hail quality focus initiatives, including any presentations, metrics, claim handling tactics or rules, tracking of results, and/or Cost/Benefit Analyses You performed regarding any such initiative or program. Your Wind/Hail claims Focus Models, #27 including the Fire Model Enhancement~ Wind/Hail, pertaining to homeowners’ claims from 2016 to present, including all presentations, internal memos, or related #29 documents. Produce all Documents related in any way to \"enhanced emphasis on Claim Handling Hygiene.” 12"}, {"d": 9, "p": 161, "t": "Discovery Request RFP #33 RFP #35 Produce full and complete copies of all communications on \"MyBlock\" for the last ten (10) years related to wind/hail claims, total roof replacements, and/or the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail or related Team. Produce full and complete copies of all Documents or Communications pertaining to \"Claims and Agency Weather Event Topic Discussions\" and any transcriptions of the following: \"Claim managers will host calls with Agency leadership from mid-January 2021 through February 2021 to discuss wind/hail topics that were frequent points of discussion with Agency in 2020. These topics may include areview of 2020 claim wind/hail volume, additional inspections, matching, roofer inspections prior to a claim being submitted to State Farm, timelines for obtaining replacement cost benefits, Roof Exterior Inspection Assist Program, SFPSP Roofing Services Program (RSP)/Contractor Services Program (CSP), Roof Surfaces Payment Schedule Endorsement, and Metal Roof Exclusion for Hail (Section 1 Additional Coverage: Metal Roof Endorsement).\" 13"}, {"d": 9, "p": 162, "t": "Discovery Request RFP #36 Please produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or other correspondence or documents sent or received by Nicole Manduca from January 1, 2019 until the present time regarding or relating to (1) Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives, (ii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Texas; (i11) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Oklahoma; (iv) claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans; (v) Fire Model Enhancement Guidelines; and/or (vi) tracking of indemnity savings, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims. 14"}, {"d": 9, "p": 163, "t": "Discovery Request RFP #37 Please produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or other correspondence or documents sent or received by Tom Moss from January I, 2019 until the present time regarding or relating to (i) Fire Model Enhancement Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives, (11) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Texas; (ili) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Oklahoma; (iv) claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans; (v) Fire Model Enhancement Guidelines; and/or (vi) tracking of indemnity savings, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims. 15"}, {"d": 9, "p": 164, "t": "Discovery Request RFP #38 Please produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or other correspondence or documents sent or received by Susan Maynard from January 1, 2019 until the present time regarding or relating to (1) Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives, (ii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Texas; (i11) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Oklahoma; (iv) claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans; (v) Fire Model Enhancement Guidelines; and/or (v) tracking of indemnity savings, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims. 16"}, {"d": 9, "p": 165, "t": "LI ‘TEH/PULM Joy souljepiny yuswusouRYyUY [Opoy] OL] [[e sonpoig ysonboy ArdA09SIGL Oc# dia"}, {"d": 9, "p": 166, "t": "Discovery Request RFP #43 Please produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or other correspondence or documents sent or received by Sharon Arnold from January 1, 2019 until the present time regarding or relating to (1) Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives, (ii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Texas; (i11) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Oklahoma; (iv) claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans; (v) Fire Model Enhancement Guidelines; and/or (v) tracking of indemnity savings, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims. 18"}, {"d": 9, "p": 167, "t": "Discovery Request IROG #21 Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, You conducted or commissioned regarding State Farm adjusters’ and third-party adjusters’ authorization and/or ability to approve full roof replacements without managerial approval from 2010 to present. IROG Please identify, state, and describe how the Fire #28 Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative from January I, 2019 until the present implemented such initiatives or plans in Oklahoma, including claims handling tactics or rules used, tracking of indemnity savings in Oklahoma, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio in Oklahoma, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims in Oklahoma. Overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); Seeks information regarding other insureds. 19 In its responses, State Farm agreed to produce OG 75-160, which describes the small subset of wind/hail claims under specific low intensity weather conditions in which managerial review of total roof is required. 2019-Present During the meet and confer, State Farm asked Plaintiffs’ counsel to withdraw their dispute over Interrogatory No. 21 pertaining to managerial review of TRR because not applicable, and they declined."}, {"d": 9, "p": 168, "t": "Discovery Request IROG #29 Please identify, state, and describe how the Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative kicked off in Texas, including how such initiatives or plans were implemented in Texas, including claims handling tactics or rules used, tracking of indemnity savings in Texas, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio in Texas, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims in Texas. 20"}, {"d": 9, "p": 169, "t": "Discovery Request RFP #22 Produce all Documents related to the Fire Model Enhancement-Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail #25 Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative referencing Oklahoma from January 1, 2019 until the present, including plans to implement such initiatives or plans in Oklahoma, implementation in Oklahoma, tracking of indemnity savings in Oklahoma, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio in Oklahoma, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims in Oklahoma. Produce all Documents memorializing any enterprise-wide rule You have stated, implemented, or enforced regarding the need for any management approval of full roof replacements on wind/hail claims. 21"}, {"d": 9, "p": 170, "t": "Discovery Request RFP #26 RFP #36(vi) Your Quality plan(s), program(s), and/or initiative( s) to reduce or track indemnity payments, reduce or track the total or full roof replacement to partial roof ratio, reduce or track full roof replacement approval percentages, and reduce or track nationwide total roof payment volume on wind or hail claims from January 1, 2019 to the present. Please produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or other correspondence or documents sent or received by Nicole Manduca from January 1, 2019 until the present time regarding or relating to... (vi) tracking of indemnity savings, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims. 22"}, {"d": 9, "p": 171, "t": "Discovery Request RFP #38(vi) Please produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or other correspondence or documents sent or received by Susan Maynard from January 1, 2019 until the present time regarding or relating to.... (vi) tracking of indemnity savings, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims. REP #43(vi) Please produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or other correspondence or documents sent or received by Sharon Armold from January 1, 2019 until the present time regarding or relating to..... (vi) tracking of indemnity savings, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims. 23"}, {"d": 9, "p": 172, "t": "RFP #25 Produce all Documents memorializing any enterprise-wide rule You have stated, implemented, or enforced regarding the need for any management approval of full roof replacements on wind/hail claims. State Farm's Enterprise Rules e Overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials . applicable to Oklahoma); e N/A During the meet and confer, State Farm offered to produce any personal rules triggered in the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim. Plaintiffs’ counsel requested that State Farm and provide the Index from the State Farm objects to the extent this Request purports to imply that State Farm implemented an enterprise-wide rule that required management approval of full roof replacements on all wind/hail claims. Intranet but couldn’t say whether that would resolve the dispute. 24"}, {"d": 9, "p": 173, "t": "RFP #26 Your Quality plan(s), program(s), and/or initiative(s) to reduce or track indemnity payments, reduce or track the total or full roof RFP #32 RFP #41 IROG #11 QUALITY PLANS e Overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific In its responses, State Farm replacement to partial roof ratio, reduce or insurance claim and/or agreed to produce State Farm’s track full roof replacement approval coverages at issue in this Fire Property Claims Quality percentages, and reduce or track nationwide total roof payment volume on wind or hail claims from January 1, 2019 to the present. Produce all Documents related to the \"2021 Fire Property Claims Quality Plan.\" Produce any Fire Property Claims Quality Plan from January 1, 2019 until the present time. litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Plan in effect on the date of loss. Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, You conducted or commissioned concerning Your adjustment and/or handling of wind and/ or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma . since 2010. INDEMNITY REQUESTS © Overly broad in scope (not . . limited to materials . app licable to t he specific insurance claim and/or 25 3019-Present During the meet and confer, State Farm offered to check and see whether State Farm had Fire Property Claims Quality Plans for any other years and consider producing them. e 6-15 years No engineer involved here."}, {"d": 9, "p": 174, "t": "Discovery Request IROG #12 IROG #14 IROG #20 Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, You conducted or commissioned concerning Your use of Haag Engineering, Haag Education, and/or any other Haag enterprise or subsidiary with regard to windand/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma. Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, concerning Your use of Engineering Services with regard to wind- and/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma. Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, You conducted or commissioned specifically targeting full roof replacements with regard to wind and/ or hailstorm claims in coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Oklahoma from 2010 to present. IROG #21 Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, You conducted or commissioned regarding State Farm adjusters’ and third-party adjusters’ authorization and/or ability to approve full roof replacements without managerial approval from 2010 to present. 26"}, {"d": 9, "p": 175, "t": "Discovery Request IROG #24 Identify and Describe any policies, procedures, and/or methods to review and/or track percentages of total or full roof replacements by individual adjusters and managers adjusting or working on Oklahoma wind/hail claims, including recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking, or analysis related to total or full roof replacements on IROG #25 IROG #26 wind/hail claims. Please identify, state, and describe (whether measured quarterly, yearly, or some other way) the Wind and Hail Full Roof Replacement Percentage from January 1, 2019 to the present in Oklahoma. Please identify, state, and describe (whether measured quarterly, yearly, or some other way) the Total or Full Roof Replacement to Partial Roof Replacement Ratio on Wind/Hail Claims from January 1, 2019 to the present in Oklahoma. 27"}, {"d": 9, "p": 176, "t": "Discovery Request IROG #27 RFP #7 Please identify, state, and describe (whether measured quarterly, yearly, or some other way) the Total Roof Payment volumes on Wind/Hail claims from January 1, 2019 to the present in Oklahoma. Produce all Documents from January 1, 2019 to the present relating to any review and/ or tracking of percentages of total or full roof replacements by individual adjusters and managers adjusting or working on Oklahoma wind/hail claims, including recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking, or analysis related to total or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims. Produce all Documents related to any Cost/Benefit Analysis concerning Your adjustment and/or handling of wind- and/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma since 2010. Produce all documents related to the Wind and Hail Full Roof Replacement Percentage from January 1, 2019 to the present, including nationwide and state specific tracking of such percentages. 28"}, {"d": 9, "p": 177, "t": "Discovery Request RFP #17 #20 Produce all documents related to the Total or Full Roof Replacement to Partial Roof Replacement Ratio on Wind/Hail Claims from January 1, 2019 to the present, including nationwide and state specific tracking of such ratios. Produce all documents related to the Total Roof Payment volumes on Wind/Hail claims from January 1, 2019 to the present, including nationwide and state specific tracking of such ratios. Produce all documents from January 1, 2019 until the present, relating to your review, monitoring, and/or tracking of the percentages of total or full roof replacements by individual adjusters and managers on wind/hail claims. Produce any policies, procedures, and/or methods to review and/or track percentages of total or full roof replacements by individual adjusters and managers adjusting or working on Oklahoma wind/hail claims, including recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking, or analysis related to total or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims. 29"}, {"d": 9, "p": 178, "t": "Discovery Request RFP #28 The matrices which relate to or involve the tracking of Your financial savings (and future financial savings) tied to reduction in indemnity payments on wind/hail claims, reduction in the total or full roof replacement to partial roof ratio, nationwide total roof payment volume, and/or reduction of the full roof replacement percentage on wind or hail claims from January 1, 2019 to the present. IROG #3 IROG #22 Please identify all Wind/Hail Claims and corresponding civil cases in Oklahoma since January I, 2019 wherein a Total or Full Roof Replacement was denied prior to a lawsuit being filed, but was subsequently approved and/or paid to an insured after the insured filed a civil lawsuit against State Farm. Identify the total number of homeowners' wind/hail claims from 2019-present in Oklahoma in which State Farm found damage the insured roofs soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to exceed the policy's deductible. During the meet and confer, State Farm inquired whether Plaintiffs would agree to any limitation on claim files, noting No post-litigation claim payment was made Overly broad in scope and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and Vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms \"found damage the insured roofs soft metals ( vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself ( asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did 30 that 2019-Present Judge Russell had ordered the production of homeowners hail claims for a two-year period in the county in which the loss occurred, producing every fifth claim file. Plaintiffs would not agree to any narrowing. State Farm also asked if Plaintiffs would withdraw"}, {"d": 9, "p": 179, "t": "IROG #23 Identify the total number of homeowners' wind/hail claims from 2019-present in Oklahoma in which State Farm found damage the insured roofs soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to warrant a Full or Total e not suffer enough damage to warrant a Full or Total Roof Replacement.\" See Declaration of Jacob Nimesgern Interrogatory No. 3 because it was not applicable; no postlitigation claim payment was made to total the roof. They declined. Roof Replacement. RFP #44 Produce all documents previously produced and/or ordered by the respective court to be produced by You in the following cases: - Nida v. State Farm, CJ-2020-4453 (Oklahoma County) - Hosier v. State Farm, CJ-2021-1741 (Oklahoma County) -(Oklahoma Kyger v. State Farm, CJ-2022-3990 County) e * Vast amount of irrelevant . . information produced; and . . Seeks information from other insureds -McDow v. State Farm, CJ-2022-1857 (Oklahoma County) - Barnett v. State Farm, CJ-2020-141 (Grady County) - McNeil v. State Farm, CJ-2021-926 (Cleveland County). 31 | 47/4"}, {"d": 10, "p": 1, "t": "FILED DISTRICT COURT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY COMANCHE COUNTY. OKLAHOMA - January 30, 2026 5:02 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ AGENCY, INC, ) ) ) ) Defendants. Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) ) AMENDED NOTICE OF SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE AND PERMIT INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS Please take notice that, pursuant to 12 0.8. § 2004.1(C)(2), a subpoena will be served on Coastal Claims Services, LLC, c/o Registered Agents Inc., 7901 4th Street North, Suite 300, St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 to produce and permit inspection and copying of documents. Said inspection and copying will take place on February 23, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. to Crowe & Dunlevy at 2360 64th Street North, Saint Petersburg, Florida 33710. Coastal Claims Services, LLC is directed, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(A)(1)(b), to produce the documents listed on Exhibit A to the subpoena served upon it. A copy of the subpoena is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The Subpoena states that the witness need not appear in person, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C)(2)(a). Respectfully Submitted, AAC: TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE & DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102"}, {"d": 10, "p": 2, "t": "(405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that on this 30th day of January, 2026, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, to: Reggie Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 44th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 pe: w 6182509"}, {"d": 10, "p": 3, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) Defendants, Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) ) SUBPOENA TO COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC. TO PRODUCE AND PERMIT INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS TO; Coastal Claims Services, LLC c/o Registered Agents Inc. 7901 4th Street North, Suite 300 St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 GREETINGS - You are hereby commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of documents in the possession, custody and control of Coastal Claims Services, Inc. to Crowe & Dunlevy at 2360 64th Street North, Saint Petersburg, Florida 33710 on February 23, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. You need not appear in person, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C) (2)(a). The documents which shall be produced are described on the attached Exhibit A. In order to allow objections to the production of documents and things to be filed, you should not produce them until the date specified in this subpoena, and if an objection is filed, until the court rules on the objection. Hereof fail not under penalty of law. Issued thisBolday of January, 2026. f \\ Mer) 2 TIMILA S. ROZHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A, MAGTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 -CROWE & DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 | EXHIBIT |"}, {"d": 10, "p": 4, "t": "(405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda, finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 6054702"}, {"d": 10, "p": 5, "t": "Exhibit A to Subpoena to Coastal Claims Services, Inc. . All documents, paper or electronic (including visual or audio recordings, photographs, etc.), relating to the house at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, Oklahoma 73505, now or previously owned and/or occupied by Neil and/or Lacy West (the “House”), and any inspections, estimates, evaluations, assessment, repairs, or other work or analysis by Coastal Claims Services, Inc., or any related entity, of that House, and all communications with any person relating thereto. . All agreements and written communications of any kind, paper or electronic, including emails and text messages, with Neil and/or Lacy West or anyone acting on their behalf (to include contractors or relatives) related to the House, to include hiring an attorney to represent them in recovering benefits for wind or hail damage under their State Farm policy or filing a lawsuit against State Farm, and all documents received from or provided to Neil and/or Lacy West or anyone acting on their behalf. . Alf written communications and agreements, paper or electronic, with Whitten Burrage, or any of the lawyers from the law firm, related to the House, or Neil and/or Lacy West (or anyone acting on their behalf), and all documents, including visual or audio recordings, photographs, etc., received from or provided to the law firm or lawyers relating to the House or Neil and/or Lacy West (or anyone acting on their behalf). . All written communications, paper or electronic, including emails and text messages, with any homeowner, law firm, attorney, or legal representative, regarding hiring an attorney to represent a homeowner in recovering benefits for wind or hail damage under their insurance policy from January 1, 2022 to the present."}, {"d": 11, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED NEIL and LACY WEST, DISTRICT COURT ) COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA February Plaintiffs 20, 2026 4:30 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK , ) VS. Case Number CJ-2025-135 Case No. CJ-2025-135 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS Please notice that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230 of the Oklahoma Discovery Code, Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company will take the depositions upon oral examination of Plaintiffs, Neil West and Lacy West, at the date and time listed below in the offices of Burgess & Hightower Law Firm, 21 NW 44th Street, Suite 201, Lawton, Oklahoma 73505, before an officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the State of Oklahoma. The depositions shall be recorded by stenographic and videographic means. Dated this 20th day of February, 2026. Neil West c/o Burgess & Hightower Law Firm 21 NW 44th Street, Suite 201 March 19, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Lawton, OK 73505 Lacy West nape sae c/o Burgess & Hightower Law Firm March 20, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. ant “WR Timifa S. Rother-OBA #14310 Paige A. Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OBA #34650 N"}, {"d": 11, "p": 2, "t": "CROWE & DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave. Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8273 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 20th day of February, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 44th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 Ti 6196214"}, {"d": 12, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA Senet Seren” Case Number CJ-2025-135 Case No, CJ-2025-135 Defendants. nae” Sua” Sena Saar! STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., February 27, 2026 4:18 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Neue v. COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Snare Near? Sema Plaintiffs, FILED DISTRICT COURT Nema NEIL and LACY WEST, DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH AND/OR STAY DEPOSITION NOTICE OF NICOLE MANDUCA"}, {"d": 12, "p": 2, "t": "Plaintiffs’ Response does not demonstrate the deposition testimony they seek from Nicole Manduca is relevant or proportional. The Response mischaracterizes documents and testimony and relies on unsupported speculation about an alleged enterprise-wide “scheme” to defraud insureds. But Plaintiffs fail to explain Aow their speculative allegations impacted the claim decision here and have taken zero case specific testimony from which they could even make this argument. This is fatal to their Notice, because “the mere fact that a plaintiff offers a ‘broad theory of the case’ does not automatically justify equally broad discovery, ‘unless the discovery is relevant to the plaintiff’s actual claims or defenses.’” Abigail Ross v. Univ. of Tulsa, No. 14-CV-484-TCKPIF, 2015 WL 13622518, at *1 (N.D. Okla. Apr. 24, 2015).! The Court should grant State Farm’s Motion. I Plaintiffs Rely on Misstatements to Support their Allegations and Do Not Explain How The Testimony They Seek Relates to Their Claims. Plaintiffs’ opposition is premised on inaccurate assertions regarding documents and testimony. For one, Plaintiffs continue to rely on a 14-year-old memorandum (Resp. at 1) that Analyst Gina Prine authored in March 2012 while in Claim Automation & Procedure concerning potential expense savings which State Farm has repeatedly shown is unrelated to indemnity and was never adopted anyway. See Ex. 2. Moreover, while Plaintiffs suggest Ms. Manduca’s testimony in other matters confirms its relevance here, they cite only to argumentative characterizations from the briefing of plaintiffs in another case that “Ms. Manduca served as the head of State Farm’s FME program-a program through which State Farm explicitly set out to ! Because “[t]he Oklahoma Discovery Code mirrors the Federal rules,” Merifor, Inc. v. State ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma, 2019 OK CIV APP 64, § 20 n.15, 451 P.3d 914, 922 n.15, Oklahoma courts often look to “discovery procedures in the federal rules when construing similar language in the Oklahoma Discovery Code,” Crest Infiniti IZ, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, { 2, 174 P.3d 996, 999."}, {"d": 12, "p": 3, "t": "reduce the number of full roof replacements it covered,” and that “Ms. Manduca was questioned about a document relating to State Farm’s Fire Accuracy Dashboard’”—without actually referencing any testimony by Ms. Manduca in response to such questions. (Resp. at 10.) Plaintiffs also distort the testimony of former Claim Consultant Tom Moss in Barnett v. State Farm, CJ-2020-141 (Grady Co. Okla. April 8, 2024) to argue the FME “worked with State Farm’s Enterprise Technology division to create rules within State Farm’s Xactware software” and that “State Farm uses these rules to accomplish pre-determined objectives”—including “total roof replacement.” (Resp. at 7-8.) But Mr. Moss never testified about any such rules; nor do such rules exist. Rather, Mr. Moss explained that the FME team worked with Enterprise Technology ona single rule after identifying certain items commonly excluded from or duplicative of other items in an estimate. (Ex. 1, Moss Dep, at 118:25-119:8.) Plaintiffs further ignore that this was only a prompt and “didn’t force them to change anything” in an estimate. (Id. 1 19:4.) Regardless, even if Plaintiffs had established facts of alleged efforts to reduce claim payments (they have not), they show nothing to suggest its application here other than that the roof was not totaled by State Farm. (Resp. at 13.) It is telling that Plaintiffs cite only to innocuous, unrelated statement on Ms. Manduca’s LinkedIn page referring to her work in “improving quality results,” which has no connection whatsoever to claim denials, and to the same discredited memorandum from March 2012 that is unrelated to indemnity. (/d.) These materials do not support their position. Merely saying a proposed witness has some connection to a supposed ? Plaintiffs also argue that the FME “developed the ‘Wind/Hail Playbook,’ a [purported] menu of training items intended to alter State Farm’s approach to handling wind/hail claims.” (Resp. at 2.) But the purported “Playbook” is a series of emails discussing how to improve communication between State Farm, its agents, and insureds. Those emails were not collected into any formalized training or instruction materials. Moreover, they were sent and received years before Plaintiffs’ claim and are entirely irrelevant to that claim."}, {"d": 12, "p": 4, "t": "“scheme” and speculating the scheme “includes Plaintiffs’ claim denial” (Resp. at 13) does not support an order compelling the testimony. IE. Plaintiffs’ Notice is Not Proportional to the Needs of the Case. Likewise, Plaintiffs’ bald contention that Ms. Manduca’s testimony “meets the requisite proportionality factors” is not based on applicable law or fact. (Resp. at 14.) Plaintiffs’ conclusory argument that Ms. Manduca’s testimony must be proportional because Plaintiffs allege “bad faith” suffers from the same fatal flaw as their relevance arguments. Plaintiffs have not deposed a single case specific witness and thus have not referenced a single fact about how State Farm handled their claim, let alone any fact showing some nefarious conduct relating thereto? Plaintiffs also misstate that State Farm’s proportionality argument are premised on the apex doctrine. (Resp. at 16-17.) State Farm made no such apex doctrine argument regarding Ms. Manduca. Rather, State Farm analogized the Manduca Notice to the deposition notices the court disallowed in Evans v. Allstate Ins. Co—just as the Evans court denied the depositions of corporate officers because they had no unique personal knowledge of the underlying facts, so, too, this Court should quash the Manduca Notice because “Ms. Manduca has no unique personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ insurance claim.” (Motion to Quash at 9, citing Evans v. Allstate Ins. Co., 216 F.R.D. 515, 516-518 (N.D. Okla. 2003),) Given that Plaintiffs have yet to take the depositions of the State Farm personnel who were directly 3 Nor does Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim justify the invasive discovery sought. (Resp. at 16.) The dispute at issue concerns the extent of damage to Plaintiffs’ roof, and Plaintiffs have not deposed any fact witnesses to challenge State Farm’s judgment about such damages. Thus, the notion that a punitive damages claim will reach the jury lacks any basis. Regardless, State Farm cannot be penalized multiple times for the same alleged conduct. 23 Okla. Stat. § 9.1(C). Plaintiffs’ counsel has filed multiple cases against State Farm, each alleging the same purported scheme and each seeking punitive damages. However, even if punitive damages were ever awarded-——which State Farm contends should not occur—any such recovery would result in a corresponding reduction of punitive damages in all subsequent cases."}, {"d": 12, "p": 5, "t": "involved in handling their claim, the deposition of Ms. Manduca represents an improper fishing expedition and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiffs also mischaracterize State Farm’s Motion as an attempt to “dictate the order in which Plaintiffs notice relevant depositions in this matter.” (See Resp. at 3.) Plaintiffs miss the point. State Farm’s Motion is, fundamentally, about Plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate the relevance of Ms. Manduca’s testimony where they have not identified a single fact connecting her—or her involvement in the Fire Model Enhancement program to the specific claims decision they are challenging. Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves concede that they “do not allege Manduca performed specific adjusting tasks on Plaintiffs’ Claim.” (Resp. at 2.)° I. State Farm Has Not “Opened the Door” to Ms. Manduca’s Deposition. Finally, Ms. Manduca has not put her conduct “at issue” by providing a declaration in two other cases in which other plaintiffs (represented by Plaintiffs’ counsel) made the same sort of overbroad misconduct allegations. (Resp. at 9.) Indeed, State Farm was forced to submit Ms. Manduca’s declaration in opposition to motions to compel in those cases to correct similar misstatements and speculation Plaintiffs raise here. That State Farm was compelled to submit these short declarations in the context of discovery disputes only underscores Plaintiffs’ failure to 4 The fact that the Oklahoma Attorney General (“AG”) was granted leave to intervene in a different lawsuit (Hursh v. State Farm, et al., No. CJ-2025-2626)—which State Farm has opposed as inappropriate under Oklahoma law—has no bearing on the relevance or proportionality of the discovery sought here. As the AG essentially concedes, his request to intervene was based solely on allegations in that plaintiff’s petition concerning the purported “scheme”—the same unsupported allegations copied here, not following any investigation into State Farm. The AG’s proposed Petition confirms that its factual allegations are made on “information and belie?’—not evidence. 5 Plaintiffs also cannot establish proportionality simply by asserting that “State Farm’s parent company has a net income in 2024 of $5.3 billion with billions of dollars in assets.” (Resp. at 16.) Merely proclaiming that a party is a multi-billion-dollar company does not establish the proportionality of the discovery ordered. See Connect Insured Tel., Inc. v. Qwest Long Distance, Inc., No. 3-10-CV-1897-D, 2011 WL 4736292, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2011)."}, {"d": 12, "p": 6, "t": "connect their speculative theories to their particular claims and the irrelevance of the testimony they seek. Plaintiffs’ citation to Reed v. Illinois, 318 F.R.D. 77, 80 (N.D. Ill. 2016) is inapposite. In that case, the deponent conceded in a brief that she had relevant knowledge about the subject matter at issue: a probate case and the distribution of her mother’s assets. The court held the deponent could be deposed because she had “concede[d] in her reply brief that she was actually a part of [the probate] proceedings.” Id. Plaintiffs cite no authority establishing that submitting a short declaration to rebut relevance or proportionality in the context of a discovery dispute necessarily subjects the declarant to a full deposition on the merits in a different case.° IV. CONCLUSION State Farm respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion for a Protective Order and to Quash Plaintiffs’ Deposition Notice of Nicole Man uca and enter the “oe PY ed therein. LA \\ - ~Timila S.Niu Mt OBA #14310 Paige A. Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OBA #34650 CROWE & DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave. Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8273 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com 6The fact that some other Oklahoma courts have compelled the deposition of Ms. Manduca should not inform the Court’s decision in this case, which involves different facts. Indeed, Plaintiffs fail to mention that Judge Balkman recently addressed a similar motion to quash the deposition of Ms. Manduca in Cleveland County, Foster v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. CJ-2023-1426. Judge Balkman granted State Farm’s motion to quash, holding that any deposition of Ms. Manduca was premature until and unless plaintiffs had provided evidence connecting the same alleged “scheme” to the facts of their case."}, {"d": 12, "p": 7, "t": "paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 27th day of February, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S, Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 44th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 6201046"}, {"d": 12, "p": 8, "t": "DECLARATION OF GINA PRINE I, Gina Prine, make the following declaration pursuant to 12 O.S. § 426: l. { am currently a Technology Analyst at State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm”) and have been in my current position since 2018. My prior title, back to January 2012, was Business Analyst. | have been a State Farm employee since 1999. Unless otherwise indicated, | have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and am competent to testify thereto if called as a witness. 2. Prior to July 6, 2015, my name was Gina Russell. 3. Both in my former role as a Business Analyst and now as a Technology Analyst, | regularly assist in the evaluation and implementation of Xactware software products from Verisk Analytics that State Farm uses or considers for use. One of these Xactware tools, called Xactimate, provides estimates for the cost to repair or replace damaged structures, including roofs. 4, { do not have, and have never had, decision-making authority regarding State Farm’s selection of software products or State Farm’s tracking or analysis of indemnity payments, My role is limited to examining how a proposed software application works from a technical standpoint with other existing applications and whether proposed software will improve efficiencies in claims handling and be useful to claims adjusters. 3. In March of 2012, State Farm was evaluating whether to implement an update to Xactimate called Service Pack 27.5, and, as part of that evaluation, assessed the potential efficiency gains and impact on operating expenses of the “Aerial Sketch” tool included in the update. 6. As one of my first assignments in my role as a Business Analyst, | was asked to prepare draft talking points in March 2012 regarding the implementation of Service Pack 27.5, including potential impact on operating expenses from the use of Aerial Sketch, to present at an EXHIBIT |"}, {"d": 12, "p": 9, "t": "internal State Farm meeting known as “DCAB.” Specifically, I was instructed to “provide a highlevel sketch on the reason for the change, impacts of not doing it and if there will be any impacts on production, and in particular ECS.” See Exhibit 1. 7. At the time, State Farm used a tool called EagleView, which cost $35-$45 per request, while Aerial Sketch promised to produce a roof estimate at $4.85-$6 per request. Aerial Sketch also promised to allow claim representatives to produce roof estimates immediately, which, as noted in the draft talking points | prepared, would hopefully “accelerate[] a payment to our customers.” In sum, State Farm evaluated whether the Service Pack 27.5 would help to “provide an accurate amount owed to the customer, no more and no less, pay what is owed.” 8. State Farm ultimately chose not to purchase the Xactimate Service Pack 27.5 because of performance issues and problematic features identified during testing. See Exhibit 2. Additionally, my talking points were never finalized or presented, as Service Pack 27.5 was removed from the DCAB meeting agenda. See Exhibit 3. 9. The introductory sentence in the talking points that I drafted in March 2012 states that “P&C Claims is focusing on what we can do to lower our indemnity payments related to Roofs.” See Exhibit 4; Exhibit 5. My use of the word “indemnity” was inaccurate as I intended to describe a focus on lowering the operational expenses associated with the adjustment of roof claims through the use of tools that were more cost-effective than those currently in use. That sentence does not accurately describe the goal or purpose of this project or my role as a Business Analyst. Rather, the focus of my work on this project was whether the Service Pack 27.5 tool would improve services to insureds and reduce the costs of such services. In drafting the document, | did not intend to convey an effort, through this potential tool or any other project, to reduce indemnity payments owed to insureds."}, {"d": 12, "p": 10, "t": "10. In using the word “indemnity,” ] was not referring to payments State Farm makes to policyholders and, instead, was referring to operating expenses. 11. I state under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma that the foregoing is true and correct. By: Gime Prine Gina Prine Date: 6/27/2025 Gina Prine Printed Name of Gina Prine"}, {"d": 12, "p": 11, "t": "Thomas Edward Moss 8/17/2023 Page: IN THE DISTRICT COURT STATE STEVEN MARSHA OF OF GRADY COUNTY OKLAHOMA BARNETT and BARNETT, Plaintiffs, VS. Case Number CJ-20-141 STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; ART BAIRD; TODD ROWLAND INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.; STEVE BREED d/b/a STEVE BREED CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Defendants... 10 |CERTIFIED COPY 11 12 VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF THOMAS EDWARD MOSS TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN BLOOMINGTON, ILLINOIS ON AUGUST 17, 2023 COMMENCING AT 9:51 A.M. CST 13 14 15 16 kek ek ke Kk 17 18 19 20 INSTASCRIPT, LLC 125 PARK AVENUE, SUITE OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 2i 22 LL 73102 405.605.6880 schedule@instascript.net 23 24 25 Reported via Zoom Video by: Cheryl Technician: D. Rylant, Jon Womastek CSR, RPR EXHIBIT www.instascript.net instaScript"}, {"d": 12, "p": 12, "t": "Thomas Edward Moss 8/17/2023 Page: 118 i Q. (By Mr. 2 A. And I apologize, 3 yeflect. So, if 4 reflecting back Marr) it takes to see 5 Q. That's 6 A. I haven't 7 about I'm me what were a they? trying moment, those may to I'm just have been. fine. been on that team for a year. 8 There was 9 the 10 where 11 under-scoped 12. the 13. build a rule 14 if estimate 15 ready to 16 it certain 17 weren't in 18 19 common a recommendation findings maybe we had that we would potentially something in files over-scoped to so if something -- uploaded -- getting a wind and hail criteria met but other the estimate, it would notify estimate writer that, \"Hey, do need include these items?\" also -- rule also an had It be within was Xactimate being uploaded 21 certain criteria, 22 other thing in 23 include it 24 jJine on that the work \"Hey, because it's that one you you're estimate And or Xactimate to roof. of with was a see some of recommendations on around one 20 25 What said, so, claim things the to if including and already do you a part it this need of met to another item?\" So, was of the www. instascript.net instaScript and recommendations,"}, {"d": 12, "p": 13, "t": "Thomas Edward Moss 8/17/2023 Page: 119 again on creating estimate writer was working it would give them a prompt. them to change, but it to say either, to consider 1 again working with Xactimate 2 rule that, the 3 on the 4 Tt didn't 5 them a prompt 6 you may 7 that you've added that are 8 other items within your estimate.\" estimate, force want 9 10 the or XactAnalysis? who established items items included that rule A. Well, Xactimate Q. Well, who requested the Did the committee - or excuse me - Our team worked with connected with 15 A. 16 Enterprise Technology 17 to that create Yeah. would have in within created with at 20 Xactware. 22 Xactware, the team? Xactware -- who did you work who they worked with who And Xactware? A. 21 who rule? rule. Okay. Q. 18 19 already some give rule. 13 14 And or would some \"Here's adding Q. Xactimate 11 12 as a I don't I know but don't Who did Q. 24 Technology at 25 who along passed I've I 23 know State the been on recall the you work calls with names. with at Farm, then, who rule that needed www. instascript.net instaScript Enterprise was to the be one at"}, {"d": 13, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED NEIL and LACY WEST, ) DISTRICT COURT ) COMANCHE sue Plaintiffs, Vs. COUNTY, OKLAHOMA April 2, 2026 1:06 PM ) ROBERT NORALES, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2025-135 Case No. CJ-2025-135 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ ) AGENCY, INC., ) Defendants. ) ) NOTICE OF MOOTNESS OF DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY’S MOTION TO COMPEL Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (‘State Farm”) notifies the Court that its Motion to Compel is moot as to the issues raised in that Motion and thus does not need to be heard. State Farm moved to compel Plaintiffs to Respond to its First Interrogatories and Document Requests, which were 48 days past due when the Motion was filed on December 12, 2025. Plaintiffs served their responses to that Discovery on December 23, 2025. State Farm also moved to compel Plaintiffs to respond to the damage disclosures required by 12 O.S. § 3226(A)(2). While Plaintiffs never did provide the information substantively required by § 3226, State Farm has now deposed Plaintiffs and will rely upon the information provided by deposition and document production. State Farm does not waive its right to move to compel any other information in the future including the right to object to any late damage disclosures that should have been disclosed under the requirements of § 3226. State Farm is also willing to withdraw its request for attorneys fees for failure to respond in this instance, without waiver of its right to seek fees for delays in discovery of other cases."}, {"d": 13, "p": 2, "t": "~—Fimila S. st OBA #14310 Paige A. Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M. FFinch, OBA #34650 CROWE & DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave. Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8273 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 2nd day of April, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the abuve and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N, Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE $12 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 44th Street, Suite 201 Lawtun, OK 73505 . ey Timila S. Rother 6222926 —"}, {"d": 14, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA Case Number CJ-2025-135 ane Plaintiffs, matt age! NEIL and LACY WEST, capt! STATE FILEDCOURT DISTRICT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA April 3, 2026 9:27 AM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Case No. CJ-2025-135 Defendants. Sine mee Name eae STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., ma! int ptt! VS. NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY BY DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY RELATING TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL As it relates to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel set for hearing on April 10, 2026, Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) submits this Notice of Supplemental Authority from the Oklahoma Supreme Court entered on March 10, 2026. In Chick-Fil-A, Inc. v. Ogden, 2026 OK 13, §16 (Mar. 10, 2026) the Court assumed original jurisdiction and issued a writ of prohibition to the district court relating to a discovery order the Court deemed non-compliant with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. The Order is attached hereto as Ex. 1. As applicable to Plaintiffs’ pending Motion to Compel and State Farm’s arguments based upon the Oklahoma Discovery Code, the Court held: 4 11 Section 3226 was amended in 2017 to more closely follow amendments to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopted in 2015. The advisory drafters of the federal rules wanted to emphasize that “proportionality” is a core element in assessing the scope of discovery. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26 advisory committee’s note on 2015 amendments (“The present amendment restores the proportionality factors to their original place in defining the scope of discovery.”). Rule 26 and § 3226 accomplished this by relocating language from one subsection to another. 412 The amendments also omitted language that had bearing on whether a discovery request is relevant. Prior to 2015, Rule 26 authorized a court to order discovery of “any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action” if it found “good cause” to do so. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26 (1993). The prior version of"}, {"d": 14, "p": 2, "t": "§ 3226 similarly stated, “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action .” See 12 O.S.Supp.2014 § 3226(8)(1)(a). The respective amendments that took place in 2015 and 2017 eliminated the “subject matter” language and now require discovery to be “relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” See FED. R. CIV. P. 26 (2015); 12 O.S. 2021 § 3226(8)(1 )(a). * OK OX {15 “[T]he requirement ... that the material sought in discovery be ‘relevant’ should be firmly applied.” Quinn v. City of Tulsa, 1989 OK 112, 1163, 777 P.2d 1331, 1342 (quoting Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979)). “[W]hen the request is overly broad on its face or when relevancy is not readily apparent, the party seeking discovery has the burden to show the relevancy of the request.” Performance Proppants, LLC v. C. hesapeake Operating, LLC, 2025 WL 2946402, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Sep. 15, 2025) (quoting Johnson vy. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 238 F.R.D. 648 (D. Kan. 2006)). Records related to any pedestrian incident that occurred in a Chick-fil-A parking lot may be relevant to the subject matter involved here. But that is no longer the standard. The trial court did not require Parents to demonstrate how information about dissimilar incidents would be relevant to a claim or defense in this case. Its failure to do so was an abuse of discretion. KKK { 16 The scope of discovery is broad, but it is not without limits. RFP No. 27 was overly broad on its face, and the court abused its discretion by failing to require Parents to initially demonstrate how their request was relevant to any party's claim or defense. . speatfullys iy: Timila S. use . OBA #14310 Paige A. Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OBA #34650 CROWE & DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave. Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8273 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com IN"}, {"d": 14, "p": 3, "t": "paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 3rd day of April, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM : 21 NW 44th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 . Timila 6223013 S. Rother"}, {"d": 14, "p": 4, "t": "Original p1064 7180 2026 OK 13 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED SUPREME COURT geet CHICK-FIL-A, INC., Judge of the District Court of Oklahoma met age ~ SELDEN JONES CUERK FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION Real Parties in Interest. “ett” “erat “enue LESLIE LOZADA and JESUS PEREZ, as Parents of 1.P.L., a Deceased Minor, eee an annie” Seana” d Rec'd (date) 3778726 Posted JP Mailed JP Distrub ; JP Publish k yes no Smeal Respondent, Seay! Semwme? omngge County, No. 122,832 Swett! THE HONORABLE RICHARD OGDEN, Sse Sem v. MAR 10 2026 Seep Smee Petitioner, STATE OF OKLAHOMA APPLICATION TO ASSUME ORIGINAL JURISDICTION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND/OR MANDAMUS [0 Petitioner seeks writs of prohibition and mandamus to preclude enforcement and require modification of Respondent's discovery order. We assume original jurisdiction and grant the writ of prohibition. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ASSUMED; WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED. Peyton Howell, McAfee & Taft, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and J. Craig Buchan, McAfee & Taft, Tulsa, Oklahoma for Petitioner. Joe E. White, Jr., and Charles C. Weddle, Ill, White & Weddle, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for Real Parties in Interest. ~ EXHIBIT | |"}, {"d": 14, "p": 5, "t": "KANE, J.: {1 The issue is whether Respondent, the Honorable Richard Ogden, abused his discretion by not requiring the discovery proponents to show how an overly broad request for production was relevant to any party’s claim or defense. After assuming original jurisdiction, we hold he did and issue a writ of prohibition. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY {2 On August 5, 2023, two-year-old I.P.L. was tragically struck and killed by a motor vehicle driven by a customer in the drive-through lane as he was walking to the entrance of the Chick-fil-A restaurant in Yukon, Oklahoma. I.P.L.’s parents, Real Parties in Interest Leslie Lozada and Jesus Perez, filed a lawsuit against Petitioner Chick-fil-A, Inc. for negligence and wrongful death. Parents alleged Chick-fil-A violated its nondelegable duty of care to provide reasonably safe premises for business invitees. Specifically, Parents argued Chick-fil-A knew or should have known its design for pedestrian ingress and egress—which required customers to traverse through the drive-through lane or lanes to enter the building—created an unreasonably dangerous condition that posed a foreseeable risk of harm.’ {8 This original action concerns the court’s ruling on a motion to compel discovery filed by Parents. In Request for Production (RFP) No. 27, Parents 1 Parents also sued the driver of the vehicle, Chery! Mann, and the operator of the Chick- fil-A franchise in Yukon, Scissor-Tailed Chicken, LLC, d/b/a Chick-fil-A. Mann was later dismissed with prejudice. Scissor-Tailed proceeding. is still a party below but is not participating in this original"}, {"d": 14, "p": 6, "t": "requested production of all documents and communications for the time period of August 5, 2013, to the present related to adverse events, complaints, incidents, and/or accidents involving the injury or death of any person at any restaurant owned, leased, franchised, or operated by Chick-fil-A within the United States. In RFP No. 36, Parents requested production of all complaints or petitions filed against Chick-fil-A from August 5, 2013, to the present “wherein negligence was or is alleged to have caused or contributed to the injury or death of a pedestrian as a result of being struck, hit, run over, or coming in contact with a motor vehicle of any kind while on a Chick-fil-A restaurant premises in the United States.” 4 Chick-fil-A objected to many of Parents’ discovery requests. It argued RFP Nos. 27 and 36 were vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome: were improperly tailored as to time and scope; were not limited to substantially similar incidents; and sought information that was neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Citing these objections, Chick-fil-A limited the temporal and geographical scope of its responses, stating it was not aware of any other incident in the five years preceding this one in which a pedestrian was injured or killed on the premises of a Chick-fil-A branded restaurant business in the state of Oklahoma. 8 At the acknowledged hearing RFP on Parents’ motion to compel, counsel for Parents No. 27 inadvertently and mistakenly requested information about accidents or injuries that had occurred anywhere on a Chick-fil-A property. Counsel said his intent was only to seek information about incidents involving a"}, {"d": 14, "p": 7, "t": "pedestrian injury or death in the parking lot of any Chick-fil-A, and he Stipulated Parents’ willingness to limit the request. Counsel argued Parents were entitled to records for ten years preceding this incident but noted Parents would agree to a five-year limitation. 6 Chick-fil-A was concerned the modified request was still too broad because it continued to sweep in significant amounts of irrelevant information. Chick-fil-A wanted the court to limit the request to incidents which were truly substantially similar, and it argued an incident should not be considered substantially similar to the accident in this case simply because it occurred in the same general location. Chick-fil-A contended information concerning a trip-and-fall or other incidents not involving a motor vehicle would have no relevance to this incident. In Chick-fil-A’s view, a truly substantially similar event is one in which “a customer parks their car and then is forced by Chick-fil-A, according to [Parents], to walk across the drivethrough lane and in the process of being forced to take that path is injured by a car.” {7 The court announced from the bench that it was granting Parents’ motion to compel but modifying the scope of their requests. Regarding RFP Nos. 27 and 36, the court stated it was ordering Chick-fil-A to supplement its discovery responses for five years preceding August 5, 2023, related to incidents or injuries involving pedestrians in the parking lot of any Chick-fil-A franchise or restaurant with a drivethrough in the United States. Chick-fil-A asked whether the court would consider limiting the RFPs to incidents involving pedestrian injuries that occurred in the"}, {"d": 14, "p": 8, "t": "drive-through lane. Respondent denied the request, stating Chick-fil-A’s suggestion was too limited in scope and too difficult to define. The court entered its final written Order on January 6, 2025. 98 Chick-fil-A now asks that we assume original jurisdiction and review the ruling. It seeks a writ of prohibition to preclude the court from enforcing the Order, Alternatively or additionally, Chick-fil-A requests a writ of mandamus ordering the court to limit the RFP.? STANDARD OF REVIEW 19 “This Court has the power on original jurisdiction to correct an abuse of discretion or compel action where the action taken is arbitrary even though the officer is vested with judgment and discretion.” Maree v. Neuwirth, 2016 OK 62, J 6, 374 P.3d 750, 752. In other words, even though the district court has wide discretion when adjudicating discovery matters, we are not without fixed principles by which we can determine the decision’s correctness on appellate review. See State ex rel. Okla. State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision v. Rivero, 2021 OK 31, 171, 489 P.3d 36, 62. Extraordinary relief is available to prohibit or order the production of evidence when a district court exceeds its authority, issues an order 2 It is not clear why the court dealt with objections to two different requests in one ruling. Parents’ request for copies of complaints and petitions from any lawsuit involving a motor vehicle injury or death was not overly broad as drafted. However, the court’s ruling extends the scope of RFP No. 36 by requiring production of petitions and complaints from lawsuits involving any pedestrian injury or death. To the extent the court intended to omit the limitation to lawsuits involving injuries caused by interactions with motor vehicles, the court's ruling suffers from the same overbreadth."}, {"d": 14, "p": 9, "t": "based on an erroneous conclusion of law, or acts without a rational basis in evidence. Jolley v. McClain, 2025 OK 6, 9] 4, 564 P.3d 54, 56. ANALYSIS 710 This case is controlled by 12 0.S.2021 § 3226, which provides in pertinent part: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to any party’s claim or defense, reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, parties’ relative access to relevant information, the the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. . . . Id., § 3226(B)(1)(a). {111 Section 3226 was amended in 2017 to more closely follow amendments to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopted in 2015.3 The advisory drafters of the federal rules wanted to emphasize that “proportionality” is a core element in assessing the scope of discovery. See FED. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee's note on 2015 amendments (“The present amendment restores the proportionality factors to their original place in defining the scope of discovery.”). 3 Oklahoma's Code of Civil Procedure is modeled after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. When the legislature adopts a parallel provision from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, courts may look to federal case law when interpreting the state statute. Heffron v. District Court of Okla. County, 2003 OK 75, J 13 & 14, 77 P.3d 1069, 1076. We may also look for guidance in pertinent federal Advisory Committee Notes or Oklahoma Comments. /d."}, {"d": 14, "p": 10, "t": "Rule 26 and § 3226 accomplished this by relocating language from one subsection to another.4 12 The amendments also omitted language that had bearing on whether a discovery request is relevant. Prior to 2015, Rule 26 authorized a court to order discovery of “any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action’ if it found “good cause” to do so. See FED. R. Civ. P. 26 (1993). The prior version of § 3226 similarly stated, “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...” See 12 O.S.Supp.2014 § 3226(B)(1)(a). The respective amendments that took place in 2015 and 2017 eliminated the “subject matter” language and now require discovery to be “relevant to any party's claim or defense.” See FED. R. Civ. P. 26 (2015); 12 O.S. 2021 § 3226(B)(1)(a). {13 The federal Advisory Committee on Civil Rules introduced the distinction between “matter relevant to the subject matter” and “matter relevant to a claim or defense” in 2000: In 1978, proposed the Committee published amendment...to refine for comment the scope a of discovery by deleting the “subject matter” language. This proposal was withdrawn, and the Committee has since then made other changes in the discovery rules to address concerns about overbroad discovery. Concerns about costs and delay of discovery have persisted 4 Compare FED. R. Civ. P. 26 (1993) (proportionality language falling under “limitations on frequency and extent” in Rule 26(b)(2)(c)(iii)), with Feo. R. Civ. P. 26 (2015) (proportionality language located in Rule 26(b)(1) regarding “scope in general”), and 12 O.S.Supp.2014 § 3226 (proportionality language falling under “limitations on frequency and extent” in § 3226(B)(2)(c)(3)), with 12 O.S.Supp.2017 § 3226 (proportionality language located in § 3226(B)(1) regarding “discovery scope and limits — in general’)."}, {"d": 14, "p": 11, "t": "nonetheless ...in some instances, particularly cases involving large quantities of discovery, parties seek to justify discovery requests that sweep far beyond the claims and defenses of the parties on the ground that they nevertheless have a bearing on the “subject matter” involved in the action. FED. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee’s note on 2000 amendments. While at that time Rule 26 retained the court's authority to order discovery relevant to the subject matter for good cause, the Committee noted it intended for “the parties and the court [to] focus on the actual claims and defenses involved in the action.” /d. 114 According to the 2015 Advisory Committee, requiring discovery to be proportional and relevant to any party’s claim or defense is sufficient, provided there is a proper understanding of what is relevant to a claim or defense. See FED. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee’s note on 2015 amendments. The Committee offered three examples of information that, “suitably focused,” would be relevant to the parties’ claims or defenses: other incidents of the same type or involving the same product; information about organizational arrangements or filing systems; and information that could be used to impeach a likely witness. See id. {15 “[T]he requirement... that the material sought in discovery be ‘relevant’ should be firmly applied.” Quinn v. City of Tulsa, 1989 OK 112, | 63, 777 P.2d 1331, 1342 (quoting Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979)). “[W]hen the request is overly broad on its face or when relevancy is not readily apparent, the party seeking discovery has the burden to show the relevancy of the request.” Performance Proppants, LLC v. Chesapeake Operating,"}, {"d": 14, "p": 12, "t": "LLC, 2025 WL 2946402, at “1 (W.D. Okla. Sep. 15, 2025) (quoting Johnson v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 238 F.R.D. 648 (D. Kan. 2006)). Records related to any pedestrian incident that occurred in a Chick-fil-A parking lot may be relevant to the subject matter involved here. But that is no longer the standard. The trial court did not require Parents to demonstrate how information about dissimilar incidents would be relevant to a claim or defense in this case. Its failure to do so was an abuse of discretion. CONCLUSION 416 The scope of discovery is broad, but it is not without limits. REP No. 27 was overly broad on its face, and the court abused its discretion by failing to require Parents to initially demonstrate how their request was relevant to any party’s claim or defense. For this reason, we grant Chick-fil-A’s petition for a writ of prohibition. Respondent is prohibited from enforcing paragraph 7 of the January 6, 2025, Order compelling discovery. The court is authorized to reevaluate Parents’ motion to compel discovery with respect to RFP Nos. 27 and 36 in a manner consistent with this opinion. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ASSUMED; WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED. CONCUR: Rowe, C.J., Kuehn, V.C.J., Winchester, Gurich, Kane and Jett, Ju. CONCUR IN RESULT: Edmondson, Combs and Darby, JJ."}, {"d": 15, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA NEIL April 15, 2026 5:19 PM and LACY WEST, ) ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Plaintiffs, ) ) Case Number CJ-2025-135 ) v. ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS._ AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 JUDGE SHEPERD ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3226(C), Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm”) respectfully requests that the Court enter the protective order attached as Exhibit 1 (the “Proposed PO”) on an expedited basis to govern the disclosure of proprietary, confidential, and trade secret information elicited or produced in this case. While the parties have referenced the need to enter a protective order to govern the discovery of confidential information in this case for some time, the Coutt’s order requiring the deposition of Nicole Manduca to occur on or before May 8, 2026 brings that issue to the forefront. It is apparent from the parties’ extensive briefing and discussions to date that counsel for Plaintiffs intends to question Ms. Manduca about operational, financial, and claims data that will reveal private, competitively sensitive information of State Farm and non-parties. A mechanism for designating as “confidential” those parts of the deposition—including the corresponding exhibits that Plaintiffs’ counsel will invariably introduce—must therefore be in place before Ms, Manduca’s deposition A protective order is also necessary to safeguard the sensitive documents that State Farm agreed to produce months ago, including operational guides, performance reviews, quality plans and similar documents, as well as any documents Plaintiffs requested in their Motion to Compel that the Court orders State Farm"}, {"d": 15, "p": 2, "t": "to produce (see chart attached to State Farm’s response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel). Plaintiffs do not dispute that good cause exists to enter a protective order. Rather, they seek to enter a proposed order that lacks important protections contained in generally accepted protective orders, including a return-or-destroy provision. These provisions are a fundamental element of protective orders, appear in model orders across jurisdictions, including Oklahoma, and do nothing to interfere with these Plaintiffs’ ability to fully and completely litigate their case, which is the operative criteria. Indeed, the refusal to return or destroy documents serves no purpose other than to benefit Plaintiffs’ counsel in a manner at odds with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Other unconventional provisions in Plaintiffs’ anticipated protective order suffer from the same defect and use vague, undefined language that will inevitably lead to disputes about what is or is not encompassed within those provisions. In contrast, the Proposed PO contains standard provisions, including the necessary return-or-destroy provision. Thus, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court reject Plaintiffs’ proposal and enter State Farm’s Proposed PO before depositions begin. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This action arises out of a dispute as to whether the roof of Plaintiffs’ house was a total loss due to storm damage under their insurance policy with State Farm, with an alleged contract amount of $51,696.31. There is no dispute on the basic premise that a protective order should be entered. Rather the dispute is over the inclusion or exclusion of certain provisions. Entry of a protective order is time sensitive due to the Court’s order that Ms. Manduca appear for a deposition on or before May 8, because anticipated questions Plaintiffs’ counsel will ask Ms. Manduca—a State Farm Claim Manager responsible for evaluating sensitive business information—will likely elicit responses with confidential information. Moreover, while State"}, {"d": 15, "p": 3, "t": "Farm objected to, and continues to object to, the overbreadth of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests!— which include 44 document requests and 30 interrogatories—State Farm has agreed to produce a substantial number of documents upon entry of a protective order, including: * Estimatics and Claim Handling Practices (the “ECHP documents”), which are the collection of operational guidelines, state specific materials and storm information and data relevant to adjusting claims from the storm aligned with Plaintiffs’ date of loss; ¢ Training transcripts for the personnel who adjusted Plaintiffs’ claims, with the agreement that State Farm will then produce the relevant training materials Plaintiffs identify from those transcripts that relate to the wind/hail determination at issue: ¢ Operational Guide 75-160 which contains the guidelines applied to wind/hail determinations, including the guidelines that grew out of the Fire Model Enhancement about which Plaintiffs seek expansive discovery; ¢ The Fire Property Claims Quality Plan in effect on the date of loss (and as a compromise, plans from 2021 to the date of loss); and * Other categories of information as agreed or as ordered by the Court. In addition to these documents, disputed production of other confidential documents is pending on a Motion to Compel before this Court. Taken together, Plaintiffs’ broad written discovery requests and requested testimony from Ms. Manduca seek a vast amount of confidential, proprietary information of State Farm encompassing at least 15 years of materials regarding, inter alia, the operations of State Farm’s entire Property and Casualty department; its protocols, studies, and programs into how to improve claim handling; and its nationwide use of engineering services on property claims, among many other categories of documents. Due to the proprietary nature of this information and the accompanying need for a protective order, State Farm attached the Proposed PO to the discovery responses it served on ' On September 29, 2025, State Farm responded to Plaintiffs’ first set of discovery requests and simultaneously produced 964 pages of documents to Plaintiffs including Plaintiffs’ Policy, claim file, and basic underwriting information. Because State Farm does not consider this information to be proprietary or confidential in relation to Plaintiffs’ own information in this case, State Farm produced this information without requiring a protective order."}, {"d": 15, "p": 4, "t": "September 29, 2025 for Plaintiffs to review and consider. Instead of suggesting edits to or conferring about State Farm’s Proposed PO, Plaintiffs’ counsel maintains that the Court should enter the protective order that Oklahoma County Judge Amy Palumbo entered, over State Farm’s objection, in a different case. Unlike the Proposed PO, which includes standard provisions that courts across jurisdictions regularly enter, Plaintiffs’ proposed order disregards the purpose of 12 O.S. § 3226(C) by predetermining that certain information courts routinely hold is confidential and subject to a protective order is not confidential and by omitting a provision requiring the parties to destroy confidential information at the conclusion of the litigation.? Moreover, in failing to take any action on the Proposed PO for seven months—and failing to provide a reasonable alternative that comports with Oklahoma law—Plaintiffs both gated their own stated desire to have the documents State Farm agreed to produce upon entry of a protective order months ago and created the current time sensitivity surrounding Ms. Manduca’s deposition. Thus, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court enter its Proposed PO before the deposition of Ms, Manduca. ? State Farm also has concerns about Paragraph 7 of the Order Plaintiffs have referenced, which states: “|t]his Protective Order is not intended to preclude use or disclosure of any document, deposition transcript or information which is in the public domain, [sic] which has been provided to a party, his/her/its attorneys or experts, by a source independent of the designating party or his/her/its attorney.” Under one reading of Paragraph 7, if an attorney in another case against State Farm provides State Farm materials produced in that other case to Plaintiffs’ counsel, Plaintiffs’ counsel would be able to use and disclose those materials into the public record here—even if the other attorney violated the PO in the other case by providing them to Plaintiffs’ counsel—simply because they were provided to Plaintiffs’ counsel by a “source independent of the designating party [State Farm].” Under such circumstances, there is no question that Paragraph 7 is simply a different version of the sharing provisions that are heavily disfavored both in Oklahoma and around the country. State Farm has similar concerns about Paragraph 5(g), which allows disclosure to “any other Court or Judiciary with jurisdiction over this action.” To the extent Plaintiffs intend this to mean any court or Judiciary that cou/d have jurisdiction, rather than one actually exercising jurisdiction, that would also be considered a sharing provision generally rejected by the Courts."}, {"d": 15, "p": 5, "t": "ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES I. Oklahoma Law Empowers Courts to Enter Protective Orders Governing Exchange of Confidential Information, Including Claim Handling Materials. the Oklahoma law expressly empowers courts to enter protective orders regarding the use of confidential information produced during discovery. Section 3226(C) of the Oklahoma Discovery Code—which mirrors its federal counterpart under Rule 26(c)’—permits the Court to enter “any order which justice requires to protect a party from .. . annoyance, harassment, embarrassment, oppression or undue delay, burden or expense including . . . that a trade secret or other confidential research, development or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way.” 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(1)(g) (emphasis added); see Farrimond v. State ex rel. Fisher, 2000 OK 52, 4 21, 8 P.3d 872, 876-77 (“Section 3226(C) of the Discovery Code vests the court with discretion to enter appropriate protective orders to protect the confidentiality of discovered information in appropriate circumstances”).’ As courts routinely recognize, protective orders play a critical role of protecting the confidentiality and privacy interests of parties while simultaneously facilitating the efficient exchange of information. See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 34-35 (1984) (“[I]t is necessary for the trial court to have the authority to issue protective orders” because “the liberality of pretrial discovery [has] . . . significant potential for abuse [and]... may seriously implicate privacy interests of litigants and third parties.”); United Nuclear Corp. v. 3 “Section[] 3226 . . . [has its] conceptual origins in [its] counterpart[] found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26... .” State ex rel. Okla. State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision v. Rivero, 2021 OK 31, 4 79, 489 P.3d 36, 64. * See also YWCA of Oklahoma City v. Melson, 1997 OK 81, 4 25 n.41, 944 P.2d 304, 310, 311 n.41; Barnes v, United States, No. 12-CV-282, 2013 WL 4507596, at *1 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 22, 2013) (indicating that protection under Fed. R. Civ. P, 26(c) “may include protection of trade secret, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information”); Integrated Dentistry, P.A. v. Integrative Dental Specialists, PLLC, No. 5:19-CV-05090, 2020 WL 488286, at *1 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 30, 2020) (“Confidential commercial information falls squarely within the ambit” of Rule 26)."}, {"d": 15, "p": 6, "t": "Cranford Ins, Co., 905 F.2d 1424, 1427 (10th Cir. 1990) (“No doubt [protective orders] make[] the discovery process in a particular case operate more efficiently; the assurance of confidentiality may encourage disclosures that otherwise would be resisted.”); SEC. v. Merrill Scott & Assocs., Lid, 600 F.3d 1262, 1272 (10th Cir. 2010) (“Protective orders serve the vital function of ‘secur[ing] the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of civil disputes by encouraging full disclosure of all evidence that might conceivably be relevant.’”). The standard for entry of a protective order is “good cause.” 12 0.8. § 3226(C). For the order being sought, only a “threshold showing of good cause to believe that discovery will involve confidential or protected information” is required, which “may be done on a generalized as opposed to a document-by-document basis.” Gillard vy. Boulder Valley School Dist. Re.-2, 196 F.R.D. 382, 386 (D. Colo. 2000) (cleaned up).> A document-by-document showing is not necessary to keep materials exchanged in discovery confidential because there is no public right to access such documents exchanged between private litigants. See Good v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2023 OK CIV APP 28, § 16, 536 P.3d 961, 971, reh’g denied (Mar. 13, 2023) (“Discovery documents produced in private litigation are not public records”); $2 Automation LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., 283 F.R.D. 671, at 683 (D.N.M., 2012) (“The toll on the [] court system’s docket would indeed be severe if district courts had to review, on a document-by-document basis, materials to determine whether they were confidential each time one party sought a protective order.”). Indeed, “[w}hen directed solely at discovery materials, protective orders are not subject to the high level of scrutiny required by the Constitution to justify prior restraints; rather, courts * See also Siegel v. Blue Giant Equip., LLC, No. 15-CV-143, 2015 WL 7272216, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 17, 2015), aff'd sub nom. Siegel v. Blue Giant Equip. Corp., 793 F. App’x 737 (10th Cir. 2019) (to demonstrate good cause for a protective order, a party “must demonstrate that the information sought constitutes a trade secret, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information and then demonstrate that its disclosure might be harmful”)."}, {"d": 15, "p": 7, "t": "have broad discretion at the discovery stage to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required.” The Sedona Conference, The Sedona Guidelines: Best Practices Addressing Protective Orders, Confidentiality & Public Access, 8 Sedona Conf. J. 141, 147 (2007) (emphasis added); see also Rohrbough v. Harris, 549 F.3d 1313, 1321 (10th Cir. 2008) (“The “good cause’ standard of Rule 26(c) is ‘highly flexible, having been designed to accommodate all relevant interests as they arise.’”) (quoting United States v. Microsoft Corp., 165 F.3d 952, 959 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). II. Plaintiffs Do Not Dispute that Good Cause Exists. In proposing their own protective order, Plaintiffs do not dispute that good cause exists for a protective order restricting the use of confidential information exchanged in discovery, recognizing potential harm to State Farm’s competitive position if its trade secrets and confidential information were available to competitors. Indeed, courts across jurisdictions—including in cases involving State Farm—have extended protections to the types of information Plaintiffs have requested here. See, e.g., Moses Enters., LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 3:19-CV-00477, 2020 WL 7634165, at *3~4 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 22, 2020) (finding that AIG’s insurance claims manuals were entitled to confidential treatment because “they provide very detailed, specific step-by-step instructions that AIG has developed regarding its property and casualty insurance claims”); Roberts v, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins, Co., No. 19-CV-00319, 2019 WL 13201536, at *1—2 (D. Colo. Oct. 28, 2019) (amending protective order to allow State Farm to designate training and resource materials as confidential); Hamilton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 204 F.R.D, 420, 423 (S.D. Ind. 2001) (finding State Farm’s claims handling policies, practices and procedures to constitute trade secrets or otherwise confidential and proprietary information and issuing"}, {"d": 15, "p": 8, "t": "protective order governing their disclosure); Adams v. Allstate Ins. Co., 189 F.R.D. 331 (ELD. Pa. 1999) (issuing protective order limiting use of claims handling material to that action). These courts recognize that such information may contain trade secrets or other proprietary information that, if disclosed outside the instant litigation, may result in competitive injury. See, e.g., Ortez v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 17-CV-01202, 2018 WL 11237901, at *2-3 (D. Colo. Oct. 29, 2018) (finding that internal manuals were entitled to protection because defendant “would lose its competitive advantage if these manuals were publicly available—its competitors could replicate UPS’s methods and procedures, which it expended significant time and financial resources to develop.”); Jones v. Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 3:98-CV-2108, 2000 WL 1231402 (M.D. Pa. July 20, 2000) (ordering that “all [produced] documentation, including all company policies and all claims manuals, are to be kept confidential, for the eyes of plaintiff's counsel only”); Toy v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CV 23-4095, 2025 WL 1179459, at *4 (E.D. La. Apr. 23, 2025) (finding that “State Farm ha[d] established good cause for issuance of [a] protective order treating its claims handling policies, procedures and methodologies as confidential and limiting the[ir] use and disclosure . . . to purposes of this litigation”), II. To Safeguard Confidential Information, a Protective Order Is Necessary Before Depositions Begin. The Court should enter the Proposed PO before any depositions are taken to safeguard the confidential information of both State Farm and non-parties. Oklahoma courts regularly enter protective orders before depositions begin to encourage open testimony, ensure orderly handling of confidential information, and prevent unnecessary public disclosure. See, eg, 12 O.S. § 3226(C); Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33 (1984) (“pretrial depositions . . . are not public components of a civil trial. Such proceedings were not open to the public at common law.”); State ex rel. Okla. State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision v. Rivero, 2021 OK 31, | 81,"}, {"d": 15, "p": 9, "t": "489 P.3d 36, 66 (“a protective order is for a purpose to encourage the full disclosure of evidence not yet disclosed”), Am. Friends Serv. Comm. v. City & Cnty. of Denver, No. CV 02-N-740 (CBS), 2004 WL 7334020, at *3 (D. Colo. Feb. 19, 2004) (“protective order[s] permit[] litigants to provide full disclosure of relevant information without fear of subsequent dissemination to non-parties and without the expense and delays associated with discovery disputes concerning specific information or documents”). This is unsurprising, because protective orders are necessary to provide the mechanisms for designating deposition testimony and exhibits confidential. See, e.g., S2 Automation LLC y. Micron Technology, Inc., 283 F.R.D. 671, at 682 (D.N.M., 2012) (“Without the proper procedures in place in this litigation, particularly given that . . . trade secrets may be lost if a party does not take precautions to protect them, the Court recognizes that not having a protective order in place could compromise [Defendant’s] commercial position and legal rights. It is much easier to address this situation preemptively, which is the underlying purpose of protective orders, rather than after [Defendant] has suffered harm. The scope of discovery is broad, and, given that broad scope, it is sometimes necessary to have a protective order to reduce the risk that sensitive information... remains confidential.”). Here, the Proposed PO is necessary and time sensitive due to the ordered deposition of Ms. Manduca. Based on arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel in briefing, Ms. Manduca’s testimony will almost certainly include internal business practices, claims handling guidelines and data, vendor relationships, and other non-public information that State Farm diligently protects from public disclosure. Indeed, the entire basis for deposing Ms. Manduca centers on her alleged involvement with the FME work—an internal quality initiative that was part of State Farm’s non-public business operations. Absent a protective order, State Farm faces a significant risk that all such"}, {"d": 15, "p": 10, "t": "information about which Ms, Manduca testifies will be misused or disseminated beyond its proper scope, to State Farm’s irreparable detriment. Moreover, based on their conduct in previous depositions, Plaintiffs’ counsel may (improperly) attempt to ask Ms. Manduca questions about confidential deposition exhibits or testimony from other cases. A pre-deposition protective order is also necessary to safeguard non-parties’ confidential, proprietary, and sensitive business information, which is entitled to equal, if not greater, protection. See, ¢.g., McDonald v. Holder, No. 09-CV-0573-CVE-TLW, 2010 WL 4362821, at *6 (N.D. Okla. Oct. 26, 2010) (finding that “the Court must take appropriate steps to protect the privacy interests of third parties to this litigation” and requiring reassessment of the entered protective order where “it is not clear if the protective order adequately protects the privacy interest of third parties.”); Am. Friends, 2004 WL 7334020, at *10-11 (finding that non-parties’ privacy interests warranted greater protection). Plaintiffs’ broad discovery requests in this case implicate non-party information concerning State Farm insureds besides Plaintiffs, as well as State Farm vendors. As such, there is a significant risk of irreparable harm to non-parties through public disclosure or misuse if depositions proceed without a protective order in place as State Farm fully expects that Plaintiffs will discuss these topics during Ms. Manduca’s deposition. Moreover, the risks to State Farm and non-parties are not merely theoretical. On the contrary, Plaintiffs’ counsel has demonstrated a pattern of using deposition testimony in unrelated litigation, including in public filings, by attaching the transcripts as exhibits, referencing deposition testimony verbatim in motions, and reading from transcripts in open court. For example, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel in this matter directly and repeatedly referenced deposition testimony from other matters, including testimony from Ms, Manduca, Richard Hsiung, Kenneth Kwok, and Tom Moss, December 17, 2025 Motion to Compel at 4-6, 8-10, 12-14. Consequently, unless the Court 10"}, {"d": 15, "p": 11, "t": "enters the Proposed PO, State Farm’s witnesses wil! be placed in the untenable position of needing to choose between testifying fully and safeguarding confidential information. Clear, up-front procedures for designating confidential testimony and exhibits—such as those in the Proposed PO—will therefore reduce unnecessary disputes, minimize deposition interruptions, and lessen the need for court intervention. Thus, the Court should follow the footsteps of countless other courts and enter the Proposed PO before depositions begin. IV. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Order Includes Unconventional Provisions Intended Solely to Assist Their Counsel in Unrelated Future Litigation The parties agree that a protective order is warranted and have both proposed protective orders, disagreeing only on the terms. While Plaintiffs seek inclusion of unconventional provisions that will assist their counsel, not in this case, but in future litigation against State Farm that does not involve Plaintiffs, State Farm seeks a standard protective order that aligns with the weight of Oklahoma authority. A. Plaintiffs’ Unconventional “Trade Secret” Limitation Is an Unnecessary and Impermissible Attempt to Aid Plaintiffs’ Counsel in Future Unrelated Litigation. Plaintiffs’ protective order adopted from the Hursh case before Judge Palumbo seek to preemptively deem a large swath of information counsel has requested from State Farm nof confidential, by excluding from the term “trade secret” “any aspects of the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim as first-party insureds, including but not limited to attempts to lower indemnity payments on Plaintiffs’ claim, including the total roof replacement requested, and anything regarding denying or partially denying Plaintiffs’ claim.” See Plaintiffs’ Proposed Protective Order, { 3(a)(ii), Ex. 2 (emphasis added).° This paragraph is entirely ambiguous and certain to create ° Plaintiffs have not customized a Protective Order for this case but rather handed a copy of the Hursh Protective Order to the Court at the April 10 hearing on the Motion to Compel. State Farm is attaching the Protective Order exactly as it was presented at the hearing. 1]"}, {"d": 15, "p": 12, "t": "unending disputes in interpretation. To the extent Plaintiffs are limiting this provision to State Farm’s decision on their claim, it is unnecessary; State Farm has already produced the entire policy and claim file without a confidential designation. To the extent Plaintiffs interpret it more broadly—e.g., encompassing information such as State Farm’s training materials, claim handling guidelines, claim team members’ personnel files, internal operations and processes, protocols, studies, and programs into how to improve claim handling—the paragraph impermissibly ignores the fact that (1) State Farm and the industry undeniably consider this information confidential, proprietary, and trade secret and (2) courts routinely agree with the industry and protect such information from disclosure. See, e.g., Deer Creek Water Corp. v. Okla. City, No. CIV-19-1116SLP, 2020 WL 12617254, at *1 (W.D. Okla. July 17, 2020) (“It is apparent that some of the materials to be produced . . . are proprietary, trade secret, and/or contain confidential information. The only true question for the Court is what the terms of the protective order should be.”); Fullbright v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. CIV-09-297-D, 2010 WL 300436, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 20, 2010) (noting “[p]ersonnel files are regarded as private and contain material which employees regard as confidential, and a court must be cautious in ordering their disclosure,” and requiring production only of limited information, and only subject to a protective order). Indeed, it is telling that Plaintiffs’ counsel have not previously questioned the confidential nature of such information. Consequently, it is more likely that the request for the Court to preemptively and categorically deem such information nonconfidential is motivated by Plaintiffs’ counsel’s effort to manage the more than 600 claims on which they represent State Farm insureds (approximately 125 of which have actually been filed)—and the desire for a library of documents to use in all cases without the obligation to establish relevance of their wide-ranging, invasive discovery in each case, despite their differences—than any legitimate concern in Plaintiffs’ case. 12"}, {"d": 15, "p": 13, "t": "If State Farm produces information designated confidential that Plaintiffs believe does not merit that designation, Plaintiffs can avail themselves of the standard procedure for challenging designations set forth in Section IV of the Proposed PO, Pursuant to this procedure, if Plaintiffs “take issue with any ‘Confidential’ designation,” they can provide notice of their disagreement to State Farm who must respond in writing. Proposed PO, § IV, { 8. The parties then have 15 days to meet and confer to attempt to resolve the dispute over the designation. /d. at J 9. If they are unable to resolve the dispute, either party may move for a determination by the Court as to the appropriateness of the designation. Jd. at {10. Critically, State Farm maintains and does not shy away from the burden of establishing confidentiality. /d. at | 11. B. Plaintiffs’ Omission of a Necessary Return-or-Destroy Provision Similarly Serves No Purpose Other Than to Assist Plaintiffs’ Counsel in Future Unrelated Litigation. Plaintiffs’ protective order omits a return-or-destroy provision, which State Farm has proposed in {30 of the Proposed PO. This omission undermines the very purpose of protective orders by eliminating one of the key protections by which discovery produced in one case is excluded from unjustified use in other unrelated cases.’ As courts have recognized, the use of confidential documents produced in one litigation in other unrelated cases increases the risk of introducing those documents to the public domain (either inadvertently or purposefully) without first ensuring that appropriate confidentiality protections are put in place in each case in which they are subsequently used. See, ¢.g., Massachusetts v. Mylan Lab’ys, Inc., 246 F.R.D. 87, 91 (D. Mass. 2007) (“[SJuch broad disclosure would eviscerate the effectiveness of the protective Plaintiffs’ protective order also omits other provisions critical to the use of confidential information in litigation. These include, among others, provisions for handling information misdesignated by a party (Proposed PO, § IV) and subpoenas seeking the disclosure of information produced in this litigation designated confidential (id., § X1V). State Farm’s Proposed PO is more comprehensive because it includes these and similar provisions that are considered standard practices in cases like this one, which involve large volumes of confidential commercial and proprietary information. 13"}, {"d": 15, "p": 14, "t": "order.”). Moreover, prohibiting use of confidential information outside the instant litigation by requiring the return or destruction of discovery materials aligns with protective orders that courts across Oklahoma routinely enter,® as well as their routine rejection of provisions that place “unilateral decision making with plaintiff's counsel, eliminate[] the opportunity for defendants to weigh in, and remove[] control from the court.” Butler vy. Daimler Trucks N. Am. LLC, No. 192377-JAR, 2020 WL 128052, at *3 (D. Kan. Jan. 10, 2020); see also Sparks y. State Farm, No. CJ-2024-56 (Grady County, Jan. 22, 2026) (rejecting the plaintiffs’ proposed sharing provision and entering State Farm’s protective order in full, including provisions that: (1) limit the use of confidential information to “prosecution or defense of [that] action”; and (2) require the return or destruction of materials within 30 days of final resolution); Ross v. U. of Tulsa, 225 F. Supp. 3d 1254, 1261-62 (N.D. Okla. 2016) (enforcing protective order that limited use of documents and information exchanged in discovery to the litigation); Chancler v. Lamplight Forms, Inc., No. 14CV-157-JHP-PIC, 2015 WL 7252815, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Jan, 26, 2015) (same). Indeed, any protective order that allows Plaintiffs’ counsel to use confidential discovery materials for purposes other than this litigation or retain discovery materials indefinitely without limitations would circumvent this relevance requirement by allowing Plaintiffs’ counsel to determine for themselves to whom and under what circumstances State Farm’s confidential documents will be provided.’ This is not only improper, but unnecessary. The purpose of a protective order is not to arm counsel with confidential and proprietary evidence to use on behalf of other clients in other, unrelated cases—it is to protect the producing party while facilitating the 8 See Section IV.C, infra. * Without express limitations like those in the Proposed PO, indefinite retention merely makes implicit what disfavored sharing provisions make explicit—Plaintiffs’ counsel has free reign to use confidential materials in other cases. 14"}, {"d": 15, "p": 15, "t": "flow of discovery in one, particular case in an effective and confidential manner. To the extent Plaintiffs’ counsel later seek the same information on behalf of State Farm insureds in other Cases, counsel can “simply .. . go through the appropriate steps to obtain that discovery.” Long v. TRW Vehicle Safety Sys., Inc., No. CV-09-2209-PHX-DGC, 2010 WL 1740831, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 29, 2010). Vv. State Farm’s Proposed Return-or-Destroy Provision Is a Fundamental Provision and Does Not Impede Plaintiffs’ Counsels’ Ability to Retain Work Product Within Their Files for Case-Related Purposes. Courts across jurisdictions, including in Oklahoma, regularly find good cause to enter protective orders requiring parties to return, or certify to the destruction of, other parties’ confidential information upon the conclusion of litigation. See, e.g., Taylor v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No, CIV-21-15C, 2021 WL 4129471, at *4 (WD. Okla. Sept. 9, 2021) (ordering the entry of a protective order with a destruction and retention provision in a case involving State Farm’s alleged refusal to cover the full amount of the plaintiff's loss); Nichols vy. Chesapeake Operating, LLC, No. CIV-16-1073-PRW, 2020 WL 354751 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 21, 2020) (ordering that a protective order requiring return and destruction of documents continue after the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of the case); Humphries v. Barber, No. 4:20-CV-00064, 2022 WL 3107914, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2022) (entering protective order over plaintiff's objections, including return-or-destroy requirement and requirement that witnesses and third-parties agree to maintain confidentiality). This requirement encompasses not only information in the possession of counsel of record, but confidential information a party or its counsel provided to other individuals pursuant to the protective order. Poligquin v. Garden Way, Inc., 154 F.R.D, 29, 32-33 (D. Me. 1994) (ordering party to retrieve and destroy materials provided to third parties and rejecting interpretation of protective order to allow sharing of information with third parties for use in other litigation); Rhodes v. Pfeiffer, No. CV 14-7687-JGB (KK), 2017 WL 11048475, at *5 (C.D. Cal. 15"}, {"d": 15, "p": 16, "t": "Sept. 12, 2017) (“[E]ven minimal privacy concerns will outweigh Petitioner’s need to retain the personnel files after the conclusion of this case and all appeals... .”). State Farm’s proposed return-or-destroy provision tracks what these and other courts have deemed necessary to protect the confidentiality of materials exchanged in discovery in this case. Indeed, the routine entry of return-or-destroy provisions is unsurprising; absent a return-or-destroy provision, “the court would be abdicating its role in approving future discovery (as well as potentially usurping a collateral court’s role in managing discovery in a collateral case).” Bertetto v, Eon Labs, Inc., No. 06-1136 JCH/ACT, 2008 WL 2522571, at *2 (D.N.M. May 29, 2008). As courts in the Tenth Circuit recognize, potential future collateral litigants have “no right to obtain discovery materials that are privileged or otherwise immune from eventual involuntary discovery in the collateral litigation.” United Nuclear Corp, 905 F.2d at 1428 (citation omitted). “{QJuestions of the discoverability in the [collateral] litigation of the materials discovered in [this] litigation are, of course, for the [collateral] courts.” /d. (quoting Superior Oil Co. v. American Petrofina Co., 785 F.2d 130, 130 (Sth Cir. 1986)). Moreover, State Farm’s proposed return-or-destroy provision does not impede Plaintiffs’ counsel’s ability to maintain a record of the case sufficient for case-related purposes. On the contrary, the Proposed PO addresses any such concern by allowing Plaintiffs’ counsel to retain counsel’s work product and attorney-client communications—even if they contain or reflect confidential information—as long as materials are marked confidential and not used in other cases: As to those materials that contain or reflect Confidential information, but that constitute or reflect counsel’s work product and/or attorney-client communications, counsel of record for the Parties shall be entitled to retain such work product and/or attorney-client communications in their files in accordance with the provisions of this Protective Order, so long as it is clearly marked to reflect that it contains information subject to this Protective Order. Such materials may not be used in connection with any other proceeding or action. Counsel shall be entitled to retain pleadings, affidavits, motions, briefs, other papers filed with the Court, transcripts 16"}, {"d": 15, "p": 17, "t": "of any deposition testimony and sworn statements of witnesses, together with all exhibits thereto, and the trial record (including exhibits) even if such materials contain Confidential Material, so long as such materials are clearly marked to reflect that they contain information subject to this Protective Order and may not be used in connection with any other proceeding or action. Proposed PO, § X, 32, Ex. 1; see also Stroup y. United Airlines, Inc., No. 15-CV-01389-WYD- CBS, 2016 WL 7176717 (D. Colo. Sept. 16, 2016) (explaining why a similar provision is reasonable and strikes an appropriate balance between the parties’ interests). As such, Plaintiffs will suffer no prejudice from the Proposed PO’s routine return-or-destroy provision, and the Court should have no concerns entering it. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court enter State Farm’s Proposed PO attached as Exhibit | before depositions begin. The Proposed PO is necessary to ensure that confidential information used for purposes of discovery and trial of this lawsuit— including information that Plaintiffs do not dispute warrants protection—will not be disseminated beyond those attorneys, parties, and persons working in connection with this lawsuit, or as otherwise permitted by the Court. Furthermore, entry of the Proposed PO in an expedited manner is necessary to ensure that such information is protected at the Court-ordered deposition of Ms. Manduca. As such, good cause exists for entry of the Proposed PO, which will facilitate the goals of the Oklahoma Discovery Code, promoting “the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” 12 O.S. § 3225. 17"}, {"d": 15, "p": 18, "t": "N oo { /\\ Repel sub ited or re \\ “ aa WN) —Fimila Me OBA #14310 \\| os! | ] Paige A. h Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave. Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8273 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE RAL This is to certify that on the [') day of April, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BuRGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS"}, {"d": 15, "p": 20, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY NEIL and LACY WEST, STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) VS. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. ) ) } _) ) C&8eNo. CJ-2025-135 ) ) PROTECTIVE ORDER The Parties have informed the Court that they have reached a compromised form of protective order and submit it to the Court for review and entry. Upon review, the Court finds Plaintiff and Defendants State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm”) and Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively, the “Parties”), are or will be producing potentially relevant Documents, records, and information that may contain Trade Secret; Confidential research, development, or commercial Information; or Personal Confidential Information as defined in Section II. This Protective Order shall govern the production of all such Confidential Documents and Testimony, as defined in Section II, in this case. Nothing in this Protective Order purports to confer blanket protection on disclosures or responses to discovery that are not entitled to protection under its terms or presumptively entitle either Party to file Confidential Material, as defined in Section II, under seal. As such, the Court finds good cause that the Parties’ compromised Protective Order should be and hereby is entered. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: L PURPOSE 1. In order to expedite the flow of discovery material, any party or non-party who (a) it"}, {"d": 15, "p": 21, "t": "produces Documents in this Action or (b) presents a witness, designee, or representative who proffers Testimony in this Action (the “Producing Party”) may designate such Documents or Testimony as “Confidential.” 2. The Producing Party shall only designate Documents or Testimony as “Confidential” after determining, in good faith, it constitutes Trade Secret; Confidential research, development, or commercial Information; or Personal Confidential Information as defined in Section I], 3. The Parties acknowledge “Confidential” designations made by a Producing Party are subject to good faith challenge, pursuant to Section IV herein, as to whether the designated Document or Testimony is, in fact, entitled to protection by this Protective Order. Il. DEFINITIONS 4. As used herein, the terms set forth below shall have the following meanings: a. “Action” means the above-styled and numbered litigation. b. “Confidential Material” shall refer to Documents or Testimony containing Trade Secret; Confidential research, development, or commercial information; or Personal Confidential Information that the Producing Party has designated or will designate as Confidential in the Action. c. “Confidential research, development, or commercial information” shall refer to proprietary information the Producing Party maintains in secrecy from third parties and in good faith believes would result in substantial competitive harm, or other commercial harm, if publicly disclosed, including certain underwriting information, claims handling information, financial information, and business strategy information. The following are illustrative of the types of documents containing such information: certain Jurisdictional Resources, Operation Guides, Standard Claim Processes, training materials, third-party claims files, third-party complaints, and communications reflecting such information. d. “Court” means the Honorable Judge currently assigned to this Action or any other judge to which this Action may be assigned, including Court staff participating in such proceedings. 2"}, {"d": 15, "p": 22, "t": "€. “Document(s)” shall have the same meaning assigned to it in 12 O.S. § 3234(A)(1) and shall include electronically stored information. f. “Information” means the content of Documents or Testimony, as well as any matter derived therefrom or based thereon. g. “Personal address, Confidential Information” social security number, shall include a person’s home tax identification number, passwords, telephone number, medical records, confidential financial information, and confidential non-public tax information. h. “Producing Party” means the Party or non-party that designates Documents, Testimony, or Information as Confidential. Il. 1. “Testimony” means oral or written evidence proffered by a witness, designee, or representative while under oath, affidavit, or deposition. je “Trade secret” shall have the same meaning as in 78 O.S. § 86(4). CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS 5. Documents and testimony may be designated as “Confidential” within the meaning of this Protective Order only in the following ways: a. Documents: Each Document or portion of a Document the Producing Party in good faith believes to contain confidential information shall be marked “Confidential.” A Document marked “Confidential” shall be marked as such only in the footer of the Document or in a conspicuous area of any tangible object. In no event shall a “Confidential” designation obscure or otherwise be overlaid on any text of a Document, regardless of the readability of the underlying text of that Document. Additionally, watermarks shall not be utilized in any manner to designate any Document as Confidential. If a Document designated as “Confidential” is produced in native format, the “Confidential” designation and Bates Number shall be included in the file name of the produced Document. For each natively-produced document, the Producing Party shail also produce a corresponding Document in image format, endorsed with the Bates Number and Confidentiality designation, unless the only reasonably useable format is native format. If the only reasonably useable format of a Document is native, the Producing Party will instead produce a corresponding cover page in image format, specifying that the Document has been “produced in native format” and endorsing it with the Bates Number and Confidentiality Designation. Further, the Parties shall avoid, as much as possible, the inclusion of information designated as Confidential in briefs and other captioned Documents filed in court, in order to minimize potential sealing and designating as Confidential Material any such Documents. 3"}, {"d": 15, "p": 23, "t": "b. Testimony: Portions of deposition transcripts (including exhibits, if any) taken in this matter may be designated by the Producing Party as “Confidential” so long as the Producing Party in good faith believes the Testimony contains Confidential Material. Designations to a deposition transcript can be made by stating on the record that the Producing Party is designating a portion of the deposition transcript (including exhibits, if any) “Confidential” or by advising the court reporter and counsel for all other Parties, in writing, within thirty (30) days of receiving the final deposition transcript from the court reporter, the page(s) and lines of the deposition that the party deems “Confidential.” The entire deposition transcript (including exhibits) shall be treated as Confidential under this Protective Order until the expiration of the above-referenced thirty-day period for designation in writing, except that the deponent may review the transcript of his or her own deposition during this thirty-day period. Nothing within this Protective Order shal! allow a Producing Party (or any Party or non-party) to designate an entire deposition transcript as “Confidential” without first obtaining an order from this Court allowing such designation. 6. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3226 (C), and as used in this Protective Order, “Confidential” designations shall only apply to Confidential Materials as defined in Section II. IV. CHALLENGES TO “CONFIDENTIAL” DESIGNATIONS 7, Timing. Any Party may, in good faith, challenge the Producing Party’s “Confidential” designations at any time. A Party shall not be obligated to challenge the propriety of a “Confidential” designation at the time of production or designation, and failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge thereto, 8. Notice of Objection and Response. In the event any Party to this Action takes issue with any “Confidential” designation, such Party shall provide to the Producing Party written notice of its good faith disagreement (the “Notice of Objection”). The Producing Party shall respond in writing by stating whether it agrees or disagrees such designation(s) should be removed. 9, Meet and Confer. The Parties shall have fifteen days from the Notice of Objection to meet and confer in good faith to attempt to dispose of such dispute concerning such designations (the “Meet and Confer”)."}, {"d": 15, "p": 24, "t": "10. | Motion. If, after the Meet and Confer, the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute, any Party may move for a determination confidentiality designation. Each Document by the Court as to the appropriateness or Testimony of the or portion thereof designated as “Confidential” shall retain that designation and shall remain subject to the terms of this Protective Order until such time, if ever, that a Court renders a decision that a particular Document or Testimony or portion thereof is not subject to this Protective Order and any and all proceedings and interlocutory appeals challenging such decision have been concluded. Il. Burden. The burden of establishing a Document or Testimony contains Confidential Material and is entitled to the protection of this Protective Order shall remain on the Producing Party. Further, and subject to the procedure outlined above, nothing herein precludes the objecting Party’s right to submit a motion to this Court seeking de-designation of any Document or Testimony for good cause. Vv. DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS 12. Documents and/or Testimony designated “Confidential” may be disclosed only to the following persons, unless prior written consent to further disclosure has been obtained from counsel for the Producing Party or permission for such disclosure has been given by the Court: a, The Parties to this Action; b. Counsel of record in this Action who are outside counsel to the Parties herein, including all regular employees of such counsel such as paralegals, legal assistants, secretaries, and other support staff, so long as (i) disclosure is necessary to the prosecution or defense of this Action and (ii) all persons are informed of this Protective Order and agree to abide by its terms; C. The Court and Court personnel; d. Court reporters, including deposition court reporters and their staffs; €. Any person employed by a Party who is expressly retained by any attorney described in this Paragraph to assist in the prosecution or defense of this Action, including outside experts, consultants, and those consultant’s employees, so long as (i) disclosure to those individuals is necessary to the prosecution or defense of this Action and (ii) all persons"}, {"d": 15, "p": 25, "t": "are informed of this Protective Order and agree in writing to abide by its terms; f. Actual and potential deposition or trial witnesses in this case, so long they are informed of this Protective Order and agree to abide by its terms; g. Any mediator mutually agreed upon by the Parties, so long they are informed of this Protective Order and agree to abide by its terms; and h. Any other Court or Judiciary with jurisdiction over this Action. 13. In the event any “Confidential Material is used in any deposition, filing, or court proceeding during the course of this Action, it shall not lose its “Confidential” status through such use. VI. NOTIFICATION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER 14. Confidential Material shall not be disclosed to a person described in Paragraph 12(e), (f), and (g), unless and until such person has executed an agreement of confidentiality in substantially the form of the Certification attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” The originals of an executed Certification shall be maintained by counsel for the Party who obtained it until the final resolution of this Action and shall not be subject to discovery except upon motion on notice and a showing of good cause. The limitations on disclosure in this Paragraph include either direct or indirect disclosure, including but not limited to, any disclosure by counsel or experts. Moreover, at any deposition and absent the agreement of the Parties, prior to the disclosure of any Confidential Material, the deponent shall be provided a copy of the form attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and shall be asked to affirmatively state on the record that he or she has received the form and consents to the restrictions contained within this Protective Order, a copy of which shall be provided to the deponent. 15. Plaintiffs do not expect to designate any materials as *Confidential” in this Action. However, to the extent Plaintiffs do designate materials as “Confidential,” nothing in this Protective Order shall be construed to prohibit, restrict, or require State Farm to obtain an authorization for"}, {"d": 15, "p": 26, "t": "the retention, use, or disclosure of nonpublic Confidential Materials and records as authorized or as reasonably required by: State Farm’s Information Retention Schedules; federal or state law or regulation; court order; rule, including, but not limited to, Medicare authorities; reporting to a thirdparty such as to LexisNexis C.L.U.E. (Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange) for Auto & Property Reports or to ISO (Insurance Services Office) for analysis of records in anti-fraud efforts (using non-fraudulent data to benchmark); reporting for rate-making or otherwise; and permissible insurance functions in paperless Claim File through its Electronic Claims Systems. Nothing in this Protective Order shall prevent State Farm from retaining all Documents necessary for regulatory compliance activities, or from producing any Documents necessary for regulatory compliance activities. VH. FILING CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS UNDER SEAL 16. Parties shall adhere to 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(2), 51 O.S. § 24A.29, and Local Rule 10.1(C) when seeking to seal materials entered into the judicial record, regardless of whether a Document is protected by this Protective Order. A Confidential designation alone is not sufficient to justify sealing a Document entered into the judicial record, and a Party must first seek and obtain permission from this Court before a Document may be entered into the judicial record under seal. Before entering Confidential Material of another Party into a judicial record or discussing or referencing such material in court filings, the filing Party shall confer with the Producing Party in accordance with this Protective Order and subject to the following Paragraph, to determine whether the Producing Party will remove the Confidential designation, whether the document can be redacted, or whether a motion to seal or stipulation and proposed order is warranted. If the Producing Party does not agree to remove the Confidential designation, it must identify the basis for sealing the specific Confidential Material at issue, and the filing Party shall include this basis in its motion to seal, along with any objection to sealing the information at issue. Local Rule 7"}, {"d": 15, "p": 27, "t": "10.1(C) sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a Party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. A Party who seeks to maintain the confidentiality of its information must satisfy the requirements of 12 O0.S. § 3226(C)(2), 51 O.S. § 21A.29, and Local Rule 10.1(C) even if it is not the Party filing the motion to seal. Failure to satisfy these requirements may result in the Court denying the motion to seal without prejudice. Each Party shall use its best efforts to minimize filings that necessitate the filing of Documents and materials designated Confidential under seal. 17. If the filing Party does not dispute the Confidentiality designation of the Producing Party, it need not obtain the consent of the Producing Party to file, or move to file, any Confidential Material of the Producing Party under seal. A Producing Party may also move to file its own Confidential Material under seal without conferring with, or obtaining the consent of, any other Party. Nothing in this Protective Order shall prohibit a Party from objecting to another Party’s sealing motion pursuant to the rules of this Court. VIU. PUBLICLY AVAILABLE MATERIALS 18. Nothing herein shall be deemed to restrict in any way a Party or its attorneys with respect to its own Documents. Nothing herein shall be deemed to prevent a party from using in this Action, or disclosing, Documents, Testimony, and/or information already (a) in the public domain; (b) provided to a Party, the Party’s attorneys, or the Party’s experts, by rightful means through a source independent of the Producing Party or their attorney and through no violation of any protective order or confidentiality obligation to any Producing Party; or (c) legally and properly obtained outside this Action and is not subject to any confidentiality obligation to any Producing Party or a protective order or confidentiality agreement from another prior litigation. If Confidential Material is made public through a violation of any such confidentiality obligation or protective order, it shall not lose its Confidential status or result in waiver of the Confidentiality designation. 8"}, {"d": 15, "p": 28, "t": "19. Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of any rights by any Party to challenge the admissibility of any Document, Testimony, or other information based on relevance, proportionality, or any other legally cognizable basis, nor be deemed to modify a Party’s existing rights and responsibilities under any protective order and/or confidentiality agreement that may exist between the Parties. IX. MIS-DESIGNATION OF CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS 20. In the event the Producing Party fails to designate discovery material as “Confidential” pursuant to this Protective Order, the Producing Party shall be entitled to make a correction to its designation within fifteen days of discovery of such mis-designation. In such a case, the Producing Party shall (i) give notice of such mis-designation and make the desired correction in writing; and (ii) provide substitute copies of each item of discovery material, appropriately designated, 21. Those individuals who received the mis-designated discovery material prior to receiving the notice of mis-designation shall certify destruction or sequestration of, or return to the law firm representing the Producing Party, all copies of such mis-designated discovery material within five (5) business days of receipt of the substitute copies. Those individuals who reviewed the mis-designated discovery material prior to notice of the mis-designation by the Producing Party shall abide by the provisions of this Protective Order with respect to all future use and disclosure of any information contained in the mis-designated materials. 22. To the extent any dispute arises over any such designation, a Party may challenge in accordance with Section IV above. 23, Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing within this Protective Order shall allow a Party to simply designate each and every Document produced in this Action as “Confidential” as a perfunctory measure to preclude use or disclosure of any Document that is not Confidential outside 9"}, {"d": 15, "p": 29, "t": "of this Action. It is expressly acknowledged that this Paragraph is limited to Documents produced in this Action and does not include deposition Testimony, which is expressly governed by Paragraph 5(b) above. 24, — It is further expressly acknowledged that this provision cannot be used in any way to claw back any Document produced or Testimony given in any other case (current or past) involving Plaintiffs’ counsel where (a) such confidentiality designation was expressly waived, (b) the Document or Testimony is publicly available, (c) the Document or Testimony was admitted as evidence in any trial, and not under seal, or (d) the Documents or Testimony were legally or properly retained by Plaintiffs’ counsel from past litigation, and not subject to any protective order or confidentiality obligation to the Producing Party. 25. In the event of'a disclosure by a Party that receives Confidential Material to persons or entities not authorized by this Protective Order to receive such Confidential Material, the Party making the unauthorized disclosure shall, upon learning of the disclosure: (i) immediately notify the person or entity to whom the disclosure was made that the disclosure contains Confidential Material subject to this Protective Order; (ii) immediately make reasonable efforts to recover the disclosed Confidential Material and preclude further dissemination or use by the person or entity to whom the disclosure was made; and (iii) immediately notify the Producing Party of the identity of the person or entity to whom the disclosure was made, the circumstances surrounding the disclosure, and the steps taken to recover the Confidential Material and ensure against further dissemination or use thereof. Disclosure of Confidential Material other than in accordance with the terms of this Protective Order may subject the disclosing person to such sanctions and remedies as the Court may deem appropriate. Any material violation of this Protective Order by any Party or person to whom Confidential Material is disclosed pursuant to the terms of this Protective Order 10"}, {"d": 15, "p": 30, "t": "shall constitute a violation of a court order and be punishable as such. X. REQUIRED TREATMENT OF CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS 26. Any person with access to materials produced in this Action and designated as “Confidential” under this Protective Order shall, at all times during the litigation, maintain the materials (and any copies thereof) in the utmost confidence. Any person in possession of another Party’s Confidential Material shall exercise the same care with regard to the storage, custody, or use of Confidential Material as they would apply to their own material of the same or comparable sensitivity and must take reasonable precautions to protect Confidential Material from loss ot misuse. 27. Ifa Party intends to use a natively-produced Document designated “Confidential” at any hearing or deposition, in motion practice, or for any other purpose, the Party shall use the corresponding image file with the Bates Number and Confidentiality Designation, unless the only reasonably useable format for that Document is native, and request to file it under seal as necessary, pursuant to Section VII. 28. No person to whom Confidential Material is made available under the terms of this Protective Order shall make use of such material for any purpose other than the prosecution or defense of the Action, and in no event shall such information be used for any business, competitive, personal, private, public, or other purpose. No person to whom Confidential Material is made available under the terms of this Protective Order shall disclose the contents of such material to any other person or entity, except as permitted by this Protective Order. This Protective Order has no effect upon and shall not apply to a Party’s use of its own Confidential Material for any purpose. 29. Upon conclusion of this Action, no such person shall disseminate materials produced in this Action and designated as “Confidential” under this Protective Order publicly or use them in a manner inconsistent with this Protective Order, lf"}, {"d": 15, "p": 31, "t": "30, Once the case proceeds to trial, the outcome of “Confidential” designations of any Document or Testimony admitted at trial will be determined by the Court at the final pretrial conference and/or the time of trial. With respect to any Document or Testimony designated under this Protective Order as “Confidential” and not admitted at trial, or admitted at trial in a manner that preserves the “Confidential” designation, within thirty (30) days after the final disposition of this Action, including appeals, each person or Party who has received information designated “Confidential” pursuant to Paragraph 12 shall be obligated to (a) return to counsel of record for the Producing Party all information designated “Confidential” and all copies made thereof that are not in custody of the Court and certify to the Producing Party that such return has been done; or (b) destroy or see to the destruction of all such Confidential Materials and writings related thereto, and certify to the Producing Party that such destruction has been done. Counsel of record for a Party shall ensure that any person to whom they provided Confidential Material pursuant to Paragraph 12 abide by the return and destruction obligations of this Paragraph. 31. To the extent that this Protective Order requires the destruction or return of Documents or Testimony at the conclusion of this Action, this requirement is not intended to require State Farm to return or destroy any Documents or Testimony that it is otherwise required to maintain and as set forth in Paragraph 15 above. 32. As to those materials that contain or reflect Confidential information, but that constitute or reflect counsel’s work product and/or attorney-client communications, counsel of record for the Parties shall be entitled to retain such work product and/or attorney-client communications in their files in accordance with the provisions of this Protective Order, so long as it is clearly marked to reflect that it contains information subject to this Protective Order, Such materials may not be used in connection with any other proceeding or action. Counsel shall be 12"}, {"d": 15, "p": 32, "t": "entitled to retain pleadings, affidavits, motions, briefs, other papers filed with the Court, transcripts of any deposition testimony and sworn statements of witnesses, together with all exhibits thereto, and the trial record (including exhibits) even if such materials contain Confidential Material, so long as such materials are clearly marked to reflect that they contain information subject to this Protective Order and may not be used in connection with any other proceeding or action. Nothing in this provision shall apply to any Document or deposition transcript subject to Paragraph 18 above. XI. MODIFICATION 33. Any of the undersigned may request the Court to modify or otherwise grant relief from any provision of this Protective Order. Nothing in this Protective Order shall operate as an admission by any Party that any particular Document or Testimony is, or is not, relevant to any claim or defense or admissible in evidence at the trial of this Action. XII. NO WAIVER 34. Nothing in this Protective Order shall be construed as a waiver of any rights by any Party with respect to matters not specifically provided for herein. XII. ORDER SURVIVES TERMINATION OF ACTION 35. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this Protective Order and decide any issues relating to or arising from it. If the terms of this Protective Order are violated, the Court may grant such relief to the Producing Party as is just and necessary. 36. The terms and conditions of this Protective Order shall remain in full force and effect and shall survive the final resolution of this litigation unless the Protective Order is terminated or modified in writing by the Parties or by further order of the Court. XIV. MISCELLANEOUS 37. Any person or entity in possession of Confidential Material who is served with a 13"}, {"d": 15, "p": 33, "t": "subpoena or a court order issued in other litigation that would compel disclosure of any information or items designated in this Action as “Confidential” shall: a. within three (3) business days of receiving such order or subpoena give written notice by electronic mail to counsel for the Producing Party, unless prohibited by law or court order from doing so. The written notice shall identify the materials sought and enclose a copy of the subpoena or other process, unless ordered otherwise by a court of competent jurisdiction; b. within three (3) days of receiving such order or subpoena, notify in writing the party who caused the subpoena or order to issue that some or all of the material covered by the subpoena or order is subject to this Protective Order. Such notification shall include a copy of this Protective Order; and c. cooperate with respect to all reasonable procedures sought to be pursued by the Producing Party whose Confidential Material may be affected. If the Producing Party timely seeks a protective order, the party served with the subpoena or court order shall not produce any Confidential Material before a determination by the court from which the subpoena or order issued, unless the party has obtained the Producing Party’s permission. The Producing Party shall bear the burden and expense of seeking protection in that court of its Confidential Material, and nothing in these provisions should be construed as authorizing or encouraging any party or person to disobey a lawful directive from another court or violate any applicable state or federal law, or any rules or regulations. 38. Nothing in this Protective Order shall prohibit the Producing Party from producing its own Documents, even if such materials contain Confidential Material, in any other case or proceeding. 14"}, {"d": 15, "p": 34, "t": "39, This Protective Order governs the exchange and use of Documents and Testimony before trial. The Parties may request appropriate orders addressing the use of Confidential Material at trial. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS day of , 2026. Judge of the District Court"}, {"d": 15, "p": 35, "t": "AGREED AS TO FORM: Timila S. Rother, OBA #14310 Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Paige A. Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OBA #34650 CROWE & DUNLEVY, P.C. Braniff Building Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 20341 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 WHITTENBURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Defendants State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16"}, {"d": 15, "p": 37, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY NEIL and LACY WEST, STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) Plaintiffs, s STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB) INS. AGENCY, INC, ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 Defendants. CERTIFICATION 1, My name is I live at I am employed as (state position) by (state name and address of employer) 2, I have read the Protective Order governing Confidential Material that has been entered in this case, and a copy of it has been given to me. | understand the provisions of the Order and agree to comply with and to be bound by its provisions ~ specifically and not limited to the obligations set forth in Paragraph 30 regarding the return or destruction of Confidential Material, 3, I further agree to submit to the jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of enforcing the terms of the Protective Order, even if such enforcement proceedings occur after termination of this Action. 4, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day of , 20"}, {"d": 15, "p": 39, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, vs. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) ) ) COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., _ *) ) Defendants. ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) NOTICE TO DEPOSITION WITNESS You are being shown one or more documents which have been designated as “Confidential” pursuant to an Order of this Court. Except for providing testimony at this deposition, you may not disclose these documents or their contents to any person other than the attorney who represents you at this deposition. Further, neither these documents nor their contents may be used by you for any purpose except that you may use them for your testimony in connection with this litigation. In any event, you are prohibited from using them for any business, competitive, personal, private, public, or other non-litigation purpose. The improper disclosure or use of these documents or their contents may result in the imposition of sanctions upon you by the Court. If you wish a complete copy of the Court Order, a copy will be provided to you upon request. 20"}, {"d": 15, "p": 41, "t": "FILED IN DisSTRICT COURT OMA C@UNTY IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OK LAHOMA COUNTY DEC 112005 STATE OF OKLAHOMA : one aey se BILL and LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, Vv. CASE NO, CJ-2025-2626 Hon. Amy Palumbo STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY: and MARK D, WELTY: INSURANCE AGENCY, ING, Defendants, PROTECTIVE ORDER All Parties to this litigation, defined as Plaintiffs Bill and Lacy Hursh (“Plaintiffs”), Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”), Defendant Mark D, Welty (“Welty”), and Defendant Mark D. Welty Insurance Agency, Inc., (\"Welty Agency”) acknowledge that certain documents produced in this action may contain trade secret or other confidential information as defined in paragraph 3 of this Protective Order, The Pasties, by and through their attorneys of record, therefore agree and it is hereby order ed as follows: L, Any party may designate as “Confidential” any docum ents or any portion of a document produced by it in this litigation. The party making the designation of confidential material represents that if has done so after a bona fide deter mination made in good faith that the material is in fact trade secret or other confidential infor mation as defined in paragraph 3. Each document or portion of a document the party in good faith believes to contain confidential"}, {"d": 15, "p": 42, "t": "information shall be marked “Confidential.” The party shall take care that its designation does not obscure or render illegible the information on the document so designated. 2. Any patty may designate as “Confidential” a portion of a deposition taken in this matter by stating on the record that the party is designating a portion of the deposition “Confidential” or by advising the court reporter and counsel for all other Parties, in writing, within thirty (30) days of'receiving the deposition transcript of the page(s) and lines of the deposit ion that the party deems “Confidential.” Nothing within this Protective Order shall allow a party to designate an entire deposition transcript as “Confidential” without first obtaining an order from this Court allowing such designation, 3, As used in this Protective Order, “Confidential” information shall only apply to the following materials: a. “Trade secret” shail have the same meaning as in 78 O.S. §86(4). i, “Trade secret\" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process, that: a, derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being \" generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and b, is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. ii. “Trade secret” shall explicitly not include any aspects of the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim as first-party insureds, including but not limited to attempts to lower indenmity payments on Plaintiffs’ claim, including the total roof"}, {"d": 15, "p": 43, "t": "replacement requested, and anything regarding denying or partial ly denying Plaintiffs’ claim, b, “Confidential research, development or commercial information” shall refer to infomation that is maintained in secrecy from third Parties and which a party in good faith believes would result in substantial competitive harm if publicly disclosed, C. “Personal confidential information” shall include a person’s social security number, medical records, bank records, personnel records and tax information. 4, Any party may challenge anyother party’s designation of a document or portion of a document as “Confidential.” A party shall not be obliged to challenge the propriety of a “Confidential” designation at the time made, and failure to do so shall not preclude a subseq uent challenge thereto. In the event that any party to this litigation takes issue at any stage of these proceedings with such designation, such party shall provide to the producing party written notice of its disagreement with the designation. The producing party shall respond, in writing, within twenty (20) days, by stating whether it agrees or disagrees that designation should be removed. The Parties shall attempt to dispose of such dispute in good faith on an informal basis. If the Parties are unable to reach an agreement, the producing party shall have thirty (30) days to submit a motion for relief fiom the Court. If the producing party fails to timely file said motion for relief within the time prescribed, the document shall no longer be subject to this Protective Order, The fact a document has been designated as “Confidential” shall not create a presumption the document is, in fact, confidential or a trade secret entitled to protection by this Protective Order. The burden of establishing that a document or testimony contains trade secret or personal confidential information and is entitled to the protection of this Protective Order shall remain on the party"}, {"d": 15, "p": 44, "t": "making the designation. Further, a palty’s agreement to this Protective the party’s right to move the Court to lift the Protective Order for 5. Order does not prejudice good cause. Documents and/or deposition transcripts designated as “Confi dential” shall not disseminated publicly, and may be disclosed only to the following persons, unless prior written consent to fixther disclosure has been obtained from counsel for the designating patty or permission for such disclosure has been given by the Court: a. The Court pursuant to the terms of this Protective Order: b. The attorneys working on this action on behalf of any party, including inside, outside and consulting counsel, their legal associates, paralegals, and employees working under the supervision of such counsel; Any director, officer or employee of a party who is required by such party to work directly on this litigation, with disclosure only to the extent necessary fo, perform such work; Any person not employed by a party who is expressly retained or sought to be retained by any attorney described in paragraph 5(b) to assist in the prosecution or defense of this action, including outside experts and their employees; Any actual or potential deposition or trial witnesses in this action; Any mediator mutually agreed upon by the Parties in this action; and g. Any other Court or Judiciary with jurisdiction over this action, The persons described in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) shall have access to “Confidential” material only after they have been made aware of the terms of this Protective Order and have manifested their assent to be bound thereby,"}, {"d": 15, "p": 45, "t": "6, it shall not be deemed a violation of this Protective Order tor counse l fo disseminate documents designated as “Confidential” at deposition or as part of their filings with the Court. If any “Confidential” material is used in any deposition, filing or court proceeding during the course of this litigation, it shall not lose its “Confidential” status through such use. This notwithstandi ng, any inaterials specifically designated as “Confidential” under this Protec tive Order shall, when filed with the Court, be submitted ina sealed envelope or other contain er, and shall be prominently labeled on the first page: “Contains Confidential Information - Subject to Court 7, Order.” This Protective Order is not intended to preclude use or disclosure of any document, deposition transcript or information which is in the public domain, which has been provided to a party, his/hev/ts attomeys or experts, by a source independent of the designating party or his/her/its attorney. 8. Any of the undersigned may request the Court to modify or otherwise grant relief from any provision of this Protective Order. Nothing in this Protective Order shall operate as an admission by any party that any particular document is, or is not, admissible in evidence at the trial of this action. 9, Nothing in this Protective Order shall be construed as a waiver of any tights by any patty with respect to matters not specifically provided for herein. 10. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this Protective Order and decide any issues relating to or arising from it. [f the terms of this Protective Order are violated, the Court may grant such relief to the producing party as is just and necessary, including but not limited to sanctions."}, {"d": 15, "p": 46, "t": "11, The terms and conditions of this Protective Order shall remain in full force and effect and shall survive the final resolation of this litigation unless the Protective Order is terminated or modified in writing by the Parties or by further order of 12, the Court. All requests made by a party for a document to be filed “under seal” in accordance with this Protective Order shall be made by motion and conform to the require ments set forth in [2 O.S. § 3226(C)(2), 13, The outcome of any “Confidential” designations made in this Proceeding will be - subject to judicial review and determination by the Court pursuant to 50 Okla. Stat. §§ 244.29- 244.30 and 12 Okla, Stat. § 3226(C)(2). IT IS 80 ORDERED THIS 26\" day of November, 2025. AMY. PALUMBO THE HONORABLE AMY PALUMBO JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVED AS TO FORM: (Lepaie Whiten Réggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No, 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John 8, Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No, 35097 Whitten Burrage $12 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102"}, {"d": 15, "p": 47, "t": "Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 I whitten@whittenburravelaw.com mburrage@whittenburrazelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com isanders@whi ttenburrapelaw.com idenne@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs “E EB. 7 Z Ashlyn M, Smith GABLE GOTWALS ~ BOK. Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com . asmith@gablelaw.cont Carrie B. McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLE GOTW ALS I10N, Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 emcneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com Attorneys for Defendant State Farm, Defendant Mark D, Welty, Insurance Agency, Inc. and Defendant Mark D. Welty"}, {"d": 16, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOM. April 23, 2026 3:23 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERI NEIL and LACY WEST, Plaintiffs, Case Number CJ-2025-135 Vv. Case No. CJ-2025-135 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., JUDGE SHEPERD Defendants. DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER"}, {"d": 16, "p": 2, "t": "Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”), files this Reply in support of its Motion for Protective Order (the “Motion”) solely to address erroneous statements of law and fact in Plaintiffs’ Response. Specifically, the Reply addresses Plaintiffs’: (1) mischaracterization of State Farm’s Proposed Protective Order (the “Proposed PO”)—including their reference to a phantom non-party provision that does not appear anywhere in the Proposed PO; (2) misstatement of the applicable law; and (3) novel theory about first-party insureds. L Plaintiffs Mischaracterize the Proposed PO Plaintiffs assert that the Proposed PO is “simply unworkable” by pointing to the definition section and a non-existent non-party provision they claim will “invite[] sweeping, indiscriminate designations across all discovery modes and set[] an exceptionally expansive baseline for the order's scope.” Response at 2-3. But Plaintiffs’ objections are negated by the plain text of the Proposed PO’s customary good-faith designation standard and court-supervised challenge process. The fact that Plaintiffs are grasping at straws is driven home by their arguments about an alleged provision in the Proposed PO that “compounds the effects of over-designation” by “importing” private confidentiality agreements “without independent judicial scrutiny,” which they claim appears in §18 of the Proposed PO. Response at 3. Not only does 4i8 not contain any such language, but no such language appears anywhere in the Proposed PO.' As such, Plaintiffs characterizations are demonstrably false and should be rejected. A. The good-faith designation standard is customary and anchored in 12 0.S, 3226(C). Plaintiffs contend that the Proposed PO’s good-faith designation standard is “open-ended” and invites over-designation. Response at 3. Not so. By its plain terms, the Proposed PO only ' To further underscore the point, 418 does the exact opposite of broadening over-designation, as it explicitly describes “Documents, testimony, and/or information” that the parties cannot be prevented from using or disclosing, such as information in the public domain."}, {"d": 16, "p": 3, "t": "authorizes designations if the producing party “determine[es], in good faith, [the material] constitutes Trade Secret; Confidential research, development, or commercial Information; or Personal Confidential Information as defined in Section IL.” Proposed PO, §2 (emphasis added), This is a conventional standard used in protective orders across Oklahoma and explicitly limited to the categories 12 O.S. § 3226(C) contemplates. Indeed, the language closely parallels the language in the rule itself, which states: the court in which the action is pending ... may enter any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, harassment, embarrassment, oppression or undue delay, burden or expense, including one or more of the following ... that a trade secret or other confidential research, development or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way. 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(1)(g) (emphasis added). Nothing about the definitions in Section II alters this reality, On the contrary, “trade secrets” is defined as having the same meaning as in 78 O.8. § 86, while “Confidential research, development, or commercial information” is defined as: “proprietary information the Producing Party maintains in secrecy from third parties and in good faith believes would result in substantial competitive harm, or other commercial harm, if publicly disclosed” and includes specific examples. from being “untethered Proposed PO, f{4(c), (j). As such, the Proposed PO is far removed to narrowly defined categories” and instead only contemplates designations for the exact types of documents courts routinely protect.* Response at 1. B. The court-supervised challenge process supplies meaningful safeguards that align with the purpose of protective orders. Plaintiffs acknowledge the challenge process in the Proposed PO but suggest that State Farm’s designations could persist “indefinitely” and that “every motion filed with the Court in this case will be required to be filed under seal.” Response at 3. Plaintiffs provide no evidence or case 2 Plaintiffs provide no support for their implicit claim that trade secrets are the only type of confidential information entitled to protection under Oklahoma law. Response at 5."}, {"d": 16, "p": 4, "t": "law in support of this dramatic misinterpretation, which is unsurprising since the Proposed PO unambiguously mandates that “{t]he burden of establishing a Document or Testimony contains Confidential material and is entitled to the protection of this Protective Order shall remain on the Producing Party.” Proposed PO, 411 (emphasis added), As such, Plaintiffs can easily defeat State Farm’s alleged ability to over-designate documents in bad faith without check; if Plaintiffs are so confident of over-designation, then they should prevail in court. Requiring the parties to meet and confer before a motion is filed does nothing to shift this explicit burden and directly aligns with the goal of reducing judicial inefficiency by eliminating unnecessary motions. Certainly, a conferral may either (1) convince Plaintiffs to withdraw their objection once they have more information or (2) convince State Farm to withdraw its designation. Either way, both parties—and, more importantly, the Court—benefit from the elimination of timeconsuming briefing and hearings regarding a resolved dispute. Cf 12 O.S. §3237 (requiring good faith conferral before filing), Indeed, allowing designations for defined categories of documents while subjecting individual designations to a robust challenge process aligns with the primary goal of protective orders—facilitating the efficient exchange of information—rather than undermining it as Plaintiffs’ claim. See, e.g., $2 Automation LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., 283 F.R.D. 671, 683 (D.N.M., 2012)(“The toll ... would indeed be severe if district courts had to review, on a document-by-document basis, materials to determine whether they were confidential each time one party sought a protective order.”). Il. Plaintiffs Misstate the Applicable Law Plaintiffs repeatedly misstate the applicable law by referencing cases that are inapplicable to the current dispute. For example, unlike the Proposed PO, which relates to discovery materials, the disputed protective order in Harvest Group, LLC v. Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc., No. CIV-20-435-D, 2025 WL 2576696 (W.D. Okla. July 18, 2025), related solely to an apex"}, {"d": 16, "p": 5, "t": "deposition. Reed v. Bennett, 193 F.R.D. 689 (D. Kan. 2000)—a twenty-five-year-old case from Kansas—is equally distinguishable because the disputed protective order in that case allowed for designation of anything that a party “reasonably contends contain[s] proprietary and confidential information” rather than a good faith limitation tied to the 3226(C) standard like the one in the Proposed PO. Reed, 193 F.R.D. at 691. The citation to Lisle v. Owens, 1974 OK 57, 521 P.2d 1375 is particularly egregious, as that 1974 case involved a question of whether good cause existed to order the production of documents and said nothing about good cause in the context of protective orders. Plaintiffs’ citations to Beers v. Hillory, 2010 OK CIV APP 99, 241 P.3d 285, Christian v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 1977 OK 141, 577 P.2d 899, Milroy v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2007 OK CIV APP 6, 151 P.3d 922, and 36 O.S. § 1250.7 are just as inapplicable, as they all address the duty of good faith and fair dealing—a substantive question that is not currently before the court because it has nothing to do with protective orders. Finally, Plaintiffs appeal to protective orders entered in Hursh v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. CJ-2025-2626 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct.) and Wong-Faust v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No, CJ-2025-1675 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct.), two cases pending before the same judge in a different jurisdiction. Plaintiffs provide no authority or cogent reasoning for this suggestion, and none exists other than the fact that, as set forth in State Farm’s Motion, those protective orders greatly benefit Plaintiffs’ counsel. As such, the Court should enter the protective order that best aligns with the weight of Oklahoma law—the Proposed PO—tather than the protective order that aligns with one particular judge’s interpretation of Oklahoma law. III. Plaintiffs’ Novel “First-Party Insured” Theory Has No Basis in Law. Failing to distinguish the wealth of case law that supports the Proposed PO and opposes their own, Plaintiffs turn to a novel theory that their protective order should be entered because “their Protective Order is reflective of the duties State Farm owes first-party insureds like"}, {"d": 16, "p": 6, "t": "Plaintiffs, even post-litigation.” Response at 6-7. The only case Plaintiffs cite to support this ~ theory is completely inapplicable? and State Farm has not located any such case law that supports their theory. This is unsurprising, because Plaintiffs’ theory, if accepted, would directly undermine insurance companies’ ability to ever safeguard their sensitive information in discovery—a result which would fly in the face of legal precedent throughout the country, from the U.S. Supreme Court down. See, e.g, Zakary A. Drabezyk, Share with Caution: The Dangers Behind Sharing Orders, 65 WAYNE L. REV, 401, 421 (2020)(“[F]ew assets are more valuable to defendants than confidentiality in litigation.”); Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33, 35-36 (1984) (“[R]estraints placed on discovered, but not yet admitted, information are not a restriction on a traditionally public source of information. . . . The prevention of the abuse that can attend the coerced production of information under a State’s discovery rule is sufficient justification for the authorization of protective orders.”); Micron Technology, at 683 (“Protective orders facilitate production. Corporations are quicker to release their documents if they know the information will not be revealed in the Wall Street Journal or in the local paper’s business section the next day.”) The Court should not endorse Plaintiffs’ indefensible attempt to reinvent the law. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court reject Plaintiffs’ proposed protective order and enter the protective order attached to State Farm’s Motion as Exhibit 1. 3 As with Plaintiffs’ other cases, Barnes v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 2000 OK 55, 11 P.3d 162 has nothing to do with protective orders in discovery. This is instantly clear from its holding, which states: “We hold: 1) the jury was presented sufficient evidence to find insurer breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing [where the insurer unreasonably delayed paying a UIM claim]; 2) the trial judge did not err by submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury or in lifting the statutory cap on such damages; 3) the punitive damage award is not excessive; and 4) adherence to the American Rule regarding the recovery of attorney fees requires reversal of the trial judge’s attorney fee award and remand of that issue to the trial court for further consideration.” Barnes, 2000 OK 55, 2."}, {"d": 16, "p": 7, "t": "Respectfully submitted, Amida Bother Timila S. Rother, OBA #14310 Paige A. Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave. Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8273 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 16, "p": 8, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON. This is to certify that on the?{} is of April, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS y . Sida! ff Who,"}, {"d": 17, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, FILED ) DISTRICT COURT ) Plaintiffs COMANCHE ) > May ) V ROBERT ) ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ ) AGENCY, INC., ) COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 13, 2026 3:58 PM MORALES, COURT Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) Defendants. ) NOTICE OF SUBPOENAS TO PRODUCE AND PERMIT INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS Please take notice that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C)(2), subpoenas will be served on Brown - O’Haver of Oklahoma, LLC, 1901 North Moore Avenue, Suite 12, Moore, Oklahoma 73160, Legacy Roofing & Construction, LLC c/o Registered Agent, Derek Franklin, 12094 State Highway 76, Lindsay, Oklahoma 73052, and Trademark Exteriors Restoration LLC c/o Registered Agent, Jason R. Werner, 36 NE 52nd Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105, to produce and permit inspection and copying of documents. Said inspection and copying will take place on May 28, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102. Brown - O’Haver of Oklahoma, LLC, CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 Legacy Roofing & Construction, LLC, and Trademark Exteriors Restoration LLC are directed, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(A)(1)(b), to produce the documents listed on Exhibit A to the subpoenas served upon them. Copies of the subpoenas are attached hereto as Exhibits 1-3. The Subpoenas state that the witnesses need not appear in person, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C)(2)(a)."}, {"d": 17, "p": 2, "t": "Respectfully Submitted, TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by US. Mail, postage prepaid, this 13th day of May, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 6258239 Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 A re"}, {"d": 17, "p": 4, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vv. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) Defendants. ) SUBPOENA TO BROWN - O’HAVER OF OKLAHOMA, LLC TO PRODUCE AND PERMIT INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS TO: Brown - O’Haver of Oklahoma, LLC 1901 North Moore Avenue, Suite 12 Moore, Oklahoma 73160 GREETINGS - You are hereby commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of documents in the possession, custody and control of Brown - O’Haver of Oklahoma, LLC in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 on May 28, 2026 at 10:00 am. You need not appear in person, pursuant to 12 OS. § 2004.1(C) (2)(a). The documents which shall be produced are described on the attached Exhibit A. In order to allow objections to the production of documents and things to be filed, you should not produce them until the date specified in this subpoena, and if an objection is filed, until the court rules on the objection. Hereof fail not under penalty of law. Issued this 13th day of May, 2026. f Are . TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com"}, {"d": 17, "p": 5, "t": "paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 6258238"}, {"d": 17, "p": 6, "t": "Exhibit A to Subpoena to Brown - O’ Haver of Oklahoma, LLC . All documents, paper or electronic (including visual or audio recordings, photographs, etc.), relating to the house at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, Oklahoma 73505, now or previously owned and/or occupied by Neil and/or Lacy West (the “House”), and any inspections, estimates, evaluations, assessments, repairs, or other work or analysis by Brown - O’Haver of Oklahoma, or any related entity, of that House, and all communications with any person relating thereto. . All agreements and written communications of any kind, paper or electronic, including emails and text messages, with Neil and/or Lacy West or anyone acting on their behalf related to the House, to include hiring an attorney to represent them in recovering benefits for wind or hail damage under their State Farm policy or filing a lawsuit against State Farm, and all documents received from or provided to Neil and/or Lacy West or anyone acting on their behalf. . All written communications and agreements, paper or electronic, with Whitten Burrage, Burgess & Hightower Law Firm (“law firms”), or any of the lawyers from those firms, related to the House, or Neil and/or Lacy West (or anyone acting on their behalf), and all documents, including visual or audio recordings, photographs, etc., received from or provided to the law firms or lawyers relating to the House, or Neil and/or Lacy West (or anyone acting on their behalf). . All written communications, paper or electronic, including emails and text messages, with any homeowner, law firm, attorney, or legal representative, regarding hiring an attorney to represent a homeowner in recovering benefits for wind or hail damage under their insurance policy from January 1, 2022 to the present."}, {"d": 17, "p": 8, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vv. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) Defendants. ) SUBPOENA TO LEGACY ROOFING & CONSTRUCTION, LLC TO PRODUCE AND PERMIT INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS TO: Legacy Roofing & Construction, LLC c/o Registered Agent, Derek Franklin 12094 State Highway 76 Lindsay, Oklahoma 73052 GREETINGS - You are hereby commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of documents in the possession, custody and control of Legacy Roofing & Construction, LLC in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 on May 28, 2026 at 10:00 am. You need not appear in person, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C) (2)(a). The documents which shall be produced are described on the attached Exhibit A. In order to allow objections to the production of documents and things to be filed, you should not produce them until the date specified in this subpoena, and if an objection is filed, until the court rules on the objection. Hereof fail not under penalty of law. Issued this 13th day of May, 2026. by TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700"}, {"d": 17, "p": 9, "t": "timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 6258267"}, {"d": 17, "p": 10, "t": "Exhibit A to Subpoena to Legacy Roofing & Construction, LLC . All documents, paper or electronic (including visual or audio recordings, photographs, etc.), relating to the house at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, Oklahoma 73505, now or previously owned and/or occupied by Neil and/or Lacy West (the “House”), and any inspections, estimates, evaluations, assessments, repairs, or other work or analysis by Legacy Roofing & Construction, or any related entity, of that House, and all communications with any person relating thereto. . All agreements and written communications of any kind, paper or electronic, including emails and text messages, with Neil and/or Lacy West or anyone acting on their behalf related to the House, to include hiring an attorney to represent them in recovering benefits for wind or hail damage under their State Farm policy or filing a lawsuit against State Farm, and all documents received from or provided to Neil and/or Lacy West or anyone acting on their behalf. . All written communications and agreements, paper or electronic, with Whitten Burrage, Burgess & Hightower Law Firm (“law firms”), or any of the lawyers from those firms, related to the House, or Neil and/or Lacy West (or anyone acting on their behalf), and all documents, including visual or audio recordings, photographs, etc., received from or provided to the law firms or lawyers relating to the House, or Neil and/or Lacy West (or anyone acting on their behalf). . All written communications, paper or electronic, including emails and text messages, with any homeowner, law firm, attorney, or legal representative, regarding hiring an attorney to represent a homeowner in recovering benefits for wind or hail damage under their insurance policy from January 1, 2022 to the present."}, {"d": 17, "p": 12, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vv. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) Defendants. ) SUBPOENA TO TRADEMARK EXTERIORS RESTORATION LLC TO PRODUCE AND PERMIT INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS TO: Trademark Exteriors Restoration LLC c/o Registered Agent, Jason R. Werner 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 GREETINGS - You are hereby commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of documents in the possession, custody and control of Trademark Exteriors Restoration LLC in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 on May 28, 2026 at 10:00 am. You need not appear in person, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C) (2)(a). The documents which shall be produced are described on the attached Exhibit A. In order to allow objections to the production of documents and things to be filed, you should not produce them until the date specified in this subpoena, and if an objection is filed, until the court rules on the objection. Hereof fail not under penalty of law. Issued this 13th day of May, 2026. b TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700"}, {"d": 17, "p": 13, "t": "timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 6258274"}, {"d": 17, "p": 14, "t": "Exhibit A to Subpoena to Trademark Exteriors Restoration LLC . All documents, paper or electronic (including visual or audio recordings, photographs, etc.), relating to the house at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, Oklahoma 73505, now or previously owned and/or occupied by Neil and/or Lacy West (the “House”), and any inspections, estimates, evaluations, assessments, repairs, or other work or analysis by Trademark Exteriors Restoration, or any related entity, of that House, and all communications with any person relating thereto. . All agreements and written communications of any kind, paper or electronic, including emails and text messages, with Neil and/or Lacy West or anyone acting on their behalf related to the House, to include hiring an attorney to represent them in recovering benefits for wind or hail damage under their State Farm policy or filing a lawsuit against State Farm, and all documents received from or provided to Neil and/or Lacy West or anyone acting on their behalf. . All written communications and agreements, paper or electronic, with Whitten Burrage, Burgess & Hightower Law Firm (“law firms”), or any of the lawyers from those firms, related to the House, or Neil and/or Lacy West (or anyone acting on their behalf), and all documents, including visual or audio recordings, photographs, etc., received from or provided to the law firms or lawyers relating to the House, or Neil and/or Lacy West (or anyone acting on their behalf). . All written communications, paper or electronic, including emails and text messages, with any homeowner, law firm, attorney, or legal representative, regarding hiring an attorney to represent a homeowner in recovering benefits for wind or hail damage under their insurance policy from January 1, 2022 to the present."}, {"d": 18, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED NEIL and LACY WEST, ) DISTRICT COURT ) Plaintiff, v. COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA ) May 19, 2026 3:37 PM ) ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2025-135 ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ ) AGENCY, INC., ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) Defendant ) NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS Please notice that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230 of the Oklahoma Discovery Code, the Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company will take the deposition upon oral examination of Bobby Odom, on Wednesday, May 27, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, Braniff Building, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102, before an officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the State of Oklahoma. The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic means. A subpoena will be issued to Mr. Odom for his attendance. The subpoena is attached as Exhibit 1. Further, please notice that, pursuant to 12 O.S. §3230 of the Oklahoma Discovery Code, the Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company will take the deposition upon oral examination of Derek Franklin, on Wednesday, May 27, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, Braniff Building, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102, before an officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the State of Oklahoma. The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic means. A subpoena will be issued to Mr. Franklin for his attendance. The subpoena is attached as Exhibit 2. Dated this 19th day of May, 2026."}, {"d": 18, "p": 2, "t": "bre TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by US. Mail, postage prepaid, this 19th day of May, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM Hannah Whitten 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 6262471 Are"}, {"d": 18, "p": 4, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) “ Case No. CJ-2025-135 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ ) AGENCY, INC., ) ) Defendant ) DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO: Bobby Odom Trademark Exteriors Restoration LLC 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 GREETINGS - You are hereby commanded to appear at the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, Braniff Building, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 on Wednesday, May 27, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. to testify as a witness in a deposition noticed by Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, in the above-captioned case. The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic means. All parties are invited to attend and cross-examine. Hereof fail not under penalty of law. Issued this 19th day of May, 2026. ze TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 6262472"}, {"d": 18, "p": 6, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY NEIL and LACY WEST, ee i Plaintiff, V. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendant a Case No. CJ-2025-135 DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO: — Derek Franklin Legacy Roofing & Construction, LLC 12094 State Highway 76 Lindsay, Oklahoma 73052 GREETINGS - You are hereby commanded to appear at the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, Braniff Building, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 on Wednesday, May 27, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. to testify as a witness in a deposition noticed by Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, in the above-captioned case. The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic means. All parties are invited to attend and cross-examine. Hereof fail not under penalty of law. Issued this 19th day of May, 2026. tre TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 6262488"}, {"d": 19, "p": 1, "t": "FILED DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA May 21, 2026 12:35 PM IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ ) AGENCY, INC., ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) Defendant ) AMENDED NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS Please notice that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230 of the Oklahoma Discovery Code, the Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company will take the deposition upon oral examination of Bobby Odom, on Wednesday, June 9, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, Braniff Building, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102, before an officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the State of Oklahoma. The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic means. A subpoena will be issued to Mr. Odom for his attendance. The subpoena is attached as Exhibit 1. Dated this 21st day of May, 2026. tre. TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com"}, {"d": 19, "p": 2, "t": "ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this 21st day of May, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 6264224 b"}, {"d": 19, "p": 4, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) “ Case No. CJ-2025-135 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ ) AGENCY, INC., ) ) Defendant ) DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO: Bobby Odom Trademark Exteriors Restoration LLC 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 GREETINGS - You are hereby commanded to appear at the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, Braniff Building, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 on Wednesday, June 9, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. to testify as a witness in a deposition noticed by Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, in the above-captioned case. The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic means. All parties are invited to attend and cross-examine. Hereof fail not under penalty of law. Issued this 21st day of May, 2026. ze TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 6264225"}, {"d": 20, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY. OKLAHOMA May 22, 2026 4:48 PM masaet NEIL and LACY WEST, ROBERT MORALES, Sanat STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., JUDGE SHEPERD Neier Defendants. Case No. CJ-2025-135 Sapte vy. Saeatl” ett” Seen! mage! matt! staat Plaintiffs, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S OPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDER Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) respectfully submits this Opposed Motion for an Extension of Time to provide the discovery required by the Court’s April 22, 2026 Order (the “Order”). Specifically, State Farm requests that the Court extend the deadline to produce responsive documents to July 30, 2026, an extension of 60 days from the June | date in the Court’s Order. In support of its Motion, State Farm states as follows: 1. On April 22, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel in part, requiring State Farm to produce responsive documents by June 1, 2026 (the “Order”). Although the Order indicated that the Court Clerk would mail a copy to the parties, counsel for State Farm was not aware of and did not receive a copy of the Order until May 4, 2026 (and then from counsel for Plaintiffs). As a result, State Farm’s time to comply with the Order was reduced by 12 days. 2. The Court’s Order implicates, via the need to collect, review for responsiveness and produce, hundreds of thousands of documents over a six-and-a-half year period from the files of dozens of employees across numerous categories of information, including, inter alia, institutional communications, training materials, enterprise policies, and documents from State Farm’s P&C Claims division. State Farm has been working diligently to collect, review, and"}, {"d": 20, "p": 2, "t": "prepare documents for production in compliance with the Order and expects to make a substantial production consisting of tens of thousands of documents by the Court’s June | deadline, including the prior productions from the Nida, Hosier, Kyger, McDow, Barnett, and McNeil matters. 3, Due to the breadth of Plaintiffs’ Requests, however, State Farm anticipates that it will not complete its review of documents by June 1, 2026 and, through this Motion, requests an additional 60 days to complete its production, until July 30, 2026, State Farm anticipates that it will make rolling productions during this time period. 4, Despite State Farm’s efforts, the work that remains is substantial given the volume and nature of the electronically stored information at issue. This work will include additional data collection, processing, review, and quality control measures prior to production. This high volume of documents has also required State Farm to engage a third-party vendor, Consilio, to assist with hosting, processing, reviewing, and producing documents in response to the Court’s Order. An extension will permit State Farm to thoroughly complete these efforts.' 5. While there is some overlap with other document productions on which State Farm is working, the requests are not entirely parallel, including time frames, and State Farm has to undertake the effort to ensure that it is gathering, reviewing for responsiveness and producing what has been ordered by this Court. 6. State Farm does not seek an extension for purposes of delay, but as a matter of necessity, given the extraordinarily high volume of documents and extensive efforts required to comply with the Court’s Order. Notably, this extension will not be a source of individual delay or prejudice. Plaintiffs have on this same date filed a second motion to compel and are awaiting at ! State Farm is filing the current Motion without having had time to marshal time spent to date and cost in further support of this Motion. State Farm will work to have greater detail for a reply or at a hearing."}, {"d": 20, "p": 3, "t": "least partial document production before deposing Nicole Manduca as earlier ordered by the Court. Further, counsel for Plaintiffs has advised that they now want to depose the actual personnel involved in this claim and will provide dates; State Farm is waiting on those dates. In short, there is much discovery to complete apart from this production and Plaintiffs are seeking more. 7. Of note, State Farm has already produced all claim specific information long ago including the claim file, underwriting file and policy documents and so that information has long been available for use on case specific discovery. WHERFFORF, Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company respectfully requests the Court enter an order extending its deadline to comply with the Court’s April 22, 2026 Order by 60 days from June | to July 30, 2026. é mots )\\\\ | NUT Timila Si Rother, OBA #14310 Paige A. Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave. Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8273 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 20, "p": 4, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 22nd day of May, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS |"}, {"d": 21, "p": 1, "t": "FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, Plaintiffs, DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA May 26, 2026 2:00 PM ) ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2025-135 ) ) v. ) Case No.: CJ-2025-135 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANT NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Timila S. Rother, OBA #14310 Paige Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7700 Facsimile: (405) 239-6651 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC."}, {"d": 21, "p": 2, "t": "This is not a case about the presence or absence of insurance coverage or even about the Policy terms. Rather, it is a dispute between Plaintiffs, Neil and Lacy West (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”), about whether hail damaged the shingles on Plaintiffs’ roof requiring a total roof replacement (“TRR”). To avoid federal diversity jurisdiction, however, Plaintiffs sue their friend and longtime State Farm agent, the Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. (“Holcomb Agency”), insisting the Holcomb Agency did not procure the coverage Plaintiffs requested and failed to advise Plaintiffs of State Farm’s claim handling practices two years before the storm hit when Plaintiff's purchased their Policy. Discovery has confirmed what State Farm urged was apparent from the face of the Petition; Plaintiffs have no claim against the Holcomb Agency. Plaintiffs testified that the sole basis for their negligent procurement claim is the allegation that they requested the Holcomb Agency procure the same policy that insured a prior house they owned, under which State Farm paid for two TRRs after hail storms, and a belief that they did not receive the policy requested because when there was hail at their new house in 2023, State Farm found the shingles were not damaged by hail and thus a TRR was not necessary. They admit, however, that they did not compare the two policies to determine if they are different. In fact, neither one of them read their policy. The policies are not different in any way; they both covered hail damage; and the claim decisions had nothing to do with the policies’ terms. In 2009 and 2019 State Farm found hail damage to the shingles; this time it did not. That decision had nothing to do with the Holcomb Agency, which has no control over claim decisions. Similarly, Plaintiffs sue for fraud on the basis that the Holcomb Agency failed to tell them about a change in State Farm’s claim handling practices, dubbed a “scheme” by their counsel. But they admit that they have no evidence the Holcomb Agency even knew of this alleged “scheme.”"}, {"d": 21, "p": 3, "t": "Nor could it, as it does not exist. Instead, it is a fabrication by Plaintiffs’ counsel. And in any event, the law and undisputed material facts (“UMF”) show the Holcomb Agency had no duty to disclose it, even if it did exist. Summary judgment should be entered in favor of the Holcomb Agency and against Plaintiffs on multiple grounds, including: * Both claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations and any alleged injury occurred when the Policy issued, more than three years prior to the filing of the lawsuit. ¢ The UMFs show any alleged representations by the Holcomb Agency were true. Plaintiffs received the Policy they say they wanted—a replacement cost value policy that covers hail. ¢ No act of the Holcomb Agency caused the damages alleged. State Farm denied Plaintiffs’ claim for a TRR because it found no hail damage existed to the shingles, not because the absence of policy coverage or the agent’s failure to inspect. e The Holcomb Agency had no duty to inspect Plaintiffs’ house, nor did it owe any other underwriting duty to Plaintiffs. Any underwriting duty imposed upon the Holcomb Agency would be owed to State Farm, not to Plaintiffs, e Plaintiffs cannot establish a legal or equitable duty upon which a claim for negligent misrepresentation/constructive fraud can be based. e The alleged misrepresentations were promises of future performance and not fraud as a matter of law. Thus, pursuant to Rule 13 of the Rules for District Courts of Oklahoma, the Holcomb Agency moves for summary judgment on all claims asserted against it in Plaintiffs’ Petition. FACTUAL SUMMARY The Holcomb Agency has served as Plaintiffs’ State Farm agent for many years. In 2009 and 2019, a house Plaintiffs owned on Crystal Hills Place in Lawton, and insured through the Holcomb Agency, was damaged by hail, and State Farm paid to replace the roof both times. In December 2021, Plaintiffs purchased a new house in Lawton on Briarcreek Drive and took out a new State Farm homeowners policy through the Holcomb Agency to insure it. Like the policy that insured the house on Crystal Hills Place, Plaintiffs’ new Policy covered accidental direct physical losses, including wind and hail damage, at replacement cost value."}, {"d": 21, "p": 4, "t": "Plaintiffs allege that their new house was damaged during a wind- and hailstorm on June 15, 2023. Pet., € 40(a). They submitted a claim to State Farm, and a claim handler inspected the Property, finding light hail damage to gutters, window screens, and fencing, as well as interior damage from water intrusion, but no damage to the roof shingles. Jd. at §40(d). State Farm estimated $4,775.89 to repair the damage, and after accounting for recoverable depreciation and Plaintiffs’ $3,090 deductible, $918.50 was paid to Plaintiffs. Jd. at § 40(e). Plaintiffs disagreed with State Farm’s estimate and engaged a contractor, who submitted an estimate in the amount of $46,201.55 for a TRR, along with photos of alleged missed damage. State Farm reviewed the information and increased State Farm’s estimate to $5,283.17 related to the interior. It made a supplemental payment of $1,274.67 to Plaintiffs. Jd. at { 40(f)-(g). Plaintiffs then hired a public adjuster, who submitted a notice of representation of Plaintiffs to State Farm and a contractor estimate for a TRR in the amount of $51,696.31. Jd at § 40(k)-(). State Farm reviewed the information, noted that the pictures reflected a rain cap that did not appear to be from Plaintiffs’ roof, and requested that the public adjuster provide information as to the location of that rain cap. The public adjuster did not respond. This lawsuit followed. Plaintiffs sue State Farm for breach of contract and bad faith, sue the Holcomb Agency for negligent procurement, and sue both State Farm and the Holcomb Agency for constructive fraud/negligent misrepresentation. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 1. In 2009 and 2019, Plaintiffs submitted claims to State Farm for hail damage to their house located at 7710 SW Crystal Hills Place, Lawton, OK 73505. Both times, State Farm found the hail damage was covered under Plaintiffs’ homeowners policy providing coverage for “accidental direct physical loss” and paid Plaintiffs to replace the roof of the house. N. West Dep. at 42:23-43:3, 43:10-21, Ex. 1; Nancy Holcomb Decl., { 3, Ex. 2."}, {"d": 21, "p": 5, "t": "2. Plaintiffs later purchased a house located at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive in Lawton (“House”), and on or around December 6, 2021, they submitted an application for homeowners insurance to State Farm to provide coverage on the House. Homeowners App., Ex. 3. 3, The State Farm underwriting guidelines did not require that the selling agent inspect or otherwise survey the House to bind coverage. Holcomb Deecl., § 5, Ex. 2; Courtney Berthelot 3-5, Ex. 4. If State Farm decides to have an inspection, it is performed by a third-party Decl., inspector, not the agent, for its own use in determining whether to insure the risk. Jd. 4, On or around December 29, 2021, State Farm issued to Plaintiffs State Farm Homeowners Policy No. 36-CR-X405-8 insuring the House (“Policy”). Homeowners App., Ex. 3, Declarations, Ex. 5; Pet., 45. Each year thereafter, at least 30 days before it renewed for a 12- month period, State Farm sent Plaintiffs a renewal notice, notifying them that their Policy automatically renewed, effective December 29, “subject to the premiums, rules and forms in effect for each succeeding policy period.” Coverage Notice, Ex. 5. 5. The notice advised Plaintiffs that if they needed to change coverage or increase their limits, they should contact their agent. Id. at 2. The Renewal Declarations also asked Plaintiffs to help State Farm “update the data used to determine [their] premium,” including by “[ejontact[ing] [their] agent with the year each of [their] home’s utilities ... and roof were last updated.” Jd. at 1. 6. Plaintiffs received a copy of the Policy but did not read it. L. West Dep. at 41:9-21, Ex. 6; N. West Dep. at 101:21-25, 138:4-9, Ex. 1. 7. Plaintiffs’ Policy provides that State Farm “will pay for accidental direct physical loss” to the House “unless the loss is excluded or limited in SECTION I - LOSSES NOT INSURED.” Policy, § 1, p. 12, Ex. 7. Hail damage is not one of the excluded perils listed in"}, {"d": 21, "p": 6, "t": "SECTION I —- LOSSES NOT INSURED and is covered. Jd. at 14-18; Pet., 731; N. West Dep. at 104:11-16, Ex. 1 (agreeing the Policy covers wind and hail damage); Holcomb Deel., § 4, Ex. 2. 8. The Declarations to Plaintiffs’ Policy show that their dwelling coverage is “Al Replacement Cost — Similar Construction.” /d.; Declarations, Ex. 5. This section of the Policy provides that “until actual repair or replacement is completed, [State Farm] will pay only the actual cash value of the damaged part of the property, up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, not to exceed the cost to repair or replace the damaged part of the property.” Policy, § 1.a.(1), p. 18, Ex. 7. “[W]hen the repair or replacement is actually completed, (State Farm] will pay the covered additional amount [Plaintiffs] actually and necessarily spend to repair or replace the damaged part of the property, or an amount up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, whichever is jess.” Policy, § 1.a.(2), p. 18. 9, The Policy expressly states that State Farm is not obligated to “(1) make inspections and surveys of the insured location at any time; (2) provide you with reports on conditions ...; or (3) recommend changes.” Policy at 32, Ex. 7. 10. Plaintiffs submitted a claim for damage to their House on July 28, 2023, with a claimed date of loss of June 15, 2023 (“Claim”). Pet., { 5; Claim Notes at SFF&CC/West_000086, Ex. 8. 11. At the time of the claimed loss, Plaintiffs had $309,000 in coverage on their dwelling. Declarations at 2, Ex. 5. The Declarations informed Plaintiffs: It is up to you to choose the coverages and limits that meet your needs.... Replacement cost estimates are available from building contractors and replacement cost appraisers, or, your agent can provide an Xactware estimate using information you provide about your home. We can accept the type of estimate you choose as long as it provides a reasonable level of detail about your home. State Farm does not guarantee that any estimate will be the actual future cost to rebuild your home.... We encourage you to periodically review your coverages and limits with your agent and to notify us of any changes or additions to your home.”"}, {"d": 21, "p": 7, "t": "Id. at 4, | 12. As part of State Farm’s investigation of the Claim, External Claim Resource Cedric Gooch inspected the House on September 28, 2023 and found no hail damage to the roof shingles, chimney flue cap, or metal roof vents. Claim Notes at SFF&CC/West_000074-75, Ex. 8. He found light hail damage to gutters, downspouts, window screens and fence stain, along with interior water damage, and prepared an estimate to repair the damage in the amount of $4,775.89. State Farm Estimate, Ex. 9. After accounting for depreciation and Plaintiffs’ $3,090 deductible, $918.50 was paid to Plaintiffs. /d. 13. Plaintiffs’ contractor, Trademark Exteriors Restoration, submitted an estimate in the amount of $46,201.55 for a TRR as well as photos requesting a second inspection. Trademark Exteriors Estimate, Ex. 10. State Farm Claim Specialist Kristen Haun reviewed the information and revised State Farm’s estimate to include floor protection and moving and resetting contents to facilitate the interior repairs. Claim Notes at SFF&CC/West_000073, Ex. 8; Supp. Est., Ex. 11. That increased the estimate to $5,283.17, and after applying Plaintiffs’ deductible, State Farm made a supplemental payment on March 14, 2024 in the amount of $1,274.67, which included the additional interior repair, as well as replacement cost benefits. Supp. Est., Ex. 11. 14. On April 24, 2024, public adjuster Coastal Claims Service submitted a notice of representation of Plaintiffs to State Farm and a contractor estimate for a TRR in the amount of $51,696.31. Coastal Claims Email and Estimate, Ex. 12. 15. Plaintiffs testified that the damages they seek from State Farm and the Holcomb Agency in this lawsuit are the same—failure to pay for all damage caused by the storm. N. West Dep. at 51:21-52:2, Ex. 1; L. West Dep. at 98:1-13, Ex. 6. 16. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on February 28, 2025. See generally Pet."}, {"d": 21, "p": 8, "t": "| ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES I. THE NEGLIGENT PROCUREMENT CLAIM FAILS AS A MATTER OF LAW. Oklahoma law recognizes a claim for negligent procurement against an agent in limited circumstances, See Swickey v. Silvey Cos., 1999 OK CIV APP 48, 4 8, 979 P.2d 266, 268. “An agent has the duty to act in good faith and use reasonable care, skill and diligence in the procurement of insurance.” 1999 OK CIV APP 48, { 13, 979 P.2d at 269. Only if “by the agent’s fault, insurance is not procured as promised and the insured suffers a loss” as a result can an agent be liable in tort for breaching this duty of care. Jd. (emphasis added). Plaintiffs’ claim against the Holcomb Agency fails because (a) it is barred by the statute of limitations; (b) the policy “was procured as promised”; (c) the policy type/coverage did not cause Plaintiffs’ alleged injury; and (d) an agent owes no underwriting duty to the insured. A. The claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations in Oklahoma on a claim for negligent procurement is two years. 12 O.S. § 95(A)(3). A negligence claim accrues when the alleged injury to the plaintiff becomes certain, Consol. Grain & Barge Co. v. Structural Sys., Inc., 2009 OK 14, (9 n.8, 212 P.3d 1168, 1171 n.8—here, when the Policy issued. “It is well established under Oklahoma law that insureds have a duty ‘to examine, read, and know the contents of the policy before accepting and paying the premium therefor, and, having failed or neglected to do so[, they are] estopped from denying knowledge of its terms or conditions.” Slover v. Equitable Variable Life Ins. Co., 443 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1283 (N.D. Okla. 2006) (quoting Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. T.M. Richardson Lumber Co., 1902 OK 7, 69 P. 936, 937); see also WMS, LLC vy. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 244 F. Supp. 3d 567, 573 (W.D. Tex. 2017) (finding cause of action for negligent procurement accrues when insureds receive policy). State Farm issued Plaintiffs the Policy under which they sue on December 29, 2021. UMF 2, 4. They did not sue the Holcomb Agency until February 28, 2025——more than three years later. 7"}, {"d": 21, "p": 9, "t": "UMF 16. Their negligent procurement claim, therefore, is time barred. See Slover, 443 F. Supp. 2d at 1283 (finding agents fraudulently joined (and therefore subject to dismissal) in part because plaintiffs received their policy and were on notice of the policy’s terms for years before filing the lawsuit and thus claims had long expired). B. Plaintiffs were issued a replacement cost value (“RCV”) Policy that covered hail. Even if Plaintiffs’ negligent procurement claim were not time-barred, it fails on the merits. In their Petition, Plaintiffs contend (as their counsel allege against every agent they sue) that they requested that the Holcomb Agency “procure full replacement cost homeowners insurance coverage” that “would fully replace the Insured Property’s roof in the event of a loss, without exclusion of any weather-related losses” and “the Holcomb Agency did not deliver on its promise because the Policy procured provided “illusory coverage (in that all fortuitous losses are not covered under the Policy).” Pet., {ff 25-26, 63(a)(i). In their depositions, Plaintiffs clarified the basis for the claim, urging that they requested a policy identical to the one that insured their prior home, but they did not receive the requested policy because while State Farm paid to replace the roof of the prior house twice after hail storms, it did not pay to replace the roof this time. N. West Dep. at 48:1424, Ex. 1; L. West Dep. at 31:25-33:7, Ex. 6. No matter which theory controls, both fail on the law and UMFs. The record shows the Holcomb Agency procured for Plaintiffs the coverage requested—a replacement cost policy that covered wind and hail damage, the same coverage provided by their policy that insured their prior house, UMF 1, 7-8, 12-13. Under the Policy, State Farm agreed to “pay for accidental direct physical loss” unless it was an excluded peril listed in SECTION I — LOSSES NOT INSURED.” UMF 7. Hail is not listed. Jd. Plaintiffs do not dispute this. In fact, they admitted in their depositions and Petition that hail is a covered peril. Jd. Accordingly, State"}, {"d": 21, "p": 10, "t": "Farm estimated to repair damage caused by the storm. UMF 10, 12-13. When faced with the same allegations, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma found agents were fraudulently joined to defeat federal jurisdiction, concluding the insureds could not possibly state a claim for negligent procurement because “[a]ecording to Plaintiffs’ own allegations,” they received the exact policy requested: “an all-risk replacement cost policy that provides coverage for any accidental direct physical loss, including wind and hail damage.” Porter v. State Farm, CIV-25-187-R, 2025 WL 1151682, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 18, 2025); Order at 4, Stafford v. State Farm, 5:25-cv-00008-HE (W.D. Okla. May 27, 2025), ECF No. 25 (“Stafford Order”); Hall y. State Farm, CIV-25-12-JD, 2025 WL 2905205, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 13, 2025); Moore vy. State Farm, CIV-25-181-G, 2026 WL 878450, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 30, 2026). This case is the same. Plaintiffs’ Policy settles losses at RCV, as well. UMF 8. The Policy provides that “until actual repair or replacement is completed, [State Farm agrees to] pay only the actual cash value of the damaged part of the property, up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, not to exceed the cost to repair or replace the damaged part of the property.” Id. “TW]hen the repair or replacement is actually completed, [State Farm agrees to] pay the covered additional amount [Plaintiffs] actually and necessarily spend to repair or replace the damaged part of the property, or an amount up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, whichever is less.” Jd. Consistent with this provision, State Farm initially withheld recoverable depreciation from Plaintiffs’ payment pending repairs, but later released the replacement cost benefits on March 14, 2024, despite not receiving proof from Plaintiffs that the repairs were made. UMF 12-13. That is the very definition of replacement cost coverage.! | “Replacement cost insurance provides greater coverage than an actual cash value policy and ‘is designed to cover the difference between what property is actually worth and what it would cost to rebuild or repair that property.”” Graves v. Am. Fam. Mut, Ins. Co., 686 F. App’x 536, 538 (10th 9"}, {"d": 21, "p": 11, "t": "Plaintiffs insist they did not receive the coverage requested because in 2009 and 2019 when their prior house was hit by hail, State Farm paid to replace the roof, but this time it did not. Tellingly, though, Plaintiffs can identify no differences in the terms of the two policies; they did not even read them. L. West Dep. at 34:10-19, Ex. 6; UMF 6. Both policies covered wind and hail damage at RCV. UMF 1, 7-8, 12-13. The reason State Farm did not agree to pay for hail damage to the shingles of Plaintiffs’ House as part of the 2023 Claim is because it found no such damage existed then, not because Plaintiffs lacked coverage for that peril. UMF 12. C. The alleged conduct of the Holcomb Agency did not injure Plaintiffs. Even if the Policy were different than requested, that is not what caused State Farm to determine a TRR was not warranted and thus is not what caused Plaintiffs’ alleged injury. As with all negligence claims, a required element of a negligent procurement claim is causation. Plaintiffs must show they “suffered damages flowing from the breach of the agent’s duty of care.” Castens v. Conseco Life Ins. Co., No. 11-CV-628-TCK-FHM, 2012 WL 610001, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 24, 2012). That is, “there must be ‘some reasonable connection between the act or omission of the defendant and the damage which the plaintiff has suffered.’” West v. Chaparral Energy, LLC, No. CIV-16-264-F, Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). “Under a replacement cost policy, the insured must actually repair or replace the damaged property in order to recover the full replacement cost; otherwise, the insured may recover only the actual cash value... The reason for this requirement ‘is to prevent an insured from directly profiting through the receipt of cash funds beyond the actual cash value of the loss.’” /d. (citation and internal quotations omitted). See Frontline Fellowship, Inc. v. Bhd. Mut. Ins. Co., No. CIV-21-357-PRW, 2022 WL 16856111, at *3-4 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 10, 2022), 2 Plaintiffs’ Petition indicated they were alleging that the Holcomb Agency failed to procure a sufficient amount of coverage (see, e.g., Pet., {{ 25, 62, 63(a)(iii)-(iv)), but Plaintiffs made clear in their depositions that they were not making that allegation in this lawsuit (N. West Dep. at 98:23-99:22, 148:9-15, Ex. 1; L. West Dep. at 62:1-63:14, Ex. 6). For good reason—the record shows they had more than enough coverage to pay to replace the roof per the public adjuster’s estimate. UMF 11, 13, 14. And, in any event, the Policy makes plain it was up to Plaintiffs and not their agent to choose their coverages and limits. UMF 11; N. West Dep. at 120:4-121:4, Ex. I (agreeing it was up to him to select coverage). 10"}, {"d": 21, "p": 12, "t": "2018 WL 8264627, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 13, 2018) (quoting Steed v. Bain-Holloway, 2015 OK CIV APP 68, 356 P.3d 62, 68 (Okla. Civ. App. 2015)). It is entirely absent here. In Plaintiffs’ own words, the injury alleged by Plaintiffs from the conduct of the Holcomb Agency and of State Farm in this case is the same—failure to pay to replace Plaintiffs’ roof. UMF 15. The cause of that alleged injury is State Farm’s finding that while gutters, downspouts, and window screens were damaged in the storm, the shingles were not and therefore roof replacement was not required. UMF 12; N. West. Dep.at 144:23-145:20, Ex. 1 (acknowledging State Farm paid for damage, just not enough). That is a claim decision over which the agent has no control. N. West Dep. at 117:6-23, Ex. 1 (agreeing the Holcomb Agency had no control over claim decisions). Plaintiffs’ “damages flow from the adjuster’s assessment of [their] property damage and State Farm’s related denials, not from the type of coverage provided by the Policy.” Wiesman v. State Farm, CIV-25-00050-JD, 2025 WL 2918043, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 14, 2025). For this reason, too, summary judgment is proper on the negligent procurement claim. See Weichbrodt v. State Farm, CIV-25-360-R, 2025 WL 1848819, at *2 (W.D. Okla. July 2, 2025) (“Plaintiff's damages flow from State Farm’s allegedly improper interpretation of her policy and adjustment of her claim, not the agent’s failure to procure the correct type of policy, type of coverage, or coverage limit.”); Rain Drop Found. Inc. v. State Farm, CIV-24-1101-D, 2025 WL 582562, at *4 (W.D. Okla, Feb. 21, 2025) (“Plaintiff's alleged damages arose, not because of the type of insurance procured, but because State Farm refused to replace Plaintiffs roof”); Steinkamp v. State Farm, C1V-22-00047- PRW, 2023 WL 11920886, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 29, 2023) (“State Farm denied the claim [for a TRR] not because of the type of policy [] procured, but because it determined that [Plaintiffs’] roof did not sustain a covered loss.... In short, Plaintiff[s’] claim against State Farm depends upon what damage [their] roof sustained, not the terms of [their] policy.”). il"}, {"d": 21, "p": 13, "t": "Plaintiffs suggest they did not receive the policy requested because they believe State Farm denied their claim for “pre-existing damage,” by which they mean damage from someone walking on their roof. N. West Dep. at 102:10-17, 103:7-104:4, 104:17-21, Ex. 1. That is not true. State Farm did not deny Plaintiffs’ claim at all. It paid for hail damage to the property; it just found a TRR was not warranted because of absence of hail damage to the shingles, UMF 12-13. Regardless, to create liability for negligent procurement due to non-payment of damage caused by foot traffic, Plaintiffs would have to prove they requested, but did not receive, a policy that covered foot traffic. They make no such claim. U.S. District Judge David Russell recently summed up the decision well in finding the plaintiff did not have a possible claim against the agent in Weichbrodt: There is no indication that ... the property had some pre-existing defect that negated or limited coverage for the roof. State Farm’s determination that some of the claimed damage is attributable to a non-covered cause does not mean the coverage is negated, as evidenced by the fact that State Farm found covered damage to the property... The policy provides coverage for any accidental direct physical loss, including wind and hail damage to the roof, but the parties disagree about the extent of the damage and whether some of the damage was caused by wind/hail. 2025 WL 1848819 at *4, His reasoning applies with equal force here. D. The Holcomb Agency owed no underwriting duty to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs attempt to expand the role of an insurance agent by making it not only an underwriter, but one with duties to inform insureds of the condition of their property before insuring it. They allege that State Farm agents “should ... perform[] an in-person inspection of the Insured Property prior to the inception of coverage and routinely thereafter to verify the condition and attributes of the Insured Property,” but “{rlemarkably, State Farm’s agents almost never perform or acquire an in-person inspection of the property to be insured,” which “means they represent the property’s eligibility to both State Farm and the insured recklessly and blindly.” Pet., ff] 18-23. They try to tie this duty to inspect to their negligent procurement claim, by alleging that because the Holcomb Agency did not inspect the property, it could not “disclose pre-existing damage to the Insured Property” or verify that the 12"}, {"d": 21, "p": 14, "t": "property met State Farm’s underwriting guidelines and qualified for the Policy. Pet., § 63. This argument is impossible because an insurance Policy issued, under which State Farm estimated to replace storm-damaged property, and under which Plaintiffs sue State Farm for benefits. UMF 2, 4,7, 10, 12-13, 16. Therefore, the house did satisfy State Farm’s underwriting requirements. Plus, Plaintiffs have not and cannot show that had the Holcomb Agency inspected the House in 2021 when the Policy was sold, it would have changed State Farm’s claim decision in 2023, Regardless, this theory presupposes a duty to the insured with regard to underwriting which does not exist. The Policy expressly states that State Farm has no obligation to “make inspections and surveys of the insured location at any time,” provide insureds with “reports on conditions,” or “recommend changes.” UMF 9. Jf State Farm decides to have an inspection, it is performed by a third-party inspector, not the agent, for its own use in determining whether to insure the risk. UMF 3. Courts to address the issue are in agreement that an agent owes no underwriting duty to the insured. Hall, 2025 WL 2905205 at *5 (“Plaintiff [did] not provide a legal basis that [the agent] ... had a duty to Plaintiff to” “follow and abide by State Farm’s underwriting policies/guidelines; perform all necessary inspections of the Insured Property; ... disclose pre-existing damage to the Insured Property; [and] verify whether ... the Insured Property (including the roof) was in good condition” among other alleged duties); Moore, 2026 WL 878450 at *4 (insured did not have claim against agent where she identified no legal authority establishing agent owed an underwriting duty to her and policy expressly stated State Farm had no duty to inspect); Stafford Order at 7; Newell v, State Farm, CIV-25-562-R, 2025 WL 2649661, at *3 (W.D, Okla. Sept. 15, 2025). This makes sense, for as the Policy reflects, insurance companies conduct underwriting for their own benefit— to recognize and reduce risk—and not as a service to inform insureds of the condition of their house. Gray v. Derderian, 464 F. Supp. 2d 105, 109 (D. R.I. 2006). And, at least 30 days before 13"}, {"d": 21, "p": 15, "t": "Plaintiffs’ Policy renewed every year, State Farm encouraged Plaintiffs to contact State Farm with information as to house updates for use in premium determination, including whether their roof or utilities had been updated—making clear it was not the agent’s job to inspect each year to assess the property and advise of conditions that may change the premium or coverage. UMF 4-5. Il. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM FOR CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD MISREPRESENTATION FAILS AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEGLIGENT Plaintiffs’ claim for “constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation”? is a different legal theory but on the same erroneous facts, and it fails for the same reasons and more. In their Petition, Plaintiffs allege that the Holcomb Agency made multiple misrepresentations and/or omissions that fall into four categories: (1) representations regarding Plaintiffs’ eligibility for RCV coverage, including those relating to the completion of inspections, compliance with underwriting guidelines, and good condition of Plaintiffs’ house (Pet., | 73(a)-(c)); (2) representations regarding the calculation of RCV of Plaintiffs’ house (id. at § 73(a));* (3) representations regarding the coverage provided by Plaintiffs’ Policy (id. at J 73(d)-(e)); and (4) representations regarding State Farm’s bad-faith claim handling (id. at { 73(f). A. The claim is time-barred. The statute of limitations on a claim for negligent misrepresentation/constructive fraud is two years. 12 O.S. § 95(A)(3); Grubb vy, DXP Enters., Inc., No. 19-CV-0443-JH-JFJ, 2022 WL 16842309, at *5 (N.D. Okla. July 25, 2022). Mr. West testified the misrepresentations occurred when he purchased the House and sought coverage from the Holcomb Agency in December 2021-—more than three years before the lawsuit was filed. UMF 2, 3 Negligent misrepresentation is one type of constructive fraud and requires the same elements to be met. See, e.g., CashCall, Inc. v. BancFirst, No. CIV-16-927-W, 2016 WL 9559037, at *5 n.10 . (W.D. Okla. Dee. 15, 2016). 4 As explained in note 2, supra, Plaintiffs made clear in their depositions that they are not complaining about the amount of coverage procured, and therefore any misrepresentations relating thereto are not at issue. 14"}, {"d": 21, "p": 16, "t": "4, 16; N. West Dep. at 136:17-137:3, Ex. 1. Like Plaintiffs’ negligent procurement claim, their fraud-based claim is also time barred. See Slover, 443 F. Supp. 2d at 1283. B. The claim fails on its merits. To recover for constructive fraud, Plaintiffs must prove (1) the Holcomb Agency owed them a duty of full disclosure; (2) the Holcomb Agency misstated a fact or failed to disclose a fact to Plaintiffs; (3) the misstatement or omission was material; (4) Plaintiffs relied on it; and (5) suffered damages as a result. Lillard v. Stockton, 267 ¥. Supp. 2d 1081, 1113 (N.D. Okla. 2003). Whether actual or constructive, “‘[f]raud is never presumed and it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.’” Combs v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 551 F.3d 991, 999-1000 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Rogers v. Meiser, 68 P.3d 967, 977 (Okla. 2003)). “Accordingly, ‘the mere allegation of fraud alone “will not justify the submission of that issue [to the jury] unless facts are produced from which an irresistible deduction of fraud reasonably arises.” Id. (quoting Roberts v. Wells Fargo AG Credit Corp., 990 F.2d 1169, 1173 (10th Cir. 1993) (quoting Silk v. Phillips Petrol. Co., 1988 OK 93, { 13, 760 P.2d 174, 177). None of these elements are met, no “irresistible deduction of fraud reasonably arises,” and summary judgment should be granted. First, Plaintiffs cannot establish the existence of a “legal or equitable duty” on the part of the Holcomb Agency. Plaintiffs admit they do not allege the Holcomb Agency made affirmative representations about inspections or condition of their house. N. West Dep. at 135:1 8-136:8, 144:612, Ex. 1. Rather, they assumed the Holcomb Agency would inspect and implied the House was in good condition by selling the Policy. Nor is there an allegation the Holcomb Agency made affirmative representations about claim handling and hail determination. To the contrary, Plaintiffs allege the Holcomb Agency did not disclose State Farm’s alleged scheme to deny claims through a narrow hail definition. See id.; see also id. at 117:6-23. 15"}, {"d": 21, "p": 17, "t": "Negligent misrepresentation cannot be based on silence or an implied representation alone. Plaintiffs must show the Holcomb Agency owed them “a duty of full disclosure.” Lillard, 267 F. Supp. 2d at 1113. “This duty could be part of a [] fiduciary duty’ owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. [It] could also arise, even though it might not exist in the first instance, once a defendant voluntarily chooses to speak to plaintiff about a particular subject matter.” Jd. Absent from the record is any evidence the Holcomb Agency owed Plaintiffs a duty to speak. In Pratt v. Safeco, the court observed “[t]he duty to speak ‘may arise if a party selectively discloses facts that create a false impression.’ If a false impression is conveyed by disclosing some facts and concealing others, the concealment is in effect a false representation.” 2020 WL 4735350 at *2 (citations omitted). As in Pratt, Plaintiffs here “do not allege that [the agent] conveyed a false impression by disclosing certain material facts and concealing others.” Id, Their allegation is that the Holcomb Agency said nothing at all about the condition of their house, whether the property met underwriting requirements, how State Farm handles claims using a “narrow and limited definition of what constitutes hail damage,” and the alleged “Scheme.” Pet., | 4(a)-(c); N. West Dep. at 135:18-136:8, 144:6-12, Ex. 1. “{Slilence conveyed no false impression to Plaintiffs.” Pratt, 2020 WL 4735350 at *2. The Holcomb Agency was “under no duty to speak,” and Plaintiffs cannot establish a claim against it for constructive fraud. See id.; Payne Expl. Co. v. Trident Steel Corp., No. CIV-15-818-D, 2016 WL 1530006, at *5 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 14, 2016) (same principle). 5 Plaintiffs do not allege the Holcomb Agency owed them a fiduciary duty, and the law is clear that an insurance agent owes no fiduciary duty to an insured, See e.g., Pratt v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., No. CIV-20-93-D, 2020 WL 4735350, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 14, 2020). 6 Plaintiffs admit they have no evidence that the Holcomb Agency knew about State Farm’s purported changes in the way it handled hail claims, which is what Plaintiffs refer to as a scheme. N. West Dep. at 116:19-118:4, Ex. 1; L. West Dep. at 100:1-25, Ex. 6. 16"}, {"d": 21, "p": 18, "t": "Second, the record is likewise devoid of evidence misrepresentations were material or Plaintiffs suffered damages the alleged omissions as a result. Any or alleged misrepresentations about inspections or condition of the house did not cause the damages of which they complain. The only injury alleged by Plaintiffs for any claim is that State Farm refused to pay to replace Plaintiffs’ roof. UMF 15. That decision had nothing to do with inspections being completed, whether the roof met all “underwriting guidelines,” or whether Plaintiffs had sufficient coverage to replace their property. It was the result of State Farm’s finding that hail did not damage the roof. UMF 12-13. Six federal judges have come to similar conclusions. In Rain Drop v. State Farm, Judge DeGiusti found the plaintiff, who also sued State Farm for not replacing its roof, was “unable to make out a causal nexus between [the agent’s] actions at the procurement stage and Plaintiff's alleged prejudice at the coverage determination stage,” reasoning “[a]ny disagreement about the extent of the hail damage suffered, the decision to repair rather than replace the roof, or the adequacy of the replacement shingles, [wa]s with State Farm alone.” 2025 WL 582562 at *5. See also Wiesman, 2025 WL 2918043 at *5 (“Plaintiff's damages stem from State Farm’s calculation of the repairs to his property, not from Plaintiff's lack of coverage related to the [] alleged misrepresentations.”); Moore, 2026 WL 878459 at *5 (plaintiff failed to allege facts to establish a causal connection between the alleged misrepresentations and damages sought); Steinkamp, 2023 WL 11920886 at *3; Porter, 2025 WL 1151682 at *4. This case is no different; the Holcomb Agency caused no injury to Plaintiffs. Third, Plaintiffs could not have reasonably relied upon any alleged misrepresentations about their Policy because they received a copy. UMF 4-6. Oklahoma law imposes upon insureds a duty “to read and know the contents of the polic[y}” before they accept it, and an applicant “who accepts [a policy] the provisions of which are plain, clear, and free from all ambiguity, is 17"}, {"d": 21, "p": 19, "t": "chargeable with knowledge of the terms and legal effect.” Liverpool, 1902 OK 7, 69 P. 936, 937; see also Country Gold, Inc. v. State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., CTV-14-1398-D, 2015 WL 431638, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 2, 2015) (dismissing constructive fraud claim in part because there was no dispute plaintiff received policy and thus could not have reasonably relied upon any misrepresentations about it); Siddique v. Western Heritage Ins. Co., CIV-14-456-SPS, 2015 WL 2451734, at *4-5 (E.D. Okla, May 21, 2015) (same). Fourth, the UMFs demonstrate the alleged representations were not misrepresentations at all but spoke the truth. Plaintiffs’ house did satisfy underwriting and qualified for RCV coverage. The Policy that State Farm issued, under which it paid to repair hail damage, and under which Plaintiffs sue and seek benefits, is an RCV policy. UMF 4, 7-8, 10, 12-13, 16, Plaintiffs’ Policy covers hail damage, as well. UMF 7, 12. Plaintiffs admit State Farm estimated to repair or replace portions of Plaintiffs’ property damaged in the storm; they just allege that State Farm should have paid to replace more of it, including the entire roof. Pet., | 40(d), (i), (1). Fifth, any alleged misrepresentations regarding State Farm’s claim handling and application of the policy were promises of future performance or opinion and not fraud. As to alleged schemes involving claim handling and application of policy terms in claim handling, the Holcomb Agency is not a claims adjuster and has no obligation to guess at future claims by Plaintiffs and inform them of what State Farm might do with that future claim. See Goebel v. State Farm, CIV-22-882-HE, 2023 WL 11883977, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 7, 2023) (“Plaintiffs’ arguments essentially contend that an agent has a duty to anticipate, and advise the insured as to, anything that might conceivably limit the payment of a future claim. Such a contention goes beyond any duty contemplated by Oklahoma law.”). Thus, the Holcomb Agency cannot be liable for not having spoken about a claim that has not occurred, might never occur and might be decided 18"}, {"d": 21, "p": 20, "t": "in Plaintiffs’ favor if it did. Plaintiffs’ theory is squarely negated by the law that “for a false representation to be the basis of fraud, such representation must be relative to existing facts or those which previously existed, and not as to promises as to future acts.” Citation Co. Realtors v. Lyon, 1980 OK 68, { 8, 610 P.2d 788, 790; CMI Roadbuilding v. SpecSys, No. CIV-18-1245-G, 2021 WL 2189190, at *3 (W.D. Okla. May 28, 2021) (same requirement for constructive fraud); Briggs y. State Farm, No. 3:14CV16-DPJ-FKB, 2014 WL 2014) (finding no reasonable basis for success 1355627, at *3-4 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 7, against agent on claim for negligent misrepresentation where complaint accused him of promising the insurer “would fairly and accurately assess any damage and adjust any claim the Plaintiffs might have ... and pay to [] Plaintiffs the cost to repair or replace the Plaintiffs’ home”). Further, any representations by the Holcomb Agency about State Farm’s past claim handling decisions would be conveying an adjuster’s opinion, See Cupit v. Dancu Chemical Co., 1957 OK 193, { 7, 316 P.2d 593, 596 (holding insurer claim decision is an opinion and not “misrepresentation or concealment of facts”). “Fraud may not be predicated on a mere expression of opinion.” Eckert v. Flair Agency, Inc., 1995 | OK CIV APP 151, Ill. 7, 909 P.2d 1201, 1204. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT PUNITIVE DAMAGES. Plaintiffs are not entitled to any damages under these facts, let alone an award of punitive damages, as they can make no competent showing that the Holcomb Agency negligently procured Plaintiffs’ Policy or committed any fraud, and certainly have no evidence of malice. Whether there is any competent evidence to submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury under Oklahoma’s statutory punitive damages regime is a question of law for the Court in the first instance. Estrada y. Port City Props., 2011 OK 30, § 20, 258 P.3d 495, 504, See also Combs v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 551 F.3d 991, 1000 (10th Cir. 2008) (considering a claim for punitive damages under Oklahoma’s 19"}, {"d": 21, "p": 21, "t": "punitive damages statute, the court found the “submission of the issue of punitive damages to a jury [would] be improper,” as the plaintiff “failed to demonstrate the requisite evil intent or such ageravating circumstances as to be deemed equivalent to such intent for punitive damages” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)) There is zero evidence of egregious circumstances here, no malice, and no oppression or wanton or reckless disregard for the insureds’ rights. The UMFs reveal that Plaintiffs disagreed with State Farm’s claim determination, nothing more. Submission of the issue of punitive damages to the jury, therefore, “would be improper.” Combs, 551 F.3d at 1000. CONCLUSION Summary judgment is appropriate and should be granted where, as here, it appears from the pleadings and evidentiary materials that there is no substantial controversy as to any material fact and one of the parties is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Cyanostar Energy, Inc. ¥. Chesapeake Expl., L.L.C., 2014 OK CIV APP 7, 4 8, 317 P.3d 217, 219; Rules for Dist. Cts. of Okla. R. 13(e). Based on the foregoing, the Holcomb Agency respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of the Holcomb Agency and against Plaintiffs on ail claims. Respectfully submitted, Timila S. fui OBA 14310 Paige Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7700 Facsimile: (405) 239-6651 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com 20"}, {"d": 21, "p": 22, "t": "ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 26th day of May, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER Hannah Whitten FIRM 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 John §, Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS Doing Outta 21 6263077 LAW"}, {"d": 21, "p": 24, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Neil West 03/19/2026 THE and LACY WEST, Sill Neill Saat Sayualtl Naat! Seat NEIL COURT OF COMANCHE DISTRICT STATE OF OKLAHOMA IN Plaintiffs, vs. Meet Set AGENCY, INC., Net INSURANCE Number CI-2025-135 Slt STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB Case COUNTY ence Defendants. OF DEPOSITION VIDEO Taken on behalf on the 19th in Lawton, * REPORTED BY: * of WEST Defendants the of day SPENCER NEIL March, 2026 Oklahoma * TAMARA * WAGGONER, CSR AS Sad Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) EXHIBIT"}, {"d": 21, "p": 25, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 42 Neil West 03/19/2026 contractor. did Okay. he specialize A General or contractor a general he was And Q roofing? in some does still He contractor. today. Do Q the you -- has he house that you live A This one, no. Q Right. Did Crystal Lake? on house 11 A Crystal Hills. 12 Q Crystal Hills, 13 A Yeah, he 14 Q Okay. And you 15 employed with State Farm, 16 a little more detail, 17 replaced two roofs; 18 A 19 State 20 Q roof of your the it. -- while you we'll look at had and actually they've but were this in paid to they? haven't never on you. Thank replaced have by employed been Farm. I'm sorry. I don't to say. that you were replaced two roofs? up. Let's 22 over. Insured is what during the period State 25 A Farm, they've it I meant question 24 where strike that So know just 21 23 roof sorry. actually I've the at look he inspected now? in 10 First, ever I messed and start insured Correct. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) by"}, {"d": 21, "p": 26, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 43 Neil West 03/19/2026 Q And Hills house? A Yes, ma'am. Q Okay. And at your Crystal what's your brother's one that we're Christopher West. -- which -- indicate that there were those of both -- your name? I A about 10 the Yeah. A -- is Chris -- or Q Okay. And did Christopher State Farm's you 12 was 13 then 14 Christopher, a A records or a total roof in think it was '19. Did both of replacement roof one in He I -- 20 replace Chris, did talking 17 A The 18 Q Okay. 19 A My 20 Q Okay. al A He 22 23 those 2009 roofs? not. 2019 did one Which Okay. 16 25 but 0 tell 24 many, -- 11 15 have he replace? the roof roof. replaced Who brother 2009? Roger. also Is Roger was at the Q Where does Roger A He lives in a roofer? time. live? in Godfrey, Illinois. G-O-D-F-R-E-Y. Q And has -- is his last name West also? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) I'll and"}, {"d": 21, "p": 27, "t": "E NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANC 48 Page Neil West 03/19/2026 that do, we do a big show every year sell advertising for our playbills. And she's we always been a big supporter, about those things and place ads We had in in. you times that we've honest don't you -- well, her when Q And that changed? 12 A It 13 Q Okay. Why? 14 A When I called 15 house, said we need 16 house. bought this 17 excited. Had a conversation i8 literally from the front 19 hadn't even moved in yet. 20 I said, Nancy, we're why I -- person? say you did. purchased the new you has. We I house, 21 this new 22 full replacement 23 we 24 replaced. 25 I had an be I did. I it to A Has so her Do 11 and down sat was in believe Q 10 to generous -- she's -- She's her. like her very pop I could office. her approached been she's many I've so we and stuff before remember we need insurance new house, we -- need the saying the on were super on the phone with her of the new house. We excited, we just bought yard you to get insurance, we want telling her like I remember value. in we when I had the roof specifically if we need to old house Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 21, "p": 28, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page51 Neil West 03/19/2026 and 10 since State June 15, can't say that we have. the car accident that A I Q And earlier, storm claim? 11 your you were Post. Q So car accident? A. Right. a crosswalk, in hit you can crosswalk with 14 Q Yeah. 15 A -- in 16 injuries as a result 17 the 18 think -- 19 State Farm. And 20 State Farm, so there was 21 Q is the damage caused by Ms. Holcomb, the damage you claim Object to the 22 have 23 failure 24 your 25 been to guy saying And she -- she received some And we believe that weren't sure. I that they were Tulsa. that. of but Farm we sure I thinkwe were And pay we so all -- walking State yeah, go a 13 was so in Lacy driver -- literally 12 the about guy the supposedly Because the Nancy with spoken have may Lacy talking postdate or predate that did A was after claim? 2023 about her decision claim Farm's -- your since all At broad. that it make let's had a she had claim that Farm, State conversation. you that you Farm's State exists on property? MR. SANDERS: form. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) You can"}, {"d": 21, "p": 29, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 52 Neil West 03/19/2026 answer. -- That's WITNESS: THE Okay. Rother) that's part of it. What's the rest of and -- okay. Q (By Ms. A We were -- we were so State Farm denied the We incurred some We went through in vitro of money, over a hundred it? -~- State reinspection. literally to a baby. have to trying fertilization, spent a lot had to start it. We Q What year was that? A It was -- we finished 14 Q So it 15 A Tt did. 16 Q Okay. 17 A Okay. 10 grand 11 12 13 on it 19 the debt, 20 and ran 21 of savings Q predated denied due debt make -- up in October storm? it's a it's -- is what happened. At the same right. of complicated we incurred I ran a campaign took our money Comanche out campaign. pay for that And was that district judge in was four counties. But, yes, to story So time We judge. district for the And this -- is but 23 claim, 2022. 18 22 debt in County? 24 A It 25 Q Okay. And who was your opponent? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) primarily."}, {"d": 21, "p": 30, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 98 Neil West 03/19/2026 to preexisting that's roof your Now guess what is trying to come in damage or somebody now happens, this. all have can you go, beforehand, no. is just -- somebody was walking And Q But that A She is negligent in those duties. of her negligence in doing that, absolutely led to because on it that I would later was my question, you wondering if there distress say and develop. But Okay. Q 10 that 11 stress. I'm just 12 claiming you overpaid 13 any 14 15 the premiums, underpaid premiums, you you claim Ms. Holcomb caused? I pay a very nice amount of money didn't total other injury A No. insurance are -- have -- 16 Q Right. 17 A -- to 18 Q And you have -- State if it had totalled your roof, have your roof paid Object to the form. And all the other close to $300,000, you have plenty ~ your roof. But 20 have enough coverage 21 correct? Q 23 SANDERS: (By Ms. policy 24 Your 25 contract to MR. Rother) insures damage is insured. house my keep 19 22 for you for 50,000, so Farm Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) you for; damage. your of"}, {"d": 21, "p": 31, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 99 Neil West 03/19/2026 insurance if existed; do Farm State you So, HELOC that loan. HELOC I was then that the PMI off. Rocket sent out another 12 And so 13 literally 14 There was a $45,000 15 question, I don't 16 to what for $50,000 in 19 A Oh, 20 Q Okay. 21 contract damages 22 A Right. 23 Q I'm talking inspector $295,000. was it to answer your there is sufficient money if I need. know. don't Well, do you have more coverage? yeah, yeah. — And claiming you're are that talking about emotional about what's your policy Right. your 50,000? not Okay. or So Rother) (By Ms. in difference. know we and later months two clearly we get with down mean, I to is A okay, percentage it 25 like, get did we PMI the get to 20 whatever I'm because that 11 24 by Arvest, percentage, have than So was house the question. it I mean, subsequently, trying I'm because 10 18 form. WITNESS: $340,000 Q the THE at 17 to Object appraised pay damage SANDERS: the Rocket, the MR. to And found agree? back goes had Right. distress. going Right. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) to cover."}, {"d": 21, "p": 32, "t": "E NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANC 104 Page Neil West 03/19/2026 THE WITNESS: do not. reading, have you opinions which have found that a duty to inspect property? not be have Object to THE WITNESS: That's a question Q the you read those -- doing, have you read any issue? -- my question was, How 10 agreed. 11 in all the 12 of the federal court decisions on that 13 MR. SANDERS: Object to the 14 THE WITNESS: What 15 Q 16 about 17 those? were I read is that I was asking you Rother) No, federal court opinions. 18 MR. SANDERS: Object 19 THE WITNESS: The Have the to themselves, 21 Q 22 insurance policy 23 inspections are 24 MR. SANDERS: Form. 25 THE WITNESS: Not you read form. opinions actual 20 form. have (By Ms. the well, have Okay. you to -- Rother) reading law is (By Ms. But of lawyers. the by and courts do form. the SANDERS: by fact in agent's MR. determined court federal several the read your of all in And Rother) (By Ms. Q I no. (By Ms. And Rother) to what see have it you says read about required? that I know of. ‘Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) your whether"}, {"d": 21, "p": 33, "t": "E NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANC 102 Page Neil West 03/19/2026 Q (By Ms. Rother) insurance policy is contract? a A Yes. Q And State Farm you're suing them for A Correct. Q And you're contract as well; A Yes, 10 Q Do 11 times that State 12 damage on your 13 adjuster 14 A by the breaching it; correct? true? ma'am. Farm room. said there Tell me preexisting was words what exactly He said that somebody scuff marks, 16 would have been caused by 17 recall. the that. And did you translate did he use those or shingle damage That's what to that words? the form. SANDERS: Object to 21 THE WITNESS: I think preexisting 23 was 24 damage. 25 words. be a legal necessarily He did as well. I thinking that word, it though. He term say I preexisting MR. might the on walking was 20 22 the used. the damage several said you've -- understand you That 19 and the of terms the by bound roof. Q contract bound is 15 18 your that agree you Do don't damage know that preexisting did use Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) the I"}, {"d": 21, "p": 34, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 103 Neil West 03/19/2026 Okay. Rother) Q (By Ms. A Or very Q And the terminology tear, and deterioration. A I don't Q Okay. wear, to that. from the similar or -- those use he Did is policy words? just you said, he tear, you don't remember that he wear, by somebody flat out said Not hail damage? A No. He said 15 Q Well, how 16 damage 10 damage was caused 11 things like that? 12 A And 13 Q 14 (By Ms. Q 18 me tell or all. at damage. could he be saying marks and there was no Object to the form. I'm not tracking. you don't have damage again, this was September of and a half years outside of Rother) he said. He says this -- don't -~ 21 your roof. 22 2023, and we are now 23 this. The exact words he 24 I do recall him showing this 25 table, going roof no words I the is the A 20 this there SANDERS: MR. 17 19 scuff from said damage isn't this remember on walking said he whether know don't you So damage, preexisting what recall. through two the said, there I don't was damage? Just to But recall. at my dining slides on his room tablet Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) and"}, {"d": 21, "p": 35, "t": "E NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANC 104 Page Neil West 03/19/2026 saying, that's not damage. what about this. and this or exactly what he said. And do you Q like, what No, sir, that's not and about know don't I you policy your under understand damage covered have I'm damage. hail not that's damage, And then you have damage to the form. that's excluded? 10 MR. SANDERS: Object THE WITNESS: I a that's understand thing, yes. 12 because you've 13 damage, that the roofs two had A Yes. 15 Q And 16 A Yes. 17 Q And 18 adjuster, it sounds like 19 this not covered damage? 20 MR. SANDERS: Object 21 THE WITNESS: I believe (By Ms. Q 22 you due to hail name of the hail? 14 is know replaced covers policy you but And Okay. Rother) (By Ms. Q 11 wind? what understand, Mr. Gooch, what he said to you to the form. Okay. Rother) sir, that's that 23 do 24 roof to have wear or tear 25 damage, all kinds of things, it's that's And he and correct. still -- wasn't possible deterioration, was for your preexisting have Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) hail"}, {"d": 21, "p": 36, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 116 Neil West 03/19/2026 think if those them, she had Because the changes duty to tell me about them. not only is she an agent for State Farm, here that she served as neighbor State Farm is agent. An already established agent, too. Like there. Contact agency exists State Farm and relay that information ROTHER: MS. a good your local agent. My between State Farm and and her to obligation a dual to me. Move to strike had She me. my as nonresponsive. 13 Q (By Ms. Do to the form. I have any knowledge about it. 15 what she knew or 16 MR. SANDERS: Object 17 THE WITNESS: Do did not she could you -- I know that tell me? not -- 21 and say, 22 she didn't What Rother) can 20 know? not of know? (By Ms. Q 19 about knowledge knew if was said you any have you she did form. the thing One Rother) 14 what to Object SANDERS: MR. 12 18 about knew she and a we've 10 11 were you Ms. she knew or did in front of a sit Holcomb knew about jury this and 23 MR. SANDERS: Object to the form. 24 THE WITNESS: I can sit in front of a jury confidence that she has 29 and say I have reasonable Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) to"}, {"d": 21, "p": 37, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 117 Neil West 03/19/2026 go regular through business MS. ROTHER: Okay. THE WITNESS: What have known Rother) Ms. (By understand that; understand or that not they're and you right? ll THE WITNESS: I don't form. the to necessarily know agree with that. 13 Q (By Ms. Rother) 14 A I think -- that. I'm Ms. you Holcomb -- 19 believe 20 if I mostly I think that. the claim. If that was at. she has any control supposing that agents State Farm's claim -- if I could that Nancy can deny is what the question Q Right. Do you believe Farm's claim decision? think so. State over 23 A I don't 24 Q And you're of training some kind just TI don't clarify me that 21 has -- agents that think Let A 18 Okay. learning. Do Q 16 25 -- decisions, Object 22 have you SANDERS: 17 should And MR. 15 way. known. 10 12 the or claim the make that she along contractors independent are ones the learned and Q agents they what is should she what and insurance the what training about Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) -- get"}, {"d": 21, "p": 38, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 118 Neil West 03/19/2026 decision making? (By The A I Q Okay. A I apologize. MS. ROTHER: THE WITNESS: now 12:54. time is am. 12 record. break. of course. RECESS) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We The time is 1:18 p.m. (By Ms. Rother) break, back Q 14 ghort 15 you about 16 the -- 17 Number 18 A Ready. 19 Q On 20 Suits Against 21 action will 22 been 23 provisions. Any 24 within one year And do you lunch Exhibit it's 1 paragraph Us be record. I Will you hada was asking look at Bates 26, Page it's corner. six in provision. the left And it \"No states, there us unless with all of the policy by any party must after the date of agree that you filed action the column, against brought compliance full the We sir. right, policy. and right the in 26 on the on back are All insurance your The record. the off We're (LUNCH 13 25 Potty Oh, 10 11 that? supposing You're Witness) Q form. the to Object SANDERS: MR. be has started or damage.\" your petition loss Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 21, "p": 39, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 120 Neil West 03/19/2026 had you it was I was -- NN I knew I was -- W the A something like that. Q in about then the policy, right bottom in understood as the upon you to corner. You it amount at which to incumbent was that the 47 turning homeowner you a general you Page we're while question wanted to insure the SANDERS: Object to 11 THE WITNESS: I knew that I had for the purposes 13 mortgage. I wanted 14 coverage. I 15 cut 16 along Q (By you and Ms. 18 the one that 19 wanted your the the selected on where But as property amount house; correct? form. Object to 21 THE WITNESS: I think she 23 Q (By Ms. 24 A -- if you stick 25 Q Yeah. If you sure, So, yes. I said, you're the SANDERS: and owner coverage MR. proposal between of 20 22 could we sure. Right. as the of value I'm Rother) Ms. house? have to replacement suggestions way, the Holcomb, 17 on a full for asked costs -- for like coverage select form. MR. full the your 10 12 you ask to I wanted ask I'll and concerned. was I or close getting thing last the And period? limitations missed PB that gave me you a ultimately -- Right. Rother) with look at me. Page 47 there Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) where"}, {"d": 21, "p": 40, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 121 Neil West 03/19/2026 it says your to you to your the choose needs.\" and it says, “It is coverages and limits that meet Correct? I wouldn't Q Now, I'm going I'm this for now. And these are the text messages between Nancy Holcomb that you produced in this your counsel Bates labeled noted in you quickly. anyone 12 A which case, corner. the with talk you Did and you me ask at Nancy Holcomb's office Maybe a secretary to pay a bill from time it was roof or car or Let 11 as 2. Exhibit you hand to going through we're -- you hand to that. with disagree A with 10 up amount, coverage 13 to time. I don't know if 14 whatever. But it was Nancy. 16 Q Point of contact? 17 A You 18 Q Okay. So any -- 19 about insurance on your house 20 have Nancy Nancy? than other was the always 15 been bet. with Nancy? any you conversations on Briarcreek, would files 21 A Yes, ma'am. 22 Q And what about I think State Farm's 23 indicate that you first became insured with 24 State Farm in 2001. have been 25 point of contact then Would as Nancy had well? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) your"}, {"d": 21, "p": 41, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 135 Neil West 03/19/2026 the books, We same time if that said were you and A Not driveway Was sidewalk. 11 Q Okay. 12 A She occur. you've driveway of Nancy? called Mrs. West with you then? was around. She was not standing she was -- she So was she a was not a participant inquiry of the when I've she -- 16 A Correct. 17 correct. 18 Q 19 questions 20 Ms. Holcomb, that you think she failed al your property and tell you about its 22 that she failed to tell you that State 23 changed way it evaluates hail damage. 24 characterize those correctly? A how about You me, told have You the in my you by property. the at was conversation? 25 My yes. yard, front but the I the in standing times described, the 15 in you house Q things that conversation 10 14 of know, these of new But kind me paying you -- some as The me. we're with co-existing 13 at was necessarily the attention she not you many mean, I maybe think so works but Q on just -- would way it us. for that finances, think you policy, you asked were damaged to inspect and condition, Farm did. Word for Word Reporting, LLC by 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) had Did I"}, {"d": 21, "p": 42, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 136 Neil West 03/19/2026 affirmative make any claim are are those So Okay. fe) omissions. Did she you that you statements to or are false? to the form. You can got misrepresentations MR. SANDERS: Object THE WITNESS: You know, just said we've need, and I believed answer. you covered, we've got what you her. And it turns out she didn't. Rother) (By Ms. Q to Okay. So ask before 10 this is my only chance 11 you can -- tell me what -- 12 specifically recall her using. 13 MR. SANDERS: Object THE WITNESS: Yeah. 14 trial. What words you to the form. It was a conversation what can You answer. 15 16 because just on the phone. Q (By 17 18° the 19 of Ms. conversation your 20 A Correct. al Q And 22 what? 23 A get you where talking we're were standing you told in about yard the house? new I And Rother) you said, Correct. called hey, coverage 24 need to 25 want replacement her we're buying this this house. I on costs. and I made spec -- exactly house, we -- I want I made Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 21, "p": 43, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 137 Neil West 03/19/2026 to the storm back in 2019, I said to make sure that we've got the same kind of coverage that we did then. I said if we have to overinsure it to get proper valuation for today's -- I didn't say it, but in my that, you know, of thing, she She asked year 10 house, the 11 many square feet. 12 back to me. And 13 responded 14 you're 15 few questions of the many it at some point we've got you Q Well, you say at some point 16 responded to. Did -- how did 17 issuing policy or -- and 18 any Yes. Sure. A 20 later on 21 don't even 22 multiple 23 the 24 know. get were and up you were she respond, by you haven't produced So I don't recall if it was -- I just -- I so. e-mails, 19 how hooked all go. the bedrooms, we to good the she'll up, look Yes, to. of year the about She'll then kind it. how roof, to inflation of cost got okay, said, a know, covered -- cost for replace you thinking, I'm head 25 I want reference same day or within if we hung up the phone conversations on the same -- time range. we that know same five, But at some 10 minute point, obviously, Word for Word Reporting, LLC and had like within I -- I don't -- you know, 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 21, "p": 44, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB iNSURANCE Page 138 Neil West 03/19/2026 So executed. ready to be information that I gave a copy of that our policy based upon the us informed she was her. you would either in the It would be State Farm's if I didn't provide it, that they tried policy the A I -- keep it. Do received have then And Q that deny I don't electronically? or mail that. do to policy I didn't means to send it policy you have to us. ig 12 complaint 13 cost value State that is policy, but your Farm didn't pay replacement value cost replacement a 11 the that agree you do And Q 10 for your roof? that and part it. they didn't give 14 A Yeah, 15 complaint is 16 amounts upfront to pay for 17 Tt we'll give you a certain was, 18 that remember the with the first inspector X amount of say to 20 here's a check ai or 900 or whatever. 22 repaired 23 costs 24 holding onto some monies 25 So this just -- with your fence get you screens get your then you let it us -- know I says, it guy, dollars Once you and more for gutters. the or conversation, I want full percentage. Specifically, 19 the me fence the the also, And, a seven if it of you're repaired, because right now. that reeks we're to me Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 21, "p": 45, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Neil West 03/19/2026 Page 144 A Yes. Yes, Q Okay. So State Farm underwriting conclude that your house was sufficient to issue coverage; A Sure. Yes, ma'am. Q And I think we've talked terms of what claim disclose, it relates to claims evaluates hail State in Farm and 10 allegation 11 told is ma'am. you that if did for agreed? about this. But Ms. Holcomb failed to way State Farm the damage. she knew just for the your answers sure that we your And that handles your she should have record, I'm just to interrogatories you? 12 A Agreed. 13 Q I'm 14 flipping 15 and making 16 Are you claiming that 17 excludes weather related -- through haven't our omitted policy anything. has -- the form. that it losses? 18 MR. SANDERS: Object to 19 THE WITNESS: The one that I or the one for? The one that I signed up for signed up for, And State 20 that I signed 21 or I 22 weather that Q 23 24 for 25 much thought I related losses. (By Rother) weather as up you Ms. related think losses, they they should; was got it Farm just covered did pay didn't pay right? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) as"}, {"d": 21, "p": 46, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 145 Neil West 03/19/2026 they paid they that claimed were certain categories in was me What No. A I that categories dispute. They Okay. gutters; your paid for the downspouts? correct? A They did. Q And I think A Right. Right. Q And screens? A Well, 10 Q Some of them? 11 A They cut a check. 12 replaced. So did they actually 13 can't honestly say yes, but they 14 for that they were damaged? said that your roof shingles were because there the let me-- Q They 16 A Sure. 17 Q And they 18 A Yes, ma'am, 19 Q By 20 A Yes, 21 Q But not damaged A 23 let me -- -- I never did get those pay for them, I did cut me a check that. 15 22 I would -- 24 was 25 gutters, estimated? hail found or wind? ma'am. they by hail or wind? Yeah. And I thought there and was clearly they're hail telling that odd damage me -- inside those like all and Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) up"}, {"d": 21, "p": 47, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 148 Neil West 03/19/2026 around The policy, Exhibit -- one of the declaration recall now, yes. this one -- you materials go up, the the is This looked at I Q And your house goes up; correct? we understand as that of cost replacement I Q Okay. And this -- for the your coverage A dwelling was 309,000. not claiming that that do. loss occurred, 11 Do you see 12 A I do, yes, ma'am. 13 Q Okay. And you're too much too little? 15 A No, ma'am. 16 Q Have you 17 agency's 18 A 19 phone that 20 say, because was pages A 10 14 45. earlier. A building Page 1, on you. the that period that? or Ms. visited ever Holcomb's website? believe don't T never I open don't I 22 something on her 23 misrepresentation? 25 Q When an you an app open, I my on should passwords. that you're That's recall website So have rarely claiming Q A or not 21 24 I so. you read believe was a a claim for that you accurate statement. determined to make Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) the"}, {"d": 21, "p": 49, "t": ". DECLARATION OF NANCY HOLCOMB I, Nancy Holcomb, hereby declare and state: 1. My name is Nancy Holcomb. I am a State Farm insurance agent in Lawton, Oklahoma. 1 own and operate the Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. 2. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and know each of them to be true and correct. 3, I have served as Neil and Lacy West's insurance agent for many years and considered them friends. I assisted Mr. West in procuring a policy to insure his house located at 7710 SW Crystal Hills Place in Lawton, Oklahoma. The policy covered “accidental direct physical loss,” which included wind and hail damage. 4, In 2021, the Wests bought a new house located at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive in ‘ Lawton, and I assisted them in purchasing a State Farm policy to insure that house, State Farm Homeowners Policy No. 36-CR-X405-8 (“Policy”). Like the Policy insuring the Wests’ prior house, the Policy insures against “accidental direct physical loss,” which includes wind and hail damage. 5. State Farm sometimes engages third parties to conduct inspections or reviews of properties, However, State Farm did not require or request an inspection of the Wests’ house to issue the Policy in 2021. If there had been an inspection, 1 would not have completed it. ] do not inspect roofs as an agent, nor am I required by, State Farm to do so. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma that the foregoing is true and correct pursuant to 12 O.S. § 426. t"}, {"d": 21, "p": 50, "t": "Signed this 26th day of May, 2026, in Lawton, Oklahoma. 6265356"}, {"d": 21, "p": 52, "t": "36-CR-X405-8 State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Homeowners Application « OK CancelfNew 42-29-2021 Effective Date: Agent: Nancy Holcomb Nancy Holcomb Ins Agcy Inc App Date: 12-06-2021 App Time: 09:14. AM Agent Code: 2175 AFO Code: 26FAF3 Birth date CUSTOMER: H- 199 BE-1980 Applicant: © WEST,NEILS Co-Applicant: WEST, LACY M SSN Home Phone Business Phone (580) 510-0427 Show name(s) on policy as: WEST, NEIL S & LACY M Mailing Address: 7710 SW CRYSTAL HILLS PL LAWTON, OK 73505-6431 is any applicant an existing State Farm customer: Yes if yes, State / Prov: OK Home / Auto discount; Yes If yes, State / Prov; OK Does the applicant want to replace an existing State Farm policy with this transaction: Yes Existing State Farm policy number being replaced: 36-CU-1467-1 Existing policy's cancel date: 12-29-2024 Existing policy's State / Prov: OK is the property location for this new policy the same as the existing policy's location: No is applicant the named insured on the existing State Farm policy: Yes if yes, existing policy type being replaced: Homeowners Number of residents: 2 Location: Property Location: Street: 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR City: LAWTON State / Prov. OK ZIP / Postal: 73505-9537 County: Comanche Territory zone: 20 Subzone: 99 ts the dwelling inside city limits: No is the dwelling located within 10 road miles of a responding fire department: Yes is the dwelling accessible to fire department protection equipment year round: Yes Yes Does the dwelling have an adequate water source available for fire protection year round, Pre-oligibility: Unitowners, or Farm/Ranch policy in the last 30 days and Has any applicant had a State Farm Homeowners, Manufactured Home, Renters, Condominium qualifies for the Loyal Customer Discount: Yes If yes, Tenure Details: Enter information from the State Farm Policy that carries the oldest tenure dale: From date: 12-2001 Todate: 12-2021 State / Prov: OK Years with State Farm: 20 Tenure policy number: 36-CU-1467-1 Tenure date: 12-19-2001 Has applicant had any losses, insured or not, in the past 5 years: Yes Yes if yes, is applicant a current Slate Farm policyholder having a qualifying residential policy: EA 2540 0K.25 Rev. 05-2021 Page 1 of 4 4000009 2018 128191 218 03-10-2020 SFF&CC/West_000953"}, {"d": 21, "p": 53, "t": "Homeowners Application - OK State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 36-CR-X405-8 Loss caused by Flood, Identity Restoration, Earthquake in California, Mine Subsidence; or was the loss a Home Systems Protection (Equipment Breakdown}, Service Line, Personal Articles Policy, or Personal Liabilily Umbrella loss. No Loss description: wind hail Date of Joss: 05-28-2019 Catastrophe related: Yes Weather related: Yes Total amount of lass: 13,480 Number of homeowners rating claims: 0 Dwelling: Estimate number: G214-[3QA-3 Estimated replacement cost source: Estimated replacement cost too! Total finished square feet: 2053 Numberof stories: 1 Story Estimated replacement cost: 292,000 Date of estimate: 12-06-2021 Year built! 1997 Heating / Cooling year: Original if Updated, enter year: Electrical year: Original If Updated, enter year: Plumbing year: Original lf Updated, enter year: Construction: Masonry veneer is there a solid fuet appliance, such as a wood or coal stove, fireplace insert, or free-standing fireplace unil inside any dwelling or structure on the premises: No Roof instailation Year: 2019 Roof material: Composition - Architectural Shingle Is roof impact resistant: No Occupancy: Owner Number of weeks owner occupied (per calendar year}: 52 Numberof families: 1 Coverages: Desired coverage effective date: 12-29-2021 Estimated replacement cost: 292,000 Dwelling (Coverage A): 292,000 Rate IV: 100% Increased Owelling - Option ID: Included Dwelling Extension: 29,200 Are there any detached structures on the premises: No Personal Property (Coverage B): 219,000 Loss Settlement: Loss Settlement Option - Dwelling: A1 - Replacement Cost - Similar Construction Loss Settlement Option - Personal Property: B1 - Limited Replacement Cost Policy deductible: 1% Personal Liability (Coverage L) each occurrence: 100,000 Medical Payments (Coverage M) each occurrence: 1,000 Adjustments: Deadbolt locks: Yes Fire extinguisher: Yes Sprinkler system: None Fire or smoke alarm: Local only Burglar alarm: Local only Options / Endorsements: Jewelry and Furs: Yes EA 2840 0K.25 Rev, 05-2021 Page Zot 4 1000009 2018 128191 219 03-40-2020 SFF&CC/West_000954"}, {"d": 21, "p": 54, "t": "Homeowners Application - OK State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 36-CR-X405-8 JF limit: 1,500 / 2,500 Option JF included Silver/Goldware Theft - Option SG: Yes SG limit: 2,500 included Business Property - Option BP: Yes BP limit: 1,500 included Building Ordinance or Law - Option OL (% of Coverage A): Yes OL limit: 10% included Firearms - Option FA: Yes FA limit: 2,500 included Fire Department Service Charge Increased Limits: Yes Limit: 500 included Quote Results: CRI: 5613 Quote description: 100% Replacement Cost Annual premium: 2,768.00 Monthly premium: Estimated replacement cost: Rate lV: Construction: 229.83 292,000 100% Masonry veneer Territory zone: 20 Subzone: LRF: 99 L Coverages Dwelling (Coverage A) Increased Dwelling - Option ID Dwelling Extension Personal Property (Coverage B) Personal Liability (Coverage L) each occurrence Medical Payments (Coverage M) each occurrence Credit Card / Bank Card and Forgery Damage to Property of Others (Each Occurrence) Loss of Use Limit Premium 292,000 §8,400 29,200 219,000 §,881.00 100,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 87,600 Loss Settlement Provision Loss Settlement Option - Dwelling A‘ - Replacement Cost Similar Construction Loss Settlement Option - Personat Property Bi - Limited Replacement 0s Deductibles Policy deductible 1% 2,920 Charges / Gradits Claim Record Home alert Hone / Auto discount Loyal customer discount (470.00) (56,00) (1,515.00) (1,082.00) Policy Options and Endorsements Jewelry and Furs 4,500 / 2,500 Option JF included 2,500 included Silver/Goldware Theft - Option SG 1,500 included Business Property - Option BP 10% 29,200 Building Ordinance or Law - Option OL (% of Coverage A) 2,500 included Firearms - Option FA EA25400OK25 Rev. 05-2021 Page 3 of 4 1000009 2018 128191 248 03-10-2020 SFF&CC/West_000955"}, {"d": 21, "p": 55, "t": "Homeowners Application - OK State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 36-CR-X405-8 §00 included Fire Department Service Charge increased Limits Additional Interests: Type: Mortgagee Name: ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Street: City: State/Prov: ZIP / Postal: PO BOX 202070 FLORENCE SC 29502-2070 Loan number: Documents / Photos Bind: Market Assistance Program App: No Bind application: Yes Desired coverage effective date: 12-29-2021 Application taken date: 12-06-2021 Application taken time: 09:14 AM Billing / Payment: Minimum amount due: 459.66 Annual premium: 2,758.00 Payment Options: Put application on SFPP: No Annual premium: 2,758.00 Amount paid: 0.00 Premium transfer from other policy: 0.00 Balance due: 2,758.00 Billing Information: Should named insured be billed for first year's premium: No Should named insured be billed for renewals: No tf no, renewals will be billed fo the name below: Name: ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Should named insured be billed for endorsements: No Ifno, endorsements will be billed to the name below: Name: ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA £A28400K.25 Rev. 05-2021 Page 4 of 4 §000009 2018 128191 218 03-10-2020 SFF&CC/West_000956"}, {"d": 21, "p": 57, "t": "DECLARATION OF COURTNEY BERTHELOT I, Courtney Berthelot, hereby declare and state: i. My name is Courtney Berthelot. I am an Underwriting Team Manager for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”). 2, Ihave personal knowledge of the facts and statements set forth herein and know each of them to be true and correct. 3. As Underwriting Team Manager, | am familiar with the process for inspections of residential properties in Oklahoma if State Farm decides to undertake such inspections. Inspections are not required and do not occur on all or even most properties. As stated in the current form Oklahoma Homeowners Policy, which is Policy Form HW2136: We have the right but are not obligated to perform the following: (1) make inspections and surveys of the insured location at any time; (2) provide you with reports on conditions we find; or (3) recommend changes. Any inspections, surveys, reports, or recommendations relate only to insurability and the premiums to be charged. b. We do not: (1) make safety inspections, (2) undertake to perform the duty of any person or organization to provide for the health or safety of workers or the public; (3) warrant that conditions are safe or healthful; or (4) warrant that conditions comply with laws, regulations, codes, or standards. This condition applies to us and to any rating, advisory rate service, or similar organization that makes insurance inspections, surveys, reports, or recommendations on our behalf. 4. State Farm, for its own use in evaluating whether to insure a new property or continue to insure an existing property, sometimes elects to have residential properties inspected. State Farm refers to such inspections as “surveys.” a«K EXHIBIT"}, {"d": 21, "p": 58, "t": "5. Whenever underwriting surveys/inspections occur, they are not performed by the State Farm Insurance agents. If State Farm determines that an inspection should occur, State Farm, not the agent, engages a third-party vendor to conduct those inspections. This is a process undertaken and supervised by the company, not its agents. 6. If the underwriting department decides to request a survey before issuance of anew policy, the survey occurs after a temporary binder is issued to the potential insured, which protects the insured for the interim period between policy application and State Farm’s ultimate issuance or declination of the policy, during which period the actual underwriting occurs. 7, Even if the survey identifies conditions on the property such as foundation issues, blistered, de-granulated or otherwise aging shingles, or other overall wear and tear on the property, State Farm may still choose to, and very often does, issue a policy anyway. Most houses, except for possibly very new ones, have some signs of aging and if existing wear and tear foreclosed policy issuance, few policies could be issued. 8. Sometimes State Farm also elects to survey an insured property after a policy issues and renews for several years through a process that is keyed to individual market area needs and conditions. 9. When a house is selected for a renewal survey, State Farm may contract with a third-party vendor to conduct an on-site inspection or sometimes a customer may conduct a self-survey. Self-surveys are done through a mobile web application that is designed to allow customers to provide required underwriting information about their property using a smart phone or tablet device. Customers are asked to answer a series of questions about 2"}, {"d": 21, "p": 59, "t": "their property, including the address, date of roof installation, foundation type, and existence of business operations, swimming pools, spas, and fireplaces on the property. They are also asked to take current photos of their house and property, including photos of the front, rear, left and right sides of the house; two different slopes of the roof; electrical panel; and exterior wall finish, among others. The survey must be completed by the customer; the agent cannot complete it on the insured’s behalf. A third-party vendor reviews the information and pictures submitted by the customer and issues a survey report. 10. State Farm agents are not responsible for policy renewals. A policy renews automatically subject to the premiums, rules, and forms in effect for each succeeding policy period. At least 30 days prior to renewal, State Farm, not the agent, provides insureds a written renewal notice that includes the premium, deductible, coverages, and limits. 11. Prior to 2016, a State Farm agent would be asked to take a photograph of the front and back of a new property and note any obvious hazards, but not to otherwise “inspect” it. Since 2016 the agents are not asked to undertake even that limited review. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 426, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: April 30, 2025. Signature: 5970860 Printed Name: Courtney Berthelot Title: Underwriting Team Manager"}, {"d": 21, "p": 61, "t": "State Farm Fire and Casualty Company A Stock Company With Home Offices in Bloomington, iffinois HOMEOWNERS Bloomington iL 61702-2356 001692 AT2 abi 6-2175-FAF3 WEST, NEIL § & LACY 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR sys LAWTON ~ a PO Box 2356 OK F = = 5 AVAILABLE COVERAGE ; NOTICE HW M 73505-9537 ST0406-0000 Apel fad play ggg Angee uted gog fag fgg g Denk flfoadtaad ty IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU OCCASIONALLY REVIEW THE COVERAGE 5 AND LIMITS IN YOUR HOMEOWNERS Pehicwee rae CERTAIN YOUR NEEDS ARE BEING MET. THE FOLLOW ING INFORMATION WILL ASSIST YOU IN THE REVIEW PROCESS. THE COVERAGE LIMITS FOR COVERAGE A- DWELLING, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, COVERAGE L PERSONAL LIABILITY, AND COVERAGE M - MEDICAL PAYMENTS TO OTHERS ARE LISTED ON THE ACCOMPANYING RENEWAL DECLARATIONS. PLEASE REVIEW THESE LIMITS TO DETER MINE IF THEY ARE ADEQUATE IN THE EVENT OF ALOSS, THE FOLLOWING ISA PARTIAL LIST OF THE OPTIONAL COVERAGES YOU HAVE NOT ADDED TO YOUR POLICY. THEY MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU FOR AN ADDITIONAL PREMIUM. Back-Up of Sewer or Drajn (for damage caused by water from outside the plumbing system which backs up through sewers or drains} Business Property (for higher limits) Business Pursuits Liability (for teachers, school administrators, sales persons, and clerical emptoyees) Child Care Liability (for those providing child care in their home) Earthquake (for damage to buildings and personal property caused by an earthquake) Firearms (for broadened coverage and higher limits) Cyber Event, Identity Restoration, and Fraud Loss Incidental Business Liability (for those with an incidental office, studio, or school in the home} Jewelry and Furs (for broadened coverage and higher limits) Loss Assessment (for neighborhoods with Homeowners Associations} Personal Injury (for your liability to others caused by certain acts of libel, stander, invasion of privacy, or false arrest) Silverware/Goldware (for broadened coverage and higher limits) 91882228 03-31-2617 Nurses’ Professional Liability (for thase in the nursing profession) **Continued on Reverse Side** Prepared NOV09 2022 007727_ 420 Agent Telephone NANCY HOLCOMB INS AGCY INC (580) 536-5050 =I NGA,GB,R3,EH SFF&CCWest_000042 EXHIBIT"}, {"d": 21, "p": 62, "t": "Adult Day Care Liability (for those providing adult day care in their home) Energy Efficiency Upgrade (for reptacing damaged heating unit, air conditioning unit, or water heater with equipment that is more energy efficient) Home Rental (for those who rent out their home for more than 30 nights yearly) Home Systems Protection (for covering the breakdown of permanently installed equipment) Service Line (for the cost of repairing damaged underground utility lines) Increased Personal Property (for higher limits above the standard policy limit, which is a percentage OTPIZZIa 03-34-2017 of your Coverage A-Dwelling amount} This notice contains only a general description of the coverages and is not a contract. All coverages are subject to the provisions in the policy itself. Should you have a need for any of these coverages or high er limits, contact your State Farm Agent to discuss details, cast and eligibility. IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT DAMAGE CAUSED BY FLOODING This policy does not cover damage fo your property caused by flooding. You may be eligible for such coverage through the National Flood Insurance Program (\"NFIP\"), if you live ina participating community. For more information, contact your State Farm® agent or visit oodsmart.gov. SFF&CC/West_000043"}, {"d": 21, "p": 63, "t": "State Farm Fire and Casualty Company A Stock Company With Home Offices in Bloomington, liinols PO Box 2356 Bloomington IL 61702-2356 & StateFarn’ H-26-2175-FAF3 F HW 340 WEST, NEIL § & LACY M 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR sy: LAWTON OK RENEWAL DECLARATIONS 73505-9537 AMOUNT DUE: None Payment is due by 10 BE PAID BY MORTGAGEE ST0206-0506 Policy Number: Policy Period: 36-CR-X405-8 12 Months Effective Dates: DEC 29 2022 to DEC 29 2023 The policy period begins and ends at 12:01 am standard time at the residence premises. Your State Farm Agent NANCY HOLCOMB INS AGCY INC 20 NW 67TH ST STEB LAWTON OK 73505-5632 Homeowners Policy Location of Residence Premises 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR LAWTON OK 73505-9537 Phone: (580) 536-5050 Construction: Masonry Veneer Year Built: 4997 Roof Material: Composition Shingle Roof installation Year: 2019 Automatic Renewal if the POLICY PERIOD is shawn as 12 MONTHS, this policy will be renewed automatically subject to the premiums, rules, and forms in effect for each succeeding policy period. {f this policy is terminated, we will give you and the Mortgagee/Lienholder written notice in compliance with the policy provisions or as required by law. IMPORTANT MESSAGES NOTICE: Information concerning changes in your policy tanguage is included. Please call your agent with any questions. Coverage A has increased $17,000.00 over last year. Please help us update the data used to determine your premium. Contact your agent with the year each of your home's utilities (heating/cooling, plumbing, or electrical} and roof were last updated. PREMIUM Annual Premium Your premium has already been adjusted by the following: Home/Auto Discount Home Alert Discount Claim Record Discount Layal Customer $2,722.00 Total Premium Prepared NOV 0¢2022 HO-2000 007726 420 | N GA,GB,RS.EH $2,722.00 [hake for letting os serve ya. Page lof 4 fOlFIGS0B} 04-04-2016 SFF&CC/West_000044"}, {"d": 21, "p": 64, "t": "& StateFarm’ NAMED INSURED MORTGAGEE AND ADDITIONAL INTERESTS WEST, NEIL S & LACY M ; ise lorrace LLC SECTION | - PROPERTY COVERAGES AND LIMITS Caverage A Dwelling Other Structures B Personal Properly C Loss of Use OP etl Additional Coverages Arson Reward Credit Card, Bank Fund Transfer Card, Forgery, and Counterfeit Money Debris Removal Fire Department Service Charge Fue! Off Release Locks and Remote Devices Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping apnuro 29502-2070 Limit of Liability $ $ $ $ 309,000 30,900 231,750 92,700 $1,000 $1,000 Additional 5% avaitable/$1 ,000 tree debris $500 per occurrence $10,000 $1,000 5% of Coverage A amount/$750 per item SECTION Ml - LABILITY COVERAGES AND LIMITS Coverage Limit of Liability L Personal Liability (Each Occurrence) Damage to the Property of Others M Medical Payments to Others (Each Person) 3 $ $ NOV 09 2022 t BOX 100,000 4,000 1,000 INFLATION Inflation Coverage Index: 308.7 DEDUCTIBLES Section | Deductible All Losses 1% Deductible Amount $ 3,090 LOSS SETTLEMENT PROVISIONS A1 Replacement Cost - Similar Construction B1 Limited Replacement Cost - Coverage B k0-2000 Page 2of 4 SFF&CC/West_000045"}, {"d": 21, "p": 65, "t": "S& StateFarm’ 36-CR-X405-8 FORMS, OPTIONS, AND ENDORSEMENTS HW-2136 Option ID Option OL Option JF Homeowners Policy Increase Dwig up to $61,800 Ordinance/Law 10%/ $30,900 Jewelry and Furs $1,500 Each Article/$2,500 Aggregate *Amendatory Endorsement *New Form Aitached ST 0356-0000 HO-2310.1 ADDITIONAL MESSAGES for State Farm® works hard to offer you the best combination of price, service, and protection. The amount you pay the homeowners insurance is determined by many factors such as the coverages you have, the type of construction, reports. consumers from information and likelihood of future claims, Other limits and exclusions may apply - refer to your policy Your policy consists of these Declarations, the Homeowners Policy shown above, and any other forms and endorsements that apply, including those shown above as well as those issued subsequent to the issuance of this policy. This policy is issued by the State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. Participating Policy You are entitled to participate in a distribution of the earnings of the company as determined by our Board of Directors accordance with the Company's Articles of Incorporation, as amended. in Witness Whereof, the State Farm Fire and Casualty Company has caused this policy to be signed by its President Secretary at Bloomington, lilinois. gro. OlFtaeaA. Secreta in and bye LS k Mic President Page Sof 4 Preparad NOV092022 80-2000 907728 420 SFF&CC/West_000046"}, {"d": 21, "p": 66, "t": "& StateFarm’ Your coverage amount... itis up to you to choose the coverages and limits that meet your needs. We recommend that you purchase a coverage limit at least equal to the estimated replacement cost of your home. Replacement cost estimates are available from building contractors and replacement cost appraisers, or, your agent can provide an Xactware estimate using Information you provide about your home. We can accept the type of estimate you choose as long as It provides a reasonable level of detail about your home. State Farm® does not guarantee that any estimate will be the actual future cost to rebuild your home. Higher limits are available at higher premiums. Lower limits are also available, which If selected may make certaln coverages unavailable to you. We encouraga you to periodically review your coverages OF tORtA NOV 09 2022 and {imits with your agent and to notify us of any changes or additions to your home. HO-2000 Page 4of 4 SFF&CC/West_000047"}, {"d": 21, "p": 67, "t": "36-CR-X405-8 007730 HO-2310.1 Page 1 of3 HOMEOWNERS AMENDATORY ENDORSEMENT (Oklahoma) This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: HOMEOWNERS POLICY DEFINITIONS Under the definition of “business”, item d, is replaced by the following: Business does not include: d. the ownership, maintenance, or use of systems and equipment used to generate electrical power, if (1) the power generated is intended primarily for consumption on the residence prentises; and (2) any resulting income is incidental, including but not limited to: (a) utility bill credits;or (b) incidental income; derived from sending excess power back to the electricity grid; or ‘The definition of “occurrence” is replaced by the following: “eecurrence”, when used in Section Il of this policy, means an accident, including accidental exposure to conditions, which first results in: a. bodily injury; or b. property damage; during the policy period. All bodily injury and property damage resulting from one accident, series of related accidents, or from continuous or repeated exposure to the same general conditions is considered fo he one occurrence. SECTION | ~ PROPERTY COVERAGES COVERAGE A ~ DWELLING item 3.c. is replaced by the following: c. systems and equipment used to generate electrical power, unless: (1) the power generated is intended primarily for consumption on the residence premises; and (2) any resulting income is incidental, including but not limited to: (a) utility bill credits; or {b) incidental income; derived from sending excess power back to the electricity grid. SECTION | - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES The following is added to Volcanic Action: When applicable, the following coverages apply to a loss covered by Voleanic Action: a. b. COVERAGE C ~LOSS OF USE; SECTION |-ADDITIONAL COVERAGES; and . Option OL ~ Building Ordinance or Law, only if this option is shown in the Declarations, The following is added to Collapse: When applicable, the following coverages apply to a loss covered by Collapse: a. b. COVERAGE C-LOSS OF USE; SECTION !~-ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, and c. Option OL - Building Ordinance or Law, only if this option is shown in the Declarations. The following is added to Fuel Oil Release: When applicable, the following coverages apply fo a loss covered by Fuel Oil Release: a. b. c. COVERAGE C~LOSS OF USE, SECTION |-ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, and Option OL ~ Building Ordinance or Law, only if this option is shown in the Declarations. Any payments made for these coverages are included in, and not in addition to, the $10,000 limit of insurance for Fuel Oif Release, SECTION | - CONDITIONS Under Mortgagee Clause, paragraph 10.c. is replaced by the following: c. If wecancel this policy, the morlgagee will be notified at least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect. SECTION Il - LIABILITY COVERAGES SECTION I -ADDITIONAL COVERAGES The following is added to Damage to Property of Others: d. Under SECTION If- EXCLUSIONS, exclusion 2.c. does not apply to the coverage provided by Damage to Property of Others. SECTION Il ~ EXCLUSIONS Under SECTION {I - EXCLUSIONS, 1 p. is replaced by the following: 4. Coverage L and Coverage M do not apply to: p. bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of systems and equipment used to generate electrical power, unless: ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2021 SFF&CCWest_000048"}, {"d": 21, "p": 68, "t": "HO-2310.1 Page 2 of 3 (1) the power generated is intended primarily for consumption on the residence premises; and (2) any resulting income is incidental, including but not limited to: fa} utility bill credits; or (b) incidental income; derived from sending excess power back to the electricity grid. Under SECTION Il ~ EXCLUSIONS, 2.a. and 2.¢. are replaced by the following: 2. Coverage L does not apply to: a. liability. (1) for your share of any loss assessment charged against all members of any type of association of property owners; or (2} imposed on or assumed by any insured through any unwritten or written contract or agreement. This exclusion does not apply to: (a) liability for damages that the insured would have in absence of the contract or agreement, or G (o) written contracts: (i) that directly relate to the ownership, maintenance, or use of any insured location; or (ii) when the liabiity of others is assumed by you prior to the occurrence, unless excluded elsewhere in the policy, property damage to property rented to, used or occupied by, or in the care, custody, or control of any insured at the time of the occurrence. This exclusion does not apply to property damage caused by: (1) fire; (2) smoke; (3) explosion; (4) abrupt and accidental damage from water; or (5) household pets, up to $500 in excess of your security deposit; SECTION EAND SECTION ft- CONDITIONS Under Cancellation, 5.b. is replaced by the following: b. We may cancel this policy by providing nolice fo a named insured shown on the Declarations. The notice will provide the date cancellation is effective. (1) When you have not paid the premium, we may cancel at any time by providing notice at least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect. This condition appties whether the premium is payable to us of our agent or under any finance or credit plan. When this policy has been in effect for less than (2) 45 business days and is not a renewal with us, we may cancel for any reason, We may cancel by-providing notice at least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect. When this policy has been in effect for 45 business days or more, or at any fime if it is a renewal wilh us, we may cancel for the following reasons: (a) discovery of fraud or material misrepresenfation in the procurement of the insurance or with respect to any claims submitted thereunder; (b) discovery of willful or reckless acts or omissions on the part of the named insured which increase any hazard insured against, {c} a change in the risk which substantially increases any hazard insured against after insurance coverage has been issued or renewed; (d) violation of any local fire, health, safely, building, or construction regulation or ordinance with respect to any insured property or the occupancy thereof which substantially increases any hazard insured against, {e) a determination by the Insurance Commissioner that the continuation of the policy would place the insurer in violation of the insurance laws of this state; or () conviction of the named insured of a crime having as one of its necessary elements an act increasing any hazard insured against We may cancel this policy by providing notice at least 30 days before the date cancellation takes effec (4) When this policy is written for a period longer than one year, we may cancel for any reason at anniversary, We may cancel by providing notice at least 30 days before the date cancellation takes effect. Nonrenewal is replaced by the following: ©, Copyright, State Ferm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2021 SFF&CCMWest_000049"}, {"d": 21, "p": 69, "t": "36-CR-X405-8 607734 HO-2310.1 Page 3 of3 Nonrenewal. If we decide not fo renew this policy, then, at least 30 days before the end of the current policy period, we wil provide a nonrenewal notice fo a named insured shown on the Declarations. Joint and Individual interests is replaced by the following: Joint and individual Interests. If you consists of more than one person or entity, then each acts for all to change or cancel this policy. 9505-0000 St Electronic Delivery is deleted. OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS Option ID is replaced by the following: Option ID - Increased Dwelling Limit. We will settle losses to damaged building structures covered under COVERAGE A~ DWELLING according to the Loss Settlement Provision shown in the Declarations. 4. ifthe amount you actually and necessarily spend to repair or replace the damaged dwelling exceeds the limit of liability shown in the Declarations for Coverage A~ Dwelling, we will pay the additional amounts not to exceed the Option 1D limit shown in the Declarations. 2. Ifthe amount you actually and necessarily spend to repair or replace damaged building structires covered under COVERAGE A ~ DWELLING, Other Structures exceeds the limit of liability shown in the Declarations for Other Structures, we will pay the additional amounts not to exceed 10% of the Option ID limit shown in the Declarations. Report Increased Vafues, You must notify us within 90 days of the start of construction on any new building structure costing $5,000 or more; or any additions to or remodeling of building structures that increase their values by $5,000 or more. You must pay any additional premium due for the increased value. We will not pay more than the applicable fimit of liability shown in the Declarations if you fail to notify us of the increased value within 90 days. All other policy provisions apply. HO-2310.4 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Company, 2021 SFF&CC/West_000050"}, {"d": 21, "p": 71, "t": "36-CR-X405-8 007732 $53-2634.1 PREMIUM DISCOUNT AVAILABLE FOR USE OF IMPACT-RESISTIVE ROOFING PRODUCTS BS State Farm® offers a premium discount for homes that have qualified impact-resistive roofing materials, Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and Factory Mutual (EM) are nationally recognized testing laboratories that develop safety standards and test products to verify they meet specific performance standards, Both UL and FM have developed testing ST 9606-0000 standards that measure the impact resistance of various roofing materials. The roofing producis tested by UL and FM are rated from Class 1 to Class 4, with Class 4 providing the greatest roofing protection. State Farm offers a premium discount when qualified UL certified or EM approved Class 3 or Class 4 roofing materials have been installed on your home. The discount applies to both new and replacement roofs installed since May 1996 with UL certified products, and since July 2005 with FM approved products. Discounts are not available for wood roofs, or roofs (other than qualifying metal roofs) that have been overlaid on to existing roofing. Discounts are also subject to limitations and may not be available on all UL or FM Class 3 and 4 impact-resistant roofing products. Manufacturers continue to bring UL certified and FM approved roofing products to the consumer marketplace. You can visit our web site at http://www.statefarm.com/insurance/other/roofinto.asp for a list of qualifying products in your state. If you have any questions about the discounts available for installing an impact-resistive roof or to see if your roof qualifies, please contact your State Farm agent. This discount program does not constitute an endorsement or any warranty of performance on the part of State Farm for any particular roofing product, Please research and determine what roofing material is best suited for your home, location and environmental conditions. 553-2634.1 (C) (12/09) 553-4157 NOTICE TO POLICYHOLDER For a comprehensive description of coverages and forms, please refer to your palicy. Policy changes that you requested before the “Date Prepared” on your Renewal Declarations are effective on the renewal date of this policy unless indicated otherwise by a separate endorsement, binder or Amended Declarations Page. Any coverage forms or endorsements included with your Renewal Declarations are effective on the renewal date of this policy. Policy changes that you requested after the “Date Prepared\" on your Renewal Declarations wilt be sent to you as an Amended Declarations Page or as an endorsement to your policy. You will be billed for any resulting premium increase later. If you have acquired any valuable property items, made any improvements to your home, or have questions about your insurance coverage, please contact your State Farm® agent. 553-4157 (C) (CONTINUED) SFF&CCMWest_000052"}, {"d": 21, "p": 72, "t": "553-4156 PREMIUM ADJUSTMENT Insurance premiums have been adjusted and continue to reflect the expected cost of claims. Some policyholders will see their premiums increase while other policyholders may see their premiums decrease or stay the same. The amount your premium changed, if at all, depends on several factors including the expected claim experience in your area, the coverage you have, and any applicable discounts or charges. The enciosed Renewal Declarations reflects your new premium. State Farm® works hard to offer you the best combination of cost, protection, and service. We will continue doing our best fo make the most effective use of your premium dollars and give you superior service when you need it. if you have any questions about your premium, or policy coverages, please contact your State Farm agent. 553-4156 §53.2798.1 | IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT YOUR POLICY With our Claim Record Rating Plan, your savings wil! typically increase the fewer claims you have and the fonger you're insured with Slate Farm®, We adjust premiums based on the number of claims under the rating plan, Depending on your state, claims under the plan generally include those resulting in a paid loss and may include weather-related claims where permitted, In addition, any claims with your prior insurer resulting in property damage or injury may also influence your premium. Our Loyal Customer Discount provides a premium discount based on the number of years that you have been with us. For more information about whether the Claim Record Rating Plan applies in your state, the claims we consider for the plan, or whether the Loyal Customer Discount is in effect in your state, please contact your State Farm agent. 553-2798,3 SFF&CC/West_000053"}, {"d": 21, "p": 74, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Lacy West 03/20/2026 NEIL IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA and LACY COUNTY WEST, Plaintiffs, Case Number CJ-2025-135 Vs. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. VIDEO DEPOSITION OF Taken on behalf on the 20th in REPORTED BY: of day Lawton, * LACY * MICHELLE the of WEST Defendants March, 2026 Oklahoma * TAMARA * WAGGONER, CSR Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) EXHIBIT"}, {"d": 21, "p": 75, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 31 Lacy West 03/20/2026 was about that for certain. Ms. new property? A No. Q So would it not made any direct insurance on 11 A That's 12 Q And you true talked with anyone 14 policy that 15 A No. 16 Q So representations to you about that in policy; is that A That is true. 20 Q Are you aware not 22 23 Briarcreek? agency has made the nature of that this lawsuit you have agency? but the Holcomb SANDERS: Object to the form. You THE WITNESS: Yes. (By Ms. you know why you've only State MR. Farm answer. 24 25 on the about office true? 19 sued office? Holcomb's Ms. 18 her house at any in her one 17 21 in current your covers no the anyone for that Have of correct. is 13 nature house? current your 10 the about you to representations or you to statements your Holcomb Ms. that say to fair be for insurance acquiring about Holcomb with conversation any have you did -- you Have Q has say can't I -- can't I but accident, the Q Rother) Do Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) can"}, {"d": 21, "p": 76, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 32 Lacy West 03/20/2026 agency? ND Holcomb A Yes. W the Q And why is that? mem sued A We believe that understanding was we were to represented its purchase. Our had at the had at the new house that house. We had no reason to old was we than what we had claims, only one as I can claim and any different had prior before. we though even 11 And 12 a married 13 attest to, it was 14 think that was in 15 fantastically, 16 she was very 17 we, had no 18 changed 19 new 20 to coverage that that believe of time fully same we the not the that at was receive policy us have had 10 current the was That 2019. We felt So, you know had complaints. had no thorough and supportive. believe that anything until when we to that time I handled we like that one damage storm another reason from only there's so couple, purchased the policy. events have shown us differently she did not -- she did true nature of the policy to us to us. We didn't -- we did not have that it would be anything than what had prior. And subsequent we feel 21 and 22 represent 23 it 24 knowledge 25 thought was the sold we that like Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) not when we the"}, {"d": 21, "p": 77, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 33 Lacy West 03/20/2026 in we feel that she and it wasn't disclosed she's probably -- yes, she's her but as we are us, and we don't or justly. make sure what 10 based on any il Ms. your Q And 14 not trying 15 this if it's 16 the same coverage 17 house, because 18 damage under 19 didn't pay 20 21 Q 23 25 wrong. at we she's also representing did that several times. described to ever is had with you don't think your new house as not I'm -- that That to Just correct so mouth, fairly me is allegation in your Farm State of she that like feel you got old the you made a claim for storm policy for the new house State Farm the form. You can whereas they had paid when the and it? MR. SANDERS: Object THE WITNESS: Yes. to answer. 22 24 words put to us, you've instead 13 knowledge just true? Correct. that we that A have representative said you've 12 did like feel is State to conversation Holcomb; with customers, you've And Q a Farm, dealings recent most our But it in A (By Ms. 2019; Rother) And correct? Correct. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 21, "p": 78, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Lacy West 03/20/2026 Page 34 Q And you the said you didn't realize there were policy from 2019 to Can you to policy? changes to identify any changes MR. SANDERS: Object THE WITNESS: Not the to 2023. the form. You can can see -- on The evidence to answer. that I the documentation provided to me personally mostly in regard on on the current Rother) And that is that position that the with State is Farm (By 10 Q 11 State 12 that you all claim 13 it's not hail damage; correct? 14 MR. SANDERS: Object 15 THE WITNESS: odd that they gutters, to the fence, house, but Farm 16 it very 17 the 18 metals 19 hail of Ms. -- has the taken the is hail us. on to damage, to our dealings claim. State damage Farm the form. Correct. But they will to some damage, screens, soft admit to the miraculously -- to the roof. 20 That its own to me raises 21 particularly we had had, I don't know, 22 several, a know of two for what 23 consider experts out and 24 definitely 25 maintain after few, I have that we a lot of sure, to come roof damage. They are do not hail damage have say, I there's damage on says found to no questions, I yes, you -- they on Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) our would still"}, {"d": 21, "p": 79, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 41 Lacy West 03/20/2026 would have been provided? know we I Q yes. A -- Q Uh-huh. A I Q Have 10 A No. il Q And 12 about you think 13 responsibility here, 14 policy was 15 between 2019 and 16 compare the policies? for particular years. we recall if you read your you indicated don't pages declarations the produced A produced anything else. why Ms. 17 A No. 18 Q Did 19 coverages you when you were Holcomb has some you thought that or different 2023. talking that the different the coverage was Did you do anything Ms. call policy? insurance to her Holcomb and ask can answer. if the different? were 20 MR. SANDERS: Form. You 21 THE WITNESS: I did not. Rother) So any questions the claim in 2019 and not in have been Mr. West 22 Q (By Ms. 23 why State Farm paid 24 2023, if they occurred 25 and not it would you? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) about"}, {"d": 21, "p": 80, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 62 Lacy West 03/20/2026 (By Ms. concerns or complaints it SANDERS: Form. THE WITNESS: No. have the amount of on your I don't any house? even know what to set up understanding was he tried that we had had Do you remember how Is it from of policy Q (By Ms. Rother) paid for the house type same don't available MR. My is. about coverage cost replacement you And Rother) Q in the previous the house. on Briarcrest? on a street over doing that. So Briarcreek. when you 10 you 11 Briarcrest or 12 A Creek. 13 Q Okay. Sorry. 14 A That's okay. 15 Q I used to 16 Briarcrest and I keep 17 A So what was the 18 Q How much you paid 20 A 260,000. 21 Q Okay. 22 front 23 A Yes. 24 Q -- 19 25 much Creek? live question? for it bought it? back of you where put And will you is the policy. Exhibit 1 back in -- which the dec pages are. So And turn to the it's Page 44 and Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 21, "p": 81, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 63 Lacy West 03/20/2026 under on 45 the Coverage, coverages is 309,000. Do you that the contract A Yes. Q And I believe your house 50,000; right? to A that you that State Farm hasn't SANDERS: 10 Q (By Ms. li enough coverage 12 which paid, is you have about So at place to cover the damage State Farm owes you; true? in MR. SANDERS: Form. 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. (By Ms. Q time 17 weren't 18 amount 19 Briarcreek; 20 A Correct. 21 Q And you for coverage in involved coverage of process the process that would save to be clear, you of selecting the on the house on to questions, 16 for just again, And, Rother) eliminate and least Rother) believe you Form. 13 22 exists claim all damage estimates Yes. MR. 15 that? see the for seen we've A Dwelling, see you Do 45. be true? 23 A Correct. 24 QO Tell 25 property me weren't involved the in application the house; correct? about the decision to to decide evaluated on whether have you your needed Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) to"}, {"d": 21, "p": 82, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 98 Lacy West 03/20/2026 Ms. (By Q questions I ask at Mr. West about, you claim you've by State Farm or But I want to of a West -- I'm with, are start she injury? 11 MR. SANDERS: Form. 12 THE WITNESS: We 13 sorry, Ms. Holcomb. you claiming of any In Farm? State that feel that are Holcomb you any they're the caused separately financial 10 conduct by caused was damage any Ms. by caused were has words, other result as what than different the I what -- was the and deposition suffered Ms. that damages the these that with talked Ms. of one West, Rother) kind same. (By Ms. Rother) discovery for Q 14 written 16 what you 17 how you've been damaged, 18 answer and then a 19 which I think is go to Page -- page of the Exhibit So 20 State think Farm did that was bad and we got a faith, interrogatory 34. well, first of all, look And is that your 34. 22 signature 23 A Yes. 24 Q Those actually look a lot like the 25 writing. Did somebody sign it for both of Mr. answer, interrogatory last with of explanation 21 along in an supplemental Exhibit ask or a summary 15 we then And Okay. West's at signature? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) same you? the"}, {"d": 21, "p": 83, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 100 Lacy West 03/20/2026 over to extensive and detailed 10 hail State Farm's former by A Yes. Q Okay. probably 9, there are about a purported by State Farm, of hail definitions internal testimony are allegations initiative focus wind, You factual information 6 Pages in to support what is the State Farm specific damage, you have which is do 10, through right? that; saw employees. What -- there Page through -- on going 6, Page at looking So Q information? answer. can You li MR. SANDERS: Form. 12 THE WITNESS: The that it does -- given Farm and our current hand in hand with what now. And, yeah, that's really your claim 13 have is 14 with State 15 seems to 16 experiencing 17 all I go can attest Q 18 right only I factual knowledge prior experience our this experience, we're to. was (By Ms. Rother) So because not -- your claim for total your claim for a total 19 paid in 2019 but was 20 roof was paid in 2019, ai roof replacement 22 consistent 23 or 24 25 in but 2023 was not paid, that's with the change in in your view philosophy that is the document; is that what you're A Yes. scheme described saying? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) approach in this"}, {"d": 21, "p": 85, "t": "& StateFarm’ Certified Policy Record |, the undersigned, do hereby confirm that | am custodian of the records pertaining to the issuance of policies by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. | certify that the attached documents represent a true and accurate record of the terms and conditions of Policy Number 36-CR-X405-8 including any endorsements, if applicable, for the policy term(s) 42/29/2022 to 12/29/2023 and insuring WEST, NEIL S & LACY M based on available records, The policy was in effect on the loss date of 06/15/2023. a Mitchell DaughertyZ Underwriting Team Manager Date: 03/17/2025 Page 1 of 1 >> 1014493 EXHIBIT a 2000 187822 200 02-09-2022 SFF&CC/West_000001"}, {"d": 21, "p": 86, "t": "S& StateFarm’ This policy is one of the broadest forms available today, and provides you with outstanding value for your insurance dollars. However, we want to point out that every policy contains limitations and exclusions. Please read your policy carefully, especially “Losses Not Insured” and all exclusions. State Farm® Homeowners Policy Oklahoma HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000002"}, {"d": 21, "p": 87, "t": "HOMEOWNERS POLICY TABLE OF CONTENTS { . AGREEMENT... .......scsssssssssssssssvsnersetessensensstseestesvesssascesser 1 DEFINITIONS DEDUCTIBLE .0.......cccssssssssssesnsssonsnssnssnesccesestisessersensenssess 5 ll ee INFLATION COVERAGE SECTION 1- LOSSES INSURED oc esessscsssscsensen 12 COVERAGE A = DWELLING... scssssssseesssersserenes 12 SECTION | - PROPERTY COVERAGES ..........scssses 5 COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY............ 12 COVERAGE A— DWELLING .ccccssccccccscesccccccsccssesserses 5 SECTIONi-LOSSES NOT INSURED......... cece 14 DWelliNg....ccssssccecsssesernenssessssesessseastannasanssssenen 5 SECTION 1- LOSS SETTLEMENT o............cssssssssssenees 18 Other Structures ....ccscsccccsscsrssnsessssateassseecsennes 5 COVERAGE A— DWELLING ..ccccccscssesssssccscssseseseees 18 Property Not Covered....cassssssnsecsssusseensesee 5 A‘ - Replacement Cost Loss Settlement ~ COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY.............. 5 5 Property Covered u.......sssssssessesssssseeene 48 ....eccsssseen Similar Construction A2 ~ Replacement Cost Loss Settlement - Property Not Covered ...ssscscssssseuseuseesesssineest 6 COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY........... 19 Special Limits of Liability ....scsssscmeameeneeee 6 C ~ LOSS OF USE.....cssssssusnnn 8 COVERAGE oe 18 Common Construction. Bi ~ Limited ReplacementsoneCost Loss 19 Settlement. Addittonal Living EXPENSE wnrrnrnrammnrann 8 Fair Rental Value@......sscssssssssscsssaessesenseseeseeses 8 B2 ~ Depreciated Loss Settlement... 19 Prohibited US@.......cssssssssesssssssssscasssscssscrsstennents 8 SECTION I~ CONDITIONS. on eranenranrrnan 20 voocceccccecssesd insurable Interest and Limit of Liability senessetecase 20 8 Your Duties After LOSS ....sccccccsseessassssnssessssey 20 SECTION |- ADDITIONAL COVERAGES Debris Removal Temporary Repaits.....ssssssssccssssseessenesanis 9 Loss to a Pair or Set...... 20 Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping .....cccen 9 Appralsal......cccsssseas 24 Fire Department Service Charge... snes 9 Other INSUTANCE.....sscsssssssssssessssssassecssssceriessson 22 Property REMOVE w.cscssceseeesseuseeseseessusseeseean 9 Credit Card, Bank Fund Transfer Card, Forgery, and Counterfeit MOney........ccsccssscses 9 Power Interruption .....sccssesssssssesssssonseeseesenseess 10 Suit AgG@INSE US... csscsssecescseseereessseeeetsetsssesteseees 22 22 rssrcscsssssnnssersee OUr Option... Loss PAYMeMt.werecetsnieenstntstusisistnaeee 99 Abandonment of Property ..vctcsnstissssosen 29 Refrigerated Products ...scssssssssssossesssssssrseenesse 10 Mortgages ClaUS€ ..ninisiiessnnnnnssee 9? ecsnesnnatennennrnnnreninen 10 No Benefit t0 Bailee...scccsanssesssesessnneessctense 23 Collapse a ecercrrrernnsetsssstnneenrntensesnnin 10 Assignment of Claltossssccsssasesssenceereeeeer 23 Locks and Remote Devices... 41 SECTION II- LIABILITY COVERAGES .....cneeeea 23 APSOM REWAT Volcanic Action see 10 3 Recovered Property... Fue! Oil Release ....srrnnnnsnnnnnnee 11 COVERAGE L~ PERSONAL LIABILITY... 23 Tear Out ssssssesseseeesssssnsseenseressernnssssnseceeceteses 11 COVERAGE M - MEDICAL PAYMENTS TO Home Certification .......cccccsssssssscsserseesnsnes 11 OTHERS ...seeesccsssssrsorssvcsecssonserecenssnssecasssssecscersseeasees 23 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000003"}, {"d": 21, "p": 88, "t": "SECTION lt - EXCLUSIONS... cs sssessserussesees 24 Subrogation and Reimbursement... 30 Death “ wud Conformity to State LAW... cccssecseseresesersesrnes 3 PHM UI ...csssessssossvacessssssssussesssssonsnusnssseeusessseter 34 Right to Inspect... esssssssssscsorsensssssssessecenssene 32 SECTION If~ CONDITIONS wees 28 Joint and Individual Interests... 32 Limit Of Liability... escessssssssssssssssrsseeeeeeeeee 28 Severability of INSUFANCE os ssssssesessssessenssee 28 Duties Affer LOSS ......cssessscssssssessssssenerecsssovseneecs 28 Coverage M Requirement cscs 29 Payment of Claim ~ Coverage M or Damage to Property Of Others oo... ccsscsosseeesssssseseesees 29 Suit Against Us... c secs ec s e rs es es rsa en e 29 Bankruptcy of an Insured 0... ccescosecssseseassennnee 29 Other Insurance ~ Coverage bo....scesssssesses 29 Change of Policy Address ..c..sssrsecsessersenrsses 32 SECTION Il - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES............. 23 Claim Expense .......0:ssse0 reed First Aid Expenses 24 Damage to Property of Others .....sscessesseseesees 24 SECTION | AND SECTION Il - CONDITIONG............. 29 Policy Period 29 Concealment of Fraud...... secre: 29 Liberalization Clause 0. esccssscscssssssssersennsene 29 Waiver or Change of Policy Provisions............ 29 Cancellation ws) Nonrenewal........... 30 Assignment of Policy. secsssscsssssseecsseceseesseet 30 Electronic Delivery... sscsesssssessesessesssesieen 32 Our Rights Regarding Claim Information.......... 32 Duties Regarding Claim Information... 3 OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS cesses 33 Option Al — Additional Insured... cesses 33 Option BP - Business Property.............. seewnndd Option BU — Business Pursuits nw escresene 33 Option FA ~ Firearms 34 Option ID - increased Dwelling Limit ............... 34 Option 10 — Incidental BUSINESS .......sssssssssesss 34 Option JF ~ Jewelry and FUPS......ssessecsssecscesen 35 Option OL - Building Ordinance or Law........... 36 Option SG — Silverware and Goldware TReP csecccssseessecssceesssnsececssversosaseseseseses sydd ©, Copynght, State Far Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000004"}, {"d": 21, "p": 89, "t": "HOMEOWNERS POLICY AGREEMENT 3. We agree to provide the insurance described in this policy: 4, based on your payment of premium, in a form acceptable to us, for the coverages you chase; 2, based on your compliance with all applicable provisions of this policy; and 3. based on the information you have given us and your statements in this agreement. 4, Uniess otherwise indicated in the application, you state that during the five years preceding the time of your application for this insurance you have not had any losses, insured or not. When you request changes to this policy, or the information or factors used to calculate the premium for this policy changes during the policy period, we may adjust the premium in accordance with the change during the policy period and you must pay any additional premium due within the time we specify. You agree, by acceptance of this policy, that: 1. you will pay premiums when due and comply with the provisions of this policy; 2. the statements in this agreement are your statements and are true; we insure you on the basis your statements are true; and this policy contains all of the agreements between you and us and any of our agents. DEFINITIONS We define the following words and phrases for use throughout this policy. These definitions apply to the singular, plural, and possessive forms of these words and phrases, Defined words and phrases are printed in bold italics, 1. 2. Bodily injury does not include: a. “actual cash value” means the value of the damaged part of the property at the time of loss, calculated as the estimated cost to repair or replace such property, less a deduction to account for pre-loss depreciation. For this calculation, all components of any of the following which are communicable: disease, bacteria, parasite, virus, or other organism, any of which are transmitted by any insured to any other person; b. _ the actual or alleged exposure to any such disease, bacteria, parasite, virus, or other organism by any insured to any other person; or this estimated cost including, but not limited to: a. _ materials, including any tax; b, _ labor, including any tax; and ¢. of the damaged part of the property. “bodily injury” means physical injury, sickness, or disease to a person. This includes required care, loss of services, and death resulting therefrom. c. overhead and profit; emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, mental distress, mental injury, or any similar injury unless it arises out of actual physical injury to some person. are subject to depreciation. 3. The depreciation deduction may include such considerations as: a. b. age; condition; c. reduction in useful life; d. e. obsolescence; and any pre-loss damage including wear, tear, or deterioration; “building structure” means a structure fully enclosed with permanent walls and a roof. A permanent wall or roof does not include any kind of temporary materials including but not limited to tarps, plastic sheeting, or other similar material, A structure that is otherwise fully enclosed with permanent walls and a roof, that is undergoing repairs due to a recent Joss insured, using materials such as tarps, plastic sheeting, or other similar material, is still considered a building structure, 1 HW+2436 ©, Copyright, Slate Farm Mutual Automobile lnsurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000005"}, {"d": 21, "p": 90, "t": "the actual electrical power usage by the residence premises in the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss; or A building structure includes: a. the foundation supporting the structure, include. {1} slabs; ownership of the residence premises by the person of organization shown in the Declarations as Additional insured. )} basement walls; “Declarations” means the policy Declarations, any amended Declarations, the most recent renewal Declarations, an Evidence of Insurance form, or any endorsement changing any of these. 3) crawl space walls; } footings; and 5) gravel, stone, or sand, used as fill material and located not more than 12 inches directly below a slab described in item a.(1), including water supply lines, domestic water pipes, and sewer pipes located within this fill material; and b. “diminution in value” means any reduction in the value of any covered property prior to or following repair or replacement as compared to the value of that property immediately before the loss. “dwelling” means the building structure on the residence premises used as the primary private residence and includes structures attached to the dwelling. wall-to-wall carpeting attached to the structure. “business” means any full-time or part-time activity, trade, profession, employment, or occupation or a commercial, mercantile, or industrial undertaking “fungus” means any type or form of fungus, including mold, mildew, mycotoxins, spores, scents, or byproducts produced or released by fungi. of an economic nature. it does not matter whether it is continuous or regular, is a secondary or supplemental source of income, or is an insured's “insured” means: principal means of livelihood. Profit and profit motive are irrelevant. a. you; Business does not include: b. your relatives; and c. any other person under the age of 21 in the care of a person described above. a. b. c. d. volunteer activities for a not-for-profit or nonprofit organization or public agency for which no money is received other than payment of expenses; Under Section Ul, insured also means: incidental and infrequent personal economic activity such as a hobby, garage or yard sale, or traditional farm activities when the farm products are intended only for the personal use of the insured; any occasional or part-time self-employed activity by a person under 19 years of age that involves no employees or subcontracted independent contractors and is a type of activity normally performed by persons under 19 years of age, including but not limited to, child care, lawn mowing, or paper delivery; the ownership, maintenance, or use of systems and equipment used to generate electrical power up to but not exceeding 125 percent of 10. d. the person or organization legally responsible for animals or watercraft to which this policy applies. However, the animal or watercraft must be owned by you or a person included in 9.b. or 9.c, above. A person or organization using or having custody of these animals or watercraft in the course of a business, or without permission of the owner, is not an insured: and e. with respect to any vehicle to which this policy applies, any person while engaged in your employment or the employment of a person included in 9b. or 9.¢. above. “insured location” means: a, the residence premises; 2 HW-2936 ©, Copyright, Slate Farm Mutual Aulomobile Insurance Company, 2047 SFF&CC/West_000006"}, {"d": 21, "p": 91, "t": "the part of any other premises, other structures, and grounds used by you as a residence. This includes premises, structures, and grounds you acquire while this policy is in effect for a “recreational or utility vehicle” while off an insured focation, “Recreational or utility vehicle” means a motorized vehicle designed for recreation or utility purposes, used principally off your use as a residence; public roads, and that is owned or leased by an insured. This includes, but is not limited to, a motorized all-terrain vehicle, side-by-side vehi- any premises used by you in connection with the premises included in 10.a. or 10.b. above; cle, utility work vehicle, amphibious vehicle, dune buggy, go-cart, golf cart, snowmobile, any part of a premises not owned by an insured but where an insured is temporarily residing; trailbike, minibike, and personal assistive mo- bility device. “Leased” does not include temporary rental; land owned by or rented to an insured on which a one or two family dwelling is being constructed as a residence for an insured; a “locomotive” while off an insured location. “Locomotive” means a self-propelled vehicle for pulling or pushing freight or passenger cars on tracks that is large enough fo carry a person and is owned or leased by an insured. = ce individual or family cemetery plots or burial vaults owned by an insured, any part of a premises occasionally rented to an insured for purposes other than business, “Leased” does not include temporary rental; a bulldozer, track loader, backhoe, high-hoe, trencher, grader, crane, self-propelled scraper, excavator, pipe-layer, chery picker, telehandler, logging vehicle, mining vehicle, or road building vehicle that is owned or leased by an insured while off an insured focation. “Leased” does not include temporary rental; and vacant land owned by or rented to an insured. For the purposes of this definition, vacant land does not Include: (1) farm land; (2) land containing a residence; or {3} land containing fences, corrals, boat docks, tool sheds, barns, grain bins, and similar structures, unless they are used solely for the personal use of the insured; of any vehicle while being towed or pushed by or carried on a vehicle included in 12.a. through 12.e. above. The following are not motor vehicles: farm land (without buildings), rented or held for rental to others, but not fo exceed a total of 500 acres, regardless of the number of locations. 1. a. Yogs insured” means a loss as described under SECTION | ~ LOSSES INSURED, COVERAGE ADWELLING and SECTION |~ LOSSES INSURED, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY. a motorized land vehicle in storage on an insured location not intended to be operated for an extended period of time and rendered inoperable by placing the vehicle on blocks or removing parts essential for its operation, 12, “motor vehicle”, when used in Section li of this policy, means: a. aland motor vehicle designed for travel on public roads or subject to motor vehicle registration; b, a trailer or semi-trailer designed for travel on public roads and subject to motor vehicle registration, a boat, camper, home, or utility trailer not being towed or pushed by or cared on a vehicle included in 12.2. through 12.e. above; a motorized golf cart while used for golfing purposes; a motorized vehicle or trailer designed fo assist persons with disabilities that is not designed for travel on public roads or subject to motor vehicle registration; or 3 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000007"}, {"d": 21, "p": 92, "t": "e. a commercially manufactured b. two, three, or four wheeled personal conveyance powered only by or assisted by an unmodified motor or engine with a manufacturers power rating of no more than 1 horsepower and capable of a top speed of no more than 20 miles per hour. where you reside and which is shown in the Deciarations. 18. “State Farm Companies” means one or more of the following: a. 13. \"“eecurrence”, when used in Section II of this policy, means an accident, including accidental exposure to conditions, which first results in: a. bodily injury, or _ b. property damage; adoption; &. marriage; or d. civil union, domestic parinership, or other substantially similar legal relationship that is recognized and valid in the stale where, and at the Automobile Insurance ¢, subsidiaries or affiliates of either 18.a. or 18.b. above. 19. “vacant dwelling” means: a. adwelling: (1) that has not been occupied as a residence for more than 30 consecutive days immediately before the loss; and (2) where a predominant amount of personal property has been removed or is absent such that the dwelling is not functional as a habitual place of residence. A dwelling will be considered occupied only if it is being used as a habitual place of residence with your knowledge and approval. b. A dwelling that is under active construction will not be considered a vacant dwelling. A dwelling is under active construction when itis: (1) being built as a new structure; (2) being repaired due to damage otherwise time when, the legal relationship was estab- lished; covered by this policy; or and who resides primarily with you. (3) 46. “residence employee” means an employee of an insured, or an employee leased to an insured by a labor leasing firm under an agreement between an insured and the labor leasing fim, who performs duties, including household or domestic services, in connection with the maintenance or use of the residence premises. This includes employees who perform similar duties elsewhere for you. This does not include employees while performing duties in connection with the business of an insured. undergoing substantial improvements, renovations, remodeling, or modifications; and the construction results in substantial continuing activities by persons associated with the construction project at the premises during the relevant time periods. 20. “we”, “us”, and “our” mean the Company shown in the Declarations. 21. “you” and “your” mean the person or persons shown as “Named Insured” in the Declarations. Ifa “Named Insured” shown in the Declarations is a human being, then you and your include: 17. “residence premises” means. a. Mutual State Farm Fire and Casualty Company; and 15. “relative” means any person related fo you by: b. Farm b. 14. “property damage” means physical damage to or destruction of tangible property, including loss of use of this property. Theft or conversion of property by any insured is not property damage. blood; State Company; during the policy period. All bodily injury and property damage resulting from one accident, series of related accidents, or from continuous and repeated exposure to the same general conditions is considered to be one occurrence. a. that pari of any other building structure; the one, two, three, or four family dwelling, other structures and grounds; or a. aspouse of a “Named Insured”; 4 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Aulomobise insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000008"}, {"d": 21, "p": 93, "t": "b. aparty to a civil union with a “Named Insured”, c. adomestic partner of a “Named Insured”; or d. a person in a substantially similar legal relationship with a “Named Insured”; if such relationship is recognized and valid in the state where, and at the time when, the legal relationship was established, so long as the person in the above relationship resides primarily with that “Named Insured”. DEDUCTIBLE Declarations. Deductibles will be applied per occurIn case of loss under this policy, we will pay, subject to rence, Deductibles apply to specific losses as described specified policy limits, only that part of the amount of the in this policy. _ the in joss that exceeds the deductible amount shown SECTION | - PROPERTY COVERAGES 3. COVERAGE A - DWELLING 1. Property Not Covered. We do not cover: Dwelling. We cover the dwelling and materials and supplies located on or adjacent to the residence a. _ land, including the land necessary to support any Coverage A property. We also do not cover. premises for use in the construction, alteration, or (1) any costs required to replace, rebuild, stabilize, or otherwise restore the land; or repair of the dwelling or other structures on the residence premises. (2) the costs of repair techniques designed to compensate for or prevent land instability to any property, whether or not insured under Coverage A; Other Structures. We cover other structures on the residence premises, separated from the dwelling by clear space. Structures connected to the dwelling by only a fence, utility line, or similar connection are considered fo be other structures, b. ficial grass, except as provided in SECTION | ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping; or ¥ve do not cover other structures: a. not permanently attached to or otherwise forming a part of the realty; b. used either completely or in part for business purposes unless such use consists solely of office space for paperwork, computer work, or use of a telephone, and consists solely of activites that are: c, Property Covered. a. (2) performed solely by the insured, or rented or held for rental unless: (t) rented to a person who is a tenant of the dwelling; We cover personal property owned or used by an insured while it is anywhere in the world. This includes structures not permanently attached to or otherwise forming a part of the really. At your request, we will cover personal property: (1) owned by others while the property is on the part of the residence premises occupied exclusively by an insured, (2) rented for use solely as a private garage; of (3) systems and equipment used to generate electrical power exceeding 125 percent of the actual electrical power usage by the residence premises in the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss. COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY (1) duties of the insured’s employment by another; and ¢. trees, shrubs, live or artificial plants, lawns, or arli- rented either completely or in part, for exclusive use as a residence, for no more than 30 nights in the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss. (2) owned by a guest or a residence employee, while the property is in any other residence occupied by an insured; and § HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Fam Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000009"}, {"d": 21, "p": 94, "t": "(3) owned by roomers, boarders, tenants, and other residents, any of whom are related to you. and standard media or non-media equipment for use with the above devices; We cover personal property usually located at an insured’s residence, other than the residence premises, for up to $1,000 or 10% of the Coverage B limit, whichever is greater. This limitation does not apply to persona! prop- travelers checks, money orders, gift certificates, gift cards, rechargeable debit cards, phone cards, and other negotiable instruments, $1,500 on secunties, checks, cashiers checks, accounts, deeds, evidences of debt, letters of credit, notes other than bank notes, manuscripts, passports, and tickets; erty: (1) in a newly acquired principal residence for the first 30 days after you start moving the property there. If the residence premises is a newly acquired principal residence, persorial property in your immediate past plincipal residence is not subject to this limitation for the first 30 days after the inception of this policy; and $1,500 on watercraft of all types and outboard (2) of a student who is an insured while located at a residence away from the residence premises. $2,500 for loss by theft of firearms; motors, including their trailers, furmishings, and equipment, $1,500 on trailers not used with watercraft; $2,500 on stamps, trading cards, and comic books, including any of these that are a part of a collection; $2,500 for loss by theft of silverware and goldware; Special Limits of Liability. These limits do not increase the Coverage B limit. The special limit for each of the following categories is the total limit for each loss for all property in that category: $5,000 on any one article and $10,000 in the ag- $200 on money, coins, and medals, including any of these that are a part of a collection, $1,000 on commercially manufactured two, three, or four wheeled personal conveyances powered only by or assisted by an unmodified motor or engine with a manufacturer's power rating of no more than 1 horsepower and capable of a top speed of no more thar 20 miles per hour, This does not include such conveyances that are: a, gregate for loss by theft of any rug, carpet (except wall-to-wall carpet), tapestry, wall-hanging, or other similar article; bank notes, bullion, gold other than goldware, silver other than silverware, and platinum; $1,500 on property used or intended for use in a business, including merchandise held as samples or for sale or for delivery after sale, while on the residence premises. This coverage is limited to $750 on such property away from the residence premises. (1) designed for assisting disabilities; persons with Electronic data processing system equipment or the recording or storage media used with that equipment is not included under this coverage, and is addressed in item c. below, (2) not designed for travel on public roads; and (3) not subject to motor vehicle registration; and $10,000 on electronic data processing system garments and garments trimmed with fur, and precious and semi-precious stones. equipment used or intended for use in a business, including but not limited to computers, tablets, mobile personal communication equipment, global positioning systems, mobile personal electronic devices used for the reproduction of sound, $1,000 for loss by theft of jewelry, watches, fur 2. Property Not Covered. We do not cover: atticles separately described and specifically insured in this or any other insurance; 6 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000010"}, {"d": 21, "p": 95, "t": "(2) on the residence premises if it is rented, either completely or in part, for exclusive use as a residence, for no more than 30 nights in the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss; animals, birds, or fish; any engine-propelied or motor-propelled vehicle or machine, including parts, designed for movement on land, except as provided in Special Limits of Liability, item k. However, we do cover those vehicles or machines: property rented or held for rental to others away from the residence premises; (1) that are: (a) not designed roads; and any radio devices or transmitters, global positioning systems, radar or laser detectors, antennas, and all other similar equipment that is permanently installed in or permanently fasfened to an engine-propelled or motorpropelled vehicle or that is hard-wired directly to the vehicle's electrical system; for travel on public {b) not subject to motor vehicle registration; (2) and that are: (a) used primarily to service the insured books or records of accounts receivable, abstracts or other journals, architectural or tech- location; or (b} designed for assisting persons with disabilities; nical drawings, card index systems, or other records, This does not apply to any recording or storage media for electronic data processing. We will cover the cost of blank books, cards, or other blank material plus the cost of fabor you incur for transcribing or copying such records; any electronic equipment, devices, or accessories designed for the recording, reproduction, or storage of audio, video, photos, or other data that is permanently installed in or permanently fastened fo an engine-propelled or motorpropelied vehicle or hard-wired directly to the vehicle's electrical system. We also do not cover removable products that may be used with the equipment or devices described above, including but not limited to tapes, discs, videos, or memory cards while in an enginepropelled or motor-propelled vehicle; recording or storage media for electronic data processing that cannot be replaced with property of like kind and quality on the current retail market; purchased or created audio, video, photos, or other data that cannot be replaced with like kind and quality on the current retail market and that is transferred or downloaded onto mobile communication equipment, global positioning systems, or electronic devices designed for the recording, reproduction, or storage of audio, video, photos, or other data, aircraft and paris. This does not apply fo unmanned aircraft systems used as model aircraft and operated solely for recreational or hobby purposes; property of roomers, boarders, tenants, and other residents not related to you; . contraband, or any property used in the course of illegal consumption, possession, import, export, or trade; property regularly rented or held for rental fo others by an insured. This does not apply to outdoor hardscape property used for aesthetic purposes except as provided in SECTION | - property of an insured: ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping, or (1) in a sleeping room when the dwelling is rented in part, for use as a permanent residence, by either one or two fulltime roomers or boarders; or electronic currency, digital currency, virtual currency, crypto-currency, and other similar mediums of exchange. 7 HW.2436 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobite Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000011"}, {"d": 21, "p": 96, "t": "if the damage had occurred to property on the residence premises, COVERAGE C - LOSS OF USE The most we will pay for the sum of all losses combined under Additional Living Expense, Fair Rental Value, and Prohibited Use is the limit of liability shown in the Declarations for Coverage C - Loss of Use. 1. Additional Living Expense. When a /oss insured causes the residence premises to become uninhabitable, we will pay the reasonable and necessary increase in cost incurred by an insured to maintain their normal standard of living for up to 24 months. Our payment is limited to incurred costs for the shortest of: b. the residence premises is within one mile of property damaged by a cause of loss identified in 3.a. above; and c. the action of the civil authority is taken in response to: (1) dangerous physical conditions resulting from the continuation of the cause of loss identified in 3.a. above; (2} dangerous physical conditions resulting from the damage caused by the cause of loss identified in 3.a, above; or a. _ the time required to repair or replace the premises; b. the time requiredfor your household to settle elsewhere; or c. 24months. (3) the need to gain free access to property damaged by the cause of loss identified in 3.4, above. We will not pay for loss or expense due to cancellation of a lease or agreement. This period of time is not limited by the expiration of this policy. SECTION | ~- ADDITIONAL COVERAGES We will not pay more than the limit of liability shown in the Declarations for Coverage C ~ Loss of Use. Any normal expenses that are reduced or discontinued due to a Joss insured will be subtracted from The following Additional Coverages are subject to ail the terms, provisions, exclusions, and conditions of this policy. any amount owed. 2. 3. 1. Fair Rental Value. When a foss insured causes that part of the residence premises rented to others or held for rental by you to become uninhabitable, we will pay its fair rental value. Payment will be for the shortest time required to repair or replace the part of the premises rented or held for rental, but not to exceed 12 months. This period of time is not limited by the expiration of this policy. Fair rental value will not include any expense that does not continue while that part of the residence premises tented or held for rental is uninhabitable. Prohibited Use. We will pay Additional Living Expense and Fair Rental Value, for a continuous period not to exceed two weeks, beginning when a civil authority issues an order of evacuation or prohibits your use of the residence premises, provided that: a. direct physical damage occurs to any property, other than covered property located on the residence premises, arising from a cause of loss that would be a loss insured under this policy Debris Removal. We will pay the reasonable expenses you incur in the removal of debris of covered property damaged by a Joss insured. This expense is included in the limit applying to the damaged property. The following coverages and limits also apply: a. When the amount payable for the property damage plus the debris removal exceeds the limit for damaged property, an additional 5% of that limit is available for debris removal expense. This additional amount of insurance does not apply to SECTION | - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping. b. We will also pay up to $1,000 total for each loss to cover the reasonable expenses you incur in the removal of tree debris and stumps from the residence premises, unless otherwise excluded. This coverage applies when: (1) the tree has caused a loss insured to Coverage A property; or ) HW-2436 ©, Copydght, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000012"}, {"d": 21, "p": 97, "t": "for up to 30 days while removed. We will also pay for reasonable expenses incurred by you for the removal and return of the covered property. This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the property being removed. (2) the tree debris felled by windstorm, hail, or weight of snow or ice blocks: (a) the driveway, on the residence premises, and prevents land motor vehicle access to or from the dwelling: or Credit Card, Bank Fund Transfer Card, Forgery, (b) a ramp designed to assist persons with disabilities, on the residence premises, and prevents access to or from a building structure. 2. and Counterfeit Money. a. (1) the legal obligation of an insured to pay because of the theft or unauthorized use of credit cards and bank fund transfer cards issued to or registered in an insured’s name. {f an insured has not complied with all terms and conditions under which the cards are issued, we will nat pay for use by an insured or anyone else; Temporary Repairs. if damage is caused by a foss insured, we wil pay the reasonable and necessary cost you incur for temporary repairs to covered property to protect the property from further immediate damage of loss. This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the property being repaired. Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping. We will pay for accidental direct physical toss to outdoor: a. (2) loss to an insured caused by forgery or alteration of any check or negotiable instrument; and (3) loss to an insured through acceptance in good faith of counterfeit United States or Canadian paper currency, frees, shrubs, live or artificial plants, and lawns; b. _ artificial grass; and c. Wewill pay up to $1,000 for: _hardscape property used for aesthetic purposes not permanently affixed to realty; on the residence premises, caused by the following perils: Fire or lightning, Explosion, Riot or civi! commotion, Aircraft, Vehicles (not owned or operated by a resident of the residence premises), No deductible applies to this coverage. We wil not pay more than the limit stated above for forgery or alteration committed by any one person. This limit applies when the forgery or alteration involves one or more instruments in the same loss. Vandalism or malicious mischief, or Theft. The limit for this coverage, including the removal of debris, will not exceed 5% of the amount shown in the Declarations for COVERAGE A - DWELLING. We will not pay more than $750 for any one outdoor free, shrub, plant, or hardscape item, including debris removal expense. This coverage may increase the limit otherwise applicable. We will not pay for any loss to property grown for business purposes. b. We will not pay for loss arising out of business pursuits or dishonesty of an insured. c, Defense: (1) Fire Department Service Charge. We will pay up to $500 per occurrence for fire department charges incurred when the fire department is called to save or protect Coverage A property from fire, lightning, or explosion. No deductible applies to this coverage. This coverage may increase the limit otherwise applicable. We may make any investigation and settle any claim or suit that we decide is appropriate. Our obligation to defend claims or suits ends when the amount we pay for the loss equals our limit of liability. (2) Property Removed. We will pay for any accidental direct physical loss to covered property while being removed fram a premises endangered by a foss insured, This coverage also applies to the property if claim is made or a suit is brought against an insured for liability under the Credit Card or Bank Fund Transfer Card coverage, we will provide a defense. This defense is at our expense by counsel of our choice. (3) We have the option to defend at our expense an insured or an insured’s bank § HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000013"}, {"d": 21, "p": 98, "t": "7. Refrigerated Products. Coverage B is extended to cover the contents of deep freeze or refrigerated units on the residence premises for loss due to power failure or mechanical failure. If mechanical failure or power failure is known to you, all reasonable means must be used to protect the property insured from further damage or this coverage is void. Power failure or mechanical failure does not include: a. _temoval of a plug from an electrical outlet; or b. fuming off an electrical switch unless caused by a loss insured. This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the damaged property. Arson Reward. We will pay $1,000 for information that leads fo an arson conviction in connection with a fire loss to property covered by this policy. This coverage may increase the limit otherwise applicable. However, the $1,000 limit will not be increased regardless of the number of persons providing information. 10. Volcanic Action. We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to a covered building structure or covered property contained in a building structure resulting from the eruption of a volcano when the loss is directly and immediately caused by: a. airborne volcanic shock waves; b. ash, dust, or particulate matter; or c. lava flow. We will also pay for the removal of that ash, dust, or particulate matter that has caused accidental direct physical loss to a covered building structure or covered property contained in a building structure. All volcanic eruptions that occur within any 168-hour period will be considered one volcanic eruption. This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the damaged propery. \"1. Collapse. We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to covered property involving the abrupt, entire collapse of a building structure or any part of a building structure. a, Collapse means the abrupt and entire falling down, caving in, or falling into pieces of a building structure or any part of a building structure. Collapse does not include any of the following: (1) settling, cracking, crumbling, deterioration, shrinking, bulging, expansion, sagging, bowing, leaning, or bending; in, no Se against any suit for the enforcement of payment under the Forgery coverage. Power Interruption. We will pay for accidental direct physical loss caused directly or indirectly by a change of temperature that results from power interruption that takes place on the residence premises. The power interruption must be caused by a /oss insured occurring on the residence premises. The power lines off the residence premises must remain energized. This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the damaged property. substantial structural impairment; imminent or threatened collapse; a building structure or any part of a building structure that is in danger of falling down or caving in; or a part of a building structure that is standing even if (a) it has separated from another part of the building structure; or (b) b. it shows evidence of settling, cracking, crumbling, deterioration, shrinking, bulging, expansion, sagging, bowing, leaning, or bending. The collapse must be directly and immediately caused by one or more of the following: (1) perils described in SECTION !- LOSSES INSURED, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY. These perils apply to buifding structures covered under Coverage A or Coverage B for loss insured by this Additional Coverage, decay or deterioration of, or damage from animals, birds, or insects to: (a) aconnector; or (b) a structural member of a building structure; 10 ©, Copyright, Stale Farm Mutual Automobile fasurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000014"}, {"d": 21, "p": 99, "t": "The decay, deterioration, or damage must be hidden from view and unknown to all insureds prior to the collapse; (3) weight of contents, equipment, animals, or people; This coverage includes surface clean up only. will not pay for: a. the cost to repair or replace the fuel oil tank, apparatus, and pipes; or b. the cost of testing, monitoring, removing, treating, or detoxifying of soil, air, or water. (4) weight of ice, snow, sleet, or rain that collects on a roof, porch, or deck; or (5) use of defective material or methods in the construction (includes remodeling or reno- vation) of the building structure, if the collapse occurs during the course of the construction of the building structure. Loss to awnings, fences, patios, pavement, swimming pools, underground pipes, flues, drains, cesspools, septic tanks, foundations {including slabs, basement walls, and crawl space walls), retaining walls, bulkheads, piers, wharfs, docks, trellises, or antennas and their supporting structures is not included under items (2), (3), and (4) immediately above unless the loss is the direct and immediate result of the collapse of a building structure or any part of a building structure. This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the damaged property. 12. Locks and Remote Devices. We will pay up to $1,000 for each loss for the reasonable expenses you incur to rekey, replace, recode, program, or reprogram locks on exterior doors to the dwelling or other structures located on the residence premises when the keys or remote devices used with those doors are part of a covered theft loss. This coverage includes remote devices designed solely for locking, unlocking, opening, or closing doors, including garage doors and gates. No deductible applies to this coverage. 13. Fuel Oil Release. We will pay up to $10,000 for each loss for accidental direct physical loss to covered property caused by the abrupt and accidental escape of liquid fuel oil from a fixed household tank, apparatus, or pipes that are part of a heating unit for the dwelling. This includes damage to covered property resulting from an accidental spill or overflow of fuel oil in the course of filling a fixed household tank, We This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the damaged property. 14. Tear Out. If a foss insured to Coverage A property is caused by water, steam, or sewage escaping from a system or appliance, we will also pay the reasonable cost you incur to tear out and replace only that particular part of the building structure necessary to gain access to the specific point of that system or appliance from which the water, steam, or sewage escaped. We will not pay for the cost of repairing or replacing the system or appliance itself. This coverage does not increase the fimit applying to Coverage A property. 15. Home Certification. If damage fo covered property is caused by a foss insured, we will pay the reasonable increase in cost to repair or replace only the damaged property to maintain the dwelfing’s FORTIFIED HOME or FORTIFIED FOR SAFER LIVING cerlification in place at the time of the loss. This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the damaged property, We will not pay: a. any increase in cost until the repair or replacement of the property is complete; or b. for increased costs resulting from enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the construction or repair of the dwelling except as provided under OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS, Option OL - Building Ordinance or Law. This coverage does not apply if Loss Settlement provision A2 ~ Replacement Cost Loss Settlement — Common Construction is shown in the Declarafions. INFLATION COVERAGE The limits of liability shown in the Declarations for Coverage A, Coverage B, and when applicable, Option ID will be increased at the same rate as the increase in the inflation Coverage index shown in the Decfarations. \"1 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000015"}, {"d": 21, "p": 100, "t": "The limits of tiability will not be reduced to less than the amounts shown in the Declarations. To find the limits on a given date: 4. _ divide the Index on that date by the Index as of the effective date of this Inflation Coverage provision; then If during the term of this policy the Coverage A limit of liability is changed at your request, the effective date of this Inflation Coverage provision is changed to coincide with the effective date of such change. multiply the resulting factor by the limits of liability for Coverage A, Coverage B, and Option ID separately. SECTION | ~- LOSSES INSURED (2) an object propelled from the tire or body of a vehicle; COVERAGE A - DWELLING We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A, unless the loss is excluded or limited in SECTION | - LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. However, loss does not include and we will not pay for, any diminution in value. (3) the upset or collision of a vehicle with a stationary object or other vehicle, including damage to personal property carried on the exterior of the vehicle; or (4) a vehicle door or trunk lid being closed on personal property. COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY b. We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage B caused by the following perils, unless the loss is excluded or limited in SECTION | LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. However, loss does not include and we will not pay for, any diminution in value. j. Fire or lightning. 2. Windstorm or hail. This peril does not include loss to property contained in a structure caused by rain, snow, sleet, sand, or dust. This limitation does not apply when the direct force of wind or hail damages the structure causing an opening in a roof or wall This peril does not include loss: (1) to personal property that falls off a vehicle and strikes the ground, any other surface, or any object; (2) caused by shifting of the load being carried in or on a vehicle; or (3) to the vehicle itself unless the vehicle is property covered under COVERAGE B PERSONAL PROPERTY and the loss is caused by the weight, force, power, or movement of another vehicle. and the rain, snow, sleet, sand, or dust enters through this opening. Smoke, meaning abrupt and accidental damage from smoke, This peril includes loss to watercraft of ali types and their trailers, fumishings, equipment, and outboard motors, only while inside a building structure. This peril does not include loss caused by smoke from agricultural smudging or industrial operations. Vandalism or malicious mischief, meaning only wilful and malicious damage to or destruction of property. Explosion. Riot or civil commotion. Aircraft, including spacecraft, self-propelled missiles Theft, including attempted theft and loss of property from a known location when it is probable that the property has been stolen. and Vehicles, meaning accidental direct physical loss to covered property caused by the weight, force, power, or movement of a vehicle. a. This peril does not include: a. loss of a precious or semi-precious stone from its setting; b. floss caused by theft: This includes: (1) the impact of a vehicle; 12 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2047 SFF&CC/West_000016"}, {"d": 21, "p": 101, "t": "(2) watercraft of all types, including their fur- (1) committed by an insured or by any other person regularly residing on the insured location. Property of a student who is an insured is covered while located at a residence away from the residence premises, if the theft is committed by a person who is not an insured, nishings, equipment, tors; or if the residence premises is a newly acquired principal residence, property in the immediate past principal residence will not be considered property away from the residence premises for the first 30 days after the inception of this policy. 10. Falling objects. This peril does not include joss to from the part of a residence premises rented fo others: property contained in a structure unless the roof or an exterior wall of the structure is first damaged by a falling object. Damage to the falling object itself is not included. (a) caused by a tenant, members of the tenant's household, or the tenant's employees unless the residence premises is rented, either completely or in part, for exclusive use as a resi- 11. Weight of ice, snow, or sleet that causes damage to property contained in a structure, dence, for no more than 30 nights in 12. Abrupt and accidental discharge or overflow of water, steam, or sewage from within a plumbing, heating, air conditioning, or automatic fire protective sprinkler system, or from wilhin a household appliance. the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss; of money, bank notes, bullion, gold, goldware, silver, silverware, pewterware, platinum, coins, and medals; securities, checks, This peril does not include loss: cashiers checks, travelers checks, money or- ders, gift certificates, gift cards, rechargeable debit cards, phone cards, and other negotiable instruments, accounts, deeds, evidences of debt, letters of credit, notes other than bank notes, manuscripts, passports, tickels, and stamps; or (d) c. a. to the system or appliance from which the water, steam, or sewage escaped; b. caused by or resulting from: (1) freezing; (2) water or sewage from outside the residence premises plumbing system that enters through sewers or drains, or water that enters into and overflows from within a sump pump, sump pump well, or any other system designed fo remove subsurface water that is drained from the founda- of jewelry, watches, fur garments and garments trimmed with fur, and precious and semi-precious stones; or tion area; or (3) the pressure from or presence of tree, loss caused by theft that occurs away from the residence premises of: (i) mo- (3) trailers and campers designed to be pulled by or carried on a vehicle. in or to a dwelling under construction or of materials and supplies for use in the construction until the dwelling is completed and occupied; or of and outboard shrub, or plant roots; or property while at any other residence c. owned, rented to, or occupied by an in- sured, except while an insured is temporarily residing there. Property of a student who is an insured is covered while at a residence away from the residence premises, that occurs or develops over a period of time and is caused by or resulting from: (1) condensation or the presence of humidity, moisture, or Vapor, or (2) seepage or leakage of water, steam, or sewage that is: 13 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000017"}, {"d": 21, "p": 102, "t": "an 2S & This peril does not include: continuous; repeating; a. gradual; freezing; of d intermittent; e) slow; or (f} trickling. 13. Abrupt and accidental tearing asunder, cracking, burning, or bulging of a steam or hot water heating system, an air conditioning system, an automatic fire protective sprinkler system, or an ap- b. (2) maintain heat in the building structure at 55 degrees Fahrenheit or higher, or shut off the water supply and drain the system and appliances of water. However, if the building structure is protected This peril does not include loss: a. caused by or resulting from freezing; or b. that occurs or develops over a period of time and is caused by or resulting from: (1) condensation or the presence of humidity, by an automatic fire protective sprinkler system, you must use reasonable care to continue the water supply and maintain heat in the building structure at 55 degrees Fahrenheit or higher for coverage to apply. moisture, or vapor; oF 15. Abrupt and accidental damage to electrical appli- seepage or leakage of water or steam that is: a continuous; b repeating; gradual; intermittent; e} slow; or ances, devices, fixtures, and wiring from an increase or decrease of artificially generated electrical current. We will pay up to $3,000 under this peril for each damaged item described above. QQ 16. Breakage of glass, meaning damage {o personal property caused by breakage of glass that is a part of a structure on the residence premises. We wil not pay for loss or damage to the glass. — — (f) loss on the residence premises unless you have used reasonable care to: (1) pliance for heating water. (2) {oss to a portable hot tub or portable spa unless you have used reasonable care to prevent trickling. 7. Wild bears or deer, meaning damage caused by 14. Freezing of a plumbing, heating, air conditioning, or automatic fire protective sprinkler system, or of a household appliance. wild bears or deer to property located in a building structure. SECTION | - LOSSES NOT INSURED of a household appliance; or discharge, leakage, or overflow from within the system or appliance caused by freezing. This does not apply if you have used reasonable care to: We will not pay for any loss to the property described in Coverage A that consists of, or is directly and immediately caused by, one or more of the perils listed in items a. through m. below, regardless of whether the loss occurs abruptly or gradually, in- (1} maintain heat in the building structure at §5 degrees Fahrenheit or higher; or volves isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or extemal forces, or occurs as a result of any combination of these: a, b. (2) shut off the water supply and drain the system and appliances of water. collapse, except as specifically provided in SECTION | ~ ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Collapse; However, if the building structure is protected by an automatic fire protective sprinkler system, you must use reasonable care to continue the water supply and maintain heat in the freezing of a plumbing, heating, air conditioning, or automatic fire protective sprinkler system or 14 HW-2436 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000018"}, {"d": 21, "p": 103, "t": "building structure at 55 degrees Fahrenheit or higher for coverage to apply; freezing, thawing, pressure, or weight of water, wear, tear, decay, marring, scratching, deterioration, inherent vice, latent defect, or mechanical breakdown; ice, snow, or sleet, whether driven by wind or corrosion, electrolysis, or rust; not, fo: wet or dry rot; contamination or pollution, meaning the presence, discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release, or escape of contaminants or pollutants at or from any source. This does not apply if the presence, discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release, or escape is itself caused by a peril described in SECTION { - LOSSES INSURED, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY. (1) Contaminants and pollutants include but are not limited to any: (a) solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal initant, (1) a swimming pool, hot tub, or spa, including their covers, filtration, and circulation systems; or (2) an awning, fence, pavement, patio, foundation (including slabs, basement walls, crawl space walls, and footings), retaining wall, bulkhead, pier, wharf, or dock; theft in or to a dwelling under construction, or of materials and supplies for use in the construction, until the dwelling is completed and occupied; theft, vandalism, malicious mischief, or breakage of glass and safety glazing materials if the dwelling is a vacant dwelling; continuous; repeating; (c) gradual; intermittent; (f} or industrial operations, from agricultural kalis, chemicals, pathogens, noxious substances, asbestos, or lead; (4) and is: (2) slow; or smoke smudging smog, soot, vapor, fumes, acids, al- seepage or leakage of water, steam, or sewage that occurs or develops over a period of time: (a) including contaminants or pollutants resulting from any natural resource extraction activities; or fuel oil except as specifically provided in SECTION | - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Fuel Oil Release. We also will not pay for: (a) losses arising from contamination or trickling; and pollution caused by or resulting from defective building materials, nuclear substances, and waste. Waste in- from a: (a) heating, air conditioning, or automatic fire protective sprinkler system, (b) (c) household appliance; or cludes materials to be recycled, re- conditioned, or reclaimed: the cost to extract contaminants or from, pollutants from land, water, or air, or within or around any shower stall, the cost fo remove, restore, or re- shower bath, tub installation, or other plumbing fixture, inctuding their walls, ceilings, or floors, water, or alr; or plumbing system, including We also will not pay for losses arising from condensation or the presence of humidity, moisture, or vapor that occurs or develops over a period of time; place contaminated or polluted land, (c) the cost of testing, monitoring, cleaning, removing, containing, treating, detoxifying, neutralizing, remediating, disposing of, or assessing the effects of contaminants or pollutants; § ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobite insurance Company, 2017 HW-2196 SFF&CC/West_000019"}, {"d": 21, "p": 104, "t": "k. setlling, cracking, shrinking, bulging, or expansion of pavements, patios, foundations (including slabs, basement walls, crawl space walls, and footings), walls, floors, roofs, or ceilings; |. all animals, birds, or insects. b. (1) This includes: (1) earthquake; (2) landslide, mudslide, or mudflow, {a) nesting, infestation, gnawing, feeding, breeding, or discharge or release of waste products or secretions by ani- (3) sinkhole or subsidence, {4} movement resulting from: mals, birds, or insects; (2) {b) costs to remove animals, birds, or insects from the covered property; and (a} improper compaction; (c)_ costs to prevent the animals, birds, or insects from retuming to the property, (c) natural resource extraction activities; or (b) site selection; (d) excavation; However, we will pay for: (a) (5) erosion; (6) pressure by surface or subsurface earth or fill; or (7) any volcanic activity, except as specifically provided in SECTION [| - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Volcanic Action. losses caused by wild bears or deer; and (b) the breakage of glass or safety glazing material that is a part of a bullding structure, when caused by animals, birds, or insects; or m. However, we will pay for any accidental direct physical loss by fire resulting from earth movement, provided the resulting fire toss is itself a loss insured. pressure from or presence of tree, shrub, or plant roots. However, we will pay for any resulting loss from items a. through |. unless the resulting loss is itself a Loss Not insured as described in this Section. c. Water, meaning: (1} flood: (2) surface water. This does not include water solely caused by the release of water from a swimming pool, spigot, sprinkler system, hose, of hydrant; We will not pay for, under any part of this policy, any loss that would not have occurred in the absence of one or more of the following excluded events. We will not pay for such loss regardless of: (a) the cause of the excluded event; or (b) other causes of the loss; or (c) whether other causes acted concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded event to produce the loss; or (d) whether the event occurs abruptly or gradually, involves isolated or widespread damage, occurs on or off the residence premises, arises from any natural or external forces, or occurs as a result of any combination of these: a. Earth Movement, meaning the sinking, rising, shifting, expanding, or contracting of earth, all regardiess of whether combined with water, sewage, or any material carried by, or otherwise moved by the earth. Earth movement includes but is nol limited to: (3) waves (including tidal wave, tsunami, and seiche}; (4) tides or tidal water; (5) overflow of any body of water (including any release, escape, or rising of any body of water, or any water held, contained, controlled, or diverted by a dam, levee, dike, or any type of water containment, diversion, or flood control device); (6) spray or surge from any of the items c.(1) through c.(5) described above, all whether driven by wind or not; Ordinance or Law, meaning enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the construction, repair, or demolition of a building structure or other structure. 16 HW-2136 ©, Copydght, Slate Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2047 SFF&CC/West_000020"}, {"d": 21, "p": 105, "t": "g. (7) water or sewage from outside the residence premises plumbing system that enters through sewers or drains, or water or sewage that enters into and overllows from within a sump pump, sump pump Fungus, including: (1) any loss of use or delay in rebuilding, repairing, or replacing covered property, including any associated cost or expense, due to interference at the residence premises or location of the rebuilding, repair, or replacement, by fungus; well, or any other system designed to remove subsurface water that is drained from the foundation area; {2) any remediation of fungus, including the cost to: (8) water or sewage below the surface of the ground, including water or sewage that exerts pressure on, of seeps or leaks through a building structure, sidewalk, driveway, swimming pool, or other structure; or (a) remove the fungus from covered property or to repair, restore, or replace that property; or (b) tear out and replace any part of the building structure or other property as needed to gain access to the (9) material carried or otherwise moved by any of the water or sewage, as described fungus; or in items c.(1) through ¢.(8) above. (3) the cost of any testing or monitoring of air or property to confirm the type, absence, presence, or level of fungus, whether performed prior fo, during, or after removal, repair, restoration, or replacement of covered property. However, we will pay for any accidental direct physical loss by fire, explosion, or theft resulting from water, provided the resulting loss is itself a loss insured. Neglect, meaning neglect of the insured to use all reasonable means to save and preserve property at and after the time of a loss, or when property is endangered. Intentional Losses. {f any insured intentionally causes or procures a loss to property covered under this policy, we will not pay any insured for this loss. This applies regardless of whether the insured is charged with or convicted of a crime. War, including any undeclared war, civil war, insurrection, rebellion, revolution, warlike act by a military force or military personnel, destruction or seizure or use for a military purpose, and including any consequence of any of these. Discharge of a nuclear weapon will be considered a warlike act even if accidental. This does not apply to an insured who did not participate in, cooperate in, or contribute to causing or procuring the loss, 3, Nuclear Hazard, meaning any nuclear reaction, radiation, or radioactive contamination, all whether controlled or uncontrolled or however caused, or any consequence of any of these. Loss caused by the nuclear hazard will not be considered loss caused by fire, explosion, or smoke. We will not pay for, under any part of this policy, any loss consisting of one or more of the items below. Further, we will not pay for any loss described In paragraphs 1. and 2. immediately above regardless of whether one or more of the following: (a) directly or indirectly cause, contribute to, or aggravate the loss; or (b) occur before, at the same time, or after the loss or any other cause of the loss: However, we will pay for any accidental direct conduct, act, failure to act, or decision of any physical loss by fire resulting from the nuclear hazard, provided the resulting fire loss is itself a loss insured. person, group, organization, or govemmental body whether intentional, wrongful, negligent, or without fault; 7 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, Stale Farm Mutual Aulomobie insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000021"}, {"d": 21, "p": 106, "t": "b. (4) maintenance; defect, weakness, inadequacy, fault, or unsoundness in: of any property (including land, structures, or improvements of any kind) whether on or off the residence premises; or (1) planning, zoning, development, surveying, or siting; (2) design, specifications, workmanship, repair, c, construction, renovation, grading, or compaction; However, we will pay for any resulting loss from (3) remodeling, weather conditions. items 3.a., 3.b., and 3.c. untess the resulting foss is itself a Loss Not Insured as described in this Sec- materials used in repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, or compaction; or tion. SECTION | - LOSS SETTLEMENT the damaged part of the property within ~ {wo years after the date of loss, and notify us within 30 days after the work has been completed; and Only the Loss Settlement Provisions shown in the Declarations apply. We will settle covered property josses according to the following. However, the valuation of any covered property losses does not include, and we will not pay, any amount for diminution in value. COVERAGE A - DWELLING 1. A1— Replacement Cost Loss Settlement - Similar Construction. We will pay the cost to repair or replace with a. similar construction and for the same use on the premises shown in the Declarations, the damaged part of the properly covered under SECTION | ~ PROPERTY COVERAGES, COVERAGE A — DWELLING, except for wood fences, subject {o the following: (t) until actual repair or replacement is completed, we will pay only the actual cash value of the damaged part of the property, up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, not to exceed the cost to repair or replace the damaged part of the property; (2) when the repair or replacement is actually completed, we will pay the covered additonal amount you actually and necessarily spend to repair or replace the damaged part of the property, or an amount up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, whichever is less; (3) to receive any additional payments on a replacement cost basis, you must complete the actual repair or replacement of (4) b, we will not pay for increased costs resulting from enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the construction, repair, or demolition of a building structure or other structure, except as provided under OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS, Option OL ~ Buitding Ordinance or Law. Wood Fences: We will pay the actual cash value for loss or damage to wood fences, not to exceed the limit of liability shown in the Decfarations for COVERAGE A - Other Structures. 2, AZ — Replacement Cost Loss Settlement - Common Construction, a. We will pay the cost to repair or replace with common construction and for the same use on the premises shown in the Declarations, the damaged part of the property covered under SECTION | - PROPERTY COVERAGES, COVERAGE A ~ DWELLING, except for wood fences, subject to the following: (1) we will pay only for repair or replacement of the damaged part of the property with common construction techniques and materials commonly used by the building trades in standard new construction. We will not pay the cost to repair or replace obsolete, antique, or custom construction with fike kind and quality; 18 ©, Copyright, State Fann Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2047 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000022"}, {"d": 21, "p": 107, "t": "(2) until actual repair or replacement is completed, we wil pay only the actual cash value of the damaged part of the property, up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, not to exceed the cost to repair or replace the damaged pari (1) until repair or replacement is completed, we will pay only the actual cash value of the damaged property; (2) after repair or replacement is completed, we will pay the difference between the actual cash value and the cost you have actually and necessarily spent to repair or replace the property; and of the property as described in a.(1) above; (3) if property is not repaired or replaced within two years alter the date of loss, we will pay only the actuaf cash value, when the repair or replacement is actually completed as described in a.(1) above, we will pay the covered additional amount you actually and necessarily spend to repair or replace the damaged part of the property, or an amount up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, whichever is less; We will pay market value at the time of loss for: (1) antiques, fine arts, paintings, statuary, and similar articles which by their inherent nature cannot be replaced with new articles; (2) articles whose age or history contribute sub- stantially to their value including, but not limited to, memorabilia, souvenirs, and collectors items; and fo receive any additional payments on a replacement cost basis, you must complete the actual repair or replacement of the damaged part of the property within two years after the date of loss, and notify us within 30 days after the work has been completed; and (3) However, we will not pay an amount exceeding the smallest of the following for items a. and b. above: (1) our cost to replace at the time of loss; (2) the full cost of repair; (3) any special limit of liability described in we will not pay for increased costs resulting from enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the construction, repair, or demolition of a building structure or other structure, except as provided under OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS, Option OL ~ Building Ordinance or Law. b. this policy; or (4) 2. Wood Fences: We will pay the actual cash value for loss or damage fo wood fences, not to exceed the limit of liability shown in the Declarations for COVERAGE A ~ Other Structures. COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY 4. any applicable Coverage 8 limit of liability. B2-Depreciated Loss Settlement. a. We will pay the actual cash value for property covered under SECTION | - PROPERTY COVERAGES, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, except for property listed in item b, below, b. We will pay market value at the time of loss for: {4} antiques, fine arts, paintings, statuary, and similar articles which by their inherent na- B1-Limited Replacement Cost Loss Settlement. a, property not useful for its intended purpose, We will pay the cost to repair or replace property covered under SECTION | - PROPERTY COVERAGES, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, except for property listed in item b, below, subject to the following: ture cannot be replaced with new articles; (2) articles whose age or history contribute substantially to their value including, but not limited to, memorabilia, souvenirs, and collectors items; and 19 RW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insuranca Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000023"}, {"d": 21, "p": 108, "t": "(3) (2) the full cost of repair; property not useful for its intended purpose. (3) However, we will not pay an amount exceeding the smattest of the following for items a. and b. above: (1) any special fimit of liability described in this policy; or (4) any applicable Coverage B limit of liability. our cost to replace at the time of loss; SECTION | - CONDITIONS (3) insurable Interest and Limit of Liability. Even if more than one person has an insurable interest in the property covered, we will not be liable: a, b. a, {a) give statements; and (b) submit to examinations under oath; and {to the insured for an amount greater than the insured’s interest; or (4) insured's power to do so; and e. vandalism, or any other criminal act; and (2) interest of the insured and all others in the property involved and all encumbrances on the property; the credit card company or bank if the loss (3) other insurance that may cover the loss; involves a credit card or bank fund transfer card; (4) changes in title or occupancy of the prop- protect the property from further damage or loss and also: (5) specifications of any damaged structure and detailed estimates for repair of the damage; (2) erty during the term of this policy; (1) make reasonable and necessary temporary repairs required to protect the property, and (2) ¢. d. submit to us, within 60 days after the loss, your signed, swom proof of loss that sets forth, to the best of your knowledge and belief: (1) the time and cause of loss; give immediate notice to us or our agent and also notify: (1) the police if the loss is caused by theff, b. produce employees, members of the insured’s household, or others for examination under oath to the extent itis within the for more than the applicable fimit of liability. Your Duties After Loss. After a loss to which this insurance may apply, you must cooperate with us in the investigation of the claim and also see that the following duties are performed: whie notin the presence of any other insured: (6) an inventory of damaged or stolen personal property described in 2.c.; keep an accurate record of repair expenses; (7) prepare an inventory of damaged or stolen personal property: (t) showing in detail the quantity, description, age, replacement cost, and amount of loss; and (2) aflaching all bills, receipts, and related documents that substantiate the figures in the inventory; as often as we reasonably require: (1) exhibit the damaged property, {2} provide us with any requested records and documents and allow us lo make copies; receipts for additional living expenses incurred and records supporting the fair rental value loss; and (8) evidence or affidavit supporting a claim under SECTION | - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Credit Card, Bank Fund Transfer Card, Forgery, and Counterfeit Money coverage, stating the amount and cause of loss. Loss to a Pair or Set. In case of loss to a pair or set, we may choose to: a. repair or replace any part to restore the pair or set to ils value before the loss; or 2 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Company, 2017 HW-2436 SFF&CC/West_000024"}, {"d": 21, "p": 109, "t": "b. (a) written notice of the intent to file, identifying the specific location and identity of the court at least 10 days prior to submission of the written application; and pay the difference between the depreciated value of the property before the loss and the depreciated value of the property after the loss. 4. Appraisal. if you and we fail to agree on the amount of loss, either party can demand that the amount of the loss be set by appraisal. Only you or we may demand appraisal. A demand for appraisal must be in writing. You must comply with SECTION | - CONDITIONS, Your Duties After Loss before making a demand for appraisal, At least 10 days before demanding appraisal, the party seeking appraisal must provide the other party with written, itemized documentation of a specific dispute as to the amount of the loss, identifying separately each item being disputed. a, Each party will select a competent, disinterested appraiser and notify the other party of the appraiser’s identity within 20 days of receipt of the written demand for appraisal. b, The appraisers will then attempt to set the amount of the loss of each item in dispute as {b) (3}_ a written report of agreement, as required in item b., signed by any two (appraisers or appraiser and umpire) will set the amount of the less of each item in dispute. in all instances the written report of agreement will be itemized and state separately the actual cash value, replacement cost, and if applicable, the market yalue of each item in dispute. To qualify as an appraiser or umpire for a loss to property described in COVERAGE A DWELLING, a person must be one of the following and be licensed or certified as required by the applicable jurisdiction: (1) an engineer or architect with experience and fraining in building construction, repair, estimating, or investigation of the type of property damage in dispute; specified by each party, and jointly submit to each party a written report of agreement signed by them. In all instances the written report of agreement will be itemized and state separately the actual cash value, replacement cost, and if applicable, the market value of each item in dispute. The written report of agreement wil set the amount of the loss of each item in dispute. c. (2) an adjuster or public adjuster with experience and training in estimating the type of property damage in dispute; or (3) a contractor with experience and training in the construction, repair, and estimating of the type of property damage in dispute. If the two appraisers fail to agree upon the amount of the loss within 30 days, unless the period of time is extended by mutual agreement, they wil select a competent, disinterested umpire and will submit their differences to the umpire. if the appraisers are unable to agree upon an umpire within 15 days: A person may not serve as an appraiser or umpire if that person, any employee of that person, that person's employer, or any em- ployee of their employer: (1) has performed services for either party with respect to the claim at issue in the appraisal; or (1) you or we may make a written application for a judge of a court of record in the same state and county (or city if the city is not within a county) where the residence premises is located to select an umpire; (2) a copy of the written application; and (2) has a financial interest in the outcome of the claim at issue in the appraisal. Each party will be responsible for the compensation of their selected appraiser. Reasonable expenses of the appraisal and the reasonable the party requesting the selection described in item c.(1) must provide the other party: at HW-2136 ©, Copyright, Slate Farm Mutual Aulomodite Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000025"}, {"d": 21, "p": 110, "t": "8. compensation of the umpire will be paid equally by you and us. g. You and we do not waive any rights by demanding or submitting to an appraisal, and retain all contractual rights to determine if coverage applies to each item in dispute, h. a. b, 30 days after we receive your proof of loss and there is an entry of a final judgment. Abandonment of Property. We need not accept any property abandoned by an insured. (3} questions of coverage; 10. Mortgagee Clause. The word “mortgagee” includes (4) other contractual issues; or trustee. (5) to conduct appraisal on a class-wide basis. a. Appraisal is a non-judicial proceeding and does not provide for or require arbitration. Neither party will be awarded attorney fees. The appraisal award may not be entered as a judgment in a court. j. A party may not demand appraisal after that party brings suit or action against the other party relating to the amount of loss. Other Insurance. ifa loss covered by this policy is also covered by other insurance, we will pay only our share of the oss. Our share is the proportion of the loss that the applicable limit under this policy bears to the total amount of insurance covering the loss. b. disposal or concealment, If amortgagee is named in this policy, any loss payable under Coverage A will be paid to the mortgagee and you, as interests appear. If more than one mortgagee is named, the order of payment will be the same as the order of precedence of the mortgages. If we deny your claim, that denial will not apply to a valid claim of the mortgagee, if the mort- gagee: Suit Against Us. No action will be brought against us unless there has been full compliance with all of the policy provisions, Any action by any party must be started within one year after the date of loss or damage. However, if the cause of loss or damage is burglary, theff, larceny, robbery, forgery, fraud, vandalism, malicious mischief, confiscation, wrongful conversion, reach agreement with you; or (2) there is a filing of an appraisal award with us; OF (2) questions of law; 5. 60 days after we receive your proof of loss and: (1) Appraisal is only available to determine the amount of the loss of each item in dispute, The appraisers and the umpire have no authority to decide: (1) any other questions of fact; i. Loss Payment. We will adjust all losses with you. We will pay you unless some other person is named in the policy or is legally entitled to receive payment. Loss will be payable: (1) notifies us of any change in ownership, occupancy, or substantial change in risk of which the mortgagee is aware; (2) pays on demand any premium due under this policy, if you have not paid the premium; and submits a signed, swom statement of loss within 60 days after receiving notice from us of your failure to do so. Policy conditions relating to Appraisal, Suit Against Us, and Loss Payment apply to the mort- the action c. must be started within two years from the time the cause of action accrues. Our Option. We may repair or replace any part of the property damaged or stolen with similar property. Any property we pay for or replace becomes our d. property. gagee. If we cancel this policy, the mortgagee will be notified at least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect. Proof of mailing wil be proof of notice. if we pay the mortgagee for any loss and deny payment to your 22 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000026"}, {"d": 21, "p": 111, "t": "(1) we are subrogated to all the rights of the mortgagee granted under the mortgage on the property; or (2) at our option, we may pay to the mortgagee the whole principal on the mortgage plus any accrued interest. In this event, we will receive a full assignment and transfer of the mortgage and all securities held as collateral to the mortgage debt. e. Subrogation does not impair the right of the mortgagee to recover the full amount of the mortgagee's claim. 11. No Benefit to Bailee. We wii not recognize an assignment or grant coverage for the benefit of a person or organization holding, storing, or transporting property for a fee. This applies regardless of any other provision af this policy. 12. Recovered Property. If elther you or we recover any property after loss settlement, that party must give the other prompt notice. At your option, you may keep the property or we will retum it to you. Otherwise, it will become our property. if you choose to keep the property, the loss payment will be adjusted based on the amount you received for the recovered property. 13. Assignment of Claim. Assignment to another party of any of your rights or duties under this policy regarding any claim, or any part of any claim, will be void and we will not recognize any such assignment, unless We give our written consent. However, once you have complied with all policy provisions, you may assign to another party, in writing, payment of claim proceeds otherwise payable to you. SECTION If - LIABILITY COVERAGES COVERAGE L- PERSONAL LIABILITY if a claim is made or a suit is brought against an insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this coverage applies, caused by an eccurrence, we will: 1. pay up to our limit of liability for the damages for which the insured is legally liable. We will not pay for criminal restitution; and 2. provide a defense at our expense by counsel of our choice. We may make any investigation and settle any claim or suit that we decide is appropriate. Our obligation to defend any suit ends when the amount we pay for damages, to effect settlement or satisfy a judgment resulting from the occurrence, equals our limit of liability. We wil not provide a defense to any insured for criminal prosecution or proceedings. COVERAGE M - MEDICAL PAYMENTS TO OTHERS We will pay the necessary medical expenses incurred or medically ascertained within three years from the date of an accident causing bodily injury. Medical expenses means reasonable charges for medical, surgical, x-ray, dental, ambulance, hospital, professional nursing, rehabilitation, pharmaceuticals, orthopedic devices, prosthetic devices, and funeral services. This coverage applies only: 4. to a person on the insured location with the permission of an insured; 2. to a person off the insured focation, if the bodily injury. a. arises out of a condition on the insured focation or the ways immediately adjoining; b. is caused by the activities of an insured; c. is caused by a residence employee in the course of the residence employee's employment by an insured, or d. 3. is caused by an animal owned by or in the care of an insured; ar to a residence employee if the occurrence causing bodify injury occurs off the insured location and arises out of or in the course of the residence employee's employment by an insured. SECTION It - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES The following Additional Coverages are subject to all the terms, provisions, exclusions, and conditions of this policy. We will pay for the following in addition to the limits of liability: 23 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Company, 2017 HW-2196 SFF&CC/West_000027"}, {"d": 21, "p": 112, "t": "(1) replacement cost at the time of loss; Claim Expenses. We will pay: a. expenses we incur and costs taxed against an (2) full cost of repair; or insured in suits we defend. not include attorney fees; (3) the limit of liability shown in the Deciarations for Damage to Property of Others for any one occurrence. Taxed costs do premiums on bonds required in suits we defend, but not for bond amounts greater than the Coverage L limit. We are not obligated to apply for or furnish any bond; We will not pay for property damage: (1) for a loss that is recoverable under Section | of this policy. We also will not pay for any applicable deductible regardless of whether the amount of the loss exceeds the deductible; reasonable expenses an insured incurs at our request. This includes actual loss of earnings (but not loss of other income) up to $250 per day for aiding us in the investigation or defense of claims or suits; (2) interest the insured is legally liable to pay on damages payable under Coverage L above before a judgment, but only the interest on the lesser of: caused intentionally by an insured 13 years of age or older; (3) to property, other than a rented golf cart, owned by, or rented to an insured, a tenant of an insured, or a resident in your household; (1} that part of the damages we pay; or (4) arising outof: (2) the Coverage L limit; and (a) business pursuits; interest on the entire judgment that accrues after entry of the judgment and before we pay or tender, or deposit in court that part of the judgment that does not exceed the limit of liability that applies. (b) location; {c) a condition on the insured location or the ways immediately adjoining; or First Aid Expenses. We will pay expenses for first aid to others incurred by an insured for bodily injury covered under this policy. We will not pay for first aid to you or any other insured. (d) the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercrait, including airboat, air cushion, personal watercratt, sail board, or similar type watercraft; or Damage to Property of Others. a, We will pay for property damage to property of others caused by the activities of an insured. b. We will not pay more than the smailest of the following amounts: any act or omission in connection with a premises an insured owns, rents, or controls, other than the insured (5) if a payment is made under COVERAGE L - PERSONAL LIABILITY for the same property damage. SECTION ll - EXCLUSIONS (2} was intended by the insured; or Coverage L and Coverage M do not apply to: a. (3) would have been expected by the insured based on a reasonable person standard. bodily injury or property damage that: (1) was a result of a: However, exclusions a.(2) and a.(3) above do not apply to bodily injury or property damage resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property. {a) willful and malicious; or (b} criminat: act or omission of the insured; “4 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000028"}, {"d": 21, "p": 113, "t": "d. Exclusions a.(1), a.{2), and a.(3} above apply to all bodily injury or property damage even if the: services, bodily injury or property damage arising out of any premises currently owned or rented to any insured which is not an insured location. This exclusion does not apply to bodily injury to a residence employee arising out of and in the course of the residence employee's employment by an insured, (1) bodily injury or property damage was sustained by a different person, entity, or property than was expected or intended; (2) bodily injury or property damage was of a different kind, quality, or degree than was expected or intended; (3) insured lacked the mental capacity to bodily injury or property damage arising out control his or her conduct; of the ownership, maintenance, use, loading, or unloading of: (4) insured was not charged with or convicted of a criminal act or omission; or (5) bodily injury or property damage arising out of the rendering or failing to render professional (1) an aircraft. This exclusion does not apply to the ownership, maintenance, use, ioad- insured was impaired by drugs or alcohol; ing, or unloading of unmanned aircraft bodily injury or property damage arising out of business pursuits of any insured, except as provided in item c. below. This exclusion does not apply to activities that are ordinarily incident systems used as model aircraft: (a) solely for recreational or hobby purposes; to non-business pursuits; (b) designed to be operated within the visual line of sight of the operator and operated within the visual line of sight of the operator; and (c) weighing not more than 55 pounds at the time of operation; bodily injury or property damage arising out of the rental of any part of any premises by any insured. This exclusion does not apply: (1) to the rental of the residence premises: (a) either completely or in part, for exclusive use as a residence, for up to 30 nights in the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss; (b) unless the ownership, maintenance, use, loading, or unloading of such aircraft results in: (a) property damage to any aircraft; or in part, for use as a permanent residence, by either one or two full-time roomers or boarders; or (b) bodily injury or property damage resulting from interference with an aircraft carrying people regardless of whether the bodily injury or property damage is sustained by people or property on the aircraft or not; (c)_ in part, as an office, school, studio, or plivate garage; (2) when the. dwelling on the residence premises is a two, three, or four family dwelling and you occupy one part and rent the other part to others; (2) a motor vehicle owned or operated by or rented or loaned to any insured; or (3) a watercraft: (3} to farm land (without buildings), rented to others, but not fo exceed a total of 500 acres, regardless of the number of locations; or (a) owned by or rented to any insured if it has inboard or inboard-outdrive motor power of more than 50 horsepower, (b) owned by or rented to any insured if (4) to activities that are ordinarily incident to it is a sailing vessel, with or without non-business pursuits; 25 HW: 2136 ©, Copyright, Slate Farm Mutual Automobile (nsurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000029"}, {"d": 21, "p": 114, "t": "meaning of part 9.a., 9.b., or 9.c. of the definition of insured to share damages with or repay someone else who may be obligated to pay damages because of the bodily injury sustained by any insured within the meaning of part 9.a,, 9.b., or 9.c. of the definition of insured, auxiliary power, 26 feet or more in overall length; (c) powered by one or more outboard motors with more than 25 total horsepower owned by any insured; (d) designated as an airboat, air cushion, or similar type of craft; or any claim made or suit brought against any insured by: (e) owned by any insured if it is a personal watercraft using a water jet pump powered by an intemal combustion engine as the primary source of propulsion. (t) any person in the care of any insured because of child care services provided by or at the direction of: (a) This exclusion does not apply to bodily injury to a residence employee arising out of and in the course of the residence employee's employment by an insured. Exclusion £(3) does not apply while the watercraft is on the residence premises; any insured, (b} any employee of any insured, or (c) (2) bodily injury or property damage arising out of: (1) the entrustment by any insured to any person; any other person actually or apparently acting on behalf of any insured; or any person who makes a claim because of bodily injury to any person in the care of any insured because of child care services provided by or at the direction of: (2) the supervision by any insured of any person; (a) any insured, (b) any employee of any insured, or (3) any liability statutorily imposed on any insured; or (c) any other person actually or apparently acting on behalf of any insured. (4) any liability assumed through an unwritten or written agreement by any insured, This exclusion does not apply te the occasional child care services provided by any insured, or to the part-time child care services provided by any insured under 19 years of age; with regard to the ownership, maintenance, or use of any aircraft, watercraft, or motor vehi- cle not covered under Section li of this policy; bodily injury or property damage arising out of an insured’s participation in, or preparation or practice for, any prearranged or organized bodily injury or property damage caused directly or indirectly by war, including undeclared war, or any warlike act including destruction, seizure, or use for a military purpose, or any consequence of these, Discharge of a nuclear weapon will be considered a warlike act even if accidental; race, speed or demolition contest, or similar competition involving a motorized land vehicle or motorized watercraft. This exclusion does not apply to a sailing vessel less than 26 feet in overall length with or without auxiliary power; bodily injury to any insured within the meaning of part 9.a,, 9.b., or 9.c. of the definition of insured. bodily injury or property damage arising out of the use, sale, manufacture, distribution, delivery, transfer, or possession, by any insured, of any substance that is illegal or is a controlled substance under either federal or state law. This exclusion also applies to any claim made or suit brought against any insured within the 6 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, Slate Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000030"}, {"d": 21, "p": 115, "t": "(2) physical or mental abuse; or This exclusion does not apply to the legitimate use of legally prescribed drugs, under either federal or state law, by a person following orders of a licensed health care professional; (3) corporal punishment; by the insured, bodily injury or property damage arising out . bodily injury or property damage arising out of the actual, alleged, or threatened presence, discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release, escape of, or exposure to contaminants or pollutants at or from any source or location. of the actual, alleged, or threatened inhalation of, ingestion of, contact with, exposure fo, existence of, or presence of any fungus at or from any source or location. We also do not cover any loss, cost, or ex- Contaminants and pollutants include but are not limited to any solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal intant, including smoke from agricultural smudging or industrial operations, smog, soot, vapor, fumes, ac- pense arising out of any: (1) request, demand, order, or statutory or regulatory requirement that any insured or others test for, monitor, clean up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify, neutralize, remediate, dispose of, or in any way fespond to or assess the effects of fungus; or ids, alkalis, chemicals, pathogens, noxious sub- stances, fuel oil, ashesios, or lead. This exclusion does not apply to bodily injury or property damage arising out of smoke or fumes caused by fire or explosion. (2) claim or suit for damages because of testing for, monitoring, cleaning up, removing, containing, treating, detoxifying, neutralizing, remediating, disposing of, or in any way responding to or assessing the effects of fungus; or We aiso do not cover: (1) any loss, cost, or expense arising out of any request, demand, order, or statutory or regulatory requirement that any insured or others test for, monitor, clean up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify, neutralize, bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of systems and equipment used to generate electrical power exceeding 125 percent of the actual electrical power usage by the residence premises in the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss. remediate, dispose of, or in any way respond to or assess the effects of contaminants or pollutants; (2) any loss, cost, or expense arising out of any claim or suit by or on behalf of a governmental authority for damages because of testing for, monitoring, cleaning up, removing, containing, treating, detoxifying, neutralizing, remediating, disposing of, or in any way responding to or assessing the effects of contaminants or pollutants; or 2. Coverage L does not apply to: liability: (1) for your share of any loss assessment charged against all members of any type of association of property owners; or (3) contamination or pollution arising out of actually or allegedly defective building materials, nuclear substances, or waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned, or reclaimed; (2} imposed on or assumed by any insured through any unwritten or written contract or agreement. This exclusion does not apply to liability for damages that the insured would have in absence of the con- bodily injury or property damage arising out of any actual, alleged, or threatened: (1) sexual harassment, sexual molestation, or sexual misconduct; tract or agreement; b. property damage to property owned by any insured at the time of the occurrence; 27 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2196 SFF&CC/West_000031"}, {"d": 21, "p": 116, "t": "c. This exclusion also applies to any property damage to the sold or transferred real property itself, property damage to property rented to, used or occupied by, or in the care, custody, or control of any insured at the time of the occurrence. This exclusion does not apply to property damage caused by fire, smoke, explosion, or abrupt and accidental damage from However, this exclusion does not apply to: (i) water; d. bodily injury to a person eligible to receive any benelits required to be provided or volunlarly provided by an insured under a workers’ compensation, non-occupational disability, or (2) property damage arising out of fire, smoke, or explosion. 3. occupational disease law, e, f. bodily injury arising out of fire, smoke, explosion, electrocution, or carbon monoxide poisoning; or bodily injury or property damage for which an insured under this policy is also an insured under a nuclear energy liability policy or would be an insured but for its termination upon exhaustion of its limit of liability. A nuclear energy liability policy is a policy issued by Nuclear Energy Liability insurance Association, Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters, Nuclear insurance Association of Canada, or any of their successors; Coverage M does not apply to bodily injury. a. toa residence employee if it occurs off the insured location and does not arise out of or in the course of the residence employee’s employment by an insured, b, to a person eligible to receive any benefits required to be provided or voluntarily provided under any workers’ compensation, non- occupational disability, or occupational disease law; bodily injury or property damage arising out of any real property any insured has sold or transferred. This includes but is not limited to bodily injury or property damage arising out of known, unknown, hidden, or alleged property conditions, problems, or defects, c. to a person other than a residence employee of an insured, regularly residing on any part of the insured location; of d. from nuclear reaction, radiation, or radioactive contamination, all whether controlled or uncon- trolled or however caused, or any consequence of any of these. SECTION Il - CONDITIONS increase our limit of fiability for any one occurrence, - Limit of Liability. The Coverage L limit is shown in the Declarations. This is the limit for all damages from each occurrence for the policy period in which the bodily injury or property damage first occurs, regardless of the number of insureds, claims made, or persons injured. No additional limits or coverage will be available for the occurrence under any additional policy periods while this policy remains in force. Duties After Loss. In case of an accident or occurrence, the insured must cooperate with us in the investigation, settlement, or defense of any claim or suit and also perform the following duties that apply. You must cooperate with us in seeing that these duties are performed: a, The Coverage M [limit is shown in the Declarations. This is our limit for all medical expenses for bodily injury to one person as the result of one accident. give written notice to us or our agent as soon as possible, which sets forth: (1) the identity of this policy and the insured, (2) Severability of Insurance. This Insurance applies separately to each insured. This condition does not reasonably available information on the time, place, and circumstances of the accident or o¢currence; and 2B HW-2136 ©, Copyaight, State Farm Mutual Automobile Inswance Company, 2047 SFF&CC/West_000032"}, {"d": 21, "p": 117, "t": "(3) names and addresses of any claimants b. the injured person's submission to physical examinations by a physician selected by us when and as often as we reasonably require; and c. any authorizations from the injured person as we May require. and available witnesses; b. c. immediately forward to us every notice, demand, summons, or other process relating to the accident or occurrence, at our request, assist in: Payment of Claim ~ Coverage M or Damage to Property of Others. Payment under either of these is not an admission of liability by an insured or us. (i) making settlement, (2) the enforcement of any right of contribution or indemnity against a person or organiza- Suit Against Us. No action will be brought against us unless there has been compliance with the policy provisions. tion who may be fiable to an insured: (3) the conduct of suits and attend hearings and trials; and No one will have the right to join us as a party to an action against an insured. Further, no action with respect to Coverage L will be brought against us until the obligation of the insured has been determined by final judgment on the merits, after an actual trial or by an agreement signed by us; but we will not be liable for damages that are not payable under the terms of this policy or that are in excess of the applicable Limit of Liability. (4} securing and giving evidence and obtaining the attendance of witnesses; d. under SECTION fl ~ ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Damage to Property of Others, exhibit the damaged property if within the insured’s control; and e. the insured must not, except at the insured’s own cost, voluntarily make payments, assume obligations, or incur expenses. This does not apply to expense for first aid to others at the time of the bodily injury. Coverage M Requirements. Bankruptcy of an Insured. Bankruptcy or insolvency of an insured will not relieve us of our obligation under this policy. We may require the Other Insurance ~ Coverage L. This insurance is excess over any other valid and collectible insurance except insurance written specifically to cover as excess over the limits of liability that apply in this policy. following in regard to any Coverage M claim: a. written proof of claim, under oath if required, as soon as possible from the injured person, or when appropriate, someone acting on behalf of that person; SECTION | AND SECTION Il - CONDITIONS during the period this policy is in effect, the broadened coverage will immediately apply to this policy. Policy Period. This policy applies only to loss under Section | or bodily injury or property damage under Section Il that occurs during the period this policy is in effect. Waiver or Change of Policy Provisions. A waiver or change of any provision of this policy must be in writing by us to be valid. Our request for an appraisal or examination does not waive any of our rights. Concealment or Fraud. This policy is void as fo you and any other insured if you or any other insured under this policy has intentionally concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance relating to this insurance, whether before or after a loss. 5. Cancellation. a. Liberalization Clause. If we adopt any revision that would broaden coverage under this policy with- out additional premium, within 60 days prior fo or You may cancel this policy at any time by giving us advance written notice of the date cancellation is to take effect. We may waive the requirement a HYW-2136 ©, Copyright, Stale Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000033"}, {"d": 21, "p": 118, "t": "of the policy would place the insurer that the notice be in writing by confirming the date and time of cancellation to you in writing. in violation of the insurance laws of this state; or We may cancel this policy only for the reasons stated in this condition. We will notify you in writing of the date cancellation takes effect. This cancellation notice may be delivered to you, or mailed to you at your mailing address shown in the Declarations. Proof of mailing will be sufficient proof of notice: {f) We may cancel this policy by notifying you at least 30 days before the date cancellation takes effect. (1) When you have not paid the premium, we may cancel at any time by notifying you at least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect. This condition applies whether the premium is payable to us or our agent or under any finance or credit plan. (4) When this policy is written for a period longer than one year, we may cancel for any reason at anniversary. We may cancel by notifying you at least 30 days before the date cancellation takes effect. (2) When this policy has been in effect for less than 45 business days and is not a c. When this policy is cancelled, the premium for the period from the date of cancellation to the expiration date will be refunded. The retum premium will be pro rata, d. The retum premium may not be refunded with the notice of cancellation or when this policy is renewal with us, we may cancel for any reason. We may cancel by notifying you al least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect. (3) When this policy has been in effect for 45 business days or more, or at any time if it is a renewal with us, we may cancel for the following reasons: retumed to us, in such cases, we will refund it within a reasonable time after the date cancellation takes effect. (a) discovery of fraud or material misrepresentation in the procurement of the insurance or with respect fo any 6. Nonrenewal. We may elect not to renew this policy. If we elect not to renew, a written notice will be delivered to you, or mailed to you at your mailing address shown in the Declarations. The notice will be mailed or delivered at least 30 days before the expiration date of this policy. Proof of mailing will be sufficient proof of notice. 7. Assignment of Policy. Assignment of this policy will be void and we will not recognize any such assignment, unless we give our written consent. 8. Subrogation and Reimbursement. claims submitted thereunder, (b) discovery of willful or reckless acts or omissions on the part of the named insured which increase any hazard insured against; (c) a change in the risk which substantially increases any hazard insured against after insurance coverage has been issued or renewed; a, Subrogation. (1) Applicable to SECTION I: (d) violation of any local fire, health, safety, building, or construction regu- if any insured to or for whom we make payment under this policy has rights to recover damages from another, those rights are transferred to us to the extent of our payment. That insured must do everything necessary to secure our rights and must do nothing after loss to impair them. lation or ordinance with respect to any insured property or the occupancy thereof which substantially increases any hazard insured against; (e) conviction of the named insured of a crime having as one of its necessary elements an act increasing any hazard insured against. a determination by the Insurance Commissioner that the continuation cu HW-2136 ©, Copyright, Slate Farm Mutual Aulomobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000034"}, {"d": 21, "p": 119, "t": "11. However before a loss, an insured may waive in writing all rights of recovery against any person. a, Applicable to SECTION Il: if any insured has rights to recover all or part of any payment we have made under this policy, those rights are transferred to us. An insured must do nothing after loss to impair them. At our request, an insured will bring suit or transfer those rights to us and help us enforce them. The premium for this policy may vary based upon: Reimbursement. (1) the purchase of other products or services from the State Farm Companies; if we make payment under this policy and any insured to or for whom we make payment fecovers or has recovered from another person or organization, then the insured to or for whom we make payment must: 9, hold in trust for us the proceeds of any recovery; and (2) reimburse us to the extent of our payment. (2} the purchase of products or services from an organization that has entered into an agreement or contract with the State Farm Companies. The State Farm Companies do not warrant the merchantability, fitness, or quality of any product or service offered or provided by that organization; or Death. if you die: a, an agreement, conceming the insurance provided by this policy, that the State Farm Companies has with an organization of which you are a member, employee, we insure the legal representative of the deceased. This condition applies only with respect to the premises and property of the deceased covered under this policy at the time of death; subscriber, licensee, or franchisee. Your purchase of this policy may allow: insured includes: (1) Unless as otherwise provided by an altemative payment plan in effect with the State Farm Companies with respect to the premium for this policy, the premium is due and payable in full on or before the first day of the policy period shown in the most recently issued Declarations. The renewal premium for this policy will be based upon the rates in effect, the coverages carried, the applicable limits, deductibles, and other elements that affect the premium applicable at the time of renewal. Subrogation does not apply under Section II to Medical Payments to Others or Damage to Property of Others. (1) Premium. (1) you to purchase or obtain certain coverages, coverage options, coverage deductibles, coverage limits, or coverage terms on other products from the State Farm Companies, subject to their applicable eligibility rules; or any member of your household who is an insured at the time of your death, but only while a resident of the residence premises; and ‘ (2) with respect to your property, the person having proper temporary custody of the property until appointment and quatification of a legal representative. the premium or price for other products or services purchased by you, including noninsurance products or services, to vary. Such other products or services must be provided by the State Farm Companies or by an organization that has entered into an agreement or contract with the State 40. Conformity to State Law, When a policy provision is in conflict with the applicable iaw of the state in which this policy is issued, the law of the state will apply. vu HW-2436 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000035"}, {"d": 21, "p": 120, "t": "of mailing it or delivering it by other means. Proof of transmission will be sufficient proof of notice. Farm Companies. The State Farm Companies do not warrant the merchantability, fitness, or quality of any product or service offered or provided by that organization. 46. Our Rights Regarding Claim Information. a. 12. Right to inspect. a. We will collect, receive, obfain, use, and retain all the items described in item b.(1) below and use and retain the information described in item We have the right but are not obligated to perform the following: (1) make inspections and surveys of the insured location at any time; (2) provide you with reports on conditions we find; or (3) recommend changes. b.(3)(b) below, in accordance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations and consistent with the performance of our business functions. b. Subject to 16.a. above, we will not be restricted in or prohibited from: (1) collecting, receiving, or obtaining records, receipts, invoices, medical bills, medical records, wage information, salary information, employment information, data, and any other information; (2) using any of the items described in item b.(1} above; or (3) retaining: Any inspections, surveys, reports, or recommendations relate only to insurability and the premiums fo be charged. b. Wedo not: (1) make safety inspections; (2) undertake to perform the duty of any person or organization fo provide for the (a) any of the items in item b.(1) above; or health or safety of workers or the public; (3) warrant that conditions are safe or healthful; or (b) any other information we have in our possession as a result of our processing, handling, or otherwise resolving claims submitted under this policy. (4) warrant that conditions comply with laws, regulations, codes, or standards, This condition applies to us and to any rating, advisory, rate service, or similar organization that makes c. insurance inspections, surveys, reports, or recommendations on our behalf. 43. Joint and Individual Interests. When there are (1) to enable performance of our business functions; two or more Named Insureds, each acts for all to cancel or change this policy. (2} to meet our reporting obligations to insurance regulators; 44, Change of Policy Address. We may change the Named insured’s policy address as shown in the Declarations and in our records to the most recent address provided to us by: a you; or b. the United States Postal Service. We may disclose any of the items in b.(1) above and any of the information described in item b.(3)(b) above: (3) to meet our reporting obligations to insurance data consoiidators; (4) to meet other obligations required by law, and (5) as otherwise permitted by law. 15. Electronic Delivery. With your consent, we may electronically deliver any document or notice, including a notice to renew, nonrenew, or cancel, instead d. Our rights under 16.a,, 16.b., and 16.c. above will not be impaired by any: 2 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000036"}, {"d": 21, "p": 121, "t": "(1) authorization related to any claim submitted under this policy; or (2) act or omission of an insured or a legal representative acting on an insured’s behalf. 17. Duties Regarding Claim Information. An insured or a legal representative acting on an insured’s behalf must provide us with any requested authorizations related to the claim. Our rights as set forh under Our Rights Regarding Claim Information of this policy will not be impaired by any: a. authorization related to the claim; or b. act or omission of an insured or a legal representative acting on an insured’s behalf. OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS Each Optional Policy Provision applies only as shown in the Declarations and is subject to all the terms, provi- while acting within the scope of the above listed occupations. sions, exclusions, and conditions of this policy. However, no coverage is provided: Option Al - Additional Insured. The definition of insured is extended to include the person or organization shown in the Declarations as an Additional Insured or whose name is on file with us. Coverage is with respect to: 4. SECTION | ~ Coverage A, Coverage B, or Coverage C; or a. {or bodily injury or property damage arising out of a business owned or financially controlled by the insured or by a partnership of which the insured is a pariner or member; b. for bodily injury or property damage arising out of the rendering of or failure to render professional services of any nature (other than teaching or school administration). This exclusion includes but is not limited to: 2, SECTION Il - Coverage L and Coverage M but only with respect to the residence premises. This coverage does not apply to bodily injury to an employee arising out of or in the course of the employee's employment by the person or organization. (1) computer programming, architectural, engineering, or industrial design services, This option applies only with respect to the location shown in the Declarations. Option BP - Business Property. The COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, Special Limits of Liability, item b., for property used or intended for use in a business, including merchandise held as samples or for sale or for delivery after sale, is changed as follows: The $1,500 limit is replaced with the amount shown in the Declarations for this option. Option BU - Business Pursuits. SECTION Il ~ EXCLUSIONS, item 1.b. is modified as follows: 1. (2) medical, surgical, dental, or other services or freatment conducive to the health of persons or animals; and (3) beauty or barber services or treatment; c. for bodily injury to a fellow employee of the insured injured in the course of employment, or d. when the insured is a member of the faculty or teaching staff of a school or college: (1) for bodily injury or property damage arising out of the maintenance, use, loading, or unloading of: Section Il coverage applies to the business pursuits of an insured who is a: (a) draft or saddle animals, including ve- a. clerical office employee, salesperson, collector, messenger; or b. teacher (except college, university, and professional athletic coaches), schoo! principal, or school administrator, (b) aircraft, motor vehicles, recreational motor vehicles or watercraft, airboats, air cushions, or personal watercraft which use a water jet pump powered by an internal combustion hicles for use with them; or % ©, Copyright, Stale Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000037"}, {"d": 21, "p": 122, "t": "Our limits for loss by theft are those shown in the Declarations for this option. These limits apply in lieu of the Coverage B theft limit; and a engine as the primary source of propulsion; owned, operated, or hired by or for the insured or employer of the insured or used by the insured for the purpose of instruction in the use thereof; or Our limits for loss by any covered peril except those in items 2. and 3. above are those shown in the Declarations for this option. Option ID ~ Increased Dwelling Limit. We will settle losses to damaged building structures covered under COVERAGE A - DWELLING according to the Loss Settlement Provision shown in the Declarations. if the amount you actually and necessarily spend to repair or replace damaged building structures exceeds the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, we will pay the additional amounts not to exceed: under Coverage M for bodily injury to a student arising out of corporal punishment administered by or at the direction of the insured. Option FA ~ Firearms, Firearms are covered for accidental direct physical loss or damage. The limits for this option are shown in the Declarations. The first amount is the limit for any one article; the second amount is the aggregate limit for each loss. 4. The following additional provisions apply: 1. 10% of the Option {D limit of liability to repair or replace building structures covered under We will not pay for any loss to the property described in this option either consisting of, or directly and immediately caused by, one or more of the following: a. mechanical breakdown, wear and tear, COVERAGE A- DWELLING, Other Structures. Report Increased Values. You must notify us within 90 days of the start of construction on any new building structure costing $5,000 or more; or any additions to or remodeling of building structures that increase their values by $5,000 or more. You must pay any additional premium due for the increased value. We will not pay more than the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations if you fail to notify us of the increased value within $0 days. or gradual deterioration; all animals, birds, or insects, including nesting, infestation, gnawing, feeding, breeding, or discharge or release of waste products or sectetions by animals, birds, or Insects. However, we will pay for losses caused by wild bears or deer; dampness of atmosphere or extremes of tem- Option 10 - Incidental Business. The coverage provided by this option applies only to that incidental business occupancy on file with us, peratures; 4, any process of refinishing, renovating, or repairing; inherent defect or faulty manufacture; f. the Option ID Simit of fiability shown in the Declarations to repair or replace the dwelling; or COVERAGE A ~ DWELLING, Other Structures, item 2.b. is deleted. COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY is extended to include equipment, supplies, and furnishings usual and incidental to this business occupancy. This Optional Policy Provision does not include electronic data processing system equipment or the recording or storage media used with that equipment or merchandise held as samples or for sale or for delivery after Sale, rust, fouling, or explosion of firearms; g. breakage, mating, scratching, tearing, or denting unless caused by fire, thieves, or accidents to conveyances; or h. _ infidelity of an insured’s employees or persons to whom the insured property may be entrusted or rented; The Option {0 limits are shown in the Declarations. The first limit applies to property on the residence premises. The second limit applies to property Our limit for loss by any Coverage B peril except thett is the limit shown in the Decfarations for Coverage B, plus the aggregate limit; Ka HW-2136 ©, Copyright, Stata Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000038"}, {"d": 21, "p": 123, "t": "(c) while off the residence premises. These limits are in addition to the COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, Special Limits of Liability on property used or intended for use in a business. or (2) any person who makes a claim because of bodily injury to any person in the care of any insured because of child care services provided by or at the direction of: Under Section Il, the residence premises is not considered business properly because an insured occupies a part of it as an incidental business. (a) any insured; (b) any employee of any insured; or (c) any other person actually or appar- SECTION Il ~ EXCLUSIONS, item 1.b. is replaced with the following: b. 5. bodily injury or property damage arising out of business pursuits of any insured, except as provided in item c. below. This exclusion does not apply to activities that are ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits or fo business pursuits of an insured that are necessary or incidental to the use of the residence premises as an incidental business; ently acting on behalf of any insured, Coverage M does not apply fo any person indicated in d.(1) and d.(2) above. This exclusion does not apply to the occasional child care services provided by any insured, or to the part-time child care services provided by any insured under 19 years of age. This insurance does not apply to: a. any other person actually or apparenily acting on behalf of any insured; Option JF - Jewelry and Furs. Jewelry, watches, fur garments and garments trimmed with fur, precious and semi-precious stones, gold other than goldware, silver other than silverware, and platinum are covered for accidental direct physical loss or damage. bodily injury to an employee of an insured arising out of the residence premises as an incidental business other than to a residence employee while engaged in the employee's employment by an insured; The limits for this option are shown in the Declarations. The first amount is the limit for any one article; the second amount is the aggregate limit for each loss. All provisions and exclusions of SECTION | ~ LOSSES INSURED, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, Theft apply to Option JF. bodily injury to a student arising out of corporal punishment administered by or at the direction of the insured; liability arising out of any acts, errors, or omissions of an insured, or any other person for whose acts an insured is liable, resulting from the preparation or approval of data, plans, designs, opinions, reports, programs, specifications, supervisory inspections, or engineering services in the conduct of an insured’s incidental business involving data processing, computer consulting, or computer programming; or The following additional provisions apply: 1. We-will not pay for any loss to the property described in this option either consisting of, or directly and immediately caused by, one or more of the following: a. mechanical breakdown, wear and tear, or gradual deterioration; all animals, birds or insects, including nesting, infestation, gnawing, feeding, breeding, or discharge or release of waste products or secretions by animals, birds, or insects. However, we will pay for fosses caused by wild bears or deer; any claim made or suit brought against any insured by: (1) any person in the care of any insured because of child care services provided by or at the direction of: inherent vice; or (a) any insured; seizure or destruction under quarantine or cus- {b) any employee of any insured, or toms regulations; 5 HW2136 ©, Copyright, Slate Farm Mutual Automobiie Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000039"}, {"d": 21, "p": 124, "t": "2. Our limit for loss by any Coverage B peril except theft is the limit shown in the Declarations for Coverage B, plus the aggregate limit; (2) the enforcement requires the demotition of Our limits for loss by theft are those shown in the Declarations for this option. These limits apply in (3) the ordinance or law regulates the construction or repair of the building structure, or establishes zoning or land use requirements at the described premises; and portions of the same building structure not damaged by the same /oss insured; lieu of the Coverage 8 thett limit; and Our limits for loss by any covered peril except those in items 2. and 3. above are those shown in the Declarations for this option. (4) the ordinance or law is in force at the time of the occurrence of the same foss insured, oF Option OL - Building Ordinance or Law. 1. c. Coverage Provided. The total limit of insurance provided by this option will not exceed an amount equal to the Option OL percentage shown in the Declarations of the Coverage A limit shown in the Declarations at the time of the loss, as adjusted by the Inflation Coverage provisions of this policy. This is an additional amount of insurance and applies to building structures on the residence premises. the enforcement of a building, zoning, or land use ordinance or law, if: (1) the enforcement is directly caused by the same loss insured; (2) the requirement is in effect at the time the joss insured occurs; and Damaged Portions of Building Structure. When a building structure covered under COVERAGE A~ DWELLING is damaged by a Joss insured, we will pay for the increased cost to repair or rebuild the physically damaged portion of the building structure caused by the enforcement of a building, zoning, or land use ordinance or law if the enforcement is directly caused by the same foss insured and the requirement is in effect at the time the foss insured occurs. (3) the legally required changes are made to the undamaged portions of specific building structure features, systems, or components that have been physically damaged by the foss insured. We will not pay for legally required changes to specific building structure features, systems, or components that have not been physically damaged by the Joss insured. 4, Undamaged Portions of Damaged Building Structure. When a building structure covered under COVERAGE A - DWELLING is damaged by a loss insured, we will also pay for: a. b. legally required changes to the undamaged portion of the building structure caused by Building Ordinance or Law Coverage Limitations. a. the cost to demolish and clear the site of the undamaged portions of the building structure caused by the enforcement of a building, zoning, of land use ordinance or law if the enforcement is directly caused by the same /oss insured and the requirement is in effect at the time the foss insured occurs; and We will not pay for any increased cost of construction: (1) until the building structure is actually repaired or replaced at the same or another premises in the same general vicinity; (2) unless the repairs or replacement are made as soon as reasonably possible after the loss, not to exceed two years; and (3) due to any original or subsequent construction, addition, modification, renovation, remodel, or repair to a building structure that did not comply with a bullding, zoning, or land use ordinance or law in effect when the construction, addition, modification, renovation, remodel, or repair was performed. loss to the undamaged portion of the building structure caused by enforcement of any ordinance or law if: (1) the enforcement is directly caused by the same loss insured, % HW-2136 ©, Copyright, Slate Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000040"}, {"d": 21, "p": 125, "t": "b. We will not pay for more than a building structure of the same height, floor area, and style on the same or similar premises as the building structure, subject to the limit provided in paragraph 1. Coverage Provided of this option. We will not pay more under this coverage than the amount you actually spend: (1) for the increased cost to repair or rebuild the building structure at the same or another premises in the same general vicinity if relocation is required by ordinance or law, and (2) to demolish and clear the site of the undamaged portions of the building structure caused by enforcement of building, zoning, or land use ordinance or law. Option SG - Silverware and Goldware Theft. The COVERAGE B ~ PERSONAL PROPERTY, Special Limits of Liability, item i, for theft of silverware and goldware is increased to be the amount shown in the Declarations for this option. v ©, Copyright, State HW-2136 Farm Mutual Automobile fasurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000041"}, {"d": 21, "p": 127, "t": "RB2000is StateFarm State Farm Fire and Casualty Company &, Fire Claim File Print File History Information ™\" Route To: necrwrreey 7 | BASIC CLAIM INFORMATION Claim Number: Dateof Lass: 36-6301-13C 06-15-2023 Policy Number: 36-CR-X405-8 (__“mes insured: WEST, NEIL S FILE HISTORY File History - File Notes 42-49-2024 - 12:05 PM CST Perfarmer: Wicker, Joe File Note: File Note Participant: Category: Contact - Outbound Call Office: WHRUREC. COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 004(Named Insured(s)) Sub Category: Working vm, RCF CTR Bob requesting claim status, CS explained that the CTR would have to contact the PA to get the claim status info. CTR said he understood and he will fl with the PA 42-49-2024 - 11:13 AM CST Performer: Burk, Carrie File Note: Contact Participant: ‘Office WHRUREC COL / Line {Participant}; 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Category: Contact - inbound Call Sub Category: CS& working ACD line; RCF CTR seeking update on claim. CS reviewed update with CTR, however CTR confused by the supplemental. CS provided CO's contact infofmation and transferred t6 CO to seek clarfiication. CS backing out of claim, NFH 09-17-2024 - 8:22 AM CDT Performer: Wicker, Joe Office: WHRUREC File Note: File Note . Participant: COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC Category: Contact - Outbound Call _ COL} Line:{Participant): 35 /001(Named Insured(s)} Sub Category: Date: 03-14-2025 Page 1 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distributionon a Businéss Need to Know Basis Ont SFF&CC/West_000069"}, {"d": 21, "p": 128, "t": "FIRE Claim Number: 36-5304-13C RBZoo00Is Working new mail received an email from PA requesting that we review their photo, of the roof rain cap stating that this is a Items we missed doing our 1st inspection. Reviewed the docs and contacted the PA Jase, CS explained that we would need additional photos verifying the location for the rain cap on the roof. PA said he understood and he will submit those dacs. NFH closing claim new mail will reopen the clam. 08-15-2024 - 9:32 AM CDT Fife Note: pending file note Participant: Category: Pending Cov A: RCBs paid, Cov B: nia Cov C: nla Sub: n/a Morigagee (Dollar One Y/N): no Performer: Bradley, Yasiin Office: WHRUREC COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Closing claim pending addilonal documentation to be reopened, © © © © © © © 08-15-2024 - 9:31 AM CDT Performer: Bradley, Yasiin File Note: CTR PHOTOS FOR 2ND INSPECTION Participant: COL / Line (Participant): Category: Claim Note Sub Categary: oe » Office:- WHRUREC CTR submitted CX live photos previously submitted showing damage to the shingle CS reviewed photos submitted on 7/15/24 along with CTR EST, photas resembles previous submitted photos for CTR on 3/30/24, Par TM review “no additional damages to roofing,\" CTR photos does nat reflect additional damage done. All items were addressed at initial inspection by adjuster. Additional inspection is not warranted. Ni and CTR were informed 2nd inspection or TRR not warranted. Decision remains. CS contacted PA and NI notifying decision remains the same at this time. Claim can be closed pending addtional supporting documentation to be reopened. 07-30-2024 - 11:34 AM CDT Performer: Wicker, Joa File Note: File Note Particlpant: Category: Contact - Inbound Call Office: WHRUREC COL {Line (Participant): 35 Sub Category: /001(Named Insured(s)} RGF the Agent, N's called to get the status of the claim, CS explained thal we have received the CTR's docs but we have not made it to that mail date yet, Agent said she understood. Offices WHRUREC Performer: Thomas, Dawn 07-26-2024 - 8:55 AM CDT File Note: Claim Note Participant: COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)}} Category: Claim Note Sub Category: Revd claim - PA has been provided an update PHone message sent to CO in errir 07-25-2024 ~ 11:58 AM CDT Performer: Berndison, Erica Office:PROPVPLH File Note: Contact COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Participant: COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC Sub Category: Category: Contact CS received voicemail fram PA Kelsey teft voicemail requesting timeline for supplement/2nd inspection review. PA Kelsey call back number 386-478-4911. 07-25-2024 - 10:53 AM COT File Note: File Note Participant: Category: Contact - Outbound Call HI Offices WHRUREC Perfarmer: Wicker, Joe COL / Line (Participant): 35 / GO1(Named Insured(s)) Sub Category: Page 2 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000070"}, {"d": 21, "p": 129, "t": "» FIRE Claim Number: 36-83Q1-13€ RBZ00015 Working vm. Spoke with the PA rep and explained that the mail was received but we haven't made It to that mail date yet. PA Rep said she understood. Office: WHRUREC Performer: Bemdtson, Erica 05-08-2024 - 10:20 AM CDT File Note: Pending File Note COL / Line (Participant}: 35 / 0G1(Named Insured(s)) Participant: Sub Category: Category: Pending PENDING File Note jj Cov A: nothing, RCBs pald. Cov 8: n/a Cov C: néa Sub: n/a Mortgagee (Dollar One YIN): no 05-08-2024 - 10:20 AM CDT Office: WHRUREC Performer: Berndtson, Erica File Note: Policy sent to PA Participant: COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC I COL / Line (Participant): 35 /004(Named tnsured{(s)) Category: Claim Note CS working personal queue, email policy to PA. Sub Catagory: CS emailed policy and declaration to PA. Pending - Nothing, RCBs paid. NFHR - Closing Claim. Office: WHRUREC Performer: Cardona, Andrea 05-06-2024 ~ 6:28 PM CDT File Note: Outbound Call COL / Line (Participant): 35 / G01(Named Insured(s)) Participant: Sub Category: Category: Contact - Outbound Call CS assisting CO VMs PA requesting update on copy of policy i| CS made outbound call to PA, no answer, left VM explaining no udate at this time 04-29-2024 - 4:40 PM CDT Fite Note: Claim Note Performer: Bemdison, Erica Participant: COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC Office: WHRUREC COL / Line (Particlpant): 35 / G01(Named Insured(s)) Category: Contact - Outbound Call, Cantact Sub Category: Inbound Gail CS working voicemail, PA called requesting copy of policy and declarations page. CS reviewed/labeled new mail: PA LOR. CS emailed PA accepted latter to NI, DF to claim. CS completed underwriting request for policy and declarations page. TCT PA, no answer. CS emailed PA explaining document request being processed and will be emailed to PA once received, DF to claim. CS set calendar task to forward policy and declarations page ance received. Office:PROX Performer: Mebane, Christy 04-10-2024 - 12:42 PM COT Fife Note: No 2nd inspection letter approved COL / Line (Participant): 36 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Participant: Page 3 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need fo Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000071"}, {"d": 21, "p": 130, "t": "FIRE Claim Number: 36-6301-13C Category: Claim Note Emailed to both Ni's AO and CTR No further claim handling al this time, closing claim, new email will reopen. RBZOO0Is Sub Categary: 04-10-2024 - 12:25 PM CDT Performer: Taylor, Jason Office:PROX File Note: RE:TM review requested Participant: COL / Line (Participant): 35 /001(Named Insured(s)) Category: Claim Note Sub Categary: Approved. 04-10-2024 - 10:04 AM CDT Performer: Mebane, Christy Office:PROX File Note: RE:TM review requested Participant: COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)} Category: Claim Note Sub Category: sent No 2\" inspection letter for approval 04-08-2024 - 4:32 PM CDT Performer: Taylor, Jason Office:PROX Fite Note: RE:TM review requested Participant: COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named insured(s)} Category: Claim Note Sub Category: i Christy, Here are the things | see: » — CTR's pics do not took like hail. So, then | look at our own. + §mall hail to some of the metals. * — turtle with small hall spatter and no dents to it. + Some screens. Some that we bought don't look like hail to me. * Shingles, ridge, valley don’t show hits, Talk PH through the decision, No 2nd inspection Is Indicated. Send fetter after you talk it through with PH and Agent. 04-08-2024 - 12:15 PM CDT Performer: Mebane, Christy Office:PROX File Note: TM review requested Participant: COL / Line (Partlclpant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Category: Claim Note Sub Category: | went through the pictures- | see several pictures of popped blisters- but no for sure hail There is notes from a CH saying the same- then CTR called, and next CH reopened- It fs harder for me to tell through pictures- | would like to request a review to see if you think a 2nd inspection is warranted thank you 04-05-2024 ~ 5:47 PM CDT Performer: Napotes, Alexis File Note: Contact - Inbound Call Participant: TRADEMARK EXTERIORS COL / Line (Participant): RESTORATION Category: Contact - Inbound Call Sub Category: Office: WHRUREC CS working phones RCF Bobby OBO CTR Trademark Exteriors CTR advised photos were sent on 03/30 and was requesting claim status CS revd file, previous CS rev'd phates and no further handling was completed CS rev'd photos provided by CTR + Photos seem to indicate potential ADPL to roof shingles * Accuweather indicates 2.25\" hail on DOL > CS advised claim will be r/a to field to review for possible 2nd inspection + GTR U/S and had no further questions CS R/A to field to review for possible 2nd inspection, CTR provided photos which seem to indicate possible ADPL not accounted for on roofing shingles, please review for possible 2nd inspection Office: WHRUREC Performer: Collett, Temicka 04-03-2024 - 11:11 AM CDT eoenees « File Note: Photos af Shingle Damage Participant: Category: Claim Note COL / Line (Participant): 35 /001(Named Insured(s)) Sub Category: Page 4 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000072"}, {"d": 21, "p": 131, "t": "+ RBZOO0I6 Claim Number: 36-§3Q1-13C FIRE * * Working new mail tasks Labeled documents in file * Multiple photos of shingle damage to various slopes * Damage to shingles in photos did not appear to be ADPL hail damage « CTR requesting FRR TRR not considered due to photos submitted does not support ADPL hail damage * + No updates fo SFE made; SF's decision unchanged * No RCBs remain * Claim closed Performer: Haun, Kristin 03-15-2024 ~ 4:32 PM CDT Office: WHRUREC File Note: Claim note Particlpant: TRADEMARK EXTERIORS RESTORATION Category: Fire Estimatics, Contact ~ Outbound Call, Ciaim Note COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: * + * CS working messages PCT CTR (Bobby) to explain and clarify denied supplements. CTR did not provide any missed/omitted damages that are not on SFE for elevation for roof work. CTR is requesting TRR. Additional staining and measurements on fence are not warranted, SFE allows for damaged areas of fence to be stained. Additional staining of fence Is not warranted because the separate areas of fencing did not match pre-loss, Photos of bathroom ceiling do not appear to be water damage. + LMOVM with call back information. Office WHRUREC Performer: Ernest, Connie 03-14-2024 - 2:06 PM CDT i File Note: Working Phones Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Category: Contact - Inbound Call * COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) ‘ Sub Category: CS Working Phones CS RCF CTR Bobby stating that he'd received the email with the SFE and had questions about the non-supported items. * (8S reviewed the file notes and observed that CS Kristin had recently reconciled the supplement request. * CTR asked if CS Kristin can give him a call to discuss those non-supported items. * CS advised CTR that the CS will reach out lo address his questions and concems. + CTR uls NFQ. NFH, * Performer: Haun, Kristin 03-44-2024 - 1:12 PM CDT File Note: Claim nate COL / Line (Participant): Participant: NEIL S WEST Sub Category: Call, Category: Fire Estimatics, Contact - Outbound Hi Contact - Inbound Call, Claim Note * » CS working phones RCF CTR (Bobby) inquiring on status of supplements. i Office: WHRUREG Received,labeled and reviewed CTRE with signed contract and photos. Reviewed file notes and documents. + + Advised CTR would be notified of any updates to SFE Supplements TRR and additional elevation work - NOT APPROVED - CTR did not supply any evidence of missed damages + Addilional LF on fence - NOT APPROVED - SFE covers damaged area, fence did not match In stain color prior to storm + fathroom - NOT APPROVED - photos do not appear to be water stains at ceiling * Bedroom - APPROVED - already on SFE, allowed for floor protection, O&R ceiling fan and moving and resetting contents * Closet - APPROVED - already on SFE, allowed for floor pratection and moving and resetting contents + * Nothing to warrant an additional inspection at this time Updated SFE to release depreciation per signed contract * Payment letter, SOL and customer copy emailed to NI and DF ta claim. Paper draftissued. Not aligible for DP + * Customer copy emailed ta CTR and DF to claim PCT NI fo advise of decision. LMOVM with call back Information + * NFH Offica:WOMOEC Performar: Balser, Max R 40-19-2023 ~ 1:06 PM CDT File Note: CES Review Page § Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only ; SFF&CC/West_000073"}, {"d": 21, "p": 132, "t": ". « FIRE Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13¢ Participant: Category: Management Called Neil West to discuss his response on the CES. RBZOO00IS COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: We discussed that when the CO and PH inspected the exterior that the CO pointed out hail damaged items like the gutters, window screens, and the stain on the wood fence. ‘Then the CO inspected the roof. After the roof inspection, the CO shawed the PH the photos of spatter on the roof turile vents, and multiple shingle photos, valleys, ridges, slope overviews, then told the PH daes not have any wind or hail damage to the shingles. PH was told by 2 other roofers that he had damage to all the shingles. We discussed that if his roafer has any photos or proposals that he would like us to consider, we would be happy to review, He asked if his chosen roofer wanted to meet us to inspect raof again, would we. | advised that we would consider any review and would be able ta reinspect his roof system. i He thanked me for the call, and stated it meant alot ta him that we would follow up in his cancems. 09-29-2023 - 1:34 AM COT Performer: Gooch, Cedric Office: WOOKTUL Fife Note: Agent contact Participant: COL / Line (Participant): Category: Contact Sub Category: CO emailed agent Nancy Holcomb with inspection findings and results. Email was drop filed to documents. 09-29-2023 ~ 1:34 AM CDT File Note: Settlement Participant: Catagory: Claim Note CO completed and settled claim onsite. Performer: Gooch, Cedric 09-29-2023 - 1:30 AM CDT Performer: Gaoch, Cedric Fite Note: Inspection file note Participant: Category: Fire Estimatics Office: WOOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Office: WOOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: | Page 6 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000074"}, {"d": 21, "p": 133, "t": "« FIRE Claim Number: 36-5301-13¢ RBZO0OIS INSPECTION RESULTS: Met with: Neil West Date/Time: 09/28/23 @ 5pm l CTR name, if applicable: Photos taken and labeled by YPS2 Prior Losses: Related Prior, repairs completed Coverage A - Roof scope sheet uploaded. Exterior scope sheets uploaded. CO inspected the property with NI. Inspection completed on dwelling. No hail damage was documented to the shingles on the dwelling roof. Hail damage was documented to gutters, downspouts, window screens, and fence stain.. Discussed and agreed upon scope with NI. Advised that CO would complete the estimate and contact to settle. NI stated he u/s. Dwelling: ROOF: Approx. 4yr old 30yr laminate shingle in avg. condition. There is one | layer with felt and starter shingles, with drip edge. Pitch is 10/12. No hail damage documented to the chimney flue cap and metal roof vents. CO documented no hail damage to the shingles on any directional slope. Roof warrants full replacement based on impacts/sq. i ELEV: FT: Hail damage to gutters and window screens. RT: Hail damage to gutters. RR: Hail damage to gutters, downspout, and window screen. LT: Hail damage to gutters, downspout, and window screen. Other Structures: Hail damage to fence stain. Interior: CO documented water stain on ceiling in bedroom. Labor minimums: Applied as warranted, removed those that will be completed by a primary repair trade. GCO8P: Not applied to estimate due to lack of complexity or need for coordination of repairs. Repairs can be completed without trade interference. | Depreciation: Applied based on approx. age as identified during the inspection or provided by NI Coverage B - Personal Property: No personal property reported by NI. Coverage C -.Additional Living Expense (ALE): None-Home is habitable. Sub/Salvage: Weather related - no sub potential. No salvage value in damaged material/ items Building Code Jurisdictional Table utilized, code reviewed, coverage applies. CO completed SFE and settled claim onsite. 09-23-2023 ~ 1:01 PM CDT File Note: TM reassignment Participant: Category: Management Performer: Boydston, Kim Office: WDOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Please note scheduled inspection. Office: WOOKTUL Performar: Hervey, Brandi 09-16-2023 - 12:08 AM CDT File Note: Pending COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Page 7 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000075"}, {"d": 21, "p": 134, "t": "FIRE Claim Number: 36-5301-13C Category: Pending PENDING File Note RBZ000I5 Sub Category: 2. 2 2» @ & Cava: Pending inspection scheduled 9/29/2023 with 12-2PM arrival window Pending SFE Pending CDE Pending settlement cali with NI Pending settlement call with AO Pending close Cov B: + Panding inspection Cov C: No, home is stil habitable « Sub: * No, floss due to weather event Mortgagee (Dallar One Y/N): N- Rocket Mortgage -_ + 09-18-2023 ~ 12:07 AM CDT File Nate: QFC if i Performer: Hervey, Brandi Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Office: WDOOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): 35 /001(Named Insured(s)) Category: Quality First Contact Sub Category: H li Fire Property QFC - Wind/Hall Policy Type: Homeowners i Prior Related Losses/ISO Details: Possible Related Prior Number of Stories: 1 Raofing/Siding Type: Comp Class IV identified on Policy Screen (Yes/No): No Steep/Walkable: Steep Age of Roofing/Siding: 6-7 years | AccuWeather Report Details: Hail size 2.25 or greater FOL as provided by contact: Hail caused damage to dwelling Narrative Description of Damage: Damage to roof, interior room, exterior, and soft metals Exterior Damage: Y Interior Damage: Y Mitigation Performed: Building Habitability: Habitable Power Outage: N/A Personal Property Damage: Pending Inspection Food Loss: N/A Coverage C - ALE Status, if uninhabitable: N/A Subrogation: No sub for this weather loss Mortgage Company, Dollar One (yes/no): N- Rocket Mortgage Cir Name (if applicable): Trademark Exteriors Cir Added to Participants (yes/no): Y Offered SFPSP CSP or RSP: N REIAP utilized? (yes/no): N Explanation of claim handling process/next steps: Yes, inspections scheduled 9/29/2023 with 12-2PM arrival window Page 8 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need fo Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000076"}, {"d": 21, "p": 135, "t": "FIRE Claim Number: 36-5301-13C 09-12-2023 - 9:35 AM CDT Performer: Cathell, Stacy RBZ00015 Office: WOOKTUL File Note: AVM review Participant: NEIL S WEST COL / Line (Participant): Category: Claim Note Sub Category: ECR has made first conlact attempt with 2nd pending. 08-24-2023 - 6:58 PM CDT Performer: Hervey, Brandi Office: WOOKTUL File Nate: 2nd Attempt contact Ni Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Category: Contact - Outbound Call COL / Line (Participant): 35 /001(Named Insured(s)) Sub Category: Sent ODM. CalledNI, Neil West @0014 shone number and Lacy West @0013 phone number. No option to leave VM as @0014 fine VM box was full and @0013 phone number was answered by a man who stated it was: the wrong number. + FC0011519 Contact follow up letter sent via email 08-06-2023 - 3:26 PM CDT Performer: Hervey, Brandi Office: WDOKTUL File Note: Contact Ni Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST COL / Line (Participant): 35 /001(Named Insured(s}) Category: Contact - Oulbound Call Sub Category: Sent ODM. Called Ni, Neil West @0014 phone number and Lacy West @0013 phone number. Calls were unanswered. Left VM requesting cib-to discuss-claim and schedule inspection date. * FC0010948 Contact initial attempt letter sent via email 07-28-2023 - 10:34 PM CDT Performer: Hervey, Brandi Office: WDOKTUL File Note: Pending Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Category: Pending CQL / Line (Partielpant): 35 /001(Named Insured(s)} Sub Category: PENDING File Note Cov A: Pending QFC and inspection scheduling we Pending confirmation of CTR - Update participants if needed © © © e © Pending FIOT Pending Accuweather Pending inspection Pending SFE Pending CDE + Pending settlement call with NI 2 Pending settlement call with AO Pending close Cav B: + Pending inspection Cov C; - » * — No, home is still habitable Sub: * Na, loss due to weather event _ Mortgagee (Dollar One Y/N): N- Racket Morigage File History - File Nate System Generated Page 9 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000077"}, {"d": 21, "p": 136, "t": "« FIRE Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C 05-08-2024-- 10:16 AM CDT Performer: Bemdtson, Erica RBZ00015- Office: WHRUREC System Generated File Note: Document Management - Email Request Participant: COL / Line (Participant): Category: Claim Note To: TEAMLEADSUPPORT@COASTALCLAIMS.NET From: statefarmfireclains@statefarm.com: Subject: 36-5301-13C Message‘. Please find important informatian from State Farm Claims attached. Document(s} Include: 05/07/2024-eEF_615050724 15010/002-VC-1-Declarations page from U_W._1.pdf, Pages: [All}, Office: WHRUREC Performer: Berndtson, Erica 05-08-2024 ~ 10:15 AM COT System Generated Fite Note: Document Management - Email Request Participant: COL / Line (Participant): Category: Claim Note To: TEAMLEADSUPPORT@COASTALCLAIMS. NET From: statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com Subject: 36-53Q1-13C Message: Please find important information from State Farm Clainis attached. Document(s) include: 05/07/2024-eEF_61505072415010/003-VC-1-HW-2136 Palicy_1.pdi, Pages: [All]. Office: SYSTEM Performer: Berndtson, Erica 04-29-2024 - 4:37 PM CDT System Generated File Note: FC0000067 - FREE FORM - GENERAL COL / Line (Participant): Participant: Category: Correspondence FREE FORM - GENERAL were e-mailed by Erica Berndtson on 04/29/2024 04-29-2024 - 4:23 PM CDT Office: SYSTEM Performer: Berndtson, Erica System Generated File Note: FCQ011937 - PUBLIC Participant: COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, ING. ADJUSTER CONFIRMATION TO INSURE COL / Line (Participant): COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC Gategory: Correspondence PUBLIC- ADJUSTER CONFIRMATION TO INSURED were e-mailed by Erica Berndison on 04/29/2024 04-05-2024 - 5:47 PM CDT Office: CORPSYS Performer: System System Generated File Note: Assignment Notification Participant: Category: Claim Note COL / Line (Participant): Page 10 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000078"}, {"d": 21, "p": 137, "t": "FIRE Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C RBZO0015 Assignment Notification sent to Mebane, Christy (SHEL) at christy. mebane.shel@statefarm.com — Message Details — Fire Claim Number = 36-5301-13C Insured Name = NEIL WEST I} Date Of Loss = 06-15-2023 Lacation of Lass Address = 7 NW BRIARGREEK DR LAWTON, Oklahoma 735059537 Insured Default Phone Number= (680) 685-0014 Facts of Loss = FINAL: Hail damage to roof, gutters, window screens and fence. Agent Name = Agent Phone = Probable Cause = Hail 03-14-2024 - 1:05 PM CDT Performer: Haun, Kristin System Generated File Note: FC0016199 - HRU PAYMENT Participant: Category: Correspondence Office: SYSTEM COL / Line (Participant): HRU PAYMENT were e-mailed by Kristin Haun on 03/14/2024 03-14-2024 ~ 1:04 PM CDT Parformer: INTMSG_TEXT_PUSH System Generated File Note: TEXT-CLAIM_FIRE_PAYMENT_MADE Participant: NEIL S WEST Office; CORPSYS COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Ht Category: Correspondence Text message: \"State Farm: Hi Neil. We made a payment on your claim 36-5301-13C and it can be viewed on our mobile app here: https:// st8.farm/4tSuWRpNO! or online here: hitps://st8.farm/44KEVpckKsS\" was automatically sent to 580-695-0014 on 3/14/2024. Office: CORPSYS Parformer: INTMSG_TEXT_PUSH 03-14-2024 ~ 1:04 PM CDT MADE System Generated File Note: TEXT-CLAIM_FIRE_PAYMENT, COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Participant: LACY WEST Category: Correspondence Text message: \"State Fam: Hi Lacy. We made a payment on your claim 36-53Q1-13C and it can be viewed on our mobile app here: https:// stB.farm/SBeoafAKnv or online here: htips:/st8.farmAvivMiqKxja\" was automatically sent to 680-560-0522 on 3/14/2024. Office: CORPSYS Performer: System 03-14-2024 - 1:04 PM CDT System Generated File Note: EMAIL-PAYMENT ACTIVITY FIRE COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence EMAIL-PAYMENT ACTIVITY FIRE was automatically emailed to NEILGPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET on 3/14/2024 at 06:04 PM (GMT). Office: CORPSYS Performer: System 03-14-2024 - 1:04 PM COT System Generated File Note: EMAIL-PAYMENT ACTIVITY FIRE | Particlpant: LACY WEST COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Category: Correspondence EMAIL-PAYMENT ACTIVITY FIRE was automatically emailed to LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM on 3/14/2024 at 06:04 PM (GMT). Office: WHRUREC Performer: Haun, Kristin 03-14-2024 - 1:03 PM CDT System Generated File Note: MAX Seltlement COL / Line (Particlpant}: LACY WEST Participant: LACY WEST | Category: Claim Note Payment submitted fram MAX Settlement Forms and Correspondence (FC0016199 EN) initiated from MAX Settlement ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Lenders Loss Payable Endarsement:No Dollar One:No Assurant CDE:Not Checked Coverage A Dollar Amount Threshold > than or = ta $7500:No, System Check: No, Alfas verified: VADV3G Page 71 Date: 04-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000079"}, {"d": 21, "p": 138, "t": "+ FIRE Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C 03-14-2024 - 4:03 PM CDT Performer: Haun, Kristin System Generated File Note: MAX Settlement Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Claim Note Payment submitted from MAX Settlement Forms and Correspondence (FC0016199 EN) Initiated from MAX Settlement RBzZ00015 Office: WHRUREC COL / Line (Participant): NEIL § WEST ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Lenders Loss Payable Endorsement:No Dollar One:No Assurant CDE:Not Checked |] Coverage A Dollar Amount Threshold > than or = ta $7500:No, System Check: No, Alias verified: VADV3G 03-14-2024 - 1:03 PM CDT Performer: Haun, Kristin System Generated File Note: MAX Settlement Participant: ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Office: WHRUREC COL / Line (Participant): ROeT MORTGAGE LLC Category: Claim Note Payment submitted from MAX Settlement Forms and Correspondence (FC0016199 EN) initiated fram MAX Settlement ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Lenders Loss Payable Endorsement:No Dallar One:No Assurant CDE:Not Checked Coverage A Dollar Amount Threshold > than or = te $7500:No, System Check: No, Alias verified: VADV3G 03-14-2024 - 1:03 PM CDT Performer: Haun, Kristin System Generated File Note: Summary of Loss Participant: LACY WEST Category: Claim Note Summary of Loss saved from MAX Setilement Performer: Haun, Kristin 03-14-2024 - 1:03 PM CDT System Generated File Note: Summary of Loss Participant: NEIL S§ WEST Category: Claim Note Office: WHRUREC COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Office: WHRUREC COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Summary of Loss saved fram MAX Settlement Office: SYSTEM Performer: Gooch, Cedric 09-28-2023 - 7:21 PM COT System Generated File Note: FC0016725 COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence FC0016725 - HOME ESTIMATICS INFOGRAPHIC - AUTOMATED was automatically created and emaited through Forms & Correspondence to NEILSPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET 09-28-2023 - 7:16 PM COT Office: CORPSYS Performer: INTMSG_TEXT_PUSH System Generated File Note: TEXT-CLAIM_FIRE_EST_Ni COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence Text message: \"State Farm: Hi Neil. An estimate of the damage has been completed, you may view your estimate online here https:// st8.farm/léxnaxeEuD or it can be viewed on our mobile app here: https://st8.farmANV/x5goPR9m on claim 36-53Q1-13C\" was automatically sent to 580-695-0014 on 9/29/2023, Office: CORPSYS Performer: System 09-28-2023 - 7:16 PM CDT System Generated File Note: EMAIL-FIRE ESTIMATE INITIAL Participant: NEIL S WEST COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST i Category: Correspondence Page 12 Date: 03-14-2028 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000080"}, {"d": 21, "p": 139, "t": "» FIRE Clalm Number: 36-63Q1-13¢ RBZo0GIs EMAIL-FIRE ESTIMATE INITIAL was automatically emailed to NEILSPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET on 9/29/2023 at 12:16 AM (GMT). 09-28-2023 - 7:16 PM CDT Performer: System System Generated File Note: EMAIL-FIRE ESTIMATE INITIAL Participant: LACY WEST Office: CORPSYS COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Category: Correspondence i] EMAIL-FIRE ESTIMATE INITIAL was automatically emailed ta LACYLOU@QGMAIL.COM on 9/29/2023 at 12:16 AM (GMT). 09-28-2023 - 7:46 PM CDT Performer: INTMSG_TEXT, PUSH Office: CORPSYS System Generated File Note: TEXT-CLAIM_FIRE_EST_NI Participant: NEIL S WEST COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence Text message: \"State Farm: Hi Neil. An estimate of the damage has been completed, you may view your estimate online here https:// st8,farm/Kpjin6pdas aor it can be viewed on our mobile app here: https://st8.farm47xOmCYUyl on claim 36-5304-13C\" was automatically sent to 580-695-0014 on 9/29/2023. 09-28-2023 - 7:16 PM CDT Performer: System System Generated File Note: EMAIL-FIRE ESTIMATE INITIAL Partlelpant: NEIL S WEST Office: CORPSYS COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence i EMAIL-FIRE ESTIMATE INITIAL was automatically emailed to NEILSPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET on 9/29/2023 at 12:16 AM (GMT). 09-28-2023 - 7:16 PM CDT Periarmer: System System Generated File Note: EMAIL-FIRE ESTIMATE INITIAL Participant: LACY WEST Office: CORPSYS COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST | Category: Comespondence EMAIL-FIRE ESTIMATE INITIAL was automatically emailed to LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM on 9/29/2023 at 12:16 AM (GMT). 09-28-2023 - 5:57 PM CDT Performer: Gooch, Cedric Office: SYSTEM System Generated Fite Note: FC0016508 Participant: NEIL S WEST COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence FC0016568 - HOMEOWNERS RCB SETTLEMENT INFOGRAPHIC - AUTOMATED was automatically created and emalled through Forms & Correspondence to NEILGPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET 09-28-2023 - 5:50 PM CDT Parformer: INTMSG_TEXT_PUSH Office: CORPSYS System Generated Fite Note: TEXT-CLAIM_FIRE_PAYMENT_MADE Participant: NEIL S WEST COL / Line (Particlpant): NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence Text message: \"State Farm: Hi Neil. We made a payment on your claim 36-83Q1-13C and it can be viewed on our mobile app here: hitps.// st8.farmiwZjegdqWev or online here: https://st8.farm/OhYStKwMpr' was automatically sent to §80-695-0014 on 9/28/2023. 09-28-2023 - 5:50 PM COT Performer: System Office: CORPSYS System Generated File Note: EMAIL-PAYMENT ACTIVITY FIRE Participant: NEIL S WEST COL / Line (Participant): NEH. S WEST Category: Correspondence EMAIL-PAYMENT ACTIVITY FIRE was autamatically emailed to NEILSPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET an 9/28/2023 at 10:50 PM (GMT). 09-28-2023 - 5:50 PM COT Parformer: System Office: CORPSYS System Generated File Note: EMAIL-PAYMENT ACTIVITY FIRE Participant: LACY WEST COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Category: Correspondence EMAIL-PAYMENT ACTIVITY FIRE was automatically emailed to LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM on 9/28/2023 at 10:50 PM (GMT). 09-28-2023 - §:49 PM CDT Performer: Gooch, Cedric System Generated File Note: MAX Settlement Participant: LACY WEST Office: WOOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Catagory: Claim Note Hi Date: 03-14-2025 Page 13 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000081"}, {"d": 21, "p": 140, "t": ": FIRE Claim Number: 36-8301-13C RBZ00015 Payment submitted from MAX Settlement i ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Lenders Loss Payable Endarsement:No Dollar One:No Assurant CDE:No Coverage A Dollar Amount Threshold > than or = ta $7500:No, System Check: No, Alias verified: YPS2 09-28-2023 - 5:49 PM COT Performer: Gooch, Cedric Office: WOOKTUL System Generated File Note: MAX Settlement Participant: NEIL S WEST i] COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Category: Claim Note Payment submitted from MAX Settlement ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Lenders Loss Payable Endorsement:No Dollar One:No Assurant CDE:No Coverage A Dollar Amount Threshold > than or = to $7500:No, System Check: No, Allas verified: YPS2 09-28-2023 - §:49 PM CDT Performer: Gooch, Cedric System Generated Fite Note: MAX Settlement Participant: ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Office: WOOKTUL COL. / Line (Participant): ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Category: Clalm Note Payment submitted from MAX Settlement ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Lenders Loss Payable Endorsement:No Dollar One:No Assurant CDE:No Coverage A Dollar Amount Threshold > than or = to $7500:No, System Check: No, Alias verified: YPS2 Office: WDOKTUL Performer: Hervey, Brandi 09-16-2023 - 12:08 AM CDT System Generated File Note: TEXT-CLAIM_FIRE_APPOINTMENT COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence Text message: “State Farm: An inspection is scheduled for 09/29/2023 12:00 PM for claim 365301 13C. Call 866-787-8676 ext 15631 if you need to reschedule the inspection.\" was automatically sent to 580-695-0014 on 9/16/2023 by alias VAEMSM. Office: WOOKTUL Performer: Hervey, Brandi 09-13-2023 - 6:52 PM CDT N_ System Generated File Note: TEXT-ODM_CONTACT_ATTEMPT_EFIRE COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence Text message: “State Farm: Hi Neil, we'll call you shortly about claim 365301 13C. If yau miss our call, you can call us at 866-787-8676 ext 15631.\" was automatically sent to 580-695-0014 on 9/13/2023 by alias VAEMSM. Office: SYSTEM Performer: Harvey, Brandi 09-05-2023 - 7:20 PM COT System Generated File Note: FC0011519 - CONTACT FIRST FOLLOW UP COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Participant: LACY WEST Catagory: Correspondence CONTACT FIRST FOLLOW UP were e-mailed by Brandi Hervey on 09/06/2023 |] 09-05-2023 - 7:18 PM COT Office: WOOKTUL Performer: Hervey, Brandi System Generated File Note: CSA instruction Participant: Category: Claim Note COL / Line (Participant): Page 14 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution an a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000082"}, {"d": 21, "p": 141, "t": "+ FIRE Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13¢ RBZ000i5 Bundle released by user. VAEMSM for Claim 36-5301-13C 4 Print DOC TMPL: FC0011519 Documents Printed at Printer : PCQ2716.P27FIREPRINTO2 09-05-2023 - 7:18 PM CDT Performer: Hervey, Brandi Office: SYSTEM System Generated File Note: FC0011519 - CONTACT FIRST FOLLOW UP Participant: LACY WEST COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Category: Correspondence 4 copy of CONTACT FIRST FOLLOW UP was bundled by Brandi Hervey on 09/06/2023 08-06-2023 - 7:00 PM CDT Performer: Hervey, Brandi Office: WDOKTUL System Generated Fite Note: TEXT-ODM_CONTACT_ATTEMPT_EN_FIRE Participant: NEIL S WEST COL / Line (Particlpant}: NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence Text message: “State Farm: Hi Neil, we'll call you shorlly about claim 3653Q1130C. If you miss our call, you can call us at 866-787-8676 ext 15631.\" was automatically sent to 580-695-0014 on 9/6/2023 by alias VAEMSM. 09-05-2023 - 6:53 PM CDT Performer: Hervey, Brandi System Generated File Note: TEXT-ODM_CONTACT_ATTEMPT_EN_FIRE Participant: NEIL S WEST Office: WDOKTUL COL / Line (Particlpant}: NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence Text message: \"State Farm: Hi Neil, we'll call you shortly about claim 3653Q113C. If you miss our call, you can call us at 866-787-8676 ext 15631,\" was automatically sent to 580-895-0014 on 9/8/2023 by alias VAEMSM. Performer: Hervey, Brandi 08-24-2023 - 6:57 PM COT System Generated File Note: CSA Instruction Participant: Category: Claim Note Bundle released by user. VAEMSM for Claim 36-53Q1-13C 4 Print DOC TMPL: FC0017518 Documents Printed at Printer: PCQ2716,P27FIREPRINTO2 Office: WDOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): Office: SYSTEM Performer: Hervey, Brandi 08-24-2023 - 6:56 PM COT System Generated Fite Note: FC0011519 - CONTACT FIRST FOLLOW UP COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Participant: LACY WEST Gategary: Correspondence 1 copy of CONTACT FIRST FOLLOW UP was bundled by Brandi Hervey on 08/24/2023 Office: SYSTEM Performer: Hervey, Brandi 08-24-2023 - 6:52 PM CDT System Generated File Note: FC0011519 - CONTACT FIRST FOLLOW UP COL / Line (Parlicipant}: LACY WEST Participant: LACY WEST Catagory: Correspondence CONTACT FIRST FOLLOW UP were e-mailed by Brand! Hervey on 08/24/2023 Office: WOOKTUL Performer: Hervey, Brandi 08-24-2023 - 6:34 PM COT System Generated File Note: TEXT-ODM_CONTACT_ATTEMPT_EN_FIRE COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Participant: LACY WEST Category: Correspondence Text message: \"State Farm: Hi Lacy, we'll call you shortly about claim 36530113C. If you miss our call, you can call us at 866-787-8676 ext 45631.\" was automatically sent to 580-695-0013 on 8/24/2023 by allas VAEMSM. Office: WDOKTUL Performer: Hervey, Brandi 08-24-2023 - 6:31 PM CDT System Generated File Note: TEXT-OBM_CONTACT_ATTEMPT_EN_ FIRE COL / Line (Particlpant): NEIL S WEST Participant: NEIL S WEST | Category: Correspondence Text message: \"State Farm: Hi Nell, we'll call you shortly about claim 3653Q113C. If you miss our call, you can call us at 866-787-0676 ext 45631.\" was automatically sent to 580-605-0014 on 6/24/2023 by alias VAEMSM. Office: CORPSYS Performer: INTMSG_TEXT_PUSH 08-06-2023 ~ 5:14 PM COT System Generated File Note: TEXT-INVALID_RESPONSE Page 18 Data: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000083"}, {"d": 21, "p": 142, "t": "‘ FIRE Claim Number: 36-83Q1-13C RBZO0015 Participant: COL / Line (Participant): Category: Correspondence Taxt massage: \"State Farm: We're not sure what you mean. For claim questions, visit statefarm.con/clalms/claims-help” was automatically sent to 580-695-0013 on 8/6/2023. 08-06-2023 - 3:26 PM CDT Perfarmer: Hervey, Brandi Office: SYSTEM System Generated File Note: FCQ010918 - CONTACT INITIAL ATTEMPT Participant: LACY WEST COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Category: Correspondence CONTACT INITIAL ATTEMPT were e-mailed by Brandi Hervey on 08/06/2023 08-06-2023 - 3:21 PM CDT Performer: Hervey, Brandi Office: WDOKTUL System Generated File Note: TEXT-ODM_CONTACT_ATTEMPT_EN_FIRE Participant: LACY WEST COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Category: Correspondence Text message: “State Farm: Hi Lacy, we'll call you shortly about claim 365307 13C. If you miss our call, you can call us at 866-787-8676 ext 15631.\" was automatically sent to 580-695-0013 on 8/6/2023 by alias VAEMSM. 08-06-2023 - 3:18 PM CDT Performer: Hervey, Brandi Office: WOOKTUL System Generated File Note: TEXT-ODM_CONTACT_ATTEMPT_EN_FIRE Participant: NEIL S WEST COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Category: Carrespondence Text message: \"State Farm: Hi Neil, we'll call you shorily about clalm 3653Q113C. If you miss our call, you can call us at 866-787-8676 ext | 15631.\" was automatically sant to 580-695-0014 on 8/6/2023 by alias VAEMSM, 07-28-2023 - 11:41 PM COT Performer: Hervey, Brandi Office: SYSTEM System Generated Fite Note: FC0016192 Participant: NEIL S WEST COL / Line (Partielpant): NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondance FC0016192 - HOMEOWNERS BUILDING SETTLEMENT INFOGRAPHIC - AUTOMATED was automatically created and emailed through Forms & Correspondence to NEILGPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET 07-28-2623 - 2:13 PM COT Office: CORPSYS Performer: INTMSG_TEXT_PUSH System Generated File Note: TEXT-FIRE_NCN || Participant: NEIL S WEST COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence Text message: \"State Farm: Hi Nell. Visit hitps://st8.farm/KJQBPyljEG to get contact Information, upload photos and documents, view & manage your claim 36-53Q1-13C.” was automatically sent to 580-695-0014 on 7/28/2023. i] 07-28-2023 - 2:12 PM CDT Performer: System System Generated File Note: EMAIL-NEW CLAIM NOTIFICATION Participant: NEIL S WEST Office: CORPSYS COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence EMAIL-NEW CLAIM NOTIFICATION was automatically emalled to NELLGPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET on 7/28/2023 at 07:12 PM (GMT). 07-28-2023 - 2:12 PM CDT Performer: System System Generated File Note: EMAIL-NEW CLAIM NOTIFICATION PREF Participant: LACY WEST Office: CORPSYS COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Category: Correspondence EMAIL-NEW CLAIM NOTIFICATION PREF was automatically emailed to LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM on 7/28/2023 at 07:12 PM (GMT). 07-28-2023 - 2:02 PM CDT Performer: System ~ Claim File Office: System System Generated Fite Note: Weather Data Partlelpant: COL / Line (Participant): Category: Claim Note Page 16 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need ta Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000084"}, {"d": 21, "p": 143, "t": "« FIRE Claim Number: 36-63Q1-13¢ RBZ000I5 AccuWeather pravides three years of hail history based on the Date Reported and Loss Location in the Facts of Loss fab. Date of Hail 06/15/2023 05/06/2023 03/23/2023 05/31/2022, 05/04/2022 04/23/2022 10/10/2021 09/26/2021 07/10/2021 08/29/2020 07/30/2020 Hall Size (inches) 3.5 0.75 1.0 1.0 1.25 0.75 0.78 1.0 = 1.0 = 1.0 = 4.0 Hail data listed was derived through an API call/interface with the external vendor Accuweather, 07-28-2023 - 2:02 PM CDT Performer: System - Claim File Office: System System Generated File Note: Trademark Exteriors Restoration; SP; SP Participant: COL / Line (Participant): Category: New Claim Name: Trademark Exteriors Restoration Roles: SERVICE_PROVIDER 07-28-2023 - 2:02 PM CDT Performer: System - Ciaim File System Generated File Note: LACY WEST; NI Participant: Category: New Claim Name: LACY WEST Performer: System ~ Claim File 07-28-2023 - 2:02 PM CDT System Generated File Note: NEIL WEST; PNI Participant: Category: New Claim Name: NEIL WEST 07-28-2023 - 2:02 PM CDT Performer: System - Ciaim File System Generated File Note: Listed Property Participant: Office: System COL / Line (Participant): Office: System COL / Line (Participant): Office: System COL / Line (PartlcIpant): Category: New Claim Page 17 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000085"}, {"d": 21, "p": 144, "t": "e + FIRE Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C RBZOOOIS Identifying Description: Listed Property Address: 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR, LAWTON, OK, 735059537, USA Description: Indicate if the damage was caused by lightning: No Is the damage to the building's exterior, interior, or both? Exterior Indicate: Has the caller indicated the named Insured’s home is uninhabitable or involves a total loss to a detached structure(s}, based on the facts of loss or information they provided? If uncertaln, ask the caller: No Indicate if Catastrophe Deductible Ward Track was read: No Indicate if Temporary Repairs - Fire word track was read: No i Indicate If applicable deductible(s} were read: No (Water Shut Off) To protect your property from further damage, turn off the water al the shut-off valve nearest the source of the leak: No (Carpet} We suggest that you or a contractor extract the water from the carpet and remove the waler-damaged nad: No (Appliances) If safe te do so, unplug and remove all appliances in affected roams: No (Protect Furniture) If possible, move furniture and other personal properly out of the affected raoms or place aluminum foil under legs of furniture that cannot be removed to prevent stains on the flooring, Pull draperies up and away from wet areas: No Indicate if Temporary Repairs - Water Removal & Restoration word track was read: No Indicate if Temporary Repairs ~ Hall word track was read: Yes Indicate if Temporary Repairs - Wind was read: No Indicate if Temporary Repairs - Wind & Hail was read: No 67-28-2023 - 2:02 PM CDT Performer: System - Claim File System Generated File Nate: Preliminary information Participant: Category: New Claim indicate if damage to any houses, structures, or buildings: Yes Were any of your personal or business items damaged? No Was this incident raparted to the police? No Office: System COL / Line (Participant): 07-28-2023 - 2:02 PM CDT Performer: System - Claim File Office: System System Generated File Note: Loss Detalls Participant: COL / Line (Participant): Category: New Claim Reparted by: Contractor Person who reported the claim: Trademark Exteriars Restoration Indicate If warm transferred from agent's office: No Indicate the kind(s) of loss being reported: Hail indicate, Is this a first-party injury claim? (injury fo insured) Is this a first-party property claim? (damage to the insured's owned and insured property) [s this a third-party injury claim? (alleged injury to anather person} Is this a third-party property claim? (alleged damage to anather person's property): First party property indicate if a Weather/Catastrophe loss? Yes Indicate if the caller is filing this loss for record only: No Indicate if caller is requesting a Record Only letter to provide to a govemment agency: No Mark all applicable coverage(s) and deductible(s) read: Loss Location Category: Listed Property 07-28-2023 - 2:02 PM CDT Performer: System - Claim Fite System Generated File Note: Palicy Details Participant: Category: New Claim Office: System COL / Line (Participant): Date: 03-14-2025 Page 18 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000086"}, {"d": 21, "p": 145, "t": "> FIRE Claim Number: 36-53Q1-136 RBZOG0I5 Policyholder Address: 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR, LAWTON, OK, 735059537, UNITED STATES Policyhalder Type: individual Product Line: F Policy Number: 36-CR-X405-8 Effective Date: 07/28/2023 Expiration Date: 12/29/2023 State and State Code: OK; 36 Indicate if Excess and Surplus: No Excess and Surplus State: Excess and Surplus Policy: File History - Tasks 09-17-2024 ~ 8:22AM CDT Task: Performer: Mcleod-Gleaton, Taylor Office: WHRUREC MANAGEMENT CALENDAR Status: Cleared Participant: COL / Line (Participant): Category: Calendar Sub Cafegory: Task is set for a manager on the claim. Task is set to display every 180 days until the assignment is closed. 06-47-2024 ~ 8:04 AM CDT Performer: Wicker, Joe Office: Task: NEW MAIL Estimate Participant: Category: New Mall Notifies claim handler that new mail has been received, 09-17-2024 - 7:26 AM CDT Task: Participant: WHRUREC Status: Completed Performer: COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Wicker, Joe Estimate Office: WHRUREC NEW MAIL File Documentation Status: Completed COL / Line (Participant): Category: New Mail Sub Category: File Documentation Notifies claim handler that new mail has been received. 08-15-2024 - 9:36 AM CDT Task: Performer: Thomas, Dawn Offices: WHRUREC MANAGEMENT CALENDAR Status: Participant: Cleared COL (Line (Participant): Category: Calendar Sub Category: Task fs set for a manager on the claim. Task is set to display every 180 days until the assignment is closed. 08-15-2024 - 9:35 AM CDT Task: Performer: Bradley, Yasiin Office: WHRUREC NEW MAIL Estimate Status: Completed Participant: COL / Line (Participant): Gategory: New Mail Notifies claim handler that new mail has been received, 08-15-2024 - 9:35 AM COT Performer: Sub Category: Bradley, Yasiin Date: 03-14-2025 Estimate Office: WHRUREC Page 19 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CCWest_000087"}, {"d": 21, "p": 147, "t": "WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C State Farm P.O. Box 106169 Atlanta, GA 30348-6169 Fax: 1-844-236-3646 stotefarmflreclnims@statefarm.com Structural Damage Claim Policy This estimate is priced based on estimated market pricing for the cost of materials, labor, and other factors at the time of the loss, Adjustments in market pricing and timing of the Tepairs may impact the final cost of covered repairs. Should you or the contractor you select have questions concerning our estimate, please contact us. If your contractor's estimate is higher than ours, you should contact us prior to beginning repairs. State Farm will work with you-and your contractor to determine the actual and necessary cost of covered repairs at the time repairs will be completed, subject to policy terms, conditions and limits. » We want you to receive quality repair work to restore the damages to your property. * We will provide you with a detailed estimate of the scope of the damage and costs of repairs. Should the contractor you select have questions conceming our estimate, they should contact your claim representative. directly. * Depending upon the complexity of your repair, our estimate may or may not include an allowance for general contractor's overhead and profit, If you have questions regarding general contractor's overhead and profit and whether general contractor services are appropriate for your loss, please contact your claim representative before proceeding with repairs, + There may be building codes, ordinances, laws, or regulations that affect the repairs of your property. These items may or may not be covered by your policy. Please contict your claim representative if you have any questions reparding coverage which may be available under your policy. * State Farm® cannot authorize any contractor to proceed with work on your property. Repairs should proceed only with your ‘authorization. « State Farm does not guarantee the. quality of the workmanship of any contractor or guarantee that the work will be accomplished within any specific time frame. + It is understood that the contractor is hired by you, our insured, and that they work for you - not State Farm. If you have any questions or need sdditional information regarding your claim, please contact your claim representative immediately. Date: 9/2872023:5:43 PM 132214.1 06-18-2009 Page: t WEST_000087"}, {"d": 21, "p": 148, "t": "36-5301-13€ Building Estimate Summary Gulde & StateFarimn This summary guide Is based on a sample estimate and Is provided for reference only. Please refor to the estimate for specifics of your claim. 1. Ling ttem Tots! ~ Total vetue of a ine State Farm Insurance Jane Joe A , (Insured: . Smith minimums, Le febor a certaln adjustmentsis tofor cover 00-0000-000 number of hours for drive-time, set up tina and applicable administrative plain Claim number: 1 Maln Strost Properly: items in the oatmate plus possible hor Estimatete! 00-0000.000 ; Policy Number: : 00-00-0000-0 Price List: [LEL8F_MAR 13 Restotation/Service/ Anywhere, [L 00000-0000 of Loss: Other Type uetiolo: Profit-~ Genera! contractor's change for Remoda! + $1,00000 Ded | 2. Genaral Contractor's Overhead and coardinsting your repairs. F= Factorad In, D= Do Not Apply 3. Replacement Cost Value (RCV}~ or replace Estimated costto repair Summary for Dwelling ny vgs Line Item Total [1] . Matarial Sales Tax @ General Contractor Overhead [Z] @ General Contractor Profit @- ¢ 6,981.40 100% x 6,105.10 ‘ * 160% x 6.Aosi10 da? ' oe iztion a period InoftheUmno overdecressa of propetty~The valuaDeprec . 10.00% x 1,520.90 _ damaged property. , obsolescence A portion of this efgile foror ail replacement may ba nt amou 84068 cost benefits. Replacement Cost Value (Inching ae Contractor Overhead and Pl 732812 | | peductibte—The insure wil pay for Less Depreciation (inchuding Taxes) [4] i (832.50) Non - recaveruble Depreciation “C2 (1gs.soy | | 6 Wet Actual Cath Vale Payren Less Ganeral Contmctor 7 Less Deductbe [5], ns vjp~ aaa 7, Non to terns thaton—are epotied Depreciati faton D ; Recoverable 143 avon replacement cost cateigforie 832.50 Fetal tine ii Depyctton (neti Tes (3 Hen not 8 COSt . 8, Total Maximum Additonal Amount # ate ‘ Subtotal” General Contraciar O8P on Dopraciation ” Less General Contractor O&P on Non - recoverable Depredation Subtotal tncarred = Total emount of rocavaratie depreciation after actual lr at the proparty. or replacement repa 312.50 1.59 3. Tom Amount Ctaim if incurred ~ amount of tha Inching net octal cash Oe emtand iol Total Maximnum Additional Amounts Avalabie If ineurred Total Amount of Clam if fncurred [3] or replacement cost less deprocistion and deductible. , untagAdditional Amounts Available if incurred: a<_mam ~ recbverable Depredt tion (Including Taxes of your applicable deductible, of tha damaged part of the property Not Acyl Cah Vino Pome (Bh Lass tosses, up to the polley Umits, in axcass nm maximum additions! amount avaliable # incurred, Claim Representative ALL AMOUNTS PAYASLE ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITS OF YOUR POLICY, 1onzese Date: $39828,1 0123-2012 9/28/2023 5:43 PM Page: 2 WEST_000088"}, {"d": 21, "p": 149, "t": "State Farm WEST, NUIL 36-53Q1-13C Insured: = WEST, NEIL Property: 7 NW BRIARCREBK DR LAWTON, OK 73505-9537 Home: 580-510-0427 Cellular; $80-695-0014 Type ofLoss: Hail Deductible: Date ofLoss: Date inspected: $3,090.00 6/15/2023 9/28/2023 Gstimate: 36-53Q1-13C Claim Number: Policy Number; 3653Q113C 36CRX4058 Price List: OKLA28 O1JUN23 Restoration/Service/Remodel Summary for Coverage A - Dwelling - 35 Windstorm and Hall Live Item Totat Material Sales Tax 4,686.80 $9.09 Replacement Cost Value 4,715.89 Less Depreciation (Including Taxes) (767.39) Less Deductible (3,090.00) Net Actual Cash Value Payment $918,50 Maximum Additional Amounts Available If Incurred: Tota! Line Item Depreciation (Including Taxes) 167.39 Replacement Cost Benefits 767.39 167,39 Total Maximum Additional Amount Available If Incurred Totel Amount of Claim If Incurred $1,685.89 Gooch, Cedric 866-787-8676 ALL AMOUNTS PAYABLE ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITS OF YOUR POLICY. A residential or commercial roofing contractor providing repairs or improvement services to be paid by an insured from the proceeds of a property or casualty insurance policy ahall not,az an inducement to the sale or provision of goods or services to an insured, advertise or promise to pay, directly or indirectly, all or part of any applicable insurance deductible or offer to compensate an insured for providing any service to the insured. If a roofing contractor violates the provisions of this section, the insurer to whom the insured tendered the claim shall not be obligated te consider the estimate prepared by the roofing contractor, Every roofing contractor shall provide a written notification of the requirements of this section with its initial estimate, The adjuster or insurer shall provide a written notification of the requirements of this section in the initial estimate relating to the claim. Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM Page: 3 WEST_000089"}, {"d": 21, "p": 150, "t": "& Statefarm' Explanation of Building Replacement Cost Benefits Homcowner Policy Coverage A - Dwelling ~ 35 Windstorm and Hail To: Naine: Address: WEST, NEIL 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR City: State/Zip: LAWTON OK, 73505-9537 Tnsured: WEST, NEIL Claim Number: 3653QN13C Date of Loss: 6/15/2023 Cause of Loss: HAIL Your Insurance policy provides replacement cost benollts for some or ail of the loss or damage to your dwelling or structures. Replacement cost benefils pays the actual and necessary cost of repeir or replacement, without a deduction for depreciation, subject fo your policy's IImit of liability. To receive replacement cost benefits you must: 1, Complete the actual repait or replacement of tha damaged part of the property within two yearsof the date of toss; 2. Promptly notify us within 30 days after the work has bean completed; and 3. Confirm compietion of repair or replacement, by submitting invoicas, receipts or other documentation to your agent or calm office. Until these requirements have been satisfied, our payment(s) to you wil be for the actual cash value of the damaged part of the property, which may inchide a deduction for depreciation, Without walving the above requirements,we will consider paying replacement cost benefits prior to actual repair or replacement if we cater repair or replacement costs will be incurred because repairs are substantially under way or you present a signed contract acceptable to us, The estimate to repalr or replace your damaged property is $4,775.89 . The enclosed claim payment to you of $918.50 Is for the actual cash value of the damaged property at the time of loss, less any. deductible that may apply, We determined the actual cash value by deducting depreciation from the estimated repair or replacement cost, Our estimate details the depreciation applied to your loss. Based on our estimate, the additional amount avaiable to you for replacement cost benefits (recoverable depraciation) Is $ 767.39 . oe ee if you cannot have the repairs completed for the repalr/replacement cost estimated, please contact your claim specialist prior to beginning repairs. All policy provisions apply to your claim. Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM FC0006615 10/22/2020 Page: 4 WEST_000090"}, {"d": 21, "p": 151, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEIL 36-5301-13C Dwelling Exterior Roof 46,33 Number of Squares 4,632.97 Surface Atco 99.08 Total Ridge Length 330,96 Total Perimeter Length 229.79 Total lip Length QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 0.00 0.00 AGE/LIFE CONDITION DEPREC. ACV 0,06 0,06 DEP% No Accidental Direct Physical Loss observed at time of inspection. Totals: Roof Gatters 0,00 SF Walls 0,00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Short Wall UNIT PRICE * 1, R&R Gutter - aluminum - up to 3\" 275.00 LF 10.28 Totals: Gutters 0,00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter TAX RCV 6435 289135 64.35 2,891.35 AGE/LIFE DEPREC. ACV 4/25yts Avg. (462.62) 16,00% 2,428.73 462.62 2,428.73 CONDITION DEP% Front Elevation 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Floor 0,00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Short Wail 0.00 SF Walls& Ceiling 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter UNIT PRICE TAX RCV AGE/LIFE CONDITION DEPREC. DEP% ACV 4244 3.28 87.56 4/30 yrs Avg. (11.68) 13.33% 75,88 3.28 87.56 11.68 75.88 2, R&R Window screen, 1-9 SF 2,00 BA Totals: Front Elevation Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM Page: § - WEST_000091"}, {"d": 21, "p": 152, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEL 36-530 1+13C Right Clevation 0.00 SF Wella 9.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Celling 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 0,00 SF Long Wall UNIT PRICE QUANTITY TAX RCV 0.00 6.00 _ AGEALIFE CONDITION DEPREC. DEP% ACV 0.00 6.00 No Aceldental Direct Physical Loss observed al time of inspection. Totals: Right Elevation Rear Elevation 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Floor 0,00 SF Long Wall 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Short Wall QUANTITY TAX UNIT PRICE *3, R&R downspout - sluminum - up to 5” 12.00 LF 4. R&R Window screen, 10,28 1-9 SF 1,00 EA 281 42.14 1.64 Totals: Rear Elevation 445 Left Elevation , 0,00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Short Wall QUANTITY TAX * 5, R&R downspout - aluminum - up to 5\" 12.00 LF 10.28 RCV 126.17 43.78 AGE/LIFE DEPREC. ‘CONDITION DEP% 4/25 yrs (20.19) Avg. 16,00% 430s (5.84) Avg. 13.33% 169.95 26,03 ACV 105.98 37.94 143.92 . 0.00 SF Walls 0,00 SF Floor 0,00 SF Long Wall UNIT PRICE 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Cell. Perimeter 2.81 0.00 SF Walls& Ceiling 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Cecil, Perimeter RCV 126.17 AGE/LIFE DEPREC. CONDITION DEP % = 425 yrs (20.19) Avg. 16.00% ACV 105,98 6, R&R Window screen, | -9 SF 1.00 BA Totals: Left Elevation Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM 42.14 1.64 4.45 43.78 169.95 480ys (5.84) Avg. 13.33% 26,03 37,94 143.92 Page: 6 WEST_000092"}, {"d": 21, "p": 153, "t": "State Farm 36-53Q1-13C WEST, NBIL Fence 6.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY 0.00 SF Celling 0,00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0,00 SF Short Wall 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 0.38 0,31 241.99 0.83 8.99 536.87 AGE/LIFE CONDITION NDEPREC. DEP% ACV 7, Clean the eurface area 636.00 SF B, Stain - wood fence/gate 636.00 SF = 4/1S yrs (143.17) Avg. 26.67% 393.70 635.69 143.17 T1886 9.39 Totals: Fence JA1.99 Area Totals: Extcrior 2,371.08 SF Walls 319.90 Exterior Perimeter 2,371.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 46.33 Number of Squares 330.96 Total Perimeter Length LE Floor Perimeter 319.90 of Walls Wall Arca 2,371.08 Exterior 4,632.97 Surface Area 229.79 Total Hip Length 99.08 Total Ridge Length 85.83 Total: Exterior 669.53 4,097.67 3,428.14 Intertor eight: 8 Bedroom 352.00 SF Walls 120.00 SF Ceiling 472.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 44.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter 120.00 SF Floor 44.00 LF Floor Perimeter Opens into Exterior Opens into Exterior Opens into Exterior 26° X6' 8\" 2°6\" X 6\" 8\" 2' 6\" Xg'g\" Door Door Door QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AGE/LIFE CONDITION DEPREC. DEP% ACV TAX RCV 0.00 39.58 39.58 0.0! 2.09 2.09 CEILING 9, Content Manipulation charge - per hour 39.58 1,00 HR 10, Seal the surface area w/PVA primer- one coat 0,52 4,00 SP Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM Page: 7 WEST_000093"}, {"d": 21, "p": 154, "t": "State Farm WEST, NULL 36-83Q1-135C CONTINUED - Bedroom QUANTITY RCV TAX UNIT PRICE AGE/LIFE DEPREC. CONDITION DEP% ACV 11, Paint. more than the ceiling - one coat 124,00 SI? 0.61 0,85 7649 = 5/5 yrs Avg. 0.61 2.40 217.12 = S/S yrs 3.26 335.28 (2549) 33.33% $1.00 (72.37) 144,75 97.86 I37A2 WALLS 12, Paint the walls - one coat 352,00 SF Avg. 33.33% FLOOR No Accidental Direct Physical Loss observed at time of inspection. Totals: Bedroom Area Totals: Interior 352.00 SF Walls 120.00 SF Floor 120.00 SF Ceiling 135.11 Total Area $20.00 Floor Area 46.67 Exterior Perimeter 420,00 Exterior Wall Arca 472.00 SF Walls and Ceiling 44.00LF Floor Perimeter of Walls Total; Intertor 3.36 44.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 352,00 Interior Wall Area 335.28 97,36 DIAL Area Totals: Dwelling 2,723.08 SP Walls 120.00 SF Ceiling 2,843.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 120.00 SF Floor 135,11 Total Area 363,90 LF Floor Perimeter 120.00 Floor Area 366.57 Exterior Perimeter of Walls 44.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter 352.00 Interior Wall Area 4,632.97 Surface Area 46.33 Number of Squares 330.96 Total Perimeter Length 2,791.08 Exterior Wall Area 99.08 Total Ridge Length 229.79 Total Hip Length Total: Dwelling 89.09 4,432.95 767.39 3,665.56 Debris Removal 0.00 SF Waits 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Short Wail 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY 0.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 0.60 144.12 6.00 144.122 AGE/LIFE CONDITION DEPREC. DEP % ACV 13. Haul debris - per pickup truck load - Including dump fees 1.00 BA Totals: Debris Removal Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM 144,12 144.12 0.00 144.22 Page: § WEST_000094"}, {"d": 21, "p": 155, "t": "State Farm WEST, NUIL 36-5301-13C Labor Minimum Applied QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV AGE/LIFE 178.98 0.00 178.98 178.98 19,84 0.00 19.84 —_ 19.84 Totals: Labor Minimums Applied 6.00 198,62 0.60 198.82 Line Item Totals; 36-539Q1-13C 89.09 4,775.89 767.39 4,008.50 CONDITION DEPREC. ACV DEP% 14. Window labor minimum 1Q EA 1§. General labor - labor minimam 1.00 BA Grand Total Areas: 2,723.08 SF Walls 120.00 SF Ceiling 120.00 SF Floor 2,843.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 363.90 LF Floor Perimeter 44.00. LF Ceil. Perimeter 120.60 Floor Area 2,791.08 Exterior Well Area 4,632.97 Surface Area 99.08 Total Ridge Length Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM 135.1 Total Area ' 352,00 Interior Wall Arca 366.57 Exterior Perimeterof Walls 46.33 Number of Squares 330.96 Total Perimeter Length 225.79 Total Rip Length Page: 5 WEST_000095"}, {"d": 21, "p": 157, "t": "TRADEMARK | Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com Client: Property: Neil West ‘7 NW Briarcreek Drive Lawton, OK 73505 Operator: BRANDONS Type of Estimate: Date Entered: Hail 3/7/2024 Price List! Labor Efficiency: OKLA8X_MAR24 Restoration/Service/Remodel File Number: Claim Number: 3693Q113C Estimate: Date Assigned: WEST.NEIL PLEASE: READ rs DOCUMENT CAREFULLY, THOROUGHLY, AND IN IUS ENTIRE. Yy- PLEASE READ ALL Trademark Exteriors Restoration standardly uses the primary insurance industry database (Xactimate) for preparation of property loss related repair estimates. This estimate has been prepared based on legitimate damage and a rensonable method of repairs. Additionally, this estimate may be subject to future revisions and/or additions. Adopted and Required Butlding Codes: The 2015 International Residential Code (IRC) Aas been adopted and enforced in its entirety by Lawton, OK, unless otherwise specified in local amendments (which. are additions and/or deletions to the already wiitten building codes- see attached corresponding code documentation in the images section following this estimate). The 2015 International Code Council (CC) are the rules that govern this estimate. Important: \"Any person who violates a provision of this code or fails to comply with any of the requirements thereof or who erects, constructs, alters or repairs a building or structure in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the building official, or of e permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code, shall be subject to penalties as prescribed by. law.\" (IRC R113.4 Violation Penalties) Overhead and Profit - See Below Disclosures from Xactware for Additional Reference: Overhead and Profit (if applicable) has been added accordingly... For any questions related to the following estimate, please contact us. SFF&CC/West_000321"}, {"d": 21, "p": 158, "t": "ak TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING DISCLOUSRE FROM XACTWARE CAREFULLY AND THOROUGHLY. “Xactware cannot and does not represent or assume the accuracy of, or in any way endorse the content provided by its customers or any other entity. You warrant and represent, therefore, that your use of Licensed Product information is only as a source of opinion. You agree not to rely thereon without independent verification except at your own risk.” “Xactware does not warrant the accuracy of Price Data. Price Data is intended to be a representation of historical information to be used as a baseline or place to begin creation of an estimate. You are responsible to ensure the estimate includes pricing consistent with components including but not limited to actual materials, equipment, and labor pricing. You acknowledge and understand that Price Data provided as part of the Licensed Product is intended to target the most representative price of the various price points collected relevant to the specific line item in question. Having this single representative price per line item, computed ffom all valid price points researched in the market, means that some market price . data are higher and some market price data are lower than that which is reported. You agree not to prohibit or preclude deviations from the Price Data where contractor requirements, market conditions, demand or any other factor warrants the use of a different line item price in the specific situation, The pricing information shall be compatible with the current version of the Licensed Product. This pricing information is provided for informational purposes only. It is your responsibility to ensure the estimates you write include pricing consistent with components including but not limited to actual materials, equipment, and labor pricing.” “Xactware publishes prices as close to the mid-point of the market as possible, As a result, generally half of the providers in each market will be priced higher, and half lower than the cost shown here, Due to the structure at which different roofing companies operate (traditional sub-contractors vs. roofing sales organizations) roofing costs quoted by local providers can cover a very broad / large range of prices.” “The building cost data published by Xactware fs not designed to be Inclusive of sales tax, General O&P, or Job-Related O&P within the unit prices. These can be specified and added at print time after all line items have been listed. However, Xactware has designed flexibility into the system so this is not mandatory, Xactware’s users have the option to add these costs to their line items to their line items as they choose. The Xactimate system is designed to provide full detail on all costs that are incurred.” (Ref. XactAnalysis License Agreement: https://www.xactware.com/en-us/sotutions/claims-management/xactanalysls/subscription-software-usage-agreement/) WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 2 SFF&CC/West_000322"}, {"d": 21, "p": 159, "t": "Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36NE S2ndStreet Oklahoma City,OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com WEST_NEIL Dwelling Exterlor Exterlor QTY DESCRIPTION RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL L R&R Gutter - aluminum - up to ‘git ; 275.6 LF 0.54 9.89 175 $86.62 3,519.62 4 R&R Downspout-aluniinan-up —-80.00 LF 0.54 9.89 18.84 170.64 1,023.38 3, Gutter splash guard 3.00 EA 0.00 24,47 0,53 14,78 4,72 4. R&R Wrap wood window frame 2.00 EA 30.40 161.55 3.97 TLS 465.45 88,09 849,62 5,097.67 to 5\" & trim with aluminum sheet ~ Small Total: Exterior Roof DESCRIPTION QTY RESET . REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 57,37 0.00 0.00 531.70 3,190.23 5, Tear off, haul and dispose of 46.44 SQ 6. Remove Additional charge for 46.00 SQ 23,41 0.00 0.00 215.38 ‘1,292.24 7. Roofing felt - 15 ib. 40.84 SQ 0.00 32.72 15.67 270.40 1,622.35 comp. shingles~ Latulnated steep roof = 10/12 = 12/12 dope Per the 2015 International Residential Coda (IRC), “For roof slopes of four units verticalin 12 units horizontal (4:12) or greater, underlayment shall be one layer applied In the following manner: underlayment shall be applied shingle fashion, parallel fo and starting from the eave and lapped 2 inches, Distortions in the underlayment shell not interfere with the ability of the shingles to seal. End laps shail be 4 inches and shall be offset by 6 feet.” (Ref. R905.2) Additionally, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Roof assemblies shall he designed and iustalled in accordance with this code and the approved manufacturer ° s instructtons such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the building or structure.” (Ref R903. \\, R904.1, and R905.1) ‘The approved manufacturer is GAF, and their installation instructions state work shall be completed as outlined for the work to be professionally installed and warranted. Per the approved manufacturer, GAF, \"For hips, the underlayment shonid be lapped over the hips at least 4” (102 mm) to 6\" (152 mm) as would be done of a new or complete tear-off installation. Use a 12\" (305 mm) to 18” (457 mm) strip of underlaymentto run along the hip and overlap the new underlayment on the replacement plane at least 6” (152 mm) to 12” (305 mm).” Additionally per tha approved manufacturer, GAF, “For ridges, the underlayment should be lapped oer the ridge at least 4” (102 mm) to 6” run (152.1um) as would be dome on a new or complete tear-off installation, Use a 12\" (305 mm) to 18\" (457 mora) stripof underlayoientto along the ridge and overlap the new underlayment on the replacenient plane at least6” (152 mm) to 12” (305 nus.” A copy of the IRC code and the approved manufacturer's installation instructions have been attached for reference. 8. Roofing felt - 15 1b. - double coverage/low slope WEST_NEIL. 0.4 SQ 0.00 57.77 3.96. 0.24 3/7/2024 23.54 Page: 3 SFF&CC/West_000323"}, {"d": 21, "p": 160, "t": "os TRAD SRR ~=Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Roof QTY DESCRIPTION RESEF REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 2/12 PITCH (DEAD VALLEYS) Per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), \"Asphalt shingles shall be used on roof slopes of two units vertical in 12 units horizontal (17-percent slope) or greater. For roof dapes from two units vertical in 12 units horizontal (17-percent dope) up to four units vertical in 12 units horizontal (33-percent stope), double underlayment application Is required in accordance with Section R905. 1.1.” (ReE R905.2.2) Additionally, per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “Roof assemblies shall be designed and installed in accordance with this code and the approved manufacturer ' s Instructions such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the bulldlng or structure.” (ReE R903.1, R904,1, and R905.1) The approved memufacturer is GAF, and their installation instructions state work shall be completed as outlined for the work to be professionally . installed and warranted. A copy of the IRC code and the approved manufacturet’s installation instructions have been attached for reference, 11.57 1.66 0.00 516.00 SF 9. Ice & water barrler 167.44 1,004.61 VALLEY LINING - NOT EAVES Per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “Valley Linings shall be instalted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions before applying the shingles. Velley linings of the following types shall be permitted: . the valley lining shall be not less than 24 inches (610 mun) wide and of any of the 1. For open valleys (valley lining exposed) lined with metal, corrosion-resistart metals in Table R905.2.8.2. 2, For open valleys, valley lining of two plies of mineral-surfaced roll roofing, complying with ASTM D 3909 or ASTM D 6380 Class M, shall be penuitted, The bottom layer shall be 18 inches (457 rum) and the top layer not less than 36 inches (914 mm) wide. 4. For dosed valleys (valleys covered with shingles), valley lining of one ply of smooth roll roofing complying with ASTM D 6380 and et least 36 inches wide (914 mm) or valley lining as describedin Item 1 or 2 above shall be permitted. Self-adhering polymer modifled bitumen underlayment complying with ASTM D1970 shall be permitted in Meu of the lining materlaL” (Ref. 905.2.8.2) Additionally, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Roof assomblles shall be designed and tnstalled in accordance with this code and the approved manufacturer ’ s Instructions such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the building or structure.” Ref R903.1, R904), and R905.1) : The approved manufacturer is GAF, and their installation instructions state work shall be completed as outlined for the work to be professionally installed and warranted. A copy of the IRC code and the approved manufacturer's installation instructions have been attached for reference. 10. Drip edge WEST_NEIL 331.00 LF 0.00 2.7 18.72 183.80 3f7f2024 1,102.84 Page: 4 SFF&CC/West_000324"}, {"d": 21, "p": 161, "t": "TRADEMARK Scoot Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105. (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Roof QTY DESCRIPTION RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P. TOTAL Per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “A drip edge shall be provided at eaves and rake edges of shingle roofs, Adjacent segments and not less than 2 inches (51mm). Drip edges shall extend not less than 4 inch (6.4 mm) below the roof sheathing of drip edge shall be overlapped extend up back onto the roof deck not less than 2 inches (51 mm). Drip edges stiall be mechaitically fastencdto the roof deck at not more than 12 inches (305 mmm) 0.0, with fasteners as specified in Section R905.2.5, Underlayment shall be installed over the drip edge along eaves and under the drip edge along rake edges.” (Ref R905.2.8.5) with this code per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (RC), “Roof assemblies shall be designed and installed in accordance Additionally, and the approved manufacturer ’ s instructions such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the bulldlog or structure.” (Ref. R903.1, R904.1, and R905.1) The approved manufacturer is GAF, and their installation instructions state work shall be completed as olitlined for the work to be professionally installed and warranted. Per the approved manufacturer, drip edge must bo lustalicd to tho rakes and eayes of the roof to help prevent water from getting behind the soffit edge orsiding. A copy of the IRC code and the approved manufacturer’s installation instructions have been attached for reference.. 11. Asphalt starter - universal 331.00 LF 0.00 1,87 8.07 starter course 125.42 752.46 . “Roof assemblies shall be designed and lnstalied in accordance with this cade and the Per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), R903.1, R904.1, and ( approved manufacturer's instructions such that the roof assembly:shall serve to protect the bullding or | structure,” (Ref R905.1) The approved manufacturer is GAF, and their installation instructions state work shall be completed as outlined for the work to be professionally installed and warranted. _Per the approved manufacturer's installation instructions, asphalt starter strip shingles must be installed along the rakes and caves of the roof. A copy of the IRC code and the approved manufacturer's installation instructions have been attached for reference. 12. Step flashing WEST: NEIL 16.00 LF 0,00 10.56 1.54 34.10 3/7/2024 204.60 Page: 5 SFF&CC/West_000325."}, {"d": 21, "p": 162, "t": "STADEMAGR a Trademark Exterlors Restoration | 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Roof QTY DESCRIPTION RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL REQUIRED 10 BE REPLACED IF EXISTING & TO BE INSTALLED ALTOGETHER IF NOT EXISTING - BOTH PER BUILDING CODE the wall and Per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “Flashings shall be Installed in. a manner that prevents molsture from entering roof through joints in copings, through moisture permeable materials and at iatersections with parapet walls and other penetrations through the roof plane.” (Ref. R903.2) Additionally, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Flashings shalt be Installed at wall and roof Intersections, wherever there ls.a change In roof slope or direction and around roof openings. A fashing shall be installed to divert water away from where the eave ofa sloped roof intersects a vertical sidewall, Where flashing is of metal, the metal shall be carrosion resistant with a thickness of not less than 0.019 inoh (0.5 mim) (No. 26 galvanized sheet).” (Ref. R903.2.1) Furthermore, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “B ase flashing against a vertical sidewall shall be continuous or step flashing and shall be not less than 4 inches (102 mm) in helght and 4 Inches (102 mm) in width and shall direct water away from the vertical sidewall on the vertical sidewall, the vertical leg of the flashing shall be continuous under the _ onto the roof or into the gutter. Where siding is provided siding. Where anchored nxasonry veneer fs provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided tn accordance with this section and counterflashing shall be provided in accordance with Section R703,7.2.2, Where exterior plaster or edhered masonry veneer is provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided in accordance with this section and Section R703.6.3.” (Ref. R905.2.8.3) Lastly, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Flashing against a vertical front wall, as well as soll stack, vent pipe and chimney flashing, shall be applled in accordance with the asphalt shingle manufacturer * s printed Instructions.” (Ref. R905.2.8.4) These lashings, in complisnce with the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), must be replaced as “Any existing flashings, edgings, outlets, vents, or similar devices that are a part of the assembly shall be replaced where rusted, damaged, or deterlorated” (Ref R908.5) and “Used materials, equipment and devices shall not be reused unless approved by the building official,” (Ref. R104.9.1) Additionally, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Roof assemblles shall be designed and installed In accordance with this code and the approved manofacturer ’ s instructions such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the bulldingor structure.” (Ref R903.1, R904.1, and R905,1) The approved marmfacturer is GAF, and their installation instructions have been attached following this estimate - These installation instructions state work shall be completed as outlined for the work to be professionally installed and warranted. A copy of the IRC code and the approved manufachurer’s installation instructions have been attached for reference. 0.81 6.66 0.00 5.00 LF 13, Aluminum sidewall/endwall 6.82 flashing - rill ftntsh WEST_NEIL , 3/7/2024 40.93 Page: 6 SFF&CC/West_000326"}, {"d": 21, "p": 163, "t": "a7... TRADEMARK Pn | Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Okishome City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Roof QTY DESCRIPTION RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED IF EXISTING & TO BE INSTALLED ALTOGETHER IF NOT EXISTING - BOTH PER BUILDING CODE Per the 2015 International Residential Code (RC), “Flashings shall be instaffed In a manner that prevents molsture from entering the wall and roof through Joints in copings, through moisture permeable materfals and at intersections with parapet walle and other penetrations through the roof plane.” (Ref. R903.2) Additionally, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Flashings shal! be Lostalled at wall and reof Lotersectlons, wherever there is a change In roof stope or direction and around roof openings. A feshing shall be installed to divert water away from where the eave of's doped roof interseots a vertical sidewall. Where flashing is of metel, the metal shall be corrosion resistant with a thickness of not less than 0.019 inch (0.5 mnt) (No, 26 galvanized sheet).” (Ref. R903.2.3) Furthermore, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “B ase flashing agalnst a vertical sidewall shall be continuous or step flashing and shall be not less than 4 inches (102 mm) {n helght and 4 inches (102 mm) in width and shall direct water away from the vertical ddewall onto the roof or into the gutter. Where siding is provided on the vertical sidewall, the vertical leg of the flashing shall be continuous under the siding, Where anchored masonry veneer ts provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flarhing shall be provided in accordance with this section and counrterflashing shall bo provided in accordance with Section R703.7.2.2, Where exterior plaster or adhered masonry veneer is provided on the vertical cidewall, the bate flashing shall be provided in accordance with this section and Seotion R703.6.3.” (Ref. R905.2.8.3) Lastly, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (RC), “Flashing against a verttcal front wall, as well as soll stack, vent pipe and chimney flashing, shal] be applied in accordance with the asphalt shingle manufacturer ' s printed instructions.” (Ref. R905.2.8.4) These flashings, in compliance with the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), must be replacedas “Any existing flashings, edgings outlets, vents, or similar devices that are a part of the assembly shall be replaced where rusted, damaged, or deterlorated” (Ref R908.5) and “Used materlals, equipment and devices shal! not be reused anless approved by the building offical.” (Ref. R104.9.1) Additionally, per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “Roof assemblies shall be designed and {nstulled in accordance with this code and the approved manufacturer ' s instructions such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the building or structure.” (Ref R903.1, and R905.1) R904.1, The approved mamufacturer is GAP, and their installation instructions have been attached following this estimate - These installation instructions state work shall be completedas outlined for the work to be professionally installed and werranted. Acopy of the IRC code and the approved mamufacturer’s installation instructions have been attached for reference. 322.39 «= s-2,688.42 16,130.51 0.00 146.56 4,479.40 7118 48.94 1,83 431 71.56 49.80 465.31 298.91 0.00 4.68 5.61 65.80 394.81 0.00 408.04 5.02 82.60 495.63 55.00 SQ 0.00 238.54 15, Additional charge for steep roof10/12 - 12/12 slope 16. Gable cornice retwn-laminated 17. Flashing - pipe jack 54.28 SQ 0.00 68.77 5.00 EA 5.00 EA 0.00 0.00 18. Roof vent- turtle type ~ Metal 5.00 EA 19, Chimasy flashing - average (32\" 1,00 EA 14, Laminated- comp. shingterfgwont felt x WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Pege: 7 SFF&CC/West_000327"}, {"d": 21, "p": 164, "t": "ae. TRADEMARK EAL Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Roof DESCRIPTION QTY RESET REMOVE REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED IF EXISTING& TO BE INSTALLED ALTOGETHER REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL IF NOT EXISTING « BOTH PER BUILDING CODE the wall and Per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “FlashIngs shall be installed in a manner that prevents molsture from entering roof through jotnts in copings, through miolsture permeable materials and at intersections with parapet walls and other penetrations through the roof plane.” (Ref. R903.2) Additionally, per the 2015 International Residential Code (RC), “Flashings shall be installed at wall and roof intersectlons, wherever there isa change in roof slope or direction and around roof openings. A flashing shall be installed to divert water away from where the eave ofa sloped roof intersects a vertical sidewall. Where flashing is of metal, the metal shall be corrosion resistant with a thickness of not less than 0.019 inoh (0.5 mom) (No. 26 galvanized sheet).” (Re£ R903.2.1) Furthermore, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “B ase flashing against a vertical sidewall shall be continuous or step flashing and shall be not less than 4 inches (102 mm) in height ard 4 inches (102 mun) iu width and shall direct water away from the vertical stdewall onto the roof or Into the gutter, Where siding is provided on the vertical sidewall, the vertical leg of the flashing shall be continuous under the siding. Where anchored masonry veneer fs provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided in accordance with this section and couuterflashing shall be provided in accordance with Sectton R703.7,2.2. Where exterior plaster or adhered masonry veneer is provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided in accordance with this section and Section R703.6.3.” (Ref. R905.2.8.3) Lastly, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (RC), “Flashing agalnst a verttcal front wall, as well as soll stack, vent pipe and chimney flashing, shall be appliod tn accordance with the asphalt shingle manufacturer * s printed Instructions.” (Ref. R905,2.8.4) These flashings, in compliance with the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), mustbe replaced as “Any existing flashings, edgings, outlets, vents, or similar devices that are « part of the assembly shall be replaced where rusted, damaged, or deteriorated” (Ref. R908.5) ‘and “Used materials, equipment and devices shall not he reused unless approved by the bultding official.” (Ref. R104.9.1) Additionally, per the 2015 International Residential Code (RC), “Roof assemblies shall be designed and lustalled in accordance with this code and the approved manufacturer * s instructions such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the building or stracture.” (Ref R903.1, R904,1, and R905.) The spproved marufacturer is GAP, and their installation instructions have been attached following this estimate - These installation instructions state work shall be completed as outlined for the work to be professionally installed and warranted. A copy of the IRC code and the approved manufacturer's installation instructions have been attached for reference. 16.05 9.60 0.00 75.00 LF 20, Continuous ridge vent - shingleover style WEST_NEIL 147.22 3/7/2024 $83.27 Page: 8 SFF&CC/West_000328"}, {"d": 21, "p": 165, "t": "aa. TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@mexteriors.com CONTINUED - Roof QTY DESCRIPTION RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL Per the 2015 International Residentiat Code (IRC), \"Enclosed attics and enclosed rafter spaces formed where ceilings are applted directly to the underside of roof rafters shall have cross ventilation for each separate space by ventilating openlugs protected against the entrance of rain or sow. Ventilation openings shall have a least dimension of 1/16 inch (1.6 mm) minimum and 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) maximum, Ventilation nt cloth screening, hardware cloth, or openings having a least dimension larger than 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) shall be provided with corosion-resistawire similar material with openings having a least dimension of 1/16 inch (1.6 mm) minimum and 1/4 inch (6.4 tam) maximum, Openings in roof ot members shall canform to the requirements of Section R802.7. Required ventilation openings shall open directly to the outside air.\" (Ref. R806.) Additionally, per the 2015 International Residential Code (RC), “Ventilators shall be installed in accordance with manufacturer's Installation Instructions. Installation of ventilators in roof systents shall be in accordance with the requirements of Section R903. Install of ventilators in wall systems shall be in accordance with the requirements of Section R703.1.\" (Ref.806.4) Lastly, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (RC), “Roof assembites shall be designed and installed in accordance with this code and the approved manufacturer ’ s instructions such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the bullding or structure.” (Ref R903,1, R904,1, and R905.1) The approved mamufacturer is GAF, and their installation instruotions state work shall be completed as outlined for the work to be professionally , installed and warranted, A copy of the IRC code and the approved manufacturer’s installation instructions have been attached for reference. 0.00 330.00 LF 21. Hip / Ridge cap - Standard 8.38 43,60 377.0 2,262.00 profile- composttion shingles Per the official Xactimate line item description for the replacement of the shingles, and the footnotes of Eagleview and other satellite measurement reports, starter strip shingles and hips/tidge cap shingles must be estimated and accounted for accordingly and separately as their own line items, 336.96 56.16 0.00 56.16 0.00 5.00 HR 22. Roofinp~ General Laborer - per hour Labor to hand load materials onto roof Totals: Roof : Total: Exterior 455.45 $830.14 34,980.80 543.54 6,879.16 40,078.47 Interior Bedroom REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 32,00 SF 0.44 1,99 111 15.78 94.65 32.00 SF 0.00 0.79 0.12 5.08 30.48 32.00 SF 0.00 0.88 0.38 §.70 M17 26. Paltnt the celllng - one coat 40.00 SF 0.00 0.60 0.27 4.86 29.13 27. Paint the walls ~ one coat 208.00 SF 0.00 0.60 1.42 75,34 151.46 28, Ceiling fan- Detach & reset 1,00 EA 0.00 200.41 0.00 40.08 240,49 DESCRIPTION 23. R&R 1/2\" drywall- hung, taped, QTY ready for texture - ight hand 24. Texture drywall RESET texture 25, Seal/prime (1 coa!) then palit (1 coat) the surface area WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 9 SFF&CC/West_000329"}, {"d": 21, "p": 166, "t": "an. TRADEMARK | == Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Bedroom QTY DESCRIPTION RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 1.00 EA 0.00 | 15.03 0.00 3.0 18.03 40. Contents - move out then reset 1.00 EA 0.00 59.41 0.00 11.38 71.29 44. Floor protection - plastic and tape- 10 mil 40.00 SF 0.00 0.29 0.23 2.3% 14.19 3.46 113.98 683.89 29, Heat/AC register - Mechanically attached ~ Detach & reset Totals: Bedroom Bathroom REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 32.00 SF 0.44 199 1411 15.78 94.65 32.00 SF 0.00 0.7 0.12 5,08 N48 32.00 SF 0.00 0.88 0.31 §.70 M17 35. Palnt the ceiling ~ one coat 40.00 SF 0.00 0.60 0.27 4.86 29.13 36. Palnt the walls~ one coat 208.00 SF 0.00 0.60 1.42 25.24 161.46 37, Heat/AC register - Mechanically attached - Detach & reset 2.00 EA 0.00 15.03 0.00 6.02 %. 38, Floor protection- plastic and 40.00 SF 0.00 0.29 0.23 2.36 14.19 3.46 65.04 390.16 Qry DESCRIPTION 32. R&R 1/2” drywall- hung, taped, RESET ready for texture - ght hand 33, Texture drywall texture 34. Seal/prime (1 coat) then paint (1 coat) the surface area tape ~ 10 mil Totals; Bathroom Closet DESCRIPTION 39. R&R 1/2\" drywall - hung, taped, REMOVE REPLACE TAX oO&P TOTAL 32.00 SF 0.44 19 11 15.78 94.65 32.00 SF 0.00 0.79 0.12 5.08 48 QTy RESET ready for texture 40, Texture drywall - light hand texture M17 41. Sealprime (1 coat) then paint (1 coat) the surface area 42, Patat the ceiling - one coat 32.00 SF 0.00 0.88 0.31 §.70 38.25 SF 0.00 0.60 0.26 4,66 2187 43. Patnt the walls- one coat 192.00 SF 0.00 0.60 13 fA mI] 139.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.26 67.53 0.00 59.41 0.00 11.88 1.29 44, Detach & Reset Light fixture 1.00 EA 45. Contents move out then reset 1,00 EA WEST_NEIL §6.27 3/7/2024 , Page: 10 SFF&CC/West_000330"}, {"d": 21, "p": 167, "t": "—a 2s. TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Closet REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 0.00 0.29 0.22 2.26 13.57 Totals: Closet 3.33 92 479.37 Total: Intezior 10.25 258.4 1,553.42 Total: Dwelling $53.79 6,938.70 41,631.89 RESET Ory DESCRIPTION ._ 46. Floor protection - plastic and 38,25 SF tape- 10 mil Fencing Ory DESCRIPTION ' RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 47. Clean with pressure/cheruical spray 1,452.00 SF . 0.00 0.37 0.71 107.58 645.53 48. Stain - wood fence/gate 1,452.00 SF 0.00 0.88 21,74 251.08 1,506.52 16.00 EA 0.00 16.49 1.68 245.10 1,470.62 23.63 603.76 3,622.67 49. Wood fence 5° - 6° high - Detach & reset - per 3° sectfon Totals: Fenoing Debris Removal DESCRIPTION §0. Dumpster load - Approx. 12 QTY RESET 1,00 EA REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 429,25 0.00 0,00 85.86 §15.11 0.00 85.86 S15. yards, 1-3 tons of debris Totals: Debris Removal Labor Minimums Applied DESCRIPTION QIy RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 51. Siding lebor rainiroum 1.00 EA 0.00 62.99 0.00 12.60 59 52, Drywall labor minimum 1.60 BA 0.00 84.42 0.00 16.88 101.30 53. Electrical labor minimum 1.00 BA 0,00 6.20 0.00 1,24 7A4 54,aan Heat, vent, & air cond. labor 1.00 EA 0,00 206.29 0.00 41.26 247,55 Totals: Labor Mininrums Applied 0.00 N98 431.88 Line Ifem Totals: WEST_NEIL S77 A2 7,700.30 46,201.55 WEST_NBIL 3/1/2024 Page: 11 SFF&CC/West_000331"}, {"d": 21, "p": 168, "t": "TRADEMARK ne a] Trademark Exterlors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com Summary Line Item Total . 37,923.83 Material Sales Tax $77.42 Subtotal Overhead Profit 38,501.25 3,850.15 3,850.15 Replacement Cost Value Net Claim $46,201.55 $46,201.55 WEST_NEIL 3/772024 Page: 12 SFF&CC/West_000332"}, {"d": 21, "p": 169, "t": "Trademark Exterlors Restoration TRADEMARK ‘ctiaercereerteneerees 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405).748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com Recap of Taxes, Overhead and Profit Overhead (10%) Proflt(10%) ; Line Items Total WEST_NEIL . MaterfalSalesTax Manuf. Home Tax (4.875%) (4.875%) Storage Rental Tax | (4,875%) 3,850.15 3,850.15 $77.42 0.00 0.00 3,850.15 3,850.15 577,42 0,00 0.00 3/7/2024 Poge: 13 SFF&CC/West_000333"}, {"d": 21, "p": 170, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark -Exterlors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com Recap by Room Estimate: WEST. NEIL Area: Dwelling Area: Exterior Roof Area Subtotal: Extertor 4,159,96 28,695.21 10.97% 75.67% 32,855.17 86.63% Area: Interior Bedroom 566.45 1.49% Bathroom Closet 321.66 396,12 0.85% 1.04% Area Subtotal: Interior 1,284.23 3.39% Area Subtotal: Dwelling 34,139.40 90.02% Fencing Debris Removal Labor Minimums Applied 2,995.28 425,25 359.90 790% 1.13% 0.95% Subtotal of Areas 37,923.83 100,00% Total 37,923.83 100.00% WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 14 SFF&CC/West_000334"}, {"d": 21, "p": 171, "t": "TRADEMARK Trad emark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com Recap by Category O&P Items Total % CLEANING CONTENT MANIPULATION GENERAL DEMOLITION DRYWALL ELECTRICAL 537,24 118.82 4,459.38 351.30 6.20 1.16% 0.26% 9,65%. 0.76% 0.01% FENCING 1,223.84 2.65% HEAT, VENT & AIR CONDITIONING LIGHT FIXTURES PAINTING ROOFING SIDING SOFFIT, FASCIA, & GUTTER 281.38 156,68 1,788.72 24,959.82 386.09 3,584.36 0.54% 0.56% 3.87% 54.02% 0.84% 1.16% 37,923.83 «82.08% O&P Items Subtotal Material Sales Tux . 577.42 1.25% 3,850.15 8.33% Profit 3,850.15 833% Total 46,201.55 100.00%. WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Overhead Page: 15 SFF&CC/West_000335"}, {"d": 21, "p": 172, "t": "Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 38 WEST NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 53 SFF&CC/West_000373"}, {"d": 21, "p": 173, "t": "Trademark Exterlors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 37 WEST NEIL 372024 sages 72 SFF&CC/West_000392"}, {"d": 21, "p": 174, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 63 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 78 SFF&CCWest_000398"}, {"d": 21, "p": 175, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NB 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.coni 68 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 83 SFF&CC/West_000403"}, {"d": 21, "p": 177, "t": "& Providing lasurance and Financial Services Home Office, Bloomington, IL State Farnr March 14, 2024 State Farm Claims PO Box 106169 Neil S West 7 NW Briarcreek Dr LawtonOK RE: Atlanta GA 30348-6169 73505-9537 Claim Number, 36-5301-13C Policy Number: 36CRX4058 Date of Loss: June 15,2023 Dear Neil S West: Thank you for the opportunity to review your claim. A payment in the amount of $1274.67 will be mailed to you. The termsof your policy require your mortgage company or lienholder be included as a payee. Some mortgage companies or lienholders opt to be removed as a payee. If they are included as a payee, please contact them for instructions on obtaining their endorsement. if you have questions or need assistance, call us at (844} 458-4300 Ext. 66. Sincerely, Kristin Haun Claim Specialist (844) 458-4300 Ext. 66 statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com as Soclal Secunty For your protection, when emailing State Farm, please do not include sensitive personal information such al information in an email. Number, credit/debit card number (financial account number), driver's license number, or bealttvmedic Please contact us at (844) 458-4300 Ext. 66 to discuss sensitive information. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company a Take advantage of our self-service options facility, reserve a rental vehicle, repair a select status, claim review easily to Go to statefarm.com® update communication and claim payment preferences, and many other insurance services. WEST_000097"}, {"d": 21, "p": 178, "t": "a Statefarn’ Summary of Loss Named Insured: LACY WEST, NEIL S WEST Date Created: 3/14/2024 Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C Coverage A - Dwelling Limit of Lishitity: $309,000.00 Deseription Roplserment Recoverabls Nox-Roecoverablo Assount Over Lak (9) Subtotal&) 5,283.17 $5,283.17 0.00 s oc 0.00 $000 0,00 $ 0.00 $283.17 $§ 5,283.17 Cont(3) Degreciation%) Staff Ratimate Totals: Comments/Supplements Depreciation(5) =. Subtotals $5,283.17 Lees Deductible: $3,050.00 Lees MISC: Signature $0.00 Total Payabbe: Lets Total Payments Made: $2,193.17 $918.50 Not Payment; $1,274.67 Kristin Hava _ * Your polley may provide fir additional payments oa a replacement cast basis for the Recaverable Depreciation Usted above for Cov, A and Cov, B for your Butlding and Perronat Property. Please refer to your policy and any endorsements for specific tima limits and additional settlement provisions, Please contoct your clan handler if you have any questions. Previous Payments Date Sap 28, 2023 Payee Subtotal Remarks 3] Actual cash value paymentfor gutters, LACY WEST & NEIL S. WEST 916.60 downepout, windew screana, fence stain, and interior repairs, Totals: $ Page 1 of I 918.60 WEST_000098"}, {"d": 21, "p": 179, "t": "WEST, NEIL 36-5301-13C a fef a r ALD ° State Farm. P.O. Box 106169 Atlanta, GA 30348-6169 Fax: 1-844-236-3646 statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com Structural Damage Claim Policy This estimate is priced based on estimated market pricing for the cost of materials, labor, and other factors at the time of the loss. Adjustments in market pricing.and timing of the Tepaits may impact the final cost of covered repairs. Should you or the contractor you select have questions concerning our estimate, please contact us. If your contractor's estimate is higher than ours, you should contactus priorto beginning repairs. State Farm will work with you and your contractor to determine the actual and necessary cost of covered repairs at the time repairs will be completed, subjectto policy terms, conditions and limits. * We want you to receive quality repair work to restore the damages to your property. + We will provide you with a detailed estimate of the scope of the damage and costs of repairs. Should the contractor you select have questions concerning our estimate, they should contact your claim representative directly. + Depending upon the complexity of your repair, our estimate may or may not include an allowance for general contractor's overhead and profit. If you have questions regarding general contractor's overhead and profit and whethor general contractor services are appropriate for your loss, please contact your claim representative before proceeding with repairs. + There may be building codes, ordinances, laws, or regulations that affect the repairs of your property. These items may or may not be covered by your policy. Please contact your claim representative if you have any questions regarding coverage which may be available under your policy. * State Farn®-cannot authorize any contractor to proceed with work on your property. Repairs should proceed only with your authorization. » State Farm docs not guarantee the quality of the workmanship of any contractor or guarantee that the work will he accomplished within any specific time frame.. * It is understood that the contractor is hired by you, our insured, and that they work for you - not State Farm, If you have any questions or need additional information regarding your claim, please contact your claim representative immediately. Date: 3/14/2024 1:02 PM 132214.1 06-}8-2009 WEST_000099 eS Page:"}, {"d": 21, "p": 180, "t": "36-53Q1-13C & Satefarm Building Estimate Summary Guide This summary guide is based on a sample estimate and is provided for reference only. Please refer to the estimate for specifics of your claim. State Farm Insurance insured: Estimate: 00-0000-000 4 Main Street Claim number: 00-0000-000. Anywhere, IL 00000-0000 Policy Number. 00-00-0000-0 Smith, Joe & Jane Property: Type ofLoss: Other Deductible: Price List: ILBLEF_ MAR 13 Restoration/Service/ Remodel F = Factored in, DO = Do Not Apply $1,000.00 Summary for Dwelling Line Item Total [7] Material Sales Tax @ Subtotal Genera} Contractor Overhead e General Contractor Pratt : pagéttion (Including Taxes) [4] 832:50 Less-Nor - regpverable ‘Depreciation (Including Taxes) 312.50 Subtle” General Contractor O&P on Depreciation 466.50 Less General Contractor O&P on Non - recoverable Depreciation Subtotal Total Maximum Additional Amounts Available If incurred Total Amount of Claim if Incurred [9] Claim Representative ALL AMOUNTS PAYABLE ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITS OF YOUR POLICY. 1002089 Date: : 3/14/2024 1:02 PM 999928,4 61:23-2013 Page: 2 WEST_000100"}, {"d": 21, "p": 181, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C Insured: Property; Home: © WEST, NEIL 7NW BRIARCREEK DR LAWTON, OK 73505-9537 580-510-0427 Cellular; §80-695-0014 Type of Loss: Hail Deductible: Date ofLoss: $3,090.00 6/15/2023 Date Inspected: Estimate: Claim Number. Policy Number. Price List: 36-53Q1-13C 3653Q113C 36CRX4058 OKLA28_ MAR24 Restoration/Service/Remodel 9/28/2023 Summary for Coverage A - Dwelling - 35 Windstorm and Hail Line Item Total 5,)9155 Material Sales Tax 91.62 — Replacement Cost Value Less Deductible §,283.17 (3,090.00) Net Payment $2,193.17 HAIL RECONCILIATION UNIT 844-458-4300 x 66 ALL AMOUNTS PAYABLE ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITS OF YOUR POLICY. A residential or commercial roofing contractor providing repairs or improvement services to be paid by an insured from the proceeds of a property or casualty insurance policy shall not, as an inducement to the sale or provision of goods or services to an insured, advertise or promise to pay, directly or indirectly, all or part of any applicable insurance deductible or offer to compensate an insured for providing any service to the insured, If a roofing contractor violates the provisions of this section, the Insurer fo whom the insured tendered the claim shalt not be obligated to consider the estimate prepared by the roofing contractor. Every roofing contractor shall provide a written notification of the requirements of this section with its initial estimate. The adjuster or insurer shall provide a written notification of the requirements of this section in the initial estimate relating to the claim. Date: 3/14/2024 1:02 PM Page: 3 WEST_000101"}, {"d": 21, "p": 182, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C Dwelling Exterior Roof | 4,632.97 Surface Area 46.33 Number of Squares 330.96 Total Perimeter Length 99.08 Total Ridge Length 229.79 Total Hip Length DESCRIPTION QUANTITY No Accidental Direct Physical Loss observed at time.of inspection. UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 0.00: 0.00 _ Totals: Roof Gutters 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0,00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Short Wall 0,00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 SF Long Wail 0.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV * 1, R&R Guiter - aluminum - up to 5\" 275.00 LF 10.43 64.75 2,933.00 64,75 2,933.00 Totals: Gutters Front Elevation 0.00 SF Walls 0.60 SF Floor 0.00 SF Long Wall DESCRIPTION 2. RAR Window screen, 1 - 9 SF 0.00 SF Ceiling 0,00 SF Short Wall 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling. 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 2.00 EA 42,29 3,28 87,86 3,28 $7.86 Totals: Front Elevation Right Elevation 0:00 SF Walls Date: 0.00 SF Ceiling 0,00 SF Wails & Ceiling 3/14/2024 1:02 PM Page: 4 WEST_000102"}, {"d": 21, "p": 183, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEIL 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Long Wail DESCRIPTION 36-53Q1-13C 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 0.00 SF Short Wali QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 0.00 6.00 No Accidental Direct Physical Loss observed at time of inspection. Totals: Right Elevation Rear Elevation 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Long Wall DESCRIPTION 0.00 SF Ceiling 0,00 SF Short Wall 0,00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV * 3, R&R downspout - aluminum - up to 5* 12.00 LF 10.43 2.83 127.99 4, R&R Window screen, 1-9 SF 100EA 42,29 1.64 43.93 4,47 171.92 Totals: Rear Elevation Left Elevation 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Long Wall DESCRIPTION 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Short Wall 0,00 SF Wails & Ceiling 0,00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV * 5, R&R downspout - aluminum ~ up to 5° 12,00 LF 10,43 2.83 127.59 6. R&R Window sercen, 1 - 9 SF 1.00EA 42,29 1.64 43.93 4.47 171,92 Totals: Left Elevation Fence 0,00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Short Wall 0,00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 SF Long Wali 0,00 LF Ceil, Perimeter DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 7. Clean the surface area 636.00 SF 0.38 0.3) 241,99 Date: Page: 5 3/14/2024 1:02 PM WEST_000103"}, {"d": 21, "p": 184, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C CONTINUED - Fence DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 8. Stain - wood fence/gate 636.00 SF 0.85 9,30 549,90 9.61 791.89 Totals: Fence Area Totals: Exterior : 2,371.08 SF Walls 319.90 Exterior Perimeter 2,371.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 2,371.08 Exterior Wall Area of Walls 319.90 LF Floor Perimeter 4,632.97 Surface Arca 99.08 Total Ridge Length 46.33 Number of Squares 229.79 Total Hip Length 330,96 Total Perimeter Length Total: Exterior 86.58 4,156.59 Interior Bedroom Door Door Door Height: 8’ 352.00 SF Walls 472.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 120.00 SF Ceiling 120.00 SF Floor 44.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 44,00 LF Floor Perimeter 2'6\" X6'38\" 2'6\" X 6's\" 2° 6\" X 6' 8\" DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 9. Content Manipulation charge ~ per hour 1,00 HR 10. Seal the surface area w/PVA primer - one coat 4.00 SF Opens into Exterior Opens into Exterior Opens into Exterior UNIT PRICE ’ TAX RCV REVISED 0,52 0,01 2.09 : 11, Paint more than the ceiling - one coat 124.00 SF 0.60 0.85 75,25 12. Paint the walls - one coat 352.00 SF 0.60 2.40 213,60 13. Floor protection - plastic and tape - 10 mil 120.00 SF 0.29 0.70 35,50 100EA 200.41 0,00 200.41 14. Detach & Reset Ceiling fan& light Date: 3/14/2024 1:02 PM Page: 6 WEST_000104"}, {"d": 21, "p": 185, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C CONTINUED - Bedroom DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 15, Detach & Reset Heat/AC register Mechanically attached LOOEA 15.03 0.00 15.03 16. Contents - move out then reset LOOEA 59.41 0.00 59.4] 17, Seal the surface area w/PVA primer - one coat 2.00 SF 0.52 0.01 1,05 * 18, Paint ceiling 32,00 SF 0.60 0.22 19,42 +19. Paint walls 96.00 SF 0.60 0,66 58.26 20. Floor protection - plastic and tape - 10 mil 32.00 SF 0,29 0.19 9,47 21, Contents - move out then reset - Smail 1LO0EA 44.60 0.00 44.60 5.04 734.09 **4CLOSET#** room Totals: Bedroom Area Totals: Interior 352.00 SF Walls 120.00 SF Ceiling 472,00 SF Walls and Ceiling 120.00 SF Floor 120.00 Floor Area 135.11 Total Area 46.67 Exterior Perimeter 44.00 LF Floor Perimeter 44,00 LF Ceil. Perimeter of Walls 352.00 Interior Wall Area 420,00 Exterior Wall Area Total: Interior 5.04 734,09 Area Totals: Dwelling 2,723.08 SF Walls 120.00 SF Floor 120.00 Floor Area 120.00 SF Ceiling 135.11 Total Area 366.57 Exterior Perimeter 2,791.08 Exterior Wall Area of Walls 4,632.97 Surface Area 99.08 Total Ridge Length 46,33 Number of Squares 229.79 Total Hip Length Total: Dwelling 2,843.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 363,90 LF Floor Perimeter 44.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 352.00 Interior Wall Area 330.96 Total Perimeter Length 91.62 4,890,68 Debris Remoyal Date: 0.00 SF Walls 0,00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Short Wall 0,00 LF Floor Pesimeter 3/14/2024 1:02 PM Page: 7 WEST_000105"}, {"d": 21, "p": 186, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C 0.00 SF Long Wall DESCRIPTION 22, Haul debris - per pickup truck load including dump fees 0,00 LF Ceil. Perimeter QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 100EA 147.50 0.00 147,50 0.00 147,50 Totals: Debris Removal Labor Minimums Applied DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 23. Window labor minimum 1O0BA 182,52 0.00 182.52 24, Electrical labor minimum LOOEA 62.47 0.00 62,47 Totals: Labor Minimums Applied 0.00 244,99 Line Item Totals; 36-53Q1-13C 91.62 §,283,17 Grand Total Areas: 2,723.08 SF Walls 120.00 SF Floor 120.00 SF Ceiling 2,843.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 363.50 L¥ Floor Perimeter 44.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 120.00 Floor Area 2,791.08 Exterior Wall Area 135.11 Total Area 352.00 Interior Wall Area 366.57 Exterior Perimeter of Walls 4,632.97 Surface Area 99.08 Total Ridge Length Date: 46.33 Number of Squares 330,96 Total Perimeter Length 229.79 Total Hip Length 3/14/2024 1:02 PM Page: 8 WEST_000106"}, {"d": 21, "p": 187, "t": "Trade Summary Includesall spplicable Tax, General Contractor OP, and Labor Minimums DESCRIPTION LINE ITEM QTY REPL. COST TOTAL ACV NON-REC. DEPREC, MAX ADDL. AMT AVAIL. 636.00 SF $241.99 $241.99 $241.99 $241.99 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Content Manipulation charge - per hour 1,00 HR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Contents - move out then reset 1,00EA $59.41 $59.41 $0.00 $0.60 Contents - move out then reset - Small room TOTAL CONTENT MANIPULATION LOOEA 344.60 $44.60 $0.00 $0.00 $104.01 $104.01 $0.00 $0.00 $147.50 $147.50 $0.00 $0.00 $147.50 $147.50 $0.00 $0.00 CLN CLEANING Clean the surface area TOTAL CLEANING CON DMO CONTENT MANIPULATION GENERAL DEMOLITION Haul debris - per pickup truck load including dump fees TOTAL GENERAL DEMOLITION ELE 1.00 EA ELECTRICAL Electrical labor minimum LOOEA TOTAL ELECTRICAL HVC $0.00 $0.00 50,60 $0.00 $15.03 $15.03 $0.00 $0.00 $15.03 $15.03 $0.60 $0.60 LIGHT FIXTURES Detach & Reset Ceiling fan & light LOOEA TOTAL LIGHT FIXTURES PNT $62.47 362.47 HEAT, VENT & AIR CONDITIONING Detach & Reset Heat/AC register 1,00 EA Mechanically attached TOTAL HEAT, VENT & AIR CONDITIONING LiT $62.47 $62.47 $200.41 $200.41 $0.00 $0.00 $200.41 $200.41 $0.00 $0.00 PAINTING Stain - wood fence/gate 636,00 SF $549.90 $549.90 $0,00 $0.00 Floor protection - plastic and tape - 10 mil 152.00 SF $44.97 $44,97 $0.00 $0.0 Paint ceiling 32.00 SF $19.42 $19.42 $0,00 $0.00 Paint walls 96,00 SF $58.26 $58.26 $0.00 $0.00 Paint - one coat 476.00 SF $288.85 $288.85 $0.00 $0.00 6.00 SF $3.14 $964.54 $3.14 $964.54 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 R&R Gutter - aluminum - up to 5° 275.00 LF $2,933.00 $2,933.00 $0.00 $0.00 R&R downspout - aluminum - up to 5” 24.00 LF $255.98 $255.98 $0.00 $0.00 Seal wiPVA primer - one coat TOTAL PAINTING SFG SOFFIT, FASCIA, & GUTTER Note: Slight variances may be found within report sections due to rounding Date: Page: 9 3/14/2024 1:02 PM WEST_000107"}, {"d": 21, "p": 188, "t": "Trade Summary Inchudes all applicable Tax, General Contractor O&P, and Labor Minimums DESCRIPTION SFG LINE ITEM QTY REPL. COST TOTAL ACV NON-REC, DEPREC. MAXADDL AMT AVAIL, $3,188.98 $3,188.98 $0.00 $0.00 4.00EA $175.72 $175.72 $175.72 $175.72 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 100EA $182.52 $182.52 $182.52 $182.52 $0.00 $9,00 $0.00 $0.00 35,283.17 $5,283.17 $0.00 50,00 _ SOFFIT, FASCIA, & GUITER TOTAL SOFFIT, FASCIA, & GUTTER WDR_ WINDOW REGLAZING& REPAIR R&R Window screen, 1-9 SF TOTAL WINDOW REGLAZING & REPAIR WDW WINDOWS- WOOD Window labor minimum TOTAL WINDOWS - WOOD TOTALS . Note: Slight variances may be found within report sections due to rounding Date: 3/14/2024 1:02 PM Page: 10 WEST_000108"}, {"d": 21, "p": 189, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C Recap of Taxes, Overhead and Profit GC Overhead (0%) Line Items sree Total Date: 0.00 rere 0.00 GC Profit (0%) Material Sales Tax (4.875%) © Manuf, Home Tax (4.875%) 0.00 91.62 tnt 0.00 0.00 91.62 0.66 Storage Rental Tax \" 4.875%) tp 3/14/2024 1:02 PM 0.00 6.00 Page: 11 WEST_000109"}, {"d": 21, "p": 190, "t": "\"wy Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C From: HOME CLMS-FIRECLAIMS (statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com) To: NEILSPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET; odom_bobby@yahoo.com Co: LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM; nancy.holcomb.gave@statefarm.com Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 12:42 PM CDT Christy Mebane Claim Specialist- Proximity State Farm Fire Claims Work: 844-458-4300 EXT:3099946711 %. | 1OC- slatelarmfireciaims @statefarm.com SS & Es West. pdf 72.1kB WEST_0001 10"}, {"d": 21, "p": 192, "t": "From:\"Jose Parga\" <jparga@coastalclaims.net> Sent:Mon, 15 Jul 2024 22:27:39 -0500 To:\"HOME CLMS-FIRECLAIMS\" <statefarmfirectaims@statefarm.com>; ccsvcs-OK2024040001 @claimmail.net; \"Chris McCombs\" <chrismecombs@coastalclaims.net> Subject:[EXTERNAL] 3653Q113C Attachments:3653Q113C_WEST_PRELIMINARY_PA_ESTIMATE.paf, Neil_West_Photo_Report_companycam_report.pdf Hello Statefarm, Attached is our estimate along with our photo report to evidence our request for a re inspection. Please contact me directly to set-up are inspection 682-716-9565, Thank you, ~~ Jose J. Parga Public Adjuster (Coastal Claims Servicers 2650 N Dixie Fwy [| New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 Office (386) 314-0074 Fax (386) 961-4344 jparga(@coastalclaims.net www.coastalclaims.net SFF&CC/West_000261"}, {"d": 21, "p": 193, "t": "Gostat ciate , Coastal Claims ServicesInc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyrna Beach, F1 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net Insured: Property: West, Neil & Lacy: Home:: (580) 695-0014 7 NW Briarcreek Drive H-mail: rieilspencerwest@sbeglobal.net Lawton, OK 73505 Business: Claim Rep.: John Dekker Company: Coastal Claims Services Business: 2650N Dixie Freeway New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 Estimator; Eileen Dalton Company: Coastal Claims Services Claim Number: 3653Q113C DateofLoss; Date Inspected: E-mail: Policy Number: 36CRX4058 6/15/2023 12:00 AM Price List! OKLA8X_APR24 Restoration/Service/Remodel Estimate: WEST Date Received: Date Entered: (267) 261-0085 john@coastelclaims.net Type of Loss: Hail 4/25/2024 11:07 AM “This is a PRELIMINARY estim ate produced by Coastal Claims Services. This estimate represents our current evaluation of the damagesto the insured's property.As we continue to evaluate this claim, there may be additional damages related to this event that have not been scoped at the production of this estimate.” SFF&CC/West_000262"}, {"d": 21, "p": 194, "t": "Ganet Clams Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, Fi 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net WEST SOURCE: EAGLEVIEW Roof DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACY Roofing L.. Tear off, haul and dispose of comp. 46.34 SQ 59,37 0,00 $31.70 3,190.23 (0.00) | 3,190.23 2. Remove Additional charge for steep 46:34 SQ BAl 0.00 216.96 1,301.78 (0.00) 1,301.78 3. Re-nailing of roof sheathing - complete 4,634.00 SF 0.23 2.26 213.62 —*1,281.70. (6.95) 1,274.75 10 EA 346.29 6.92 10.64 423.85 (21.30) 402.55 shingles- Laminated roof'- 10/12 - 12/82 slope . re-nail 4, Saddle or cricket - 26 to50 SF felt - 15 tb, 5. Roofing 46.34$Q 32.72 17.78 306.80 1,840.82 (54.70) 1,786.12 6, Laminated comp. shingle rf. - w/out felt 55.67 SQ 238.54 326.32 2,721.16 16,327.00 (1,004.06) 15,322.94 7, Additional charge for steep roof-10/12- 7.61 SQ 68.77 0.00 104.66 628.00 (0.00) 628.00 8, Asplult starter - universal starter course =: 331.00 LF 1.87 8.07 125.42 752.46 (2483) 721,63 9, R&R Hip/ Ridge cap - Standard profile- 330.00 LF 8.25 43.60 $53.22 3,319.32 (134.15) 3,185.17 10. R&R Gable cornice return - laminated 5.00 EA 90.5! 185 90.90 $45.30 (5.71) $39.59 Flashing Ll; R&R Chimney flashing - average G2\" 1.00 BA 427.98 5.02 86,60 519.60 (5.43) 504.17 331,00 LF 3.18 20.49 214.62 1,287.69 (63.06) 1,224.63 48,66 291,98 (15,39) 276.59 12/12 slope composition shingles x36\") 12. RAR Drip edge/gutter apron | 13. Apply roofing sealant/cement- per LF- 331.00 LF 0.72 5.00 14. Step flashing 16.00 LF 9.92 1,57 32.06 192.35 (4.82) 187.53 15, R&R Flashing - L flashing - 5,00 LF 5.38 0.55 5.50 32.95 {1,69} 31.26 516.00 SF 1.63 13,08 £70.84 1,025,00 (40.25) 984.75 17. Valley metal 172,00 LF 6,00 21,21 210,64 1,263.85 (65.27) 1,198.58 18, Apply roofing sealant/cement- per LF- 344.00 LF 0.72 5.20 30.58 303.46 (16.00) 287.46 75.00 LF 10.77 ITAL 164.98 989.84 (52.65) 937.19 5.00 EA 75.20 5.B4 76.38 458,22 (17.97) 440,25 19.42 116.55 (6.24) 110.31 Drip Edge* galvanized 16. Ice & water barier Valley Metal*: ‘ Ventilation 19. RAR Continuous ridge vent - shingleover style 20, R&R Roof vent - turtle type - Metal Pipe Jacks, Caps, and Collars 21. R&R Furmee vent - tain cap and storm LOOEA 95,10: 2.03 collar, 6\" 22, R&R Flashing - pipe jack - lead 5.00 EA 88.49 12.12 90.92 545.49. 37.30) 508.19 23. Apply mastic around vent pipes to 11.00 EA 0.53 $7.28 343,70 (1.62) 342.08 25.99: prevent leakege* Miscellaneous Itents WEST 4/25/2024 Pape: 2 SFF&CC/West_000263"}, {"d": 21, "p": 195, "t": "Gant Claims Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, Fi 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net CONTINUED - Roof QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 1.00 BA 37.55 0.00 7.52 45.07 (0.00) 45.07 1.00 BA 300.00 0,00 0.00 300.00 (0.00) 300.00 5,00 HR 40.48 0.00 40.48 242.88 (0.00) 242.88 Totais: Roof 51655 6,211.56 37,569.09 1,589.39 35,979.70 Total: SOURCE: EAGLEVIEW 516.55 6,211.56 37,569.09 1,589.39 35,979.70 QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX o&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 4,00 BA 43:23 74 37.60 225.66 (21.97) 203.69 2,00 BA 303,21 6.56 122.60 735.58 (20.18) 715.40 13.70 160.20 961.24 4215 919.09 QUANTITY UNIT PRICE. 10:44 275,00 LF 10.44 96,00 LF TAX 64.75 72.60 O&P 587.18 204.98 RCV 3,522.93 1,229.82 DEPREC, (199.24) (69.55) ACV 3,323.69 1,160.27 IAB ' 0.53 16.42 98.49. (1.64) 96.85 87,88 908.58 4,851.24 270.43 4,580.91 TAX O&P RCV DEPREC, ACV DESCRIPTION 24, Digital satellite system - Detach& reset ~GENERALS25. Taxes, insurance, permits & fees (Bid Item) 26. Roofing - General Laborer - per hour Labor fo hand load materials onto roof Exterior DESCRIPTION 27, R&R Window sereen, | -9 SF 28. R&R Wrap wood window frame & trim with aluminum sheet Totals: Exterlor Gutters DESCRIPTION 29, R&R Gutter- aluminum - up to 5** 30, R&R Downspout - aluminum - up to ste 3.00 EA 31. R&R Gutter splash guard Totats; Gutters , Fencing DESCRIPTION WEST — QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 4/25/2024 Page: 3 SFF&CC/West_000264"}, {"d": 21, "p": 196, "t": "¥ Ganes Clans Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Clainis Services 2650N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074 wivw.coastalclaims.net CONTINUED - Fencing RCV DEPREC. ACV DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P spray 32, Clean with pressure/chemical 1,452.00 SF 0,37 0.71 107.58 645.53 (2.18) 643.35 (67.52) 1,457.26 33. Stain - wood fence/gate 34. Wood fence5' - 6° high - Detach & 1,452.00 SF 0,86 21.94 254,42 1,524.78 16.00 EA 16:49 1.68 245,10 1,470.62 (5.18) 1,465.44 an 606.30 3,640.93 14,88 3,566.05 reset - pec 8 section Totals; Fencing Maln Level ‘ F Seertarsctmnnssreerst | Height: 8” Bedrooni saan If 120.00 SF Ceiling | 352.00 SF Walls a 472.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 120.00 SF Floor 7 | 13.33 SY Flooring 44.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 44.00 LF Floor Perimeter , lt 9° bel I 4\" lr DESCRIPTION O&P RCY DEPREC. ACY 0.00 17.82 106.94 (0.00) 106.94 QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX 100EA 89,12 ' General: 35, Contents ~ move out then reset - Large . room Ceiling: 36, Ceiling fan - Detach & reset 37, Detach & Reset HeaV/AC register - 1.00 BA 200.41 0,00 40,08 240.49 (0,00) 240,49 1.00 EA 15.04 0.00 3.00 18.04 (0.00) {8.04 38. Mask and prep for paint - tape only 44,00 LF 0.54 0.1 478 18,65 (0.33) 28,32 120.00 SF 0.91 1,52 22.14 132.86. (4.68) 128.18 - plastic, and prep for paint ‘40. Mask paper, tope (per LF) 44,00 LF 1.26 0.58. 11.20 67.22 (1,78) 65.44 41, R&R 1/2\" drywall - hung, taped, 32.00 SF 2.67 $12 17.32 103.88 (3.46) 100.42 42. Tape joint for new to existing drywall- 32.00 LF 7.07 0.53 45.34 272.11 (1,63) 270,48 32.00 SF 0.79 0.32. $.08 30.48 (0.38) 30.10 352,00 SF 0.52 1.03 36.80 220,87 B.17) 217.70 352.00 SF 0.91 4.46 64.96 389.74 (13.73) 376.01 Mechanically attached (per LF) 39, Paint ihe ceiling - two coats ‘Walls: floated, ready for paint per LP 43, Texture ‘drywall « light hand texture 44, Seal the walls #/PVA primer ~ one —_ . coat 45, Paint the walls - two coats WEST 4125/2024 Page: 4 SFF&CC/West_000265"}, {"d": 21, "p": 197, "t": "Inc Gonst Ctaims Coastal Claims Services, Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, Fi 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net CONTINUED - Bedroom DESCRIPTION DEPREC. ACV 65.43 (0.00) 65.43 40.32 (0.00) 40.32 29,16 1,687.87 QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV 0.45 0,53 10.90 Floor: 120.00 SF 46, Mask or caver per square foot 120,00 SF 47. Final cleaning - construction - 0,28 0.00 6.72 10.00 286.14 ‘ Residential Totals: Bedroom = 1,717.03 Height: 8’ Bathroom 208.00 SF Walls 40.00 SF Ceiling 248.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 40.00 SF Floor 4.44 SY Flooring 26.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 26.00 L¥ Floor Perimeter QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 1,00 EA 89.12 0.00 17,82 106.94 (0,00) 106.94 1,00 EA 58.83 0,00- 11.76 70.59 (0.00) 70.59 50, Detach & Reset Heal/AC register - LOOEA 15.04 0.00 3,00 18.04 (0.00) 18.04 31. Mask and prep for paint - tape only 26.00 LF 0.54 0.06 2.82 16.92 (0.20) 16.72 40.00 SF 0.91 0.51 7.38 44,29 (1,56) 42.73 26.00 LF 1.26 0.34 6,62 39.72 (1.05) 38.67 54. R&R 1/2\" drywall - hung, taped, 32.00 SF 2,67 1.22 17.32 103.88 (3.46) 100.42 55. Tape joint or new to existing drywall - 32.00 LF 7,07 0.53 45.34 vie ee | (1.63) 270.48 32.00 SF 0,79 0.12 5.08 30.48 (0,38) 30.10 208.00 SF 0.52 0.61 21,76 (30.53 (87 128.66 208.00 SF 0.91 2.64 38.38 230.30 @1) 222.19 DESCRIPTION General: 48, Contents - move out then reset - Large roam . Ceiling: 49. Detach & Reset Bathroom ventilation fan Mechanically attached (per LF) 52, Paint the ceiling - two coats Walls: - plastic, 53. Mask and prep for paint paper, tope (per LF) a . floated, ready for paint per LF 56, Texture dryvwall - light hand texture 57, Seal the walls w/PVA primer - one coat 58. Paint the walls - two coals Floor: WEST 4/25/2024 Poge: 5 SFF&CC/West_000266"}, {"d": 21, "p": 198, "t": "Gan Claims Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Sniymea Beach, F1 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalciaims.net CONTINUED - Bathroom DESCRIPTION 59. Mask or covet per square foot 60. Final cleaning - construction- QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV = DEPREC. ACV 40.00 SF 40.00 SF 0.45 0.28 0.18 0,00 3.64 2.24 2182 4 (0.00). (0,00) 21,82 13.44 6.41 183,16 1,099.06 18,26 1,080.80 Residential Totais: Bathroom kg 6 g gi-—4 6' am %% . Height: 8° Closet T 36.00 SF Ceiling ' 192.00 SF Walls o 228.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 36.00 SF Floor x | 4,00 SY Flooring 24.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 24,00 LF Floor Perimeter QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 1.00 EA 44,59 0,00 &.92 53.51 (0.00) 53.51 62. Detach & Reset Light fixture 1.00 EA $6.27 0.00 11.26 67.53 (0,00) 67.53 63. Mask and prep for paint - tape only (pet LF) 24,00 LF 0.54 0.06 2.62 15.64 (0.18) 15.46 64, Paint the ceiling - two coats 36.00 SF 0.9! 0.46 6.66 39,88 (t.40) 38.48 24,00 LF 1.26 0,32 6.10 36.66 0.97) 35.69 32.00 SPF 2.67 LV 17,32 103.88 (3,46) 100,42 32.00 LF 707 0,53 45,34 272.1 (1.63) 270,48 32.00 SF 0,79 0.42 5.08 30.48 (0.38) 30,10 69. Seal the walls w/PVA primer - one 192.00 SF 0.52 0.56 20.08 120.48 (1.73) 118.75 coat 70. Paint the walls - two coats 192,00.SF 0.9! 2.43 35,42 242.57 (7,49) 205.08 36.00 SF 0.45 0.16 3.28 19.64 (0.00) 19.64 0.00 2.02 12.10 (0,00) 42,10 DESCRIPTION . General: 61, Contents - move out then reset - Small room Ceiling: Walls: 65. Mask and prep for paint - plastic, paper, tape (per LE) 66. R&R 1/2\" drywall -~ hung, taped, floated, ready for paint 67. Tape joint for new to existing drywall - per LP 68. Texture drywall ~ light hand texture Floor: 7. Mask or cover per square foot 72, Final cleaning - construction - 36,00 SE’ 0.28 Residential WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 6 SFF&CC/West_000267"}, {"d": 21, "p": 199, "t": "Gasset Clajms Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650N Dixie Freeway New Smyrna Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074 ww. coastaiclaims.net CONTINUED - Closet DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV Totals: Closet . 5.76 164,10 984,48 17.4 567.24 21.87 633.40 3,800.57 64.66 3,735.94 TAX. O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 6.00 85.86 515.11 (0,00) SESAL 0.00 8586 515,11 0.00 51531 QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACy Total: Main Level Debris Removal DESCRIPTION - Approx, 12 yards, 1-3 73, Dumpster foad QUANTITY UNIT PRICE — 429.25 1.00 BA tons of debris Totals: Debris Removal Labor Minimums Applied DESCRIPTION 74, Heat, vent, & air cond, labor minimum. _ 75. Electrical labor minimum* «1.00EA 1,00 EA 109.32 6.20 0.00 0,00 21,86 1.24 131,18 TAA (0.00) (0.00) 131.18 7.44 76, Window labor minimum 1.00 BA 18299 0,00 36.60 219.59 (0.00) 219,59 Totals: Labor Mintmums Applled 0.00 59.70 35821 0.00 388-28 Line Item Totals: WEST 664,33 8,566.10 $1,696.39 2,041.51 49,654.88 =. Grand Total Areas: 752.00 SF Walls 196.00 SF Ceiling 196.00 SF Floor 21.78 SY Flooring 0.00 SF Long Wall WEST 0.00 SF Short Wall 196,00 Floor Area 228.67 Total Aréa 918.00 Exterior Wall Area 102.00 Exterior Perimeter of 0,00 Surface Area 0.00 Number of Squares 0.00 Total Ridge Length 0.00 Total Hip Length 948.00 SF Walls and Ceiling 94,00 LF Floor Perimeter 94.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter 752.00 Interior Wall Area Walls 0.00 Total Perimeter Length 4/2572024 Page: 7 SFF&CC/West_000268"}, {"d": 21, "p": 200, "t": "Gauss Claims Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services. 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, F1 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net Summary for Dwelling 42,465.96 664:33 Line Item Total Material Sales Tax 43, 130,29 4,283.05 4,283.05 $51,696.39 (2,041.51) Subtotal Overhead Profit Replacement Cost Value Less Depreciation $49,654.88 $49,654.88 Actual Cash Value Net Claim 2,041.51 Total Recoverable Depreciation $51,696.39 Net Claim if Depreciation is Recovered Eileen Dalton WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 8 SFF&CC/West_000269"}, {"d": 21, "p": 201, "t": "Inc Gestas Calms Coastal Claims Services, Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, Fi 32168 386-314-0074 wwyw.coastalclaims.net Recap by Category with Depreciation RCV Deprec, ACV CLEANING CONTENT MANIPULATION GENERAL DEMOLITION DRYWALL ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL - SPECIAL SYSTEMS FENCING HEAT, VENT & AIR CONDITIONING LIGHT FIXTURES PAINTING ROOFING SIDING SOFFIT, FASCIA, & GUTTER & REPAIR. WINDOW REGLAZING WOOD WINDOWS 592.12 222,83 5,844.40 968.64 6.20 37.55 1,223.84 281.91 256.68 2,671.64 25,426.15 536.00 3,750.17 164,84 182.99 2.18 589.94 222.83 5,844.40 952.23 6.20 37,55 1,218.66 118,67 256.68 2,555.87 23,843.00 515.82 3,479.74 142.87 182.99 O&P Items Subtotal 42,165.96 2,041.51 40,124.45 Non-O&P Items RCV Deprec, ACV PERMITS AND FEES 300.00 O&P Items Non-O&P Items Subtotal O&P Items Subtotal Material Sales Tax Overhead 16.41 5.18 6.24 115,77 1,583.15 20.18 270,43 21,97 300,00 300,00 0.00 300.00 42,165.96 664.33 2,041.51 40,124.45 664.33 4,783.05 4,283.05 Profit 4,283.05 Total 51,696.39 4,283.05 49,654.88 2,041.51 \"The amount claimed in this estimate is based on a preliminary inspection by a public adjuster andor contractor and/or other experienced person/building estimator. Nevertheless, the estimated amount may change based on material prices, contractor Any bids, and other costs which are too numerous to mention. The amount claimed may be affected by policy exclusions. overlap, upgrade, or mistake which would result in additional costs is: unintentional. Estimate includes costs associated with by a code upgrades, if known, This estimate was not made with a set of plans created by a design professional. Any plans made may Costs inspector. building local the by approval require design professional would come at an additional cost and would change based on the building department approvals, and means and methods acceptable to a general contractor.~THIS ESTIMATE1S ONLY AN OPINION WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 9 SFF&CC/West_000270"}, {"d": 21, "p": 202, "t": "Gant Claims Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastai Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway _ New Smyma Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims net i WEST 1-EAGLEVIEW ROOF SKETCH 4/25/2024 Page: 10 SFF&CC/West_000271"}, {"d": 21, "p": 203, "t": "Main Level gr — 6' \\O gi— 5! Bathroom O6) eee a g\"——1 E—§! Q! Bedroom ! -———— 12! lof I—— 10' 8\" == ]2'3\" -—— 6! Closet g\"— F—6! N Main Level WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 1] SFF&CC/West,_.000272"}, {"d": 21, "p": 204, "t": "Will Pratt ‘Coastal Claims Services. 6/6/2024 | 154 Photos Coastal Claims Neil West Photo Report Cavor Page teat Noll $. & Locy M. West + Noli West Photu Report SFF&CC/West_000273"}, {"d": 21, "p": 205, "t": "’ a a 6/6/2024 Nail West Photo Report Ul Section 1 ~ Saction t 2 e 2/41 Noll 5, & Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000274 -"}, {"d": 21, "p": 206, "t": "5 + 6/6/2022 Noll Wast Phate Repart Project: Nel S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:2tpm Creates: Coostal Claims Services Project: Nall $.& Locy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:22pm Cresicr: Ceostal Clalins Serv'ces Project: Nall S. & Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, Z22pm Crediton Coastal Cloims Services Project: Nei} S-GLacy M. Wast Date: 3/6/2024, 2:22pm Creator: Cadsta! Claiins Services Section 3 afar Nall S. & caey MM. West SFF&CC/West_000275"}, {"d": 21, "p": 207, "t": "& s 6fof202¢ Nail West Phota Report Projact: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:23pm Creator: , Coastal Claims Services Project: Nell $: & Lacy M. West Date. 3/6/2024, 223pm Creates: Coastal Claims Services Project: Nail S$. & Lacy M. Wast ‘ Dota 3/6/2024, 22épm Creatas; Constal Claims Servicas Projact. Nel S, & Locy M. West Oote: 3/6/2024, 2:24prn Create: Cogstal Cluins Services Section + a fay Nail §, & Gecy Mf, West SFF&CC/West_000276"}, {"d": 21, "p": 208, "t": "$ ““ 6/6/2024 Noi Wet Plate Repart Project: Neil §. & Lacy M West Dale 3/4/2024, 2:24pm Craater: Coasta! Claims Services 10 Prijoct: N@ifS.& Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 22dpm Creaier, Coast! Cloims Services \"1 Project’ Neil S. & Lacy M. Wast Cote: 3/6/2024, B25pm Creator, Coastal Claims Servicos a? 4 Project: Neil §. & Lacy M Wast Date: 3/6/2024, 2:25pm Creator: Gaastat Claims Sarvices Section ? 6 / a Nail S. & Ray MH Wast SFF&CC/West_000277"}, {"d": 21, "p": 209, "t": "$ ‘ 8/6/7024 Nett West Phoia Report 13 Project, Nail S. & Lacy M Wasi Date: 3/6/2024, 2:26pm Creatar: Coastal Claims Services 14 Project: Neil S, & Lecy M. Wast Date: 3/6/2024, 226pra Croator: Coast! Claims Services 18 Project: Neil § & Lucy M West Date 9/6/2024, 2:27pm Crosiot: Coastal Claims Services 16 Projact: Noll S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:27pm Craatory: Coastal Claims Services Section 4 Gs At Ned 5, & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000278"}, {"d": 21, "p": 210, "t": "‘ ‘ 6/6/2024 Nel! West Phigta Repurl v Project: Neil $. & Lecy M. Wost Date 3/6/2024, 2:28pm Creater: Canstal Claims Services 18 Project: Nell $.& Lacy M West Oute: 3/6/2024, 2d0pm Creaice: Coastal Cloims Services 19 Project, Nell S. & Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:2ipm Creates: Coostal Claims Services | || | | Projact: Neil S$. & Locy M. Wast Cate: 3/6/2024, 2:41pm Croster: Coastal Claims Servicos Section 3 iA) Neil $: & Lecy M4. West SFF&CC/West_000279"}, {"d": 21, "p": 211, "t": "G/O{7 926 Matt Wont Photo Beputt cab AenEgte cae Per dei forept 41 Prefect: Nall S.& Lacy M. West Dote 3/6/2024, 2:42pm Cteater: Cousta! Claims Services Project: Nell-S, & Lacy M West Oote: 3/6/2024, 2:42pm Creator: Coastal Claims Sarvices Project: Nail S, & Lacy M4. West Date: 3/6/2024, B42pm Cseaign Coastet Claims Services 24 eridsestisemaeers i tataaaisonaes tae? Project: Neil §. & Locy M. Wast Bote: 3/6/2024, 243pm Creuier; Caastol Claims Services Section t asst Noo §.& Locy M. West SFF&CC/West_000280"}, {"d": 21, "p": 212, "t": "¢ 6/6/2028 Neil West Photo Report a5 Project: Nail $. & Lacy M West Dote: 3/6/2024, 43pm Creator! Caastol Claims Services 26 Project: Neil. & Lacy M. West Onte: 3/6/2024, 23pm Croater: Coastal Claims Sarvices 2? Project: Nell $. & Lacy M West Date: 2/6/2024, 43pm Creston Caustal Claims Sarvces 28 Projnet: Nell $.& Locy M. West te: 3/6/2024, 23pm Creator Caostal Cicims Services Section t 9/65 Nai § & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000281"}, {"d": 21, "p": 213, "t": "< 6/677024 Mell Vrast Phote Report 23 Project: Nek S, & Lacy M. West Date. 3/6/2024, 243pm Creator, Coastal Claims Services 30 Project: Nell S. & Lecy M. West Octo: 3/6/2024, Zdépm Creator: Coastal Claims Sarvices 3 Project: Nutt $, & LacyM Wast Date: 3/6/2024, 227?pm Creatcr. Coastal Cloims Services 32 Project: Nell 5: & Lacy.M. West Dute 3/6/2024, 2:48pm Crestor: Section t lo sai Cuustal Claims Services Net? $6 Lacy M. West SFF&CCWest_000282"}, {"d": 21, "p": 214, "t": "¢ ‘ 6401/2026 Nuit West Phute Repart 33 Project: Nail S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:48pm Center! Coastal Claims Services 34 Projact: NeilS. & Locy M West Bate: 3/6/2024, 2:49pm Ceonten: Coostat Claims Services Project. Noil $.& Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, Z49pm Creaicr Coastal Claims Services 36 Project: Nell SG Lacy M. West Date, 3/6/2024, 269pm Create: Cagste! Cloims Services Secticn 7 ns St Noll $. G Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000283"}, {"d": 21, "p": 215, "t": "8 6/6/2028 Nol West Photu Report 7 Prufect: Noil § & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 2:49pm Cieutor: Coastal Claims Services 38 Project: Nei $, & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, .0fpm Cracits: Coastal Claims Serv‘ces 39 Project: Mail $. & Lucy M, Wast Date: 5/6/2024, 20lpm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services 40 Projact Date: Neil $, & Lacy M, Wast 3/6/2024, 20pm Creatas Coastal Claims Sarvices Section} win Nes. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000284"}, {"d": 21, "p": 216, "t": "6/6/2026 Nall West Pholy Repust 4l Project: Noll $. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:01pm Creatas: Coostal Claims Services 42 Project) Nei $. & Lory M. Wost Date; 3/6/2024, 3:02pm. Creator: Coostal Claims Services 43 Project: Nail S.& Lacy M West Rate: 3/6/2024, F02pm Creater, Coaste! Claims Services Praject: Nell $.& Lacy M. West Datu: 3/6/2024, 202pm Creator: Coastal Claiins Services Sectien 3 sas ah Nall S. & Locy M. West SFF&CC/West_000285"}, {"d": 21, "p": 217, "t": "¢ dl 6/6)2024 Neil Wes! Photo Report Prujnct: Na@wS, & Lacy M West Gate: 2/6/2024, 3:02pm Creaiar: Coostol Claims Sarvices a6 Pryject: Nei §. & Lacy M. Wost Dete 3/6/2024, HOI pet Crestine: Coostal Claims Services a7 Project: Noil 5. & Lacy M West Dote: 3/6/2024, 03pm Crowicr, Caastel Clains Services Praject: Nell S. & Lacy M Wast Date: 3/6/2024, 2:03pm Cresta: Coastal Cloims Services Socticn 4 oe Neil &. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000286"}, {"d": 21, "p": 218, "t": "¥ 6/6/2026 Neil Wesl Phale Reped 49 Project: Mell $. & Locy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:03pm. Creator: Coastal Claims Services 50 Project: Mail $. & Lacy M. West Dato: 3/6/2024, 3:03pm Craaice Coastal Clots Seryicos 3 Project: Noil S, & Lacy M West Dobe 3/6/2024, 202pin Crossan, Cousta! Claims Services 32 Picject: Nail S. & Lacy M. Wast Dale, 9/6/2024, 2O4pm Cewsriae: Coastal Clalins Soevices Sectian i Mol $8 Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000287"}, {"d": 21, "p": 219, "t": "‘ 6/6/2024 Neil West Phato Repurh 53 Project: Nail $. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 205pm Creater: Coastal Cloims Services 54 Projant: Neil S & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, kO5pm Creator: Coast! Cloims Services 55 Project Noi S. & Lacy M. West Datu: 3/6/2024, :05pm Crauter, Coasta! Chitns Services 56 Prdincl: Noi S. & Locy M, Wast Date, 3/6/2024, 2O8pm Creator: Caustel Clolins Services Section | iG f at Net $, & Lary M. Wost SFF&CC/West_000288"}, {"d": 21, "p": 220, "t": "v 6/6/2024 Neil Wast Phote Repoct 87 Project: Noll S. & Lacy M. West Delo: 3/6/2024, 2:09pm Creaxter, Coastal Claims Services 58 Project: Nell S. & Lacy 4, West Dote 4/6/2024, 509m Cleator Coastal Cloims Services 59 Project: Nell $. & Lacy M. West Date 3/6/2024, 2:09pm Crooier: Coastal Claims Survites 60 Project Noll $. & Lacy M. Wost Date: 3/6/2024, 2.09pm Croaten: Coastal Claims Services Section 3 74 Noil 5, & Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000289"}, {"d": 21, "p": 221, "t": "a 6/6/2024 Nol West Pholo Repurl 6 Project: Noll S.& Lacy M. West Dale: 9/6/2024, 209pm Creatai: Coastal Clots Services 62 Project: Neil 5. & LoryM West ate. 3/6/2024, 11pm Creotur: Coastal Claims Services 63 Project: Neil §. & Locy M. West Date, 3/6/2024, 3:12pm Craotat: Coastal Claims Services Project: Noll S, & Lacy M. Wost Oate: 3/6/2024, 22pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services Section 1 18 /-e Noi! $. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000290"}, {"d": 21, "p": 222, "t": "G/6f2926 Nai! Wesl Phote Report 65 Projnct: Nail S. & Lacy M West Dute: 3/6/2024, pm Creoter: Cuosta! Claims Services &6 Pryject: Nell $. & Lacy M. Wast Date: 2/6/2024, Etépm Creater: Coostal Claims Services 6? Project: Neil S. & Lacy M West Date; 3/6/2024, 14pm Cregier: Coostal Claims Services Projact: Nell S & Lacy M. Wast Date: 3/6/2024, Iepin Croalor: Coastal Clolins Services Section tof a Neii §. & Locy M. West SFF&CC/West_000291"}, {"d": 21, "p": 223, "t": "& 6/6/2024 Noll West Photo Report 69. Project: Neil S, & Lacy M. West Date. 3/6/2024, Hiépm Crgaice: Coastal Claims Services Prejact: Neil $. & Locy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, idem Cresior: Coastal Claims Services Project: Neil $. & Lucy M. Wast te: 3/6/2024, 2:74pm Crestor: Coastal Clalms Services 72 Project: Neil. & Lacy M Wast Dote: 3/6/2024, 3 1Spm Craaior: Coastal Cloiins Services Section t 20/43 Nell $. & Lacy 4, West SFF&CC/West_000292"}, {"d": 21, "p": 224, "t": "€ B/G/2026 Nail West Phote Report 73 Project: Neil $, & Lacy M, West Date, 2/6/2024, 315pen Cinaser: Coastal Claims Services 4 Projact: Nail S. & Lacy M. Wast Oate: 3/6/2024, 3:15pm Creator, Constal Claims Services 75 Prefect: Noil'$. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, #15 pm Crestor: Coostal Claims Services. 7 Project Net §: & Lacy M Wast Date: 3/6/2024, S6pmi Crestor: Section 1 gwfyat Coastal Claims Services NolS. & Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000293"}, {"d": 21, "p": 225, "t": "€ 6/6/2022 Noll West Phola Requatt Project: Noll $. & Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 76pm Creator: Codstat Claims Services 78 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, Vigpm Creater: Caasta! Cloims Sarv'ces w Project: Noll $. & Lacy M. Wast Data: 3/4/2024, 3:46pm Crearer: Caastot Claims Sarvicos 80 Project Neil S. & Lacy M. West Dote 3/6/2024, sépm Creates: Coastal Claims Services Section? NoitS. & Lacy M. Wost SFF&CC/West_000294"}, {"d": 21, "p": 226, "t": "* ? 6/6/2028 Nai Wast Phalo Repert Project: Noli S, & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, bpm Cieater; Coastal Claims Services B2 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M4, Wast Daste, 3/6/2024, 3:46pm Creator: Coaste! Claims Services 83 Project. Nell $. & Lacy M, Wast Data 3/6/2024, 3:7pin Cresier: Coastal Claims Servicas Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:17pm Creates: Coast! Cloirns Services Section 4 PAYAL Nol! &. & Lacy M4. West SFF&CC/West_000295"}, {"d": 21, "p": 227, "t": "¢ ¢ O/OP2026 Noil West Pheto Repod 65 Project: Nel} $.& Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:77pm Creater: Coastat Claims Servicas 86 Project: Nei S. & Lacy M West Dute: 3/6/2024, 317pia Creuior; Coastal Claims Sarvices aT : Project: Nail S, & Lacy M. Wast | Date; 3/6/2024, 3:17pm : Croater: Coastal Claims Services 88 Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Date 3/6/2024, 27pm Create: Coastal Claims Services Section} 24s Nod & & Lecy M, West SFF&CC/West_000296"}, {"d": 21, "p": 228, "t": "tf é 6/6/2024 Nol Weal Pheta Repurt 89 Project Nell S. & Lacy M West Date; 3/6/2024, 317pm Creditor: Coastel Claims Services 99 Prajach Moll S, & Lacy M. West Dele: 3/6/2024, 2:17pm Create: Coostel Cloims Services 91 Project: Nall S. & Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, a18pm Crestor Coastal Claims Services 92 Profect: Neit S. & Lacy M. West Datu: 3/6/2024, 218pm Creator: Coastal Cloimns Services Section | 25 fa} Nel & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000297"}, {"d": 21, "p": 229, "t": "t 66/2024 Nail West Photo Report 93 Project: Nei S. & Lacy M West Date 3/6/2024, 18pm Crevicr: Coasto! Clatins Sarvices 94 Project: Neil S, & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 28pm Creator; Caasto! Claims Sarvices 95 Piojuct: Nall S. & Locy M Wast Lo; 3/6/2024, apm Crevice: Coastal Cloims Services 96 Project Neil $6 Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 18pm Crasztor: Coustol Claims Services Soction 1 26 FN Nail § & Lacy M. Wast SFF&CC/West_000298"}, {"d": 21, "p": 230, "t": "6/6/20. Mad! West Photo Reped 4 ¢ Project: Noll S, & Lacy M West Dote. 3/6/2024, 18pm Creator Caastol Clots Services 98 Project: NeilS. & Lacy M West Date: 3746/2024, £20prn Creaice: Canstal Claims Services 99 Peoject: Nail S, & Locy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 22ipm Croutar: Cuastal Cloims Services 100 Project Nall S, & Lacy M. West Date, 3/6/2024, L2Ipm Creatun Couste! Claims Services Section f 27 fet Net S$. & lacy t4. Veast SFF&CC/West_000299"}, {"d": 21, "p": 231, "t": "a 6/6/2026 Nof! West Photy Repurt 101 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M Wost Dute: 3/6/2024, He2pit Creator Coastdl Claims Services 102 Prefect: Neil $. & Lacy M. Wost Oste: 3/6/2024, 2:22pm Cresstos:. Coastal Cloims Services 103 Profect: Melt $-& Lacy M: West Date: 3/6/2024, Se2pm Crouier: Coastal! Claims Services 104 Projock Neil $, & Lacy M. West Date 3/6/2024, 3:23pm Crunecn Section} 2a fu Cuuste! Cloins Services Nol §. & wacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000300"}, {"d": 21, "p": 232, "t": "“$8 6/6/7024 Neti Wast Phate Report 405 Project: Neil $. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:23pm Creoter: Coasta! Claims Services 706 Project: NeitS. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 225pin Creatar: Coastal Cloims Services 107 Project: Noll S.& Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, £25pm Creaior; Coasial Claims Servicos 708 Project: Nail $, & Lacy M, Wast Oate: 3/6/2024, &26pm Creator: Cousta! Cluims Services Section t 29 FAL Nail $B Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000301"}, {"d": 21, "p": 233, "t": "y G/O{2028 Noli West Phote Report 109 Project: Moll S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:26pm Crentar Coastal Claims Services Wo Prajoct: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date 3/6/2024, 3:26pm Creator. Constat Clotms Services m1 a Project: Nuit S, & Lacy M. West Dote, 3/6/2024, 3:26pm Cresien Coostel Claitns Services V2 Project; Neil S, & Lacy Dole; M. West 3/6/2024, 3:26pm Create: Cyastol Clulms Sarvices Section 1 30/4 Nall &, & cacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000302"}, {"d": 21, "p": 234, "t": ". G/O/2N28 Nil West Shote Ropar 18 Pieject: Nei §. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 326m Creator! Caoste! Claims Services 14 Project: Neil S. & Lecy M. West Date 3/6/2025, 3:26 pin Creator, Coastat Claims Services 115 Project; Date: Neil §, & LacyM. West 3/6/2024, 3:26pm Cross: Coastal Clots Services 116 Project: Noll S..& Lacy M Wast Date, 3/6/2024. 3:26pm Crear: Coastal Claims Services Section i Bt f a! Nell S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000303"}, {"d": 21, "p": 235, "t": "6/0f/202¢ Neil Wesi Photo Report 17 Project: Nail S. & Lacy M. West Dste 3/6/2024, 3:27pm Creator: Coastal Claims Serves 118 Prejact: Noll, & Lacy M West Dele: 3/6/2024, 2:27pm Crnater; Coastal Claims Services 119 Project: Nail. & Lacy M West Onte 3/6/2024, 28pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services 120 Project: Nei $: & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 326pm Crealar; Coastal Claims Services Section? 32 f at Neil S. & Locy M, Wiest SFF&CC/West_000304"}, {"d": 21, "p": 236, "t": "4 6/6/20 Py It & oe Noll West Phato Repo 42t ‘ Project: Nell $.& Lacy M. West Gate: 3/6/2024, 3:28pm Creater: Coastal Claims Services 122 Project: Neit $. & Locy M. Wast Date: 3/6/2024, 2:33pm, Creator: Coastal Cloims Services 723 Project. Neil S: & Lacy M, Wast Date, 3/6/2024, 23pm Creator; Coastal Claims Sorvices 24 Project Nell $. & Lacy M. West Dates 3/6/2024, 233prn Creator: Coastal Claims Services Secticay { 43/4} Neil S. & Uscy M. Wiest SFF&CC/West_000305"}, {"d": 21, "p": 237, "t": "‘ 6/6/2024 Nell West Phote Repurt 125 Pigject: Nail $. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 33pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 1% Project: Neil S, & Locy M, Wost Date 4/6/2024, :33prn Create: Coasto! Cloims Services are Project: Mall $, & Lacy M West Datu: 3/6/2024, 33pm Crovter: Coastal Claims Services 126 Project: Nei $. & Lacy M, West Got 3/6/2024, apm Cteslat: Conste! Claims Services Section | 34/4! Ned 6. & Lecy A. West SFF&CC/West_000306"}, {"d": 21, "p": 238, "t": "4 & 6/6/2022 Neil West Phota Report 129, Project: Neil. & Lacy’ M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 34pm Creator Coastal Cloims Services 430 Pivject: Neil S, & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:34pm Crevter: Codsto! Cloims Services 131 Prujuct: Nail $. & Lacy M, West Date 3/6/2024, 3:35pm Creator. Coastal Claims Sarvices 132— Project Neil $. & Lacy M West Dates 3/6/2024, KI5pm Creaicr: Caostal Cluleis Services Section 4 35743 Ned & & Lacy M. Wiest SFF&CC/West_000307"}, {"d": 21, "p": 239, "t": "> 0/6/2024 Nall Weal Pholo Report wi Project: Noi $. & Lacy M. West ster 3/6/2024, 236pm Craaior: Coastal Claims Services 134 Projnct: Nail S, & Lacy M West Oaier..1/6/2024, 38pm Creater: Constel Claims Services 135 Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Dots: 3/6/2024, 3:38pm Creoter: Coastal Claims Services 136 Project: Nel S, & LacyM. West ute: 3/6/2024, 3396p Creators Coustel Coins Servicws Section 4 36/21 Nail §, & Lacy M4. Wost SFF&CC/West_000308"}, {"d": 21, "p": 240, "t": "4 > 6/4/2024 Neil West Photo Ropurt 437 Project: Nai S. & Locy M, West Qote: 3/6/2024, 3:33pm Creator Coastal Ciaims Services 138 Froject: Noll S, & Lacy M. West Dot 3/6/2024, 238pm Creates Caastal Clotins Services 139 Project Nuit $. & Locy M. West Oate: 3/6/2024,3:38pm Crouiae, Coastal Claims Services 140 Preject! NeifS. & Locy M. Week : Oare 3/4/2024, 2:38pm Cesior: Coastal Cluims Services Section 1 477 a) Not §.G Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000309"}, {"d": 21, "p": 241, "t": "+ * 6/6/2024 Neil West Photo Report “1 Prejoct: Null $. & Lacy M. West Bote: 3/6/2024, 3:39pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 1A Projact: Nel S. & Lacy M. West Outer, 3/6/2024, 3:39pm Creator Coastal Cloims Services 143 Project: Natl$. G@ Lacy M West Oste: 3/6/2024, 2:39pm Croaier: Coastal Claims Services 144 Projict: Nell $. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 339pm Creatvr: Coastal! Class Services Sectisn t 3a fat Nui S. & Lacy 4. Wes SFF&CC/West_000310"}, {"d": 21, "p": 242, "t": "“4 6/76/2026 Neil West Pholo Repest 145 Mreject: Noll S, & Lacy M, West Dube: 3/6/2024, 40pm Creator Castel Claims Services 146 Project: Neil 5. & Locy M..Wast. Date: 3/6/2024, 240pm Crenter: Coastal Claims Sarvices 147 Project: Nail. & Lacy M West Date; 3/6/2024, 40pm Crouiee: Coastal Claims Services 148 Prcjact: Noll S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 40pm Creator: Coustal Clots Services Secilen t 39 4 at Noll S. & Lacy M4. West, SFF&CC/West_000311"}, {"d": 21, "p": 243, "t": "G/G P2024 Neill West Phote Reperk 149 Project: Mail $. & Lacy M, West Date: 6/6/2024, 1:22pm Creates: Codsto! Claims Services 150 Project: Neil $. & Lacy M West Date. 6/6/2024 22pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services I Project: Neil $. & Locy M. West Doty: 6/6/2024, :22pm Creatcr: Coastal Claims Services 152 Project: Nei S, & Lacy. M. West Date: 6/6/2024 22pm Creator: Canasta! Cloims Services Section 4 Oe AY Nail S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000312"}, {"d": 21, "p": 244, "t": "é 61652624 Nei! Wast Phaty Report 153: Projsch: NoiS. & Locy M West Date. 6/6/2024, 22pm Creator Coostal Claims Services 154 Project: Nell $. & Lacy M. West Date: 6/6/2024, h22pm Craster: Coastal Claims Services Section } arf at Neil & & Lacy MH West SFF&CC/West_000313"}, {"d": 22, "p": 1, "t": "FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, Plaintiffs, DISTRICT COURT ) COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA May 26, 2026 4:29 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2025-135 ) ) ) Case No.: CJ-2025-135 V. ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. ) ) AGENCY, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Timila S. Rother, OBA #14310 Paige Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7700 Facsimile: (405) 239-6651 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 22, "p": 2, "t": "This case arises from a dispute over the scope of alleged hail damage to Plaintiffs’ property. The undisputed record shows State Farm investigated Plaintiffs’ claim, paid for covered damage, and determined that the roof shingles were not damaged by hail. Plaintiffs’ disagreement with that conclusion presents, at most, a legitimate dispute—not bad faith—and they identify no evidence that State Farm acted unreasonably, conducted an inadequate investigation, or relied on anything other than the facts developed during the claim. Plaintiffs’ claims also fail for independent reasons. The Policy required that suit be filed within one year of the alleged loss, yet Plaintiffs did not file this action until February 28, 2025— more than a year after the alleged June 15, 2023 loss. Significantly, Plaintiffs have not repaired the roof but have had the property inspected twice since the alleged destruction of their roof and neither inspection found anything wrong with the roof or a decrease in value of the property due to the condition of the roof (though Plaintiffs claim in excess of $50,000 to replace it), Their own claim submissions further undermine their position as at least one of the photos submitted as proof the roof should be totaled raised questions about whether that photo was actually of Plaintiffs’ roof, but no representative of Plaintiffs responded to State Farm’s request for additional information. At a minimum, there is evidence of a legitimate dispute and no evidence of bad faith. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS (“UME”) 1. In 2009 and 2019, Plaintiff, Neil West, submitted claims to State Farm for hail damage to his house located at 7710 SW Crystal Hills Place in Lawton. On both occasions, because ' In at least three similarly situated cases in which State Farm filed motions for summary judgment, Plaintiffs’ counsel sought extensions in responding, asserting that additional discovery was necessary to adequately respond. Consistent with that pattern, State Farm inquired whether Plaintiffs anticipated seeking similar relief in this case and whether they would oppose a joint request to extend the dispositive motion deadline. Plaintiffs declined. Accordingly, in light of the operative Scheduling Order requiring dispositive motions to be filed by May 26, 2026, State Farm timely filed this Motion while reserving the right to supplement or revise it based on future discovery or rulings of the Court."}, {"d": 22, "p": 3, "t": "hail damage is “accidental direct physical loss” under the Policy and because there was damage sufficient to warrant a total roof replacement, State Farm paid to replace the roof of the house. N. West Dep. at 42:23-43:3, 43:10-21, Ex. 1; Nancy Holcomb Decl., 2. 93, Ex. 12. Plaintiffs purchased the property located at 7 NW Briarcreek, Lawton, OK on- December 28, 2021. Comanche County Assessor Records, Ex. 3. 3, On December 6, 2021, Plaintiffs applied for a policy through the Holcomb Agency to insure their property located at 7 NW Briarcreek (“House”). Application, SFF&CC/West_953 (“SF_”), Ex. 4. State Farm issued Policy No. 36-CR-X405-8 (“Policy”) effective December 29, 2021. Id. The Policy automatically renewed each year thereafter and was in effect for the period December 29, 2022—December 29, 2023. Policy Declarations (“Decl.”), SF_44, Ex. 5. 4, Plaintiffs do not recall any specific representations made by the Holcomb Agency regarding the Policy or coverage at the time it was issued, or the substance of any conversations with the Agency. N. West Dep. at 136:17-137:3, Ex. 1; L. West Dep. at 30:22-31:4, Ex. 2. Nor do Plaintiffs allege that the Holcomb Agency made any affirmative representations regarding inspections or the condition of their house. N. West Dep. at 135:18-136:8, 144:6-12, Ex. 1. 5. Plaintiffs admit the Property was insured under the Policy, subject to its terms, conditions, and exclusions. See Pls.’ Resp. to Req. for Admis. No. 1, Ex. 6. Plaintiffs also admit they received a copy of the Policy and kept it in their possession. Jd. Nos. 2-3. However, Plaintiffs did not read the Policy. L. West Dep. at 41:9-21, Ex. 2; N. West Dep, at 101:21-25, Ex. 1. 6. Plaintiffs had $309,000 in coverage for the dwelling for the period December 29, 2022—December 29, 2023. Decl., SF_45, Ex. 5. Plaintiffs’ deductible during this same period was $3,090. Id.; see Pls.’ Resp. to Req. for Admis. No. 11, Ex. 6. Plaintiffs admit the Policy provides that State Farm pays only that portion of a covered loss exceeding the deductible. /d. at No. 12."}, {"d": 22, "p": 4, "t": "7. Under Plaintiffs’ Policy, State Farm agreed to “pay for accidental direct physical loss to the” House, “unless the loss [wa]s excluded or limited in SECTION I - LOSSES NOT INSURED.” Policy at SF_16, Ex. 5. Wind and hail are covered under the Policy; they were not excluded perils listed in SECTION I - LOSSES NOT INSURED. /d. at 12-22; Pet., 131, N. West Dep, at 104:11-16, Ex. 1 (agreeing the Policy covers wind and hail damage); Holcomb Decl., { 4, Ex, 12. “[W]ear, tear, [and] ... deterioration,” however, are excluded. Policy at SF_19, Ex. 5. 8. The Declarations to Plaintiffs’ Policy show that their dwelling coverage is “A1 Replacement Cost — Similar Construction.” /d.; Declarations at SF_45, Ex. 5, The Policy provides that “until actual repair or replacement is completed, [State Farm] will pay only the actual cash value of the damaged part of the property, up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, not to exceed the cost to repair or replace the damaged part of the property.” Policy at SF_22, Ex. 5. “[W]hen the repair or replacement is actually completed, [State Farm] will pay the covered additional amount [Plaintiffs] actually and necessarily spend to repair or replace the damaged part of the property, or an amount up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, whichever is less.” Id. 9, The Policy further provides that State Farm has no obligation to “make inspections and surveys of the insured location at any time,” provide insureds with “reports on conditions,” or “recommend changes.” Policy at SF_36, Ex. 5. 10. The Policy also contains a “Suit Against Us” provision, providing that “[a]ny action by any party must be started within one year after the date of loss or damage.” Id. at 26. 11. The roof of Plaintiffs’ House, which was constructed of composition shingles, was installed in or around June 2017. See 2025 Appraisal at West_713, Ex. 7. Cf Application at SF_53, Ex. 4."}, {"d": 22, "p": 5, "t": "12. In December 2025, Plaintiffs’ Property was appraised by Peak Appraisal Service, LLC. 2025 Appraisal at West_713, Ex. 7. The report noted “minimal depreciation due to age/condition” and characterized the roof as in average condition. It did not reference storm damage. Id. 13. Also in 2025, in conjunction with a home equity loan, a RE/MAX Broker evaluated the House and its condition. It identified the value of the house without necessary repairs as $296,000 and with necessary repairs as $296,000. Broker Price Opin. at 5, Ex. 8. 14. Plaintiffs submitted a claim for hail damage to their House on July 28, 2023, with aclaimed date of loss of June 15, 2023 (“Claim”). Pet., 4 5; Claim Notes, SF_86-87, Ex. 9. 15. Between August 6, 2023 and September 5, 2023, External Claim Resource (“ECR”) Brandi Hervey attempted multiple times to contact Plaintiffs by telephone to discuss their claim and schedule an inspection, including written correspondence on August 6 and 24, and September 5, 2023, but was unable to reach them. Claim Notes at SF_77, Ex. 9; Aug. 6, 2023 Letter, Ex. 10; Aug. 24, 2023 Letter, Ex. 11. 16. State Farm finally spoke to Mr. West on September 16, 2023, at which time he reported damage to the roof, interior, exterior, and soft metals. Claim Notes at SF_76, Ex. 9. 17. As part of the investigation, State Farm reviewed weather data from AccuWeather, an external vendor that provides hail-history estimates based on the reported date of loss and the location of the insured property. Claim Notes at SF_85, Ex. 9. The AccuWeather data reflected the potential for hail with that storm in that vicinity at approximately 3.5 inches. Id. 18. State Farm’s September 28, 2023 inspection found no hail damage to the roof shingles, chimney flue cap, or metal roof vents. Claim Notes at SF_74-75, Ex. 9; Gooch Decl., {4 4-7, Ex. 13. State Farm did identify light hail damage to gutters, downspouts, window screens,"}, {"d": 22, "p": 6, "t": "and fence stain, along with water staining on Plaintiffs’ bedroom ceiling, and prepared an estimate totaling $4,775.89. State Farm Estimate, Ex. 14. After depreciation and application of Plaintiffs’ deductible, State 19. Farm issued payment of $918.50. Id? Plaintiffs’ contractor, Trademark Exteriors Restoration, submitted an estimate in the amount of $46,201.55 for a total roof replacement (“TRR”) as well as photos requesting a second inspection. Trademark Exteriors Estimate, Ex. 17. State Farm Claim Specialist Kristen Haun reviewed the information and revised State Farm’s estimate to include floor protection and resetting contents to facilitate the interior repairs but determined that the materials submitted did not reflect additional damage beyond what was identified in the prior inspection and did not warrant a second inspection. Claim Notes at SF_73, Ex. 9; State Farm Supp. Est., Ex. 18. That increased the estimate to $5,283.17, and after applying Plaintiffs’ deductible, State Farm made a supplemental payment on March 14, 2024 in the amount of $1,274.67, which included the additional interior repair, as well as replacement cost benefits. State Farm Supp. Est., Ex. 18. 20. By letter dated April 10, 2024, State Farm informed Plaintiffs that it had reviewed the additional materials submitted in support of their request for a second inspection and determined that the information provided did not demonstrate any missed damage or warrant further inspection and advised Plaintiffs of the Policy’s requirement that any action be brought within one year after the date of loss. April 10, 2024 Letter at SF_196-98, Ex. 19. 21. On April 24, 2024, public adjuster Coastal Claims Service submitted a notice of representation of Plaintiffs to State Farm and a contractor estimate for a TRR in the amount of $51,696.31. Coastal Claims Email and Estimate, Ex. 15. 2 The claim notes contain an erroneous entry suggesting hail was found to the shingles; however, everything else in the file including the estimate, scope sheets, and inspection notes show that was simply a cut and paste or similar error. Claim Notes at SF_75, Ex. 9; Gooch Decl., { 8, Ex. 13. 5"}, {"d": 22, "p": 7, "t": "22. The estimate, as well as the attached email transmitting the estimate, identifies John Dekker as Plaintiffs’ Public Adjuster. /d.; April 25, 2024 Emails, SF_538, Ex. 21, John Dekker, however, is not licensed to adjust claims in Oklahoma. Dekker NAIC Results, Ex. 22. Eileen Dalton and William Pratt, who also appear to have some association with the documents, do not appear to be licensed public adjusters in Oklahoma either. NAIC Licensing Results, Ex. 22. 23. Coastal Claims also identified Brandon Gold as Plaintiffs’ Public Adjuster. April 25, 2024 Emails, SF_538, Ex. 23. Although Brandon Gold recalled referring the claim of Neil West and Lacy West to Coastal Claims, Gold did not inspect the Property, make any determination regarding any alleged damage to the Property or the cause of such alleged damage, and did not provide any public adjusting services in connection with the Wests’ claim. He did prepare an estimate based on information from others. Gold Deecl., {{] 4-6, Ex. 24. 24. Coastal Claims provided State Farm with an estimate, this time with photos, on July 15, 2024. Email, SF_261-313, Ex. 20. State Farm reviewed Plaintiffs’ July 15, 2024 submission and found no roof damage not included in the original estimate and noted that the photos appeared to be those previously submitted by Plaintiffs’ contractor on or about March 30, 2024, Claim Notes at SF_70, Ex. 9. After review by the claim specialist and team manager, State Farm found there was not new evidence to warrant a second inspection. Jd. State Farm so notified Plaintiffs and their contractor. /d. State Farm further advised that the claim could be reopened upon submission of additional supporting documentation. Id. 25. Coastal Claims thereafter emailed State Farm on September 13 claiming missed damage by State Farm and pointing to a heavily dented rain cap that was not included in the estimate. Email, SF_240, 243, Ex. 27. In response, State Farm requested, by phone and email, that Coastal Claims provide a photograph identifying the location of the rain cap on the roof of the"}, {"d": 22, "p": 8, "t": "Property as it did not appear to be a rain cap on this roof. Claim Notes at SF_70, Ex. 9; September 17, 2024 email, SF_567, Ex. 28. No such information was provided and State Farm did not hear from Coastal Claims again. Claim Notes at SF_69, Ex. 9; N. West Dep. at 189:1~7, Ex. 1. 26. When asked in their depositions to identify the basis for their claim against State Farm, Plaintiffs testified that their dispute with State Farm centers on its determination that the roof did not sustain hail damage and its refusal to pay to replace the roof. See N. West Dep. at 50:3-6, 90:17-25, Ex. 1; L. West Dep. at 34:24-35:5, 43:23-47:8, Ex. 2. 27. Neither Plaintiffs nor their representatives provided any additional documentation identifying new or different roof damage after State Farm’s review of the July 15, 2024 submission. Claim Notes at SF_69-~-70, Ex. 9. 28. Plaintiffs have not repaired or replaced the roof of the Property since submitting their claim. N. West Dep. at 93:18-21, Ex. 1; L. West Dep. at 66:15~18, Ex. 2 29. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on February 28, 2025. See generally Pet. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES J. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE TIME-BARRED. Plaintiffs’ Policy provides that “[a]y action by any party must be started within one year after the date of loss or damage.” UMF 10 (emphasis added). This provision comports with 36 O.S. § 3617, which permits property policies “delivered or issued for delivery in Oklahoma and covering a subject of insurance resident, located, or to be performed in Oklahoma” to limit the time in which an action must be brought to a period of one year “from the date of occurrence of the event resulting in the loss.” Plaintiffs plead that their property was damaged “on or about June 15, 2023.” UMF 14; Pet., § 40(a). Plaintiffs did not file suit until February 28, 2025, despite State Farm advising them of the Policy’s “Suit Against Us” provision in its April 10, 2024 letter. UMF 20, 29. Because the lawsuit was filed more than one year after the alleged date of loss, all claims 7"}, {"d": 22, "p": 9, "t": "are barred by the “Suit Against Us” provision. See Order at 2-6, Poe v. State Farm, CIV-24-1295PRW (W.D. Okla. Sept. 16, 2025), ECF No. 12, Ex. 29 (dismissing bad faith and contract claims pursuant to identical “Suit Against Us” provision because filed more than one year after the date of loss); Burwell v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 2006 OK CIV APP 97, §] 9-16, 142 P.3d 1005, 1007- 09 (affirming summary judgment under a similar provision finding there was no dispute that the suit was untimely commenced more than one year after the loss.). For this reason alone, summary judgment is appropriate as to Plaintiffs’ breach of contract and bad-faith claims. The Suit Against Us provision should likewise apply to bar the constructive fraud claim against State Farm because it applies to “any action” between the parties and the fraud claim is duplicative of the contract and bad-faith claims. UMF 10. But even in absence of the contractual limitations provision, the claim is also barred by the two-year statute of limitations for torts. 12 O.S. § 95(A)(3); Grubb v. DXP Enters., Inc., No. 19-CV-0443-JH-JFJ, 2022 WL 16842309, at *5 (N.D. Okla. July 25, 2022) (applying Oklahoma law). It is based on alleged implied representations made through the mere issuance of the Policy. As explained in § III, infra, such representations do not form the basis of a constructive fraud claim and Plaintiffs testified they were not made in any event. To the extent they were, they would have been made in December 2021 when the Policy issued, more than three years before suit was filed. UMF 2-5, 29. II. PLAINTIFFS’ BAD FAITH CLAIM FAILS ON THE MERITS AS A MATTER OF LAw. Even if Plaintiffs’ bad-faith claim were not time-barred, summary judgment is proper. An insurer’s refusal to pay all amounts demanded does not constitute bad faith. The Oklahoma Supreme Court specifically held, when recognizing the cause of action, that a legitimate dispute between the insurer and insured as to coverage or the amount of a loss, even in the face of a “wrong” decision by the insurer, is not bad faith conduct as a matter of law. Christian v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 1977 OK 141, § 26, 577 P.2d 899, 905. “[T]here can be disagreements between insurer 8"}, {"d": 22, "p": 10, "t": "and insured on a variety of matters such as insurable interest, extent of coverage, cause of loss, amount of loss, or breach of policy conditions.” Jd. Such disagreements do not create tort liability for bad faith. Jd. Rather, “tort liability may be imposed only where there is a clear showing that the insurer unreasonably, and in bad faith, withholds payment of the claim of its insured.” /d. (emphasis added).} Courts consistently hold that a legitimate dispute requires judgment as a matter of law in favor of the insurance company, regardless of whether its decision was correct.’ The “question is whether the insurer had a ‘good faith belief, at the time its performance was requested, that it had justifiable reason for withholding payment under the policy.”” Buzzard v. Farmers Ins. Co., 1991 OK 127, ¥ 14, 824 P.2d 1105, 1109 (Okla. 1991) (citation omitted). “<The fact that a reasonable jury could find in favor of the insurer based on all facts known or that should have been known by the insurer when it denied a claim is strong evidence that a dispute is “legitimate.” Lunday v. State Farm, CIV-20-1238-G, 2022 WL 2705263, at *5 (W.D. Okla. July 12, 2022) (quoting Shotts v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 943 F.3d 1304, 1316 (10th Cir. 2019)). Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must show a level of culpability beyond simple negligence to recover for bad faith. Badillo v. Mid Century Ins, Co., 2005 OK 48, § 28, 121 P.3d 1080, 1094. 3 See also Skinner v. John Deere Ins. Co., 2000 OK 18, 16, 998 P.2d 1219, 1223 (“Because disagreements can arise concerning the amount of coverage, cause of loss, and breach of policy conditions, the tort of bad faith does not prevent the insurer from resisting payment or resorting to a judicial forum to resolve a legitimate dispute.”); Bailey v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2006 OK CIV APP 85, J 18, 137 P.3d 1260, 1264 (“Insurers are free to make legitimate business decisions (and mistakes) regarding payment, as long as they act reasonably and deal fairly and in good faith with their insureds.”). 4 See e.g., Manis v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 1984 OK 25, ff 11-14, 681 P.2d 760, 762 (holding badfaith claim failed as a matter of law because insurer had legitimate dispute even though plaintiff prevailed on issue of coverage on breach of contract claim). See also Branch v. Farmers Ins. Co., 311 F.3d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 2002) (affirming summary judgment for property insurer on ground of its “reasonable position taken in litigation of a legitimate coverage dispute”). 9"}, {"d": 22, "p": 11, "t": "Oklahoma courts apply a two-part analysis: “First, ‘the court considers whether there is a legitimate dispute between the insurer and the insured regarding coverage or the value of the claim.’ Then, if there is a legitimate dispute, the court ‘considers whether the plaintiff offered specific additional evidence to demonstrate bad faith.’ Absent production of such evidence, ‘judgment as a matter of law is to be granted to the insurer.’” Lunday, 2022 WL 2705263 at *5 (quoting Shotts, 943 F.3d at 1315). The undisputed facts here show only a legitimate dispute. A. A legitimate dispute exists regarding the scope of loss. This case is the classic legitimate dispute as to the “amount of loss”: a disagreement between Plaintiffs and State Farm regarding the scope of hail damage to Plaintiffs’ roof and thus the amount Plaintiffs are owed under the Policy. See Emmanuel Baptist Church y. State Farm, CIV-11-595-D, 2012 WL 3595093, at *9 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 21, 2012) (applying Oklahoma law and finding that a disagreement between an insurer’s inspectors and plaintiffs’ roofer and expert was insufficient to sustain a bad faith claim); Hubbell v. State Farm, 21-CV-0341-CVE-JFJ, 2022 WL 3050020, at *3 (N.D, Okla. Aug. 2, 2022) (granting summary judgment on bad-faith claim, even where parties had obtained expert testimony in support of their positions concerning the need to replace plaintiffs’ roof, and “State Farm clearly ha[d] a legitimate basis to dispute coverage”). State Farm agreed that some of Plaintiffs’ property was damaged by wind and hail—an “accidental direct physical loss” under the Policy. UMF 7, 18. Mr. Gooch inspected the Property and found no hail damage to the roof shingles, chimney flue cap, or metal roof vents, but identified limited covered damage to other components. UMF 18. He then prepared an estimate totaling $4,775.89. Id, After applying depreciation and Plaintiffs’ $3,090 deductible, State Farm issued payment to Plaintiffs in the amount of $918.50. Jd. Plaintiffs allege State Farm refused to include hail damage to their shingles in its estimate and instead determined the damage to the shingles was “wear, tear, .. . deterioration, .. . ,” which 10"}, {"d": 22, "p": 12, "t": "isnot covered under the Policy. Pet., { 40(d)(j). Plaintiffs allege that their public adjuster “affirmed that the Insured Property sustained deep hail damage to shingles across its entire roof” and created an “estimate of over $50,000.00 to repair and/or replace [the] damage.” Pet., {{] 40(k)-()). Plaintiffs’ own testimony confirms their dispute with State Farm centers on its determination that the roof did not sustain hail damage and its refusal to pay to replace the roof. UMF 26. That is a “legitimate dispute” and not bad faith as a matter of law. See Lopez v. Farmers Ins. Co., CIV-10-0584-HE, 2011 WL 1807158, at *3 (W.D. Okla. May 6, 2011) (applying Oklahoma law and granting summary judgment on bad-faith claim where, as here, “[t]he crux of plaintiff's argument is that defendant disagreed with his roofer and expert regarding the cause of the damage to his roof”); Phillips v. State Farm, 640 F. Supp. 3d 1103, 1109 (N.D. Okla. 2022) (applying Oklahoma law and finding legitimate dispute existed between plaintiffs and State Farm regarding coverage and total value of the claim where State Farm’s adjuster inspected the roof and estimated to repair the damage identified, plaintiffs’ roofing contractor concluded the wind and hail damage necessitated a complete replacement, and State Farm reviewed the contractor’s information and determined the adjuster’s estimate covered all damage); Cunanan v, State Farm, 750 F. Supp. 3d 1298, 1303 (W.D. Okla. 2024) (applying Oklahoma law and finding a legitimate dispute regarding coverage where State Farm inspected and determined the roof shingles did not have any hail impacts attributable to the date of loss); Revocable Tr. Agreement of Randall S. Ellis & Teri L. Ellis v. State Farm, 614 F. Supp. 3d 963, 978 (N.D. Okla. 2022) (“[T]here is a legitimate dispute between plaintiffs and defendant based on the professional opinions of their [] experts.”). B. The record is devoid of evidence that State Farm acted in bad faith. “To successfully rebut [State Farm’s] defense of having a legitimate dispute as to coverage,” Plaintiffs “must present evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that (State Farm] did not have a reasonable good faith belief for withholding payment of [their] claim.” 11"}, {"d": 22, "p": 13, "t": "Lunday, 2022 WL 2705263 at *7 (quotations omitted). “The additional evidence required for this showing may take several forms... . . a plaintiff may demonstrate bad faith by providing evidence that the insurer did not actually rely on the legitimate dispute to deny coverage, denied the claim for an illegitimate reason, or otherwise failed to treat the insured fairly. A plaintiff may also show bad faith by providing evidence that the insurer performed an inadequate investigation of the claim.” Jd, (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Absent production of such evidence, ‘judgment as a matter of law is to be granted to the insurer.’” Jd, (quoting Shotts, 943 F.3d at 1315). No such evidence exists. Generic “scheme” allegations are insufficient, particularly where the undisputed evidence demonstrates that State Farm reasonably investigated and evaluated Plaintiffs’ claim. See Revocable Tr. Agreement, 614 F. Supp. 3d at 978. The UMFs show State Farm promptly and thoroughly investigated Plaintiffs’ claim and reached a coverage decision: ¢ State Farm made multiple attempts to contact Plaintiffs to initiate the claim and schedule an inspection, UMFs 14-16. e State Farm utilized an independent adjuster (“IA”), Cedric Gooch with Eberl, to inspect the Property, and he found no hail damage to the roof shingles but found limited damage to other components and prepared an estimate and issued payment accordingly. UMF 18. e After Plaintiffs’ contractor submitted an estimate and photographs requesting further review, State Farm evaluated those materials, revised its estimate to include minor additional items related to the interior repair, and issued a supplemental payment, while maintaining its determination that the roof shingles were not damaged by hail. UMF 19-20. e State Farm thereafter reviewed additional materials submitted on Plaintiffs’ behalf and determined that those materials did not demonstrate any additional covered damage or warrant a second inspection. UMFs 21, 24. © When Plaintiffs’ public adjuster claimed additional damage based on a photo of a roof rain cap, State Farm requested further information to identify and evaluate the claim; no such information was provided. UMF 25, 27. © Plaintiffs have had two inspections of their house since the storm that they claim totaled their roof in an amount in excess of $50,000 and which remains unrepaired. Neither identified 12"}, {"d": 22, "p": 14, "t": "damage to the roof or decreased the value of the property due to the condition of the roof, indicating, at a minimum, State Farm’s roof determination was reasonable. UMF 12-13, 28. In contrast, Plaintiffs have proffered no reliable evidence at all that State Farm’s claim determination was wrong, let alone unreasonable. UMFs 22-23. Bad faith actions have been submitted to the jury only where “the evidence of the insurer’s defense to the underlying claim was so weak that a reasonable inference could be drawn that the insurer denied the claim in bad faith,” i.e. where the facts show the insurer has “constructed a sham defense to the claim or has intentionally disregarded undisputed facts supporting the insured’s claim.” Oulds v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 1431, 1442 (10th Cir. 1993). There is no such evidence here. See Phillips, 640 F. Supp. 3d at 1109 (State Farm conducted an adequate investigation when it “investigated the damage, processed the claim, and reviewed plaintiffs’ supplemental information multiple times and determined that an additional inspection was not warranted”); Revocable Tr. Agreement, 614 F. Supp. 3d at 978 (same). In fact, Plaintiffs’ own claim history confirms that State Farm has previously paid to replace their roofs when covered damage was identified. UMF 1. State Farm’s decision regarding the scope of damage is, at most, a legitimate dispute. Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden on either step of the bad-faith analysis. This is not a bad-faith case, and judgment should be entered in favor of State Farm on Plaintiffs’ bad-faith theory. See Evans y. Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 13-CV-0390-CVE-PJC, 2014 WL 5846730, at *10 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 12, 2014) (“The mere fact that Reliable did not pay plaintiff the full amount that plaintiff sought is not enough to show an unreasonable act.”); Price v. CSAA Gen. Ins. Co., 687 F. Supp. 3d 1179, 1185 (W.D. Okla. 2023) (entering summary judgment, reasoning “[iJn sum, there was a legitimate dispute between CSAA and Plaintiffs regarding both causation of damage and coverage under Plaintiffs’ Policy, and Plaintiffs otherwise lack evidence of CSAA’s bad faith.”). 13"}, {"d": 22, "p": 15, "t": "If]. PLAINTIFFS’ CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD CLAIM FAILS ON THE MERITS. Plaintiffs assert constructive fraud against both State Farm and the Agent based on identical allegations found insufficient by other courts. Porter v. State Farm, CIV-25-187-R, 2025 WL 1151682, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 18, 2025). To recover for constructive fraud, Plaintiffs must prove, with clear and convincing evidence, that State Farm (1) owed a duty of full disclosure, (2) misstated a fact or failed to disclose a fact, (3) the misstatement or omission was material, (4) Plaintiffs relied on it, and (5) suffered damages as a result. Lillard v. Stockton, 267 F. Supp. 2d 1081, 1113 (N.D. Okla. 2003). Plaintiffs cannot establish any element of the claim. Plaintiffs concerning allege “Defendants” made multiple misrepresentations and/or omissions calculations, coverage, underwriting, and claim handling. Pet., 73(a)-(f). But Plaintiffs testified their dispute concerns only State Farm’s refusal to replace their roof. UMF 26. Their Petition also fails to plead fraud with particularity under 12 O.S. § 2009(B). Where “fraud is alleged against multiple defendants, blanket allegations of fraud . . . ‘by the defendants’ are insufficient . .. , the alleged fraudulent activity of each defendant must be set forth.” Lillard, 267 F, Supp. 2d at 1112. They do not identify who made any statement, when it was made, or what was said, and instead impermissibly lump Defendants together.° And Plaintiffs’ constructive fraud claim, seeking damages for State Farm’s refusal to replace their roof, is just a “breach of contract claim masquerading as something more.” Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Fiasco y. Oceanus Ins. Group, 13-CV-762-JED-PJC, 2014 WL 3891267, at *4 (N.D. Okla. 2014). “[I]t is well-settled that Oklahoma law does not permit the simultaneous pursuit of fraud and breach of contract claims where the two claims are not sufficiently distinct.” Jd. at *5. > Indeed, it is not clear whether Plaintiffs are asserting that State Farm is vicariously liable for the alleged representations or omissions of its agent or whether they contend State Farm itself is liable for representations and omissions made independent of the agent. 14"}, {"d": 22, "p": 16, "t": "| A. Plaintiffs cannot establish that a misrepresentation or duty to disclose. There is no evidence, let alone clear and convincing evidence, of any misrepresentation. The Petition suggests the alleged representations relate to the Holeomb Agency’s sale of Plaintiffs’ Policy, but Plaintiffs do not recall any specific representations made by Agent Holcomb or her staff regarding the Policy or coverage and do not allege either made any affirmative representations regarding inspections or the condition of their house. UMF 4. To recover, however, Plaintiffs must set forth evidence to demonstrate a misstatement was made. Lillard, 267 F. Supp. 2d at 1112. Constructive fraud requires a duty to speak, which 4 “‘may arise if a party selectively discloses facts that create a false impression.” Jd. (quoting Specialty Beverages, L.L.C. v, Pabst Brewing Co., 537 F.3d 1165, 1181 (10th Cir. 2008)). Plaintiffs allege no such selective disclosure. Id. Plaintiffs do not allege that the Holcomb Agency made any affirmative representations about inspections or the condition of their house. UMF 4. Their theory rests on assumptions—not statements. Nor is there an allegation the Holcomb Agency made affirmative representations about claim handling and hail determination. Plaintiffs instead allege Defendants failed to disclose an alleged scheme relating to hail claims. See Pet., { 73(f}-(g). But silence or implied representations are insufficient as a matter of law. Pratt y. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., CIV-20-93-D, 2020 WL 4735350, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 14, 2020). Neither State Farm nor the Holcomb Agency owed a duty to disclose the matters alleged, and the claim fails on that basis alone. See id.; see also Hall v. State Farm, CYV-25-12-JD, 2025 WL 2905205, at *6 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 13, 2025) (“[T]he partial disclosures Plaintiff claims [the agent] made are all inherent or implied. Plaintiff does not identify any affirmative statements .. . and instead claims [the agent] inherently warranted the condition of the property by selling Plaintiff a policy. The Court declines to conclude that a reasonable basis for a constructive fraud/negligent misrepresentation claim is an inherent or implied representation attendant to the issuance of an insurance policy. If that were the case, almost no circumstances 15"}, {"d": 22, "p": 17, "t": "would exist in which an agent could not be joined as a party to a lawsuit relating to coverage.”); Barlow v. State Farm, CIV-25-44-R, 2025 WL 1139489, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 17, 2025) (“Plaintiffs d[id] not identify any affirmative statements by [agent] concerning State Farm’s claims handling or policy interpretation” and could not establish agent breached duty). B. Plaintiffs cannot establish reasonable reliance. Plaintiffs contend that they relied on the Holcomb Agency, which is in the business of selling insurance—not inspecting roofs, to inspect their property, ensure it was in good condition, and advise of any issues. See Pet., {J 25-28. There is no support in the record for this contention. Plaintiffs cannot even recall discussions with the Agency about inspections. UMF 4. Further, the Property was inspected after the alleged loss, and the subsequent appraisal did not identify any need for roof replacement or reduction in value attributable to the roof condition. UMF 12-13. As a matter of law, an insurance company does not owe a duty to inspect or conduct underwriting for the insured’s benefit. See e.g., Marino v. State Farm, CIV-22-885-HE, 2023 WL 11915691, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 7, 2023); Hall, 2025 WL 2905205 at *6; Gray v. Derderian, 464 F, Supp. 2d 105, 110 (D. R.I. 2006). Underwriting exists for the insurer’s benefit, not the insured’s, See Gray, 464 F. Supp. 2d at 109. Accordingly, the Policy expressly provides that State Farm has no obligation to “make inspections and surveys of the insured location at any time,” provide insureds with “reports on conditions,” or “recommend changes.” UMF 9. Plaintiffs also cannot establish reliance because they received a copy of the Policy. UMF 5. Oklahoma law imposes a duty “to read and know the contents of the polic[y]” before they accept it, and an applicant “who accepts [a policy] the provisions of which are plain, clear, and free from all ambiguity, is chargeable with knowledge of the terms and legal effect.” Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. T.M. Richardson Lumber Co., 1902 OK 7, 15, 69 P. 936, 937; see also Country Gold, Inc. y. State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., CIV-14-1398-D, 2015 WL 431638, at *4 (W.D. Okla. 16"}, {"d": 22, "p": 18, "t": "| Feb. 2, 2015) (dismissing constructive fraud claim in part because no dispute plaintiff received policy and could not have reasonably relied upon any misrepresentations about it). On Plaintiffs cannot establish causation. Plaintiffs’ only alleged injury is State Farm’s refusal to pay for a full roof replacement. UMF 26. That decision was based on State Farm’s determination that hail did not damage the roof shingles—not on underwriting, inspections, or coverage limits. Federal courts continue to reject attempts to transform such scope-of-loss disputes into tort or misrepresentation claims. See, ¢.g., Weichbrodt v. State Farm, CIV-25-360-R, 2025 WL 1848819, at *4 (W.D. Okla. July 2, 2025) (“State Farm’s determination that some of the claimed damage is attributable to a non-covered cause does not mean the coverage is negated... [rather], the parties disagree about the extent of the damage and whether some of the damage was caused by wind or hail.”); Hall, 2025 WL 2905205 at *6 (same principle). This case is no different—the alleged injury stems from State Farm’s decision, not any alleged misrepresentation. D. Any alleged misrepresentations were true and/or non-actionable. The House qualified for and was insured under an RCV policy covering hail. UMF 1, 2-8. Plaintiffs had more than sufficient coverage to replace their roof consistent with the contractor’s estimate. UMF 6, 19, 21. And Plaintiffs admit State Farm identified and paid for covered damage; they just contend it should have paid for more of it. UMF 18, 26; Pet., | 40(d), Gj), (1). To the extent Plaintiffs rely on alleged statements regarding claim handling or policy application, such statements are non-actionable. “[F]or a false representation to be the basis of fraud, such representation must be relative to existing facts or those which previously existed, and not as to promises as to future acts.” Citation Co. Realtors v. Lyon, 1980 OK 68, { 8, 610 P.2d 788, 790; CMI Roadbuilding v. SpecSys, No. CIV-18-1245-G, 2021 WL 2189190, at *3 (W.D. Okla. May 28, 2021) (same requirement for constructive fraud). Further, any representations about 17"}, {"d": 22, "p": 19, "t": "State Farm’s past claim handling decisions would be conveying an adjuster’s opinion. See Cupit v. Dancu Chemical Co., 1957 OK. 193, J 7, 316 P.2d 593, 596 (claim decision is an opinion and not “misrepresentation or concealment of facts”). “Fraud may not be predicated on a mere expression of opinion.” Eckert v. Flair Agency, 1995 OK CIV APP 151, IV. STATE FARM IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT 7, 909 P.2d 1201, 1204. AS TO PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES. “Even where there is evidence to support the recovery of actual damages in a bad faith action against an insurer, which there is not here, submission of the issue of punitive damages to a jury may be improper.” Perry v. Safeco Ins. Co., 18-CV-539-TCK-FHM, 2020 WL 1180726, at *7 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 11, 2020). The Oklahoma Supreme Court has emphasized that “[pJunitive damages are awarded only in the most egregious circumstances and are aimed at punishing the offending party.” Estrada v. Port City Props., Inc., 2011 OK 30, 4 16, 1.21, 258 P.3d 495, 502 n.21. Indeed, even where, unlike here, bad faith can be established, that does not entitle a plaintiff to punitive damages unless the evidence justifies a finding that the insurer acted with “oppression, malice, fraud or gross negligence or wantonness.” Buzzard v. Farmers Ins. Co., 1991 OK 127, 40, 824 P.2d at 1115. See also Combs v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., $51 F.3d 991, 1000 (10th Cir. 2008) (finding that for a request for punitive damages for constructive fraud to go to the jury, plaintiff must provide evidence defendant acted with evil intent or gross negligence). Plaintiffs are not, as a matter of law, entitled to any type of punitive damages, as they can make no competent showing that State Farm acted in bad faith or engaged in constructive fraud, let alone with malice or gross negligence. Whether there is any competent evidence to submit the 6 Oklahoma’s punitive damage statute, 23 O.S. § 9.1, upon which Plaintiffs base their request for punitive damages is unconstitutional because it contemplates, and includes no safeguards which would prevent, consideration of harm to others in setting the amount of a punitive award. Moody vy. Ford Motor Co., 506 F. Supp. 2d 823, 849 (N.D. Okla. 2007). 18"}, {"d": 22, "p": 20, "t": "issue of punitive damages to the jury under Oklahoma’s statutory punitive damages regime is a question of law for the Court in the first instance. Estrada, 2011 OK 30, { 20, 258 P.3d 495 at 504. There is no evidence of egregious circumstances here, no malice, no gross negligence, and no oppression or wanton or reckless disregard for the insureds’ rights. The UMFs reveal that Plaintiffs disagreed with State Farm’s conclusions, nothing more. Af most, Plaintiffs might be able to show State Farm was mistaken as to the scope of covered damage to their roof, not that State Farm acted with malice or ill intent toward them or anyone else. Submission of the issue of punitive damages to the jury, therefore, “would be improper.” Combs, 551 F.3d at 1000. CONCLUSION Summary judgment is appropriate and should be granted where, as here, it appears from the pleadings and evidentiary materials that there is no substantial controversy as to any material fact and one of the parties is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Cyanostar Energy, Inc. v. Chesapeake Expl. L.L.C., 2014 OK CIV APP 7, { 8, 317 P.3d 217, 219; Rules for Dist. Cts. of Okla. R. 13(e). For the foregoing reasons, State Farm requests that the Court enter summary judgment in its favor on all claims in Plaintiffs’ Petition. Respectfully Submitted, 7.0 W aot TIMILA S.QAOTHER OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA # 31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com 19"}, {"d": 22, "p": 21, "t": "ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 26th day of May, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N, Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 ATTORNEYS Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER FIRM 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 FOR PLAINTIFFS ¢ Yhigp (} WW ict or 20 LAW"}, {"d": 22, "p": 23, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Neil West 03/19/2026 NEIL IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA and LACY COUNTY WEST, Plaintiffs, Case Vs. Number CJ-2025-135 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. Taken on behalf on the 19th in BY: day Lawton, * REPORTED of the of Defendants March, 2026 Oklahoma * TAMARA * * WAGGONER, CSR Pr Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) EXHIBIT"}, {"d": 22, "p": 24, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Neil West 03/19/2026 Page 42 contractor. Q Okay. he specialize A General contractor. He Q Do -- has inspected the roof house that you live A This one, no. Q Right. Did the of your Crystal Lake? did And was in he a general contractor or roofing? still does some today. the you he in he house 11 A Crystal Hills. 12 Q Crystal Hills, 13 A Yeah, he 14 Q Okay. And you 15 employed with State Farm, 16 a little more detail, 17 replaced two roofs; 18 A 19 State 20 Q First, I'm 22 over. Insured is during the So A -- while you we'll look at and haven't they? Let's up. 25 had they've I question State you. it. but sorry. that 24 Thank replaced have never roof been actually employed were this in paid to by Farm. 21 23 at sorry. actually I've Farm, don't know where just strike what I meant to say. period that you were replaced two roofs? they've on now? look 10 on ever it I messed and insured Correct. Word for Word Reporting, LLC start 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) by"}, {"d": 22, "p": 25, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Neil West 03/19/2026 Page 43 Q And both of those Hills house? A Yes, ma'am. Q Okay. And A I many, but the your were at your Crystal what's your brother's that we're Christopher West. -- name? about 10 Q Yeah. A -- is Chris -- Q Okay. And did State Farm's tell you 12 was a roof 13 then one 14 Christopher, A or Christopher records replacement in He 20 -- did or I think Chris, Which one A The 18 Q Okay. 19 A My 20 Q Okay. Is Roger 21 A He was at the 22 Q Where does Roger 23 A He 25 -- which -- indicate that there a total roof in it was '19, Did both of replace 17 24 talking 2009 those roofs? not. Okay. 16 one -- 11 15 have 2019 he replace? the roof a roofer? roof. Who replaced brother lives did in 2009? West also? Roger. also time. live? in Godfrey, -- is Illinois. G-O-D-F-R-E-Y. fe) And has his last name Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) I'll and"}, {"d": 22, "p": 26, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Neil West 03/19/2026 Page 50 an employee, nothing. And when State then Farm I filed inspector that September, after Bobby telling me that, you damage. There was preexisting damage. And they're if there was 10 have disclosed 11 yes, it's 12 like somebody 13 and came out I think submitted my had this is indication going preexisting a weird claim know, no that this to to to And there have be able to let you down us to they they misrepresented you. 14 Q And 15 A I deal 16 Q And you've for fraud? 17 A We have. 18 Q Did you 19 personally -- to with that. sued her ever call explain it? her and ask 20 MR. SANDERS: Object to 21 THE WITNESS: I think she -- noting that filed discussion about Rother) conversation 23 wasn't much 24 Q (By 25 substantive should to that if that so, know know, me any -- also you was was to 22 tries there Nancy conflict but in claim, tell I think me. the preexisting that try damage, and Ms. we the her form. called ask, a claim, there it. There just wasn't. So have you had a with her at all -- Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) well,"}, {"d": 22, "p": 27, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Neil West 03/19/2026 Page 90 recommend -- make replacement basically the or a whatnot, be able insureds know. that the inspector for, you know, determine what it approval from that -- they had a change in could not grant a full roof to Since that recommendation get time I And and policy and had to get permission They deny on the spot roof replacements or to get from to be significant damage, 10 superior there 11 sort. if 12 There 13 attempts 14 were 15 percent 16 they 17 was to they was a ~~ were And the when challenging it. so when my Claim and tried to 21 thing and they didn't. my head I'm going absolutely is not 25 denied all of I knew -- sure get storm, this. 50 not 20 that and people to make by 25 on I could damaged such that that 24 as and 19 just they Farm's through all 23 some and between I situation I mean, that State came I did through everything it was a legitimate Farm to do the right this isn't right. This right. This -- roof we it know just a of came with In State out that -- and sorry. approval a pay profitable 18 22 this about denying claims banking so read more systematically of going I become had I'm let replacement could -- was. was this and -- Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) I'm was being"}, {"d": 22, "p": 28, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Neil West 03/19/2026 Page 93 tell you roof, that it did not other than the gutters, it paid you; is that what it Oh, the inspector flat out damage, yes. Yes, Q And you disagree A Absolutely, Q And A hail that financially 10 your to I find damage to downspouts, the things this is told your you? said not ma'am. with that? do. roofing benefit, contractor, also who disagrees stands with that; correct? 11 MR. SANDERS: Object 12 THE WITNESS: My have also a 14 Q (By Ms. 15 different for State 16 A 13 hail to 17 reputation on the line. Rother) And you think Object to the SANDERS: (By Ms. State 20 largest insurer 21 denying Farm iS stands that's Farm? MR. 19 form. contractor -- Q the roofing SO 18 to Rother) long do you think to keep -- continue to be in the state of Oklahoma if it's claims it does not 22 MR. SANDERS: Form. 23 THE WITNESS: Ma'am -- Ms. Do you agree with me on the line, too? 24 Q (By 25 State Farm's going How form, Rother} reputation is the owe? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) that"}, {"d": 22, "p": 29, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Neil West 03/19/2026 Page 101 THE WITNESS: Q (By Ms. reading, have opinions which have found that not a to inspect property? be have I do Rother) you duty not. And read the Object to THE WITNESS: That's a Q the courts Rother) Okay. But question was, 10 agreed. ll in all the 12 of federal court decisions 13 MR. SANDERS: 14 THE WITNESS: 15 Q 16 about 17 those? my reading you the fact do form. the is of law to lawyers. -- well, have you read those -- doing, have you read any on that issue? Object to the What I have is that -- asking you Have read were No, federal court opinions. 18 MR. SANDERS: Object 19 THE WITNESS: The themselves, no. 21 Q Ms. 22 insurance policy 23 inspections are 24 MR. SANDERS: Form. 25 THE WITNESS: Not Rother) And see to what the you form. opinions have it form. read I was actual 20 to court in How Rother) (By federal by (By Ms. the your question and (By Ms. of agent's SANDERS: by all several MR. determined the in you says read about required? that I know of. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) your whether"}, {"d": 22, "p": 30, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Neil West 03/19/2026 Page 104 saying, that's not damage. And I'm like, what this what about this. No, sir, that's not I know and damage, or that's exactly what he said. And do you Q have covered not hail damage. understand damage and under don't your about policy then you have damage to the form. you that's excluded? 10 MR. SANDERS: Object THE WITNESS: I understand that's a thing, Okay. And but you know replaced due to hail yes. Q 11 (By Ms. 12 because you've 13 damage, that Rother) had the two roofs policy covers 14 A Yes. 15 Q And 16 A Yes. 17 Q And what 18 adjuster, it sounds like 19 this not covered damage? 20 MR. SANDERS: Object 21 THE WITNESS: I is wind? Mr. Gooch, Q (By Ms. Rother) you understand, sir, have or 22 23 do 24 roof 25 damage, to hail? wear all kinds that's what he said to to the form. of the you was believe that's correct. Okay. And wasn't that tear name it's he possible deterioration, of things, and still Word for Word Reporting, LLC for -your preexisting have 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) hail"}, {"d": 22, "p": 31, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE. Neil West 03/19/2026 Page 135 books, the finances, it just works that way I mean, she was with on We would -- but maybe not necessarily paying same time if that know, co-existing Q The think the as you said you and A Not driveway Was Q Okay. 12 A She me. But Q these were house 11 you many times attention at the kind things occur. you've standing but so me we're that called us. in of described, the front yard, yes. My Mrs. West with you then? was around. She was not standing she was -- she the property. So was she a -- she was not a participant In my inquiry of the when I've asked was at 16 A Correct. 17 correct. 18 Q 19 questions 20 Ms. Holcomb, that you think she failed 21 your property and tell you about its condition, 22 that she Farm 23 changed 24 characterize A of Nancy? conversation? 25 I driveway the 15 in of new sidewalk. 14 some you conversation 10 13 -- for You have about told how me, you think you were policy, to to tell you that State the it evaluates hail damage. those correctly? You you damaged failed way by did. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) by inspect and had Did I"}, {"d": 22, "p": 32, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Neil West 03/19/2026 Page 136 Q Okay. So those are omissions. statements to you Did she that you make any affirmative claim are misrepresentations or are false? MR. SANDERS: Object to the form. You can THE WITNESS: You know, just said we've got need, and answer. you covered, we've got what you her. And it turns out she didn't. (By Ms. Q Rother) Okay. So 10 this is my only chance to ask 11 you can -- tell me what -- what 12 specifically recall her using. 13 MR. SANDERS: Object THE WITNESS: Yeah. 14 before believed because trial. What words you to the form. It was a conversation You can answer. 15 16 just I on the phone. Q 17 18 the 19 of (By Ms. Rother) conversation your new you we're talking about were standing in the yard you told exactly house? 20 A Correct. 21 Q And 22 what? 23 A I you said, 24 need to 25 want replacement get where And Correct. called hey, coverage and her we're buying this on house. I costs. this I made spec Word for Word Reporting, LLC -- house, we want I -- I made 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 22, "p": 33, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Neil West 03/19/2026 Page 137 reference to the storm back in 2019, make sure that we've got the same coverage that we did then. if we have to overinsure valuation for today's -- I didn't head thinking, to I said I'm replace of for you cost thing, she She asked -- know, cost said, okay, a few questions year of the 10 house, the 11 many square feet. 12 back to And 13 responded 14 you're 15 me. to. roof, She'll I want of it to get proper say it, but in you know, of my to inflation kind the of the many bedrooms, how up, she'll it. about how look it at some point we've got you then Yes, good got said kind that, covered I year get we were all hooked up and to go. Q Well, you say at some point 16 responded to. Did ~- how did she 17 issuing policy or -- and you haven't produced 18 any So I don't recall if it was day or within -- just -- I we hung up the phone on the same -- time range. the e-mails, A 20 later on 21 don't even 22 multiple conversations 23 the five, 24 know. 25 Sure. But that at were respond, by so. 19 same you Yes. same know some if 10 minute point, obviously, I we and had like within I -- I -- you Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) don't know,"}, {"d": 22, "p": 34, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Neil West 03/19/2026 Page 144 A Yes. Yes, Q Okay. So State Farm underwriting conclude that your house was sufficient to issue coverage; A Sure. Yes, ma'am. Q And I think we've talked terms of what claim disclose, it relates to claims evaluates hail State in Farm and 10 allegation 11 told is ma'am. you that if did for agreed? about this. But Ms. Holcomb failed to way State Farm damage. And your she knew that she should the record, I'm just to interrogatories the handles have you? 12 A Agreed. 13 Q I'm 14 flipping 15 and making 16 Are 17 -- just for through your answers sure that we you claiming that your excludes weather related haven't our omitted policy anything. has -- the form. that it losses? 18 MR. SANDERS: Object to 19 THE WITNESS: The one that I or the one up The one that I signed up for I signed up for, was And State Farm 20 that I 21 er 22 weather that Q 23 signed for? I thought related losses. (By Ms. Rother) 24 for weather related 25 much as think you losses, they they should; just got it covered did pay didn't pay right? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) as"}, {"d": 22, "p": 35, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Neil West 03/19/2026 Page 189 to provide rain was Farm on an the roof? see any explanation of explanation from Coastal was on the roof I asked you this. Did State Farm's A Am I -- Q Did you Claims about where that rain response to State Farm's question? A I didn't, no. Q Did ever complain you 10 cap State claim you -- I think to Ms. cap Holcomb where about that decision? 11 MR. SANDERS: Object to 12 THE WITNESS: I don't know middle of it 15 we she noticed that 16 yet. And I said -- I don't remember 17 words. hadn't cashed the checks because -- that got the So not no sometime because I 14 But we called that complained. 18 she form. 13 -- I think the we somewhere I 19 wasn't satisfied that it 20 amount of damages that we should 21 really a complaint, I guess just 22 fact. 23 Q (By Ms. Rother) 24 interior damage of 25 ceiling? the Have house, the she asked if cashed the checks -- hadn't was in the we have. exact I a statement of you repaired the the stains the Word for Word Reporting, LLC on 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) in"}, {"d": 22, "p": 37, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Lacy West 03/20/2026 DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA and LACY WEST, COUNTY Ml” THE Nl NEIL IN Ne Plaintiffs, et et Vs. Case Number C7J-2025-135 Ne ee STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., VIDEO et Defendants. DEPOSITION OF Taken on behalf on the 20th in REPORTED BY: of day Lawton, * LACY * MICHELLE the of WEST Defendants March, 2026 Oklahoma * TAMARA * WAGGONER, CSR ”>> Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) EXHIBIT a"}, {"d": 22, "p": 38, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Lacy West 03/20/2026 Page 30 A Yes. Q Did into the bought you any time Crystal Hill house, the new conversations house on with the from 2018, when you moved until 2021 when you Briarcreek, did you have Nancy Holcomb any Insurance Agency? A Not that I recall. Q Did you transfer that agency over to 10 A Yes. 11 Q Did 12 A Yes. 13 Q So you when Mr. West from 20 you take -- I guess -- what remember talking to anyone Nancy 16 A I think it would 17 office a couple of times. 18 of when that was. Q And when you talk to 21 A To her. 22 Q And your did 23 when 24 of 25 that insurance married? that? 15 20 all of time Holcomb automobile care 14 19 ever your is the first at the to go into have no recall Agency? was. you be I had I really went someone -- in did you talk to her her, on her testimony is you don't you remember the subject matter My first is say Do the conversation? A I don't. staff? instinct remember to Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) it"}, {"d": 22, "p": 39, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 31 Lacy West 03/20/2026 was about that for the but I Have with Ms. new property? you -- Holcomb did about you Q So would it not made any direct statements to about you fair on 11 A That's correct. 12 Q And is that true talked with anyone you 13 Have 14 policy that 15 A No. 16 Q So your be insurance current one no at 18 policy; is that A That is true. 20 Q Are you aware only State MR. not 22 conversation say the that to for Ms. you nature your Holcomb or of the for anyone in in her office? on house about that in Briarcreek? agency has made the nature of that this lawsuit you have Holcomb's you the about office her agency? but the Holcomb SANDERS: Object to the form. You THE WITNESS: Yes. (By Ms. you know why you've Farm answer. 24 25 say true? 19 sued can't house? Ms. to to current your covers representations any I insurance No. 17 -- any acquiring 10 23 have A representations 21 can't certain. Q has accident, Q Rother) Do Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) can"}, {"d": 22, "p": 40, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Lacy West 03/20/2026 Page 34 Q And you the said you didn't realize there were policy from 2019 to Can you to policy? changes to identify any changes MR. SANDERS: Object THE WITNESS: Not the to 2023. the form. You can can see -- on The evidence to answer. that I the documentation provided to me personally mostly in regard on on the current Rother) And that is that position that the with State is Farm (By 10 Q 11 State 12 that you all claim 13 it's not hail damage; correct? 14 MR. SANDERS: Object 15 THE WITNESS: Farm Ms. -- has taken the is hail us. on to damage, to our dealings claim. State damage Farm the form. Correct. But they will admit to some damage, to screens, soft -- 16 it very odd that they 17 the gutters, to the fence, 18 metals of house, but 19 hail damage to the roof. on its own to me raises after we had had, I don't know, I know of two for sure, what the 20 That 21 particularly 22 several, a 23 consider experts 24 definitely 25 maintain few, have that we says the miraculously out a say, there's come roof damage. They are do not hail damage found to no questions, of to have and lot I I yes, you -- they on Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) our would still"}, {"d": 22, "p": 41, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 35 Lacy West 03/20/2026 roof. to Q (By Ms. Rother) there is State Farm? A State Q And two 10 roofers A Yes. @) And Farm, yes. the experts you're that you've had in fairness, motivated like replace roof; A 11 13 SANDERS: Q (By Ms. that would they because You Rother) the damage to the any training on not to you had 15 of some damage 16 shingles. 17 identification Have the presence shingles? of hail damage to roof ever talk to the contractors soft metals 18 A No. 19 Q Did you 20 whether it's unusual 21 evidence of hail 22 you ever ask the 23 occasionally? for damage the shingles whereas it thought you to but that said Sorry. form. admitted has odd the to Object Farm was 25 understand correct? State 14 A house? Correct. MR. 12 24 you financially your the at the are to referring look they're to referring you're they The to about show don't, contractors if that happens Form. If you could did No. MR. SANDERS: Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) give me"}, {"d": 22, "p": 42, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 41 Lacy West 03/20/2026 would have been provided? know we I 8) Yes. A -- Q Uh-huh. A I don't Q Have 10 A No. 11 Q And 12 about you think 13 responsibility here, 14 policy was 15 between 2019 and 16 compare the policies? years. particular for pages declarations the produced A we recall if you read your you indicated produced anything else. why Ms. 17 A No. 18 Q Did 19 coverages you were when you were Holcomb has some you thought that or different 2023. the coverage Did you do Holcomb Ms. call policy? insurance talking that was the different to anything her and ask can answer. if the different? 20 MR. SANDERS: Form. You 21 THE WITNESS: I did not. Rother) So any questions the claim in 2019 and not in have been Mr. West 22 Q (By Ms. 23 why State Farm paid 24 2023, if they occurred 25 and not it would you? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) about"}, {"d": 22, "p": 43, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 43 Lacy West 03/20/2026 hail damage; correct? MR. SANDERS: Form. THE WITNESS: Q (By Ms. your request found that that your Rother) But State Farm total roof loss because they have by hail; is a for It was also my understanding. damaged weren't shingles the has understanding? A That is. Q And you that that because responsibility for 11 policy should have 12 claim in required you Farm pay to the 2023? 13 MR. SANDERS: Form. Go ahead. 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. And truthfully 15 kind of 16 don't pay 17 article 18 Oklahoman, 19 that this has been trying to, 20 State Farm to admit that, yes, 21 and, thing is all over our roof should be 22 journey we 23 similar issues. 24 The article in particular of the details particular, -- that many have the news you discovered this days. I did read one it was from the know, our long process you know, to get we have hail damage I think and, these I it. to attention much in yes, recall the that believe State some has Holcomb Ms. believe 10 25 denied replaced, other but people that it through are I read, does Word for Word Reporting, LLC that having I don't mention 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) Daily a --"}, {"d": 22, "p": 44, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 44 Lacy West 03/20/2026 some new scheme and how State Farm or, you know, Part of certain with regard to wind and hail damage is either trying to recoup losses increase profit margins. is routinely the scheme percentage homeowners the -- to of homeowners you know, think they're Q (By Ms. Rother) read in a newspaper that you paying the And A Yes. 11 Q You 12 A I think so. 13 Q And understand not proven 14 and you it was facts; the those 16 THE WITNESS: Correct. (By Ms. 19 in 20 things and 21 legal process 22 A Yes. 23 Q the legal 24 Similar 25 were Rother) being but process deny they they information Oklahoman? are allegations correct? Form. yesterday, is Daily SANDERS: 18 that article? MR. Q insured coverage this 15 17 a for. 10 think -- deny an And I asked Mr. West you understand often accused of attorney a party is and then that's what the it that is for; true? Now, you said that other people were having issues -- that you learned that other people issues. Is -- you having similar that Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) learned"}, {"d": 22, "p": 45, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 45 Lacy West 03/20/2026 that from A on click the article? It's from the article. one thing, you know, you more and showing starts Once -- once you on the Internet, it more of the similar things. Q Right. A So it comes across it me, you people not a raises questions 11 know, 12 an attorney, 13 so many 14 And for 15 similar I'm yes, are coincidental suffering the same a handful know Q Do 17 condition of your 18 A I do not. 19 Q Do you a marked anything roof have of in any 2019 in to read and understand 21 claims, how many 22 roofs? 23 MR. SANDERS: Form. 24 THE WITNESS: No. (By Ms. claims Rother) State Did from years prior. about the and 2023? or comparison 20 that situation. difference knowledge not I'm person, legal seem it's situation to doesn't it but 16 Q know, many just 25 you that 10 you know, And, are that you denied. claims us -- denied being being whose people the are of mean, frequently, that people number I pretty comparative have has you go you tried the denied paid to to Farm a and total research Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 22, "p": 46, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Lacy West 03/20/2026 if there -- they're if they're paying for more roofs than newspaper articles that that State Farm on roof seen one. denying? A I did not. Q Have you report has Page 46 how paid many seen the billions of dollars the of Oklahoma out in state MR. SANDERS: Form. THE WITNESS: I think I've Ms. Have you claims? 10 Q (By 11 research with 12 number of 13 roofs it 14 A No. 15 Q Do you 16 that's where I 17 about 18 know 19 having 20 A I don't think so. 21 Q Have you ever talked neighborhood about your insurance 22 the done any Department of Insurance to see the claims that Farm pays, number of totals, anything State know like anybody the that? else personally, was going earlier, you other people having similar issues, anybody personally similar A 23 Rother) I that you were would talking do say and you are issues? with have not personally. our 24 has. He spoke with 25 know who their policy is next with. anyone in your claim? I door know my husband neighbor. I want Word for Word Reporting, LLC to 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) I say don't that"}, {"d": 22, "p": 47, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 47 Lacy West 03/20/2026 Neil maybe said chose not didn't want State because deal with it insurance premiums would increase, chose to pursue Is he to PF TI don't ODO Are FP Yes. And know from 12 interior 13 leaking? 14 A you having that was we 15 haven't 16 if 17 definitely weren't 18 Q- do or area measured how much you did have you have any continued they're growing. prior you know how it could stain your the No. In them made any stains fact, so that we I to the know place. I to see they the storm. water got into the your roof in ceiling? repairs to your are in have opted that I some know, where over that you area paint question. leaks, you just good water Have 25 do a very the Q A he so same 21 24 and the not. ceiling? his in do 23 afraid be I the was would A 22 basically it 20 he leaks? there And where not but do he But leaks? roof documents damage, Tf roof know. the and Farm. that. having Oo not file also claim 11 19 was a 10 to it evidence interior to not stays Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) even intact."}, {"d": 22, "p": 48, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Lacy West 03/20/2026 Page 66 A My maybe his two brother-in-law. One for sure, testified that have some roofing to either Chris or your roof? of them. That's all Q So is of Chris A Yes. Q And other one then I brother, experience, those Yes. Q Have West? West Roger West, may you ever talked about the condition of 11 A Of the current roof? 12 Q Yes. 13 A No. it Aside from mentioning would need to be replaced that -- and that 14 we 15 point. 16 been 17 individually. 18 husband. 19 Q And Mr. West 20 having Chris come and look 21 never transpired, so is that 22 understanding? that Chris But beyond conversation 23 A Yes. 24 Q And in -- Mr. Roger a them too? A thought I think 10 25 of It -- you at would not myself and them have been, you know, testified at that the he roof consistent did know, some between would but that, have with my considered but that with replace 2019? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) that your the roof"}, {"d": 22, "p": 50, "t": "athe actDataScout” Parcel: 02N13W-26-1-94900-020-0003 5/1/2025 1:27:05 AM ID: 160077521 Comanche County Report Property Owner Name: M ailing Add Property information WEST, NEIL & LACY : Physical 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR Address: Address: | wroN, OK 73505-4213 Type: Subdivision: PECAN VALLEY SOUTH (RI) Res. Improv. Tax District: (9) CACHE Millage Rate: 107.89 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR Block/Lat: 0020/0003 S-T-R: 26-02N-13W RURAL 107.89 Size (Acres): Legal: 0.00 PECAN VALLEY SOUTH BLK 20 8 \" LoT3 Market and Assessed Values Fair Cash Taxable Taxes Full Note: Tax amounts are Fair Assessed Cash Land 48,000 41,010 4,614 Bullding 256,713 242,330 27,262 Totals 304,713 283,340 31,876 Exemptions -1,000 Taxable Assessed $30,876 Estimated _ Taxes: 3,331 estimates only, Contact the county treasurer for exact amounts, Exemptions: - 1,000 Land Land Use Size Units LOT AREA 1,00 Lot"}, {"d": 22, "p": 51, "t": "Land Use Size Total 1.00 Units Deed Transfers Deed Date Book Page DeedType Stamps Est.Sale Grantor (2/28/2021 8967 212 jTWD 390.00 $260,000 BURNS, BILLIE D & VIOLA F 6/24/1997, 0 0 Warr.Deed 0.00 $0 WILSON, HAROLD W & DOROTHY~A 6/24/1997 0 0 JT 252.75 $168,500 RHEA, PETE Residential Card Residential Card 1 Details Occupancy Story Construction TotalLiv Grade Age Year Built Condition Beds Single Family ONE Veneer,Masonry 2353 5 27 1997 VeryGood 3 Exterior Wall: Veneer, Masonry Plumbing: Full: 2 Half: N/A Foundation: N/A Heat/Cool: Central Year Remodeled: N/A Base Structure Item Label Description Area 1 SINGLE 1/5 FIRE PL SINGLE 1/5 FIRE PL 1 2 Slab Porch with Roof Slab Porch with Roof 30 3 Slab Porch with Roof Slab Porch with Roof 54 4 Open Slab Porch Open Slab Porch 210"}, {"d": 22, "p": 52, "t": "Outbuildings and Yard Improvements Card # Item Size / Dim Quality Age j SINGLE 1/5 FIRE PL 1 N/A N/A 4 Stab Porch with Roof 30 N/A N/A 1 Slab Porch with Roof 54 N/A N/A 4 Open Slab Porch 210 N/A N/A Parcel Photos 10f5 € 2 Parcel Sketch Pornlienbor ian! Ba : / a hig f! PT _ iOSP. We . ad 1 S15) Qa ° 2231 Allacheu Garage 9 +b 6 4: ap iba Nat Wags Pond Roof eres 9 SEW Map : %"}, {"d": 22, "p": 53, "t": "Privacy - Terms - FAQ - Help Desk - About Us - Accessibility © 2025 - DataScout. All Rights Reserved."}, {"d": 22, "p": 55, "t": "Homeowners Application - OK State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 36-CR-X405-8 Cancel/New Effective Date: Agent: 12-29-2021 Nancy Heicomb Nancy Holcomb Ins Agcy inc App Date: 12-06-2021 App Time: 09:14 AM Agent Code: 2175 AFO Code: 26FAF3 CUSTOMER: Birth date Applicant: = WEST, NEIL S Co-Applicant: -1969 B-i980 WEST,LACY M SSN Home Phone Business Phone (580) 510-0427 Show name(s) on policy as: WEST, NEIL S & LACY M Mailing Address: 7710 SW CRYSTAL HILLS PL LAWTON, OK 73505-6431 is any applicant an existing Slate Farm customer: Yes if yes, State / Prov: OK Hame / Auta discount: Yes If yes, State / Prov: OK Does the applicant want to replace an existing State Farm policy with this transaction: Yes Existing State Farm policy number being repiaced: 36-CU-1467-1 Existing policy's cancel date: 12-29-2021 Existing policy's State / Prov: OK ts the property location for this new policy the same as the existing policy's location: No Is applicant the named insured on the existing State Farm policy: Yes if yes, existing policy type being replaced: Homeowners Number of residents: 2 Location: Property Location: Street: 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR City: LAWTON State /Prav: OK ZIP / Postal: 73505-9537 Caunty: Comanche Territory zane: 20 Subzone: 99 Is the dwelling inside city {imits: No Is the dwelling located within 10 road miles of a responding fire department: Yes Is the dwelling accessible to fire department protection equipment year round: Yes Does the dwelling have an adequate water source available for fire protection year round: Yes Pre-eligibillty: Has any applicant had a State Farm Homeowners, Manufactured Home, Renters, Condominium Unitawners, or Farm/Ranch policy in the last 30 days and qualifies for the Layal Customer Discount: Yes if yes, Tenure Details: Enter information from the State Farm Policy that carries the oldest tenure date: Fram date: 12-2001 To date: 12-2021 State / Prav: OK Years with State Farm: 20 Tenure policy number: 36-CU-1467-1 Tenure date: 12-19-2001 Has applicant had any losses, insured or not, in the past § years: Yes if yes, is applicant a current State Farm policyholder having a qualifying residential policy: Yes EXHIBIT EA 2540 0K 28 — Rev, 05-2021 Page 1 of 4 1000009 2018 126191 218 03-10-2020 SFF&CC/West_000953"}, {"d": 22, "p": 56, "t": "Homeowners Application - OK State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 36-CR-X405-8 Loss caused by Flood, Identity Restoration, Earlhquake in California, Mine Subsidence; or was the loss a Home Systems Protection (Equipment Breakdown), Service Line, Personal Articles Policy, or Personal Liability Umbrelia loss: No Loss description: wind hail Date of loss: 05-28-2019 Catastrophe related: Yes Weather related: Yes Total amount of loss: 13,480 Number of homeowners rating claims: 0 Dwelling: Estimate number: G214-13QA-3 Estimated replacement cost source: Estimated replacement cost tool Total finished square feet: 2053 Number of stories: 4 Story Estimated replacement cost: 292,000 Date of estimate: 12-06-2021 Year built: 1997 Heating / Cooling year: Original if Updated, enter year: Electrical year: Original If Updated, enter year: Plumbing year: Original If Updated, enter year: Construction: Masonry veneer Is there a solid fuel appliance, such as a wood or coal stove, fireplace insert, or free-standing fireplace unit inside any dwelling or structure on the premises: No Roof Installation Year: 2019 Roof material: Composition - Architectural Shingle \\s roof impact resistant: No Occupancy: Owner Number of weeks owner occupied (per calendar year): 52 Number of families: 4 Coverages: Desired coverage effective date: 12-29-2021 Estimated replacement cost: 292,000 Dwelling (Coverage A): 292,000 Rate IV: 100% increased Dwelling - Option ID: Included Dwelling Extension: 29,200 Are there any detached structures on the premises: No Personal Property (Coverage B): 219,000 Loss Settlement: Loss Settlement Option - Dwelling: Ai - Replacement Cost - Similar Construction Lass Settlement Option - Personal Property: B1 - Limited Replacement Cost Policy deductible: 1% Personal Liability (Coverage L) each occurrence: 100,000 Medical Payments (Coverage M) each occurrence: 1,000 Adjustments: Deadbolt locks: Yes Fire extinguisher: Yes Sprinkler system: None Fire or smoke alarm: Local only Burglar alarm: Locai only Options / Endorsements: Jewelry and Furs: Yes EA 2540 0K 25 = Rav. 05-2021 Page 2 of 4 1000009 2018 128191 216 03-10-2020 SFF&CC/West_000954"}, {"d": 22, "p": 57, "t": ": 46-CR-X405-8 State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Homeowners Application - OK JF limit: 1,500 / 2,500 Option JF included Silver/Goldware Theft - Option SG: Yes SG limit: 2,500 included Business Property - Option BP: Yes BP limit: 1,500 included Building Ordinance or Law - Option OL (% of Caverage A): Yes OL limit: 10% included Firearms - Option FA: Yes FA limit: 2,600 included Fire Department Service Charge Increased Limits: Yes Limit: §00 included Quote Results: CRI: 6613 Quote description: 100% Replacement Cost Annual premium: Monthly premium: 2,768.00 229.83 Estimated replacement cost: 292,000 Construction: 100% Masonry veneer Territory zone: 20 Subzone: LRF: 99 L Rate 1V: Coverages Dwelling (Coverage A} Limit Premium 292,000 §,881.00 Increased Dwelling - Option [D 58,400 Dwelling Extension Personal Property (Coverage B) 29,200 219,000 160,000 Personal Liability (Coverage L) each accurrence 1,000 1,000 4,000 87,600 Medical Payments (Coverage M) each occurrence Credit Card / Bank Card and Forgery Damage to Property of Others (Each Occurrence) Loss of Use Loss Settlement Provision At - Replacement Cost - Lass Settlement Option - Dwelling Similar Construction Bt - Limited Replacement 0s Loss Settlement Option - Personal Property Deductibles Policy deductible 1% 2,920 Charges / Credits Claim Record Home alert Home / Auto discount Leyal customer discount (470.00) (56.00) (4,515.00) (1,082.00) Policy Options and Endorsements Jewelry and Furs 1,500 / 2,500 Option JF included 2,800 included 1,500 included 10% 29,200 2,500 included Silver/Goldware Theft - Option SG Business Property - Option BP Building Ordinance or Law - Option OL (% of Coverage A} Firearms - Option FA EA 2540 OK 25 = Rev. 05-2021 Page 3 of 4 1000009 2018 128191 218 03-10-2026 SFF&CC/West_000955"}, {"d": 22, "p": 58, "t": "Homeowners Application - OK State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 36-CR-X405-8 500 included Fire Department Service Charge Increased Limits Additional Interests: Type: Mortgagee Name: ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Street: City: State / Prov: ZIP / Postal: PO BOX 202070 FLORENCE sc 29502-2070 Loan number: Documents f Photos Bind: Market Assistance Program App: No Bind application: Yes Desired coverage effective date: 12-29-2021 Application taken date: 12-06-2021 Application taken time: 09:14 AM Billing { Payment: Minimum amount due: 459.66 Annual premium: 2,758.00 Payment Options: Put application on SFPP: No Annual premium: 2,758.00 Amount paid: 0.00 Premium transfer from other policy: 0.00 Balance due: 2,758.00 Billing Information: Should named insured be billed for first year’s premium: No Should named insured be billed for renewals: No lf no, renewals will be billed to the name below: Name: ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Should named insured be billed for endorsements: No lfno, endorsements will be billed to the name below: Name: ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA EA 2540 OK.28 = Rev. 05-2021 Page 4 of 4 1000009 2018 128191 218 03-10-2020 SFF&CC/West_000956"}, {"d": 22, "p": 60, "t": "&® StateFarm Certified Policy Record i, the undersigned, do hereby confirm that | am custodian of the records pertaining to the issuance of policies by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. i certify that the attached documents represent a true and accurate record of the terms and conditions of Policy Number 36-CR-X405-8 including any endorsements, if applicable, for the policy term(s) 12/29/2022 to 12/29/2023 and insuring WEST, NEIL S & LACY M based on available records. The policy was in effect on the loss date of 06/15/2023. Hil. Mitchell Daugherty?) Underwriting Team Manager Date: 03/17/2025 Page 4 of 1 1011493 2000 157822 200 02-00-2022 SFF&CC/West_000001"}, {"d": 22, "p": 61, "t": "S& StateFarm’ This policy forms available is one of the today, and broadest provides you with outstanding value for your insurance dollars. However, we want to point out that every policy contains limitations and exclusions. Please read your policy carefully, especially “Losses Not Insured” and all exclusions. State Farm® Homeowners Policy Oklahoma HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000002"}, {"d": 22, "p": 62, "t": "HOMEOWNERS POLICY TABLE OF CONTENTS AGREEMENT........ DEFINITIONS ou. eee DEDUCTIBLE vod 1 . . sc c s s c escesces ns se su s cs s s ec es cencet s § INFLATION COVERAGE ..,......c.ssssssssssssssessssseseseesses 11 SECTION I- LOSSES INSURED oe 12 COVERAGE A ~ DWELLING 12 SECTION | - PROPERTY COVERAGES ........cscceeees 5 COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY............ 12 COVERAGE A ~ DWELLING ...cccccccccccccessccesscscesonesssese 5 SECTIONI-LOSSES NOT INSURED... 14 DWEMING......sescsssssssssasssssssssvecccscssessessecencenenseranace 5 SECTION] -LOSS SETTLEMENT ou... cessscsssssosnn 18 Other Structures .....eccsssssssssesersesenssscentereetictsnn 5 COVERAGE A— DWELLING .cccccccccccsccssscssssscssoseeose 18 5 At - Replacement Cost Loss Settlement - COVERAGE B ~ PERSONAL PROPERTY.............. 5 Property Covered ........... 5 Property Not Covered Similar Construction A2 ~ Replacement Cost Loss Settlement - 18 Common Construction 18 Special Limits of Liability ....sscasosscsseseseatss 6 Property Not Covered ....sssccssecsseseesatsasasse 6 COVERAGE C - LOSS OF USE. ..ejnssnnenenen 8 7 7 Additional Liviig| EXPENSE ww rrrnrntnnan 8 Fair Rental Value... sssnscseon a) Prohibited US oococccccccoccccccccsreeseuseene 8 SECTION | - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES................. 8 COVERAGE B ~ PERSONAL PROPERTIY............. 19 Bi — Limited Replacement Cost Loss Settlement ...seceesesssessesseseeseseeanseseere 19 82~Depreciated Loss Settlement... 19 SECTION | ~ CONDITIONS... cesscsssssssecsesenssnsansense 20 Insurable Interest and Limit of Liability stesaessienaes 20 Debris Removal. 8 Temporary Repairs 9 Loss to a Pair or Set... 20 Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping ..esscscrsess 9 Fire Department Service Charge... sss g Property REMOVE ........ssccesresssusceeeensesssesesvessees 9 Appralsal..... see Other Insurance........... Suit Against Us 2 22 22 Credit Card, Bank Fund Transfer Card, Our Optom. escssseessenssssensesceceretsscssnesetsnseessasess 22 Forgery, and Counterfeit MOney.......resvssessee 9 Power IMterruption ......scsessssssososecsectersnssene 10 Refrigerated Products 10 Loss Payment Abandonment of Property. Mortgagee Clause Arson REWALG Volcanic Action. svn 10 we dD Your Duties After Loss . . . . . . .060 20 9 9 my) No Benefit to Bailee 23 Recovered Property. 3 Assignment of Claim 23 Collapse 10 Locks and Remote Device........scsssessre 11 SECTION II - LIABILITY COVERAGES.....-.cscccssssceos 3 COVERAGE L PERSONAL LIABILITY... 23 Fuel Ol Release 11 Tear Out 11 COVERAGE M~ MEDICAL PAYMENTS TO Home Certification........scsscssscsssesecessees 4 OTHERS... se se cs es eseusnusesceves . mad ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 RW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000003"}, {"d": 22, "p": 63, "t": "SECTION fl - ADDITIONAL COVERAGEG............. 23 Claim Expenses .......cscsssssesssscscescscscsesumeree 24 Death. ccscssscsssssessessessesssssssevscesecssssssssscensnesseseees 4 First Aid Expenses .....ssssssscssecsesesesmuneseneees 24 Conformity to State Law ..........csecsesssssnesesesees 3t Damage to Property of Others ....... cc ce cs s tecs s e nse 24 PrePitUtny vo. cecssceesesssesscnecssssvssssesqeusssssssvessecsesnsens 34 Right to NSpect.cccccsecsecsssssssssssscecessessssesosses 32 SECTION I — CONDITIONS .....scsssssssteseereneeente 28 Joint and Individual interests... 32 Limit of Liability....ccssssssninsesieeanasa 28 Change of Policy AddreSS ..........scssssssssssescesseees 32 Severability Of INSUFANCE .....ssnsenrsteneeeteeee 28 Electronic Delve Duties Affer LOSS... 28 Our Rights Regarding Ciaim Information...........32 Doves M Resin - saseeressnteneston 29 Duties Regarding Claim Information.........-.:. 33 SECTION It - EXCLUSIONS ou... ayment of 24 Claim ~ Coverage M or Damage ty.ns es es sueas re 32 to Property of O1N@ES nssnenunneeennse 9g OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS. .......-scsvsssennen BR Suit Against US.......cssssssssssssseesesssseesnssecee 29 Option Al ~ Additional Insured... ssesscsreesees 33 Bankruptcy of an Insured ........-cscesssssecenseeeeeeee 29 Option BP ~ Business Property ....sssasssssese 33 Other Insurance ~ Coverage bnnwninrmrnrwen 2 Option BU — Business Pursuits 0.0.0... 33 SECTION | AND SECTION 1] - CONDITIONS............. 29 ; j Policy Period ...ssssssessssesseseesersessessesessssssssnsseniss 29 Concealment or Fraud ; ; Option FA ~ Firearms ...... oo cusses 34 29 Option ID — Increased Dwelling Limit ............... 4 Liberalization Clause ...scssssssssesssesssssesseense 29 Option 10 — Incidental Business .........ssssn 34 Waiver or Change of Policy Provisions.......... 29 Option JF ~ Jewelry atid FUrS... sess Cancellation......sssssnrersrensersnneenenn Option OL — Building Ordinance or Law........... 36 29 NOMren@Wwall ......cssseessescsscsceccscesssserenensreeneseecatete 30 Option SG - Silverware and Goldware Assignment of Policy THOR . . . . s s es s nuse 30 35 esc cscs es es s esecs nsens sons secenses es tsesezerserests 37 ©, Copyright, Slate Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Company, 2017 HW-2436 SFF&CC/West_000004"}, {"d": 22, "p": 64, "t": "HOMEOWNERS POLICY AGREEMENT We agree to provide the insurance described in this policy: {. based on your payment of premium, in a form acceptable fo us, for the coverages you chose; 2. based on your compliance with all applicable provisions of this policy; and 3. based on the information you have given us and your statements in this agreement. you will pay premiums when due and comply with the provisions of this policy; 2. the statements in this agreement are your statements and are true; we insure you on the basis your statements are true; and 4, this policy contains all of the agreemenis between you and us and any of our agents. Unless otherwise indicated in the application, you state that during the five years preceding the time of your application for this insurance you have not had any losses, insured or not. When you request changes to this policy, or the information or factors used to calculate the premium for this policy changes during the policy period, we may adjust the premium in accordance with the change during the policy period and you must pay any additional premium due within the time we specify. You agree, by acceptance of this policy, that: {. 3. DEFINITIONS We define the following words and phrases for use throughout this policy. These definitions apply to the singular, plural, and possessive forms of these words and phrases. Defined words and phrases are printed in bold italics, 1. 2. Bodily injury does not include: a. any of the following which are communicable: “actual cash value” means the value of the damaged part of the property at the time of loss, calculated as the estimated cost to repair or replace such property, less a deduction to account for pre-loss depreciation. For this calculation, all components of this estimated cost including, but not limited to: a. materials, including any tax; b. labor, including any tax; and of the damaged part of the property. “bodily injury” means physical injury, sickness, or disease to a person. This includes required care, loss of services, and death resulting therefrom. disease, bacteria, parasite, virus, or other organism, any of which are transmitted by any insured to any other person; ¢. overhead and profit; are subject fo depreciation. b. the actual or alleged exposure to any such disease, bacteria, parasite, virus, or other organism by any insured to ary other person; or &. emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, mental distress, mental injury, or any similar injury unless it arises out of actual physical injury to some person. 3. The depreciation deduction may include such considerations as: a age; b. condition; c. reduction in useful life; d. obsolescence; and e any pre-loss damage including wear, tear, or deterioration; “building structure” means a structure fully enclosed with permanent walls and a roof. A permanent wall or roof does not include any kind of temporary materials including but not limited to tarps, plastic sheeting, or other similar material. A structure that is otherwise fully enclosed with permanent walls and a roof, that is undergoing repairs due to a recent foss insured, using materials such as tarps, plastic sheeting, or other similar material, is still considered a buflding structure. 1 HW-2436 ©, Copyright, Stale Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CCWest_000005"}, {"d": 22, "p": 65, "t": "the actual electrical power usage by the residence premises in the 12-month period prier to the date of the loss; or A building structure includes: a. the foundation supporting the structure, including: {1} slabs; (2) basement walls; e. (3) crawl space walls; “Declarations” means the policy Declarations, any amended Decfarations, the most recent renewal (4) footings; and Declarations, an Evidence of Insurance form, or (5) gravel, stone, or sand, used as fill material and located not more than 12 inches directly below a slab described in item a.(4), including water supply lines, domestic water pipes, and sewer pipes located within this fill material; and b. 4. ownership of the residence premises by the person or organization shown in the Declarations as Additional insured, any endorsement changing any of these. “diminution in value” means any reduction in the value of any covered property prior fo or following repair or replacement as compared to the value of that property immediately before the loss. wall-to-wall carpeting attached to the structure. “business” means any full-time or part-time activity, trade, profession, employment, or occupation or a commercial, mercantile, or industrial undertaking of an economic nature. it does not matter whether it is continuous or regular, is a secondary or supplemental source of income, or is an insured's principal means of livelihood. Profit and profit motive are irrelevant. “dwelling” means the building structure on the residence premises used as the primary private residence and includes structures attached fo the dwelling. “fungus” means any type or form of fungus, including mold, mildew, mycotoxins, spores, scents, or byproducts produced or released by fungi. “insured” means: a you; Business does not include: b. your relatives; and a. ¢. any other person under the age of 21 in the care of a person described above. b. volunteer activities for a not-for-profit or nonprofit organization or public agency for which no money is received other than payment of expenses; Under Section {!, insured also means: d. incidental and infrequent personal economic activity such as a hobby, garage or yard sale, or traditional farm activities when the farm products are intended only for the personal use of the insured, c. d. any occasional or part-time self-employed activity by a person under 19 years of age that involves no employees or subcontracted independent contractors and is a lype of activity normally performed by persons under 19 years of age, including but not Iimited fo, child care, lawn mowing, or paper delivery; the person or organization legally responsible for animals or watercraft to which this policy applies. However, the animal or watercraft must be owned by you or a person included in 9.b. or 9.c. above. A person or organization using or having custody of these animals or watercraft in the course of a business, or without permission of the owner, is not an insured; and e. the ownership, maintenance, or use of systems with respect to any vehicle to which this policy applies, any person while engaged in your employment or the employment of a person included in 9.b. or 9,¢. above. 10. “insured location” means: and equipment used to generate electrical power up fo but not exceeding 125 percent of a. the residence premises; 2 HW-21% ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000006"}, {"d": 22, "p": 66, "t": "a “recreational or utility vehicle” while off an insured location. “Recreational or utility vehicle” means a motorized vehicle designed for recreation or utility purposes, used principally off public roads, and that is owned or leased by an insured. This includes, but is not limited to, a motorized all-terrain vehicle, side-by-side vehi- the part of any other premises, other structures, and grounds used by you as a residence, This includes premises, structures, and grounds you acquire while this policy is in effect for your use as a residence, any premises used by you in connection with the premises included in 10.a. or 10.b. above; cle, utility work vehicle, amphibious vehicle, any part of a premises not owned by an insured but where an insured is temporarily residing; dune buggy, go-cart, golf cart, snowmobile, trailbike, minibike, and personal assistive mobility device. “Leased” does not include temporary rental; land owned by or rented fo an insured on which a one or two family dwelling is being a ‘locomotive’ while off an insured focation. “Locomotive” means a self-propelled vehicle for pulling or pushing freight or passenger cars on tracks that Is large enough fo carry a person and is owned or leased by an insured. “Leased” does not include temporary rental: constructed as a residence for an insured: individual or family cemetery plots or burial vaults owned by an insured; any part of a premises occasionally rented to an insured for purposes other than business; a bulldozer, track loader, backhoe, high-hoe, trencher, grader, crane, self-propelled scraper, excavator, pipe-layer, chery picker, telehandler, logging vehicle, mining vehicle, or road building vehicle that is owned or leased by an insured while off an insured focation. vacant land owned by or rented to an insured. For the purposes of this definition, vacant iand does not include: (4) farm land; (2) land containing a residence; or “Leased” does not include temporary rental; (3) land containing fences, corrals, boat docks, tool sheds, bams, grain bins, and similar structures, unless they are used solely for the personal use of the insured; or and any vehicle while being towed or pushed by or carried on a vehicle included in 12.a. through 12.e, above. The following are not motor vehicles: farm land (without buildings), rented or held for rental to others, but not to exceed a total of 500 acres, regardless of the number of locations. a. 11. “loss insured” means a loss as described under SECTION | - LOSSES INSURED, COVERAGE A~ DWELLING and SECTION | - LOSSES INSURED, COVERAGE 8 - PERSONAL PROPERTY. a motorized land vehicle in storage on an insured location not intended to be operated for an extended period of time and rendered inoperable by placing the vehicle on blocks or re- 12. “motor vehicle”, when used in Section |! of this moving parts essential for its operation; policy, means: a, a boat, camper, home, or utility traiter not being towed or pushed by or carried on a vehicle Included in 12.a. through 12.¢. above; a land motor vehicle designed for travel on public roads or subject fo motor vehicle regis- a motorized golf cart while used for golfing pur- tration; a motorized vehicle or trailer designed to assist persons with disabilities that is not designed for travel on public roads or subject to motor vehicle registration; or poses; a trailer or semi-tailer designed for travel on public roads and subject to motor vehicle registration; 3 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, Slate Famn Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000007"}, {"d": 22, "p": 67, "t": "@, b. a commercially manufactured two, three, or four wheeled personal conveyance powered only by or assisted by an unmodified motor or engine with a manufacturer's power rating of no more than 1 horsepower and capable of a top where you reside and which is shown in the Declarations. 18. “State Farm Companies” means one or more of the following: speed of no more than 20 miles per hour. a. 13. “occurrence”, when used in Section |I of this policy, means an accident, including accidental exposure to conditions, which first results in: a. bodily injury, or b. property damage; b. adoption; c. mariage; or d. civil union, domestic partnership, or other substantially similar legal relationship that is rec- Mutual Automobile insurance 19. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company; and c. subsidiaries or affiliates of either 18.4. or 18.b. above. “vacant dwelling” means: a adwelling: (1) that has not been occupied as a residence for more than 30 consecutive days immediately before the loss; and (2) where a predominant amount of personal property has been removed or is absent such that the dwelling is not functional as a habitual place of residence. 15. “relative” means any person related to you by: blood; Farm b. “property damage” means physical damage to or destruction of tangible property, including loss of use of this property. Theft or conversion of property by any insured is not property damage. a. State Company; during the policy period. All bodily injury and properly damage resulting from one accident, series of related accidents, or from continuous and repeated exposure to the same general conditions is considered to be one occurrence, 14. that part of any other building structure; A dwelling will be considered occupied only if it is being used as a habitual place of residence with your knowledge and approval. b. ognized and valid in the state where, and at the time when, the legal relationship was established; and who resides primarily with you. 16. “residence employee” means an employee of an insured, or an employee teased to an insured by a labor leasing firm under an agreement between an insured and the jabor leasing firm, who performs duties, including household or domestic services, in connection with the maintenance or use of the residence premises. This includes employees who perform similar duties eisewhere for you. This does not include employees while performing duties in connection with the business of an insured. A dwelling that is under active construction will not be considered a vacant dwelling. A dwelling is under active construction when it is: (1) being built as a new structure; (2) being repaired due to damage otherwise covered by this policy; or (3) undergoing substantial improvements, renovations, remodeling, or modifications; and the construction results in substantial continuing activities by persons associated with the construction project al the premises during the relevant time periods. 20. “we”, “us”, and “our” mean the Company shown in the Declarations. 21, “you” and “your” mean the person or persons shown as “Named Insured\" in the Declarations. Ifa “Named tnsured\" shown in the Declarations is a human being, then you and your include: 17. “residence premises” means: a. _ the one, two, three, or four family dwelling, other structures and grounds; or a. aspouse of a “Named Insured”; 4 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000008"}, {"d": 22, "p": 68, "t": "b. a party to a civil union with a “Named Insured”, ¢. adomestic partner of a “Named Insured’; or d. a person in a substantially similar legal relationship with a “Named Insured”; if such relationship is recognized and valid in the state where, and at the time when, the legal relationship was established, so fong as the person in the above relationship resides primarily with that *Named Insured”. DEDUCTIBLE In case of loss under this policy, we will pay, subject to specified policy limits, only that part of the amount of the loss that exceeds the deductible amount shown in the Declarations. Deductibles will be applied per occur- rence. Deductibles apply to specific losses as described in this policy. SECTION !| - PROPERTY COVERAGES 3. COVERAGE A - DWELLING 1. Property Not Covered. We do not cover: a. _ land, including the land necessary fo support any Coverage A property. We also do not cover: Dwelling. We cover the dwelling and materials and supplies located on or adjacent to the residence premises for use in the construction, alteration, or repair of the dwelfing or other structures on the residence premises. (1) any costs required fo replace, rebuild, stabilize, or otherwise restore the land; or (2) the costs of repair techniques designed to compensate for or prevent land instability to any property, whether or not insured under Coverage A; Other Structures. We cover other structures on the residence premises, separated from the dwelling by clear space. Structures connected to the dwelling by only a fence, utility line, or similar connection are considered to be other structures. b. trees, shrubs, live or artificial plants, lawns, or artificial grass, except as provided in SECTION | ~ ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping; or c, systems and equipment used to generate electical power exceeding 125 percent of the actual electrical power usage by the residence prem- We do not cover other structures: a. not permanently attached to or otherwise forming a part of the realty; b. used either completely or in part for business purposes unless such use consists solely of office space for paperwork, computer work, or use of a telephone, and consists solely of activities that are: ises in the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss. COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY (1} duties of the insured’s employment by another; and Property Covered. a, dwelling; We cover personal property owned or used by an insured while it is anywhere in the world, This includes structures not permanently attached to or otherwise forming a part of the realty. At your request, we will cover personal properly: rented for use solely as a private garage; (t) owned by others while the property is on (2) performed solely by the insured; or c. rented or held for rental unless: (1) rented to a person who is a tenant of the (2} the part of the residence premises occupied exclusively by an insured; or (3) rented either completely or in part, for exclusive use as a residence, for no more than 30 nights in the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss. (2} owned by a quest or a residence employee, while the property is in any other residence occupied by an insured; and § HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2047 SFF&CC/West_000009"}, {"d": 22, "p": 69, "t": "and standard media or non-media equipment for use with the above devices; (3) owned by roomers, boarders, tenants, and other residents, any of whom are related to you. d. We cover personal property usually located at an insured’s residence, other than the residence premises, for up to $1,000 or 10% of the Coverage B limit, whichever is greater. This limitation does not apply to personal prop- cates, gift cards, rechargeable debit cards, phone cards, and other negotiable instruments, accounts, deeds, evidences of debt, letters of credit, notes other than bank notes, manu- scripts, passports, and tickets; erty: (1) $1,500 on securities, checks, cashiers checks, travelers checks, money orders, gift certifi- e, in a newly acquired principal residence for the first 30 days after you start moving the property there. if the residence premises is a newly acquired principal residence, personal property in your immediate past principal residence is not subject to this limitation for the first 30 days after the inception of this policy; and $1,500 on watercraft of all types and outboard motors, including their trailers, fumishings, and equipment; f. $1,500 on trailers not used with watercraft; g. $2,500 on stamps, trading cards, and comic books, including any of these that are a part of a collection; {2} of a student who is an insured while located at a residence away from the residence premises. h. $2,500 for toss by theft of firearms; i. $2,500 for loss by theft of silverware and Special Limits of Liability. These limits do not increase the Coverage B iimit. The special limit for each of the following categories is the total limit for each loss for all property in that category: j, $200 on money, coins, and medals, including k. a. goldware; any of these that are a part of a collection, bank notes, bullion, gold other than goldware, silver other than silverware, and platinum; $1,500 on property used or intended for use in a business, including merchandise held as samples or for sale or for delivery after saie, while on the residence premises. This coverage is limited to $750 on such property away from the residence premises. $1,000 on commercially manufactured two, three, or four wheeled personal conveyances powered only by or assisted by an unmodified motor or engine with a manufacturer's power rating of no more than 1 horsepower and capable of a top speed of no more than 20 miles per hour. This does not include such conveyances that are: (1) designed for assisting disabilities; Electronic data processing system equipment or the recording or storage media used with that equipment is not included under this coverage, and is addressed in item c. below; $10,000 on electronic data processing system equipment used or intended for use in a busi. ness, including but not limited to computers, tablets, mobile personal communication equipment, global positioriing systems, mobile personal electronic devices used for the reproduction of sound, $5,000 on any one article and $10,000 in the aggregate for loss by theft of any rug, carpet (except wall-to-wall carpet), tapestry, wall-hanging, or other similar article; |. persons with {2} not designed for travel on public roads; and (3) not subject to motor vehicle registration; and $1,000 for loss by theft of fewelry, watches, fur garments and garments trimmed with fur, and precious and semi-precious stones. 2. Property Not Covered. We do not cover: a. atticles separately described and specifically insured in this or any other insurance; 6 ©, Copyright, State Farin Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000010"}, {"d": 22, "p": 70, "t": "(2) on the residence premises if it is rented, either completely or in part, for exclusive animals, birds, or fish; any engine-propelled or motor-propelled vehicle or machine, including parts, designed for movement on land, except as provided in Special Limits of Liability, item k. However, we do cover those vehicles or machines: use as a residence, for no more than 30 nights in the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss; property rented or held for rentai to others away from the residence premises; (f} that are: any tadio devices or transmitters, giobal positioning systems, radar or laser detectors, antennas, and ail other similar equipment that is permanently installed in or permanently fastened to an engine-propelled or motorpropelled vehicle or that is hard-wired directly te the vehicle’s electrical system; {a) not designed for travel on public roads; and (b) not subject to motor vehicle registration; (2) and that are: (a) used primarily to service the insured books or records of accounts receivable, abstracts or other journals, architectural or technical drawings, card index systems, or other records. This does not apply to any recording or storage media for electronic data pro- location; or {b) designed for assisting persons with disabilities; any electronic equipment, devices, or accessories designed for the recording, reproduction, or cessing. We will caver the cost of blank books, cards, or other blank material plus the cost of labor you incur for transcribing or copying such storage of audio, video, photos, or other data that is permanently installed in or permanently fastened to an engine-propelled or motorpropelled vehicle or hard-wired directly to the vehicle's electrical system. We also do not cover removable products that may be used with the equipment or devices described above, including but not limited to tapes, discs, videos, or memory cards while in an enginepropelled or motor-propelled vehicle; records; recording or storage media for electronic data processing that cannot be replaced with property of like kind and quality on the current retail market; purchased or created audio, video, photos, or other data that cannot be replaced with like kind and quality on the current retail market and that is transferred or downloaded onto mobile communication equipment, global posi- aircraft and parts. This does not apply to unmanned aircraft systems used as model aircraft and operated solely for recreational or hobby purposes; tioning systems, or electronic devices designed for the recording, reproduction, or storage of audio, video, photos, or other data; . contraband, or any property used in the course of illegal consumption, possession, import, ex- properly of roomers, boarders, tenants, and other residents not related to you; port, or trade; property regularly rented or held for rental to others by an insured, This does not apply to property of an insured: outdoor hardscape property used for aesthetic purposes except as provided in SECTION [ - (1) and Landscaping; or ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Trees, Shrubs, in a sleeping room when the dwelling is rented in part, for use as a permanent residence, by either one or two full-time electronic currency, digital currency, virtual currency, crypto-currency, and other similar mediums of exchange. roomers or boarders; or 7 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, Siata Farm Kutval Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000011"}, {"d": 22, "p": 71, "t": "if the damage had occurred to property on the residence premises; COVERAGE C - LOSS OF USE The most we will pay for the sum of all losses combined under Additional Living Expense, Fair Rental Value, and Prohibited Use is the limit of flability shown in the Declarations for Coverage C ~ Loss of Use. 1. Additional Living Expense. When a /oss insured b. the residence premises |s within one mile of property damaged by a cause of loss identified in 3.a. above; and c. the action of the civil authority is taken in response to: causes the residence premises to become uninhabitable, we will pay the reasonable and necessary increase in cost incurred by an insured to maintain their normal standard of living for up to 24 months. Our payment is limited te incurred costs for the shortest of (1) dangerous physical conditions resulting from the continuation of the cause of joss identified in 3.a, above; (2) dangerous physical conditions resulting from the damage caused by the cause of loss identified in 3.a, above; or a. _ the time required to repairor replace the premises; b. the time required for your household to settle elsewhere; or ¢. 24 months. (3) the need to gain free access to property damaged by the cause of loss identified in 3.a. above. We will not pay for loss or expense due to cancellation of a lease or agreement. This period of time is not limited by the expiration of this policy. SECTION | - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES We will not pay more than the limit of liability shown in the Declarations for Coverage C - Loss of Use. Any normal expenses that are reduced or discontinued due to a loss insured will be subtracted from any amount owed. The following Additional Coverages are subject to all the terms, provisions, exclusions, and conditions of this policy. {. Fair Rental Value. When a loss insured causes that part of the residence premises rented to others or held for rental by you to become uninhabitable, we will pay its fair rental value, Payment will be for the shortest time required to repair or replace the part of the premises rented or held for rental, but not to exceed 12 months. This peried of time is not limited by the expiration of this policy. Fair rental value will not include any expense that does not continue while that part of the residence premises rented or held for rental is uninhabitable. Prohibited Use. We will pay Additional Living Expense and Fair Rental Value, for a continuous period not to exceed two weeks, beginning when a civil authority issues an order of evacuation or prohibits your use of the residence premises, provided that: a. direct physical damage occurs to any property, other than covered property located on the residence premises, arising from a cause of loss that would be a /oss insured under this policy Debris Removal. We wil pay the reasonable expenses you incur in the removal of debris of covered property damaged by a oss insured. This expense Is included in the limit applying to the damaged property. The following coverages and iimits also apply: a. When the amount payable for the property damage plus the debris removal exceeds the limit for damaged property, an additional 5% of that limit is available for debris removal expense. This additional amount of insurance does not appiy to SECTION | - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping. b. We will also pay up to $1,000 total for each loss to cover the reasonable expenses you incur in the removal of tree debris and stumps from the residence premises, unless otherwise excluded. This coverage applies when: (1) the tree has caused a foss insured to Coverage A property; or 8 HW-2136 ®, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Ausmobite Insurance Company, 2047 SFF&CC/West_000012"}, {"d": 22, "p": 72, "t": "for up to 30 days while removed. We will aiso pay for reasonable expenses incurred by you for the removal and return of the covered property. This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the property being removed. (2) the tree debris felled by windstorm, hail, or weight of snow or ice blocks: {a} the driveway, on the residence premises, and prevents land motor vehicle access {o of from the dwelling; or Credit Card, Bank Fund Transfer Card, Forgery, and Counterfeit Money. {b) a ramp designed fo assist persons with disabilities, on the residence premises, and prevents access to or from a building structure. 2. a. (1} the legal obligation of an insured to pay because of the theft or unauthorized use of credit cards and bank fund {ransfer cards issued to or registered in an insured’s name. if an insured has not complied with ail terms and conditions under which the cards are issued, we will not pay for use by an insured or anyone else; Temporary Repairs. lf damage is caused by a loss insured, we wil pay the reasonable and necessary cost you incur for temporary repairs to covered property to protect the property from further immediate damage or loss. This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the property being repaired. Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping. We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to outdoor: a. (2) loss to an insured caused by forgery or alteration of any check or negotiable instrument; and trees, shrubs, live or artificial plants, and lawns; b. artificial grass; and ¢, We-will pay up to $4,000 for: (3} loss to an insured through acceptance in good faith of counterfeit United States or Canadian paper currency. hardscape property used for aesthelic purposes not permanently affixed to realty; on the residence premises, caused by the following perils: Fire or lightning, Explosion, Riot or civil commotion, Aircraft, Vehicles (not owned or operated by a resident of the residence premises), Vandalism or malicious mischief, or Theft. No deductible applies fo this coverage. We will not pay more than the limit stated above for forgery or alteration committed by any one person. This limit applies when the forgery or alteration involves one or more instruments in the same loss. The limit for this coverage, including the removal of debris, will not exceed 5% of the amount shown in the Declarations for COVERAGE A - DWELLING. We will not pay more than $750 for any one outdoor tree, shrub, plant, or hardscape item, including de- bris removal expense. This coverage may increase the limit otherwise applicable. We will not pay for any loss to properly grown for business purposes. b. Wee-will not pay for loss arising out of business pursuits or dishonesty of an insured. c. Defense: (1) We may make any investigation and settle any claim or suit that we decide is appropriate. Our obligation to defend claims or suits ends when the amount we pay for the loss equals our limit of ability, Fire Department Service Charge. We will pay up to $500 per occurrence for fire department charges incurred when the fire department is called fo save or protect Coverage A property from fire, lightning, or explosion. No deductible applies to this coverage. This coverage May increase the limit otherwise applicable. (2) If claim is made or a suit is brought against Property Removed. We will pay for any accidental direct physical loss to covered property while being removed from a premises endangered by a foss Insured. This coverage also applies to the property (3) an insured for liability under the Credit Card or Bank Fund Transfer Card coverage, we will provide a defense. This defense is at our expense by counsel of our choice, We have the option to defend at our expense an insured or an insured’s bank 9 HW-2155 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Avtomnobila insuwance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000013"}, {"d": 22, "p": 73, "t": "7, against any suit for the enforcement of payment under the Forgery coverage. Power Interruption. We will pay for accidental direct physical loss caused directly or indirectly by a change of temperature that results from power interruption that takes place on the residence premises. The power interruption must be caused by a foss insured occurring on the residence premises. The power lines off the residence premises must remain energized. This coverage does not increase the limit applying fo the damaged property. All volcanic eruptions that occur within any 168-hour period will be considered one volcanic eruption. This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the damaged property. i1. Collapse. We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to covered property involving the abrupt, entire collapse of a building structure or any part of a building structure. a. Refrigerated Products. Coverage B is extended to cover the contents of deep freeze or refrigerated units on the residence premises for loss due to power failure or mechanical failure. If mechanical failure or power failure is known to you, all reasonable means must be used to protect the property insured from further damage or this coverage is void. Power failure or mechanical failure does not include: a. removal of a plug from an electrical outlet; or b. turning off an electrical switch unless caused by a Joss insured. This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the damaged property, Arson Reward. We will pay $1,000 for information that leads to an arson conviction in connection with a fire loss fo property covered by this policy. This coverage may increase the limit otherwise applica- Collapse means the abrupt and entire falling down, caving in, or falling into pieces of a building structure or any part of a building structure. Collapse does not include any of the following: (1) settling, cracking, crumbling, deterioration, shrinking, bulging, expansion, sagging, bowing, leaning, or bending; ae — (te substantial structural impairment: imminent or threatened collapse; a building structure or any part of a building structure that is in danger of falling down or caving in; or a part of a building structure that is standing even if: (a) (b} it shows evidence of settling, cracking, crumbling, deterioration, shrinking, bulging, expansion, sagging, bowing, ble. However, the $1,000 limit will not be increased leaning, or bending. regardless of the number of persons providing information. b. 10. Volcanic Action. We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to a covered building structure or covered property contained in a buffding structure resulting from the eruption of a volcano when the loss is directly and immediately caused by: a. _ aitbome volcanic shock waves; b. ash, dust, or particulate matter; or c. lava flow. We will also pay for the removal of thal ash, dust, or particulate matter that has caused accidental direct physical loss to a covered building structure or covered property contained in a building structure. ithas separated from another part of the building structure; or The collapse must be directly and immediately caused by one or more of the following: (1} perils described in SECTION | ~- LOSSES INSURED, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY. These perils apply to building structures covered under Coverage A or Coverage B for loss insured by this Additional Coverage; decay or deterioration of, or damage from animals, birds, or insects to: (a) aconnector; or (b) a structural member of a building structure; 10 &, Copyright, State Farm Mutua? Automoblie Insurance Company, 2047 HW-2436 SFF&CC/West_000014"}, {"d": 22, "p": 74, "t": "The decay, deterioration, or damage must be hidden from view and unknown to all insureds prior to the collapse; This coverage includes surface clean up only. will not pay for: a. the cost to repair or replace the fuel cil tank, apparatus, and pipes; or b. the cost of testing, monitoring, removing, freating, or detoxifying of soil, air, or water. (3) weight of contents, equipment, animals, or people; {4} weight of ice, snow, sleet, or rain that collects on a roof, porch, or deck; or (8) use of defective material or methods in the construction {includes remodeling or reno- vation) of the building structure, if the collapse occurs during the course of the construction of the building structure. Loss to awnings, fences, patios, pavernent, swimming pools, underground pipes, flues, drains, cesspools, septic tanks, foundations {including slabs, basement walls, and crawl space walls}, retaining wails, bulkheads, piers, wharfs, docks, trellises, or antennas and their supporting structures is not included under items (2), {3}, and (4) immediately above unless the loss is the direct and immediate result of the collapse of a building structure or any parl of a building structure. This coverage dees not increase the limit applying to the damaged property. 12. Locks and Remote Devices. We will pay up to $1,000 for each loss for the reasonable expenses you incur to rekey, replace, recode, program, or reprogram locks on exterior doors to the dwelling or other structures located on the residence premises when the keys or remote devices used with those doors are part of a covered theft loss. This coverage includes remote devices designed sclely for locking, unlocking, opening, or closing doors, including garage doors and gates. No deductible applies to this coverage. 13, Fuel Oif Release, We will pay up to $40,000 for each loss for accidental direct physical loss to covered property caused by the abrupt and accidental escape of liquid fuel oil from a fixed household tank, apparatus, or pipes that are part of a heating unit for the dwelling. This includes damage to covered property resulting from an accidental spill or overflow of fuel oil in the course of filllag a fixed household tank. We This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the damaged property. 14. Tear Out. If a foss insured to CeverageA property is caused by water, steam, or sewage escaping from a system or appliance, we will also pay the reasonable cost you incur to tear out and replace only that parlicuiar parl of the building structure necessary to gain access to the specific point of that system or appliance from which the water, steam, or sewage escaped. We will not pay for the cost of repairing or replacing the system or appliance itself. This coverage does not increase the limit applying to Coverage A property, 15. Home Certification. if damage to covered property is caused by a loss insured, we will pay the reasonable increase in cost to repair or replace only the damaged property to maintain the dwelfing’s FORTIFIED HOME or FORTIFIED FOR SAFER LIVING certification in place at the time of the loss, This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the damaged property. We will not pay: a. any Increase in cost until the repair or replacement of the property is complete; or b. for increased costs resulting from enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the construction or repair of the dwelling except as provided under OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS, Option OL ~ Building Ordinance or Law. This coverage does not apply if Loss Settlement provision A2 - Replacement Cost Loss Settlement Common Construction is shown in the Declarations. INFLATION COVERAGE The limits of liability shown in the Declarations for Coverage A, Coverage B, and when applicable, Option [D will be increased at the same rate as the increase in the inflation Coverage Index shown in the Declarations, i ©, Copyright, Staie Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000015"}, {"d": 22, "p": 75, "t": "The itmits of liability will not be reduced to less than the To find the limits on a given date: amounts shown in the Declarations. 1. _ divide the index on that date by the index as of the elfective date of this Inflation Coverage provision; then If during the term of this policy the Coverage A limit of liability is changed at your request, the effective date of this Inflation Coverage provision is changed to coincide with the effective date of such change. multiply the resulting factor by the limits of ability for Coverage A, Coverage B, and Option ID separately, SECTION | - LOSSES INSURED (2) an object propelled from the tire or body of a vehicle; COVERAGE A - DWELLING We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A, unless the loss is excluded or limited in SECTION | - LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. (3) the upset or collision of a vehicle with a Stationary object or other vehicle, including damage to personal property carried on the exterior of the vehicle; or However, loss does not include and we will not pay for, any diminution in value. (4) COVERAGE B ~ PERSONAL PROPERTY b. We wil pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage B caused by the following perils, unless the loss Is excluded or iimited in SECTION | LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. However, loss does not include and we will not pay for, any diminution in value. Fire or lightning. 2, Windstorm or hail. This perl does not include loss (1) to personal property that falis off a vehicle and strikes the ground, any other surface, or any object; (2) caused by shifting of the load being car(3) te the vehicle itself unless the vehicle is property covered under COVERAGE B PERSONAL PROPERTY and the loss is caused by the weight, force, power, or movement of another vehicle. to property contained in a structure caused by rain, snow, sleet, sand, or dust. This limitation does not apply when the direct force of wind or hail damages the structure causing an opening in a roof or wall and the rain, snow, sleet, sand, or dust enters through this opening. 7, This peril does not include loss caused by smoke from agricultural smudging or industrial operations. Explosion, §. Vandalism or malicious mischief, meaning only willful and malicious damage to or destruction of property. 9. Theft, including attempted thet and loss of property from a known location when it is probable that the property has been stolen. Riot or civil commotion, self-propelled missiles Smoke, meaning abrupt and accidental damage from smoke. This peril includes loss to watercralt of all types and their trailers, fumishings, equipment, and outboard motors, only while inside a building structure. and Vehicles, meaning accidental direct physical loss to covered property caused by the weight, force, power, This peril does not include: or movement of a vehicle. a. This peril does not include loss: tied in or on a vehicle; or 1, Aircraft, including spacecraft. a vehicle door or trunk lid being closed on personal property. a. loss of a precious or semi-precious stone from its setting; b. loss caused by theft: This includes: (1) the impact of a vehicle; 12 HW-2136 @, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobils Insurance Company, 2047 SFF&CC/West_000016"}, {"d": 22, "p": 76, "t": "(2) watercraft of all types, including their furnishings, equipment, and outboard motors; or {1} committed by an insured or by any other person reguiarly residing on the insured location, Property of a student who is an insured is covered while located at a residence away from the residence premises, if the theft is committed by a person who is not an insured; (3) trailers and campers designed to be pulled by or carried on a vehicle. if the residence premises is a newly acquired principal residence, property in the immediate past principal residence will not be considered property away from the residence premises for the first 30 days after the inception of this policy. in of to a dwelling under construction or of materials and supplies for use in the construction until the dwelling is completed and occupied; or from the part of a residence premises rented to others: (a) caused by a tenant, members of the tenant's household, or the tenant's employees unless the residence premises is rented, either completely or in part, for exclusive use as a resi- dence, for no more than 30 nights in the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss; of money, bank notes, bullion, gold, goldware, silver, silverware, pewlerware, platinum, coins, and medals; (c) of securities, checks, cashiers checks, travelers checks, money orders, gift certificates, gift cards, rechargeable debit cards, phone cards, and other negotiable instruments, accounts, deeds, evidences of debt, fetters of credit, notes other than bank 10. Falling objects. This perl does net include loss to property contained in a structure unless the roof or an exterior wall of the structure is first damaged by a falling object. Damage to the falling object itself is not inciuded, 11. Weight of ice, snow, or sleet that causes damage to property contained in a structure. 12. Abrupt and accidental discharge or overflow of water, steam, er sewage from within a plumbing, heating, air conditioning, or automatic fire protective sprinkler system, or from within a household appliance, This peril does not include loss: a. fo the system or appliance from which the water, steam, or sewage escaped, b. caused by or resulting from: (1) freezing; (2) water or sewage from outside the resi: dence premises plumbing system that enters through sewers or drains, or water notes, manuscripts, passports, tickets, and stamps; or (d) ie that enters into and overflows from wihin a sump pump, sump pump well, or any ather system designed to remove subsurface water that is drained from the foundation area; or of jewelry, watches, fur garments and garments trimmed wih fur, and precious and semi-precious stones; or (3) loss caused by theft that occurs away from the residence premises of. (1) property while at any other residence owned, rented to, or occupied by an insured, except while an insured is tempo- rarily residing there. Property of a student who is an insured is covered while at a residence away from the residence premises; c. the pressure from or presence of tree, shrub, or plant roots; or that occurs or develops over a period of time and is caused by or resulting from: (1) condensation or the presence of humidity, moisture, or vapor; or (2) seepage or leakage of water, steam, or sewage that is: 13 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Aulomobite insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000017"}, {"d": 22, "p": 77, "t": "continuous; repeating; gradual; intermittent; e} slow; or (tickling. 13. Abrupt and accidental tearing asunder, cracking, burning, or bulging of a steam or hot water heating system, an air conditioning system, an automatic fire protective sprinkler system, or an appliance for heating water, This peril does not include loss: a. caused by or resulting from freezing; or b. that occurs or develops over a period of time and is caused by or resulting from: (1) condensation or the presence of humidity, a. loss to a portable hot tub or portable spa unless you have used reasonable care to prevent freezing; or b. loss on the residence premises unless you have used reasonable care to: mm gt, Q. oO oa & This peril does not include: {1} maintain heat in the building structure at 55 degrees Fahrenheit or higher; or (2) shut off the water supply and drain the system and appliances of water. However, if the building structure is protected by an automatic fire protective sprinkler system, you must use reasonable care te continue the water supply and maintain heat in the building structure at 55 degrees Fahrenheit or higher for coverage to apply. moisture, or vapor; or 15. Abrupt and accidental damage to electrical appli- (2) seepage or leakage of water or steam that is: {a continuous; ( b repeating: (c gradual; ( intermittent; ( e} slow; or (trickling, 14, Freezing of a plumbing, heating, air conditioning, or automatic fire protective sprinkler system, or of a household appliance. ances, devices, fixtures, and wiring from an increase or decrease of artificially generated electrical current. We will pay up to $3,000 under this peril for each damaged item described above. a Q, Nee 16. Breakage of glass, meaning damage to personal property caused hy breakage of glass that is a part of a structure on the residence premises. We will not pay for loss or damage to the glass. 7. Wild bears or deer, meaning damage caused by wild bears or deer to property located in a buifding structure. SECTION | - LOSSES NOT INSURED of a household appliance; or discharge, leakage, or overflow from within the system or appliance caused by freezing. This does not apply if you have used reasonable care to: We will not pay for any joss fo the property described in Coverage A that consists of, or is directly and immediately caused by, one or more of the perils listed in items a. through m. below, regardless of whether the loss occurs abruptly or gradually, involves isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or extemal forces, or occurs as a result of any combination of these: a. (1) maintain heat in the buliding stricture at 55 degrees Fahrenheit or higher; or (2) shut off the water supply and drain the system and appliances of water. collapse, except as specifically provided in SECTION | ~ ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, However, if the building structure is protected by an automatic fire protective sprinkler system, you must use reasonable care to continue the water supply and maintain heat in the Collapse; b. freezing of a plumbing, heating, air conditioning, or automatic fire protective sprinkler system or 14 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Aulamobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000018"}, {"d": 22, "p": 78, "t": "g. wear, tear, decay, marting, scratching, deterioration, inherent vice, latent defect, or mechanical breakdown; ice, snow, or sleet, whether driven by wind or not, to: h, i corrosion, electrolysis, or rust; (1) a swimming pool, hot tub, or spa, including their covers, filtration, and circulation systems; or j contamination or pollution, meaning the presence, discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release, or escape of contaminants or pollutants at or from any source. This does not apply if the presence, discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release, or escape is itse!f caused by a peril described in SECTION | ~ LOSSES INSURED, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY. building structure at 55 degrees Fahrenheit or higher for coverage to apply; freezing, thawing, pressure, or weight of water, (2) an awning, fence, pavement, patio, foundation (including slabs, basement walls, crawl space walls, and footings), retaining wall, bulkhead, pier, wharf, or dock; theff in or to a dwelling under construction, or of materials and supplies for use in the construction, until the dwelling is completed and occupied; wet or dry rot; (1) theft, vandalism, malicious mischief, or breakage of glass and safety glazing materials if the dwelling is a vacant dwelling; smudging and is: (a) confinuous; b}) repeating; c) gradual; intermittent; trickling; and (2) froma: {a) heating, air conditioning, or automatic fire protective sprinkler system; (b) household appliance; or (ce) plumbing operations, COVERAGES, Fuel Oil Release. (2) slow; or f} or industrial smog, soot, vapor, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, pathogens, noxious substances, asbestos, or lead; (b) contaminants or pollutants resulting from any natural resource extraction activities; or (c}_ fuel off except as specifically provided in SECTION | - ADDITIONAL seepage or leakage of water, steam, or sewage that occurs or develops over a period of time: (1) Contaminants and pollutants include but are not limited to any: (a) solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant, including smoke from agricultural system, including We also will not pay for: (a) losses arising from contamination or pollution caused by or resulting from defective building materials, nuclear substances, and waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned, or reclaimed; (b) the cost to extract contaminants or pollutants from land, water, or air, or from, within or around any shower stall, shower bath, tub installation, or other plumbing fixture, including their walls, the cost to remove, restore, or re- place contaminated or polluted land, water, or alr; or ceilings, or floors. (c) the cost of testing, monitoring, cleaning, removing, containing, treating, detoxifying, neutralizing, remediating, disposing of, or assessing the effects of contaminants or pollutants; We also wil not pay for losses arising from condensation or the presence of humidity, moisture, or vapor that occurs or develops over a period of time: 15 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Fann Mutual Aulomodile insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000019"}, {"d": 22, "p": 79, "t": "k, settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging, or expansion of pavements, patios, foundations (including slabs, basement walls, crawl space walls, and footings), walls, floors, roofs, or ceilings; |. all animals, birds, or insects. b. (1) This includes: (a) Earth Movement, meaning the sinking, rising, shifting, expanding, or contracting of earth, all regardiess of whether combined with water, sewage, or any material carried by, or otherwise moved by the earth. Earlh movement includes but is not limited fo: (i) earthquake; nesting, infestation, gnawing, feeding, breeding, or discharge or release of waste products or secretions by ani- (2) landslide, mudslide, or mudflow, (3) sinkhole or subsidence; mals, birds, or insects; (4) movement resulting from: (b) costs to remove animals, birds, or insacts from the covered property; and (c) (2) costs to prevent the animals, birds, or insects from returning to the property; losses caused by wild bears or deer; and {b) (c) site selection; natural cesource extraction activities; or fill; or (b} the breakage of glass or safety glazing material that is a part of a building structure, when caused by animals, birds, or insects; or m. improper compaction; (d} excavation; (5) erosion; (6) pressure by surface or subsurface earth or However, we will pay for: (a) {a) (7) any volcanic activity, except as specifically provided in SECTION | ~ ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Volcanic Action. However, we will pay for any accidental direct physical loss by fire resulting from earth movement, provided the resulting fire loss is itself a loss insured. pressure from or presence of tree, shrub, or plant roots. However, we will pay for any resulting loss from items a. through |. unless the resulting loss is itself a Loss Not insured as described in this Section. c. Water, meaning: (1) flood; will not pay for such loss regardless of: {a} the (2) surface water. This does not include water solely caused by the release of water from a swimming poo!, spigot, sprinkler system, hose, or hydrant; cause of the excluded event; or (b) other causes of the loss; or (c) whether other causes acted concur- (3) waves (including tidal wave, tsunami, and seiche); rently or in any sequence with the excluded event to (4) tides or tidal water; (5) overflow of any body of water (including any celease, escape, or rising of any body of water, or any water held, contained, controlled, or diverted by a dam, levee, dike, or any type of water containment, diversion, or flood control device); We will not pay for, under any part of this policy, any loss that would not have occurred in the absence of one or more of the following excluded events. We produce the loss; or (d) whether the event occurs abruptly or gradually, involves isolated or widespread damage, occurs on or off the residence premises, arises from any natural or external forces, or occurs as a result of any combination of these: a, Ordinance or Law, meaning enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the construction, repair, or demolition of a building structure or (6) spray or surge from any of the items c.(1) through c.(5} described above, all whether driven by wind or not; other structure. 46 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Faem Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000020"}, {"d": 22, "p": 80, "t": "(7) water or sewage from outside the residence premises plumbing system that enters through sewers or drains, or water or sewage that enters into and overflows from within a sump pump, sump pump weil, or any other system designed {o remove subsurface water that is drained from the foundation area; g. (1) any loss of use or delay in rebuilding, repairing, or replacing covered property, including any associated cost or expense, due fo interference at the residence premises or location of the rebuilding, repair, or replacement, by fungus; (2) any remediation of fungus, including the cost fo: (8) water or sewage below the surface of the ground, including water or sewage that exerts pressure on, or seeps or leaks through a building structure, sidewalk, (a} remove the fungus from covered property or to repair, restore, or replace that property; or driveway, swimming pool, or other struc- ture; or (9) (b) tear out and replace any part of the building structure or other property as needed to gain access to the fungus; or material carried or otherwise moved by any of the water or sewage, as described in items ¢.(1) through ¢.{8) above. However, we will pay for any accidental direct physical loss by fire, explosion, or theft result- (3} the cost of any testing or monitoring of air or property to confirm the type, absence, presence, or level of fungus, whether performed prior to, during, or after removal, ing from water, provided the resulting loss is itself a loss insured. repair, restoration, or replacement of cov- Neglect, meaning neglect of the insured to use all reasonable means to save and preserve property at and after the time of a loss, or when property is endangered. War, including any undeclared war, civil war, insurrection, rebellion, revolution, warlike act by a military force or military personnel, destruction or seizure or use for a military purpose, and including any consequence of any of these. Discharge of a nuclear weapon will be considered a warlike act even if accidental. Nuclear Hazard, meaning any nuclear reaction, radiation, or radioactive contamination, all whether controlled or uncontrolled or however caused, or any consequence of any of these. Loss caused by the nuclear hazard will not be considered loss caused by fire, explosion, or smoke. However, we will pay for any accidental direct physical loss by fire resulting from the nuclear hazard, provided the resulting fire loss is itself a joss insured. Fungus, including: ered property. Intentional Losses. If any insured intentionally causes or procures a loss to property covered under this policy, we will not pay any insured for this loss. This applies regardless of whether the insured is charged with or convicted of a crime. This does not apply to an insured who did not participate in, cooperate in, or contribute to causing or procuring the loss. 3. We will not pay for, under any part of this policy, any loss consisting of one or more of the items below. Further, we will not pay for any loss described in paragraphs 1. and 2. immediately above regardless of whether one or more of the following: (a) directly or indirectly cause, contribute to, or aggravate the Joss; or (b) occur before, at the same time, or after the loss or any other cause of the loss: a conduct, act, failure to act, or decision of any person, group, organization, or govemmental body whether intentional, wrongful, negligent, or without fault; 7 ©, Copyright, Siate Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000021"}, {"d": 22, "p": 81, "t": "b. (4) defect, weakness, inadequacy, fault, or unsoundness in: {1} planning, zoning, development, surveying, of any property (including land, structures, or improvements of any kind) whether on or off or siting; the residence premises; or (2) design, specifications, workmanship, repair, constriction, renovation, c. remodeling, weather conditions. However, we will pay for any resulting loss from items 3.a., 3.b., and 3.c. unless the resulting loss is itself a Loss Not insured as described in this Section. grading, or compaction; (3) maintenance; materials used in repair, construction, renovetion, remodeling, grading, or compaction; or SECTION | - LOSS SETTLEMENT the damaged part of the property within two years after the date of loss, and notify us within 30 days after the work has been completed; and Only the Loss Seftlement Provisions shown in the Declarations apply. We will settle covered property losses according to the following. However, the valuation of any covered property losses does not include, and we will not pay, any amount for diminution in value. (4) COVERAGE A ~ DWELLING 4. At-— Replacement Cost Loss Settlement ~ Similar Construction. We will pay the cost to repair or replace with a. similar construction and for the same use on the premises shown in the Declarations, the damaged part of the property covered under SECTION | — PROPERTY COVERAGES, COVERAGE A - DWELLING, except for wood b. fences, subject to the following: (1) 2. until actual repair or replacement is com- we will not pay for increased costs resulting from enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the construction, repair, or demolition of a building structure or other structure, except as provided under OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS, Option OL ~ Building Ordinance or Law. Wood Fences: We wil pay the actual cash value for loss or damage to wood fences, not to exceed the limit of liability shown in the Declarations for COVERAGE A ~ Other Structures. A2 ~ Replacement Cost Loss Settlement ~ Common Construction. pleted, we will pay only the actual cash value of the damaged part of the property, up fo the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, not to exceed the cost to repair or replace the damaged part of the property: (2) when the repair or replacement is actually completed, we will pay the covered additional amount you actually and necessarily spend to repair or replace the damaged part of the property, or an amount up fo the applicable limit of lability shown in the a. We will pay the cost to repair or replace with common construction and for the same use on the premises shown in the Declarations, the damaged part of the property covered under SECTION | - PROPERTY COVERAGES, COVERAGE A - DWELLING, except for wood fences, subject to the following: (1) Dectarations, whichever is less; (3) to receive any additional payments on a replacement cost basis, you must complete the actual repair or replacement of we will pay only for repair or replacement of the damaged part of the property with common construction techniques and materials commonly used by the building trades in standard new construction. We will not pay the cost to repair or replace obsolete, antique, or custom construction with like kind and quality; {8 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Fae Mutual Automobile insurance Company, 207 SFF&CC/West_000022"}, {"d": 22, "p": 82, "t": "(2) (1) until repair or replacement is completed, we will pay only the actual cash value of the damaged property; until actual repair or replacement is completed, we will pay only the actual cash value of the damaged part of the property, up to the applicable limit of liability shown (2) in the Declarations, not to exceed the cost to repair or replace the damaged part of the property as described in a(t) above; (3) if property is not repaired or replaced within two years after the date of loss, we will pay only the actual cash value. (3) when the repair or replacement is actually completed as described in a.(1) above, we will pay the covered additional amount you actually and necessarily spend to repair or replace the damaged part of the property, or an amount up te the applicable limit of lability shown in the Decfara- We will pay market value at the time of loss for: (1) tions, whichever is less: b, we will not pay for increased costs resulting from enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the construction, repair, or demolition of a building structure or other structure, except as provided under OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS, Option OL - Building Ordinance or Law. Wood Fences: We will pay the actual cash value for loss or damage to wood fences, not to exceed the limit of liability shown in the Dec~ farations for COVERAGE A ~ Other Structures. COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY 1. B1—Limited Replacement Cost Loss Settlement. a. We will pay the cost to repair or replace property covered under SECTION 1 ~ PROPERTY COVERAGES, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, except for property listed in item b. below, subject to the following: antiques, fine arts, paintings, statuary, and similar articles which by their inherent nature cannot be replaced with new articles; (2) articles whose age or history contribute substantially to their value including, but not (4) to receive any additional payments on a replacement cost basis, you must complete the actual repair or replacement of the damaged part of the property within two years after the date of loss, and notify us within 30 days after the work has been completed; and (5) after repair or replacement is completed, we will pay the difference between the actual cash value and the cost you have actually and necessarily spent to repair or replace the property; and limited to, memorabilia, souvenirs, and collectors items; and (3) property not useful for its intended purpose, However, we will not pay an amount exceeding the smallest of the following for items a. and b. above: (1) ourcost to replace at the time of loss; (2) the full cost of repair; (3) any special limit of liability described in this policy; or (4) any applicable Coverage B timit of liability. 2. B2 - Depreciated Loss Settlement. a. We will pay the actual cash value for property covered under SECTION | - PROPERTY COVERAGES, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, except for property listed in item b, belew. We will pay market value at the time of loss for: (1) antiques, fine arts, paintings, statuary, and similar articles which by their inherent nature cannot be replaced with new articles; (2) articles whose age or history contribute substantially to their value including, dut not limited to, memorabilia, souvenirs, and collectors items; and 9 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW:2136 SFF&CC/West_000023"}, {"d": 22, "p": 83, "t": "(3) (2) the full cost of repair; property not useful for its intended purpose. However, we will not pay an amount exceeding the smatiest of the following for items a. and b. above: (3} any special limit of liability described in this policy; or {1} our cost to replace at the time of loss; (4) any applicable Coverage B limit of liability. SECTION | - CONDITIONS (3) insurable Interest and Limit of Liability. Even if more than one person has an insurable interest in the property covered, we wil not be liable: a. (a) give statements; and (b) to the insured for an amount greater than the for more than the applicable limit of liability, tion under oath to the extent it is within the insured’s power to do so; and Your Duties After Loss. After a loss to which this insurance may apply, you must cooperate with us in the investigation of the claim and also see that the following duties are performed: a. b, e, (1) the time and cause of loss; (2) interest of the insured and all others in (1) the police if the loss is caused by theft, vandalism, or any other criminal act; and the property involved and all encumbrances on the property; (2) the credit card company or bank if the loss other insurance that may cover the loss; involves a credit card or bank fund transfer card; changes in title or occupancy of the property during the term of this policy; protect the properly from further damage or loss and also: specifications of any damaged structure (1) damage; and detailed estimates for repair of the make reasonable and necessary temporary repairs required {o protect the property, and an inventory of damaged or stolen personal property described in 2.c.; keep an accurate record of repair expenses; receipts for additional living expenses incurred and records supporting the fair rental value loss; and prepare an inventory of damaged or stolen personal property: (1} showing in detail the quantity, description, age, replacement cost, and amount of loss; and evidence or affidavit supporting a claim under SECTION | - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, (2} attaching all bills, receipts, and related Credit Card, Bank Fund Transfer Card, Forgery, and Counterfeit Money coverage, stating the amount and cause of loss. documents that substantiate the figures in the Inventory; d. submit to us, within 60 days after the loss, your signed, swom proof of loss that sets forth, to the best of your knowledge and belief: give immediate notice fo us or our agent and also notify: (2) c. submit to examinations under oath; and (4) produce employees, members of the insured's household, or others for examina- insured’s interest; or b. while notin the presence of any other insured: asoften as we reasonably require: (1) exhibit the damaged property; 3. Loss to a Pair or Set. in case of loss to a pair or set, we may choose fo: (2) provide us with any requested records and a. documents and allow us to make copies; repair or replace any part to restore the pair or set to its value before the loss; or 20 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000024"}, {"d": 22, "p": 84, "t": "b. 4. (a) written notice of the intent to file, identifying the specific location and identity of the court at least 10 days prior to submission of the written application; and pay the difference between the depreciated value of the property before the loss and the depreciated value of the property after the loss. Appraisal. If you and we fail to agree on the amount of loss, either party can demand that the amount of the loss be set by appraisal. Only you or we may demand appraisal. A demand for appraisal must be in writing. You must comply with SECTION |- CONDITIONS, Your Duties After Loss before making a demand for appraisal. At least 10 days before demanding appraisal, the party seeking appraisal must provide the other party with written, itemized documentation of a specific dispute as to the amount of the loss, identifying separately each item being disputed. a, Each party will select a competent, disinterested appraiser and notify the other party of the appraiser's identity within 20 days of receipt of the written demand for appraisal. b. The appraisers will then attempt to set the amount of the loss of each item in dispute as specified by each party, and jointly submit to each party a written report of agreement signed by them. In all instances the writen report of agreement will be itemized and state separately {b} acopy of the written application; and (3) a written report of agreement, as required in item b., signed by any two (appraisers or appraiser and umpire) will set the amount of the loss of each item in dispute. in all instances the written report of agreement will be itemized and state sepafately the actual cash value, replacement cost, and if applicable, the market value of each item in dispute. To qualify as an appraiser or umpire for a loss to property described in COVERAGE A ~ DWELLING, a person must be one of the following and be licensed or certified as required by the applicable jurisdiction: (1) an engineer or architect with experience and training in building construction, repair, estimating, or investigation of the type of property damage in dispute; the actual cash value, replacement cost, and (2) if applicable, the market value of each item in dispute. The written report of agreement will set the amount of the loss of each item in dispute. c. an adjuster or public adjuster with experience and training in estimating the type of property damage in dispute; or (3) a contractor with experience and training in the construction, repair, and estimating of the type of property damage in dispute. If the two appraisers fail to agree upon the amount of the [oss within 30 days, unless the period of time is extended by mutual agreement, they wil select a competent, disinterested umpire and will submit their differences to the umpire. If the appraisers are unable to agree upon an umpire within 15 days: A person may not serve as an appraiser or umpire if that person, any employee of that person, that person's employer, or any employee of their employer: (1) (1) you or we may make a witten application for a judge of a court of record in the same state and county (or city if the city is not within a county) where the residence premises is located to select an umpire; has performed services for either party with respect to the claim at issue in the appraisal; or (2) has a financial interest in the outcome of ihe claim at issue in the appraisal. Each party will be responsible for the compensation of their selected appraiser. Reasonable expenses of the appraisal and the reasonable (2) the party requesting the selection described in item c.{1} must provide the other party: rs) HW-2438 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000025"}, {"d": 22, "p": 85, "t": "Loss Payment. We will adjust all losses with you. We will pay you unless some other person is named in the policy or is tegally entitled to receive payment. Loss will be payable: compensation of the umpire will be paid equally by you and us. g. h. You and we do not waive any rights by demanding or submitting to an appraisal, and retain all contractual rights to determine if coverage applies to each item in dispute. a. 60 days after we receive your proof of loss and: (1} reach agreement with your or Appraisal is only available fo determine the amount of the loss of each item in dispute. The appraisers and the umpire have no authority to decide: (2) there is a filing of an appraisal award with us; OF b. (1) any other questions of fact; 30 days after we receive your proof of loss and there is an entry of a final judgment. Abandonment of Property. We need not accept any property abandoned by an insured. {2} questions of law, (3) questions of coverage; 10. Mortgagee Clause, The word “mortgagee” includes (4) other contractual issues; or trustee. (5) to conduct appraisal on a cass-wide basis. a. If a mortgagee is named in this policy, any loss payable under Coverage A will be paid to the mortgagee and you, as interests appear. If more than one mortgagee is named, the order of payment will be the same as the order of precedence of the mortgages. b. If we deny your claim, that denial will not apply to a valid claim of the mortgagee, if the mortgagee: |. Appraisal is a non-judicial proceeding and does not provide for or require arbitration. Neither party will be awarded attorney fees. The appraisal award may not be entered as a judgment in a court. j. A party may not demand appraisal after that party brings suit or action against the other party relating to the amount of loss. Other Insurance. If a loss covered by this policy is also covered by other insurance, we will pay only our share of the loss, Our share is the proportion of the loss that the applicable limit under this policy bears to the total amount of insurance covering the loss. (1) notifies us of any change in ownership, occupancy, or substantial change in risk of which the mortgagee is aware; (2) pays on demand any premium due under this policy, if you have not paid the premium; and Suit Against Us. No action will be brought against us unless there has been full compliance with alt of the policy provisions. Any action by any party must be started within one year after the date of loss or damage, However, if the cause of loss or damage is submits a signed, swom statement of loss within 60 days after receiving notice from us of your failure fo do so. Policy conditions relating to Appraisal, Suit Against Us, and Loss Payment apply to the mortgagee. burglary, theft, larceny, robbery, forgery, fraud, vandalism, malicious mischief, confiscation, wrongful conversion, disposal or concealment, the action must be started within two years from the time the cause of action accrues. c. If we cancel this policy, the mortgagee will be notified at least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect. Proof of mailing wil be proof of notice. Our Option. We may repair or replace any part of the property damaged or stolen with similar property. Any property we pay for or replace becomes our d. property. If we pay the mortgagee for any loss and deny payment to you: 2 RW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Aulomobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000026"}, {"d": 22, "p": 86, "t": "(1) we are subrogated to all the rights of the mortgagee granted under the mortgage on the property; or (2) at our option, we may pay to the mortgagee the whole principal on the mortgage plus any accrued interest. in this event, we wil receive a full assignment and transfer of the mortgage and all securities held as collateral to the mortgage debt. Subrogation does not impair the right of the mortgagee to recover the full amount of the mortgagee’s claim. 11. No Benefit to Bailee. We will not recognize an assignment or grant coverage for the benefit of a person of organization holding, storing, or transporting property for a fee. This applies regardless of any other provision of this policy. 12, Recovered Property. if either you or we recover any property after loss settlement, that party must give the other prompt notice. At your option, you may keep the property or we will retum it to you. Otherwise, if will become our property. If you choose to keep the property, the loss payment will be adjusted based on the amount you received for the recovered property. 13. Assignment of Claim. Assignment fo another party of any of your rights or duties under this policy regarding any claim, or any part of any claim, will be void and we will not recognize any such assignment, unless we give our written consent. However, once you have complied with all policy provisions, you may assign to another party, in writing, payment of claim proceeds otherwise payable to you. SECTION Hi - LIABILITY COVERAGES COVERAGE L - PERSONAL LIABILITY 1. mission of an insured, If a claim is made or a suit is brought against an insured for damages because of bodily injury or property dam- 2. age to which this coverage applies, caused by an occurrence, we will: 1. pay up to our limit of liability for the damages for which the insured Is legally liable. We will not pay for criminal restitution; and provide a defense at our expense by counsel of our choice, We may make any investigation and settle any claim or suit that we decide is appropriate. Our obligation to defend any suit ends when the amount we pay for damages, to effect settlement or satisfy a judgment resulting from the occurrence, equals our limit of liability. We will not provide a defense to any insured for criminal prosecution or proceedings. COVERAGE M ~ MEDICAL PAYMENTS TO OTHERS We will pay the necessary medical expenses incurred or medically ascertained within three years from the date of an accident causing bodily injury. Medical expenses Means reasonable charges for medical, surgical, x-ray, dental, ambulance, hospital, professional nursing, rehabilitation, pharmaceuticals, orthopedic devices, prosthetic devices, and funeral services. This coverage applies only: to a person on the insured focation with the per- 3. {oa person off the Insured /ocation, if the bodily Injury: a. arises out of a condition on the insured /ocation or the ways immediately adjoining; b. is caused by the activities of an insured: c, is caused by a residence employee in the course of the residence employee’s employment by an insured; or d. is caused by an animal owned by or in the care of an insured; or to a residence employee if the occurrence causing bodily injury occurs off the insured location and arises out of or in the course of the residence employee's employment by an insured. SECTION Il - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES The following Additional Coverages are subject to alf the terms, provisions, exclusions, and conditions of this policy. We will pay for the following in addition to the limits of liability: 23 ©, Copyright, Slate Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2436 SFF&CC/West_000027"}, {"d": 22, "p": 87, "t": "Claim Expenses. We will pay: (1) replacement cost at the time of loss; a. {2} full costof repair; or expenses we incur and costs taxed against an insured in suits we defend. Taxed costs do premiums on bonds required in suits we de- (3) the limit of liability shown in the Dectfarations for Damage to Property of Others for any one occurrence. fend, but not for bond amounts greater than the We will not pay for property damage: not include attorney fees; b, Coverage L limit. We are nol obligated to apply foror furnish any bond; ¢. (1) for a loss that is recoverable under Section | of this policy. We also will not pay for any applicable deductible regardless of whether the amount of the loss exceeds the deductible; reasonable expenses an insured incurs at our request. This includes actual loss of earnings (but not loss of other income) up to $250 per day for aiding us in the investigation or defense of claims or suits; d. (2} caused intentionally by an insured 13 years of age or older; interest the insured is legally liable to pay on damages payable under Coverage L above before a judgment, but only the interest on the lesser of: (3) to property, other than a rented goif cart, owned by, or rented fo an insured, a tenant of an insured, or a resident in your household; {1} that part of the damages we pay; or (4) arising out of: (2) the Coverage L limit; and e. (a) business pursuits; interest on the entire judgment that accrues after entry of the judgment and before we pay or tender, or deposit in court that part of the judg- (b) any act or omission in connection with a premises an insured owns, rents, or controls, other than the insured ment that does not exceed the limit of liability location, that applies. (c} First Aid Expenses. We will pay expenses for first aid to others incurred by an insured for bodily injury covered under this policy. We will not pay for first aid to you or any other insured. or the ways immediately adjoining; or (d) the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft, including airboat, air cushion, personal watercraft, sail board, or similar type watercratt; or Damage to Property of Others. a. We will pay for property damage to property of others caused by the activities of an insured, b. We will not pay more than the smaliest of the following amounts: a-condition on the insured location (5) if a payment is made under COVERAGE L - PERSONAL LIABILITY for the same properly damage. SECTION Il - EXCLUSIONS Coverage L and Coverage M do not apply to: (2) was intended by the insured; or a. _ bodily injury or property damage that: (3) would have been expected by the insured based on a reasonable person standard. (1} was a result of a: However, exclusions a.(2) and a.{3} above do not apply to bodify injury or property damage resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property. {a} willful and malicious; or (b} criminal; act or omission of the insured; 4 HW:2136 ©, Copyright, State Fann Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000028"}, {"d": 22, "p": 88, "t": "d. Exclusions a.(1), a.(2), and a.(3) above apply to all bodily injury or property damage even if the: bodily injury or property damage arising out of any premises currently owmed or rented to any insured which is not an insured location. This exclusion does not apply to bodily injury to a residence employee arising out of and in the course of the residence employee’s employment by an insured; (1) bodily injury or property damage was sustained by a different person, entity, or property than was expected or intended; (2) bodily injury or property damage was of a different kind, quality, or degree than was expected or intended; (3) bodily injury or property damage arising out of the rendering or failing to render professional services; insured lacked the mental capacity to bodily injury or property damage arising out contro! his or her conduct; of the ownership, maintenance, use, loading, or unloading of: (4) insured was not charged with or convicted of a criminal act or omission; or (1) an aircraft. This exclusion does not apply to the ownership, maintenance, use, loading, or unloading of unmanned aircraft systems used as model aircraft: (5) insured was impaired by drugs or alcohol; bodily injury or property damage arising out of business pursuits of any insured, except as provided in item c. below. This exclusion does not apply to activities that are ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits; (a) solely for recreational er hobby purposes; bodily injury or property damage arising out of the rental of any part of any premises by any insured. This exclusion does not apply: (b} designed to be operated within the visual line of sight of the operator and operated within the visual line of sight of the operator; and (1) to the rental of the residence premises: {c) (a) either completely or in part, for exclusive use as a residence, for up to 30 nights in the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss; unless the ownership, maintenance, use, loading, or unloading of such aircraft results in: (a) property damage to any aircraft; or (b) in part, for use as a permanent residence, by either one or two full-time roamers or boarders; or (c)_ weighing not more than 55 pounds at the time of operation; (b) bodily injury or property damage resulting from interference with an aircraft carrying people regardless of whether the bodily injury or property damage is sustained by people in part, as an office, school, studio, or private garage; (2) when the dwelling on the residence premises is a two, three, or four family dwelling and you occupy one part and rant the other part to others; or property on the aircraft or not; (2) a motor vehicle owned or operated by or rented or loaned to any insured; or (3} a watercraft: (3) to farm land (without buildings), rented to (a) owned by or rented to any insured if it has inboard or inboard-outdrive motor power of more than 50 horsepower, others, but not to exceed a total of 500 acres, regardless of the number of locations; or {b) (4) to activities that are ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits; owned by or rented to any insured if it is a sailing vessel, with or without 26 HW-2496 ©, Copyright, Slate Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 207 SFF&CC/West_000029"}, {"d": 22, "p": 89, "t": "auxiliary power, 26 feet or more in overall length; meaning of part 9.a., 9.b., or 9.c. of the defini- tion of insured to share damages with or repay someone else who may be obligated fo pay damages because of the bodily injury sustained by any insured within the meaning of (c}_ powered by one or more outboard motors with more than 25 total horsepower owned by any insured: part 9.4. 9.b., or 9.c, of the definition of insured; (d) designated as an airboat, air cushion, or similar type of craft; or (e) any claim made or suit brought against any insured by: owned by any insured if it is a personal watercraft using a waler jet pump powered by an internal combustion engine as the primary source of propulsion. (1) any person in the care of any insured because of child care services provided by or at the direction of: {a} This exclusion does not apply to bodily injury to a residence employee arising out of and in the course of the residence employee’s employment by an insured. Exclusion £(3) does not apply while the watercraft is on the residence premises; any insured; (b} any employee of any insured; or {c) any other person actually or apparently acting on behalf of any insured, of (2) any person who makes a claim because of bodily injury to any person in the care of any insured because of child care services provided by or at the direction of: bodily injury or property damage arising out of: (1} the entrustment by any insured to any person, (2) the supervision by any insured of any person; (a) (3) any liability statutorily imposed on any insured; of {c) (4) any liability assumed through an unwritten or written agreement by any insured: any insured, (b) any employee of any insured; or any other person actually or apparently acting on behalf of any insured. This exclusion does not apply to the occasional child care services provided by any insured, or to the part-time child care services provided by any insured under 19 years of age; with regard to the ownership, maintenance, or use of any aircraft, watercraft, or motor vehicle not covered under Section Il of this policy; bodily injury or property damage arising out of an insured’s participation in, or preparation or practice for, any prearranged or organized race, speed or demolition contest, or similar competition involving a motorized land vehicle or motorized watercraft. This exclusion does not apply to a sailing vessel less than 26 feet in overall length with or without auxiliary power, bodily injury or property damage caused directly or indirectly by war, including undeclared war, or any warlike act including destruction, seizure, of use for a military purpose, or any consequence of these. Discharge of a nuclear weapon will be considered a warlike act even if accidental; bodily injury to any insured within the meaning of part 9.a., 9.b., or 9.c, of the definition of bodily injury or property damage ansing out of the use, sale, manufacture, distribution, de- insured. livery, transfer, or possession, by any insured, of any substance that is ilegal or is a controlled substance under either federal or state law. This exclusion also applies to any claim made or suit brought against any iasured within the 26 HW-2196 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Company, 207 SFF&CC/West_000030"}, {"d": 22, "p": 90, "t": "(2) physical or mental abuse; or This exclusion does not apply to the legitimate use of legally prescribed drugs, under either federal or state jaw, by a person following orders of a licensed health care professional; (3) corporal punishment; by the insured: . bodily injury or property damage arising out of the actual, alleged, or threatened presence, discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release, escape of, or exposure to contaminants or pollutants at or from any source or location. bodily injury or property damage arising out of the actual, alleged, or threatened inhalation of, ingestion of, contact with, exposure to, existence of, or presence of any fungus at or from any source or location. Contaminants and pollutants include but are not limited to any solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal ini- We also do not cover any loss, cost, or expense arising out of any: tant, including smoke from agricultural smudging or (7) industrial operations, smog, soot, vapor, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, pathogens, noxious substances, fuel ol, asbestos, or lead. This exclusion does not anply to bodily injury or property damage arising out of smoke or fumes caused by fire or explosion. (2) claim or suit for damages because of testing for, monitoring, cleaning up, removing, containing, treating, detoxifying, neutralizing, remediating, disposing of, or in any way responding to or assessing the effects of fungus; or We also do not cover: (1) any loss, cost, or expense arising out of any request, demand, order, or statutory or regulatory requirement that any insured or others test for, monitor, clean up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify, neutralize, remediate, dispose of, or in any way respond to or assess the effects of contaminants or pollutants; (2} any loss, cost, or expense arising out of any claim or suit by or on behalf of a governmental authority for damages because of testing for, monitoring, cleaning up, removing, containing, treating, detoxifying, neutralizing, remediating, disposing of, or in any way responding to or assessing the effects of contaminants or pollutants; or bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of systems and equipment used to generate electrical power exceeding 125 percent of the actual electrical power usage by the residence premises in the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss. 2. Coverage L does not apply to: lability: {1} for your share of any loss assessment charged against all members of any type of association of property owners; or (3) contamination or pollution arising out of actually or allegedly defective building materials, nuclear substances, or waste. Waste includes materials fo be recycled, raconditioned, or reclaimed; (2) bodily injury or property damage arising out of any actual, alleged, or threatened: (1) sexual harassment, sexual molestation, or sexual misconduct; request, demand, order, or statutory or regulatory requirement that any insured or others test for, monitor, clean up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify, neutralize, remediate, dispose of, or in any way respond to or assess the effects of fungus; or b. imposed on or assumed by any insured through any unwritten or written contract or agreement, This exclusion does not apply to liability for damages that the insured would have in absence of the contract or agreement; property damage to property owned by any insured at the time of the occurrence; HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Fann Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2047 SFF&CC/West_000031"}, {"d": 22, "p": 91, "t": "c. This exclusion also applies to any property damage to the sold or transferred real property itself, property damage to property rented to, used or occupied by, or in the care, custody, or control of any insured at the time of the occurrence. This exclusion does not apply to property damage caused by fire, smoke, explosien, or abrupt and accidental damage from However, this exclusion does not apply to: (1) water, d, ide poisoning; or bodily injury to a person eligible to receive any benefits required to be provided or voluntarily provided by an insured under a workers’ compensation, non-cccupational disability, or occupational disease jaw; e. {. bodily injury arising out of fire, smoke, explosion, electrocution, or carbon monox- (2) property damage ansing smoke, of explosion. 3. out of fire, Coverage M does not apply to bodily injury. a. toa residence employee if it occurs off the insured location and does not arise out of or in the course of the residence employee's employment by an insured; sured but for its termination upon exhaustion of its b. limit of liability. A nuclear energy liability policy is a policy issued by Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance Association, Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters, Nuclear insurance Association of Canada, or any of their successors; to a person eligible to receive any benefits required to be provided or voluntarily provided under any workers’ compensation, nonoccupational disability, or occupational disease law; c. to a person other than a residence employee of an insured, regularly residing on any part of the insured location; or d. from nuclear reaction, radiation, or radioactive contamination, ail whether controlled or uncontrolled or however caused, or any consequerice bodily injury or property damage for which an insured under this policy is also an insured under a nuclear energy liability policy or would be an in- bodily injury or property damage arising out of any real property any insured has sold or transferred. This includes but ts not limited fo bodily injury or property damage arising out of known, unknown, hidden, or alleged property of any of these. conditions, problems, or defects. SECTION Il - CONDITIONS Limit of Liability. The Coverage L limit is shown in the Declarations. This is the limit for all damages from each occurrence for the policy period in which the bodily injury or property damage first occurs, regardless of the number of insureds, claims made, or persons injured. No additional limits or coverage will be available for the occurrence under any addltional policy periods while this policy remains in force. The Coverage M limit is shown in the Declarations. This is our limit for ail medical expenses for bodily injury to one person as the result of one accident. Severability of Insurance. This insurance applies separately to each insured. This condition does not increase our limit of liability for any one occurrence. Duties After Loss. in case of an accident or oc- currence, the insured must cooperate with us in the investigation, settlement, or defense of any claim or suit and also perform the following duties that apply. You must cooperate with us in seeing that these duties are performed: a. give witten notice to us or our agent as soon as possible, which sets forth: (1) the identity of this policy anc the insured; {2} reasonably available information on the lime, place, and circumstances of the accident or occurrence; and 28 ©, Copyright, Slate Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000032"}, {"d": 22, "p": 92, "t": "(3) names and addresses of any claimants immediately forward to us every notice, demand, b. _ the injured person’s submission to physical examinations by a physician selected by us when and as offen as we reasonably require; and summons, or other process relating to the acci- c. and available witnesses; b. dent or occurrence; c. at our request, assist in: (1) 5. making settlement; (2) the enforcement of any right of contribution or indemnity against a person or organiza(3) the conduct of suits and attend hearings and trials; and No one wii have the right to join us as a party to an action against an insured. Further, no action with respect to Coverage L will be brought against us until the obligation of the asured has been cetermined by final judgment on the merits, after an actual trial or by an agreement signed by ws; bul we will not be lable for damages that are not payable under the terms of this policy or that are in excess of the applicable Limit of Liability. {4} securing and giving evidence and obtaining the attendance of witnesses; under SECTION Il - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Damage to Property of Others, exhibit the damaged property if wilhin the insured’s control; and e. the fsured must nol, except at the insured’s own cost, voluntarily make payments, assume obligations, or incur expenses. This does not apply to expense for first aid to others at the time of the bodily injury. Bankruptcy of an Insured. Bankruptcy or insolvency of an insured will not relieve us of our obligation under this policy, Coverage M Requirements. We may require the following in regard to any Coverage M claim: a, Payment of Claim - Coverage M or Damage to Property of Others. Payment under either of these is not an admission of lability by an insured or us. Suit Against Us. No action will be brought against us unless there has been compliance with the policy provisions, tion who may be liable to an insured; d. any authorizations from the injured person as we may require. Other Insurance - Coverage L. This insurance is excess over any other valid and collectible insurance except insurance written specifically to cover as excess over the limits of liability that apply in this policy. written proof of claim, under oath if required, as soon as possible from the injured person, or when appropriate, someone acting on behalf of that person; SECTION | AND SECTION Il - CONDITIONS during the period this policy is in eftect, the broadened coverage will immediately apply to this policy. Policy Period, This policy applies only to loss under Section | or bodily injury or property damage under Section Il that occurs during the period this policy is in effect. Waiver or Change of Policy Provisions. A waiver or change of any provision of this policy must be in whiting by us to be valid. Our request for an appraisal or examination does not waive any of our rights. Concealment or Fraud. This policy is void as to you and any other insured if you or any other insured under this policy has intentionally concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance relating to this 5. insurance, whether before or after a loss. Cancellation. a, Liberalization Clause. If we adopt any revision that would broaden coverage under this policy without additional premium, within 60 days prior to or You may cancel this policy at any time by giving us advance written notice of the date cancellation is to take effect. We may waive the requirement 4 HW-2136 ©, Copyrigh!, State Fann Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000033"}, {"d": 22, "p": 93, "t": "of the policy would place the insurer that the notice be in writing by confirming the date and time of cancellation fo you in writing, in violation of the insurance laws of this state; or We may cancel this policy only for the reasons stated in this condition. We will notify you in wriing of the date cancellation takes effect, This cancellation notice may be delivered to you, or mailed to you at your mailing address shown in the Declarations. Proof of mailing will be sufficient proof of notice: (f} conviction of the named insured of a crime having as one of its necessary elements an act increasing any hazard insured against. We may cancel this policy by notifying you at least 30 days before the date cancellation takes effect. (1) When you have not paid the premium, we may cancel at any time by notifying you at least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect. This condition applies whether the premium is payable to us or our agent or under any finance or credit plan. (4) When this policy is written for a period longer than one year, we may cancel for any reason af anniversary. We may cancel by notifying you at least 30 days before the date cancellation takes effect. (2) When this policy has been in effect for less than 45 business days and is not a renewal with us, we may cancel for any reason. We may cancel by notifying you at least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect. c. When this policy is cancelled, the premium for the period from the date of cancellation to the expiration date will be refunded. The retum premium will be pro rata. d, The retum premium may not be refunded with the notice of cancellation or when this policy is returned to us. In such cases, we will refund it within a reasonable time after the date cancellation takes effect. (3) When this policy has been in effect for 45 business days or more, or at any time if it is a renewal with us, we may cancel for the following reasons: 6, (a) discovery of fraud or material misrepresentation in the procurement of the insurance or with respect to any claims submitted thereunder; (b} discovery of willful or reckless acts or omissions on the part of the named insured which increase any hazard Nenrenewal, We may elect not to renew this policy. If we elect not to renew, a written notice wil be delivered to you, or mailed to you at your mailing address shown in the Declarations. The notice will be mailed or delivered at least 30 days before the expiration date of this policy. Proof of mailing will be sufficient proof of notice. Assignment of Policy. Assignment of this policy will be void and we will nat recognize any such assignment, unless we give our written consent. insured against; (c)_ a change in the risk which substantially increases any hazard insured against after insurance coverage has been issued or renewed; 8, Subrogation and Reimbursement. a. Subrogation. (1) Applicable to SECTION |: (d} violation of any local fire, health, safefy, building, or construction regu- if any insured to or for whom we make payment under this policy has rights fo recover damages from another, those rights are transferred to us to the extent of our payment, That insured must do everything necessary to secure our rights and must do nothing after loss to impair them. lation or ordinance with respect to any insured property or the occupancy thereof which substantially increases any hazard insured against; (e) a determination by the Insurance Commissioner that the continuation » HW2136 ©, Copyright, Slate Fann Mutual Aulormobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000034"}, {"d": 22, "p": 94, "t": "However before a loss, an insured may waive in writing all rights of recovery against any person. Applicable to SECTION Il: If any insured has rights to recover all or part of any payment we have made under this policy, those rights are transferred to us, An insured must do nothing after loss to impair them. At our request, an insured will bring suit or transfer those rights fo us and help us enforce them. Subrogation does not apply under Section If to Medical Payments 1a Others or Damage to Property of Others. Reimbursement. if we make payment under this policy and any insured to or for whom we make payment recovers or has recovered from another person or organization, then the insured to or for whom we make payment must: (1) hold in trust for us the proceeds of any recovery; and (2) 9. reimburse us to the extent of our payment Premium. a, Unless as otherwise provided by an altemative payment plan in effect with the State Farm Companies wih respect to the premium for this policy, the premium is due and payable in full on or before the first day of the policy period shown in the most recently issued Decfarations, The renewal premium for this policy will be based upon the rates in effect, the coverages carried, the applicable limiis, deductibles, and other elements that affect the premium applicable at the time of renewal. The premium for this policy may vary based upon: (1) the purchase of other products or services from the Stafe Farm Companies; {2} the purchase of products or services from an organization that has entered into an agreement or contract with the State Farm Companies. The State Farm Companies do not warrant the merchantability, fitness, or quality of any product or service offered or provided by that organization; or Death, If you die: a. 11. we insure the legal representative of the deceased. This condition applies only with respect to the premises and properly of the deceased covered under this policy at the time of death; insured includes: an agreement, conceming the insurance provided by this policy, that the State Farm Companies has with an organization of which you are a member, employee, subscriber, licensee, or franchisee, Your purchase of this policy may allow: (2) with respect to your property, the person (1) you to purchase or obtain certain coverages, coverage options, coverage deductibles, coverage limits, or coverage terms on other products from the State Farm Companies, subject to their applicable eligibility nules; or 10. Conformity to State Law. When a policy provision is in conflict with the applicable law of the state in which this policy is issued, the faw of the state will apply, the premium or price for other products or services purchased by you, including noninsurance products or services, to vary. Such other products or services must be provided by the State Farm Companies or by an organization that has entered into an agreement or contract wih the State (1) any member of your household who is an insured at the time of your death, but only while a resident of the residence premises; and having proper temporary custody of the property until appointment and qualification of a legal representative. u ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Aulomobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000035"}, {"d": 22, "p": 95, "t": "of mailing it or delivering it by other means, Proof of Farm Companies. The Stafe Farm Companies do not warrant the merchantability, fitness, or quality of any product or service offered or provided by that organization. transmission will be sufficient proof of notice. 16. Our Rights Regarding Claim Information. a. 12. Right to Inspect. a, We will collect, receive, obtain, use, and retain all the items described in item b.(1) below and We have the right but are not obligated to perform the following: F : ‘ (1) make inspections and surveys of the insured location at any time: use and retain the information described in item b.(3)(b) below, in accordance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations and . . ‘\" conse wih the performance of our busi (2) prowite you wilh reports on conditions we ’ @) b. Subject to 16.a. above, we will not be restricted in or prohibited from: recommend changes. (1) collecting, receiving, or obtaining records, Any inspections, surveys, reports, or recomb. receipts, invoices, medical bills, medical mendations relate only to insurability and the premiums to be charged. Wedo not: records, wage information, salary information, employment information, data, and any other information; (2) Siabever ihe items described in item (1) make safety inspections; (2). undertake to perform the duty of any per- 3 . oe son or organization to provide for the (3) retaining: heaith or safety of workers or the public; (a) (3) warrant that conditions are safe or health- or ful; or (b} any other information we have in our (4) warrant that conditions comply with laws, regulations, codes, or standards. . _ possession as a result of our processing, handling, or otherwise resolving claims submitted under this This condition applies to ws and to any rating, advisory, fate service, or similar organization that makes ¢. insurance inspections, mendations on our behalf.surveys, reports, of recom: 13. Joint and Individual Interests. We may , When there are policy. disclose any of the items in b.(1) aboveb.(3)(b) ond an0 ve of the information described in item { two or more Named Insureds, each acts for all to cancel or change this policy. 44. Change of Policy Address. We may change the Named Insured’s policy address as shown in the (1) bl ‘ f busi enable periormance of our business unctions; (2) to meet viat reporting obligations to insurance regulators, Declarations and in our records to the most recent (3) to meet our reporting obligations to insur- address provided to us by: a, any of the items in item b.(1) above; ance data consolidators; you; or (4) to meet other obligations required by law; b. the United States Postal Service. 15. Electronic Delivery. With your consent, we may and (5) as otherwise permitted by law. electronically deliver any document or notice, including a notice to renew, nonrenew, or cancel, instead d. Our rights under 16.a., 16.b., and 16.c, above will not be impaired by any: 2 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000036"}, {"d": 22, "p": 96, "t": "| (1) must provide us with any requesied authorizations related to the claim. Our rights as set forth under Our Rights Regarding Claim Information of this policy will not be impaired by any: authorization related to any claim submit- ted under this policy; or (2) act or omission of an insured or a legal representative acting on an insured’s be- half. 17. Duties Regarding Claim Information. An insured or a legal representative acting on an insured’s behalf a. authorization related to the claim; or b. act or omission of an insured or a legal representative acting on an insured’s behalf. OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS Each Optional Policy Provision applies only as shown in the Declarations and is subject to all the terms, provisions, exclusions, and conditions of this policy. Option Al - Additional Insured. The definition of insured is extended to include the person or organization shown in the Declarations as an Additional Insured or whose name is on file with us. Coverage is with respect to: {. SECTION | - Coverage A, Coverage B, or Cover- while acting within the scope of the above listed occupations, 2. However, no coverage is provided: a, which the insured is a pariner or member; b. age C; or 2, SECTION li - Coverage L and Coverage M but only with respect to the residence premises. This coverage does not apply to bodily injury to an employee arising out of or in the course of the employee’s employment by the person or organization. The $1,500 limit is replaced with the amount shown in the Declarations for this option. Option BU ~ Business Pursuits. SECTION |i - EXCLUSIONS, item 1.b. is modified as follows: . for bodily injury or property damage arising out of the rendering of or failure to render professional services of any nature (other than teaching or schoo! administration). This exciusion includes but is not limited to: (1) computer programming, architectural, engineering, or industrial design services; (2) medical, surgical, dental, or other services or treatment conducive to the health of persons or animals; and This option applies only with respect fo the location shown in the Declarations. Option BP ~ Business Property. The COVERAGE B PERSONAL PROPERTY, Special Limits of Liability, item b., for property used or intanded for use in a business, including merchandise held as samples or for sale of for delivery after sale, is changed as follows: for bodily injury or property damage arising out of a business owned or financially controlled by the insured or by a partnership of (3} beauty or barber services or treatment; c. for bodily injury to a fellow employee of the insured injured in the course of employment; or d. when the insured is a member of the faculty or teaching staff of a school or college: (1) for bodily injury or property damage arising out of the maintenance, use, loading, or unloading of: Section Il coverage applies to the business pursuits of an insured who is a: (a) a, Clerical office employee, salesperson, collector, messenger; or b. teacher (except college, university, and professional athletic coaches}, school principal, or school administrator; (b) aircraft, motor vehicles, recreational motor vehicles or watercraft, airboats, air cushions, or personal watercraft which use a water jet pump powered by an internal combustion draft or saddle animals, including vehicles for use with them; or KX) ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Aulomobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000037"}, {"d": 22, "p": 97, "t": "engine as the primary source of propuilsion; owned, operated, or hired by or for the insured or employer of the insured or used by the insured for the purpose of insfruction in the use thereof; or Our limits for toss by theft are those shown in the Declarations for this option. These fimits apply in lieu of the Coverage 8 theft limit; and 4, Our limits for loss by any covered peril except those in items 2. and 3. above are those shown in the Declarations for this option. Option iD - Increased Dwelling Limit. We will settle losses fo damaged building structures covered under COVERAGE A ~ DWELLING according to the Loss Settlement Provision shown in the Decfarations. under Coverage M for bodily injury to a student arising out of corporal punishment administered by or at the direction of the insured, Option FA - Firearms, 3. if he amount you actually and necessarily spend to repair or replace damaged building structures exceeds the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, we will pay the additional amounts not fo exceed: Firearms are covered for acci- dental direct physical foss or damage. The {limits for this option are shown in the Declarations. The first amount is the fimit for any one article; the second amount is the aggregate limit for each loss, 4. The following additional provisions apply: 1, 10% of the Option {D limit of liability to repair or replace building structures covered under COVERAGE A-~ DWELLING, Other Structures. We wil not pay for any loss to the property described in this option either consisting of, or directly and immediately caused by, one or more of the following: a. the Option ID limit of liability shown in the Declarations to repair or replace the dwelling; or or Report Increased Values. You must nolify us within 90 days of the start of construction on any new building all animals, birds, or insects, including nesting, infestation, gnawing, feeding, breeding, or discharge or release of waste producis or secre- remodeling of building structures that increase their values by $5,000 or more. You must pay any additional premium due for the increased value. We will not pay more than the applicable limit of liability shown in the mechanical breakdown, gradual deterioration; wear and tions by animals, birds, or insects. tear, structure costing $5,000 or more; or any additions to or However, Declarations if you fail to notify us of the increased we wil pay for losses caused by wild bears or deer; value within 90 days. Option 10 ~ Incidental Business. The coverage provided by this option applies only to that incidental business occupancy on file with us. any process of refinishing, renovating, or repalring; dampness of atmosphere or extremes of temperatures; 4. COVERAGE A ~ DWELLING, Other Structures, item 2.b. is deleted. 2, infidelity of an insured’s employees or persons to whom the insured property may be entrusted of rented; COVERAGE B ~ PERSONAL PROPERTY is extended to include equipment, supplies, and fumishings usual and incidental to this business occupancy. This Optional Poticy Provision does not include electronic data processing system equipment or the recording or storage media used with that equipment or merchandise held as sarnples or for sale or for delivery after sale. Our limit for loss by any Coverage B peril except theft is the limit shown in the Declarations for Coverage B, plus the aggregate limit; The Option {0 limits are shown in the Declarations. The first limit applies to property on the residence premises. The second limit applies to property inherent defect or faulty manufacture; f. rust, fouling, or explosion of firearms; breakage, marring, scratching, tearing, or denting unless caused by fire, thieves, or accidents to conveyances; or x HW-2436 ©, Copyright, State Fam Mutual Aulomobie Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000038"}, {"d": 22, "p": 98, "t": "{c} while off the residence premises. These limits are in addition to the COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, Special Limits of Liability on property used or intended for use in a business. 3. Under Section Il, the residence premises is not considered business property because an insured occupies a part of it as an incidental business. 4, SECTION Il - EXCLUSIONS, item 1.b. is replaced with the following: b, 5. any person who makes a claim because of bodily injury to any person in the care of any insured because of child care services provided by or at the direction of: (a) any insured; (b) (c) bodily injury or property damage arising out of business pursuits of any insured, except as provided in item c. below. This exclusion does not apply to activities that afe ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits or to business pursuits of an insured that are necessary or incidental to the use of the residence premises as an incidental business: Option JF ~ Jewelry and Furs. Jewelry, watches, fur garments and garments trimmed with fur, precious and semi-precious stones, gold other than goldware, silver other than silverware, and platinum are covered for accidental direct physical loss or damage. The limits for this option are shown in the Declarations, The first amount is the limit for any one article; the second amount is the aggregate limit for each loss. All provisions and exclusions of SECTION | - LOSSES INSURED, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, Theft apply to Option JF. bodily injury to a student arising out of corporal punishment administered by or at the direction of the insured, liability arising out of any acts, errors, or omissions of an insured, or any other person for whose acts an insured is liable, resuiting from the preparation or approval of data, plans, designs, opinions, reports, programs, specifications, supervisory inspections, or engineering services in the. conduct of an insured’s incidental business involving data processing, computer consulting, or computer programming; or The following additional provisions apply: 1. Weill not pay for any loss to the property described in this option either consisting of, or directly and immediately caused by, one or more of the following: a. mechanical breakdown, wear and tear, or gradual deterioration; all animals, birds or insects, including nesting, infestation, gnawing, feeding, breeding, or discharge or release of waste products or secretions by animals, birds, or insects. However, we will pay for losses caused by wild bears or deer; any claim made or suit brought against any insured by: any person in the care of any insured because of child care services provided by or at the direction of: inherent vice; or (a) any insured: (b) any other person actually or apparently acting on behalf of any insured. This exclusion does not apply to the occasional child care services provided by any insured, or to the part-time child care services provided by any insured under 19 years of age. bodily injury to an employee of an insured arising out of the residence premises as an incidental business other than to a residence employee while engaged in the employee's employment by an insured; (1) any employee of any insured; or Coverage M does not apply to any person indicated in d.{t) and d.{2} above. This insurance does not apply to: a. any other person actually or apparently acting on behalf of any insured: or seizure or destruction under quarantine or customs regulations; any employee of any insured, or # HW:2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000039"}, {"d": 22, "p": 99, "t": "2, Our limit for loss by any Coverage B peril except theft is the limit shown in the Declarations for Coverage B, plus the aggregate limit; (2) the enforcement requires the demolition of portions of the same building structure not damaged by the same loss insured: Our limits for loss by theft are those shown in the Declarations for this option. These limits apply in lieu of the Coverage B theft limit; and (3) the ordinance or law regulates the construction or repair of the building structure, or establishes zoning or land use requirements at the described premises; and Our limits for loss by any covered peril except those in items 2. and 3. above are those shown in the Declarations for this option. (4) the ordinance or law is in force at the time of the occurrence of the same foss insured. or Option OL - Building Ordinance or Law. 1. c. Coverage Provided. The total limit of insurance provided by this option will not exceed an amount equal to the Option OL percentage shown in the Declarations of the Coverage A fimit shown in the Declarations at the time of the loss, as adjusted by the Inflation Coverage provisions of this policy. This is an additional amount of insurance and applies to building structures on the residence premises. (1} the enforcement is directly caused by the same /oss insured; (2} the requirement is in effect at the time the loss insured occurs; and Damaged Portions of Building Structure. When a building structure covered under COVERAGE A ~ DWELLING is damaged by a loss insured, we will pay for the increased cost to repair or rebuild the physically damaged portion of the building structure caused by the enforcement of a building, zoning, or land use ordinance or law if the enforcement is directly caused by the same {oss insured and the requirement is in effect at the time the foss insured Occurs. (3) the iegally required changes are made to the undamaged portions of specific building structure features, systems, or components that have been physically damaged by the foss insured. We will not pay for legally required changes to specific building structure features, systems, or components that have not been physically damaged by the foss insured. Building Ordinance or Law Coverage Limitations. Undamaged Portions of Damaged Building Structure. When a building structure covered under COVERAGE A ~ DWELLING is damaged by a loss insured, we will also pay for: a. a. the cost to demolish and clear the site of the undamaged portions of the building structure caused by the enforcement of a building, zoning, or land use ordinance or law if the enforcement is directly caused by the same loss insured and the requirement is in effect at the time the foss insured occurs; and b. legally required changes to the undamaged portion of the building structure caused by the enforcement of a building, zoning, or land use ordinance or law, if: We will not pay for any increased cost of construction: (4) until the building structure is actually repaired or replaced at the same or another premises in the same general vicinity: (2) unless the repairs or replacement are made as soon as reasonably possible after the loss, not to exceed two years; and (3) due to any original or subsequent construction, addition, modification, renovation, remodel, or repair to a building structure that did not comply with a building, zoning, or land use ordinance or law in effect when the loss to the undamaged portion of the building structure caused by enforcement of any ordinance or law if: {1} the enforcement is direcily caused by the same loss insured; construction, addition, modification, renova- tion, remodel, or repair was performed, % HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Company, 2047 SFF&CC/West_000040"}, {"d": 22, "p": 100, "t": "b. We will not pay more under this coverage than the amount you actually spend: (4) for the increased cost {o repair or rebuild the building structure at the same or another premises in the same general vicinity if relocation is required by ordinance or jaw; and (2) to demolish and clear the site of the undamaged portions of the building structure caused by enforcement of building, zoning, or land use ordinance or law. We will not pay for more than a building structure of the same height, floor area, and style on the same or similar premises as the building structure, subject fo the limit provided in paragraph 1. Coverage Provided of this option. Option SG ~ Silverware and Goldware Theft. The COVERAGE 8 - PERSONAL PROPERTY, Special Limits of Liability, item i, for theft of silverware and goldware is increased fo be the amount shown in the Declarations for this option. v7 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2047 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000041"}, {"d": 22, "p": 101, "t": "State Farm Fire and Casualty Company A Stock Company With Home Offices in Bloomington, fiingis PO Box 2356 : HOMEOWNERS AVAILABLE COVERAGE NOTICE Bloomington It. 61702-2356 AT2 sys -26-2175-FAF3 001692 abhee 2175-FAF3 FF HW WEST, NEIL S & LACY M 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR LAWTON OK 73505-9537 ST0106-9000 Lert baggy tbaque ube fe ifegfagyy HAY feat fl feedtdeat fly IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU OCCASIONALLY REVIEW THE COVERAGE S AND LIMITS IN YOUR HOMEOWNERS POLICY TO BE CERTAIN YOUR NEEDS ARE BEING MET. THE FOLLOW ING INFORMATION WILL ASSIST YOU IN THE REVIEW PROCESS. THE COVERAGE LIMITS FOR COVERAGE A- DWELLING, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, COVERAGE L PERSONAL LIABILITY, AND COVERAGE M - MEDICAL PAYMENTS TO OTHERS ARE LISTED ON THE ACCOMPANYING RENEWAL DECLARATIONS. PLEASE REVIEW THESE LIMITS TO DETER MINE IF THEY ARE ADEQUATE IN THE EVENT OF ALOSS, THE FOLLOWING IS A PARTIAL LIST OF THE OPTIONAL COVERAGES YOU HAVE NOT ADDED TO YOUR POLICY. THEY MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU FOR AN ADDITIONAL PREMIUM. Back-Up of Sewer or Drain (for damage caused by water from outside the plumbing system which backs up through sewers or drains} Business Property (for higher limits) Business Pursuits Liability for teachers, school administrators, sales persons, and clerical employees} Child Care Liability (for those providing child care in their home) Earthquake (for damage fo buildings and personal property caused by an earthquake} Firearms {for broadened coverage and higher limits) Cyber Event, Identity Restoration, and Fraud Lass Incidental Business Liability (for those with an incidental office, studio, or school in the home) Jewelry and Furs (for broadened coverage and higher limits} Loss Assessment (for neighberhoods with Homeowners Associations) Personal Injury (for your liabilityfo others caused by certain acts of libel, slander, invasion of privacy, or faise arrest) Silverware/Goldware (for broadened coverage and higher limits) e1hS2z2a 03-31-2017 Nurses’ Professional Liability (for those in the nursing profession) Continued on Reverse Side** Prepared NOV092022 Agent Telephone NANCY HOLCOMB INS AGCY INC (590) 536-5050 007727 420 | N GA,GB,R3,EH SFF&CCAWest_000042"}, {"d": 22, "p": 102, "t": "Adult Day Care Liability {for those providing adult day care in their hame) Energy Efficiency Upgrade (for replacing damaged heating unit, air conditioning unit, or water heater with equipment that is more energy efficient) Home Rental {for those who rent out their home for more than 30 nights yearly} Home Systems Protection (for covering the breakdown of permanently installed equipment) Service Line (for the cost of repairing damaged underground utility lines) Otn9Z23a 03-31-2617 Increased Personal Property (for higher limits above the standard policy limit, which is a percentage of your Coverage A-Dwelling amount) This notice contains only a general description of the coverages and is not a contract. All coverages are subject to the provisions in the policy itself. Should you have a need for any of these coverages or high er limits, contact your State Farm Agent to discuss details, cost and eligibility. IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT DAMAGE CAUSED BY FLOODING This policy does not cover damage to your properly caused by flooding. You may be eligible for such coverage through the National Flood insurance Program (\"NFIP\"), if you live in a participating community. For more information, contact your State Farm® agent or visit floodsmart.gov. SFF&CCWest_000043"}, {"d": 22, "p": 103, "t": "State Farm Fire and Casualty Company A Stock Company With Home Offices in Bloomington, fiinois PO Box 2356 Bloomington IL 61702-2356 & StateFarm H-26-2175-FAF3 F HW 3200 ways WEST, NEIL S & LACY M 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR LAWTON OK 73505-9537 RENEWAL DECLARATIONS ST0208-0000 AMBUNT DUE: None Payment is due by TO BE PAID BY MORTGAGEE Policy Number, — 36-CR-X405-8 Policy Period: 12 Months Effective Dates: DEC 29 2022 to DEC 29 2023 The policy period begins and ends at 12:01 am standard time at the residence premises. Your State Farm Agent NANCY HOLCOMS INS AGCY INC 20 NW 67TH ST STEB LAWTON OK 73505-5632 Homeowners Policy Location of Residence Premises 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR LAWTON OK 73505-9537 Phone: (580} 536-5050 Construction: Year Built: Masonry Veneer 1997 Roof Material: Composition Shingle Roof Installation Year: 2019 Automatic Renewal If the POLICY PERIOD is shawn as 12 MONTHS, this policy will be renewed automatically subject to the premiums, rules, and forms in effect for each succeeding policy period. if this policy is terminated, we will give you and the Mortgagee/Lienholder written notice in compliance with the policy provisions or as required by law. IMPORTANT MESSAGES NOTICE: Information concerning changes in your policy language is included. Please call your agent with any questions. Coverage A has increased $17,000.00 over last year. Please help us update the data used to determine your premium. Contact your agent with the year each of your home's utilities (heating/cooling, plumbing, or electrical} and roof were last updated. PREMIUM Annual Premium Your premium has already been adjusted by the following: Home/Auto Discount Home Alert Discount Loyal Customer Claim Record Discount $2,722.00 Total Premium $2,722.00 Prepared NOV 092022 H0-2000 007728 420 =f N GA,GE,R3,EH Page tof 4 Thanks for Atlagus serve ya... (olF 16008) 64-04-2016 SFF&CC/West_000044"}, {"d": 22, "p": 104, "t": "& StateFarm NAMED INSUREO MORTGAGEE AND ADDITIONAL INTERESTS WEST, NEIL S & LACY M i RET MORTGAGE LLC X 202070 LORENCE C 29802-2070 a SECTION | - PROPERTY COVERAGES AND LIMITS Other Structures B Personal Property CG Loss of Use Additional Coverages Arson Reward Credit Card, Bank Fund Transfer Card, Forgery, and Counterfeit Money Debris Removal Limit of Liability $ $ $ $ 309,000 30,900 231,750 92,700 $1,000 $1,000 Fire Depariment Service Charge Additional 5% available/$1 ,000 tree debris $500 per occurrence Fue! Oil Release Locks and Remote Devices Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping 5% of Coverage A amount/$750 per item $10,000 $1,000 oF SORIA SECTION fl - UABILITY COVERAGES AND LIMITS Coverage Limit of Liability L Personal Liability (Each Occurrence) $ 400,000 Damage to the Property of Others M Medical Payments to Others (Each Person) $ $ 1,000 1,000 NOV 08 2022 Coverage A Dwelling INFLATION Inflation Coverage index: 308.7 DEDUCTIBLES Section | Deductible All Losses 1% Deductible Amount 3,090 $ LOSS SETTLEMENT PROVISIONS A1 Replacement Cost - Similar Construction B1 Limited Repiacement Cost - Coverage B HO-2000 Page 2of 4 SFF&CC/West_000045"}, {"d": 22, "p": 105, "t": "& StateFarm' 36-CR-X405-8 FORMS, OPTIONS, AND ENDORSEMENTS HW-2136 Homeowners Policy Option ID Increase Dwig up to $61,800 Option OL Option JF Ordinance/Law 10%/ $30,900 Jewelry and Furs $1,500 Each HO-2310.1 Article/$2,500 Aggregate *Amendatory Endorsement *New Form Attached ADDITIONAL MESSAGES ST0306-0000 State Farm® works hard to offer you the best combination of price, service, and protection. The amount you pay for homeowners insurance is determined by many factors such as the coverages you have, the type of construction, the likelihood of future claims, and information from consumers reports. Other limits and exclusions may apply - refer to your policy Your policy consists of these Declarations, the Homeowners Policy shawn above, and any other forms and endorsements that apply, including those shown above as well as those issued subsequent to the issuance of this policy. This policy is issued by the State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. Participating Policy You are entitled to participate in a distribution of the earnings of the company as determined by our Board of Directors in accordance with the Campany's Articles of Incorporation, as amended. In Witness Whereof, the State Farm Fire and Casualty Company has caused this policyto be signed by its President and Secretary at Bloomington, illinois. oe OTF OSA Secreta Preparad HO-2000 007729 09 2022 NOV Micke LF lynn President Paga Sef 4 420 SFF&CC/West_000046"}, {"d": 22, "p": 106, "t": "&® Statefarm’ Your coverage amount.... itis up to you to choose the coverages and limits that meet your needs. We recommend that you purchase a coverage limit at least equal to the estimated replacement cost of your home. Replacement cost estimates are available from building contractors and replacement cost appraisers, or, your agent can provide an Xactware estimate using information you provide about your home. We can accept the type of estimate you choose as long as if provides a reasonabie level of detail about your home. State Farm® does not guarantee that any estimate will be the actual future cost to rebuild your home, Higher limits are available at higher premiums. Lower limits are also availabie, which If OtF 081A NOV 08 2022 selected may make certain coverages unavailable to you. We encourage you to periodically raview your coverages and {mits with your agent and to notify us of any changas or additions to your home. 10-2000 Page 4of 4 SFF&CCAWest_000047"}, {"d": 22, "p": 107, "t": "36-CR-X405-8 007730 HO-2310.1 Page 1 of 3 HOMEOWNERS AMENDATORY ENDORSEMENT (Oklahoma) This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: HOMEOWNERS POLICY DEFINITIONS Under the definition of “business”, item d. is replaced by the following: Business does not include: c. the ownership, maintenance, or use of systems and (i) the power generated is intended primarily for consumption on the residence premises; and (2) any resulting income is incidental, including but not limited to: (2) utility bill credits;or {b) incidental income; derived from sending excess power back {fo the electricity grid; or The definition of “occurrence” is replaced by the following: “occurrence”, when used in Section if of this policy, means an accident, including accidental exposure toconditions, which first results in: a. COVERAGE C -LOSS OF USE; SECTION |-ADDITIONAL COVERAGES; and Option OL ~ Building Ordinance or Law, only if this option is shown in the Declarations. equipment used to generate electrical power, if: 0406-000 gr. d. a. b. bodily injury, or b. property damage; during the policy period. All bodily injury and property damage resulting from one accident, series of related accidents, or from continuous or repeated exposure to the same general conditions is considered to be one occurrence. SECTION I~ PROPERTY COVERAGES COVERAGE A - DWELLING item 3.c. is replaced by the following: c. systems and equipment used to generate electrical power, unless: The following is added to Collapse: When applicable, the following coverages apply to a loss covered by Collapse: a. COVERAGE C ~LOSS OF USE; b. SECTION |~ADDITIONAL COVERAGES; and c. Option OL ~ Building Ordinance or Law, only if this option is shown in the Declarations. The following is added to Fuel Oil Release: When applicable, the following coverages apply to a loss covered by Fuel Oil Release: a. COVERAGE C ~LOSS OF USE; b. SECTION I-~ADDITIONAL COVERAGES; and ¢, Option OL ~ Building Ordinance or Law, only if this option is shown In the Declarations. Any payments made for these coverages are included in, and not in addition to, the $10,000 limit of insurance for Fuel Oil Release. SECTION | - CONDITIONS Under Mortgagee Clause, paragraph 10.c. is replaced by the following: c. Ifwecancelthis policy, the mortgagee willbe notified at least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect, SECTION Ii - LIABILITY COVERAGES SECTION Il - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES (1) the power generated is intended primarily for consumption on the residence premises; and (2) any resulting income Is incidental, including but not limited to: (a) utility bill credits;or {b) incidental income; derived from sending excess power back to the electricity grid. SECTION | - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES The following is added to Volcanic Action: When applicable, the following coverages apply to a loss covered by Volcanic Action: The following is added to Damage to Property of Others: d, Under SECTION Jl - EXCLUSIONS, exclusion 2.c. does not appiy to the coverage provided by Damage to Property of Others. SECTION Il - EXCLUSIONS Under SECTION Il - EXCLUSIONS, 1.p. is replaced by the following: 4. Coverage L and Coverage M do not apply fo: p. bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of systems and equipment used to generate electrical power, unless: ©, Copyright, State Farrn Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2024 SFF&CC/West_000048"}, {"d": 22, "p": 108, "t": "HO-2310.1 Page 2 of 3 (4) the power generated is intended primarily for consumption on the residence premises; and (2) any resulting income is incidental, including but not limited to: tity hi Fhe: (2) utltybil credits, or (6) incidental income; the electricity grid. Under SECTION Il - EXCLUSIONS, 2.a, and 2c. ate teplaced by the following: , Coverage L. does not apply to: (1) for your share of any loss assessment charged against all members of any type of association of property owners; or imposed on or assumed fect. This condition applies whetherthe premium nance or credit plan, (2) When this policy has been in effect for less than 45we business days and is not 8 renewal with us, may cancel for any reason. We may cance! by-providing notice af least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect. a. liability. (2) We may cancel this policy by providing notice to a named insured shown on the Declarations. The notice will provide the date cancellation is effective. (1) When you have not paid the premium, we may cancel al any time by providing obce at least lays before the date cancellation takes efis payable to us or our agent or under any fi- derived from sending excess power back fo 2. b. by any (3) When this policy has been in effect for 45 busi- ness days or more, or at any lime if it is a renewal with us, we may cancel for the following Feasons: insured through any unwritten or written contract or agreement This exclusion does not apply {a} discovery of fraud or material misrepresen- tation in the procurement of the insurance or with tespect to any claims submitted to: , (a) liability for damages that the insured would have in absence of the contract of agreement; or (b) written contracts: . . (i) that directly relate to the owner. instr location, or 6 a . (ii) when the liabilityof others is as- sumed by you prior to the occur- ; unless excluded elsewhere in the pol- Icy, c. (1) fire; Sons on the part of the named insured which increase any hazard insured against; {c) a change in the risk which substantially increases any hazard insured against after insurance coverage has been issued or re- newedt (d) violation of any local fire, health, safety, building, or construction regufation or ordinance with respect fo any insured propery or the occupancy thereof which substantially increases any hazard insured against; {e) a determination by the Insurance Commis- property damage to property rented to, usedor occupied by, or in the care, custody, or control of any insuredat the lime of the occurrence. This caused bye (b) discovery of willful or reckless acts or omis- not apply fo property damage ; sioner that the continuation of the policy would place the insurer in violation of the insurance laws of this state; or (f} conviction of the named insured of a crime having as one of its necessary elements an act increasing any hazard insured against. (2) smoke; We may cancel this policy by providing notice at (3)3) explosion: explosion; least 30 days before the date cancellation takes (4) abrupt and accidental damage from water; or : (5) household pelt up to $500 in excess of your security deposit; SECTION I AND SECTION Ii ~ CONDITIONS Under Cancellation, 5.b. is replaced by the following: effect Co, ; (4) When this policy is written fora period longer an one year, we may cancel for any reason a anniversary. We may cancel by providing notice at least 30 days before the date cancellation takes effect. Nonrenewal is replaced by the following: ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 20214 SFF&CC/West_000049"}, {"d": 22, "p": 109, "t": "36-CR-X405-8 007731 HO-2310.1 Page 3 of3 Nonrenewal. If we decide not to renew this policy, then, at least 30 days before the end of the current policy period, we will provide a nonrenewal notice to a named insured shown on the Declarations. 9808-0000 sT- Joint and Individual Interests is replaced by the following: Joint and Individual interests. If you consists of more than one person or entity, then each acts for ail to change or cancel this policy. Electronic Delivery is deleted. OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS Option ID is replaced by the following: Option ID - Increased Dwelling Limit. We will settle losses to damaged building structures covered under COVERAGE A ~ DWELLING according to the Loss Settlement Provision shown in the Declarations. 1. if the amount you actually and necessarily spend to repait or replace the damaged dwelling exceeds the limit of liability shown in the Declarations for CoverageA~ Dwelling, we wil pay the additional amounts nat to exceed the Option ID limit shown in the Declarations. 2. ifthe amount you actually and necessarily spend to repair or replace damaged buifding structures covered under COVERAGE A ~ DWELLING, Other Structures exceeds the limit of liability shown in the Declarations for Other Structures, we will pay the additional amounts not fo exceed 10% of the Option ID limit shown in the Declarations. Report Increased Values. You must notify us within 90 days of the slart of construction on any new building structure costing $5,000 or more; or any additions to or remodeling of building structures that increase their values by $5,000 or more. You must pay any additional premium due for the increased value. We will not pay more than the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations if you fail to notify us of the increased value within 90 days. All other policy provisions apply. HO-2310.4 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2024 SFF&CC/AWest_000050"}, {"d": 22, "p": 111, "t": "36-CR-X405-8 =: 007732 $53-2634.1 PREMIUM DISCOUNT AVAILABLE FOR USE OF IMPACT-RESISTIVE ROOFING PRODUCTS State Farm® offers a premium discount for homes that have qualified impact-resistive roofing materials. Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and Factory Mutual (FM} are nationally recognized testing laboratories that develop safety standards and test products to verify they meet specific performance standards. Both UL and FM have developed testing standards that measure the impact resistance of various roofing materials. The roofing products tested by UL and FM are ST0606-0000 rated from Class | to Class 4, with Class 4 providing the greatest roofing protection. State Farm offers a premium discount when qualified UL certified or FM approved Class 3 or Class 4 roofing materials have been installed on your home. The discount applies to both new and replacement roofs installed since May 1996 with UL certified products, and since July 2005 with FM approved products. Discounts are not available for wood roofs, or roofs (other than qualifying metal roofs) that have been overlaid on to existing roofing. Discounts are also subject to limitations and may not be available on all UL or FM Class 3 and 4 impact-resistant roofing products. Manufacturers continue to bring UL certified and FM approved roofing products to the consumer marketplace. You can visit our web site at http://wiw.statefarm.com/insurance/other/roofinfo.asp for a list of qualifying products in your state. If you have any questions about the discounts available for installing an impact-resistive roof or to see if your roof qualifies, please contact your State Farm agent. This discount program does net constitute an endorsement or any warranty of performance on the part of State Farm for any particular roofing product. Please research and determine what roofing material is best suited for your home, location and environmental conditions. 553-2634.1 (C) (12/09) 553-4157 NOTICE TO POLICYHOLDER For a comprehensive description of coverages and forms, otease refer to your policy. Policy changes that you requested before the “Date Prepared” on your Renewal Declarations are effective on the renewal date of this policy unless indicated otherwise by a separate endorsement, binder or Amended Deciarations Page. Any coverage forms or endorsements included with your Renewal Declarations are effective on the renewal date of this policy. - Policy changes that you requested after the “Date Prepared” on your Renewal Declarations will be sent to you as an Amended Declarations Page or as an endorsement to your policy. You will be billed for any resulting premium increase later. If you have acquired any valuable property items, made any improvements to your home, or have questions about your insurance coverage, please contact your Stale Farm® agent. 553-4157 (C} (CONTINUED) SFF&CC/West_000052"}, {"d": 22, "p": 112, "t": "§53-4156 PREMIUM ADJUSTMENT Insurance premiums have been adjusted and continue to reflect the expected cost of claims. Some policyholders will see their premiums increase while other policyholders may see their premiums decrease or stay the same. The amount your premium changed, if at all, depends on several factors including the expected claim experience in your area, the coverage you have, and any applicable discounts or charges. The enclosed Renewal Declarations reflects your new premium. State Farm® works hard to offer you the best combination of cost, protection, and service. We will continue doing our best to make the most effective use of your premium dollars and give you superior service when you need it. if you have any questions about your premium, or policy coverages, please contact your State Farm agent. 553-4156 §53-2798.1 IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT YOUR POLICY With our Claim Record Rating Plan, your savings will typically increase the fewer claims you have and the longer you're insured with State Farm®. We adjust premiums based on the number of claims under the rating plan. Depending on your state, claims under the plan generally include those resulting in a paid loss and may include weather-related claims where permitted. In addition, any claims with your prior insurer resulting in property damage or injury may also influence your premium. Our Loyal Customer Discount provides a premium discount based on the number of years that you have been with us. For more information about whether the Claim Record Rating Plan applies in your state, the claims we consider for the plan, or whether the Loyal Customer Discount is in effect in your state, please contact your State Farm agent. 553-2798,1 SFF&CC/West_000053"}, {"d": 22, "p": 114, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, Plaintiffs, Vv. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CASE NO. CJ-2025-135 and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Pursuant Statements, to the Oklahoma Objections to Discovery Defendant's Code, and subject to the Preliminary Instructions and Definitions, and Specific Objections stated below, Plaintiffs Neil and Lacy West (\"Plaintiffs\"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby submit the following responses and objections to Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s (\"Defendant\" or \"State Farm\") First set of Requests for Admission to Plaintiffs. The failure of Plaintiffs to object on a particular ground to a specific Request for Admission should in no way be construed to be a waiver of Plaintiffs' rights to object on additional grounds to supplement their objections and responses at a later time after further investigation. The following answers/responses are based upon facts and inforitation known by Plaintiffs to the best of their recollection. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement, modify | >> EXHIBIT LV ce"}, {"d": 22, "p": 115, "t": "and/or amend these answers along with the objections set forth herein, in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Plaintiffs assert the Preliminary Statements, Objections to Instructions and Definitions, as well as the general and specific objections set forth below in order to preserve their objections. Without waiving any objections, Plaintiffs’ counsel intends to communicate and cooperate in good faith with Defendant's counsel to address any issues or disputes concerning Plaintiffs’ answers/responses, and objections. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiffs state that, after a reasonable search and inquiry, they have made a good faith effort to respond to these discovery requests based upon information presently available. Plaintiffs also reserve the right to amend these answers at any time additional information may become available in the future. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Each of the following answers and responses is made without waiving any objections Plaintiffs may have with respect to the subsequent use of these answers, responses or the documents referred to herein and Plaintiffs specially reserve (a) all questions as to the competency, privilege, relevancy, materiality, and admissibility of said answers, responses, or documents, (b) the right to object to the uses of said answers, responses, or documents, (c) the right to object to the uses of said answers, responses or documents in any lawsuit or proceeding on any or all of the foregoing grounds or on any other proper ground, (d) the right to object on any and all proper grounds, at any time, to other discovery procedures involving or related to said answers, responses or documents, and (e) the right, at any time, upon proper showing, to revise, correct or clarify any of the following answers or responses. 2. Plaintiffs object to any of Defendant's instructions, requests and /or definitions 2"}, {"d": 22, "p": 116, "t": "to the extent that they may misstate or seek to impose obligations or requirements greater than those imposed by the Oklahoma Discovery Code. 3. Plaintiffs object to Defendant’s requests to the extent they seek or call for information which is protected from discovery and privileged by reason of (a) the attorneyclient privilege, (b) the work product doctrine, (c) the trial preparation doctrine, or (d) any other applicable discovery rule or privilege. Further, Plaintiffs do not waive privilege to any privileged document or information, or portion thereof, which may be inadvertently furnished or provided, it being the intent of Plaintiffs not to waive any privilege that might exist. Plaintiffs object to any request by the Defendant which purports to require the creation of documents that do not exist. 4, Any statement that a document or documents will be produced means that such documents will be produced only to the extent that they are not privileged, and if they do, in fact, exist. 5. By responding to the discovery requests of Defendant, Plaintiffs concede neither the relevancy nor the admissibility of any information provided or documents produced in response to such requests. 6, Plaintiffs object to the extent Defendant’s discovery requests are amorphous, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and so costly as to render compliance impractical. Subject to the foregoing objections and conditions and subject to the specific additional objections made with respect to each discovery request, Plaintiffs hereby submit their Responses to the Discovery Requests propounded by Defendant, as follows:"}, {"d": 22, "p": 117, "t": "RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1 Admit that Your House was insured by the Policy, subject to the terms, conditions, and exclusions stated therein. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 1 Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO,2 = Admit that State Farm provided You with the Policy at the time of contract and at the time of any renewal(s) of the Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 2 Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.3 = Admit that You had a copy of the Policy in Your possession, custody, or control. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3 Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4 Admit that the Policy covers hail damage. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4 Plaintiffs object to the extent this admission compels Plaintiffs to draw a legal conclusion. Plaintiffs further object to the Request as vague and/or ambiguous; Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is based on the premise that State Farm predicates coverage on limits, restrictions, definitions, protocols, and other rubrics that lie outside the terms and conditions of the Policy, State Farm relies on a hidden and very narrow definition of what constitutes hai] damage that is conveniently absent from the purported replacement cost policy sold and marketed by Nancy Holcomb Ins. Agency, Inc. While coverage should be based on the terms of the written policy, Defendants’ conduct in this case shows it is not. Subject to the foregoing objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONNO.5 — Admit that the Policy specifies that \"We [State Farm] have the right but are not obligated to perform the following: make inspections and surveys of the insured location at any time.\""}, {"d": 22, "p": 118, "t": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5 Plaintiffs object to the Request as it seeks information equally or more accessible to Defendant. Plaintiffs further object to the extent this Request seeks to alter, abridge, amend, or change in any way the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy and Defendants’ obligations in advertising, procuring, selling, and/or renewing the same, Defendant State Farm’s obligations thereunder, Defendants’ underwriting duties/obligations, or the manner in which Defendant State Farm handles and pays claims based thereon. Moreover, Plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon Defendants’ representations and/or omissions of material facts of the Policy, coverage amounts, and any inspections that may take place, Subject to the foregoing objections, admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6 Admit that under the Policy, State Farm is not obligated to perform an inspection on Your House at the time of contract or renewal of the Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6 Plaintiffs object to the extent this Request seeks to alter, abridge, amend, or change in any way the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy and Defendants’ obligations in advertising, procuring, selling, and/or renewing the same, Defendant State Farm’s obligations thereunder, Defendants’ underwriting duties/obligations, or the manner in which Defendant State Farm handles and pays claims based thereon. Moreover, Plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon Defendants’ representations and/or omissions of material facts of the Policy, coverage amounts, and any inspections that may take place. Plaintiffs’ object to this Request as premature since the Policy’s terms regarding inspections may potentially conflict with State Farm’s own internal policies, procedures, underwriting guidelines, and/or other documents. Plaintiffs further object to the extent this Request compels them to draw a legal conclusion."}, {"d": 22, "p": 119, "t": "Subject to the foregoing objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.7 = Admit that the cover page of the Policy states: \"Piease read your policy carefully, especially ‘Losses Not Insured’ and all exclusions.” RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7 Plaintiffs object to the Request as it seeks information equally or more accessible to Defendant. Plaintiffs further object to the extent this Request seeks to alter, abridge, amend, or change in any way the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy and Defendants’ obligations in advertising, procuring, selling, and/or renewing the same, Defendant State Farm’s obligations thereunder, Defendants’ underwriting duties/obligations, or the manner in which Defendant State Farm handles and pays claims based thereon. Moreover, Plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon Defendants’ representations and/or omissions of material facts of the Policy, coverage amounts, losses not insured and all exclusions, which inherently precludes Plaintiffs’ review of the terms and conditions of the Policy. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is based on the premise that State Farm predicates coverage on limits, restrictions, definitions, protocols, and other rubrics that lie outside the terms and conditions of the Policy. State Farm relies on a hidden and very narrow definition of what constitutes hail damage that is conveniently absent from the purported replacement cost policy sold and marketed by Nancy Holcomb Ins. Agency, Inc. Subject to the foregoing objections, admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8 Admit that You read the Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8 Plaintiffs object because they are entitled to rely upon Defendants’ representations of the Policy, coverage amounts and the Policy’s terms therein, which inherently precludes Plaintiffs’ review of the terms and conditions of the Policy, Plaintiffs"}, {"d": 22, "p": 120, "t": "further object to the extent this Request assumes obligations on Plaintiffs that may not exist and/or may not be imposed by law. Subject to the foregoing objections, admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.9 — Admit that the Policy states the following under the section \"Losses Not Insured\": \"wear, tear, marring, scratching, deterioration, inherent vice, latent defect or mechanical breakdown.\" RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9 Plaintiffs object to the Request as it seeks information equally or more accessible to Defendant. Plaintiffs further object to the extent this Request seeks to alter, abridge, amend, or change in any way the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy and Defendants’ obligations in advertising, procuring, selling, and/or renewing the same, Defendant State Farm’s obligations thereunder, Defendants’ underwriting duties/obligations, or the manner in which Defendant State Farm handles and pays claims based thereon. Moreover, Plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon Defendants’ representations and/or omissions of material facts of the Policy, coverage amounts, losses not insured and all exclusions, which inherently precludes Plaintiffs’ review of the terms and conditions of the Policy, Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is based on the premise that State Farm predicates coverage on limits, restrictions, definitions, protocols, and other rubrics that lie outside the terms and conditions of the Policy. State Farm relies on a hidden and very narrow definition of what constitutes hail damage that is conveniently absent from the purported replacement cost policy sold and marketed by Nancy Holcomb Ins. Agency, Inc. Subject to the foregoing objections, admitted."}, {"d": 22, "p": 121, "t": "REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 10 = Admit that the Policy states the following under the section \"Losses Not Insured\": \"defect, weakness, inadequacy, fault or unsoundness in ... design, specifications, workmanship, construction, grading, compaction.\" RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 10 Plaintiffs object to the Request as it seeks information equally or more accessible to Defendant. Plaintiffs further object to the extent this Request seeks to alter, abridge, amend, or change in any way the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy and Defendants’ obligations in advertising, procuring, selling, and/or renewing the same, Defendant State Farm’s obligations thereunder, Defendants’ underwriting duties/obligations, or the manner in which Defendant State Farm handles and pays claims based thereon. Moreover, Plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon Defendants’ representations and/or omissions of material facts of the Policy, coverage amounts, losses not insured and all exclusions, which inherently precludes Plaintiffs’ review of the terms and conditions of the Policy. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is based on the premise that State Farm predicates coverage on limits, restrictions, definitions, protocols, and other rubrics that lie outside the terms and conditions of the Policy. State Farm relies on a hidden and very narrow definition of what constitutes hail damage that is conveniently absent from the purported replacement cost policy sold and marketed by Nancy Holcomb Ins. Agency, Inc. Subject to the foregoing objections, admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11 = Admit that the deductible amount was $3,090 under the Policy during the policy period December 29, 2022 to December 29, 2023. RESPONSE TO REQUESTNO.11 Admitted."}, {"d": 22, "p": 122, "t": "REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.12 Admit that the Policy states that State Farm \"will pay, subject to the specified policy limits, only that part of the amount of the loss that exceeds the deductible amount.\" RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12 Plaintiffs object to the Request as it seeks information equaily or more accessible to Defendant. Plaintiffs further object to the extent this Request seeks to alter, abridge, amend, or change in any way the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy and Defendants’ obligations in advertising, procuring, selling, and/or renewing the same, Defendant State Farm’s obligations thereunder, Defendants’ underwriting duties/obligations, or the manner in which Defendant State Farm handles and pays claims based thereon. Moreover, Plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon Defendants’ representations and/or omissions of material facts of the Policy, coverage amounts and the deductible, which inherently precludes Plaintiffs’ review of the terms and conditions of the Policy. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is based on the premise that State Farm predicates coverage on limits, restrictions, definitions, protocols, and other rubrics that lie outside the terms and conditions of the Policy. State Farm relies on a hidden and very narrow definition of what constitutes hail damage that is conveniently absent from the purported replacement cost policy sold and marketed by Nancy Holcomb Ins. Agency, Inc. State Farm also has a pattern of practice of intentionally manipulating its damage estimates to ensure the damage falls below the Policy deductible on wind and/or hail losses. Subject to the foregoing objections, admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.13 = Admit that You chose the company that performed the repairs on Your Property for damages related to the date of loss of June 15, 2023. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13 Admitted."}, {"d": 22, "p": 123, "t": "REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 14 = Admit that Your Claim with the date of loss of June 15, 2023 was reported on July 28, 2023. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14 Plaintiffs object to the Request as it seeks information equally or more accessible to Defendant. Plaintiffs are without the recollection to admit this Request and therefore deny the same. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15 = Admit that You are not aware of any involvement by Haag Engineering in the handling of your Claim. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 15 Plaintiffs object to Request for Admission No. 15 because it seeks a legal conclusion and imposes obligations upon Plaintiffs beyond the requirements of Oklahoma law and Oklahoma’s Discovery Code. Plaintiffs further object because this Request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work-product doctrine. Subject to the foregoing objections, denied. Respectfully submitted, /s John Sanders Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No, 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 Whitten Burrage 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com 10"}, {"d": 22, "p": 124, "t": "jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com idenne@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs"}, {"d": 22, "p": 125, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 17, 2025, the above and foregoing was emailed and/or mailed to: Timila S. Rother Paige A. Masters CROWE & DUNLEVY, PC Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com Attorneys for Defendant Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Ine. /s John Sanders 12"}, {"d": 22, "p": 126, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § STATE FARM FIREAND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. Case No.: CJ-2025-135 § — § § § § § PLAINTIFFS NEIL AND LACY WEST’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Pursuant to 12 O.S. §§ 3226 and 3236, Plaintiffs Neil and Lacy West (“Plaintiffs”) respond to Defendant Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Requests for Admission (“Discovery Requests”) with the following responses and objections. The information provided herein is based on Plaintiffs’ current knowledge, and Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement their answers after completion of discovery, and further reserve the right to introduce evidence at the time of trial based upon information and/or documents located, developed or discovered subsequent to the date hereof, which may supplement, amplify, modify or be in conflict with the information provided herein. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiffs state that, after a reasonable search and inquiry, they have made a good faith effort to respond to these discovery requests based upon information presently available. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend these answers at any time additional information may become available in the future."}, {"d": 22, "p": 127, "t": "GENERAL OBJECTIONS The following objections and conditions qualify each and every answer of Plaintiffs to Defendant’s discovery requests, and are incorporated by this reference into each and every answer of Plaintiffs to Defendant’s discovery requests, as is fully set forth therein: 1. These Responses are based upon information presently available to Plaintiff. Plaintiffs’ discovery and investigation in this case are continuing and are not complete; these Responses therefore cannot and do not purport to set forth all facts, theories, or evidence upon which Plaintiffs will ultimately rely after their discovery and investigation are complete. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend, modify, and supplement these Responses. Further, these Responses are based upon Plaintiffs’ best efforts to respond in accordance with their present ability and information. 2. Plaintiffs object to any and all instructions and definitions which require answers beyond the scope of Oklahoma’s Discovery Code. Plaintiffs will respond to these discovery requests in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. 3, Plaintiffs object to Defendant’s discovery requests to the extent they call for the disclosure of information which is protected from discovery and privileged for the reason that (a) is subject to the attorney/client privilege; (b) is covered by the “work product” doctrine; (c) was generated and in anticipation of {litigation or for trial by or for Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ representatives, including their attorneys, consultants or agents; (d) was prepared for the purposes of settlement negotiation; (e) is protected as a trade secret; (f) is subject to a protective or confidentiality agreement or order; and (g) is otherwise privileged or beyond the scope of discovery under the applicable rules and laws."}, {"d": 22, "p": 128, "t": "4, By responding to the discovery requests of Defendant, Plaintiffs concede neither the relevancy nor the admissibility of any information provided or documents produced in response to such requests. 5. Plaintiffs object to the extent Defendant’s discovery requests seek information and/or documents generated and/or formulated by persons or entities independent of Plaintiffs over whom Plaintiffs have no control. 6. Plaintiffs object to the extent Defendant’s discovery requests are amorphous, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and so costly as to render compliance impractical. Subject to the foregoing objections and conditions and subject to the specific additional objections made with respect to each discovery request, Plaintiffs hereby submit their Responses to the Discovery Requests propounded by Defendant, as follows: RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 1: Admit that You did not view the Holcomb Agency's website prior to purchasing or renewing Your Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1 Plaintiffs maintain that they are entitled to rely upon Defendant’s representations of the Policy and/or coverage amounts when purchasing and renewing the Policy, including any statements made by Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. on its website. Moreover, Plaintiffs do not have any specialized insurance knowledge or technical expertise; thus, they ultimately relied on Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc.’s knowledge and expertise when purchasing and/or renewing the Policy as requested and promised. Subject to the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs lack the requisite recollection to admit or deny Request for Admission No. | and therefore deny the same."}, {"d": 22, "p": 129, "t": "REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that the Holcomb Agency did not make any representations, either oral or written, regarding coverage or benefits beyond those expressly stated in the Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2 Plaintiffs object to Request for Admission No. 2 to the extent it asks for a legal conclusion. Plaintiffs further object to the Request as vague and/or ambiguous. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is based on the premise that State Farm predicates coverage on limits, restrictions, definitions, protocols, and other rubrics that lie outside the terms and conditions of the purported replacement cost Policy. State Farm relies on a hidden and very narrow definition of what constitutes hail damage that is conveniently absent from the purported replacement cost policy. For example, State Farm uses a “functional damage” definition for what constitutes hail damage. State Farm also engages in a bad faith pattern and practice of wrongfully attributing valid wind/hail damage to pre-existing damage (like wear and tear, deterioration, granule loss, age of the roof, manufacturer’s defect, improper installation, etc.) and other non-covered causes of loss to negate full replacement cost coverage. Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. misrepresented the full replacement cost coverage sold and/or renewed and also intentionally refused to disclose to Plaintiffs the Scheme and the damage definitions, limitations, and/or exclusions that are absent from the Policy. While coverage should be based on the tetins and conditions of the written policy, the limits, restrictions, definitions, protocols, and other rubrics outside of the Policy and Defendants’ conduct in this case show it is not and render the replacement cost coverage illusory. Plaintiffs maintain that they are entitled to rely upon Defendant’s representations of the Policy and/or coverage amounts when purchasing and renewing the Policy,"}, {"d": 22, "p": 130, "t": "Subject to the foregoing objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit the Holcomb Agency did not offer, suggest, perform, procure, or arrange a pre-inception inspection of Your roof, RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3 Plaintiffs object to the extent this Request secks to alter, abridge, amend, or change in any way the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy and Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc.’s obligations in advertising, procuring, selling, and/or renewing the same, Defendant State Farm’s obligations thereunder, Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc.’s underwriting duties/obligations, or the manner in which Defendant State Farm handles and pays claims based thereon. Moreover, Plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc.’s representations and/or omissions of material facts of the Policy, coverage amounts, and any inspections that may take place. Plaintiffs object to this Request as premature and/or irrelevant since whether or not Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. offered, suggested, performed, procured, or arranged a pre-inception inspection of the roof may conflict with State Farm’s own internal policies, procedures, underwriting guidelines, and/or other documents that require inspections of the Insured Property to verify the risk and keep reasonably current information as to the condition of the property prior to the loss. Plaintiffs further object to the extent this Request compels them to draw a legal conclusion. Moreover, Defendants have a duty to properly underwrite the risk of the insured property, including Plaintiffs’ property, before issuing coverage. The United acknowledges that “one ‘indispensable characteristic of States Supreme insurance’ is the Court ‘spreading and underwriting of a policyholder’s risk[.]” See Union Labor Life Ins. Co., v. Pireno, 102 S.Ct. 3002, 3008, 73 L.Ed.2d 647 (1982) (internal citation omitted), Oklahoma law has acknowledged that the pre-bind inspection is for the protection of the insurer, so that it may properly evaluate the"}, {"d": 22, "p": 131, "t": "risk, See Aduddell Lincoln Plaza Hotel v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 2015 OK CIV APP 34, {| 11, 348 P.3d 216 (“When a person applies for insurance, the potential insurer may ask to inspect the property as part of its process of evaluating the risk. Accepting the risk proposed in [the insured’s] application meant [the insurer] agreed to write the policy.”) (emphasis added). Oklahoma law has long recognized that insurance companies use their agents to properly underwrite the risk: The other principal theory of the formation of the insurance contract is based upon facts. Everybody knows what the facts are. The insurance company sends out its agents for the purpose of procuring insurance. They are usually experts in the business, and are frequently paid large bonuses for securing extra large volumes of insurance. Few persons solicited to take policies understand the subject of insurance or the rules of law governing the negotiations, and they have no voice in dictating the terms of what is called the contract. They are clear upon two or three points which the agent promises to protect, and for everything else they must sign ready-made applications and accept ready~ made policies carefully concocted to conserve the interests of the company. Security Ins. Co. of New Haven v. Cameron, 1922 OK 80, 205 P. 151, 155 (emphasis added), Oklahoma law acknowledges that the agent solicits the underwriting information for the insureds benefit to properly underwrite the risk and this knowledge is imputed to the insurer. See Motors Ins. Corp. v, Freeman, 1956 OK 247, {ff 12-13, 304 P. 2d 328. State Farm requires captive agents, including Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc., to comply with internal underwriting duties, such as carefully selecting the business State Farm writes, asses the risk of insuring the potential insured property, and not write the risk or depreciate coverage if the risk is too large due to pre-existing damage and/or wear and tear. For example, Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs’ RFA Responses is State Farm’s corporate representative on underwriting s testimony taken in 2022, wherein he explicitly testified under oath that: (1) captive State Farm"}, {"d": 22, "p": 132, "t": "agents are frontline underwriters for State Farm; and (2) State Farm’s philosophy of “underwriting basics” provides “‘[t]o assure continued financial stability and competitive rates, the agent aud underwriter — that’s you — ‘must carefully select the business we write.” See Exhibit 1, Hsiung Depo. Importantly, State Farm’s own corporate representative confirmed that agents ARE the underwriters at State Farm and they must carefully select the business State Farm writes: Q: And according to this document, under ‘Underwriting Basics.’ So | guess this is just the basics of underwriting - - State Farm’s Underwriting Philosophy, it states, quote, “To assure continued financial stability and competitive rates, the agent and underwriter’ - - that’s you - - ‘must carefully select the business we write.” Is that a true statement? A: (No response.) Q: Is that a true statement? A: That’s stated in the Underwriting Guidelines, Q: | know that. I’m asking you, as the corporate designee, if that’s a true statement in your opinion. A: Yes. See Exhibit 1, Hsiung Depo. Plaintiffs attach testimony of State Farm’s underwriting employee, Kenneth Kwok, who also confirmed that agents are frontline underwriters for State Farm (Exhibit 2). A. The agents do have a role in kind of what we consider to be a front-line underwriter, where they will take a look at the risks to see if there are any glaring issues. If the house is dilapidated and getting ready to fall over, we expect the agent to use their position with the company to not write that risk. See Exhibit 2, Kwok Depo. The agent is our front line underwriter. In addition to assisting the agent with gathering information for use of the Xactware tool, the personal inspection is also the agent’s opportunity to obtain photographs required elsewhere in this guide to"}, {"d": 22, "p": 133, "t": "ensure the property is properly maintained and meets all property and liability insurance underwriting requirements. Improperly maintained roofs increase the potential for loss, Risks with damaged or deteriorated roofs are unacceptable, A visual inspection will allow assessment of the roof condition. See Exhibit 3, 2013 State Farm Underwriting Guidelines. Subject to the foregoing objections, admitted in part, denied in part. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that You made the decision as to the amount at which you wanted to insure Your Property. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4 Plaintiffs object to the extent this Request compels them to draw a legal conclusion. Plaintiffs further object to the Request as vague and/or ambiguous. Plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon Defendant’s representations of the Policy and/or coverage amounts. Moreover, Plaintiffs do not have any specialized insurance knowledge or technical expertise; thus, they ultimately relied on Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. to choose the Policy coverage and limits/amounts to insure the property for Plaintiffs’ insurance needs disclosed to Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. Subject to the foregoing objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 5: Admit the Holcomb Agency did not instruct You to delay reporting the June 15, 2023 loss. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5 Plaintiffs object to the extent Request for Admission No. 5 assumes facts that are not in evidence and/or assumes any wrongdoing by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further object to the extent this Request compels them to draw a legal conclusion. Subject to the foregoing objections, admitted in part, denied in part."}, {"d": 22, "p": 134, "t": "REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that State Farm previously replaced the roof on another property You owned or currently own. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6 Admitted. Respectfully submitted, /s John Sanders Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 Whitten Burrage 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs"}, {"d": 22, "p": 135, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that on January 22, 2026, the above and foregoing was emailed and/or mailed to: Timila S, Rother Paige A. Masters CROWE & DUNLEVY, PC Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com Attorneys for Defendants /s John Sanders"}, {"d": 22, "p": 136, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00774-SLP Richard Document 13-2 Filed 08/08/25 Hsiung Stelling Page 1 of 6 v. State 8/9/2022 Farm Fire CI-2020-329 Page STATE OF OF COUNTY OKLAHOMA atlline “allie “atliiie “ailiiin “afl DONNIE STELLING AND LINDSEY STELLING, husband and ROGERS NY COURT capt DISTRICT setae tetas THE : wife, natin Plaintiffs, east IN 1 GINGERICH, individual, FIRE AND an and STATE CASUALTY FARM CJ~2020-329 attlin estiiilinn citi GRANT : CASE NUMBER -cittllitee, ctlliian afl: napllinn atin vs, COMPANY, SOHN a Defendants. (VIA 3030 OF TELS CEA THE ON AUGUST 9, IN RICHARDSON, SSS ESOS EATS SEIS CSTE BEHALF RICHARD HSIUNG PLAINTIFFS 2022 TEXAS kkk kk R. NIEVEZ, ZOOM) REPORTED cesses ON OF ESS TAKEN DEPOSITION ELOISE VIDEOCONFERENCE kkkek Ok soiree SAGE xk BY: EON Ae NOMEN RC ONONON OTS ANOLE MELINDA OREN EMM AO ONO ee CSR, er Oe Oklahoma Reporting Services, Northwest Expressway, Suite 200 Exhibit 2 RPR, CRR eee LLC ~ 405.529.6575 | Oklahoma City, OK | — 73112 S"}, {"d": 22, "p": 137, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00774-SLP Document13-2 Filed 08/08/25 Hsiung 1 issuance, by a vendor. Agents may be 2 follow up for compliance with the requirements 3 the policy is issued. So as line underwriter, 8/9/2022 Stelling Page 2 of 6 Richard v. State 4 -- a front asked know, And, they're obtaining the information. 6 for if insured says they 7 claims, as a front line underwriter, 8 can, know, let them know, you 9 concerns are regarding their -- their claims. Or if you know, the There was example, you 10 the they were -- 11 says, yeah, I had a water 12 unrepaired damage. You know, 13. that ask more 14 provide 15 regarding 16 =the the agent the company the that I mean, is questions additional underwriting Q And then an you read from 24 in Exhibit 3? A The 3030 with claim. 20 they what the insured information and, you know, information criteria when they submit application. 23 25 may have know, after you they're Northwest you went on Agent Role paragraph, first Expressway, Oklahoma paragraph, Suite 200 Reportingh op hyiges in your answer and did you not, City, OK | 73112 yes. | Oklahoma LLC ~ 405.529.6575 Fire | Page 66 to 5 22 Farm CJ-2020-329"}, {"d": 22, "p": 138, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00774-SLP Document 13-2 Filed 08/08/25 Richard Hsiung 8/9/2022 Stelling Page 3 of6 v. State Farm Fire CJ-2020-329 182 SO ZEEE CRI CSRS TESST EISSN mseectenathy PROSPER ASIAOSTSAE SPSS SIRE SNS ECTS PENA YEAS Page 3030 Oklahoma Reporting Services, Northwest Expressway, Suite 200 Exhibit 2 LLC - 405.529.6575 Oklahoma City, OK [| | 73112"}, {"d": 22, "p": 139, "t": "Document 13-2 Filed 08/08/25 Richard Hsiung 8/9/2022 Stelling Page 4 of 6 v. State Farm Fire CJ-2020~-329 183 sooteres panes are tea sarees sa a SSO SA ER ae oz SU NOTTS EEO ADEE ECO ARSE TN eat Me acne aero Sica ss aces Page trverna ssn Case 5:25-cv-00774-SLP you still 21 A I don't -- 22 Q But 23 underwriting. 24 MS. McNEBR: 25 THE WITNESS: you're How use I RLIRM? don't the CO Se Do know. corporate could designee you not know? Object to the I don't Dai AEBS SUCRE iScie Q on ses secatchtarers eEOer 20 form. know. a IRE RSE 3030 Oklahoma Reporting Services, Northwest Expressway, Suite 200 Exhibit 2 NE SOU RPL LLC ~- 405.529.6575 | Oklahoma City, OK ERE SENN SE CER TED | 73112 CEA"}, {"d": 22, "p": 140, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00774-SLP Richard Document 13-2 Filed 08/08/25 Hsiung Stelling Page 5of6 v. State 8/9/2022 Farm Fire CJ-2020-329 Page 1 2 Farm 3. Model? Q (BY MR. MARR) Have using the Residential you Lines stopped at Insurance Risk State : . 4 MS. McNEER: Object to 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. I mean, 6 it's no longer in 7 that it is no longer Q (BY MR. to assume. 8 184 our MARR) you 10 State 11 Residential 12 A I 13 Q Why didn't 14 MS. McNEER: 15 THE WITNESS: I want whether or I would Well, you to tell not you still Insurance don't know. you Risk that assume Object to don't I me, don't want as use the Model. mention I being used. Okay. Lines form. it before? the form. know. I don't know. Pe SD 3030 RON EI TEE BIC LEED RE LOSSES DSIRE STE PDO SRG Re BON LENCO EEN U8 SBI Oklahoma Reporting Services, Northwest Expressway, Suite 200 Exhibit 2 ER NOE LOTT OTE OO OPO OT OT OO nO LLC - 405.529.6575 | Oklahoma City, OK EA | 73112 praesent 4% SEES ISU SEUSS SSE SSC SIDE SBIR SST CAD OTE Farm, guidelines, being 9 the"}, {"d": 22, "p": 141, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00774-SLP Richard Document 13-2 Filed 08/08/25 Hsiung Stelling Page 6 of 6 v. State 8/9/2022 Farm Fire CJI~2020-329 SIRO AUS SOIR CITI Senco anansirora ASSESSES EPEAT SNA D SSSA Sa SSI TANTS sass: = Essa cu upgassr toca tench ton Page 185 | 25 Q SASSO (BY Northwest MARR) Is it State Farm's ZEELAND Oklahoma 3030 MR. Reporting Expressway, Services, LLC Suite [| Oklahoma 200 Exhibit 2 NL - 405.529.6575 City, OK | 73112 Es"}, {"d": 22, "p": 142, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-00449-SLP IN FOR Document 7-11 THE THE NATHANIEL NEILL ALICIA NEILL, Filed 05/29/24 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA and Plaintiffs, VS. CASE NUMBER: CIV-13-627-D STATE FARM COMPANY, AND et CASUALTY al., Defendants. RHEE EEK EERIE EEE RRR KERR REE I KEE IRE EIR EE IKE KK 10 ORAL/VIDEO DEPOSITION OF 11 KENNETH KWOK JULY 2015 12 2, 13 BIKAR IKI IK IR RR ERE RRR EGE SIRE IRR E EK ETK 14 CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 15 16 ORAL DEPOSITION OF 17 witness at the instance 18 sworn, was taken in 19 on JULY 2, 20 Chris 21 reported by machine 22 USA, N. MoPac 23 78731, pursuant 24 and provisions 25 hereto, the 7000 the of Plaintiffs, the produced above-styled from CSR, to KWOK, the 2105, Carpenter, KENNETH in 9:48 and a.m. and to was 2:38 State shorthand, at the offices Expressway, 2nd Floor, the Rules of on the — 800.376.1008— www. proraporters.com record duly p.m., the stated a numbered for Federal as of before Texas, of Regus Austin, Texas Civil or cause Procedure attached"}, {"d": 22, "p": 143, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-00449-SLP Q. the ability above and 10 photos? il A. 12 Does Document 7-11 the and underwriting the beyond what the I think that's and Page 2 of 7 department have to inspection opportunity agent do does outside of any with what the the two we're here -- to discuss. 13 Q. Go 14 A. I think -- 15 Q. You the 16 A, I am, 17 calculation 18 policy 19 valuation for homes in Oklahoma 20 Q. All right. Go ahead al Filed 05/29/24 your and ahead are of the replacement this method MR. answer 24 the order. the 25 question. underwriting I'm 22 to my but interpretation 23 answer only of designee, here to talk cost coverage determining you about not? the of this replacement cost in that time frame. and answer my question, notwithstanding. JONES: I'm question as MR. Okay. MARR: going posed. to instruct I think You 800.376.1006 —— WWW. proreporters.com it's understand Professional Reporters oe are you not beyond --"}, {"d": 22, "p": 144, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-00449-SLP Q. (By Mr. reinspect them A. From to inspect Q. the 10 Marr) every what there's not I can see, you have here that September lst, right. The inspected Q. And that's A. It is. to for All That's need need Okay. A. a a single prior really there's every was Page 3of7 year? homes that's to the on not us year. -- policy being 2006. I underwritten? right. -- It's 11 go out to the premises 12 members to go out 13 take look at a So Filed 05/29/24 the premises guess Document7-11 to the that's normal protocol? normal protocol for the agents or their team -the well, agent premises, take some exterior. _ Professional Reporters -800.376,1006— www. .proreporters.com photos to and"}, {"d": 22, "p": 145, "t": "Document 7-11 Filed 05/29/24 Page 4 of 7 m= b f Case 9:24-cv-00449-SLP _ Professional Reporters ~ 800.376.1006 www. proreporters.com"}, {"d": 22, "p": 146, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-00449-SLP Document 7-11 Filed 05/29/24 Page 5 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA NATHANIEL NEILL and ALICIA NEILL, Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) v. ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, ) ) ) ) Defendant, Case No. CIV-13-627-D ) ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike the Designation of Deposition Transcript of Kenneth Kwok as Confidential (Doc. No, 115]. Plaintiffs challenge the blanket designation by Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) of the entire transcript of the deposition of its corporate representative, Kenneth Kwok, confidential pursuant to the Agreed Protective Order [Doc. No. 57]. State as Farm has filed a response brief [Doc. No. 119}, and Plaintiffs have replied [Doc. No. 120]. The Motion is fully briefed and ripe for decision. Upon a joint motion of the parties, the Court entered a protective order pursuant to Fed, R. Civ, P. 26(c)(1) to govern the disclosure of documents and information that the parties later designated in good faith as constituting: a trade secret as defined by Okla. Stat. tit. 78, § 86(4); “confidential research, development, or commercial information,” meaning ' After the briefing was completed, the Court granted State Farm’s request for a stay of further discovery, including a ruling on the instant Motion, pending the disposition of State Farm’s motion for summary judgment. See Order 12/14/15 [Doc. No. 122]. The Court has now issued its summary judgment ruling. See Order 8/16/16 [Doc. No. 124]."}, {"d": 22, "p": 147, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-00449-SLP Document7-11 Filed 05/29/24 Page 6 of 7 “information that is maintained in secrecy from third parties and which would result in substantial competitive harm if publicly disclosed;” or “personal confidential information” as further defined in the order. See Agreed Protective Order [Doc. No. 57], ff 1-2. State Farm’s concern regarding the scope of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition noticed by Plaintiffs and ordered by the Court (see Order 12/12/14 [Doc. No. 50]), led State Farm’s counsel to make a general statement at the beginning of Mr. Kwok’s deposition that it should “be placed under the auspices of the outstanding protective order.” See Kwok Dep. 4:2-6. This statement and a response by Plaintiffs’ counsel led the court reporter to state: “Well, I’m going to designate the whole thing then Confidential and y’all can de-designate what’s not confidential later.” Jd. 4:20-22. State Farm’s subsequent delay in making a “de-designation” led Plaintiffs to file the instant Motion, seeking a determination that none of Mr. Kwok’s testimony should be treated as “confidential” under the Agreed Protective Order. State Farm has responded by identifying seven passages of testimony, cited by specific pages and lines of the transcript of Mr. Kwok’s deposition, for which it continues to seek protection as “confidential” under the Agreed Protective Order. See Def.’s Resp. Br, [Doc. No. 119], p.4. These seven excerpts total less than 16 pages of a deposition transcript spanning over 180 pages, and contain information about State Farm’s underwriting practices and internal procedures, including valuation tools and methods, inspection requirements, inflation provisions, and communications with policyholders. Although Plaintiffs dispute that Mr. Kwok’s designated testimony satisfies the statutory definition of a “trade secret,” the Court finds based on the nature of the testimony and the affidavit of State Farm’s"}, {"d": 22, "p": 148, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-00449-SLP Document 7-11 Filed 05/29/24 Page 7 of 7 employee, Greg Reichert [Doc. No, 119-1}, that the designated testimony is subject to protection under the Agreed Protective Order. The “confidential” testimony of Mr. Kwok appears in portions of the deposition transcript cited as follows: 27:4-28:9; 77:4-78:2; 82:585:6; 86:3-94:16; 113:14-114:3; 143:11-144:25; and 149:21-149:23, The Court finds that the remainder of Mr. Kwok’s deposition testimony does not contain “confidential” information and may be disclosed. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike the Designation of Deposition Transcript of Kenneth Kwok as Confidential [Doc. No. 115} is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth herein. IT IS SO ORDERED this 17\" day of August, 2016. TIMOTHY D. DEGIUSTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE"}, {"d": 22, "p": 149, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-00449-SLP Document 7-10 Filed 05/29/24 Page1of3 Oklahoma - Effective: 4/1/2013 Underwriting Guidance - Homeowners State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Underwriting Basics Underwriting Philosophy To assure continued financial stability and competitive rates, the agent and underwriter must carefully in addition, the Residential Lines Insurance Risk Model (RLIRM) is a risk-measuring tool developed by the company to aid in the selection of quality new business. See the reference section of this guide for additional information regarding this underwriting tool. Recognizing that terms such as “properly,” “well,” \"excellent,\" and \"good\" are subjective, specific guidaice relativeto the requirements exist throughout the following material. To the extent that any guideline in this manual is in conflict with the applicable state law, the law of the state will apply. Principles Supported As a matter of company policy, State Farm fully supports these principles: (1) No request for Homeowners insurance will be denied and no policy canceled or non-renewed solely because of age ofa residence, location of a residence (unless in an area of inadequate fire protection-or an area of excessive risk of loss Including losses from:a.catastrophic event such as a hurricane or earthquake), typeof construction (brick.or frame), because another insurer declined, canceled, or non-renewed insurance, or because the applicant was insured by a FAIR Plan or other residual plan; (2) In no case will Homeowners insurance be denied because of age, sex, race, color, religion, sexual orientation, handicap or disability, national otiginor familial or marital status of the owner or residents of the dwelling: (3) In all cases, eligible business will be offered with terms most favorable (broadest coverage and lowest premium) to the policyholder. Personal Inspection if Xactware! $ , Insurance to Value system |is being. used tot assist a customer with an estimate of the dwelling’ s replacement cost, the inspection should be used to obtain or verify information about the size and features of the home. Confidential INLOR00061917PROD"}, {"d": 22, "p": 150, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-00449-SLP Document7-10 Filed 05/29/24 Page 2 of3 Oklahoma - Effective: 4/1/2013 Underwriting Guldance - Homeowners State Farm Fire and Casualty Company C. The dog demonstrates high levels of anxiety of temperament (e.g. the dog growls, takes an aggressive posture, has to be restrained, etc.). D. Your underwriter may require evaluation by a professional dog trainer or behavioral specialist. Note: Some governmental entities require that the entity be named as an additional insured. It is unacceptable to name these entities as additional insureds because of the ownership of a certain type of dog. A Certificate of Insurance indicating liability insurance is in force covering ownership of a dog may be acceptable. {f the applicant owns a dog for which a certificate is required, send the request to the Operations Center with bite history, temperament, training and breed of the dog. Other Animals Do not bind if: A. The animal is a wild animal. B. The animal is not kept in a secured enclosure. C. The animal comes from outside the United States and was brought into the country illegally without proper permits, inspection and quarantine period, Peril Based Underwriting Standards Water Water leaks and the mold and fungus that may ensue can cause serious damage to the exterior and interior of dwelling structures and personal property. Any evidence of prior or ongoing water damage or excess moisture, especially in the interior of the dwelling, indicates the need for a thorough inspection of the dwelling, inside and out. Timely, ongoing maintenance of the structure and utility systems is essential to reducing the potential for loss, Any risk with evidence that one or more of the following conditions are present must be submitted on a non-binding basis. When possible, mitigation or elimination of a hazard is preferred. If a condition exists but has been eliminated or mitigated, coverage may be bound. Please provide details. Areas of concern include: Confidential INLORO0061945PROD"}, {"d": 22, "p": 151, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-00449-SLP Document7-10 Filed 05/29/24 Page 3 of3 Oklahoma - Effactive: 4/1/2013 Underwriting Guidance - Homeowners State Farm Fire and Casualty Company A. Composition shingles that are worn, curling, cracked, damaged, missing, or have significant granule loss, blisters or nail pops. B. Wood roofing products with mold/decay; splitting or curling shingles. C. Flat roof exhibiting tears, blisters, patches, ponding, or deterioration. D, Algae, moss, mildew, fungus/mold or other growths on any type of roof. E. Clogged gutters, downspouts damaged, missing, deteriorated or not directed away from the structure. F. Flashing or singles missing, damaged, torn or buckling around roof penetrations. G. Soffits and fascia that are damaged, decayed, or stained. H. Lack of attic ventilation (no roof vents, gable end or soffit vents), Damaged or clogged soffit and ridge vents. |. Stains or peeling paint at cornices and overhangs (possible evidence of ice dam damage). Siding and foundation: Evidence of exterior water damage or building damage or deterioration that increases the potential for loss. A. Damaged, decayed, stained or missing exterior siding. Cracks or other openings in the exterior cladding (brick veneer, stucco, siding, etc.) that could allow moisture to accumulate behind cladding and cause damage. B. Cracks or missing/damaged seals around doors including garage doors, windows and other exterior wall openings. C. tnadequate clearance between bottom of exterior siding and foundation grading. Grading not sloped away from the foundation. D. Inadequate clearance between the dwelling and landscaping or other materials that attract insects or cause the exterior to deteriorate. E. Landscaping irrigation or sprinkler system not directed away from the dwelling and foundation. F. Cracks in foundation bricks or mortar or non-continuous foundation that permit moisture, insects, or vermin entry into the structure, Interior Plumbing system Confidential INLORO0061946PROD"}, {"d": 22, "p": 153, "t": "1004 [nloilotExterlor Apprataal Ropor! of: creek Urlve, Pornnt Valley Sati, LAwlon, Comanche County, ahora 73505 ‘ 1004 APPRAISAL OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT: 7 NW Briarcreak Dr Lot 3, Block 20, Pecan Vallay South, Lawton, Comanche County, OK 73805 Layton, OK 73505 \\ FOR: Arvesl Bank PO Box 799 Lowell, AR 72745 AS OF: 4230/2025 BY: Terry Paak THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS For GAA - TOTAL’ apocaisal software by a lx made; ine. - ¢-300-ALAMOOE WEST_000709 cs CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 154, "t": "Doyenet Reeety Mat Noll S Woat 7 NW Dalareiook DY oh Leade, Chant Lavon Arvest Bnnk foals, 14230260218 Canty Comanche Sie OK Ep lo 73505 TABLE OF CONTENTS Woke Cover Page. Letter of Hransmidla... Sumenayof Solent fealues URAR AddSonat Comparaties 44 Supplemental Addeadum.; Market Cond@ions Addendum ote hogrial Report USPAP entficaton Seamed Document: AD Defons Adtendn Corrpaibe PMs 14. Comparable Photos 4-6 Building Seelch Location Mag Flood Map Leensure Form TOCPSNS - STOTALY apovaisal sotwace by ala mode, ine. - #-400-ALAMODE WEST_000710 cs CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 155, "t": "Panik Appinisnt Sérvice LLC P.O. Box 281 Elgin, OK 73538 ¥2i9012026 Arve’ Gank PO Box 709 Lowell, AR 72745 _ Rec Property: 7 NW Brlarcteek Dr Lowion, OK 73505 “Borrower; FilaNo,; Neil S West 74230250218 in accondanca with your request; we Have appiatsed lhe above rafetenced property, ‘The report of het appraisal is allached, The purpose of this appraisal is lo estimate the market value of the property described in this appralsal report, as improved, in unencumbered fee almpie lite'of ownership, This reporl is based on a physical analysis of the sile and improvements, a locational analysis of the neighborhood and cy, aad an economic analysis of Ue market(or properties such as the subject. The appraisal was developed andthe Japon was preparedi accordancé wilh the Uniform Standards of Protesstonal Appraisal Practice, The value conchisions raported are as of lhe effective date staled ln tha body of the report and contingent upon tha Cettificalion and limiting conditions attached, Ithas been a plessuro lo assist you. Pleasa da not hesitate to contac! me or any of my staff if wa can be of addiional Service fa you, Tag, H Pik WEST_000711 CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 156, "t": "SALES PRICE SUBJECT IMFORPAATION SUMMARY OF SALIENT FEATURES Subject aukkess, ? NW Honverook Dr Lega Descepton Lot 3, Block 20, Pacan Valloy South, Lawlon, Comanche County, Oblahoma 73505 ty Lawion Coury Comanches Site OK Ip Code 73505 Census Tract 0023.01 Map Aeterna 30020 Site Price Date of Se Borrower Neil S Wast Lendey tient Areest Bank Site (Square Fee 2,484 DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS Price per Square Foot APPRAISER $ $ Location BRes; Age 28 Contvoon G3 Tolal Rooms 9 bedoors A Baths 30 Appaisee Terry Paak Date of Apgaaized Vata §2/30/2025 Find Estinate of Yale $ 340,000 fox S90 \"TOTAL! apgvalsal sotware by 2 2 mode, int,» {-600-ALAMODE WEST_000712 48] CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 157, "t": "Peak Appralsal Service, LUC 74230250216 a eee Uniform Residential Appraisal Report nies 11230050216 A Lacy Wost Nell Wesl tounty Gomancha r ij 1 . plequattly seppoded, opine of the mavtel valua of the subyct property, The purpore Of Gis-sunvmay apriasal ieparliy lo provide ie fendcifeberd zh al secutale, and Sule OK «= Ap lods 73505 Lawton CY Prooaty Adsess 7 NW Bilarcrack De of Prhic Record Onnes S West BeToAt Noll Lot3, Block 20, Pecan Valley South, Lawton, Comanche County, Oklahoma 73505 Legal deserpian ra Occupant, 3 Owner | Speci Ausesyments tobe (desesby) i beasebedd jf y Xnany RNs Append Fd Propert Rene 30020 Map Releenee ; Focon vate\" South [ea AE Tues$ 3,285 Ta Yew 2025 Assessor's Parcel # — OZNIGWY-26-1-94900-020.0003 5 Heighbortood Hart oye CO BS Bea fn ta eS TT Ga { aT tho ies met ; As of 12/30/2025 and per Léwion MLS publicalions, data source(s} vse wfetag péte(s), dad dale), Report Te —. parmodh ) sparyet a Assignmeet Hype {| Pacchase Fransattion x Redaance Teansation—{ i Oibee {deverbe} Mess PO Box 799, Lowell, AR 72745 tenteetlest Arvest Bank por Beech date of is apart Ws Pa sue ptoerty caret fered for sal or hasbeen afte for salen Babee Q Tract 029,04 MAS 0 [PD Sg feet ; F¥es | cWo Data Soacels) record? Is fa property seer the aamer of pub Daeof Cocitact G Contac Price $ gi Ye eh of tha docrrwer? sty any euch aseislarce Goan chaiges, gile Concessions, pill ex devmpaymend assiitance, e8¢,} Io be paid by any z Is Wheve be pall, rfbe the Heise and desc BS] I Yes, report ihe total doy amngund Hole: Raceatard the ractal compasiéon a the neighborhood are not appalia tations, : $ “Neg e Gud. 1 Unde 25% } Dumand Supply |] Shortage. | 25-75% HX Ove 75h PRICE AGE x WBalvne | 5 Over Supply | $1000) hy) * Dectong 218. tow 3 mts 1 }d6nes | ‘ono [MatebegTime 3X Vode | [Sw XX Side Fl cca / ! Rapid 5 iene _% Slat {Property Yakees | hereasig | £ Saban M foal tects (Ube | 10 | Hol 45 Pid. 30 F Heghbortood Bondses Dua to scope, subject piopenty’s boundaries are NW Cache Road fo tha North, NW | 485 Fe3 Neighbishond Detcrpson Subject caled in Pecan Valley Souh addon focated within the NV region of Lawton, OX and ft, comprised of de lings of mixed : 33S 3 {12th Sueelto tha Esl, SW Lee Boulevard: jo the South, aadNW Deyo ‘Mission Road lo the Wast, site, design’ - Sik Asttery Post. odustry, mixed residential, pantoral, and yolated conwnercial vows. Lawton offers mont anacites reidng Fort ion a wilh siewlar g style, qually, 348 corubt as both, the county seal and i) dominant econonic basin fot te gfeatar Comanche Counly Ares, serves and systems, school (42 several aing, employment, shopping, 's area. Michating benes, at Pre peisand tine contidered stable. Avarage demand cbserred in Marsal condiions Heasiet Coodibons feciodng support bar the above conclusions} tm Lave ep don rose torts pe cme hens Seniyreinor scape, INS Of propeity » for days proctnalky <159 BM carne Z a and da veo mance ok Bin > at comnpetiive Helengticnnieadl oteingyt hn jhe . dzia in is a ectealed Lane ince B; Yew ara \"Shape Appears Rectangular “We 25355sl Be Danensions WSXI7TSR4SXTS Zocing Description “No Zoning. Specie Toning Classification No Zoning . Loring Compbaye | ftegl | } Legal bescootennig (Grantianesed Us) DX No Loring 1 | egal {descite) axistng With desedy We, No | Yes = se? thepresesd speafaticns) and pans pat {or as proposed is the bighest and bed ise of subjec property a8 briproved family sesidential dwell ting, maiket anid currant demand, the highest and best use for tha subject property is Ks present use 3s.4 s Ingta ML Lions K w ieiny rd Gas Pubke “Othar{descts} Other (deere) Publ Willies . 1 Lye, MMe FEMA Special food Husdaes fi x Total Retention Lagoon x TI Wider “Santay Sever - Type Oft-ska begcevements Rate Prieta Sel Asphault «ANY (Grass x x ie fs | } Crawl Space oncrete S30 Ute HK Ore t T Oe vith Accessory Oh Brick(Siding/Ave ComposifiowAvg Sides/Avg DP VinyVAvg ie 1 Aor SX Drop Su : 10. a ~ Pry Fished tj Meaed z2 Py r Ratsigecaien 9 Rangeeen [Dampiess DX Dishaasher “>< Dapotal | | Mernave L }WashenOyer 30° BeMy 4 Bestooms 5 Altus = Describe Ree chnetion f the pregty {ending needed sepals, Selavabo, (enarabons, femeset, He), ago;Bathcooms pdatet/-timatiame unknown ) i Wer tdeserba) : 7 2,404 Sua Fel ol Goss Ung ha ‘ ‘. xe Gove CHA, double paned viny! windows, fireplace, and ceiling fans. & mapas ec, sajea teste esta Srudincng C4;Kitchen-remodeled-one lo five years, vorwet a CHA \"hae epee sats cra Dees propa gerry conti lo a swhborhed tons wy, se, conde, use ccnsiucion oc}? Freddie Mac Form 70 March 2005 “PF Rone ’ Drhensy { 1Wondstones) #@ Oivemay Sutace — ConcretelAvg. Tiesing SE FWA (fT WEB TT Radiant Anestes a #eiCas M Gage DK fitslneis}# 1 XX Fence Wood ho Electic } fod 0 | Capa ates oeieg 3X Cunalae cordnintg |X FataDeth Cover 3X Pech Con PO vas KON Str Shae PE AL [Pod None He { Oter b Ppaiida 8 AdShanalfeahaes (specla anafgy etic tems, ele). keen CarpelLVPIAvg ShichAWPIAYG Woodt/Grown/Ag _ Tie’Ava ScreensiAv Screens | Seterrant 9 Rooms Fd rviced we dove gad coals roots : «fais = [Ten Finks Sean Sihiesuiled wsulaled/Avg Evidenceof | | Inestason «1997 = Age (Vek Efective 5 Mes HK ke Wes, describe sile condilons observed at lime of ad Conctele/Avg “Lp Basement [| Part Baserrent bteior Wals i # 0d Stois © SGA | Roel Surface Atea Tye one Ah 1 | S-OnténdUra [Basement & Bokospeuts GQ NOutiess X bisty | ‘Popes {| Onder Const [Basement Faish | | SumpPun {Wiodoe Type “fp Olaside Enea Des ie) = Ranch Yerbut FEMA Map Due’ 97/20/2009 FEMARD S 40031COS07E tow x AUATeod x Yes 1} No BNo, desciibe ge te we ibes are cl ste npegrereeds fysteat fr Whe mavel area? Ae ere ay averse ae conden of enteral actors (easements, nachna, sterile, bd es, te)? oF any h u No legal survey provided al time of Inspe Bon with no apparent Inspection, UAD Version 92011 EF aan SM foo, Yts JE Ma Yes, deseate Vee | Mo, Ho, Geert Pagel ofé * Fanole Mae Farm 1804 Maich 2008 Form 1O0MUAD » \"TOTAL\" appraisal software by 4 la mod, lnc, » 1-£00"}, {"d": 22, "p": 158, "t": "14230250216 ___. Theteve itaie we Uniform Residential Appraisal Report Tia] SURRY] 7 NW Brinrcceek Or Abhess = an bomparatla oprtes cueny faced Tes sae ie subech apavhoad tangy #1 pee oat $319,900 _compaatie sues tht subject relpbowtocd wattn past twee moths fai 0 gece tom $290,000 Lawton, OK 73505 COANE TE aT COMPATURLESMLE A? Prassaty 40 Subject ‘avdon, OK Lavon, OK 79505 . @ miles SW E Sik Pree $ S81 Pace'Gross Uy, Atta 136.62 4. GlulawtonlatS#187780;00M 1 8. Dala Seauce(s) Vertcabes Sourcels} ReabsYokcountyfecords/Agenl saHsye ae : RoalsVokcounlyt VALUE ADUSTIIEHTS ESCA TDA n ius ned | beseaetn | +1) cia 4) Salhi Annlth ‘TAnalth i ‘[Avmith ; Cortestiods VA : Conve ‘ {s10/25;c0925 | Congo 303725:001725 | ; BRes: : 8Res: : BiRes, : 25355 af 27475 sf : 18566 sf : aj23672 sf » B;Pstt; : BPst: i Bath, : Q3 ; tte of Suertina atvesetors | toutes Ste : ORSCAPTO Saks o¢ Peachy Leaseboldee Single FeaSinple Vw |Foa Simplo BPsit; Design (Sie) Jorivtench Chatty of Construction jaa = [DT ERanch 26 Bova Grade oa [toms] tans | Tout | Bdees., Baba (oe Room Civ Geass thing Area Baserverd A Piotshed Rooms Below Grade Functigeal Uuly a! 4ia0l 7) 3 (21 oat Ost 2,484 lt] Conforming ie] Heating Cootng Ef Energy Gicert tems = qCHA. TOP Windows & GaageCuport »)gaSdw < PorchyP ata Deck, DTS Ranch V Yet ern. j Bats +16,608) ACHA [DP Windows i | Igadtw ; 8 Adusted Sate Prica Peg of Corrgarabies let Ag, [brossAd. \"St ese KH esl Wal - 3 | ! +4,000; 3gaSdw. i+ MK Ge,crPuIP 9 9 Kitch Appliance | 8 22424) + Haag. mzsnlometa. * erp a sna OlStegispnkie syst: 7% IRIS pup ey and compare sas. Koslegbea bv dps 55,968 i CHA DP Windows, Kitch Appkance | Het Ad, 394BOG GossAg, a #1,000 : Conforming WootFPINe | piil spekle syst | 19808 3,067 4h ‘Ost i 2gaSdw 25 62818... ta reveal ang peor sates sh aga [CPCPUP lies Waly oe sD (2,728 aH Confouing Kitch Apptance [Kitch Appliance |. Mr Tota [Reka j Sx | 4000) 8 4 124, CHA. [DP Windows 1ciecR,ur. Fo] it Ankush (Total Mgresaana | iad Os! ba | 0 wool o! 5 ist zane al 0 | alas co F Fenclog PiStoan Catir-Shetes (WoodFPi¥es WoodiFPHYes 5 Other Feahwes None Observed [Sig Bigs. EY Koichen Arpfances BTiRanch 030 : —-[ Contorming [circle | 7 i Feo Simple 03 las a Foe Simpla 3 Awl Age an MK OH | 7 tin 73 505he Rd Tam NW Pocan Valley Or 45 NW Asbbury Way — sens|t RHO, OK 73505 sc aS 420,000 LESHLE #3 bs KS 54,968 13.15, 136%:$... Q 964,032 : ea wonkal, Dal Sascels) ‘Comanche County Records Myreseach Kad i} YG cok teveat any prion sites or banstets ol he carpe sts othe yt pt a dala-ot sale of Oe comparable sale. DalaSoucels) Comanche County Records: Report he cesuls al he research and analysis of Be pee sl ante say a He subject popedty aed comparatl taks teport adStional pttor suks orp). Te i Dateok Pe Saletrenste SUBHECT F “COMPARABLE SALE #7” COMPARARLE SLE #2) lowe 2026, Price of Prine SaiesTranstes : Dafa Source(s), COMIPARABLE SALE #3 i : ‘Comanche County | Recorts Comanche County Records iComanche County Records jComanche County Records: Mecwre Dang oat Sosrets) 427302028 ~ jamora2s !¥2730/2028 9124302028 Analysis ol prio sale or transfer Mistery of the sutiecl pisgerty and comparable S383, No epparant price sales or uansfers found for the subject proparty within: the pasl 36 months prior to the effective date of lis appraisal report Co Grantor: Templeton to Grante; T No appareal prior s lesitra months prior {a theis most recent secorded sale, fers fe #E of lhe transfered for an und inad amount on 04/48/2025 from comparables used within this report found within lhe past 12, Sumarary of Sales Compaison Appeaath «= See additional comparables page 4-6, Wéealed Yabit by Saks Compasison Approach $ 340,000. Indicates Value by: Sales Comparison Approach § ; coe 340,000 7 Coal Approaeh developed) — oo. Ad emphatis placed upon sales comparison appeaach fo vats being mosl ralabla dus to atea being predominant ganer z prtanial come produclag propartios for purp of coma 7 kicome Approach Gf developed) § pled, indulficient data fowad ba dels approad Lh, subinet's actual aga belng oululde range of naw construction costs, and diticuty h astinsting g subject's acceved depreciation, Using sales comparison approach fo vale, Ihe pstimated marhat vale opinion of Ino subiect property “as is” is $340,000, Ee]= Tits appealsatis made XX ‘asl’, ison | { subkect lo comoleton per plans and specifcatans on fe bans of a bypclheteal condition that the bnocovements have been i } subject ta the fohowing repairs of ovations on the basis of a hypodtetcal condition Bad ihe tepals LJ Berbons xe been complied or! Based ona ite visual heection of the interlor and anterior areas of the 4 conditions, and sro certheaton, tion,my (cu) opinion of the market vale, tlc $ 340.000 _asot 42/30/2025 fraddie Mac Form 70 March 2005 defined scope ey tal a. : suectiothe of work, slulement of ussumptions and ning is the subject ‘Ot the report fa e.wttch fs tha date of eapection and the atecliva date of this sppral : AD Version 72011 Page 20f 8 Fannie Ma¢ Form (004 Aiuch 2005 Form 1OCHUAD « “TOTAL appraisal softwaie ty a la mode, inc. » 1-800-ALAMOGE WEST_000714 cs CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 159, "t": "ean 7 Uniform Residential Appralsal Report __rwe tyas0zs0210 Appealsalptilonind anit, Foe simple, stag’ rhgas ony, Rutfertn ditt’ dace 04 end af panted fo 6 ih working cvifed at fie of Mepaction, ANTENDED USER(S}OF THE APPAAISAL REPOMT: of Bis apprattal, aed od, 46 at bvinded ener le tha inks Indanwdedd iat of This pepoit, the appeadtet hat nef klacted Any purchase, boraneot pethie ‘The bordtariconk bated wichhy this report ¥ Gay caquied an opprateal tor et of hele gem Cndasing any purpesy, Such parkas ad sdaed Jo oblaln ney appr attal fons At apprataet auch party should ose OF ably oa vk Appesiaatior for inty on pupates, Inching wabord Ickieton fat the purposina al 4 peopesty purchasé Gécision ee, boremics 07 seat oun inna, Avy tetarecnce 1b oF ue Ol IN appealanl reporl by A pexcchat | ; NO ADDITONAL INTEHDED USEAS ARE WENTFEO ot gn anpenisal condngeney i A prduia | negteedvard, fe ot bueli piadiy’s GOA 164 pod fa nol inlandod or authorized by the spyralser, PROMATEL 15 USER(S} INTENDED STATED THE THAN OTHER ANYONE BY APIIAISAL TAS OF BY THE APPRABER, WE Use INTEROTO USE oF THE APPRAIBAL REPORT: AS DEFINED FA TiS REPORT FOR THE THE PURPOSE DF TIE ADPRAISAL IS TO ALSO PROVIDE AN OPINION OF MANET VALUE OF THE SUBECT PROPERTY 19 TO ASSIST TRE LEMOEPACKIENT NOTED IN THiS : : LENDERICUENT AS NOTEDOM FE REPORT AS THE INTENDED USER OF TRE REPORT. FUNCTION OF THE APPRAISAL STATED SCOPE OF WORK, PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL, REPORT IN EVALUATING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR MOAEGAGE LENDING PURPOSES, SUBJECT TO THE TENDED USES ARE (DEWTIFIEO BY THE AEPARING REQUIREMENTS OF }HIS APPRAISAL REPORT FORM, AHO DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE, HO ADDITIONAL : APPRAISER. THE USE OF THIS APPRAISAL BY ANYOUE OTHER THAN THE STATED USE(S), 19 PROHATED Z score or work: SERVICE PUBLICATIONS, FY Tate PROCESS OF PREPATING THE APPRAISAL REPORT INVOLVED JE UTR IZATION OF PUIAEC AND PRIVATE DATA SOURCES, MULTHISTNO BOTH THE TERIOR AND EXTERIOR OF THE DELLA. i BY COUNTY ASSESSOR RECORDS, TOGE THEN WITH REAL FORS, BUROERS AND. J OTHER APPRAISERS INFORMATION, PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS WERE MADE OF THE APPRAISED, ERTY PROP THE CHARACTERIZE ADEQUATELY TO 3 YWCRE VOWED TAKRIG SUIFICIENT PHOTOGRAPHS AS USED WITHIN THIS APPRAISAL : EXTERIOR OF THE ‘pens, THESE MEASUTIEMENTS WERE USED TO CALCULATE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE CAYELLING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS, THE 8 REPORT. THE SUB.ECTS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS ALSO INSPECTEO TO ASSIST IA THE DETER RATION OF THE SUBJECTS SALES HAVE BEEN WELUDEO OF Bad VALUATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY INCLUDED THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH. FIVE Of THE MOST PERTINENT COMPARABLE SOURCES, SEE THE AECORCALIATION SECTION OF AUTHE SALES INFORMATION, BOTH PHYSICAL ANO FIRANCUL, HAS BEEN CONFIRMED TEROUGH THE ABOVE RAMED NOT AHOME INSPECTION THIS REPORT CONCERNING IKE CREDEAITY OF BOTH JHE COST AND WOME APPROACHES TO VALUE. THIS APPRAISAL 1S < popety and wbould te thatthe property 1s et hom defecty, The tetmn inspection” as used ea 0ietepatt nly an cbservaton of ha blac ¥ onal i & aka a Js da nal g the nod My chservednspecl and separta® and 604s onty “obaerves eactused wich ine term hapaction pela required by & prolessional home Inipactor and homa inspection, ‘Tha appr sites ot cuiing sucha, This 7. systems, subhoar, porenpabohdechoatcony foot foundaton system, subjegt’s eleciical systems, pharoing synterns, mgchanical syitems, HVAC ayaterns, via aquaited. an ertimaied mackel yalie opinion of tha subject poparty bot marlghge Jarchng purposes coiy, Lendecichert needs lo sacueott own hore Inspections appeaisal qxtabsihas inspector 0 soVisly theensetees with the condition ol the property. OF ALL THIS APPRAISAL IS NOTA HOME NSPEGTION AND THE APPRAISER 19 NOTA HOME WWSPEGTOR, THIS APPRAISER ONLY PERFORMED A VISUAL OBSERVATION THE APPRAISAL REPORT CANNOT BE PASAY VIEWABLE, UNOBSTAVCTED SURFACES OF THE DAVELLING AND 01D NOT LAOVE PERSONAL PROPERTY IM THE PROCESS, . q APPRAISERAT TIME OF INSPECTION. RELIC UPON TO DISCLOSE CONDITIONS ANOPOR DEFECTS JN THE PROPERTY NOTABLE TO BE VIEWED OA ACCESSED BY THE COST APPROACH TO-VALUE (not racleed by FaanteNa Hand to repScate the below cost Boece and caleutatons, Provide adecquale Intonation tor Ihe berdet/c ‘Sea addenda page Ine Rem 15. eopa a sales of ete methods bo essing sie vate} frm Support ke he ophion oat g Sour o castdata OWELUNG ; Cltseden date of cast data . Fa$ buat ring von cost senice & Consmerds.on Cost Aggrcath {yess fring area etkeuations, degreciston, de} Total Estevate of Cost-Hew _ 7 oo Bh sisted Reading Exon P Grass Rend Mp ef FF3 summary ol bore Aegean frchadig support fo machel rel aed GBM) } =f : : x$ =$ Me) =f Indicated Vake by hicome Approach a svhpe bc 's lnmedists maik bat: Toit nur o ry «Talal punber of unis fot sas of ands jerded 5 Total nuceber 40? gy conan ced vai 7 aorseemcoi (aeg Untpes) yf [Detwhed | Yes (Ma cn : Na income approach completed due to rural subdivision being majorily awner PROVECT HEORMA TION FOR PUDa echion HON? fot PUD OF a ; a$ [om p glgnilal lionds conducive for income prociic ME occuplad and Insufficient data found identifying Priefer hoe LegitHare of Poet z Toul antec al phases . a 50 Yeas {NOKATEO VALUE ST COST APPROACH COME APPROACH TO VALUE (ot oqred by Euan se iste derbpuibutderh a$ mm ; Depeeclated Coste ingorernerts *As-ig* Value ol Sta Inpraverents La QD and VA ony) tony ael Rad Fa Eshrate SiLas §5,188; Orptaciaten. : : =$ [race Ohya len Est. remaining physical Ste = 50+ yours Sh@s Bes GuageCupot ok ; % Site value estimated fo de $40,000 2] Est, remaining economic Sle = 50+ years = OPNON OF SITE VALUE, NEW. FAESTHATED | | REPRODUCHONOR { | REPLACEMCOSTENT eject opty of Oe TOA ad | | Avached an aed daebeg ont, ‘Total ube al uns sald Daka sculce(s} LP ¥te 1 [Re 8 Yas, dale coneeson. 1 |v i ik Osta Sout 9 Does tha projec! conan ary eaaidrtling wits? i Yes 11 Ba it Ho, ever Ed We beds, cannon ees and een aes compe Be sate ol completion, 8 iS Aue th crs emer leased rb fe Homeowner! Aasoclkun?—f J Yes {1 Mo Yes, eserba teeta uns an"}, {"d": 22, "p": 160, "t": "; _ cb Aanentant Darnet 14230260210 rms rrzsozsort0_ Appralsal Report _ .Unitorm Residential ee nee ee ani —oneunll -pre ory unit This: fepor} foray fy Ubsigned ‘la topoil an appraisal of a one-unll property oF a. one unk propery Whi aa Access’ : wnat 1 at ln a plubd und” develope (PUD}, This report form Is nat Wastgned to report an appraisal ct a ‘b imanulactiead eine of a unt 4 & condombluin or cooperaiive project. at P , alue, of market value, use, Interided user, definition ‘| Tels appraisal toport ts subjectr totheane fotowing scope. of. work, iatended: additions, of deletions to. the intenided - asskqiment. Modifleations -or daletions fo ihe. ceitilicallons até algo nol porinltied; Howover, additional certificallons that da J slatoment of assumplions and Imtig: coridilions, and covtifications, Modifleallons, may ' Use, Intended Ussh, definition<ol market vale, GF assdimptions and Wnillng concillansare not permitted. The appraiser “-empard the seopo of work to fuckide any additonal research or analysis .fecessary based on the complexty of this appratsa {Hol Constitute ntatarlal aiterations lo tvs appraisal roporl, suci a€ thidse -raquited by law or those related do the appealser's ff Continving educatlon of meimbersiip in an apptalsal onyailzatlon, até permitted. SCOPE OF WORK: The scope al work fof Uits appialsal 18 déftnod by the completlyof ths appraisal assignenent and the foporting requiemontsof -Uis appratsal ropoil loins, Inckding the follwing definition af market valve, slalemant of assompllons and lnlting conditions, aid ceititleallons, The appalser must, at a minimum: (1) perform a complet visual Inspection of the Interlot and exleslor areas of ‘the subject property, (2) inspect the ‘ne(ghborhaod, (3) Inspect each of ihe compacatle sales front al leasl the tect, (4) toseatch, verily, and ahalyte data (font (eflable puble and/or private sotrces, and (5) reporl Ns or her aisdlydis, opllons, INTENDED.USE: and conchstons In tile appvalsal tépart, Tha Inteided uso of tis oppralsal roport 1% for -tho londerfetent to evaluate the property that Is the: _ Subject of This appraisal tor } INTENGED USER: 8 mortgage finance transaction, ‘The tended user of this appralsal report Is tha lendor/etcat: ~ DEFINITI MARKET ON.OF VALUE: Tratkel. dader all conditions The most probable pice which a property should bring In a compelive requisite ‘fo a fair sale, the buyer and séile, each acting prudently, knowkdgeably associated with the sale, and open and assuming le atlde Js not. affected by undue stlmutus. implicit 4h Us definition ts tha consummation of a: sale as of a specified date and “the passing. of itte from seller to buyer under condillons whoreby: (1) buyer and seller afo typically motivated: (2) both ‘PParlles ace well Informed oF wall advised, and each acting In what he or she conskters his or her own best interest: (3) a \"-teasonable lime ts alowed for exposure In the open market; (4) payment ig mada ia terms of cash In UL S, dollars or fri terms “OF financial arangements comparable thereto; and (8) the price represents the normal consideration fof the property sold 4 unaffected by special or creative ‘financing oF sales concessions* || “Adjustments to the comparables must bo made granted for Spectal or cteatlve by anyone financing: or sales concessions, No adjustments are 4. fecessary for thosa costs which are formally paid by sellers as a sesutt of wadiion of law in a market atea; these costs ara 'e Seadily Keentfiable since the. seer pays these cosls in vitually aM sales transactions, Special or ceeatlve financing [-aslusiments can be made fo the comparable property by comparsons lo financing tenis offered by a thd party institutional fender, thal is not already InvoWed in the piopesty or transaction, Any adjustment should nol be catculated on a mechanical dolar lor ‘dolar cost of. the tinancing “or concesston bul the dollar amount of any adjustment shoukt approximate the markel’s on fo the’ finencing “or concessions. based. On she: apptaiser's judgment STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS AND'LIMITING CONDITIONS: subject to the ‘fohewing and assumptions fmilng conditions: Tha appraiser's cevtificaUon in this repo is fhe appralsec wif .not be responsible for matters of a Segal Neture that atfect. ether the property being appraised or the ue. : cepl for inteimalion that he or she. became awars of during the feseach’ Involved in performing this appraigal, The appralser ‘assumes thal'-ihe tle Is good and ‘iiaikelable and will ndl render any opinions about the tiie. 2 The appraiser bas provided a sketch in Inls appraisal report to show the approalmate dimensions of tha knprovemenis, [Th sete Is inched only to assist the reader in yisualaing the properly and understanding the appraiser's determination s[ obits ‘size, “9. The appraiser has examined the available flood maps that ate provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency {or other data soisces) and has noted. in ‘tls appratsal report whether any portion of the subject site fs located in an <Idemtified “Special. Flood: Hazard Area. Gecause tha appraiser Is not a surveyor, he “of sha makes no guarantees, express of “Wmpied, 4, ‘regarding this determination. The appraiser wit not give testimeny or appear in.court because he of she mada an apptaisal of the property in question, uniess specific arrangements ta do so have been mada ‘belorchand, or as otherwise required by ‘aw. ' § The appraiser has noted in this. appraisal report any. adverse conditions (such as needed rapalrs, delerloration, the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic subslances, etc.) observed. during the Inspection: of the subject property of. thal‘he or » She became aware of during ‘tha ‘research ‘invoed In performing the appraisal; Uniess otherwise stated in this appralsat . feport, the appraiser has na knowledge of any hidden or unappatent physical deliciencles of adverse conditions of the , Property (such as, but nol tiited to, necded sepaiis, deterioration, the presence"}, {"d": 22, "p": 161, "t": "Uniform Residential Appraisal Report pues tyzsoosozie. _APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: — the Appraiser ceniies and agrees: that: “fy, tohave, at a minimuni, developed and 4Aovthis appraisal repod. reported this appraisal ta accordance with the scope of woik sequirements sizted in “2, 4 petlotmed a complete visual Inspection of-tld interar and axlotler oreas of tha subject properly, 1 reported tha conditon 1 the Improvements iit factual, spacitc tenis, FP lusntited and sepoited Ube physical deficiencies thal cottd affect the Wabilty, soundness, of ivcleial Hilegity of lie property. . b poitonied ANS” appatsal in accordance wilt the ccguitements Practice that were adopted and promutyalod fata al tho time this appratsal topotl was 4, by Ihe Appraisal propared. of thé Uniforti Stindards Standards Board of Tha of Professional Appraisal Appralsal Foundation and that were rt developed my opinion of the matkel value of the ceal property that is tho subject: of this feport basedon the sales comparison approach (o. value, | have adequate comparable mackel das to develop a rellabla sales comparison approach for Ins aporaial assignment. | further certly tat 1 considered ihe cost and Income approaches ta Value bid did not develop then, unless otherwise Indicated In. this report | 5. Fvesearched, verted, analyzed, and reported on any curront agreement for sale for the subject proparty, any .otfering for ‘J Sake of the sublect property In the twelvs months pilot to the affective date of this appraisal, and ike prior sates of the subject otherwise indicated In this report. <property for a minimian of threa years peer to thé effectlve dale of this appraisal, unless 1) 8. 4 researched, vertied, analyzed, and seporied of the prior ‘salés of the comparabla sales for a minimum of one year prior _ fo the dale of sals of the. comparable sale, untess otherwise Indicated In (hs report, ~ 7. 1 selected and used comparable sales thal ase tocallonalty, physically, aid Aunctlonally the most similar fo the subject property. - 8, [have not used. comparable sales that were the resut of comblaing a land sale with the contract purchase price of ahome that has been duit of will ba bUiM on’ the land, . 9 1 hava reported adjustments to tie comparable _ property and the comparable sales ‘that reflect the markel’s tesclion fo the differences between the subject sales. ' 10, { verfied, from a dislnterestad source, al-Information inthis rapod thal was provided by parties who have a financial interest in tha sale of Mnanclog of the subject property. \"(1 Eo hava. Wnowledge and experienced In appraising this typs af property Ia ihls market area, 42. 1 am aware of, and. have. access to, the necessary and appropriate pubic and private dala sources, such as mistiple listing \"services, tax assessment records, pubNe land records and other such data sources for the area in which the property is located, 43, 1 obtained the information, estimates, and opintons fumished ‘rellable ‘sources that f belleve lo be true and correct. by other parties and expressed in. this appraisal reporl from _, 44, E have taken info consideration the factors that have an impact on valve With eespect to the sublect nelghborhoad, subject | property, afd the prodmayof Ihe subject propery fo adverse Influences in thé developmem of my opinion of markel value, | “have noted Ma this appealsal report any adverse condiions (such as, bul not Imited to, needed repairs, deterioration, te _peasonce of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, Subject property of that | became awata the inspection of of duting the research Involved in partorming UNs appraisal. | have adverse envizonmental conditions, gic.) observed during considered these “ adverse conditions In my analysis of the property value, and have reporied on the effect of tha conditions on the value and -iparkalabity of the subject the progerty, 18, [have not imowingly withheld any significant informalion from this appraisal repost and, to the best of my knowledge, al Statements and information jn this appraleal report are’ true and covtect, 16. 4 stated ia thts appialsal report my own personal, undlased, and professional analysis; opinions, Safe Subject only fo the assumplions and iimiling conditions in this appraisal’ report. and conclusions, which 17. | have no present of piospective Interest in the property that Is the subject of this seport, and | have no present o7 prospocilve personal Interest or bias with respect to the participants in the transaction. 1 did mot dase, either partially or completaly, my analysis and/or opinion of market value In this appralsal report on the race, color, teligion, sox, age, marital status, handicap, familial status, or national aslgin of eather the prospective owners of occupants of tha subject property or of the present owners of occupants ofthe propariles fa the vicinity of the subject property or an any other basis prohibited by law. ; 18, My employment and/or Compensation for .performing. this appralsdl or any future or anicipated appraisals was not {> Conditioned on any agreement or understanding, written of otherwise, that | would repo (or present analysis supporting} a » predetermined specific value, a predetermined minimum value, 4 range of direction In value, & vale Uhat favors tha cause of any party, of the: allainment of a specific rosull or occurance of a specific subsequent. event (Such as approval of a pending ‘| mortgage 19. loan application), 1 personally prepaiad af conclusions and opintons about the real estate that were sat forth In this appraisal report, Wt “ctalled on significant real property appyaisal assistance (rom any individual of Individuals -in the performance of this appraisal or the preparation of ts appralsal report, 4 have named such Widividual[s) and disclosed jhe specitic tasks performedin its appraisal tepor, | certify that any Individual so named fs quaklled fo portorm ihe tasks. | have not authorized anyone ta make a change fo any Hem’ in this appr"}, {"d": 22, "p": 162, "t": "71290260210 fn 71290260210 Se Bh, Te bordod/elant may .diselo “] ]. eee ct ge mua anathp g ie ho tequost of (Ho distibulo’ tS appéaleal fepod to: the borrower: another lender at tie reques’ sG0in ad - alg: rovigage insures; govennent sponsored entrees; ote ‘coteclion. of tapoillng services; professional appraisal Organizations: oY aia having 10 barower: MWe mortgagee “oF ts. Socondery -mnovkol partelpantss: ala ihe United: States; and: any state, the Disttet of Cohimbla, or olhar jurisdictions; Whee cr atcal Agoney, OF instruniontatty Ohta a ivisory appraiser's (Wt apsleable) coasent. Such consent must dé obtaad before | vuole PAN’ :to any other party Anchdiig, but not fmited lo, the publlc through advertising, tnbuted S “oF other: cinedia, cone: ject to. to. cenail: 22. | ain aware (ial any diselosucd ar aistibullany oF Wits apptaleal repolt by md 50 or thotho fenderfeHent may be subject law and: fogutattons. Furthor, tami also subléct to tha peavislons. of ihe Untloiim Standards of Prolosslonal Appraisal Practice That: Berlin Yo: aléclogure or disbibution by nie, 23, Tha hosrewst, another bender at the taquest af the botiower, Wie morlyagds of fle successors aid agsigns, riortgage Insurers, govemmént sponsored nterpiises, arid olbar tocondary maikel -paileipanis may tely cn this appralsal repiona8 pad “of any-morigage fiancé transaction What thvolves any ono or more of these: parties. 24, Nhs appraisal repoil was Lansmitiod as an *olctronle secotd containing my *dectronic skgnalire.* as those terms are defined tn applicable tedeca) andvor state laws (oxchiding audio. and video recordings), of 4 lacsimtle (rans . ~ appralsal ieport conlalaing. a copy or tepiesentation of my siynaline, the’ appratsal-teport sha} be. as. elfecth — Valid.3s 26, Any Hoa paper version of lls Intentional appraisal roport Wem of negligent misreprasentation{s) dellveted containing my orginal hand walttes ‘sigcatere, contained: in this appralsal’ teport may resutt I chi Fabilty an of atiminal. pongifea nchiding, ‘but not dried fo, fine or impdsonment of bath under the provisions of Trio 18, United _ Code, Section 1001, of seq, 7 <S oF similar stale laws. SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: the Supervisory Apptaltor. celles and agizes that. 1. A dicecty supervised:the appraiser for this appraisal assignment; have féad he. appralsal reper, and agees with tha-apptaiset's Analysis, apiilons, siaitments, conclusions, and the apprasers certification, fl full cespansTblity for-the contents of ‘thts appraisal report tnchuding, but. net. med’to,- the appratset’s analydis, opinions, s, Conchislons, and the appraiser's ¢ertifeation, 7 : . ‘ “ 3, The appraiser Wentifed in Us appratsal:teport Is ther ‘a sub-contractor:or ari employae of Wie supervisory. appralter (or. the appraisal firm), \\s quatified to pertorm this appraisal, and is acceptable to pertorm this appralsal under the appicable slate law. 4. ‘This. appraisal repo compbes with Cha Uniform: Standards of Professional. Appralsal: Practice that were adopted and - promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Goard of The Appraisal Foindation and thal were in place al the time this appraisal feporl. was |]. prepared: 5...JL.0NS appraisal report was Uansmitted ‘as ‘an “electronic pecord’ contaling my “electronic signaiue? as those tams ae. “defined-“in: applicable federal and/or state faws (exchiding audio and video recordings), or a facsimile Gaismission. of mig appralsal teport containing 2 copy or representalion of my signature, the appraisal feport shal be as effective, enforceable and valid as If a paper version of Unis appraisal reporl were dalvaced contalning my original hand wiitten slgnature, SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (ONLYiF REQUIRED) PeakApprasalSeviceWlC PO Box 281 CompanyName. . Company Address to. Elgin, OK 73838 “Telephone Number. 4 ErmallAddcess tpesk@tds.ne, Date of Signature and Report fti2026 oo. Date of Appraisal §— $2/9002025. 0, “Effective Telephony Number Email Address Oala of Signaturs Slate Certification # of Stale Lcensd # “State Certfication# §— 12778CRA. ‘ov Slate License # or Other (describe) Stale OK State beens a Explration Oate of Cartiicatlon ot License ny a SUBJECT PROPERTY plratlon Date ol Certification of License arene 0 ees ROPER! TH — Lawton, OK 73805 APPRAISED VALUE OF SUBJ —— . ; ‘ set oper | oe otnpct Didnolinspect subject propery = trom stfeet 1} Did taspeet extertarof subject propeity Date of Inspection a LENDERVCLIENT EmalfAddrass song Sp un. s |} Didllospegt exter ot comparable sabes trom s¥eat Date af Inspection. . = ‘Faoeda Maw Form 1004 Mareh 2005 Ferm 1004UAD « “TOTAL” apprasal soware bya mods, Ine, 4-200 ALANOOE WEST_000718 cS) CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 163, "t": "a 2 ee Adsess 74220250216 Uniform Residentlal Appraisal Report ~_ 7 NW Bilatctagk Dr _ Asien, OK 7350 Pravin te Seek COMPATAGLE SALE # @ Pies 71230250216 TOUPAUBLE DLE # 5 S NW Milicragk Rd 104 Witton La _,Lowton, OK 73505 Lawion, OK 73505 {6.40 mitas E COMPARABLE SALE # 6 9 | cRrLawtonML SH 168488) OOM 22 RaisvokcountyrecordstAgent |RaalisVokcountyreconisfAgent DESCRPHON | ap bAGustnent | DESCRIPTION | 2p SAdhsinend ) JArnkth jAumlin Conv. py Sie Mew By Design ye) Bes: Fog Simple B:Ros; Fee Simpte Location Bj LeasehobdFee Shigte i Qualtyol Consbuchon Actual Age Condon ; Q3 28. aj ; AOA ALL gf Orvss Ubing Ark Ost Basement 4 Feished : . o q og. 7 Tet [tam tos #2,0 0). 30).8) 4420, Bi Foon Count : 03. a a ta [tr bits ‘ame Fe] Above Gente B Res; fs Simple BPs, {O11 Ranch BPs; —[DTI;Ranch. “| 8:P ste; OTHRanch } 91261368! 20809 sf {85985 5F cn Conv,0 306/25;004/25 $09/25;c07/25 Dai of Sale Ting Ost ee DESCRRTO < ¥() $ Adjestment : 420,448). 227K HA) 000) 8 ah, 26978. : : oP: Windows. Sgaddw_. BCP CPUP | stra/spnkir syst. Kitch Appliance, ds . of sprinkler system Kitch Appliance |. abe azaal i i+ XK 8 Ma pie ib 84% Wiig, 77% NOM Groish 77%1S. ... atpagelGossad 67 SIS Re Adjosinesd (Tota) Aqused Sake Pice al Comparables % iS . zeny of te ce sate of Bansles heslocy af the subjert property ang corpuable Sales (‘apart pedo poor sales on on a Repor she resuks: abet ieseaich ad f znalysls RABE SME #4 to mie | COMPARABLES 5 to. ancach x6 Counly Ret ig \"COMPARABLE SALE # & | ds |Coman ch County Records IComanche County Records |i _ [tarsei2025 9273012025, Zee z of pir sale @ bansler Notay ottthe subiect propedty aedcompanthesies jyano2028 No apparent ptior sales of transfers found. fos the subject, proparty within Fa ihe past 36 months prior to the effeciive date of this appraisal report, Comparable #1 Uansfered for an undetermined amount on 04/15/2025 from. comparables used within ihis ceport found within the past 12 ° Grantor: Templeton lo Grantee: Templeton. No apparent prior sales/transfers of the months prior to thelt most recent recorded sala. 0:4 purpoter.cl saat corngarnon, Ove la scape, soled 24 ny \" Conparttle $1 A brand satin be net coxad, ond hy corisitared sendat I caters tont Betis ener sonnet sane Sat sake, Saha utd domed Dal gales Seurnd Rem marti ota found bor te abc’ inven: paar ma race opr ta spe, Compares fear ehh fr ing wane a rae WS hint an bow bern are’ Suir OH! ned butary she vate, dae poalybetchodn a sects rated tng wad ot ANALYSIS ? co mh the myer, ad hte ie wee 4 Aerzapspacal nunoar, bbjoa peopaety edison, ba Freddis Mac Form 70 March 2005 dinanian, ond AD Version 2011 \"Fanos Maa Form 1004 Match 2005 ‘arm TOOAUAD.{AC) « \"TOTAL appraisal sofware by a fa mode, inc.» 1-800 ALAMODE WEST_000719 ics CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 164, "t": "ce Peet Repeal ap Supplomortal Addondum tints. eee Adbet 2 NV DilarctookOF Cty ; Lawton Lemke Arvest Donk. gg _ Gant Comanche teal costed poet are Tizs0260710 , fun OK BC snnperaneeennneees 70505 - Bales Compaitoon Agpineeh Racorieihistons Qotrtw yenritrboodbendnin 5 cd viewed adbi maniedend i rae sony ph fe spe sd ned on anesdantat Spe of sone i daoctons conan 1 er lets do eth patton, Scdgedts statounding Heid are 6 major honevghire, US poy tobe nih a3 dosed pate ana aodmajtwoul tetra ; on Jou dvendings and additon: wah obal canpeg a achoot to tse NE, Gohvecne d Pennie ted yal lar Hider obtervest in a drexdine of the sudgnel popaity. Ho: NAsdvi ons Seulipepemeig anime mre, nach the sibjeel property's ania hagas Lavy erating comtstorec sry) olabte Whi URYSET A com WEL Ho af scretansabe oh Dek ofsenepaction, ‘Lol af time aiba cond Toa butject’s fi Sybdhtiten, Patan Volley South, 1s corisidered bs have remaindd slob with Zan ft ene Os pe fore erated 3084 hoe Brough elon MLS pubteabons crete pe tags fclshed bekig ated, rom cod) for he . pd in 3 cordon st ting Tecend Updalins' efutd shmond observed bo the hilchen td roosl all comendn aceae of Dre shvetieg (169 Friproverrarisen os page of 6 of Ba UHAR aid sitetotimtedot photos allached hxribe: along sain Hib raped), Wi the Subjact’s Fnenediale/conpeting mnavkal atea over the pas 12 mageat ah ene aa manned ig fe ‘he FAV Lawn acon and located $ouah of Fort $8 Artery Pon = Tle 2000s 3.00 blah Ie the 4 79 it Be rang roperty 31 Hine of ke peijertcanedcticer eet sec0as fo bcatregionsl employment and sunpod service’ hh the Lawion’F or Si Scan wi ariuiBen Song RY 62nd Steal, Lovited Simover dus Io Jocallon bo deppon sales search aspinaded to cludethe eg ruzal bubdivistod of Pad of toh more Arang bed eg rs F's rural subdivision ig kcated 31 men seeders courted hoophil edang v537 eran ane nae ba Dostovontdon na Sasipiiyn, gush ann one tena bab com eaeerae beachals the subject fel lahed Eving dea on the Greater end, oo, J stiperio# ini x ibulory te valve, prea ames le at alorage to that itocaled win waft homed ral sunita, Pecan fo the SW, conskéered Jnferior in hathroorn coun, abd is considered siovtarbi peesey South, : iy aor jects ie Beisbed tern cok foisted iving area on the fisret sad: 1s considered kitartoy Wu bathroom gaunt aridfb gualty, condition, and cay alevage ty thai of Ihe subject. Comparable #5 fs located vein the dtlectivaly brackets fia subject's felsned bing ares on the guoatar ond, fa, pesidored inferiee in b2 eee, and car reat ard brackaled at devnnegossfo bthat storage, Canek quai ate of cone, nate, chrtor siva. 30d overall weightlenphass placed upan Comparables #1 iSanine wexpie aco Mena comparables vied wan 4s bolus: : . “Comparable Ri _ Comparable #2 ‘Comparabio #3 ‘Comparable tL, J =f 0.2D OS Comparabiots = | 015 | Tivbr icone al ao peck ie titnsled ¢“ ate, fy ens son, cain _ 312576 364032 312448 seno74 ariel vale opnan of hw sed pope a défense value eatenate of $340,000 ini ‘a3 it” condition or 46.2881 and ls asist compaction approach and ober salns reconted of sinilar scope win tie subject a market aves “Using | recéer, comparanle. sales found within the subject's immediate and compating market area with das uied widen ta sisbjact s inenedateloampoting market ares for a propety of skrviur scape, Aiough tha subject presamrnant sales rings {or the subjects immediate and competing markel area for sates seconded over ie past: mie property ft nol tons dered ove bul for Bet ante wth no apnavenl negaivg atects Gelected to ‘ corde as +24 mora witin te wibjecta mahal sea ol timtar eoope 1. Giving consideration10 | Seabee 0 thal the astimalad eachai valve opinionof the subject propgyty “st te\" ie $340,000, ” * Fal § ot the URAR (continuss): eee placed ch to vahie being most refada due $0 avea Delng Al inphaila laced uo Sales cng 20 ON a ae ae tsicani nents approach deemed unrekadle and Nol devéioped dust lo the daeling being owner occupied al me | Intpecton and dealings seing within subject's inmedialarcompeting Markel 63 Over | Ve past.12 months spacticaily [of rental pur : rel mudipher tae & property of his scope, Cosi approach desired ory ‘ated nol devak age beng range Veneta eangahon prencnto es oo ihe natinaled priarkel vale yous pe. Oe Ot 3 Oper rn ait opinion of the subject propaity “as ia” 44 $340,009, Addenaa: Vial the property fs ken from defects. The ten “inspection” as ured mihi repel i only ancobsecvaion af he sutiect sala do nol guiranien ortad 1, & mer A. The36, ~ enty 70d i eatery onal property anid should nol be contueed with oa amere sgson tar, pi tw salem, ns foundation peaeyaes hikoopeee ston, fpote biviseibaiied cbtecysfnapect pect tie podhed's slortical 1nytt ae, oNphardiog § 9 othe corsin the wi emesis saaly to Mspecor fending purpores aniy. Lecdatictoe as cece tale on home Rapectons va a quaited A VISUAL ANO THE APPRAISER 15 NOT A HOME MSPEGTOR, TIS APPRAISER ONLY PERFORMED APPRAISAL IS NOT A HOME INSPECTION MOVE PERSONAL PROPERTY SN THE Cys EAVATION OF ALL EASILY. ViEWAGLE, UNOGSTRUGTED SURFACES OF THE OWELLING AND. Ex0 NOT DEFECTS IN THE PROPERTY NOT ABLE 0 BE PROCESS, THE APPRAISAL REPORT CANNOT BE RELIED UPON 70 DISCLOSE CONDITIONS ANOPOR VEWED OR ACCESSED BY THE APPRAISER AT TIME OF INSPECTION. mode, Inc, - §-€00-ALANOOE by 2sird form TADD < \"TOTAL? agocalsal yottve WEST_000720 cs CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 165, "t": "[orore Supplemental Addendum hen Swot eee PNW Belarcreok DF o Lawton “[hendev€ fest... Arvosl Bank yagi rsza02s0zt6. SHE OK Dp Goce 73505 . Canty Comanche ; zy EXIRAOROWARY ASSUMPTION: Ta Uti San fbi Sear Fie tebe gestae, nie, toured jo ba faisie, could aot He Appa Pcs dts eo foe war +e Fi Otheeuly uricotain laforma Biryslcal, legal, Gy Reorionite checectoststcs of ie Hharkol conctionts of ends, oF bboxl ha le gity Legh k Sarvaie aces , vpn 0 _ os ; Ji Of abot LOndonygut &,, EXTRAOROINARY ASSUMPTION THAT ALL, JRFORMATION PROVIDED BY. LAWTON MLS PUBLICATIONS, COMANCHE COUNTY RECORDS, LAWTON CITY HALL, REALIST, DATASCOUT, OXCOUNTYNECOADS,COM, DEQ, LISTING AGENTS IDENTIFIED WITHNY THIS REPORT, AND TIE SUBJECT PROPERTY D\\YWER IN REGARDS TO BOTH TE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S AND THE COMPARABLE'S USED PROPERTY CHARAGTERISTICS, AS WELL AS. SALESAISTING INFORMATION WAS COMPLETE ANO ACCURATE AT TIUE OF INSPECTION, AH EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTION IS AN ASSUMPTION DIRECTLY RELATED TO A SPECIFIC ASSIGHMEHT, WHICH, JF FOUND TO BE FALSE, COLAD ALTER THE APPRAISERS'S OPINIONS OR COFCLUSIONS. 8, WN) radating maskel and grand demand, A hua appraiva’s professorial option that the hight and best we for the abject property nf prosand une asa algle farrily ‘esidertlal dneiing Ba fox the habowing re Highealeetura tothe land: 8 He fy fea tek , ; Mgt Legally pertnlesibhe: Ho local zoning endorced,di, Covenants 30 ¢ bolt eared pedestal . Physically poeeibie, Subjects toh Snitiued level, has access 16 boty pubde snd pulvale utleied consldased lyplcalfor Ihe Uta nate wea, and owy dig lo the Cy of Leion, publc reat was pot ayatable to tha subjects real subdivisions at time of inipertan. Accoragta be Giyltein ui peet Pa ar, access fo cy sewed sth tll retention lagoon synierns considered tpacat wast racnayal syolems fg Whe subjects hdacbed with sublecta markel area at ine of inapection for being connected lo a flat retention martlsbiy area,Ho sp ariot négachve mace of Jans valusb'e, No hesponaibalyfs & assumed : ar noperte conn oe oonts vd rors ah o udder Aafepkouhaagiesbe bes oer tp peated Jidgemant maybe made by ie appt meas as tothe adequacy of inaxdation, bye of Handard for ihe wabjecl age one bps. soll or Bidder sleuctural, 06 other componends:: pretetchar hovee au ttre meberd wiess openly sled ons oman r a ta rp te and ¢ y a wie Inada. Wha rep Aivitieperenicenisat ood Sisreoch ei teas cna wubsidence In the ares is unkrwan, Thaap oe does Aol warren Sgainal OS e. te une poked on ele pr md tn ace ra fies OF any a cilectursl, ing In natura, No opicion la rendered a5 to ihe tite, which t presumed 10 be good and meychanlabie. The’ 1 eng Bed aed cow ues obennen elated Ix pardoaee gat othe mopar ‘The legal description fs sasiered lo be. correct as uned In Ihe repar as Rarnted by the Cot pan sac fue in Bi ree Hehe cles, orat pared by ae 19, STRUCTURAL STATEMENT: Inspecdon of ine satject caivaaled no apparent lect property. Xa noted, tow Ja Nghly recartenended Ibal a quate lana i ncaa nes a Ard, Thub, 1 is anton specihealy f def cts which arg mega asumed consideted ae fae 1 be det vr clit lin} Uisg sruhetabidty of he fen thal af aapects of te stuctare .2., foundation, walls, rool systent, 936.) a1 of sabelacion and are thy #304 cond AN EXTRAORDINARY ASS! STIONIS AN ASSUMPTION OMECILY. RELATED TOA SPECEE: ASSNVENE WHEH, ¥ FOUND 70 ee FASE, COADALTER me APPRAISERS S OPIRIONS, OR CONCLUSIONS, Aga, (an ral ¢ shuctonl engines, aod bharedore the aloe autrnate fe subject fo change thould gone e aiding the physical integrly ol te titichire | Hever, : $2, $7000:B0RING INSECT STATEMENT Ho wien of uy ace isan of wy wood brn isi was ed hog he hapecon fo dns of wood Garg mace was ioncly neanehe “Wt nied | ay rat epg in he detacton of wood shoring insects and K i Racelora recommended 8 qualiied Larsficaton on itis have is hecessary, Tht, ih spcticady assured al ro wood bering ntact ae present in be dling ¢ 90 the ‘subject wis, AN SAAOOnARY ASSUMPTION [9 AN ASSUMPTION DIRECTLY RELATES TO A SPE CW IC ASSIGIOENT We FOUNO.TO BE am pol aft se ie} His Selaction of wood-boving iitects, and Ihecetort FALSE, COULD ALTER THE APPRAISEAS'S OPINIONS OR CONCLUSIONS, Agel lar elie outmate i sutjocl fo change spout sore . Wa p garding wood boring utects setae ibe aeect dotting oF on ihe sbjects sa 4 In Form TADD = \"TOTAL\" appraisal software by a ba mode, ine. « 1-800-ALAMODE WEST_000721 cs CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 166, "t": "fu ip. 7(230060210. Supplemental Addendum. Roney [Doped Addast Nod 5. Weal 7. NWY Oplaccrook Dr Lawen Cony Comanche Arba Bagh. sabningQ isting uid wos Ha repent igonstdaied sal robin ed Wait Kiet ascs optcty charactiri thie meal Valse oploion lor the Lubjedd peopaity ab ol date acne Ce P $224 mooihy, veri Salea Canparivon Apgroach Grid dartrad [rors Nalodcal dala (und velhin tho eran Weta capsheater eo MLS publeations Socal county (ocords/antasead data, and pasrad arabyels, Further pepancin otis search fachacges bn marel covets, os tees, hove band Ee ahead fr sa chassis ice a stl e pcan ese8 pes sepuncrep rere crea Hosenled hereto, Ta axpacsd sales sesich tng Arbor Tate panoyiechorachaben, bE dota of Se woULt, tha appeatsars opinion, hirer He valuation’ process aad fad $e prouuce a more credbtefedut. 1B. DesignStys + Sites used wanin this tapod co Although arpaekusinects ahr sergenettay Gon Neder thaeco eval between pnd yh de J myst pina : relabte In 6: fale sinha ¥i ansulmcle ranted ated ¥ cic 445 iecy deviqn/styia, Cenkdibatory edps Toned pay haste er tour aa ath mis tea f sais of waatanes surge ints, oF the lack there of, <Olacsricetin Srathel acaa over the past 42 months usiig Lawion ILS eee, Comanche cane opany charac 1 de sale .aut nf appeaaeopion, 1%. Actual Age Vesiara « Sales vied satin tia Hepod, esenlsee Cosas! Ih actual oe! ste brake other key. peony Chatacledistex masociahed with the fir por isos ob u kor d ad betes 18. Room Counl ~ Sales used wits) Ih repord Contry nt e200 pr bos and competing marke area over tre paal 12 conakdered rd ost fab h ng fais mash él vahin operon bor Ihe subect property a9 od date of hngpaction, $2,000 pe M4 baton and 31,000 pa al bacocm derfeiil dered from historical dala found waitin subjects immechale Rather in datance, property charmctorintes, or in 7 ng Laratan MS pub ; County Records, and pated anal To erpand sales search any would, in thet ppcaier oi. een oes fed bo produce 4 mone crests (eau. daiced mott canbe be h date jy etna a tele market valle opledon for the subject property ag of dale of wavs search pay anaiys.Yo perhgeleted be : cA arty ac aehe woud, nthe appraisers opirien, Kinder tha evatrfcn process and tad 6 produce a mote ced renal, bert iiaoo pes Sais uted wii the ropa conasdared trot re Kable Ly found wf crprog ras characterises, cre Pup + ropes “» iy A ta rash yn opision fora sutjecd property at of date of lupe, Inapectionbo muppod aquaiments ba breen die 40k with an additonal pato or dech bs Ooposed is dekngs salog Wilh fo buch Faahise, Contriolory adjustments, or the ech re ob. tar such eaboe{s) domes from tateheal ttt ‘within ‘subje dis tmenédaie and compating mavkat area over tha past £2 moréna unlog HLS pubicabons, County Records, and paired wralytls, To expand 1869 teach fey farther in hatance, property characters, of del of sate would, te sppratar opinion hear he evahuson proceed and fad fo produce a mvarg credits seul, 22, Fandlegf€P (Storm Collar » Salen uted within this feport considered mit sebubleby ast 1 2 Eat rachel wate opinion fr the subladl property as of date of wih a ng1 selling pecan bn SupportBd; . Although positily canakiored more marketable, Yreeticra nkormuson booed ste .tlorrn ghatey or stcem cedar as oppoted la drvelings saling wii no sich feahire, Lach of coniibudary adiveiments for such feature derived Irom Nulonical data found within subject Immedisia and competing rhahet aces over tha past 12 mordhs using MLS pubfcalions, County Recards, aed pared analysis, To expand sales Search acy forthad In dinlance; property cherecterietics, or in dale of sae would, i the appeatsed Opinion, hinder tha evahuilion process and Bad io produce a tare tiedbie feaul. 23, Oates Featoree (Sieg Bikdg{s}, Inground Sprinkler System) + Sale “uted wag Ihis report consider subject proparty ax of dats of Inspection. Atthough possibly conshi ; uictent b most refibie iy eat 4 fas mavhad vain option fo the Found al tene of nap Daten dwergs sting wits «sg bits) a vatovs sce x apposed to dwelings sag wit 00 auch feahr, bis poh eosed na nana, Rineol ct to support adjustments betenen dealings seing wih an inground sprinkler sys een 28 Opposed to dealings Wenn tach tena, per ry adjuster ns fr festvos Hahed above nssocsind wi ibe corparsbies Used win 8s repo Geived ort Nskrial data Sound within the subjects Ine diate and sahea sees any Rambo dance, pany morecredble 16 har eaten ¢ tha past 12 months uking MLS gudscaiona,i Counly Recarda, and paced analysis, Yo expand or tvdate ole weal inthe appraiser's opinion, Neder the evaluation grocass and fad to produce & ‘Form TADD TOTAL! appraltat software by 2 bt mode, ine. ~ 1:80: ALAMODE WEST_000722 .*¥ CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 167, "t": "71230250216 Markel Conditions Addendum tothe Appralsal Report rane. trasoesagte The puepasi of ths adderahunls io vow Oh Sndettkenl ih a Chew and accarate undealandang Ol fie maak Res and canaPlons preva nthe subyeeT pet hae fs ae we dor 28 appraisal teports with an ateciive ate om or afte Apr 1, 2004, 5 Grlarcreok Or Sule ff Cate Bertone Nall S Wosl OH Lewton on me roens iatrvebons: Tha apiiation mest aie Ha btomaten raepdced on ts tor a3 Bvt bas fo have coachaslont, bod mv plo depo for thas conclusions, regarding hovishoy bends ard ovesot mabel canublens 43 iepovlod bn Hifeghbethood \\dcionol dy aggealsat raped fen, The apyalier rat Ain all tha Plormaton io the eaten Why penigble and 1e4abig and nut! povide vs Wit aa kcicaled Ealaw, W ary tequed dats fe aniayatable of considered unvedable, the dppcaiaer tisk porkda at eaplanaton, 3s recogrized Dial nol al dala soueces wd be tit le rai data dot Mot shaded seeas Gaba, WK fs avolat, honey, appeaiger ssl iechde he data Wa te anysis. dala souires pride the teqled dndnrnation as i dveeaga Sond of Oa tala, he doped she erpart oe eae gure arc Mefity 1 28 20 Heap, Sales and bshngs musl bo preperties Hal compete witethe sbfetl property, Guteined by applingWea tebeda Boal wood ba pred by a pean buyer of hs sublecl property, The spyvilsts crust eqplias any apomates bs Bg dats, suchas seoseal mnarhets, haw constuction, foreclosures, eft. Prci 7-12 ont 3 denier Anat Tel 2 ol Conpart Sag ome) ° acu mi ‘Qrelal Tien “Et bereaseg [26 Stale Gunted = hooks : Absorption Bats (ota Silex Monthy) Total # ot Consparab Active Liitegs Monts of iocsing Sippy [Total Ustngo Ab Ante Rector Sale & Lal Pris. Medini Compp abla Sat 5 Prin 7-12 Months. | Por 4-6 Months 319,333. iz Medias Comoaable Seles Days on Midd 8 Madan Conpasatye List Prica : BSS Nogizy Cesmparatto Listings Days an Natal ej Hedin Sol Pace a8 \\ of Us ce Suller-{devtlopes, bukder, ec. jpasd frarcal ansistance evade? : HE Yes ra Caplan ba detad tne seller concesstons bends foe bss pal 12 morehs (, Us suber it ieereasing” x |i Mo closing costs, conde oTdaydanns, s creased fom 35 fa 58, conve | lees. options. ie), ln researching subject stoperty’s market area forthe past. 12 monihs, comparable sates: showed amidue of Conventional VA, and | FHA transactions where se paylng between 0 - 6% of tha buyars closing costs. Finandng concessions of up Edio 68% assoctated with Conventional, FHA, and VA loan programs. considered gyplcal | for the subject's immedialalconipaling mnarkel 1 area, No G other apparent spectat fifinancing concessions.o¢ significant changes In financing Wends abserved with comparable sales reviewad in subject & proporty's immediate markal area aver tho past 12 months. 0 no comearable data found. . the bends in stings 90d satesof ean pregeaae). TY Yes “3K Ho A yps, expan (nckiog Pg Are torechasere Sates (REO sates} a fasteren bemathel? over the past 42 manths, no significant bends in reviewing Lawton MLS publications and | Comanche County! Records in suibdfeet’sn racket arn identiied showing an active destination cycte ln subject's inmadiata markel area, O-no comparable data found Gate dala sources foc adove intermaton, Information Lawian City |Halt, DataScout, Resist, OKeounly 0-59 comparabte data (ound Summarize tH above information 3 appt an atalysls of pendey sales ry Ta expe and witntrawn Lets gathered from the Tollowing sources: x0 Tawion MLS publications, Comanche County Records, com, DEQ, isting agents identified within this report, and the subject proparly owner. : Wood sacbon of Bee appraisal report form. Tyo bent rns bn ed oy abalone evn uppot for your conchasiens. : rip be fhpal skewed sh ig Skghlly greater ses of vwos conpaison §Sales paces appeared to be stable and considered lypicalof other 5, 0-00 is awndl ia 2 condominy Wi the sbject Subecl Proc! Gata Tal oe Be Saas Gelied) seal ‘ eiietheleowing: RAD BRS POE ef e ee Te .. ” : fitofeet Mamet _ Oyetal fiend $ Mons Po Prter 4-4 Moths [Carel ERENT: comparable data found penaeny Tht ae TT DCE i Absorption Rate (Tolaf Sales Moths) ~ [CF Oecheing rare hereasing verre CONDO'TO-OF PROJECTS Total # of Acbve Comparable Uistros Mowths of lit Supply (Total Listingy/Ab Rate) Ae loreclosure gales (REQ saves} a Heleva the projec? foreclosed properties, Surrerze Dug eve keds ard addiess tne impacl on i subyect nit and project, pth Signalat Pa Aeprar tame poe PA Company tate = Peak Ole Service LLC Fy Company Addess PO Box 281, Ekle, OK 73538 Fa Sti kinseCentcaion # 42778CRA EmalAdéess ipaakGids.nal Fiedéia Mac Form 74 March 2069 Sit OK : Lempany Adiras ee _| Stale Lgaasatedeaion # | fread Aadhess epageloi ; re Sun : Fances Maa Form 1O0IMG March 2009 Form {O04MC2 - \"TOTAL! aporalsal softwase by ala mode, inc. -1-800-ALAMODE WEST_000723 cS CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 168, "t": ". Catone Noll 3 West Poveyyey Aan TW Cty Lend Aivost Bank Cent NAY Orlorereok sak OrC tonty we Comanchi . \" fie Re, 74230250216 galtOK «Ap Eade 73505 APPRAISAL AND REPORT IDENTIFICATION This Repoit £8 ofy9 of thd following typos: . DE AppralsatMepent (A waltten report peepared anes Standards Reta 2-2¢4). jeaaianl Wo the Seopa of Wok, 2s dstlosed elsewhere j Restricled {A weriten tepod prepsted under Standards Mula 2.29) , pursuant fo tha Scope af Work, a8 disclosed alsewhere fo this 1epod, Appralsaiflapon Bis report — resbieted 49 tha stated trlerdéd use hy the speclited heel ot wlended user) Comments on Standards Rute 2-3 | cocty Chat, bo th Debt of eny Iniewiedod and balel: _ [> The Statements of acl condained In this repott are (ue abd correct. ~ Ta repoced analyses, opinions, and conchians ate Brite only by tha por assumptions ve rites dy pls aoatlyses, epitions, and conchisions, gl ote pd : a ~~ Unieys cdhecnse tnd at, have no present &¢ pidspecte inert Be property thalls He subfictof i fea and nit pecsonal terest wih respect oho putes bed : | « Doles othecwist Indicated, | have pirformed o seccts, 35 an appralset or indy other Capac, regacdng tb propaety Units tha subjectof ns repor within the Bee: ym - pod Inmedately preceding acceptance of Wis aitignnenl, + Ubasd 0 Dias wih respect fo fhe propesty What ks the subject of this report or tha pasties invotved init tis assignant, + By eegagement in Ihis assignment was not coritingent upon developing or reporting predelesmined resulls, + My compensation lor completing this asslgrenenl Is hot coetlngent upon the developmesd or reporting of a predetermined valug of dhection in valve tal (avers the cause éf “elles, he amrounl of bye wae opinion, the alta of a spudated resul, or ihe occurrence of a subsequent event Seectly related fo ha inleoded use of this appraisal, | «My analyses, opinions, and conclusions ware develoged, and this feporthas been prepared, in contomnity wih the Uiniiorm Standards ef Prolessional Appraisal Pracive that were in ediect at he Gane Wiis report was prepaed, “» Uniess otherwise Indicated, | have made a personal Inspect of the property Ghatts tia subject of fis repo, c= Unless otherwise Inicated, no one provided significand seal property appralsal assistance to the person(s} signing IMs certfcation [if Oieve are maceptions, the name Ot each Tedividual providing signiticank red property appealsal ascistance fs slated etewhera bn INis report}, ‘Reasonable Exposure Time {USPAP defines Expasiste Time a3 tha estimated length of tkme Wat the property interest belng appraised would have been offeced on the market pelor to the nypotnetical consummation of a sale af mashet yatue on the effective date of the appraisal} My Opinion of Reasonable Exposure Time for the subject property at the market Value stated in this report is: 0-3 months . The Umaframa as fisted above is consWered a bi ‘Umo for subject's immediate/compating markel araa based on reviewing. recent comparable salas and listings using Lavdon MLS pubscathons. Comments on Appraisal and Report identification -Note any USPAP-related issues requiring disclosure and any state mandated requirements: by heen from detecty, They irene “ssgrtcbon” 9s vated ig 4 report is only anh tthe prepesty gresrartes nde Ral ‘mapa ard ad efegernt ty profaynanat hor ty pector pacha : “per. HVAC syns, Faraone fo dy ks fending purposes8 Oy. us Sent! secur Hew BAAN, Poi owns h co k shanad ck be, tet, : she Jy Hema cer we Ou Ve Rea ree wes YO ad propacty. PERE ORNED ONY FAS APPRAISER A HOME H WOT w~ ee 4 ska a ail 9 Ha a quilfed bripectes wid property mje é he, Tha op tng Lg nyse she das en nok Rw cbse eben, Tha aepeaysne only “abesives and reports\" and toes AVISUA . ALL EASY VEWARLE, OF THE APPRAISAL REPORT CANHOT IME EEL IEG L004 TG OFLC ONE COMTATIONS AIOM AN DD MoT wen, Pinson PROPERTY IV THE PROCESS. GQMORSTRUCTED SURFACES OF THE DWELLERS ; “OLFEGTE PA THE PROPERTY MOT ABLE TO BE VIEWED OF ALCESSEOBY THE APPRATSEAAT PMEOF ATSPECTION. Ho camert prnitapharea papas yout charaetat ee pelurn hey wry pone aechrnt tts g erence i MLEXTIADROHAY ASS ICH dwetheng pre ta da macharical, ix ekablato the agyeeitat wagens : an of $00 ehacirve dein of va rppraaal report He rerporundalty exauened Sy Wie sper now fot bead mater ih 1: Se. Whar Mic nose wy, Win Dapy athe botbog ono paca ated fala diet Wheat $e emerted, “tn, # FOUNG [0 06 FALSE, COUGALILADE AM ASLOWPTON DACTLY RELATEO TO A SPEERIE ASSIOMVENT, Wracal, CONCLUSIOHS, Agnes, fare pol 9 onde ctomptone wens, weed aw, punptiementnanarant tat nr. toe deat ropa. ae ee te safe shonetate ta voli Sov so vrepwer empoirg atdcrl sarczavieaper Se sche Pony e $ uarcarsiong ser carp Lbuyrg bons at By se6 Hk SUPERVISORY oF CO-APPRAISER (It applicable}: by Sipuhat, H Lan Th, exenge ahaa sath Jerre bed hited acts hes report ne Tecy Peak Sia Certheatiog #: Side Cerifeaton #: 1277BCRA Sule: OK a Licenses — Explation Bate of Cettcacon Dale of Signanye and Report aie | Data of tnspecdon eau ook and ste Hean& Wedor 4300v loge [| BeaOnly | fom BiE- “ITAL ExpeaBea Date of Certeabon ov Ucense: Sait 42/31/2026 auiowranes ctiva Gale of Appratzal: ponaee Faget ot Stata Crease #; ee of Slate License #: pp Date of Signatures a of Subject, ‘Wrapection satay 4a mode, ; ; and Extetor {| Hone {| peer (F applied): Date of hapettion (| Besioe-Only = + 1-800-ALAMOUE WEST_000724 cs CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 169, "t": "Subject Property Parcel Pane Parcel: O2N13W-26-1-94900-020-0003 1D: 160077521 127912625 12:51:40 AM Comanche Counly Report Proparty Owner Nama: WEST, NEIL & LACY Mailing Addreas: T NW ORIARCREEK Da : LAWTON, OK 79805-4213 Type: (Ri) Res. Improv. Tar District: (9) CACHE RURAL 106.39 Millage Race; 106,39 Property information ; Physical Addraes: 7 NY BRIARCRECK DR i. _ - \"Subdivision, PECAN VAGLEY SOUTH ce _Blocluter: 0020/0009 ! ' ‘ : - Sire (aeresk ‘0.00 oe begat: PECAN VALLEY SOUTH 8X20 LOT 3 7 . 7 Market and Assessed Values : Land : building) “— oo | Feats] sett Oc cones ~ al | Taxes | | _ 3386 Eaimated Taxes: aoe pea caan menace lune wn _ _ LOT AREA anne Full: Astestad 42,240 4,782° 9s S~*~«S,0D S| cnc eer’ ns a htnbnren So scat ne a ~ 7 ~ occa a maa eee oly Conte Nate: Taxamounts areestates No [ Land Tanable Fair Cash [sue [1.00 seems mar | the county treasurer for ean amounts, — weer ~ smn en hte an re conan nn ft NO i Deed Transfors a Deed Date = Rook [Page | Deed Type ‘Stamps 7 ‘Ost, Sale [Grantor yz26202i 8967 212 | JTWO 390,00 |BURNS, BILIED & VIOLA F 0 Jo [Warped “ef £260,000 fears, ens” fo —— [WAISON,HARGLOWsDOROT-A loao}40 _ ‘Residential Card 1 Details Occupancy © story “Single Family | t Consteuetion. ONE 7 “Veneer, Masonry : Total Liv i Grade 4 Agel Yesr Built” cere ressbenm en + aa ss ie “997 4. Condition adie Beds bite Goat | form SCRLGL - TOTAL’ appraisal software by 2a mode, ine, « 1-800- ALAMODE WEST_000725 cs CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 170, "t": "74230780210 imi. 14730750210 UNIFORM APPRAISAL-DATASET (UAD) DEFINITIONS ADDENDUM thouiae: Forule Mae UAD Apparetic 0: UAD Fidki-Sporifte Stindardizaltan Roqurements) Conditto Ratinys add Delititions Tho lingroverionits have boon sacedtly congtructed and haveinol bien previously occupied. Tha entire stiucling and all components are naw dnd the dwveiting tealuias nd physical dapiotlation, Note: Newly constructéd imqravansenis Vial leature tecyeled or pieviously used maleitals and/or componéils can ba ton sidered new dwelings provided thal Ihe dwoling is placed on 4 106 potcont siowy fowidstlon arid the saeyehiu materiatg aie the rocyéled components have been ehabitiated’remanulaciured Into te-now condltton: hptaveddeits that have riot Boer previously occupltd ard nal coasideied “few” H they have any sigatticant phydleal depuectation (thal le, nawhy conatuicted dwebliiga Mal have baen vacant for an eiténded period of dime without ; adequate malnlenanes or upkeep}. c2 Tha improvernonts feature no dafeued makieriance, tito or no pliysieal Gspvactation, and toquite no fepairs, Virtually aff building components are neve oF have been reconily cépated, iotinished, ot tehablbiatadl, Al ouldated components and fnisties have been updated and/or replaced ‘wih coniponents Hal mect current stadatds, Durdidiigs bi ils cateyary afd either alnwsl now ox have been tecently conipltely renovited and ace slenilat lA caddalee fo new conalinction, Nole: The boprovenients represent a celaltyely new propel ly that Is wet malnlained with no dalerrad malrilenaniee and Na oF no pirysicat depreclatlon, Of att older property hal has deen tecomtly completely renovated, i) Tha mor $ are well hed and featule Imited phystcat dopresiation dua fo normal wear add tear, Same components, but nol every Major budding component, mayba updaisd of rec ently rehablitaied, Tha structure has been well maintalied, Note: The enprovoment is In hs first-cyele of repiacing Short-tved bulding comparwats (appliances, hoor coverings, belong well maintained, fis estimated elfectiva age fs less than iis actual age, Walso short-ived bulding ¢4 components have baen replaced HVAG, atc.) indis may fefect’a property in which the malarity of but not to the favel of Complete ranovation. . Tha improvements feature soma minor deferred maint and physical detest Gon dus to nommal wear and tear, The dwelling has haan adequately malatained and sequires onty minimal repairs to building nle/mechanical and Je tepairs, Al major buliding components have been adequately malnained and are functionally adequate, Noto: The esiimated elective age may be clase ta oF equal lo Its actual age. A reflects a propartyIn which some of the shoctived ponents have been bullding replaced, and some short-tived buliding components ara at or. near the end of thalt physical fife eupectancy, hoveved, thay still function adequately. Most minor tepals have been addiassed on an ongoing basis resuxing in an adequately malntained Property. i) The improvements feature obvious deferred maintenance and ae ln need of some sigaitic amt tepalrs, Some bulldng components need repaits, The fanclonsi ulilty and dverall Byablity is somewhat diminished due ta Condition, but the dweling remains rehsdiitation, of updating. useable and funclkinal as a residence, Note: Soma significant repairs are needed to the lmpravements dus to Uwe lack of adequate ot hs short-tved building components are 3t tha end of or have Une physical fle maintenance, exp Krefects a property In which many y but remai functional, €6 The improve: have substantial damage of deferred mai with deficlenctes or detects thal are severe enough fo atic! the safety, soundness, of structusal lntegety o] the improvements. The knprovements ae in need of sudstanSal repairs and rehabilitation, nehuding many oF mast major components, Note; SubstanUai ropalrs are needed fo the improvements due to tha lack of 4 qu te mala Of ploperty damage, Nreflects a property with conditions severe enough to atfect tha satety, soundness, of structural fiteqrity of tha improvements, Quality Ralings and Definitions ai A‘ resitees Mirest ty rating are usual y unique structures that are Midividually desigaed by an architect fora speciiied user, Such a vetted tom slated architectural plans and specifications and featura an exceptionaly high deve ol workmanship and exceptionally high-grade materfals Uvoughoul the latetfor and exterior af the structure, The design features exceptionaty high-quatty axterlor refinements and amamontavon, and axceptonally high-qually inteser Uvoughout ths dwatiing are of exceplionally high quatty. toft ts. The and Finishes ship, Dwellings with Uvs quality rating ara offan custom designed for constnuclion on an Individual property owner's site, However, dwellings in this qualty grade aro ats faund ln Mgh-quathty tract developments featuil kg trusted fam plana or trom highly movilied or upgraded plans, The design features datalied, high quality exterior omamentation, Nph-quality lnterlor refinements, and detail, The a “ workmanship, materials, and flashes Uioughoulthe dwabing are gereraRy of high or very Nigh quality. LAD Version 9/201 | (Updated.1/2014) form UADOEFINETA - “TOTAL appraisal sotwaveby 2 ka mode, inc. «1-800: ALAMOOE WEST_000726 Cc CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 171, "t": "UNIFORM APPRAISAL DATASET {UAD) DEFINITIONS ADDENDUM (Source; Fannte Maa VAD Appendix 0: UAO Fled- -Spaelfie Standardizallon Mequiremsnts} Quatity Ratings and Dollaltions {earittnvad) 03 Delage Vath Unis quably rallig are tesklencea of highte quality built Isom faeivdiual ov readily available designer plans ti above-stendard Tesklertlal tract Uevoloqwntonty ot on an indiddunl propétiy ovines’s site, The desig inchidas akyrtieand extedlor ofnanieftation ain! Intartoes that aio Wok linished, The’ workmanship axcaeils aceg ptabli stayearcs and maiy miaterlala and Balshos thiouighod Upgraded from *stock® standards, , me the dwoliag fave been \" a4 Dwetings ‘with Unis quatly rating Mant oF exceed tha tenutterionts of applleable bulking codes, Standard or modified standacd building plans afo villted aod lhe design includés adequate fenesWvallon and some axtatior otvtarnienl lion and lntedor refinements, Matellals, workmanship, feish, and equipment ate of stock or builder grade and may fealuce some upgrades, as Dwetings with this quatly rating lealurs econtomiy of cénstruction and basic functlonailty as imaln considerations, Such Gwelings (raluie 2 Plala design using readily avaliable a baste Noor plans Taaluting refnimal fenestration and baste fintghos wih minimal extavtor omamenilation and Imbted interior detall, Theso dwollings meet minimum bulluing codes and are constructed with Inexpensive, stock matertals with limited refinements and upgrades, i) Owallings with thls quadty rating ara of baske quailty and lower cost; some may natbe sullabie for year-round occupancy, Such dwetlags ard often budl with simple plans or without plans, often utilizing the lowe st quatty buikling materials. Such dwellings are oflen buik of expanded by persons who ars professionaly unshlted or pe only mi | tion skils, Eleebical, plumbing, and other mechanical syslams and equipment may be minknal oy nor-adstont. Older @welirigs may feature one of more substandard of non cont g additions {a the original structure : Dofinitlons of Not Updated, Updated, and Remadoled Not Updated Litte or no updating or Modemizalion, THs desériptlon includes, butis not ikntted to, new homes, Residential propadies ol fiteanyyears: of: ago of Mss. Often refleél an origlaal condition with no. updating, tno inajor anents have been replaced or undated. “Those over‘fiteen fi years of age ate alia considered nal | updated ithe : appkances, fituras, and finishes are predominantly sdated, An area halls ‘Rol Updated’ may slillbe wetl malntained and fully foncllonal, and ths rating dees nol nécessarly innply deferred maintenance or Diycafoetona ‘detarloration. Updated Tha area of the horns has bean modified to meel current market expaciations. Thess modifications are limtied in farms of both scopa and cost. \"An updated ards of ths home should Nave ari Improved look and feel, of functional utlity. Changes that constitute, updates ine ade sefurbishment and/or replacing componenlsto meet existing market expéclallons, Updates do nod Include significant afleralions to the existing structuse, Remodeled’ Significant finish andVor structural changes have been nade thal increase ulllly and appeal though ‘complete replacement andor expansion, Asamodeted area reilects fundamental ghangas thal Inctude multiple akerations, These alerations may Inchida Soene of all of the foGowing: replacement of a malor component (eabinal(s), datntub, or bathroom tie), relocation at plumblag/gas (bdures/appl. ines, Stgreticantsl | akerallons (relocating walls, and/or the addition of) square footage), This would inchide @ complete gutting and rebuild. Explanation of Balhroom Count Thiag-quarter baths art ceainled asa {uk bath in a gases, Quarter baths {baths that feature onby a toftel) are nat lnchided In tha bathroom count. Tha number of fut and bal i baths is reported by separating lhe two values using a period, wheie the full bath count is represented fo the lett of the pavfod and the hat hath coual ls reprasemed to the fight of tha pariad, Exampte: 3,2 indicates Uieas {ull baihs and two hail baths. UAD Version 9/2011 (Updated 1/2014) oom UADOEFIRELA - TOTAL appraisal sottwara by 2 ba mods, Ine. - 1 GO0-ALAMQDE WEST_000727 CS) CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 172, "t": "(Souvea: Fano t 0) DEFINITIONS ADDENDUM AD Field Specie Standadtzation Requirement) Abbrovintions Used is Dala Standarateation To (Style) nA Vee aie DeFinarcing Gong esslong ‘Location: & View : Basement & Fished Rooms Below. Grade Design (Styte): Daie-al Savi (Styie) Design ‘Saleor financing 6 ‘Area, Sita: Bas saint aa, Sita: : ale of Saaitine ake OF Toancing Concessions i ats ot SalefTime eo WADOASIWEIA TOTAL sob Tid, -400ALANOOE WEST_000728 cs CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 173, "t": "Stthloct Photograph Addondium Torawe Noell S West Property Akiess 7 NW Drlarcrank Dr tity Lawion LendoClien Arvest Bank County Comancha Sts OK dip Code 73605 Subject Front View Subject Rear View (1 of 2) Subject Rear View (2 of 2) Subject South Side View Subject North Side View (1 of 2) © Subject North Side View (2 of 2) Subject Garage Interior Subject Storm Celiar Storm Cellar interior Form PIG12 LT -\"TOTAL* appraisal software by ala made, ine, - 1-800-ALAMODE WEST_000729 cs CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 174, "t": "Subject Phetogranh Addendum [Rorower Nol $ Wost” Propeity Adios 2 NW Bitarernok Dr tity Linton Lende:Cient Arvest Bank Counly Comanche Sle OK ; pole 73505 Subject Living Room Subject Kitchen (1 of 2) Subject Kitchen (2 of 2) Subject Bedroom 4 Subject Bathroom 1 (1 of 3) Subject Bathroom 1 (2 of 3) Subject Bathroom 2 (1 of 2) Subject Bathroom 2 (2 of 2) Subject Bathroom 1 (3 of 3) Farm PICI2 LY “TOTAL appraisal software by a la mada, Inc, - 1-800-ALAMODE WEST_000730 cs CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 175, "t": "Photograph Addendum Derme ——— Noll § Wost Propady Addiess 7 NW Drinvereok Dy Chy Ledeen Lawton Arvest Bank, County Comanche Sie OK = Poh 79505 Subject Bathroom 3 {1 of 2} Subject Bathvoom 3 (2 of 2) Subject Den Subject Dining Area Subjuct Breakfast Avea Subject Laundry wi Sink Subject EatyiFayer Subject! South tlalhway - East View form PICS «*TOTAL* apovalsal software by a la mode, inc, » 1-800-ALAMODE WEST_000731 cs CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 176, "t": "Comparable Phota Page liwioant NAS Weal Hoge Adds 7 NW Dilaccreok Dy ty ihend Cleat Lawton Arvest Bank oy Code Shls OK 79605 Comparable 1 16 NW Ashbury Way Prox.toSubect Sales Pred 0,22 miles SV/ 345,000 Gross Log Aes 2,041 Total flooms ? Toll Bedrooms = 3 fol Batvooms = 2.1 Cocain Yew B;Ros; BPsiet; Sh Qualty 27475 st QI Ay 26 Camparable 2 68 NW Pecan Valley Or Prox, to Subject, = Saks Price Giois Uvieg Area Total Rooms 0.24 miles NE 335,000 2,728 9 Tata Gedrsoms Yo Satvoors 3.1 Letatoa &:Res: View B-Psut, Se T5588 st Quality Q3 Age Ri) Comparahie 3 22 NW Shadow Lake Rd Prox WSujxt 0.30 miles SW Sales Price 419,000 Gross Laing vez 3,067 Tolal Rooms 8 Toil Bedoorma 4 To Batyooms = 2,1 Locatien View BiRes; BPstel; Ste 23672 sf Quay Age Qa 25 Form PICHS.CR ~ \"TOTAL? appraisal software by 2 la made, ine, - £-200-ALAMODE WEST_000732 cS CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 177, "t": "Comparable Photo Pane Denewet Nell S Wast Tropeity Ades 7 NW Delarcrook Or thy LeadeiCi -Lawion Arvest Bank, Comy Comanche sue OK tow 73505 ° ‘Gomparahia 4 ONW Milcraak Ref Prov. a Subecl = 0.64 miles S Safes Price 290,000 Gross Ubing Atta 2,271 Told Rooms 5 Ta Gedrooms 4 Tan Bstvooms = 2.0 Located’ B;Res; View B;Psth: Ste 20609 sf OQuakty 03 Age a Comparabie 5 104 Viilson Lo Pronto Sebel =—«0.10 mites E Sates Price Goss Uiing Wea Total Roons 445,000 (2,765 ) Tad Becooms A Joa Bitvooms Location Vaw Sig Ovalty 2,3 BRes; 6;Psut, 26436 sf a3 Ag 1 Prox. to Subject Sates Price Gross Living Area Tota] Rooms Total Bedrooms Yolal BatNoomns Location View Se Quilty Age Fem PCDS.CR ~ \"TOTAL\" aporaisal software by 2 4 mode, Ine, - 1-600-ALAMQOE WEST_000733 cs CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 178, "t": "Subloct Bultding Sketeh [Reon Net S Won Dy Lawton Popa Mba Lendeytient 7 NW Duarcrodk By tanty Comancha Arvedt Bank » Uncovered Patio Den Be ettroom Bedraom | - tte Breakfast \\ Bath { i” g | ”a 2p Code 73508 eee Covered! Patlo 19.2\" . Sut OK oo, wn Lal Liv Room , a Living Bath Bedroom 4 Kitchen 83 2 T Laundry wi Sink Bedroom Entry 2 . : Dining 8a vo 11.6 W5 | Covered Porch . | Be Garage Storm Sherer pip 672.4 35,0 107.2 20.4 Foren 24 Patio 204,? 559 Patio $43 RQ att : : : ,{o 3Gar/Att pa | A I Storm Shelter s 672.4 35.0 19.3 4 36.2 * 19.8 30.8 382.2 Garage wm 1 (rounded) x 62.8 336.2 Zs 216.0 {16 2048 7a tba 34% 380 MIs aos Lge « i . ble Wb Dax SL9 x 74.8 x 204 x a a: ‘y ty OS Net LSVASLE 8.9 3 i i 9% 508.6) ba | 181.6 3 54 2.7 0 B34 26.9 4 t4ee 199.1 GIZA 2,484 [12 total Ress irquaded) aaa D> OORANONT (Leh) br, M4 Apa Betta are Foam SKT.BLOSK) - \"TOTAL\" apoeasal soRware by 2a mods, ine, « 1-600-ALAMOOE cS CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 179, "t": "Stthinot Loontion Map Dorteser Neil 8 Waal Roperty Addess | 7 HW tulatcronh Dr Ma Lawton Leader that Canty Comanchn Arvost Bau COMPARAQLE No.1 “15 NW Ashbuiy Way’. “0.2 miles SW TLV Gare Gar Se OK. ge . elo 79505 \"COMPARABLE plate No.5 04 Wilsonln Form MAP.LOG «TOTAL! appraisal sotteare by a fa mode, inc, - E-EXO-ALAMODE WEST_000735 cs CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 180, "t": "Subfoot Flood Map fonowe Nogrdy Akkest ht Loree Chen] Nail 1 West 7 NW Belmteronk Ly Lost Arvest Dash | InterFl ood . See OK . ; Op Gotu 73808 “i Proparad tor. Peak Appraisal Service, LLC 7 AW Brlarcrook Dr by aly inode oS . ees, “ost Sherer ‘ . Canty Camanelia . MAP DATA MAP LEGEND a FEMA Speclat Flood Hazard Area: No Map Number, 4003/Co407E° Zone: % Map Data: July 20, 2009 i Pinered by Cxetaged / Aress inundated by 500-ynar flooding . ; e Ataan inundated by 100-year flooding ‘Velocity Hazaid Protected Aras my. O Floodway Subject Area FIPS. 40034 Form MAP.FLOGD - \"TOTAL\" appvaisal software by a ls mode, Inc. - §-A00-ALAMODE WEST_000736 cs CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 181, "t": "State of Oklahoma oe net rv) ey TM 2 i Koeey iy CMA WE MY ey ‘) | ———. ic (ees GAD Wea Hee Gee Glen Mulready, Lisnrance Conuntsstoner Oklahoma Real Estate Appraiser Board This is to certify that: Terry M Peak has complied with the provisions of the Oklahoma Real Estate Residential Appraisers Act to transact business as a State Certified Real Estate Appraiser in the State of Oklahoma. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of my office to be affixed at the City of Oklahoma City, State of Oklahoma, this 15th day of December , 2025 . | “COM | dA oy pl Rd r A Glea Mulready, Insurance Commissioner . a a <.\\ Chaitpersoa, Okishoma Real Estate Appraiser Board Members, Olshoma Real Bstate Apprafser Board YE Pa Ubtiurke ea Brande. Woe Leona \\ Walton Eyping Okdahore elppntivr Nunber: 12/31/2028 12778CRA Form Cf - “TOTAL appraisal software by ala made, inc, - 1-800-ALAMODE WEST_000737 cs CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 183, "t": "Freddie Mac Freres Fon 4a OAOKEN PRICE OFOH SUSILCT PAOPEATY DESCAIPTION t Onder # ASIST pPooksc Froddte Mee Lane fs boos lbore Praperty Addrenit T TAY EAUNCHEEKOF COMANCHG Suet Subdivialon or. PECAN YALU E eapley Marne SUH Seuaty: 2p: 7305 ok Lagn 42 3493944403 Baevicer Aasel fot Unni: Si RAVTON, Propsrty O) Tenant & Onna Occupant: hnipreiion Tyga: Wuviodexteter insgecton Fardy Type: £) Vacant . gee Dealed 4 Ruot . £2 Susuiban © linger 23% Oars, Tineat Vacant Property Vaiuest 0 -peinisg i] ‘sube Hewstng Sepphe. a Shectag 0 aatsnte bertomneTee 0 ‘i thd si oe ; a: widen sionyad Satey AN 7 cant Astive Lisp i. jogs # Compattea Actes Sold puitenth en berheod: 2 Yeadon A HO o shea Sale Pca Range of Compalitice Active Liyiing 2 tn Hrighborhood Sehsotbtintee {ACHE Suaects VooneD Sia fal ADOTTON NST OATSDE OFT Tae Lai UMITED SO MANY VARIANCES WILL HAVE 10 BE an Set om ws cOHPSAND as ror a Nitghborhiad Mrket Condition: QAUNT EQAMATION {if aagticable} Ro,of Une: 1 Fai Market Rancat Rata per Mogi pet, unit, Ha, of Sterieas : Fant coniea ceca ni RasbBgully Bestd Reghtered: Ye _O Wo CHW ‘ Vammeation Seiten: : pulang Unit Comamantss fredde MBO West_000747 @ CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 184, "t": "ve FreddieMac Pace deté OROREA PRICE OPINION Feem ad SUBCT INFGAMATION s eendone, | ; Aeaae/ TW)\" SITE 1S CON SOCRER 10 DE NEUTRAL subject Posted Regattes [ladsaaeey: Gye 0 Ne : totenitel TAL Lage! Fspuent t as A Devs he ‘subject aggene vovehwady sud? Hine, is nerw evidence ol dnvica setsing? : Hen, {4 Presa exchence ol meice foweds fon cracks? na, ia thera aiatenee of potion beanie? fs the xabjeat on a permanent tovndeson? ‘| Yea o. pucarpenpenec “ st! | von he a Seamer ENON ie atid al batederra, fuextonalt” Ary She hiehees Hiabnabinyt Hered tative: : RO HEALTH HAZARDS WERE OCT! £O UP ABPECTION Pabitabiley Hazard Commerte; Fear aired Rental To Rates — ; Pending Antesuman Pin : ‘ : an NOACondaPuD: ~ ae 5 Te the Conde comptrcFHA spared? Gale: Gegle Anssavenant Yer CGNo MWA... ‘ Assessment End Dotas Prenat : . OA teva Inchda: Tear Check any Recommnsnded inepecttonst TiPit Vandy ras $9.387.00 Teme Root echanteal etosetueal : Eaviraemantat Other Ya G Yes Of Oya a Yes Bian O tential Yi Ro @ tis Go = G) Ko. 0 ta O ve \"e He Gite {1 Yuu Cl Pubic sewer @ We 0 aaptle Pi He Ft peste O wer Rardendat : jnapeetlon(a} commentaz Hades Lig W112 © West'000748 ics} CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 185, "t": "Hagel fom to BAOKER PACE OPINION FreddieMac BUPA PPA AG AIS AUDEN ILA > Raikead PREACH Fama Inhial Yord 3° AEP OS) 3 of oar oO a . Bo} a i ar Dp j 7 o a oO a: a = a sep 5 g Rapa Goramenty: Rema why TaEB Tapes Hew, SAMI EDEN F204 MOA Lae capa BPA Mb tl Tot hens o = rope Boil chofee OO, ‘alo: ‘ofa { Teagat § won ? Herth 0 Si100y § enone -"}, {"d": 22, "p": 186, "t": "Peet f FreddieMac “__eaepptiable #2 _kampatenta tt ER ee 1988. Pies pase agreetat (AaTON, | PARE “_ Subjeal_ Pe saanrarnn pt SuPer Or Cemnlee amy Typ $c¥rt ovtg inant Uist Petre Sercetg Ut Mice . a + Sa 7a 3 wee Lee ys os Marhel Location Asting - ia Ww. ern $9 i y A waaiana fesneet Tol Beam {beds Rely , Toaigt at Bias vrning tis Kindoas | peste tras! “-§ ya'y pa ft 3 Ecsake bd st EW ice Jiows —2—[yg ie Firtstwd 2. ei pacin $89 (39 it 388 3 Sepetocts 94 nye 4 . |. |” ASD Feeeyy ee ee [TaetSet Ban 39. Loaee all 3 ee ey a a0 (i Fs sited 59 48 a Ba te > m3 A . ~ lL IAS ies pig : es : Se¥er Cercyasions one Rano $7t9 9 ji Quer Mee. Sra tOs. Rand Er aed $e.009.09 MAS Ge ‘PCA i) we ser | t \"ear BRAM YELL OY MBER I FECANISLLAY SOUTH Preabaity te Subjeed ; Carma eradie BS ener tyak LAG ' . + + dani On ant bates br tes | pernst ey THES: tay Vesittcation 3 pvece Mast i tomta AAOKES PACE OPINION Prva. [sd sepetery OR. et pit le? $9 5 ONE LX avert $2 8 (WEVA co 4 2 _bidiret Hid Age . asi Shtposat- pediirsCacete Po Ses Guried Price of Suvieet, fekecy Frvearty Most Sint To Suefest BAST SAAR “\"Ceennaradle SY Ermita Ste VILL CREEL RO CANTON, § +] Bl ofat » = |B} | of £l =| ¢| of o|a/ = . aA | omL or eVte lamar tip wa punter a Racca once si Fotpil heck Property Most Mealer SP Banat UOsT BAMA TO TEE AREEST . : £208.285.50 q PL _ $2ek a OV EAALL FEATURES AND YRUE, Carerneds fox gaisitee Te Botfects Ret Fede deae201 © ~ West_000750 J CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 187, "t": "re BROKEN PRICE OPINION Freddie Mac RRORTREDPINIO’ OF PRG Nopernre 8 0-128 Rrober's Getndon o} Evie aheold SWIULAEPAIR Paice; ASAE CHICKS feaaw Probable Sales Pitce Probabie Sates Pike Recommanded Liet Petco Mech Up Percentage: 1% List Price Mark Up E TYPICAL FOR OUR MARK@T BASEO ON COMPS IN THE AREA Percentage Supper: DRO RERMARSCTHNG CCOMMERDASIONS Property Marketing Strategys Likely flnanetng seget Buyprs WZ) Atle On ont fe C1 tit Tews Buyer fog Ed lentes Reqdeed Repats O « Zs Mevevlp Laat Om QO bast B vaciarose va O O as O) tndkome oher OC) sever RURAL, ADDITION WITH LIMITED COMPS. TO COMPLETE THIS REPORT, 1 HAD70 EXPAND S: JAPAN OAD valePaar ALL Were SO RENTS WERE MADE ACCORDIRG TG VT IS SRTOMARY OUR MARKET BACK OHTHS FOR SOME SOLO COMP: ‘ RUADING STABLE OVER THIS TAME. 3, THIS KAS NO EFFEGT ON VALUE DUE TO PRICES Support Opinion of Price: QUALIFIES FOR ALL TYPES OF FINANCING Support ’ Aecommanded | Marketing Strategy: TO THE NEIGHEORKOOO IN AGE AND FEATURES SUBJECT ALSO CONFORMS Property Similarities 5 & Gteatmitstues to Nefghbarhood: Broker Heme; Bechet the property By shchleg sue, face carly hat Fhe pot cc ap sete wtety ond hy mo nda Furthaemate,tcacty Mal ie report haa ban completed aay Espiradon Gates a West*000751 Cc EY CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 188, "t": "FreddieMac Addttonet Cammanta: TS Fageb her al48 BROKER PRICE OPINION YEARS NCLUDIG ER ED OVTHE 40 SUSJEGT HAS BEEN UPDAT DES} CONTRIBUTORY YALUE TONAL COMMENTS] (AGOM R LENDE THE BY {SUQJECT PROPERTY UPGRA DED PROVI WAS LIST NO GRANITE COUNTER TOPS AKO FENCING BUT , a ’ West_000752 CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 189, "t": "Order 45335527, 00 0_DINING_ROOM.JPG West_000753 42) CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 190, "t": "oe Order 45335527, 000_LIVING_ROOM.JPG i taisee agtiatsssanteeeensdstemmomeeem West_000754 fe) CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 191, "t": "had Rute eonseee: ne HES = EghS . ee re Beeecrdi:ieartec meres ' z o sematinee Oe r SETS MONITOR Fars eae eae Secee Bitacior: og=eace ia 3 ioe: oa es SS cs pattie perp Ed IEE i ta niin"}, {"d": 22, "p": 192, "t": "Order 45335527, 004_BATHROOM.JPG West_000756 CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 193, "t": "er 45335527, 004_BATHROOM_2.JPG if maerasesseasectdsteasenancasetsa istenubeenrs gemmsiet jomertenstsnarettazses ; eee tig West_000757 fe] CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 194, "t": "Order 45335527, 004_BATHROOM_3./PG West_000758 CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 195, "t": "Order 45335527, 006_STREET.JPG West_000759 cs CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 196, "t": "» Order 45335527, ' 007 ~~. BEDROOM.JPG aes :ais Fn alee ae ESAS West_000760 cs) CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 197, "t": "Ordar 45335527, 007_BEDROOM_2.JPG West_000761 cs) CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 198, "t": "Order 45335527, t 007_ we BEDROOM_3,JPG West_000762 ror ASS] CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 199, "t": "MOSH die en 1 Habeas ors nadie Serena cheater tray eae mie pein aS = oo arts at cass seirmanss toaues Barina cee Sasitscastan Roce osiiaaacasssometeet set et ete cela 2 tg ra pate as ee susie sera iecaed ° ieee peat “@a.CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 200, "t": "Order 45335527, 011_ADDRESS_VERIFICATIO.JPG West_000764 cs CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 201, "t": "‘Order 45335527, LCt.JUPG fasteanateressmrasticestaeeass eee studi samiasicass Sees ips sureaitintee West_000765 cs CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 202, "t": "Order 45335527, LC2.UPG West_000766 CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 203, "t": "Ss ati grtetartttctoteeg pete abc sorecesssbares Betteaantracttonessrraas ees ace eee eis Seer beremiieriernierescreaenony meas oer edieSemmes ine winter mtas"}, {"d": 22, "p": 204, "t": "Sas eiergeiot teppei git temetre sree Soccer tceee aes eee eee ices eereeneecatitee ecasssuamesasbreratreiatec, eis Becierert agree seieestaat ras ase sceatutu ee eaeaeaass nutans"}, {"d": 22, "p": 205, "t": "Order 45335527, SC2.JPG risen pestenacaesaecerrees: niiiibanamei Peers ioe yiyekp CamScanner"}, {"d": 22, "p": 206, "t": "ag eet ees ee ai 20 sea etre ert caee tre amet nee eet ae ceccceasteeescttiecempeeoeaeeereeneeeececeeeceticca ee : cee erg aaa Tears Ssees Seasenasetaemssteettsersets aoe ee e eee sane pomateatenee ceramics i ne ane eh eceay sae eats eceeea ease coe putes Besseineee aoe a pepe = =e Pearciamew iste ss: Specie oo anit oeae as : ee West_000770 er ann cs CamSc"}, {"d": 22, "p": 208, "t": "RAZ00015 StateFarm State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Fire Claim File Print S&, File History Information Route To: —! — BASIC CLAIM INFORMATION — | Claim Number: Date of Loss: Policy Number: Named Insured: ———— 36-53Q1-13C 06-15-2023 36-CR-X405-8 WEST, NEIL S FILE HISTORY File History - File Notes Performer: Wicker, Joe 12-19-2024 - 12:05 PM CST File Note: File Note Participant: Category: Contact - Outbound Call Office: WHRUREC COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named insured(s)) Sub Category: Working vm, RCF CTR Bob requesting claim status, CS explained that the CTR would have to contact the PA to get the claim status info. CTR said he understood and he will ffu with the PA 42-49-2024 - 11:13 AM CST Office: WHRUREC Performer: Burk, Carrie Fife Note: Contact Participant: Category: Contact - Inbound Call COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Sub Category: CS working ACD fine. RCF CTR seeking update on claim. CS reviewed update with CTR, however CTR confused by the supplemental. CS provided CO's contact information and transferred to CO to seek clarfiication. CS backing cut of claim. NFH Performer: Wicker, Joe 09-17-2024 - 8:22 AM CDT File Note: File Note Participant: COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC Category: Contact - Outbound Call Office: WHRUREC COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Sub Category: Page 4 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000069"}, {"d": 22, "p": 209, "t": "RBZO00I5 Claim Number: 36-8301-13C FIRE Working new mail received an email from PA requesting that we review their photo, of the roof rain cap stating that this is a items we missed doing our 1st inspection. Reviewed the docs and contacted the PA Jose, CS explained that we would need additional photos verifying the location for the rain cap on the roof. PA said he understood and he will submit those docs. NFH closing claim new mail will reopen the clam. 08-15-2024 - 9:32 AM CDT Performer: Bradley, Yasiin File Note: pending file note Participant: Category: Pending Office: WHRUREC COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Cov A: RCBs paid. Cov B: nia Cov C: nla Sub; n/a Mortgagee (Dollar One Y/N): no Closing claim pending addtional documentation to be reopened. 08-15-2024 - 9:31 AM CDT Performer: Bradley, Yasiin Office: WHRUREC File Note: CTR PHOTOS FOR 2ND INSPECTION COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Participant: Category: Claim Note ~ ¢ © ©» © © wpe a .CTR submitted CX five photos previously submitted showing damage to the shingle CS reviewed photos submitted on 7/15/24 along with CTR EST, photos resembles previous submitted photos for CTR on 3/30/24, Per TM review “no additional damages to roofing,\" CTR photos does not reflect additional damage done. All items were addressed at initial inspection by adjuster. Additional inspection is not warranted. Nl and CTR were informed 2nd inspection or TRR not warranted. Decision remains. CS contacted PA and NI notifying decision remains the same at this time. Claim can be closed pending addtional supporting documentation to be reopened. Office: WHRUREC Performer: Wicker, Joe 07-30-2024 - 11:31 AM CDT File Note: File Note COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Participant: Sub Category: Category: Contact - Inbound Call RCF the Agent, NI's called to get the status of the claim, CS explained that we have received the CTR's docs but we have not made it to that mail date yet. Agent said she understood. Office: WHRUREC Performer: Thomas, Dawn 07-26-2024 - 8:55 AM CDT File Note: Claim Note COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001{Named Insured(s)) Participant: COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC Sub Category: Category: Claim Note Revd claim - PA has been provided an update PHone message sent to CO in errir Office:PROPVPLH Performer: Berndtson, Erica 07-25-2024 - 11:58 AM CDT File Note: Contact COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Participant: COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC Sub Category: Category: Contact CS received voicemail from PA Kelsey left voicemail requesting timeline for supplement/2nd inspection review. PA Kelsey call back number 386-478-4911. 07-25-2024 - 10:53 AM CDT File Note: File Note Participant: Category: Contact - Outbound Cail Office: WHRUREC Performer: Wicker, Joe COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Sub Category: Page 2 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000070"}, {"d": 22, "p": 210, "t": "RBZO00IS Claim Number: 36-6301-13C FIRE Working vm. Spoke with the PA rep and explained that the mail was received but we haven't made it to that mail date yet. PA Rep said she understood. Office: WHRUREC Performer: Berndtson, Erica 05-08-2024 - 10:20 AM CDT File Note: Pending File Note Participant: Category: Pending COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Sub Category: PENDING File Note Cov A: nothing, RCBs paid. Cov B: n/a Cov C: néa Sub: n/a Mortgagee (Dollar One Y/N): no Office: WHRUREC Performer: Berndtson, Erica 05-08-2024 - 10:20 AM CDT File Note: Policy sent to PA COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Participant: COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC Category: Claim Note Sub Category: CS working personal queue, email policy to PA. CS. emailed policy and declaration to PA. Pending - Nothing, RCBs paid. NFHR ~ Closing Claim. Office: WHRUREC Performer: Cardona, Andrea 05-06-2024 - 6:28 PM CDT File Note: Outbound Call COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Participant: Sub Catagory: Call Outbound Contact Category: CS assisting CO VMs PA requesting update on copy of policy CS made outbound call to PA, no answer, jeff VM explaining no udate at this time 04-29-2024 - 4:40 PM CDT Performer: Berndtson, Erica Office: WHRUREC File Note: Claim Note COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Participant: COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC Category: Contact - Outbound Call, Contact Sub Category: Inbound Call CS working voicemail, PA called requesting copy of policy and declarations page. CS reviewed/labeled new mail: PA LOR. CS emailed PA accepted letterto NI, DF to claim. cs completed underwriting request for policy and declarations page. TCT PA, no answer. CS emailed PA explaining document request being processed and will be emailed to PA once received, DF to claim. CS set calendar task to forward policy and declarations page once received. Office:PROX Performer: Mebane, Christy 04-10-2024 - 12:42 PM CDT File Note: No 2nd inspection letter approved COL / Line (Participant): 35 /001(Named insured(s)) Participant: Page 3 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000071"}, {"d": 22, "p": 211, "t": "Claim Number: FIRE RBZOOGS 36-5301-13C Category: Claim Note Emailed to both NI's AO and CTR No further claim handfing at this time, closing claim, new email will reopen. Performer: Taylor, Jason 04-10-2024 - 12:25 PM CDT Sub Category: Office:PROX File Note: RE:TM review requested COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Sub Category: Participant: Category: Claim Note Approved. Office:PROX Performer: Mebane, Christy 04-10-2024 - 10:04 AM COT File Note: RE:TM review requested COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 004(Named Insured(s)) Participant: Sub Category: Category: Claim Note sent No 2° inspection letter for approval Office:PROX Performer: Taylor, Jason 04-08-2024 - 4:32 PM CDT File Note: RE:TM review requested Participant: Category: Claim Note COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Sub Category: Christy, Here are the things | see: CTR's pics do not ook like hail. So, then | jook at our own. Small hail to some of the metals. * — turtle with small hail spatter and no dents to it. Some screens. Some that we bought don't look like hail to me. + » — Shingles, ridge, valley don’t show hits. Talk PH through the decision. No 2nd inspection is indicated. Send letter after you talk it through with PH and Agent. Office:PROX Performer: Mebane, Christy 04-08-2024 - 12:15 PM CDT > + File Note: TM review requested COL / Line (Participant): 35 /001(Named Insured(s)) Participant: Sub Category: Category: Claim Note | went through the pictures- | see several pictures of popped blisters- but no for sure hail | would like There is notes from a CH saying the same- then CTR called, and next CH reopened- It is harder for me to tell through picturesto request a review to see if you think a 2nd inspection is warranted thank you Performer: Napoles, Alexis 04-05-2024 - 8:47 PM CDT File Note: Contact - Inbound Call COL / Line (Participant): Participant: TRADEMARK EXTERIORS RESTORATION Sub Category: Category: Contact - inbound Call Office: WHRUREC a a CS working phones RCF Bobby OBO CTR Trademark Exteriors CTR advised photos were sent on 03/30 and was requesting claim status CS rev'd file, previous CS rev'd photos and no further handling was completed CS rev'd photos provided by CTR Photos seem to indicate potential ADPL to roof shingles + + Accuweather indicates 2.25\" haif on DOL CS advised claim will be t/a to field to review for possible 2nd inspection * CTR U/S and had no further questions * accounted for on CS RIA to field to review for possible 2nd inspection, CTR provided photos which seem to indicate possible ADPL not roofing shingles, please review for possible 2nd inspection Office: WHRUREC Performer: Collett, Temicka 04-03-2024 ~ 11:11 AM COT File Note: Photos of Shingle Damage Participant: Category: Ciaim Note COL / Line (Participant): 35 /001(Named Insured(s)) Sub Category: Page 4 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Susiness Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000072"}, {"d": 22, "p": 212, "t": "RBZ00015 Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C FIRE * * Working new mail tasks Labeled documents in file Multiple photos of shingle damage to various slopes » Damage to shingles in photos did not appear to be ADPL hail damage + + CTR requesting TRR TRR nat considered due to photos submitted does not support ADPL hail damage + No updates to SFE made; SF's decision unchanged « * No RCBs remain + Claim closed Performer: Haun, Kristin 03-15-2024 - 4:32 PM COT File Note: Claim note Participant: TRADEMARK EXTERIORS RESTORATION Category: Fire Estimatics, Contact - Outbound Call, Office: WHRUREC COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Claim Note * * » CS working messages PCT CTR (Bobby) to explain and clarify denied supplements. CTR did not provide any missed/omitted damages that are not on SFE for elevation for roof work, CTR is requesting TRR. Additional staining and measurements on fence are not warranted. SFE allows for damaged areas of fence to be stained. Additional staining of to be fence is not warranted because the separate areas of fencing did not match pre-loss. Photos of bathroom ceiling do not appear water damage. * —LMOVM with call back information, Office: WHRUREC Performer: Ernest, Connie 03-14-2024 - 2:06 PM CDT File Note: Working Phones COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Sub Category: Category: Contact - Inbound Call CS Working Phones CS RCF CTR Bobby stating that he'd received the email with the SFE and had questions about the non-supported items. * + CS reviewed the file notes and observed that CS Kristin had recently reconciled the supplement request. + CTR asked if CS Kristin can give him a call to discuss those non-supported items. + CS advised CTR that the CS will reach out to address his questions and concerns. « CTRuls NFQ. * NFH, 03-14-2024 - 1:12 PM CDT Office: WHRUREC Performer: Haun, Kristin File Note: Claim note Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Fire Estimatics, Contact - Outbound Call, Contact - Inbound Cail, Claim Note COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: CS working phones photos. RCF CTR (Bobby) inquiring on status of supplements. Received,labeled and reviewed CTRE with signed contract and Reviewed file noles and documents. Advised CTR would be notified of any updates to SFE + » Supplements TRR and additional elevation work - NOT APPROVED - CTR did not supply any evidence of missed damages + Additional LF on fence - NOT APPROVED - SFE cavers damaged area, fence did not match in stain color priar to storm Bathroom - NOT APPROVED - photos do not appear to be water stains at ceiling contents Bedroom - APPROVED - already on SFE, allowed for floor protection, D&R ceiling fan and moving and resetting contents resetting and moving and protection floor for allowed SFE, on already Closet - APPROVED Nothing to warrant an additional inspection at this time Updated SFE to release depreciation per signed contract Payment letter, SOL and customer copy emailed to NI and DF to claim. Paper draft issued. Not eligible for DP Customer copy emailed to CTR and OF to claim PCT NI to advise of decision. LMOVM with call back information NFH Office: WDMOEC Performer: Balser, Max R 10-49-2023 - 1:06 PM CDT > - 2 © » 8 «“ 2 @& «© * * File Note: CES Review Page 5 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000073"}, {"d": 22, "p": 213, "t": "RBZOo0Is Claim Number: 36-53Q1-130 FIRE COL / Line (Participant): Participant: Sub Category: Category: Management Called Neii West fo discuss his response on the CES. We discussed that when the CO and PH inspected the exterior that the CO pointed out hail damaged items like the gutters, window screens, and the stain on the wood fence. Then the CO inspected the roof. After the roof inspection, the CO showed the PH the photos of spatter on the roof turtle vents, and multiple shingle photos, valleys, ridges, slope overviews, then told the PH does not have any wind or hail damage to the shingles. PH was told by 2 other roofers that he had damage to all the shingles. We discussed that if his roofer has any photos or proposals that he would fike us to consider, we would be happy to review, He asked if his chosen roofer wanted to meet us to inspect roof again, would we. | advised that we would consider any review and would be able fo reinspect his roof system. He thanked me for the call, and stated it meant alot to him that we would follow up in his concerns. Office: WOOKTUL Performer: Gooch, Cedric 09-29-2023 - 1:34 AM CDT File Note: Agent contact COL / Line (Participant): Participant: Sub Category: Category: Contact was drop filed to documents. Email results. and findings inspection with Holcomb Nancy CO emailed agent 09-29-2023 - 1:34 AM CDT File Note: Settlement Participant: Category: Claim Note CO compieted and settled claim onsite. Performer: Gooch, Cedric 09-29-2023 - 1:30 AM CDT File Note: inspection file note Performer: Gooch, Cedric Participant: Category: Fire Estimatics Office: WDOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Office: WDOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Page 6 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000074"}, {"d": 22, "p": 214, "t": "Claim Number: FIRE RBZOOOI5S 36-5301-13C INSPECTION RESULTS: Met with: Neil West Date/Time: 09/28/23 @ 5pm CTR name, if applicable: Photos taken and labeled by YPS2 Prior Losses: Related Prior, repairs completed Coverage A - Roof scope sheet uploaded. Exterior scope sheets uploaded. CO inspected the property with NI. Inspection completed on dwelling. No hail damage was documented to the shingles on the dwelling roof. Hail damage was documented to gutters, downspouts, window screens, and fence stain.. Discussed and agreed upon scope with NI. Advised that CO would complete the estimate and contact to settle. NI stated he u/s. Dwelling: ROOF: Approx. 4yr old 30yr laminate shingle in avg. condition. There is one layer with felt and starter shingles, with drip edge. Pitch is 10/12. No hail damage documented to the chimney flue cap and metal roof vents. CO documented no hail damage to the shingles on any directional slope. Roof warrants full replacement based on impacts/sq. ELEV: FT: Hail damage to gutters and window screens. RT: Hail damage to gutters. RR: Hail damage to gutters, downspout, and window screen. LT: Hail damage to gutters, downspout, and window screen. Other Structures: Hail damage to fence stain. Interior; CO documented water stain on ceiling in bedroom. Labor minimums: Applied as warranted, removed those that will be completed by a primary repair trade. GCO8P: Not applied to estimate due to lack of complexity or need for coordination of repairs. Repairs can be completed without trade interference. Depreciation: Applied based on approx. age as identified during the inspection or provided by Ni Coverage B - Personal Property: No personal property reported by NI. Coverage C - Additional Living Expense (ALE): None-Home is habitable. Sub/Salvage: Weather related - no sub potential. No salvage value in damaged material/ items Building Code Jurisdictional Table utilized, code reviewed, coverage applies. CO completed SFE and settled claim onsite. 09-23-2023 - 1:01 PM CDT File Note: TM reassignment Performer: Boydston, Kim Office: WOOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Participant: Category: Management Please note scheduled inspection. 09-16-2023 » 12:09 AM CDT Performer: Hervey, Brandi File Note: Pending Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Office: WOOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s}) Page 7 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000075"}, {"d": 22, "p": 215, "t": "Claim Number: FIRE RBZO00I5 36-§3Q1-13C Sub Category: Category: Pending PENDING File Note 8 w owe # Cov A: Pending inspection scheduled 9/29/2023 with 12-2PM arrival window Pending SFE Pending CDE Pending settlement cal] with Ni Pending settlement call with AO Pending close Cov B: + Pending inspection Cov C: + No, home is still habitable Sub: * — No, loss due to weather event Mortgagee {Dollar One Y/N): N- Rocket Mortgage Performer: Hervey, Brandi 08-16-2023 - 12:07 AM CDT File Note: QFC Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Category: Quality First Contact Office; WDOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): 35 /001(Named Insured{s)) Sub Category: Fire Property QFC - Wind/Hail Policy Type: Homeowners Prior Related LossesiSO Details: Possible Related Prior Number of Stories: 1 Roofing/Siding Type: Comp Class iV identified on Policy Screen (Yes/No). No Steep/Walkable: Steep Age of Roofing/Siding: 6-7 years AccuWeather Report Details: Hail size 2.25 or greater FOL as provided by contact: Hail caused damage to dwelling Narrative Description of Damage: Damage to roof, interior room, exterior, and soft metals Exterior Damage: Y Interior Damage: Y Mitigation Performed: Building Habitability: Habitable Power Gutage: N/A Persona! Property Damage: Pending inspection Food Loss: N/A Coverage C - ALE Status, if uninhabitable: N/A Subrogation: No sub for this weather loss Mortgage Company, Dollar One (yes/no): N- Rocket Mortgage Ctr Name (if applicable): Trademark Exteriors Ctr Added to Participants (yes/no): Y Offered SFPSP CSP or RSP: N REIAP utilized? (yes/no): N Explanation of claim handling process/next steps: Yes, inspections scheduled 9/29/2023 with 12-2PM arrival window Page & Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000076"}, {"d": 22, "p": 216, "t": "RBZo00ls Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C FIRE 09-12-2023 - 9:35 AM COT File Note: AVM review Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Claim Note Office WDOKTUL Performer: Catheil, Stacy COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: ECR has made first contact attempt with 2nd pending. Performer: Hervey, Brandi 08-24-2023 - 8:58 PM CDT File Note: 2nd Attempt contact NI COL/ Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Category: Contact - Outbound Call Office: WDOKTUL Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Sub Category: Sent ODM. Called Ni, Neil West @0014 phone number and Lacy West @0013 phone number. No option to leave VM as @0014 line VM box was full and @0013 phone number was answered by a man who stated it was the wrong number. + FC0011519 Contact follow up letter sent via email Office: WDOKTUL Performer: Hervey, Brandi 08-06-2023 - 3:26 PM CDT File Note: Contact Ni Participant; NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Category: Contact - Outbound Call COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Sub Category: Sent ODM. Called NI, Neil West @0014 phone number and Lacy West @0013 phone number. Calls were unanswered, Left VM requesting c/b to discuss claim and schedule inspection date. + FC0010918 Contact initial attempt letter sent via email Office: WOOKTUL Performer: Hervey, Brandi 07-28-2023 - 10:34 PM CDT File Note: Pending COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s}) Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Sub Category: Category: Pending PENDING File Note os 2 @¢ © » &@ me ew Cov A: Pending QFC and inspection scheduling Pending confirmation of CTR - Update participants if needed Pending FIOT Pending Accuweather Pencing inspection Pending SFE Pending CDE Pending settlement call with NI Pending settlement call with AO Pending close Cov B: * Pending inspection Cov C: + No, home is still habitable Sub: « No, loss due to weather event Mortgagee (Dollar One Y/N): N- Racket Mortgage File History - File Note System Generated Page 9 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000077"}, {"d": 22, "p": 217, "t": "RBZO00I5 Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C FIRE Office: WHRUREC Performer: Bemditson, Erica 05-08-2024 - 10:16 AM CDT System Generated File Note: Document Management - Email Request Participant: Category: Claim Note To: TEAMLEAQSUPPORT@COASTALCLAIMS.NET From: statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com Subject: 36-5301-13C COL / Line (Participant): Message: Please find important information from State Farm Claims attached. Document(s) Include: 05/07/2024-eEF_61505072415010/002-VC-1-Declarations page from U_W_1.pdf, Pages: [All]. Performer: Berndtson, Erica 05-08-2024 - 10:15 AM CDT Office: WHRUREC System Generated File Note: Document Management - Email Request Participant: Category: Claim Note To: TEAMLEADSUPPORT@COASTALCLAIMS.NET From: statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com Subject: 36-5301-13C COL / Line (Participant): Message: Please find important information from State Farm Claims attached. Document(s) Include: 05/07/2024-eEF_615050724 15010/003-VC-1-HW-2136 Policy_1.pdf, Pages: [All]. Office: SYSTEM Performer: Berndtson, Erica 04-29-2024 - 4:37 PM CDT System Generated File Note: FC0000067 - FREE FORM - GENERAL Participant: Category: Correspondence COL / Line (Participant): FREE FORM - GENERAL were e-mailed by Erica Bemdtson on 04/29/2024 Office: SYSTEM Performer: Berndtson, Erica 04-29-2024 - 4:23 PM COT INSURE TO CONFIRMATION ADJUSTER PUBLIC FC0011937 Note: File System Generated COL / Line (Participant}: COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, Participant: COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC INC Category: Correspondence PUBLIC ADJUSTER CONFIRMATION TO INSURED were e-mailed by Erica Berndtson on 04/29/2024 Office: CORPSYS Performer: System 04-05-2024 - 5:47 PM CDT System Generated File Note: Assignment Notification COL / Line (Participant): Participant: Category: Claim Note Page 10 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000078"}, {"d": 22, "p": 218, "t": "Claim Number: FIRE REZoO0NS 36-53Q1-13C Assignment Notification sent to Mebane, Christy (SHEL) at christy. mebane.shel@statefarm.com — Message Details — Fire Claim Number = 36-53Q1-13C insured Name = NEIL WEST Date Of Loss = 06-15-2023 Location of Loss Address = 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR LAWTON, Oklahoma 735059537 Insured Default Phone Number = (580) 695-0014 Facts of Loss = FINAL: Hail damage to roof, gutters, window screens and fence. Agent Name = Agent Phone = Probable Cause = Hail 03-14-2024 - 1:05 PM CDT Office: SYSTEM Performer: Haun, Kristin System Generated File Note: FC0016199 - HRU PAYMENT COL / Line (Participant): Participant: Category: Correspondence HRU PAYMENT were e-mailed by Kristin Haun on 03/14/2024 03-14-2024 - 1:04 PM CDT Office: CORPSYS Performer: INTMSG_TEXT_PUSH System Generated File Note: TEXT-CLAIM_FIRE_PAYMENT_MADE COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Participant: NE[L S WEST Category: Correspondence Text message: \"State Farm: Hi Neil, We made a payment on your claim 36-5301-13C and it can be viewed on our mobile app here: htips:// st8.farm/4t5uWRpNOi or online here: https://st8.farm/44KEVpcKsS\" was automatically sent to 580-695-0014 on 3/44/2024, 03-14-2024 - 1:04 PM CDT Office: CORPSYS Performer: INTMSG_TEXT_PUSH System Generated File Note: TEXT-CLAIM_FIRE_PAYMENT_MADE COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Participant: LACY WEST Category: Correspondence Text message: \"State Farm: Hi Lacy. We made a payment on your claim 36-53Q1-13C and it can be viewed on our mobile app here: https:// st8.farm/5BeoafAKnv or online here: https://st8.farmAvfwMiqKxja\" was automatically sent to 580-560-0522 on 3/14/2024. Office: CORPSYS Performer: System 03-14-2024 - 1:04 PM CDT System Generated File Note: EMAIL-PAYMENT ACTIVITY FIRE COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence EMAIL-PAYMENT ACTIVITY FIRE was automatically emailed to NEILSPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET on 3/14/2024 at 06:04 PM (GMT). Office: CORPSYS Performer: System 03-44-2024 - 1:04 PM CDT System Generated File Note: EMAIL-PAYMENT ACTIVITY FIRE COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Participant: LACY WEST Category: Correspondence EMAIL-PAYMENT ACTIVITY FIRE was automatically emailed to LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM on 3/14/2024 at 06:04 PM (GMT). Office: WHRUREC Performer: Haun, Kristin 03-14-2024 - 1:03 PM CDT System Generated File Note: MAX Settlement Participant: LACY WEST Category: Claim Note Payment submitted from MAX Setftiement Forms and Correspondence (FC0016199 EN) initiated from MAX Settlement COL / Line (Participant}: LACY WEST ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Lenders Loss Payable Endorsement:No Dollar One:No Assurant CDE:Not Checked Coverage A Dollar Amount Threshold > than or = to $7500:No, System Check: No, Alias verified: VADV3G Page 11 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000079"}, {"d": 22, "p": 219, "t": "RBZOOOIS Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C FIRE Performer: Haun, Kristin 03-14-2024 - 1:03 PM CDT Settlement MAX Note: File System Generated Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Claim Note Payment submitted from MAX Setilement Forms and Correspondence (FC0016199 EN) initiated from MAX Settlement Office: WHRUREC COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Lenders Loss Payable Endorsement:No Dollar One:No Assurant CDE:Not Checked Coverage A Dollar Amount Threshold > than or = to $7500:No, System Check: No, Alias verified: VADV3G 03-14-2024 - 1:03 PM CDT Office: WHRUREC Performer: Haun, Kristin System Generated File Note: MAX Settlement Participant: ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA COL / Line (Participant): ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Category: Claim Note Payment submitted from MAX Seitlement Forms and Correspondence (FC0016199 EN) initiated from MAX Settlement ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Lenders Loss Payable Endorsement:No Dollar One:No Assurant CDE:Not Checked Coverage A Dollar Amount Threshold > than or = to $7500:No, System Check: No, Alias verified: VADV3G Office: WHRUREC Performer: Haun, Kristin 03-14-2024 - 1:03 PM CDT System Generated File Note: Summary of Loss Participant: LACY WEST Category: Claim Note COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Summary of Loss saved from MAX Settlement Office: WHRUREC Performer: Haun, Kristin 03-14-2024 - 1:03 PM CDT System Generated File Note: Summary of Loss COL / Line (Participant): NEIL Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Claim Note Summary of Loss saved from MAX Settlement Performer: Gooch, Cedric 09-28-2023 - 7:21 PM CDT System Generated File Note: FC0016725 Participant: NEIL S WEST S WEST Office: SYSTEM COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence FC0016725 - HOME ESTIMATICS INFOGRAPHIC - AUTOMATED was automatically created and emailed through Forms & Correspondence to NEILSPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET 09-28-2023 - 7:16 PM CDT Office: CORPSYS Performer: INTMSG_TEXT_PUSH System Generated File Note: TEXT-CLAIM_FIRE_EST_NI COL / Line (Participant}: NEIL S WEST Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence Text message: \"State Farm: Hi Neil, An estimate of the damage has been completed, you may view your estimate online here https:/ st8.farm/l6xnaxeEuD or it can be viewed on our mobile app here: https://st8.farmAWVx5gePR9m on claim 36-53Q1-13C\" was automatically sent to 580-695-0014 on 9/29/2023. Office: CORPSYS Performer: System 09-28-2023 - 7:16 PM CDT System Generated File Note: EMAIL-FIRE ESTIMATE INITIAL Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Page 12 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000080"}, {"d": 22, "p": 220, "t": "RBZ00015 Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C FIRE EMAIL-FIRE ESTIMATE INITIAL was automatically emailed to NEILSPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET on 9/29/2023 at 12:16 AM (GMT). 09-28-2023 - 7:16 PM CDT Performer: System System Generated File Note: EMAIL-FIRE ESTIMATE INITIAL Participant: LACY WEST Office: CORPSYS COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Category: Correspondence EMAIL-FIRE ESTIMATE INITIAL was automatically emaifed to LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM on 9/29/2023 at 12:16 AM (GMT). 09-28-2023 - 7:16 PM CDT Performer: INTMSG_TEXT_PUSH System Generated File Note: TEXT-CLAIM_FIRE_EST_NI Participant: NEIL S WEST Office: CORPSYS COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Categary: Correspondence Text message: \"State Farm: Hi Neil. An estimate of the damage has been completed, you may view your estimate online here https:// st8.farm/Kpj{n6pdas or it can be viewed on our mobile app here: https://st8.farm47xOmCYUyl on claim 36-53Q1-13C\" was automatically sent ta 580-695-0014 on 9/29/2023. 09-28-2023 - 7:16 PM CDT Performer: System System Generated File Note: EMAIL-FIRE ESTIMATE INITIAL Participant: NEIL S WEST Office: CORPSYS COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence EMAIL-FIRE ESTIMATE INITIAL was automatically emailed to NEILGPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET on 9/29/2023 at 12:16 AM (GMT). 09-28-2023 - 7:16 PM CDT Performer: System System Generated File Note: EMAIL-FIRE ESTIMATE INITIAL Participant: LACY WEST Office: CORPSYS COL / Line (Participant}: LACY WEST Category: Correspondence EMAIL-FIRE ESTIMATE INITIAL was automatically emailed to LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM an 9/29/2023 at 12:16 AM (GMT). 09-28-2023 - 5:57 PM CDT Performer: Gooch, Cedric System Generated File Note: FC0016508 Participant: NEIL S WEST Office: SYSTEM COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence _ FC0016508 - HOMEOWNERS RCB SETTLEMENT INFOGRAPHIC - AUTOMATED was automatically created and emaited through Forms & Carrespondence ta NEILSPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET Office: CORPSYS Performer: INTMSG_TEXT_PUSH 09-28-2023 - 5:50 PM CDT System Generated File Note: TEXT-CLAIM_FIRE_PAYMENT_MADE Participant: NEIL S WEST COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence Text message: \"State Farm: Hi Neil. We made a payment on your claim 36-53Q1-13C and it can be viewed on our mobile app here: https:// st8.farmwZjegdqWev or online here: https://st8.farm/DhYStKwMpf\" was automatically sent to 580-695-0014 on 9/28/2023. 09-28-2023 - 5:50 PM CDT Office: CORPSYS Performer: System System Generated File Note: EMAIL-PAYMENT ACTIVITY FIRE COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Correspandence EMAIL-PAYMENT ACTIVITY FIRE was automatically emailed to NEILSPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET on 9/28/2023 at 10:50 PM (GMT). Office: CORPSYS Performer: System 09-28-2023 - 5:50 PM CDT System Generated File Note: EMAIL-PAYMENT ACTIVITY FIRE COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Participant: LACY WEST Category: Correspondence EMAIL-PAYMENT ACTIVITY FIRE was automatically emailed to LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM an 9/28/2023 at 10:50 PM (GMT). Office: WDOKTUL Performer: Gooch, Cedric 09-28-2023 - 5:49 PM CDT System Generated File Note: MAX Settlement Participant: LACY WEST Category: Claim Note COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Page 13 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000081"}, {"d": 22, "p": 221, "t": "RBZG00I5 Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C FIRE Payment submitted from MAX Settlement ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Lenders Loss Payable Endorsement:No Dollar One:No Assurant CDE:No Coverage A Dollar Amount Threshold > than or = to $7500:No, System Check: No, Allas verified: YPS2 Performer: Gooch, Cedric 09-28-2023 - 5:49 PM CDT System Generated File Note: MAX Settlement Participant: NEIL S WEST Office: WDOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Category: Claim Note Payment submitted from MAX Settlement ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Lenders Loss Payable Endorsement:No Dollar One:No Assurant CDE:No Coverage A Dollar Amount Threshold > than or = to $7500:No, System Check: No, Alias verified: YPS2 09-28-2023 - 5:49 PM CDT Performer: Gooch, Cedric System Generated File Note: MAX Settlement Participant: ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC [SAOA Office: WOOKTUL COL / Line (Participant); ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Category: Claim Note Payment submitted from MAX Settlement ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Lenders Loss Payable Endorsement:No Dollar One:No Assurant CDE:No Coverage A Dollar Amount Threshold > than or = to $7500:No, System Check: No, Alias verified: YPS2 Office: WDOKTUL Performer: Hervey, Brandi 09-16-2023 - 12:08 AM CDT System Generated File Note: TEXT-CLAIM_FIRE_APPOINTMENT COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence Text message: \"State Farm: An inspection is scheduled for 09/29/2023 12:00 PM for claim 36530113. Call 866-787-8676 ext 15631 if you need to reschedule the inspection.” was automatically sent to 580-695-0014 on 9/16/2023 by alias VAEMSM. Office: WOOKTUL Performer: Hervey, Brandi 09-13-2023 - 6:52 PM CDT FIRE System Generated File Note: TEXT-ODM_CONTACT_ATTEMPT_EN_ COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence Text message: “State Farm: Hi Neil, we'll call you shortly about claim 3653Q113C. If you miss our call, you can call us at 866-787-8676 ext 45631.\" was automatically sent to 580-695-0014 on 9/13/2023 by alias VAEMSM. Office: SYSTEM Performer: Hervey, Brandi 09-05-2023 - 7:20 PM CDT System Generated Fife Note: FC0011519 - CONTACT FIRST FOLLOW UP COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Participant: LACY WEST Category: Correspondence CONTACT FIRST FOLLOW UP were e-mailed by Brandi Hervey on 09/06/2023 Performer: Hervey, Brandi 09-05-2023 - 7:18 PM CDT System Generated File Note: CSA Instruction Participant: Category: Claim Note Office: WOOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): Page 14 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000082"}, {"d": 22, "p": 222, "t": "RBZO0GI5 Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C FIRE Bundle released by user: VAEMSM for Claim 36-53Q1-13C 1 Print DOC TMPL: FC0011519 Documents Printed at Printer : PCQ2716.P27FIREPRINTO2 Office: SYSTEM . Performer: Hervey, Brandi 09-05-2023 - 7:18 PM CDT System Generated File Note: FC0011519 - CONTACT FIRST FOLLOW UP COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Participant: LACY WEST Category: Correspondence 1 copy of CONTACT FIRST FOLLOW UP was bundled by Brandi Hervey on 09/06/2023 Office: WOOKTUL Performer: Hervey, Brandi 09-05-2023 - 7:00 PM CDT N_FIRE ACT_ATTEMPT_E TEXT-ODM_CONT Note: File Generated System COL / Line (Participant}: NEIL S WEST Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence \"State Farm: Hi Neil, we'll call you shortly about claim 3653Q113C. If you miss our call, you can call us at 866-787-8676 ext message: Text 15631.\" was automatically sent to 580-695-0014 on 9/6/2023 by alias VAEMSM. Office: WDOKTUL Performer: Hervey, Brandi 09-05-2023 - 6:53 PM CDT System Generated File Note: TEXT-ODM_CONTACT_ATTEMPT_EN_FIRE COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence Text message: \"State Farm: Hi Neil, we'll call you shortly about claim 3653Q113C. If you miss our call, you can call us at 866-787-8676 ext 15631.\" was automatically sent to 580-695-0014 on 9/5/2023 by alias VAEMSM. Office: WDOOKTUL Performer: Hervey, Brandi 08-24-2023 - 6:57 PM CDT System Generated File Note: CSA Instruction Participant: Category: Claim Note Bundle released by user: VAEMSM for Claim 36-53Q1-13C 1 Print DOC TMPL: FC0011519 Documents Printed at Printer : PCQ2716,P27FIREPRINTO2 COL / Line (Participant): Office: SYSTEM Performer: Hervey, Brandi 06-24-2023 - 6:56 PM CDT UP FOLLOW FIRST CONTACT 1519 FC001 System Generated File Note: COL / Line (Participant); LACY WEST Participant: LACY WEST Category: Correspondence 1 copy of CONTACT FIRST FOLLOW UP was bundled by Brandi Hervey on 08/24/2023 Office: SYSTEM Performer: Hervey, Brandi 08-24-2023 - 6:52 PM CDT UP FOLLOW FIRST CONTACT FC0011519 Note: System Generated File COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Participant: LACY WEST Category: Correspondence CONTACT FIRST FOLLOW UP were e-mailed by Brandi Hervey on 08/24/2023 Office: WOOKTUL Performer: Hervey, Brandi 08-24-2023 - 6:34 PM CDT N_FIRE ACT_ATTEMPT_E System Generated File Note: TEXT-ODM_CONT COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Participant: LACY WEST Category: Correspondence Text message: \"State Farm: Hi Lacy, we'll call you shortly about claim 3653Q113C. If you miss our call, you can call us at 866-787-8676 ext 415631.\" was automatically sent to 580-695-0013 on 8/24/2023 by alias VAEMSM,. 08-24-2023 - 6:31 PM CDT Performer: Hervey, Brandi . Office: WDOKTUL System Generated File Note: TEXT-ODM_CONTACT_ATTEMPT_EN_FIRE COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence Text message: \"State Farm: Hi Neil, we'll call you shortly about claim 3653Q113C. If you miss our call, you can call us at 866-787-8676 ext 45631.\" was automatically sent to 580-695-0014 on 8/24/2023 by alias VAEMSM. 08-06-2023 - 5:14 PM CDT Performer: INTMSG_TEXT_PUSH Office: CORPSYS System Generated File Note: TEXT-INVALID_RESPONSE Page 15 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Sasis Only SFF&CC/West_000083"}, {"d": 22, "p": 223, "t": "RBZO00I5 Claim Number: 36-63Q1-13C FIRE COL / Line (Participant): Participant: Category: Correspondence automatically Text message: \"State Farm: We're not sure what you mean. For claim questions, visit statefarm.com/claims/claims-help\" was sent to 580-695-0013 on 8/6/2023. Office: SYSTEM Performer: Hervey, Brandi 08-06-2023 - 3:26 PM CDT System Generated File Note: FC0010018 - CONTACT INITIAL ATTEMPT COL / Line {Participant}: LACY WEST Participant: LACY WEST Category: Correspondence CONTACT INITIAL ATTEMPT were e-mailed by Brandi Hervey on 08/06/2023 Office: WOOKTUL Performer: Hervey, Brandi 08-06-2023 - 3:21 PM CDT RE EMPT_EN_FI System Generated File Note: TEXT-ODM_CONTACT_ATT COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Participant: LACY WEST Category: Correspondence Text message: \"State Farm: Hi Lacy, we'll call you shortly about claim 3653Q113C, If you miss our call, you can cail us at 866-787-8676 ext 15631.\" was automatically sent to 580-695-0013 on 8/6/2023 by alias VAEMSM. Office: WDOKTUL Performer: Hervey, Brandi 08-06-2023 - 3:18 PM CDT RE EMPT_EN_FI System Generated File Note: TEXT-ODM_CONTACT_ATT COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence ext Text message: \"State Farm: Hi Neil, we'll call you shortly about claim 3653Q113¢. If you miss our call, you can call us at 866-787-8676 VAEMSM. alias by 15631.\" was automatically sent to 580-695-0014 on 8/6/2023 Office: SYSTEM Performer: Hervey, Brandi 07-28-2023 - 11:41 PM CDT System Generated File Note: FC0018192 COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence through FC0016192 - HOMEOWNERS BUILDING SETTLEMENT INFOGRAPHIC - AUTOMATED was automatically created and emailed ’ Forms & Correspondence to NEILSPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET Office: CORPSYS Performer: INTMSG_TEXT_PUSH 07-28-2023 - 2:13 PM CDT System Generated File Note: TEXT-FIRE_NCN COL / Line (Participant): NEIL S WEST Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Correspondence view & Text message: \"State Farm: Hi Neil. Visit https://st8.farm/KjQBPyljEG to get contact information, upload photos and documents, 7/28/2023. on §80-695-0014 to manage your claim 36-53Q1-13C.\" was automatically sent Office: CORPSYS Performer: System 07-28-2023 - 2:12 PM CDT System Generated File Note: EMAIL-NEW CLAIM NOTIFICATION Participant: NEIL S WEST COL / Line (Participant}: NEILS WEST Category: Correspondence al 07:12 PM EMAIL-NEW CLAIM NOTIFICATION was automatically emailed to NEILSPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET on 7/28/2023 (GMT). Office: CORPSYS Performer: System 07-28-2023 - 2:12 PM CDT PREF N System Generated File Note: EMAIL-NEW CLAIM NOTIFICATIO COL / Line (Participant): LACY WEST Participant: LACY WEST Category: Correspondence PM (GMT). EMAIL-NEW CLAIM NOTIFICATION PREF was automatically emailed to LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM on 7/28/2023 at 07:12 07-28-2023 - 2:02 PM CDOT Office: System Performer: System - Claim File System Generated File Note: Weather Data Participant: Category: Claim Note COL / Line (Participant): Page 16 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000084"}, {"d": 22, "p": 224, "t": "RBZO0015 Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C FIRE AccuWeather provides three years of hail history based on the Date Reported and Loss Location in the Facts of Loss tab. Date of Hail 06/15/2023. 05/06/2023. 03/23/2023 05/31/2022, 05/04/2022 04/23/2022 10/10/2021 09/28/2021 07/10/2021 08/29/2020 07/30/2020 Hail Size (inches) 3.5 0.75 1.0 1.0 = 1.25 = 0.75 = 0.75 1.0 = 1.0 = 1.0 = 1.0 Hail data listed was derived through an API cail/interface with the external vendor Accuweather. Office: System 07-28-2023 - 2:02 PM CDT Performer: System - Claim File System Generated File Note: Trademark Exteriors Restoration; SP; SP COL / Line (Participant): Participant: Category: New Claim Name: Trademark Exteriors Restoration Roles: SERVICE_PROVIDER 07-28-2023 - 2:02 PM CDT Office: Systern Performer: System ~ Claim File System Generated File Note: LACY WEST, Ni COL / Line (Participant): Participant: Category: New Claim Name: LACY WEST Office: System Performer: System - Claim File 07-28-2023 - 2:02 PM CDT System Generated File Note: NEIL WEST; PNI COL / Line (Participant): Participant: Category: New Claim Name: NEIL WEST Office: System Performer: System - Claim File 07-28-2023 - 2:02 PM CDT System Generated File Note: Listed Property Participant: Category: New Claim COL / Line (Participant): Page 17 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000085"}, {"d": 22, "p": 225, "t": "FIRE Claim Number: 36-530Q1-13C RBzo00!5 Identifying Description: Listed Property Address: 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR, LAWTON, OK, 735059537, USA Description: Indicate if the damage was caused by lightning: No Is the damage to the building's exterior, interior, or both? Exterior Indicate: Has the caller indicated the named insured’s home is uninhabitable or involves a total loss to a detached structure(s), based cn the facts of loss or information they provided? If uncertain, ask the caller: No indicate if Catastrophe Deductible Word Track was read: No indicate if Temporary Repairs - Fire word track was read: No Indicate if applicable deductible(s) were read: No (Water Shut Off} To protect your property from further damage, turn off the water at the shut-off valve nearest the source of the leak: No (Carpet) We suggest that you or a contractor extract the water from the carpet and remove the water-damaged pad: No (Appliances) If safe te do so, unplug and remove all appliances in affected rooms: No (Protect Furniture) if possible, move furniture and other personal property out of the affected rooms or place aluminum foil under legs of furniture that cannot be removed to prevent stains on the flooring. Pull draperies up and away from wet areas: No indicate if Temporary Repairs - Water Removal & Restoration word track was read: No indicate if Temporary Repairs - Hail word track was read: Yes Indicate if Temporary Repairs - Wind was read: No Indicate if Temporary Repairs - Wind & Hail was read: Na 07-28-2023 - 2:02 PM CDT Performer: System - Claim File System Generated File Note: Preliminary Information Participant: Office: System COL / Line (Participant): Category: New Claim indicate if damage to any houses, structures, or buildings: Yes Were any of your personal or business items damaged? No Was this incident reported to the police? No 07-28-2023 - 2:02 PM CDT Performer: System - Claim File System Generated File Note: Loss Details Participant: Office: System COL / Line (Participant): Category: New Claim Reported by: Contractor Person who reported the claim: Trademark Exteriors Restoration Indicate if warm transferred from agent's office: No Indicate the kind(s) of loss being reported: Hail indicate, Is this a first-party injury claim? (injury to insured) [s this a first-party property claim? (damage to the insured’s owned and insured property) Is this a third-party injury claim? (alleged injury to another person) [s this a third-party property claim? (alleged damage to another person's property): First party property indicate if a Weather/Catastrophe loss? Yes Indicate if the caller fs filing this loss for record only: No Indicate if caller is requesting a Record Only letter to provide to a government agency: No Mark ail applicable coverage(s} and deductible(s) read: Loss Location Category: Listed Property 07-28-2023 - 2:02 PM CDT Performer: System - Claim File System Generated File Note: Policy Details Participant: Office: System COL / Line (Participant): Category: New Claim Date: 03-14-2025 Page 18 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000086"}, {"d": 22, "p": 226, "t": "FIRE RBZO00ts Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C Policyholder Address: 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR, LAWTON, OK, 735059537, UNITED STATES Policyholder Type: individual Product Line: F Policy Number: 36-CR-X405-8 Effective Date: 07/28/2023 Expiration Date: 12/29/2023 State and State Code: OK; 36 Indicate if Excess and Surplus: No Excess and Surplus State: Excess and Surplus Policy: File History - Tasks 09-17-2024 - 8:22 AM CDT Performer: MclLeod-Gileaton, Taylor Office: Task: MANAGEMENT CALENDAR Status: Participant: COL / Line (Participant): Category: Calendar Sub Category: Task is set for a manager on the claim. Task is set to display every 180 days until the assignment is closed. WHRUREC Cleared 09-17-2024 - 8:04 AM CDT Task: NEW MAIL Estimate Participant: Category: New Mail WHRUREC Completed Performer: Wicker, Joe Office: Status: COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Estimate Notifies claim handler that new maif has been received. 09-17-2024 - 7:26 AM CDT Performer: Task: NEW MAIL File Documentation Participant: Wicker, Joe Category: New Mail Notifies claim handler that new mail has been received. Performer: 08-15-2024 ~ 9:36 AM CDT Task: MANAGEMENT CALENDAR Office: Status: COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Thomas, Dawn WHRUREC Completed File Documentation Office: WHRUREC Status: Cleared Office: WHRUREC Status: Completed COL / Line (Participant): Participant: Category: Calendar Sub Category: Task is set for a manager on the claim. Task is set to display every 180 days until the assignment is closed. 08-15-2024 - 9:35 AM CDT Task: Participant: Category: Performer: Bradley, Yasiin NEW MAIL Estimate COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: New Mail Estimate Notifies claim handler that new mail has been received. 08-15-2024 - 9:35 AM CDT Performer: Bradley, Yasiin Office: WHRUREC Page 19 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000087"}, {"d": 22, "p": 228, "t": "- 36-53Q1-13C From: HOME CLMS-FIRECLAIMS (statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com) To: | LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM; NEILSPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET Cc: statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com Date: Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 03:26 PM CDT » State Farm’ statefarm.c Please open the attachment(s) for more claim information or next steps. For your protection, please do not include sensitlve personal Information such as Social Securtty Number, credit/debit card numiber (financial account number), driver's license number, of heatth/medical information in an email, if you must send this type of information to State Farm, please contact your claim associate to request a secure email channel. Don't miss a‘call about your Auto claim from State Farm®! | Text AUTO to 62789 for your claim contact card or downloadit from your mobile device. Don't miss a call about your Homeowners claim from State Farm®™! Text HOMEto 62789 for your claim contact card or download it from your mobile device. FC0010918_0035989943086. pdf 81kB => EXHIBIT WEST_000065"}, {"d": 22, "p": 229, "t": "Providing Insurance and Financial Services State Farm’ Home Office, Bloomington, fL August 6, 2023 Lacy West State Farm Claims 7 NW Briarcreek Dr POBox 106169 Lawton OK 73505-9537 Atlanta GA 30848-6169 RE: Claim Number, Date of Incident: Policy Number. 36-53Q1-13C June 15, 2023 36CRX4058 Dear Lacy West: We have received your reported claim and wish to discuss this matter with you, but we were unable to reach you by telephone. in order to proceed with the handling of this claim, it is necessary to speak with you. Please call us so we can discuss the facts of this claim and schedule an appointment to inspect your property. it is our understanding that your property has suffered damage. If necessary, please use ~ reasonable measures to protect your property from further damage. Keep a record of related expenses as ail or some of them may be covered depending on your particular circumstances. if you have spoken with us before receiving this letter, you may disregard this request. We thank you for the opportunity to be of service and look forward to speaking with you soon. If you have questions or need assistance, call us at (866) 787-8676 Ext. 15631. Sincerely, Brandi Hervey External Claim Resource - Alacrity (868) 787-8676 Ext. 15631 Fax: (844) 236-3646 State Farm Fire and Casualty Company WEST_ 000066"}, {"d": 22, "p": 231, "t": "Providing Insurance and Financial Services Home Office, Bloomington, IL Se Sta te Fiarm ® August 24, 2023 State Farm Claims PO Box 106169 Atlanta GA 30348-6169 Lacy West 7 NW Briarcreek Dr Lawton OK 73505-9537 RE: Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C Date of Incident: Policy Number: June 15, 2023 36CRX4058 Dear Lacy West: To assist you with this claim, please call us so we can discuss the details of this matter and schedule an appointment to inspect your property. Our last attempt to reach you was on August 24, 2023. It is our understanding that you have suffered damage to your property. If necessary, please use reasonable measures fo protect your property from further damage. Keep a record of related expenses as all or some of them may be covered depending on your particular circumstances. lf you have spoken with us before receiving this letter, you may disregard this request. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and look forward to speaking with you soon. ~ if you have questions or need assistance, call us at (866) 787-8676 Ext. 15631. Sincerely, Brandi Hervey External Claim Resource - Alacrity (866) 787-8676 Ext. 15631 Fax: (844) 236-3646 statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com For your protection, when emailing State Farm, please do not include sensilive personal information such as Social Security Number, credit/debit card number (financial account number), driver's license number, or heaith/medical information in an email, Please contact us al (866) 787-8676 Ext. 15631 to discuss sensitive information. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company me? EXHIBIT MN =» S44 SFF&CC/West_000636"}, {"d": 22, "p": 233, "t": ". DECLARATION OF NANCY HOLCOMB I, Nancy Holcomb, hereby declare and state: 1, My name is Nancy Holcomb, I am a State Farm insurance agent in Lawton, Oklahoma. | own and operate the Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. 2. ] have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and know each of them to be true and correct. 3, ] have served as Neil and Lacy West’s insurance agent for many years and considered them friends, I assisted Mr. West in procuring a policy to insure his house located at 7710 SW Crystal Hills Place in Lawton, Oklahoma. The policy covered “accidental direct physical loss,” which included wind and hail damage. 4, In 2021, the Wests bought a new house located at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive in * Lawton, and I assisted them in purchasing a State Farm policy to insure that house, State Farm Homeowners Policy No. 36-CR-X405-8 (“Policy”), Like the Policy insuring the Wests’ prior house, the Policy insures against “accidental direct physical loss,” which includes wind and hail damage. 5, State Farm sometimes engages third parties to conduct inspections or reviews of properties. However, State Farm did not require or request an inspection of the Wests’ house to issue the Policy in 2021. If there had been an inspection, I would not have completed it, I do not inspect roofs as an agent, nor am I required by, State Farm to do so. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma that the foregoing is true and correct pursuant to 12 0.8, § 426. t my? £5 5d EXHIBIT \\Q"}, {"d": 22, "p": 234, "t": "Signed this 26th day of May, 2026, in Lawton, Oklahoma. 6265356"}, {"d": 22, "p": 236, "t": "Vocusign Envelope (0: 1US8Hr 2-6 56-BH32-8546-CSZF YAS /F BAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) V. ) ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ ) AGENCY, INC.,, ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 JUDGE SHEPERD ) Defendants. ) DECLARATION OF CEDRIC GOOCH I, Cedric Gooch, declare under penalty of perjury as follows: 1. I am over eighteen years of age, reside in Wylie , Texas, and am competent to testify to the matters stated herein. I am currently employed by Renfroe as an independent adjuster. At the time of the events described in this Declaration, I was employed by Eberl and was assigned as an External Claims Resource to assist State Farm Fire and Casualty Company with the investigation and evaluation of property insurance claims, including performing field inspections and preparing estimates. In that role, I was assigned to inspect the property at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, Oklahoma owned by Neil and Lacy West (the “Property”) in connection with their claim for storm damage. On September 28, 2023, I physically inspected the Property. During my inspection, I evaluated whether there was storm damage to the roof and other exterior components. Based on my inspection, I identified conditions consistent with hail damage to portions of the Property, including the gutters, downspouts, window screens, and fence stain. I did not see or feel any hail damage to the roof shingles, chimney flue cap, or metal roof vents. Immediately following my inspection, and while still onsite, I discussed my findings with the insured, Mr. West. As part of that discussion, I showed him photographs from my inspection of the Property, as well as photographs of other roofs I had recently inspected that had hail damage, to explain the differences between the conditions I observed at the Property and the roofs where I found hail damage to exist. Following my inspection, I prepared a written estimate reflecting the damage I observed and the scope of repairs that I determined were appropriate based on my findings. »» ES Sand EXHIBIT \\3 »)> x"}, {"d": 22, "p": 237, "t": "Docusign Envelope IU: TUO8bBE 25-6F 56-8 S2-0546-CSZF Ad (FAS 9. The estimate I prepared included an evaluation of repair costs, depreciation, and application of the policy deductible, and reflected the amount payable based on my inspection at that time. 10, I documented the estimate and related findings in the claim file as I normally do. 11. My findings, reflected in the estimate, were based on my inspection of the Property and the information available to me at the time of that inspection. At no point were my findings or estimate influenced by any policy that might trigger team management approval for a full roof replacement; nor, to my knowledge, was any such policy applicable to this claim because AccuWeather—an external vendor that provides hail-history estimates based on the date reported and the loss location—estimated hail over | inch in size for the reported date of loss and team manager approval was not needed to total a roof where hail was larger than one inch. 12. To the best of my recollection, at the time I inspected the Property, I had sufficient authority to total this roof without manager approval (had I thought it was warranted), 13. One sentence in my inspection claim note states, “Roof warrants full replacement based on impacts/sq.” That sentence is a clerical or copy/paste error, should not be there, and does not reflect my findings. As reflected in the same note and on my exterior scope sheet, | found no hail damage to the shingles on any directional slope. I did not estimate for a full roof replacement, and my estimate reflects the scope of repairs I determined were appropriate based on my inspection. 14. After completing my inspection and estimate, my involvement in the handling of the claim was limited to what is reflected in the claim file. I state under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma and 12 O.S. § 426 that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: May 25.00 , 2026, Location of Execution: Waterloo, IA Signed by: (rdvic Good yb Geach."}, {"d": 22, "p": 239, "t": "WEST, NUIL 36-53Q1-13C State Farm’ State Farm P.O. Box 106169 Allanta, GA 30348-6169 Fax: 1-844-236-3646 stotefarmfirectaims@statefarm.com Structural Damage Claim Policy for the cost of matcrials, labor, and other factors at the time This estimate is priced based on estimated market pricing of the loss, Adjustmentsin market pricing and timing of the repairs may impact the final cost of covered repairs, Should youor the contractor you select have questions conceming our estimate, please contact us. If your cantractor’s estimate is higher than ours, you should contact us prior to beginning repairs, State Farm will work with you and your contractor to determine the actual and necessary cost of covered repairs at the time repairs will be completed, subject to policy and limits. terms, conditions * We want yau to receive quality repair work to restore the damages to your property. * We will provide you with‘a detailed estimateof the scope of the damage and costs of repairs, Should the contractor you select have questions conceming our estimate, they should contact your claim representative directly. * Depending upon the complexity of your repair, our estimate may or may not include an allowance for general contractor's overhead and profit. If you have questions regarding general contractor's overhead and profit and whether general contractor services are appropriate for your loss, please contact your claim representative before proceeding with repairs. * There may be building codes, ordinances, laws, or regulations that affect the repairs of your property. These items may or may not be covered by your policy. Please contact your claim representative if you have any questions regarding coverage which may be available under your policy. * State Farm® cannot authorize any contractor ta proceed with work on your property. Repairs should proceed only with your authorization. « State Farm does not guarantee the quality of the workmanship of any contractor or guarantee that the work will be accomplished within any specific time frame. * It is understood that the contractor is hired by you, our insured, and that they work for you - not State Farm. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding your claim, please contact your claim representative immediately. >»? Date: 9/28/2023 3:43 PM EXHIBIT 132214.1 06-18-2009 Page! WEST_000087 = JW _ «"}, {"d": 22, "p": 240, "t": "46-5391-13C Building Estimate Summary Guide StateFarm This summary guide is based on a sampie eatimate and Is provided for reference only. Please refer to the estimate for specifics of your claim. 1, Lina ftom Tote!- Total value of all fine State Farm insurance Joe ,& J Insured: Smith , Property: Typeof Logs: Estimate: 00-0000-000 Minium ii fo caver hours for drive-lime, sat up numbofer tiie and applicable administallve . m Claim number: 00-0000-000 jumber: 60-00-0000 P oe 1 Main Stroet Anywhere, IL, 00000-0000 Other items in the eatimate plus possible ber La edfusiments for labor # minimums. certain mintmum. olicy Numb ae Price List: Deductible: $1,000.00 coats ard repairs. a ; F.19 ILBL8MAR 2. General Contractor's Overhead and Restorallon/Service/ Profit~ General contractor's charge for Remodel coordinating your fapairs. F = Factored In, D = Do Not Apply Estimated cost to rapalt of replace Summary for Dweitlin . Line item Total [1] . Subtotal ‘ \\ . 6,959.10 as) 10.00% x ‘sm @ Matarial Sales Tax 3. Replacement Cost Value (RCV) — bs 105.10\" ; ‘ . General Contractor Overhead [2] General Contractor Profit L, a O10 ie @n t (Including Gene! Contractor on Cost Value Replacemen Less Depreciation (Including Texee) 4] i ; and of 4. Dep The decteasein the on period of time erty value of propover'a prominin tr core and or ail of this jestence. A amount may be eligible fr repiacament cost benefits. 7326.12 (032.50) - The insurer will pay for 5. Deductible Josses, up to the policy mits, in axcass (166.50) 6, Net Actual Cash Value Payment (ACV) ~ The repair or replacement cost Less General Contrictor Overtigad Paton Reeve ke WEE damaged property. vec! of your applicable deductible of the damaged par of the property fess depreciation and deductibve. 7, Non Recoverable Depreciation ~ Depreciation spplied to lems that are not eligible for replacement cost benefits. 168.60 General Contractor O8P on Depreciat;ion O&P on Non - recoverable Depreciation Less General Contractor Subtotal 312,60 : Total Maximum Addilonal Amounts Available If Incurred [B] 8 Total Amount of Claim H Incurred [5] 8, Total Maxum Additional Amount i! — Total amountof incurred recoverable depreciation after actual repair oF rep lacement of the property. ° 9. Total Amount of Claim II Incurrad ~ iciuel cash value ca ‘Total tof th ly dionl f maximum edditional amount available if Claim Representative ALL AMOUNTS PAYABLE ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITS OF YOUR POLICY. ooze Date: $390281 O1-, ont 9/28/2023 5:43 PM Page: 2 WEST_000088"}, {"d": 22, "p": 241, "t": "State Farm WUST, NEIL, Insured, = WEST\\NEIL Properly: 46-5301-13C Estimate: 36-53Q1-13C = 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR Claim Number: 3653Q113C LAWTON, OK 73505-9537 Policy Number: 36CRX4058 Home: = 580-510-0427 Cellular: Type ofLoss: Deductible: Date ofLoss: 580-695-0014 Hail $3,090.00 6/15/2023 Date Inspected: 9/28/2023 Price List: OKLA28_0}JUN23 Restoration/Service/Remodel . Summary for Coverage A ~ Dwelling - 35 Windstorm and Hail Line Item Total 4,686.80 Material Sales Tax 89.09 Replacement Cost Value 4,775.89 Less Depreciation (Including Taxes) (167.39) Less Deductible (3,090.00) Net Actual Cash Value Payment $918.50 Maximum Additional Amounts Available If Incurred: Total Line Item Depreciation (Including Taxes) Replacement Cost Benefits 767.39 767.39 Total Maximum Additional Amount Available If Incurred Total Amount of Claim If Incurred 767.39 $1,685.89 Gooch, Cedric 866-787-8676 ALL AMOUNTS PAYABLE ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITS OF YOUR POLICY. A residential or commercial roofing contractor providing repairs or improvement services to be paid by an insured from the proceeds of a property or casualty insurance policy altall not, ax an inducement to the sale or provision of goods or services to an insured, advertiseor promise to pay, directlyor indirectly, all or part of any applicable insurance deductible or offer to compensate an insured the provisions of this section, the insurer to whom the insured for providing any service to the insured, Ifa roofing contractor violates tendered the claim shall notbe obligated to consider the estimate prepared by the roofing contractor, Every roofing contractor shall provide a written notification of the requirements of this section with its initial estimate. The adjusteror insurer shall provide a written notification of the requirements of this section in the initial estimate relating to the claim. Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM Page: 3 WEST __000089"}, {"d": 22, "p": 242, "t": "&Statefarm Explanation of Building Replacement Cost Benefits Homeowner Policy Coyerape A - Dwelling - 35 Windstorm and Hall To: WEST, NEIL Name: 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR Address: _ LAWTON OK, 73505-9537 City: State/Zip: Insured: WEST, NEIL Date of Loss: 6/15/2023 Claim Number; Cause of Loss: — 3653Q113C HAIL Your Insurance policy provides replacement cost benelils for some or all of the loss or damagefo your dwelling or structures. Replacement your policy's limit cost benefits pays the actual and necessary cost of repalr or replacement, without a deduction for depreciation, subject to of liability. To recaive replacement cost benefits you must: 1. Complete the actual repair or replacement of the damaged part of the property within two years of the date of loss; . 2. Promptly notify us within 30 days after the work has been completed; and office. claim or agent your lo documentation other or receipls 3, Confirm completion of repair or replacement, by submitting invoices, Unt these requirements have been satisfied, our payment(s) to you wil be for the actual cash value of the damaged part of the property, which may include a deductlon for depreciation. Without walving the above requirements, we will consider paying replacement cost benefits prior lo actual repair ar replacement i we determine repairor replacement costs will be incurred because repalrs are substantially under way or you present 9 signed contract acceptable to us. the actual cash The estimate to repair or replace your damaged property Is $4,775.89 . The enclosed claim payment fo you of $918.50 is for by deducting vatue cash actual the determined We apply. valua of the damaged property at the time of loss, less any deductible that may loss. Based on our depreciation from the estimated repair or replacement cost. Our estimate details the depreciation applied to your estimate, the additional amount available to you for replacément cast benefits (recoverable depreciation) is $ 767.39 . if you cannot have the repairs completed for the repair/replacement cost estimated, please contact your claim st repairs. prior to beginning speciali ; ANI policy provisions apply to your claim. Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM FC0006615 10/22/2020 Page: 4 WEST_000090"}, {"d": 22, "p": 243, "t": "State Farm 36-5301-13C WEST, NEIL Dwelling Exterlor 7 . Roof 46.33 Number of Squares 99,08 Total Ridge Length 4,632,97 Surface Aten 930.96 Total Porimetcr Length 229.79 Total Hip Length | RCV TAX UNIT PRICE QUANTITY AGE/LIFE CONDITION DEP% ) observed at time of inspection. No Accidental Direct PhysLossical 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Totals: Roof ACV DEPREC. Gutters 0,00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0,00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 0.00. SF Long Wall QUANTITY UNIT PRICE up to 5\" *1, R&R Gutter - alumi- num 275,00 LF 10.28 TAX RCV AGE/LIFE CONDITION DEPREC. DEP% 64.35 2,891.35 4/25 yrs (462.62) . Avg. 16,00% 64,35 Totals: Gutters a 462.62 2,891.35 ACV 2,428.73 —_—2,428.73 Front Elevation 0.00 SF Walls& Ceiling 0,00 LF Floot Perimeter 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Short Wall 0,00: SF Walls 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 LF Ceil, Pecimeter 0,00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV AGE/LIFE CONDITION DEPREC. DEP % ACV 42.14. 3.28 87.56 480 yrs (11.68) 75.88 Avg. 13.33% oe 2, R&R Window screen, 1-9 SF 2,00 EA Totals: Front Elevation Date: 9/28/2023 5:49 PM 3.28 87,56 11.68 75,88 Page: 5 WEST_000091"}, {"d": 22, "p": 244, "t": "State Farm 36-53Q1-13C WHST, NEL Right Rlevatlon 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Celling 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0,00 SF Floor 0,00 SF Short Wall 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter 0,00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 0,00 0.00 AGE/LIFE CONDITION DEPREC. DEP% ACY 0,00 0.00 No Accidental Direct Physical Loss observed at time of Inspection. Totals: Right Elevation Rear Elevation 0:00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00. LF Floor Perimeter 0,00 LF Ceil, Perimeter 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Short Wail 0.00 SF Walls 0.00: SF.Floor 0.00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV AGE/LIFE CONDITION DEPREC. DEP% ACV 10.28 2.81 126.17 4/25.yrs (20.19) 105.98 Avg. 16.00%. 42.14 1.64 43.78 4/30yrs Avg. (5.84) 13.33% 37.94 44S 169,95 26.03 143.92 up to 5\" aluminum - t * 3, R&R down-spou 12.00 LF 4, R&R Window screen, 1-9 SF 1,00 BA Totals: Rear Elevation . Left Elevation s & Ceiling 0.00 SF Wall 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 SF Ceiling 0,00 SF Short Wall 0,00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter 0,00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY TAX RCV AGE/LIFE CONDITION DEPREC. DEP% ACV 10,28 2.81 126.17 4/25 yrs (20.19) 105.98 Avg. 16.00% 42,14 1.64 UNTT PRICE *5, R&R downspout - aluminum ~ up to.5\" 12.00 LF 6. R&R Window screen, 1-9 SF 1.00.EA Totals: Left Elevation Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM 4,45 43.78 169.95 4/30 yrs (5.84) Avg. 13.33% 26.03 | 37,94 143.92 Page: 6 WEST_000092"}, {"d": 22, "p": 245, "t": "State Farm 36-5391-13€ WEST, NBIL Fence 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0,00 SF Short Wall 0,00 SF Fluor 0,00 LF Ceil, Perimeter 0.00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 0.38 031 241.99 0.83 8.99 536.87 9.30 7718.86 AGE/LIFE CONDITION - 7. Clean the surface area 636,00 SF '$, Stain - wood fence/gate 636.00 SF ACV DEPREC. DEP % 241,99 . Totals: Fence Area Totals: Exterior 229.79 Total Hip Length 99.08 Total Ridge Length 85.83 Total: Exterior 393,70 143.17 635.69 319.90 LF Floor Perimeter 330.96 Total Perimeter Length of Walls 46.33 Number of Squares 2,371.08 Exterior Wall Area 4,632,97 Surface Area (143.17) 26.67% 2,371.08 SF Walls and Ceiting 319.90 Exterior Perimeter 2,371.08 SF Walls 4/1 S yre Avg. 669.53 4,097.67 3,428.14 interior ‘Height: Bedroowi 352.00 SE Walls 120.00 SE Ceiling 472,00 SF Walls& Ceiling 120,00 SF Floor 44.00 LF Floor Perimeter 44,00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 2° 6\" X 6\" Br 2'6\" X 6' BY Opens into Exterior Opens into Exterior 2° 6\" X 6 8\" Opens into Exterior AGE/LIFE DEPREC. ACV TAX RCY . 9. Content Manipulation charge per hour 39,58. 1,00 HR 0,00 39.58 39.58 0,52 0.01 2.09 - 2.09 QUANTITY CEILING UNIT PRICE . 10, Seal the surface area w/PVA primer- one cost 4.00 SF Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM CONDITION DEP % . Page: 7 WEST_000093"}, {"d": 22, "p": 246, "t": "Sinte Farm 36-53Q1-13C WEST, NEIL CONTINUED - Bedroom UNIT PRICE QUANTITY 1L, Paint more than the ceiling - one coal 0.6! 124,00 SF DEPREC. _ CONDITION DEP% RCV 0,85 76.49 = SNS yrs 217.12 _ eee _ AGE/LIFE TAX | ACY 33.33% $1.00 Avg. (25.49) S/ES yrs (72.37) . 144.75 Avg. 33.33% WALLS 12. Paint the walls - one epat 382,00 SF 2,40 0,61 FLOOR No Accidental Direct Physical Loss observed at time of inspection. — 3.26 Totals: Bedroom Area Totals: Interier 352.00 SF Walls 472,00 SF Walls and Ceiling 120.00SF Ceiling 44.00 LF Floor Perimeter 135,11 Total Area 120.00 SF Floor 120.00 Floor Area 420,00 Exterior Wall Area ITAL 97.86 335.28 ‘46,67 Exterior Perimeter of Walls . 44.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 352.00 Interior Wall Area cee 3.26 Total: Interior Area Totals: Dwelling 2,723.08 SF Walls 120.00 SF Ceiling 2,843.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 120.00 SF Floor 13§.11 Total Area 363.90 LF Floor Perimeter 44.00LF Ceil. Perimeter 366.57 Exterior Perimeter 120.00 Floor Area 2,791.08 Exterior Wall Area 4,632.97. Surface Area 99,08 Total Ridge Length 352.00 Interior Wall Area of Walls 46.33 Number of Squares 229.79 Total Hip Length 89.09 Total: Dwelling 0,00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter TAX RCV 13. Haul debris - per pickup truck load ~ including dump fees 144,12 1.00.BA 0.00 144.12 Totals; Debris Removal 0.0 144.12 9/28/2023 5:43 PM 3,665.56 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY 767.39 s & Ceiling 0.00 SF Wall 0.00 SF Ceiling — 330.96 Total Perimeter Length 4,432.95 Debris Rernoval Date: 297AE 97.86 335.28 UNIT PRICE AGE/LIFE CONDITION DEPREC. DEP % ACV 144,12 0.00 144.12 Page: 8 WEST_000094"}, {"d": 22, "p": 247, "t": "State Farm 36-5301-13C WEST, NUIL Labor Mintnuma Appiled QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 178.98 0,00 178.98 19.84 0.00 AGE/LIFE CONDITION ACY DEPREC. DEP% 14. Window labor minimum 1.00 BA 15. General labor - labor minimum 1,00 BA Totats: Labor Minimums Applied Line Item Totals: 36-53Q1-13C 19.840 178.98 19,84 | 0,00 199,82 9.00 198.82 89.09 4,775.89 767.39 4,009.50 Grand Total Areas: 2,723.08 SF Walls 120,00 SF Ceiling 120.00° SF Floor 2,843.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 363.90 LF Floor Perimeter 44.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 120,00 Floor Area 2,791.08 Exterior Wall Area 4,632.97 Surface Area $9.08 Total Ridge Length Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM 135.11 Total Area 366.57 Exterior Perimeter of Walls 46.33 Number of Squares \"952,00 Interior Wall Area 330.96 Total Perimeter Length 229.79 Total Hip Length Page: 9 WEST_000095"}, {"d": 22, "p": 249, "t": "From:office@coastalclaims.net Sent:Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:28:50 -0400 To:statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com Ce:cesvcs-OK-2024040001 @claimmail.net Subject:{EXTERNAL] 3653Q113C Attachments:36530113C_WEST_PRELIMINARY PA ESTIMATE. pdf Please see attached PA preliminary estimate. If you hav PA on file for this claim, JOHN DEKKER @ 26 any questions, please reach out to the r email john@coastalclaims.net. “This is a PRELIMINARY estimate produced by Coastal Claims Services. This estimate represents our current evaluation of the damages to the insured's property. As we continue to evaluate this claim, there may be additional damages related to this event that have not been scoped at the production of this estimate.” >) EXHIBIT SFF&CCWest_000538"}, {"d": 22, "p": 250, "t": ";Gesira came Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, FL 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net Insured: Property: West, Neil & Lacy Home: (580) 695-0014 7 NW Briarcreek Drive E-mail: neilspencerwest@sbcglobal.net Lawton, OK 73505 Claim Rep.: Company: Business: John Dekker Coastal Claims Services E-mail: Business: 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, FL 32168 Estimator: Eileen Dalton Company: Coastal Claims Services Claim Number: 3653Q113C Date of Loss: Policy Number: 36CRX4058 6/15/2023 12:00 AM Date Inspected: Price List: Estimate: Date Received: Date Entered: (267) 261-0085 john@coastalclaims.net Type of Loss: Hail 4/25/2024 11:07 AM OKLA8X_APR24 Restoration/Service/Remodei WEST “This is a PRELIMINARY estimate produced by Coastal Claims Services. This estimate represents our current evaluation of the damages to the insured's property. As we continue to evaluate this claim, there may be additional damages related to this event that have not been scoped at the production of this estimate.” SFF&CC/West_000539"}, {"d": 22, "p": 251, "t": "Gears creas Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, FI 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net WEST SOURCE: EAGLEVIEW Roof DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACY 46.348Q $7.37 0.00 $31.70 3,190.23 (0.00) 3,190.23 46.34S8Q 23.41 0.00 216.96 1,301.78 (0.00) 1,301.78 4,634.00 SF 0.23 2.26 213.62 1,281.70 (6.95) 1,274.75 4, Saddie or cricket - 26 to 50 SF 5. Roofing felt - 15 ib. 1.00EA 46.348Q 346.29 32.72 6.92 17.78 10.64 306.80 423.85 1,840.82 (21.30) (54.70) 402.55 1,786.42 ‘ Laminated - comp. shingle rfg. - w/out 55.67 8Q 238.54 326.32 2,721.16 16,327.00 (1,004.06) 15,322.94 761S8Q 68.77 0.00 104.66 628.00 (0.00) 628.00 Roofing 1. Tear off, haul and dispose of comp. shingles - Laminated 2. Remove Additional charge for steep roof - 10/12 - 12/12 slope 3. Re-nailing of roof sheathing- complete re-nal eit 7, Additional charge for steep roof - 10/12 12/12 slope 8. Asphalt starter - universal starter course 331.00 LF 1.87 8.07 125.42 75246 (24.83) 727.63 9. R&R Hip / Ridge cap - Standard profile- 330.00 LF 8.25 43.60 $53.22 3,319.32 (134.15) 3,185.17 5.00 EA 90.51 1.85 $0.90 $45.30 (5.71) 539.59 100EA 427,98 5.02 86.60 519.60 (15.43) $04.17 331.00 LF 331,00 LF 3.18 0.72 20.49 5.00 214.62 48.66 1,287.69 291.98 (63.06) (15.39) 1,224.63 276.59 16.00 LF 5.00 LF 9.92 5.38 L.57 0.55 32.06 5,50 192.35 32.95 (4.82) (1.69) 187.53 31.26 $16.00 SF 172.00 LF 344.00 LF 1,63 6.00 0.72 13,08 21.21 $.20 170.84 210.64 50.58 1,025.00 1,263.85 303.46 (40.25) (65.27) (16.00) 984.75 1,198.58 287 46 75.00 LF 10.77 Al 164,98 989.84 (52.65) 937.19 5.00 EA 75.20 5.84 76.38 458.22 (17.97) 440.25 LOOEA 95.10 2.03 19,42 116,55 (6.24) 110.31 5.00 EA 1LO0EA 88.49 25,99 12.12 0.53 90.92 57.28 $45.49 343.70 (37.30) (1.62) $08.19 342.08 composition shingles 10. R&R Gable comice retum - laminated Flashing 11. R&R Chimney flashing - average 32” x 36\") 12. R&R Drip edge/gutter apron 13. Apply roofing sealanv/cement - per LFDrip Edge* 14. Step flashing 15, R&R Flashing - L flashing galvanized 16. Ice & water barrier 17. Valley metal 18. Apply roofing sealantcement - per LFValley Metal* Ventilation 19. R&R Continuous ridge vent - shingleover style 20. R&R Roof vent - turtle type - Metal Pipe Jacks, Caps, and Collars 21. R&R Furnace vent - rain cap and storm collar, 6° 22. R&R Flashing - pipe jack - lead 23. Apply mastic around vent pipes to prevent leakage* : Miscellaneous [tems WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 2 SFF&CC/West_000540"}, {"d": 22, "p": 252, "t": "(Gast toi Coastal Claims Services, Ine Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, Fi 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net CONTINUED - Roof DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV _—dDEPREC. ACV 1L.00EA 37.55 0.00 7.52 45.07 (0.00) 45.07 1.00 EA 300.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 (0.00) 300.00 5.00 HR 40.48 0.00 40.48 242.88 (0.00) 242.88 Totals: Roof 516.55 6,211.56 37,569.09 1,589.39 35,979.70 Total; SOURCE: EAGLEVIEW 516.55 6,211.56 37,569.09 1,589.39 35,979.70 24. Digital satellite system - Detach & reset --GENERALS-— 25. Taxes, insurance, permits & fees (Bid Item) 26. Roofing - General Laborer - per hour Labor to hand load materials onto roof Exterior DESCRIPTION 27, R&R Window screen, 1 - 9 SF 28. R&R Wrap wood window frame & QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 4.00 EA 2.00 EA 45.23 303.21 714 6.56 37.60 122.60 225.66 735,58 (21.97) (20.18) 203,69 715.40 13.70 160.20 961.24 42.15 919.09 trim with aluminum sheet Totals: Exterior Gutters DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 29. R&R Gutter- aluminum - up to 5°* 275.00 LF 10.44 64,75 587.18 3,522.93 (199.24) 3,323.69 30. R&R Downspout - aluminum - up to 96.00 LF 10.44 22,60 204,98 1,229.82 (69.55} 1,160.27 3,00 EA 27,18 0.53 16.42 98.49 (1.64) 96.85 87.88 $08.58 4,851.24 270.43 4,580.81 TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV git 31. R&R Gutter splash guard Totals: Gutters Fencing DESCRIPTION WEST QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 4/25/2024 Page: 3 SFF&CC/West_000541"}, {"d": 22, "p": 253, "t": "(Gear crore Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, Fl 32168 386-3 14-0074 www.coastalciaims.net CONTINUED - Fencing DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV _—sdDEPREC. ACV 32. Clean with pressure/chemical spray 33. Stain - wood fence/gate 34, Wood fence 5' - 6' high - Detach & reset - per 8' section 1,452.00 SF 1,452.00 SF 16.00 EA 0.37 0.86 76.49 6.71 21.94 1.68 167.58 254.12 245.10 645.53 1,524,78 1,470.62 (2.18) (67.52) (5.18) 643,35 1,457.26 1,465.44 24.33 606.80 3,640.93 74.88 3,566.05 Totals: Fencing Main Level Bedroom © i. 352.00 SF Walls 120,00 SF Ceiling 2 472.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 120.00 SF Floor “ 13.33 SY Flooring 44,00 LF Floor Perimeter Xo I i\" g\" Ft l’ Height: 8' . + 44.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 3\" LEAT a eel DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 1.00EA 89.12 0.00 17.82 106.94 (0.00) 106.94 1,00 EA 1.00 EA 200.41 15.04 0.00 0.00 40.08 3.00 240.49 18.04 (0.60) (0.00) 240.49 18.04 44.00 LF 0.54 0.11 4.78 28.65 (0.33) 28.32 120.00 SF 0.91 1,52 22.14 132,86 (4.68) 128.18 44.00 LF 1.26 0,58 11.20 67.22 (1.78) 65.44 32.00 SF 2.67 112 17,32 103.88 (3.46) 100.42 32.00 LF 7.07 0.53 45,34 272,41 (1.63) 270,48 32.00 SF 352.00 SF 0.79 0.52 0.12 1,03 5.08 36.80 30.48 220.87 (0.38) (3.17) 30,10 217.70 352.00 SF 0.91 4.46 64.96 389.74 (13.73) 376.01 General: 35. Contents - move out then reset - Large room Ceiling: 36. Ceiling fan - Detach & reset 37, Detach & Reset Heat/AC register Mechanically attached 38, Mask and prep for paint - tape only (per LF) 39, Paint the ceiling - two coats Walls: 40, Mask and prep for paint - plastic, paper, tape (per LF) 41. R&R 1/2\" drywall - hung, taped, floated, ready for paint 42, Tape joint for new to existing drywall per LF 43, Texture drywall - light hand texture 44, Seal the wails w/PVA primer - one coat 45. Paint the wails - two coats WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 4 SFF&CC/West_000542"}, {"d": 22, "p": 254, "t": "(a Clans Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal! Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net CONTINUED DESCRIPTION - Bedroom QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV = DEPREC, ACY 46. Mask or cover per square foot 120.00 SF 0.45 0.53 10.90 65.43 (0,00) 65.43 47. Final cleaning - construction Residential 120.00 SF 0.28 0.00 6.72 40.32 (0.00) 40.32 10.00 286.14 1,717.03 29.16 1,687.87 Floor: Totals: Bedroom ton F'n 5 Bathroom Height: 8' 1 | 208.00 SF Walls 40.00 SF Ceiling painroomoe x m 248.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 4,44 SY Flooring 40.00 SF Floor 26,00 LF Floor Perimeter I DESCRIPTION 26.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV = DEPREC. ACV 1.00EA 89.12 0.00 17.82 106.94 (0.00) 106.94 49. Detach & Reset Bathroom ventilation fan 100EA 58.83 0.00 11,76 70.59 (0.00) 70.59 50. Detach & Reset Heat/AC register Mechanically attached 51, Mask and prep for paint - tape only (per LF) 1,00 EA 15.04 0.00 3,00 18.04 (0.00) 18.04 26.00 LF 0.54 0.06 2,82 16.92 (0.20) 16.72 40.00 SF 0.91 0.51 738 44,29 (1.56) 42,73 26,00 LF 1.26 0.34 6.62 39.72 (1.05) 38.67 32.00 SF 2.67 1.42 17.32 103.88 G46) 100.42 General: 48. Contents - move out then reset - Large room Ceiling: $2, Paint the ceiling - two coats Wails: 53, Mask and prep for paint - plastic, paper, tape (per LF) 54, R&R 1/2\" drywall - hung, taped, floated, ready for paint 55. Tape joint for new to existing drywall - 32.00 LF 707 0.53 45,34 272.41 (1.63) 270.48 per LF 56. Texture drywail - light hand texture 57, Seal the walls w/PVA primer - one 32.00 SF 208.00 SF 0.79 0.52 0.12 0.61 5.08 21,76 30.48 130.53 (0.38) (1.87) 30.10 128.66 coat 58. Paint the walls - two coats 208.00 SF 0.91 2,64 38.38 230.30 (8.11) 222,19 Floor: WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 5 SFF&CC/West_000543"}, {"d": 22, "p": 255, "t": "Gaitet cots Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyrna Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net CONTINUED - Bathroom DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC, ACV 59. Mask or cover per square foot 40.00 SF 0.45 0.18 3.64 21,82 (0.00) 21.82 60. Final cleaning - construction - 40.00 SF 0.28 0,00 2.24 13.44 (0.00) 13.44 6.11 183.16 1,099.06 18.26 1,080.80 Residential Totals: Bathroom }/— 61.3\" — T i Height: 8° Closet 6' ui 192.00 SF Walls 36.00. SF Ceiling con o 228.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 36.00 SF Floor & | 4.00 SY Flooring 24.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 24.00 LF Floor Perimeter DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCY DEPREC, ACY 61, Contents - move out then reset - Small 100EA 44.59 0.00 8.92 53.5] (0.00) 53.51 room Ceiling: 62, Detach & Reset Light fixture 63. Mask and prep for paint - tape only L00EA 24.00 LF 56.27 0.54 0.00 0.06 11.26 2.62 67.53 15.64 (0.00) (0.18) 67.53 15.46 64. Paint the ceiling ~ two coats 36.00 SF 0.91 0.46 6.66 39.88 (1.40) 38.48 Walls: 65, Mask and prep for paint - plastic, 24.00 LF 1.26 0,32 6.10 36,66 (0.97) 35.69 66. R&R 1/2\" drywall - hung, taped, 32.00 SF 2.67 1.12 17.32 103.88 G46) 100.42 floated, ready for paint 67. Tape joint for new to existing drywall per LF 32,00 LF 7.07 0.53 45.34 272.11 (1.63) 270.48 General: (per LF) paper, tape (per LF) 68. Texture drywall - light hand texture 32.00 SF 0.79 0.12 5.08 30.48 (0.38) 30.10 69. Seal the walls w/PVA primer - one coat 70, Paint the walls - two coats 192.00 SF 0.52 0.56 20.08 120.48 (1.73) 118.75 192,00 SF 0.91 2.43 35.42 212.57 (7.49) 205.08 36.00 SF 36.00 SF 0.45 0.28 0.16 0.00 3.28 2.02 19.64 12.10 (0.00) (0.00) 19.64 12.10 Floor: 71. Mask or cover per square foot 72, Final cleaning - construction Residential WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 6 SFF&CC/West_000544"}, {"d": 22, "p": 256, "t": "Gara Clolme Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smymia Beach, F1 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net CONTINUED - Closet DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC, ACV Totals: Closet 5.76 164.10 984.48 17,24 967,24 Total: Main Level 21.87 633.40 3,800.57 64.66 3,735.91 Debris Removal DESCRIPTION 73. Dumpster load - Approx. 12 yards, 1-3 tons of debris QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 1.00EA 429.25 0.00 85.86 $15.11 (0.00) 515.11] 0.00 85.86 515.11 0.00 $15.11 TAX O&P RCV = DEPREC. ACV Totals: Debris Removal Labor Minimums Applied DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 74, Heat, vent, & air cond. labor minimum 1,00BA 109.32 0.00 21.86 131.18 (0.00) 13118 75, Electrical labor minimum* 76, Window labor minimum 1.00EA 1.00BA 6.20 182,99 0.00 0.00 1,24 36.60 7.44 219.59 (0.00) (0.00) 7.44 219.59 0.00 59.70 358.21 0.00 358,21 664.33 8,566.10 $1,696.39 2,041.41 49,654.88 Totals: Labor Minimums Applied Line [tem Totals: WEST Grand Total Areas: WEST 752.00 SF Walls 196.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Long Wall 196.00 21.78 0.00 SF Ceiling SY Flooring SF Short Wall 948.00 94.00 94.00 SF Walls and Ceiling LF Floor Perimeter LF Ceil. Perimeter 196.00 Floor Area 918.00 Exterior Wail Area 228,67 Total Area 102.00 Exterior Perimeter of Walls 752.00 Interior Wall Area 0.00 Surface Area 0.00 Total Ridge Length 0.00 Number of Squares 0.00 Total Hip Length 0.00 Total Perimeter Length 4/25/2024 Page: 7 SFF&CC/West_000545"}, {"d": 22, "p": 257, "t": "(Gear caine Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, FI 32168 386-3 14-0074 www.coastalclaims.net Summary for Dwelling Line Item Total 42,465.96 Material Sales Tax 664,33 Subtotal Overhead 43,130.29 4,283.05 Profit 4,283.05 Replacement Cost Value Less Depreciation $51,696.39 (2,041.51) Actual Cash Value $49,654.88 Net Claim $49,654.88 Total Recoverable Depreciation 2,041.51 Net Claim if Depreciation is Recovered $51,696.39 Eileen Dalton WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 8 SFF&CC/West_000546"}, {"d": 22, "p": 258, "t": ": Gas al Claipe. Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, F! 32168 386-3 14-0074 www.coastalclaims.net Recap by Category with Depreciation O&P Items RCV Deprec. ACV CLEANING §92.12 2.18 589.94 16.41 CONTENT MANIPULATION 222.83 222.83 GENERAL DEMOLITION DRYWALL 5,844.40 968.64 5,844.40 952.23 ELECTRICAL 6.20 6.20 ELECTRICAL - SPECIAL SYSTEMS 37,55 37,55 FENCING HEAT, VENT & AIR CONDITIONING LIGHT FIXTURES 1,223.84 5.18 1,218.66 281.91 6,24 275.67 256.68 256.68 PAINTING 2,671.64 115.77 2,555.87 ROOFING 25,426.15 1,583.15 23,843.00 SIDING 536.00 20.18 $15.82 3,750.17 270.43 3,479.74 WINDOW REGLAZING & REPAIR 164,84 21,97 142.87 WINDOWS - WOOD 182.99 O&P Items Subtotal 42,165.96 2,041.51 40,124.45 Non-O&P Items RCV Deprec. ACV PERMITS AND FEES 300.00 SOFFIT, FASCIA, & GUTTER Non-O&P Items Subtotal 182.99 300.00 300.00 0.00 300.00 O&P Items Subtotal 42,165.96 2,041.51 40,124.45 Material Sales Tax Overhead 664,33 4,283.05 664,33 4,283.05 Profit 4,283.05 4,283.05 Total $1,696.39 2,041.51 49,654.88 \"The amount claimed in this estimate is based on a preliminary inspection by a public adjuster and/or contractor and/or other experienced person/building estimator. Nevertheless, the estimated amount may change based on material prices, contractor bids, and other costs which are too numerous io mention, The amount claimed may be affected by policy exclusions. Any overlap, upgrade, or mistake which would result in additional costs is unintentional. Estimate includes costs associated with code upgrades, if known, This estimate was not made with a set of plans created by a design professional. Any plans made by a design professional would come at an additional cost and would require approval by the local building inspector. Costs may change based on the building department approvals, and means and methods acceptable to a general contractor.“ THIS ESTIMATE IS ONLY AN OPINION WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 9 SFF&CC/West_000547"}, {"d": 22, "p": 259, "t": "(Gaver clone Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway £f- New Smymia Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclatms.net i WEST 1-EAGLEVIEW ROOF SKETCH 4/25/2024 Page: 10 SFF&CC/West_000548"}, {"d": 22, "p": 260, "t": "6vS000 PCUOZ/ST/P ISPM/DOPASS {] ede [aad] Ure] L IN] ud iS iS OO woonpeg — —4 u8 OL - f 94 +8 0 SS 1:8 —_4 + iCl iCl wloolpeg 18 nN + 9 J9SO[D i9 118 | 1ISdM ]9ao'T Ue"}, {"d": 22, "p": 262, "t": "oe Praia Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36NB 52nd Street Oklshoma City, OK 73105 (405) 7484484 info@tmexteriors.com Client: Neil West Property: Operator’ Type of Estimate: Date Entered: Price List: Labor Efficiency: Estimate: File Number: 7NW Briarereek Drive Lawton, OK 73505 BRANDONS Hail 3/7/2024 Date Assigned: ‘ OKLA8X MAR24 Restoration/Service/Remodel WEST_NEIL Claim Number: 3653Q113C. PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT CAREFULLY, THOROUGHLY, THE ATTACHED SUPPORTING AND FOOTNOTES AND REVIEW AND IN ITS ENTIRETY - PLEASE READ ALL VENTATION IN DETA SUBSTANTIVE: database (Xattimate) for preparation of property Trademark Eiteriors Restotation standardly uses the primaty insurance industry legitimate damage and a.reasonable method of has been prepared bosed.on This estimatetes. loss related repairestima repairs: Additionally, thils estimate ray. be subject to future revisions and/or additions. and enforced in tts has been adopted Adopted and Required Building Codes: The 2015 Intemational Residential. Code (RC) and/or delctionsto the already ty OK, unless othenwise specified in local amendments (whichare additions following by Lawton, entiré this estimate). The 2015 the images section Whitten building codes ~ see.atfached corresponding code documeritation in n this estimate. (CC) are the rules that gover Code. Councilnal Internatio Important: “Any person who violates a provision of this code or fails to.comply withany of the requirements thereof or who erects, constiucts, alters or repaits a building or structurein violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the penalties as prescribed building official, or of s:permit or certificate issued under the provisionsof this code, shallbe subject'to by law.\" (RC Ri13.4 Violation Penalties) Profit ~ See Below Disclosures from Kactware for Additional Reference: Overhead and Profit (if applicable) anidead Overti has been added.accordingly.. For any questions related to the following estimate, please contacts EXHIBIT nh | SrF'aCcHWest 000321"}, {"d": 22, "p": 263, "t": "awe... TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING DISCLOUSRE FROM XACTWARE CAREFULLY AND THOROUGHLY. “Xactware cannot and does not represent or assume the accuracy of, or in any way endorse the content provided by its customers or any other entity. You warrant and represent, therefore, that your use of Licensed Product information is only as a source of opinion. You agree not to rely thereon without independent verification except at your own risk.” “Xactware does not warrant the accuracy of Price Data. Price Data is intended to be a representation of historical information to be used as @ baseline or place to begin creation of an estimate. You are responsible to ensure the estimate includes pricing consistent with components including but not limited to actual materials, equipment, and labor pricing. You acknowledge and understand that Price Data provided as part of the Licensed Product is intended to target the most representative price of the various price points collected relevant to the specific line item in question. Having this single representative price per line item, computed from all valid price points researched in the market, means that some market price. data are higher and some market price data are lower then that which is reported, You agree not to prohibit or preclude deviations from the Price Data where contractor requirements, market conditions, demand or any other factor warrants the use of a different line ttem price in the specific situation. The pricing information shall be compatible with the current version of the Licensed Product. This pricing information is provided for informational purposes only. It is your reaponsibility to ensure the estimates you write include pricing consistent with components including but not limited to actual matertals, equipment, and labor pricing.” “Xactware publishes prices as close to the mid-point of the market as possible, As a resuit, generally halfof the providers in each market will be priced higher, and half lower than the cost shown here. Due to the structure at which different roofing companies operate (traditional sub-contractors vs. roofing sales organizations) roofing costs quoted by local providers can cover a very broad / large range of prices.” “The building cost data published by Xactware is not designed to be inclusive of sales tax, General O&P, or Job-Related O&P within the unit prices. These can be specified and added at print time after all tine items have been listed. However, Xactware has designed flexibility into the system so this is not mandatory. Xactware’s users have the option to add these casts to . their line items to their line items as they choose. The Xactimate system is designed to provide full detail on all costs that are incurred.” (ef. XactAnalysis License Agreement: hitps://www.xactware.com/en-us/solutions/claims-management/xactanalysia/subscription-software-usage-agreement/) WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 2 SFF&CC/West_000322"}, {"d": 22, "p": 264, "t": "a TRADEMARK De a] Trademark Exteriors Restoration — 36-NE 52nd Street Oklehoma City,OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com WEST. NEIL Dwelling Exterlor Exterior REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 275.00 LF 0.54 5.89 64.75 586.62 3,519.62 80.00 LF 0.54 5.89 18.84 170.64 1,023.88 3. Gutter splash guard 4.00 EA 0,00 24.47 0,53 14.78 83.72 4, R&R Wrap wood window frame 2.0) EA 30,40 161.55 3.97 158 465,45 88.09 849.62. $,097,67 RESET QTY DESCRIPTION 1. R&R Guiter- aluminum - up to ‘5 2. R&R Downspout-aluminum-up to 5 & trim with aluminum sheet - Small Total: Exterior Roof ‘RESET QTY DESCRIPTION — REMOVE REPLACE TAX OaP TOTAL 57.37 0.00 0.00 531.70 3,190.23 5. Tear off, haul and dispose of 6.348Q comp, shingles- Laminated 6, Remove Additional charge for 46.00 SQ 23.41 0,00 0.00 215.38 1,292.24 40.84.SQ 0.00 32.72 15.67 270.40 ‘1,622.35 Per the 2015 Intetnational Residential Cods (IRC), “For raof slopes of four units vertical Lu 12 units horizontal (4:12) or greater, underlayment steep roof - 10/12 ~ 12/12 dope 7. Roofing felt - 15 Ib. shail be one Jayer applled in the following manner: undeilayment shall be applied shingle fashion, parallel to and starting from the eave and lapped 2 inches. Distortions in the underlayment shall not interfere with the ability of the shingles to seal. End-Inps shall be 4 offset by 6 feet.” (Ref. R905.2) inches and shall be with this code Additionally, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Roof asserublles shall be destgned and installed in accordance and the approved manufacturer * s Instructions such that the roof assembly uhall serve to protect the bullding or structure.” (Ref R903.1, R904,1, and RYO5.1) , The approved manufacturer is GAF, and their installation instructions state work shall be completed as outlined for the work to be professionally installed and warranted, Per the approved manufacturer, GAF, \"For lps, the underlayment should be lapped over the hips at least 4” (102 mm) to 6” (152 mm) as run along the hip would be done on a new or complete tear-off Installation. Use a 12\" (305 mm) to 18\" (457 num) strip of underlaymentto and overlap the new underlaymenton the replacement. plane at feast 6\" (152 mum) to 12” (305 mm).* (102 mm) fo 6” Additionally per the opproved manufacturer, GAF, \"For ridges, the underlaymont should be lapped oyer the ridge at least 4\" o run underlaymentt of strip mmi) (457 to.18” mm) (305 12” a Use Installation. ete tear-off compl or new a on done be would as (152 mum) mum),” (305 12” to mm) (152 6” loast at plane replacentent along the ridge and overlap the new underlayment on the A copy of the IRC code and the approved manufacturer's installation instructions have been attached for reference. 8. Rooflng felt - 15 th.- double 0.4 SQ 0.00 5.7) 3.96. 0.24 coyerage/low slope WEST_NEIL 37/2024 23.84 : Poge: 3 SEF&CC/West_000323"}, {"d": 22, "p": 265, "t": "2-8... TRADEMARK SUT Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklehoma City, OK 73105, (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Roof DESCRIPTION QTY RESET REMOVE TAX REPLACE O&P TOTAL 2/13 PITCH (DEAD VALLEYS) horizontal Per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “Asphalt shingles shall be used on roof slopes of two units vertioal in 12 units in 12 (17-percent slope) or greater. For roof copes from two units vertical Ls 12 unity horizontal (£7-percont dope) up to four units vertical R905.2,2) (Ref R905.1.1.\" Section with accordance in required is application underlayment units horizontal (33-percent slope), double with this code Additionally, per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “Roof assemblies shall be designed and installed ln accordance (Re£ R903.1, structure.” or building the protect to serve shall and the approved manufacturer * s Instructions such that the roof assembly R904.1, and R905.1) The approved mamufacturer is GAF, and their installation instructions state work shall be completed as outlined for the work' to be professionally . installed and warranted. A copy of the IRC code and the approved mamufacturer’s installation instructions have been attached for reference. 9. lee & water barrier 516.00 SF 0.00 1.60 11.87 167.44 1,004.61 VALLEY LINING - NOT EAVES Instructions before Per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “Valley Inlogs shall be Installed in accordance with the manufacturer's . the shingles, Velley linings of the following types shall be permitted: applying of anyof 1, For open valleys (valley lining exposed) lined with metal, the valley lining shall be not less than 24 inches (610 mm) wide and comosion-resistant metals in Table R905,2.8.2. the roll roofing, complying with ASTMD 3909 or ASTM D 6380 Class M, shall be 2. For open valleys, valley lining of two plies of mineral-surfaced layer not less than 36 inches (914 mm) wide. top the and mm) (457 inches permitted, The bottom layer shall be 18 6380 and at least 36 3. For closed valleys (valleys covered with shingtes), valley lining of ane ply of smooth roll roofing complying with ASTM D bitumen modified polymer Self-adhering permitted. be shall in Item 1 or 2 above inches wide (914 mm) or valley lining as described underlayment complying with ASTM D1970 shall be permitted in leu of the lining material\" (ReE 905,2.8.2) with this code Additionally, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Roof assembiles shall be designed and installed in accordance (Re£ R903.1, structure.” or building the protect to serve shall assembly roof the that such and the a, manufacturer ' # instructions R904,1, and R905.1) The approved mamufacturer is GAF, and their installation instructions state work shall be completed as outlined for the work to be professionally installed and warranted. Acopy of the IRC code and the approved manufacturer's installation instructions have been attached for reference. 10. Drip edge WEST_NEIL 331,00 LF 0.00 2.72 18.72 193.80 3/772024 1,102.84 Page: 4 SFF&CC/West_000324"}, {"d": 22, "p": 266, "t": "TRADEMARK Sees Trademark Exteriors Restoration \" 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City; OK 73105. (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Roof roofs. Adjacent seginents Per the 2015 international Residential Code (IRC), “A drip edge shall be provided at eaves and rake edges of shingle below the roof sheathing and mm) (6.4 inch 4 than less not extend shall ediges Dap (51mm). inches than-2 less not overlapped be of drip edge shall more than 12 extend up back onto the roof deck riot less. than 2 iriches (51 mim). Drip edges shall be mechanically fastened to the roof deck et not inches (20S matt) o., with fasteners as specifiedin Section R905.2.5. Underlayment shall be installed over the drip edge along eaves and under the drip edge along rake edges.” (Ref. R903.2.8.5) with this code Additionally, per the 2015.International Residential Code (IRC), “Roof assemblies shall be designed and installed in accordance (Ref, 2903.1, or structure.” and the approved nanufacturer * s Instructions such thatthe roof assembly stall serve to protect the bullding R904.1, and R905.1) work-to be professionally The approved manufacturer is GAF, and their installation instructions state work shall be completedas outlined for the installed and warranted. Per the approved manufacturer, drip edge must be Installed to tho rakes and eaves of tlie roof to help prevent water from getting behind the soffit edge or-siding. A sopy of the IRC code and the approved manufacturer’s installation instructions have been attached 11. Asphalt starter ~unlyersal starter course 0,00 331.00 LF for reference. 125.42 8.07 1.87 TE2.46 . this code and the Per ihe 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “Roof assembles shallbe designed and installed In accordance with (Ref R903.1, R904. 1, and approved manufkcturer’s instructions such that the roof assembly'shall serve to protect the building or structure,” R905.1) . . -_ The approved manufacturer is GAF, and their installation instructions state work shall be completed as outlined forthe work to be professionally installed and warranted. _ Per the approved manufacturer's installation instructions, asphalt starter strip shingles must bo installed along the rakes and eaves of the roof. A copy of the IRC code and the approved manufacturer’s installation instructions have been attached for reference. 1.54 10.56 0.00 16.00 LF 12, Step flashing 204.60 WEST: NEIL 34.40 3/7/2024 Page: 5 SFF&CC/West_000325"}, {"d": 22, "p": 267, "t": "SC ROEMARR Do ] Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Roof QTY DESCRIPTION RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL PER BUILDING CODE REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED IF EXISTING & TO BE INSTALLED ALTOGETHER IF NOT EXISTING - BOTH the wall and from entering Per the 2014 International Residential Code (IRC), “Flashings shall be installed In a manner that prevents molsture penetrations other and walls parapet with intersections at and materials roof through Joints in copings, through ntolsture permeable through the roof plane.” (Ref. R903.2) wherever there laa Additionally, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Flashings shall be installed at wall and roof intersections, eave ofa eloped the where fromm away water divest to installed be shall lashing A openings. roof around and direction change in roof slope or 0.019 inoh (0.5 than less not of thickness a with resistant carrosion roof intersects a vertical sidewall, Where flashing is of metal, the metal hall be rama) (No. 26 galvanized sheet).” (Ref. R903.2.1) or step flashing Furthermore, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “B ase flashing agatast a vertical sidewall shall be continuous vertical sidewall the from away water direct shal? and width In mn) (102 Inches 4 and and shall be not fess than 4 inches (102 mm) in height under the _ opto the roof or into the gutter. Where siding is provided on the vertical sidewall, the vertical leg of the flashing shall be continuous with this siding. Where anchored nuasonry veneer Is provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided in accordance veneer is section and counterflashing shall be provided In accordance with Section R703,7.2.2, Where exterior plaster or adhered masonry provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided in accardance with this section and Section R703.6.3,” (Ref. R905.2.8.3) vent pipe and chimney Lastly, per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “Flashing agatnst a vertical front wall, as well az soll stack, R905.2.8.4) (Ref. instructions.” sprinted * manufacturer shingle asphalt the e with flashing, shall be applled In accordanc edgings, outlets, These flashings, in compliance with the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), must be replaced as “Any extsting flashings, and “Used R908.5) (Ref, deterlorated” or damaged, rusted, where replaced be yents, or similar devices that are a part of the assembly shall materials, equipment and devices shall not be reused unless approved by the bullding offictal.” (Ref, R104.9.1) this code Additionally, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Roof assemblies shall be designed and installed In accordance with (Ref R903.1, and the approved mantfacturer ’ s Instructions such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the bullding or structure.” R904,1, and R905.1) The approved marmfacturer is GAF, and their installation instructions have been attached following this estimate - These installation instructions state work ehall be completed as outlined for the work to be professionally installed and warranted. A copy ofthe IRC code and the approved manufacturer's installation instructions have been attached for reference. 0.81 6.6 0.0 §.00 LF 13. Aluminum sidewall/endwall flashing - mill finish WEST_NEIL , 6.82 3/7/2024 40.93 Page: 6 SFF&CC/West_000326"}, {"d": 22, "p": 268, "t": "——~.. TRADEMARK De er) Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Roof DESCRIFTION QTY RESET REMOVE REPLACE TOTAL O&P TAX BUILDING CODE REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED IF EXISTING & TO BE INSTALLED ALTOGETHER IF NOT EXISTING - BOTH PER from entering the wall and Per the 2015 International Residential Code (RC), “Flashings shall be Installed In a manner that prevents molsture penetrations roof through joints In copings, through motsture permeable materials and at intersections with parapet walls and other through the roof plane.” (Ref R903.2) Additionally, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (RC), “Flashings shall be installed at wall and roof Intersections, whorever there isa of'a sloped change in roof slope or directton and around roof openings. A flashing shall be installed to divert water away from where the eave roof intersects a vertical sidewall, Where flashing is of metal, the metal shall be corrosion resistant with a thickness of not ram) (No. 26 galvanized sheet).” (Ref. R903.2.1) less than 0.019 inch (0.5 or step flashing Furthermore, per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “B ase Mashing agalust a vertical sidewall shall be continuous sidewall and shall be not less than 4 inches (102 mmm) in helght and 4 inches (102 mum) In width and shall direct water away from the vertical the under continuous be shall flashing the of leg vertical the sidewall, vertical the on provided is siding Where gutter. the onto the roof or info this with accordance in provided be shall flashing base the sidewall, siding. Where anchored masonry veneer Is provided on the vertical veneer is section and counterflashing shall bo provided in accordance with Sectton R703.7.2.2. Where exterior plaster or adhered masonry R905.2.8.3) (Ref. R703.6.3.\" Section and section this with accordance in provided be provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall and chimney Lastly, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Flashing against a vertical front wall, as well as soll atack, vent pipe flashing, shal! be applied in accordance with the asphalt shingle twanufacturer * s printed instructtons.” (Ref. R905.2.8.4) edgings, outlets, These fashings, in compliance with the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), must be replacedas “Any existing Nachings, R908.5) and “Used vents, or similar devices that are a part of the assombly shall be replaced where rusted, damaged, or deterlorated” (Ref materials, equipment and devices shall not be reused unless approved by the bullding offictal.” (Ref. R104.9.1) this code Additionally, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Roof assemblies shall be designed and {ustalled In accordance with (Ref R903.1, and the approved manufacturer ’ s Instructions such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the bullding or structure.” and R905.1) R904.1, The epproved manufacturer is GAF, and their installation instructions have been attached following this estimate - These installation state work shall be completed as outlined for the work to be professionally installed and warranted. A copy of the IRC code and the approved manufacturer's installation instructions have been attached for reference. 14, Laminated - comp. shingle rfgwiout (ett 15. Addittonal charge for steep roof10/12 ~ 12/12 slope 16. Gable cornice retarn- laminated g - pipe jack 17. Flashin 18, Roof vent- turtle type- Metal 19, Chimney flashing - average (32\" instructions 55.00 SQ 0.00 238.54 322.39 —«-2,688.42 16,130.51 54.28 SQ 0.00 68.77 0.00 746.56 4,479.40 5.00 EA 5.00 EA 5,00 EA 1,00 EA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 71.18 48.94 64.68 408.01 1,85 431 5.61 5.02 11.6 49.89 65.80 82.60 465.31 298.91 394.51 495.63 x WEST_NEIL 3/772024 Page: 7 SFF&CC/West_000327"}, {"d": 22, "p": 269, "t": "aos, TRADEMARK fone es Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Roof DESCRIPTION QTY RESE. REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED IF EXISTING & TO BE INSTALLED TAX O&P TOTAL REMOVE REPLACE ALTOGETHER IF NOT EXISTING - BOTH PER BUILDING CODE the wall and Per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “Flashings shall be installed in a manner that prevents molsture from entering roof through joints tn copings, through moisture permeable materials and at intersections with parapet walls and other penetrations through the roof plane.” (Ref. R903.2) Additionally, per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “Flashings shall be installed at wall and roof intersections, wherever there Isa change in roof slope or direction and around roof openings, A fashing shall be installed to divert water away from where the eave ofa sloped (0.5 roof intersects a vertical sidewell. Where flashing is of metal, the metal shall be corrosion resistant with a thickness of nat Jess than 0.019 inoh mum) (No. 26 galvanized sheet).” (Ref. R903.2.1) Furthermore, per the 2015 International Residential Cods (IRC), “B ase flashing against a vertical sidewall shall be coutinucus or step flashing and shail be rot less than 4 inches (102 mm) in height and 4 inches (102 mm) tn width and shall direct water away from the vertical sidewall onto the roof or into the gutter, Where siding is provided on the vertical sidewall, the vertical leg of the flashing shall be continuous under the this siding. Where anchored masonry veneer Is provided on the verttcal sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided In accordance with is veneer masonry adhered or plaster exteriar Where R703.7.2.2, Sectton with accordance In provided be shall counterflashing and section R905.2.8.3) (Ref. R703.6.3.” Section and section this with accordance in provided be provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall Lastly, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Flashing against a vertical front wall, as well as soll stack, yeut pipe and chimney the asphalt shingle manufacturer ’ 8 printed instructions.” (Ref, R905.2.8.4) withance flashing, shall be applied in accord These flashings, in compliance with the 201 5 International Residentia] Code (IRC), must be replaced as “Any existing flashings, edgings, outlets, vents, or similar devices that are a part of the assembly shall be replaced where rusted, damaged, or deterforated” (Ref R908.5) and “Used materials, equipment and devices shall not be reused unless approved hy the bullding offfcial.” (Ref. R104.9.1) Additionally, per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “Roof assemblies shall be designed and installed Ln accordance with this code and the approved manofacturer ’ s instructions such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the building or structure.” (Ref R903.1, RO04,1, and R90S.1) ‘The approved manufacturer is GAP, and their installation instructions have been attached following this estimate - These installation instructions state work shall be completed as outlined for the work to be professionally installed and warranted. A copy of the IRC code and the approved manufacturer's installetion instructions have been atiached for referentce. 20, Continuous ridge vent - shingle. 75.0 LF 0.00 5.60 16.8 147.22. $83.27 over style WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 8 SFF&CCWest_000328"}, {"d": 22, "p": 270, "t": "ane. TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Okishoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriora.com CONTINUED - Roof QTY DESCRIPTION RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL to Per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), \"Enclosed attics and enclosed rafter spaces formed where collings are applied directly of the underside of roof rafters shall have cross ventilation for each separate space by ventilating openings protected against the entrance Ventilation maximum. mm) (6.4 inch 1/4 and minimum mm) (1.6 inch 1/16 of dimension least a have shall rain or sow. Ventilation openings cloth, or openings having a least dimension larger than 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) shall be provided with corrosion-resistant wire cloth screening, hardvare roof in Openings maximum, mm) (6.4 inch 1/4 and minimum mm) (1,6 inch 1/16 of dimension least a having openings similar material with ati members shall conform to the requirements of Section R802.7. Required ventilation openings shall open directly to the outside air.” (Ref. R806.) Additionally, per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “Ventilators shall be installed in accordance with manufacturer's Installation instructions. Installatton of ventilators in roof systems shall be in accordance with the requirements of Section R503. Install of ventilators in wall systems shall be In accordance with the requirements of Section R703.1.\" (Ref.806.4) and Lastly, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Roof assemblies shail be designed and instalted In accordance with this code the approved manufacturer’ s instructions such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the building or structure.” (Ref R903.1, R904,1, and R905.1) The approved manufactureris GAF, and their installation instructions state work shall be completed as outtined for the work to be professionally . installed and warranted. A copy of the IRC code and the approved manufacturer's installation instructions have been attached for reference. 2,262.0 377.00 43,60 5.58 0.00 30.00 LF 21, Hip / Ridge cap - Standard profile - compostiton shingles Per the official Xactimate line item description for the replacement of the shingtes, and the footnotes of Eagleview and other satellite measurement reports, starter strip shingles and hips/ridge cap shingles must be estimated and accounted for accordingly and separately as their own line items. 336.96 56.16 0.00 56.16 0.00 §.00 HR 22, Roofing - General Laborer - per bour Labor to hand load materials onto roof Totals: Roof : Total: Exterior 455.45 5,830.14 34,980.80 MM 6,679.76 40,078.47 Interior Bedroom DESCRIPTION QTY RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 23, R&R V2\" drywall - hung, taped, 32.00 SF 0.44 19 111 13.78 94.65 - ght hand 2A. Texture drywall 32.00 SF 0.00 0.79 0.12 5.08 30.48 0.00 0.88 0.32 §.70 44.17 ready for texture texture 25, Sealfprime (1 coat) then paint (1 32.00 SF coat) the surface area , 26. Palnt the celling ~ one coat 40,00 SF 0.00 0.60 0.27 4.86 29.13 27. Paint the walls~ one coat 208.00 SF 0.00 0.60 142 25,24 IS146 28, Ceiling fan- Detach & reset 1,00 EA 0,00 200.41 0.00 40.08 240.49 WEST_NBIL 3/7/2024 Page: 9 SFF&CC/West_000329"}, {"d": 22, "p": 271, "t": "7. TRADEMARK Coe Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NB 52nd Street OkJahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Bedroom QTY DESCRIPTION RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 29, Heat/AC register - Mechanically attached ~ Detach & reset 1.00 EA 0.0. 15.03 0.00 3.0 18.03 40. Contents - move out then reset 1.00 EA 6.00 59.41 0.00 11.88 71.29 31. Floor protection - plastic and tape- 10 ml 40.00 SF 0.040 0.29 0.23 2.36 144.19 3.46 113.98 683.89 nthe Totals: Bedroom Bathroom REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 32,00 SF 0.44 1.99 11h 15.78 4.65 32.00 SF 0.00 0,79 0.12 5.08 48 44. SeaVprime (1 coat) then palut (1 coat) the surface area 32,00 SF 0.00 0.88 0.31 5.70 417 35. Palnt the celling - one coat 40.0 SF 0.00 0.60 0.27 4.86 79.13 36. Patnt the walls~ one coat 208.00 SF 0.00 0.60 10 25.24 181.46 2.00 EA 37, HeatiAC register - Mechanically attached - Detach & reset 40.00 SF 38. Floor protection - plastic and tape~ 10 mil rrr 0.00 15,03 0.00 6.02 36.08 0.00 0,29 0.23 2.4% 14.19 3.46 65,04 390.16 QTY DESCRIPTION 32, RGR 1/2\" drywall - hing, taped, RESET ready for texture 33. Texture drywall - ight hand texture Totals; Bathroom Closet REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 32.00 SF 0.44 199 iu 15.78 34.65 40, Texture drywall- light hand texture 32,00 SF 0.00 0.79 0.12 5.08 30.48 41, Seaprime (1 coat) then palnt (1 32,00 SF 0.00 0.88 0.31 5.70 42, Pabst the ceillug - one coat 38.25 SF 0.00 0.60 0.26 4.66 27.87 43. Paint the walls- one coat 192.00 SF 0.00 0.60 In 23.30 139.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.26 67153 0.00 59.41 0.00 11.88 71.29 DESCRIPTION 39. R&R 1/2\" drywall - hung, taped, QTY RESET ready for texture ovat) the surface area 44, Detach & Reset Light fixture 1.00 EA 45, Contents - move out then reset 1,00 EA WEST_NEIL 6.27 3/7/2024 34.17 . Page: 10 SFF&CC/West_000330"}, {"d": 22, "p": 272, "t": "<a. TRADEMARK [ee Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NB 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Closet Ory DESCRIPTION _ - plastic and 46. Floor protection 38.25 SF RESET , REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 0.00 0.29 0.22 2.26 13.57 3.33 BM 479.37 10.25 258.4 1,583.42 553.79 6,938.70 41,631.89 expe 00 mil tape- 10 Totals: Closet Total: Interior Total: Dwelling Fencing QTY DESCRIPTION RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 47. Clean with pressure/chemlcal 1,452.00 SF 0.00 0.37 0.71 107.8 645.55 48. Stain - wood fence/gate 1,452.00 SF 0.00 0.85 21.24 751,08 1,506.52 16.00 EA 0.00 16.49 1,68 245.10 1470.62 23.63 603.76 3,622.67 spray 49. Wood fence 5’ - 6\" high- Detach & reset - per 3\" sectton Totals: Fencing Debris Removal QTY DESCRIPTION RESET 1.00 EA 50. Dumpster load- Approx. 12 REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 429,25 0.00 0,00 $5.86 515.11 0.00 85.86 515.11 yards, 1-3 tons of debris Totals: Debris Removal Labor Minimums Applled QTY DESCRIPTION RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL $1. Siding labor mininmm 1.00 EA 0.00 62.99 0.00 12.60 15.59 52. Drywall labor minimum 1.00 BA 0.00 84.42 0.00 16.88 101.30 53, Electrical labor minimum 1,00 EA 0.00 6.20 0.00 1.24 7,44 54.Ha Heat, vent, & air cond. labor 1,00 EA 0.00 206,29 0.00 41.26 24755 0.00 1B 431.88 S77 AZ 71,700.30 46,201.55 Totals: Labor Minimums Applied eer SN Line Item Totale: WEST_NELL WEST_NBIL I TT 3/7/2024 Page: 11 SFF&CC/West_000331"}, {"d": 22, "p": 273, "t": "| —aa7= TRADE SORT Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com Summary Line Item Total Material Sales Tax 37,923.83 571.42 Subtotal Overhead Profit 38,501.25 3,850.15 3,850.15 Replacement Cost Value Net Cisim $46,201.55 $46,201.55 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 12 SFF&CC/West_000332"}, {"d": 22, "p": 274, "t": "Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com Recap of Taxes, Overhead and Profit Line Items Total WEST_NEIL ; Overhead (10%) Profit(10%) MaterfalSalesTax Manuf.Home Tax Storage Rental Tax 3,850.15 3,850.15 577.42 0.00 0.00 3,850.15 3,950.15 57142 0.00 0.00 3/7/2024 Page! 13 (4.875%) (4.875%) (4.875%) SFF&CC/West_000333"}, {"d": 22, "p": 275, "t": "Trademark Exterlors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com Recap by Room Estimate: WEST_NEIL Area: Dwelling 4,159.96 10.97% Roof 28,695.21 75.67% Aren Subtotal: Exterior 32,855.17 86.63% 566.45 321.66 396.12 1.49% 0.85% 1.04% Area Subtotal: Interior 1,284.23 3.39% Area Subtotal: Dwelling 34,139.40 50.02% Fencing 2,995.28 7,90% 429,25 359,90 1.13% 0.95% Subtotal of Areas 37,923.83 100,00% Total 37,923.83 100.00% Area: Exterior Area: Interior Bedroom Bathroom Closet Debris Removal Labor Minimums Applied WEST_NELL . 3/7/2024 Page: 14 SFF&CC/West_000334"}, {"d": 22, "p": 276, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com Recap by Category % O&P Items CLEANING CONTENT MANIPULATION Total 537.24 118.82 1.16% 0,26% GENERAL DEMOLITION 4,459.38 9.65% DRYWALL ELECTRICAL FENCING HEAT, VENT & AIR CONDITIONING LIGHT FIXTURES PAINTING ROOFING SIDING SOFFIT, FASCIA, & GUTTER 351.30 6.20 1,223.84 251.38 156,68 1,788.72 24,959.82 386.09 3,584.36 0.76% 0.01% 2.65% 0.54% 0.56% 3.87% 54.02% 0.84% 71.16% O&P Itenis Subtotal 37,923.83 «82.08% Material Soles Tox Overhead Profit 577.82 3,850.15 3,850.15 1.25% 8.33% 8.33% Total 46,201.55 100.00% WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 15 SFF&CC/West_000335"}, {"d": 22, "p": 277, "t": "Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 38 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 53 SFF&CC/West_000373"}, {"d": 22, "p": 278, "t": "TRADEMARK EEE Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 57 WEST NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 72 SFF&CC/West_000392"}, {"d": 22, "p": 279, "t": "TRADEMARK SECTS Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.con 63 WEST_NEIL 3172024 Page: 78 SFF&GC/West_000398"}, {"d": 22, "p": 280, "t": "TRADEMARK Crepe Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Okiahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 68 WEST_NEIL 3/722024 Page: 83 SFF&CC/West_000403"}, {"d": 22, "p": 282, "t": "& Providing insurance and Financial Services State Fa rm Home Office,. Bloomington, Rl. March 14, 2024 State Farm Claims Neil S West PO Box 106169 7 NW Briarcreek Dr Atlanta GA 30348-6169 Lawton OK 73505-9537 RE: ClaimNumber. 36-53Q1-13C Policy Number. 36CRX4058 Date ofLoss; June 15,.2023 Dear Neil S West: Thank you for the opportunity to review your claim. A payment in the amount of $1274.67 will be mailed to you. The terms of your policy require your mortgage company or lienholder be included as a payee. Some mortgage companies or lienholders opt to be removed as a payee.If they are includedas a payee, please contact them for instructions on obtaining their endorsement. if you have questions or need assistance, call us at (844) 458-4300 Ext. 66. Sincerely, Kristin Haun Claim Specialist (844) 458-4300 Ext. 66 statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com For your protection, wien emailing State Farm, please do not include sensitive personal information such as Social Sectinty Number, credit/debit card number (financial account number), driver's license number, of heallh/medical information in an email. Please contact tis at (844) 458-4300 Ext, 66 fo discuss sensiive information. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Take advantage.of our self-service options. Go to statefarm.com?to easily review ciaim status, select a repair facility, reserve a rental vehicle, update communication and claim payment preferences, and many other insurance. services. WEST_000097"}, {"d": 22, "p": 283, "t": "a Statefarmnr Summary of Loss Clalm Number: 36-53Q1-13C Date Created: 3/14/2024 Named Insored: LACY WEST, NEIL S WEST Coverage A - Dwelling Limit of Liahiiity: $309,000.00 Repleranect Desertption Staff Estimate Roecovernhle Cost(3) Depreciztion(S) 0,00 5,283.17 $ Totals: 5283.17 Comments/Supplements $ 60 Nox-Meeovershio Depreciation(3) 0.00 $ Amount Over 000 Limit($) 0,00 $ of Subtotal(9) 5,283.17 5283.17 § Subtotals $5,283.17 Less Destuctibie: Less MIRC: $3,090.00 $0.00 Total Paya: $2,193.17 Lets Total Payments Made: Net Payuicat: $918.50 $1,274.67 Signature Kristin Hawn * Your policy ntay provide for additional payments on a replacement cast basis for the Recavenahla Deprociatian listed above for Cov, A and Cov, B for your Building and Personal Property. Ploare refer to your poliey and any endorsements for specific tina Emits and additional settlement provisions. Please contact your claim handler f you Aave any questions. Previous Payments Subtotet Dats Sap 28, 2023 ® 916.60 Remarks for gutters, Actua! cash value payment wirkiow screens, fence stain, and dovmapout, inferior repalrs. Payee LACY WEST & NEIL 5. WEST $ Totals: Page | of 1 916,60 WEST_000098"}, {"d": 22, "p": 284, "t": "36-53Q1-13C WEST, NEIL Staterarn’ State Farm. P.O. Box 106169 Atlanta, GA 30348-6169 Fax: 1-844-236-3646 statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com Structural Damage Claim Policy This estimate is priced based on estimated market pricing for the cost of materials, labor, and other factors at the time of the loss. Adjustments in market pricing.and timing of the repairs may impact the final cost of covered repairs. Should you or our estimate, please contact us, If your contractor's estimate is the contractor you select have questions concerning higher than ours, you should contact us priorto beginning repairs. State Farm will work with you and your contractor to determine the actual and necessary cost of covered repairs at the time repairs will be completed, subjectto policy terms, conditions and limits. ¢ We want you to receive quality repair workto restore the damages to your property. + We will provide you with a detailed estimate of the scope of the damage and costs of repairs. Should the contractor you select have questions concerning our estimate, they should contact your claim representative directly. » Depending upon the complexity of your repair, our éstimate may or may not include an allowance for general contractor's overhead and profit. If you have questions regarding general contractor's overhead and profit and whethor general contractor services are appropriate for your loss, please contact your claim representative before proceeding with repairs, ¢ There may be building codes, ordinances, laws, or regulations that affect the repairs of your property. These items may or may not be covered by your policy. Please contact your claim representative if you have any questions regarding coverage which may be available under your policy. State Farm® cannot authorize any contractor to proceed with work on your property. Repairs sbould proceed only with your authorization. * State Farm does not guarantee the quality of the workmanship of any contractor or guarantee that the work will be accomplished within any specific time frame. * Itis understood that the contractor is hired by you, our insured, and that they work. for you - not State Fann, If you have any questions or need additional information regarding your claim, please contact your claita representative immediately. Date: 3/14/2024 1:02 PM 132214,1 06-18-2009 WEST_000099 Page: I"}, {"d": 22, "p": 285, "t": "36-53Q1-13C Building Estimate Summary Guide & Statefarmr This summary guide is based on a sample estimate and is provided for reference only. Please refer to the estimate for specifics of your claim. item Total ~ Total value of al line 4.. Line “tem State Farm Insurance Estimate: 00-0000-000 Claim number: Policy Number: 00-0000-000. 00-00-0000-0 Smith, Joe & Jane insured: Property: 1 MainStreet Anywhere, Ik 00000-0000 Price List: Other Type of Loss: 5 ! a ¥ 7 bl ILBLOF_MAR 13 Restoration/Servical Deductible: $1,000.00 , Remodel F = Factored in, 0 = Do Nat Apply Summary for Dwelling Line item Total @ Material Sales Tax. 40.000% x 1,520.00 Subtotal General Contractor Overhead [2] General Contractor Profit Replacement Cost Value (Including Gene 7,326.12 Less Cepreciation (Including Taxea) [4] 5 (832.50) Less General Contractor Oveshuah& Profit (468,50) Non - recoverable Depreciation Less Deductible Less : Non - fa 312.50 a General Contractor O&P on Depreciation Less General Contractor O&P on Non - recoverable Depreciation 166.50 Sudtolal Total Maximum Additional Amounts Available ff tricurted Total Amount of Claim If Incurred [8] Claim Representative ALL AMOUNTS PAYABLE ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITS OF YOUR POLICY. 1902689 Date: . : 3/14/2024 1:02PM 9909268. 01525-2013 Page: 2 WEST_000100"}, {"d": 22, "p": 286, "t": "State Farm 36-53Q1-13C WEST, NEIL Insured: Property: Home; Cellular: WEST, NEG 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR Estimate; Claim Number. LAWTON, OK 73505-9537 Policy Number: 580-510-0427 580-695-0014 TypeofLoss: Hail Deductible: DateofLoss: $3,090.00 6/15/2023 Date Inspected: 9/28/2023 Price List! 36-53Q1-13C 3653Q113C 36CRX4058 OKLA28_MAR24 Restoration/Service/Remodel Summary for Coverage A ~ Dwelling - 35 Windstorm and Hail Line Item Total Material Sales Tax 5,391.55 91,62 Replacement Cost Value Less Deductible 5,283.17 (3,090.00) Net Payment $2,193.17 HAIL RECONCILIATION UNIT $44-458-4300 x 66 ALL AMOUNTS PAYABLE ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITS OF YOUR POLICY. A residential or commercial roofing contractor providing repairs or improvement services to be paid by an insured from the proceeds of a property or casualty insurance policy shall not, as an inducernent to the sale or provision of goods or services to an insured, advertise or promise to pay, directly or indirectly, all or part of any applicable insurance deductible or offer to compensate an insured for providing any service to the insured. If a roofing contractor violates the provisions of this section, the insurer to whom the insured tendered the claim shall not be obligated to consider the estimate prepared by the roofing contractor. Every roofing contractor shalt provide a written notification of the requirements of this section with its initial estimate. The adjuster or insurer shall provide a written notification of the requirements of this section in the initial estimate relating to the claim. Date: Page: 3 3/14/2024 1:02 PM WEST_000101"}, {"d": 22, "p": 287, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C Dwelling. Exterior Roof DESCRIPTION . | 4,632.97 Surface Area 46.33 Number of Squares 330.96 Total Perimeter Length 229.79 Total Hip Length 99.08 Total Ridge Length QUANTITY —_-UNIT PRICE | TAX RCV 0.00: 0.00 No Accidental Direct Physical Loss observed at timeof inspection. Totals: Roof Gutters 0,00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0,00 SF Long: Wall DESCRIPTION . * 1. R&R Gutter - aluminum - up to 5° 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter QUANTITY = UNITPRICE _ 275.00 LF 10.43 Totals: Gutters | TAX RCV 64.75 2,933.00 64.75 2,933,00 Front Elevation 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Long Wall DESCRIPTION . 2. R&R Window screen, 1-9 SF 0,00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling. 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 2.00 EA 42,29 3,28 87,86 3,28 87.86 Totals: Front Elevation Right Elevation 0.00 SF Walls Date: 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 3/14/2024 1:02 PM Page: + WEST_000102"}, {"d": 22, "p": 288, "t": "State Farm 36-53Q1-139C 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter WEST, NEIL 0.00 SF Floor 0,00 SF Long Wall 0.00 SF Short Wall QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 0.00 0,00 No Accidental Direct Physical Loss observed at time of inspection. Totals: Right Elevation Rear Elevation 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Floor 0,00 SF Long Wall 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Short Wall QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV *3, R&R downspout - aluminum - up to 5” 12.00 LF 10.43 2,83 127.99 4. R&R Window screen, 1-9 SF 1.00 BA 42,29 1.64 43.93 447 171.92 DESCRIPTION Totals: Rear Elevation Left Elevation 0,00 SF Walls 0,00 SF Floor 0,00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 0.00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV *5, R&R downspout - aluminum - up to 5° 12.00 LF 10.43 2.83 127,99 6. R&R Window screen, 1 - 9 SF 100EA 42.29 1.64 43.93 4.47 171,92 DESCRIPTION Totals: Left Elevation ; Fence 0,00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0,00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Short Wall 0,00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 0,00 SF Long Wall DESCRIFTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 7. Clean the surface area 636.00 SF 038 0.31 241,99 Date: Pape: 3 3/14/2024 1:02 PM WEST_000103"}, {"d": 22, "p": 289, "t": "State Farm 36-53Q]-13C WEST, NEIL CONTINUED - Fence DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 8. Stain - wood fence/gate 636.00 SF 0.85 9.30 549.90 9.61 791,89 Totals: Fence Area Totals: Extertor 2,371.08 SF Walls 319.90 Exterior Perimeter 2,371.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 2,371.08 Exterior Wall Area of Walls 339.90 LF Floor Perimeter 4,632.97 Surface Arca 99.08 Total Ridge Length 46.33 Numberof Squares 229.79 Total Hip Length 330.96 Total Perimeter Length 86.58 Total: Exterior 4,156.59 Interior Bedroom Height: 8' 352,00 SF Walls 472.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 120.00 SF Ceiling 120.00 SF Floor 44.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter 44,00 LF Floor Perimeter 2' 6\" X68\" Opens into Exterior 2' 6\" X6' 8\" Opens into Exterior Opens into Exterior 2° 6\" X6'8\" Door DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE , RCV JAX REVISED 9, Content Manipulation charge ~ per hour 1,00 HR 10. Seal the surface area w/PVA primer - one 4,00 SF 0.52 0.01 2.09 11. Paint more than the ceiling - one coat 124.00 SF 0.60 0.85 75,25 12, Paint the walls - one coal 352.00 SF 0.60 2.40 213.60 13. Floorprotection - plastic and tape - 10 mil 120.00 SF 0,29 0.70 35,50 LOOEA 200.4! 0.00 200.41 coat 14. Detach & Reset Ceiling fan & light Date: Page: 6 3/14/2024 1:02 PM WEST_000104"}, {"d": 22, "p": 290, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C CONTINUED - Bedroom DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV \\5. Detach & Reset Heat/AC register Mechanically attached LOOEA 15.03 0.00 15,03 16. Contents - move out then reset 100 EA 59.41 0.00 59.41 2.00 SF 0.52 0.0! 1.05 * 18. Paint ceiling 32.00 SF 0.60 0,22 19.42 * 19. Paint walls 96.00 SF 0.60 0.66 58,26 20. Floor protection - plastic and tape - 10 mil 32.00 SF 0,29 0.19 9.47 21. Contents - move out then reset - Small 1.00 EA 44.60 0.00 44,60 §.04 734,09 *%* CLOSET?*# 17, Seal the surface area w/PVA primer - one coat room Totals: Bedroom Area Totals: Interior 352.00 SF Walls 120.00 SF Floor 120.00 SF Ceiling 135.11 Total Area 120.00 Floor Area 46.67 Exterior Perimeter 420.00 Exterior Wall Area of Walls Total: Interior 472,00 SF Walls and Ceiling 44,00 LF Floor Perimeter 44,00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 352.00 Interior Wall Area 5.04 734.09 Area Totals: Dwelling 2,723.08 SF Walls 120.00 SF Floor 120,00 Floor Area 2,791.08 Exterior Wall Area 4,632.97 Surface Area 99.08 Total Ridge Length 120.00 SF Ceiling 135.11 Total Area 366.57 Exterior Perimeter 2,843.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 363.90 LF Floor Perimeter 44.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter of Walis 352,00 Interior Wall Area 46.33 Number of Squares 330.96 Total Perimeter Length 229,79 Total Hip Length Total: Dwelling 91.62 4,390.68 Debris Removal Date: 0.00 SF Walls 0,00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Short Wall 0,00 LF Floor Perimeter Page: 7 3/34/2024 1:02 PM WEST_000105"}, {"d": 22, "p": 291, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 0.00 SF Long Wall DESCRIPTION 22. Haul debris - per pickup truck load including dump fees QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 100EA 147.50 0.00 147.50 0.00 147.50 Totals: Debris Removal Labor Minimums Applied DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 23. Window labor minimum 10Q0EA 182,52 0.00 182,52 24. Electrical labor minimum 10Q0EA 62.47 0.00 62.47 Totals: Labor Minimums Applied 0.60 244,99 Line Item Totals: 36-53Q1-13C 91,62 §,283.17 Grand Total Areas: 2,723.08 SF Walls 120.00 SF Ceiling 120.00 SF Floor 2,843.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 363.90 LF Floor Perimeter 44.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter Date: 120.00 Floor Area 2,791.08 Exterior Wall Area 135.11 Total Area 366.57 Exterior Perimeter of Walls 352.00 Interior Wall Area 4,632.97 Surface Area 99,08 Total Ridge Length 46.33 Number of Squares 229.79 Total Hip Length 330.96 Total Perimeter Length Page: 8 3/14/2024 1:02 PM WEST_000106"}, {"d": 22, "p": 292, "t": "Trade Summary Includes all applicable Tax, General Contractor O&P, and Labor Minimums DESCRIPTION CLN LINE ITEM QTY REPL. COST TOTAL ACV NON-REC. DEPREC. MAX ADDL. AMT AVAIL 636.00 SF $241.99 $241.99 $0.00 $0.00 $241.99 $241.99 $0,060 $0,00 CLEANING Clean the surface area TOTAL CLEANING CON CONTENT MANIPULATION Content Manipulation charge - per hour 1,00 HR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 - niove out then reset Contents 1,00EA $59,41 $59.41 $0.00 $0.00 Contents - move out then reset - Smail room 1.00EA $44.60 $44.60 $0.00 $0.00 $104,01 $104.01 $0.00 $0.00 $147.50 $147.50 $0.00 $0.00 $147.50 $147.50 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL CONTENT MANIPULATION DMO GENERAL DEMOLITION 1,00 EA Haul debris - per pickup truck load - including dump fees TOTAL GENERAL DEMOLITION ELE ELECTRICAL 1,00 EA Electrical labor minimum TOTAL ELECTRICAL HVC $62.47 $62.47 $0.00 $0.00 $62.47 $62.47 $0.00 $0.00 $15.03 $15,03 $0.00 $0.00 $15.03 $15.03 $0.00 $0.00 $200.41 $200.41 $0.00 $0,00 $200.41 $200.41 $0.00 $0.00 HEAT, VENT & AIR CONDITIONING 1.00 EA Detach & Reset Heat/AC register - Mechanically attached TOTAL HEAT, VENT & AIR CONDITIONING LIT LIGHT FIXTURES Detach & Reset Ceiling fan & light 1.00EA TOTAL LIGHT FIXTURES PNT PAINTING Stain - wood fence/gate 636.00 SF $549.90 $549.90 $0.00 $0.00 Floor protection - plastic and tape - 10 mil 152.00 SF $44.97 $44.97 $0,00 $0.00 Paint ceiling 32,00 SF $19.42 $19.42 $0,00 $0.00 Paint walls 96.00 SF $58.26 $58.26 $0.00 $0.00 Paint - one coat 416.00 SF $288.35 $288.85 $0.00 $0.00 Seal w/PVA primer - one coat TOTAL PAINTING SFG $3.14 $3.14 $0.00 $0.00 $964.54 $964.54 $0,006 $0.00 6.00 SF SOFFIT, FASCIA, & GUTTER R&R Gutter - aluminum - up to 5” 275,00 LF $2,933.00 $2,933.00 $0.00 $0,00 - aluminum - up to 5\" R&R downspout 24.00 LF $255.98 $255.98 $0.00 $0.00 Note: Slight variances may be found within report sections due to rounding Date: Page: 9 3/14/2024 1:02 PM WEST_000107"}, {"d": 22, "p": 293, "t": "Trade Summary includes alt applicable Tax, General Contractor O&P, and Labor Minimums DESCRIPTION LINE ITEM QTY REPL. COST TOTAL ACY NON-REC, DEPREC. MAX ADDL AMT AVAIL. $3,188.98 $3,188.98 50.00 50,00 4.00 BA $175.72 3175.72 $175.72 $175.72 $0.00 50.00 $0.00 50,00 1.00 EA $182.52 $182.52 $182.52 $182.52 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,283.17 $5,283.17 $0.00 $0.00 SFG SOFFIT, FASCIA, & GUITER TOTAL SOFFIT, FASCIA, & GUTTER WDR WINDOW REGLAZING & REPAIR R&R Window screen, 1 - 9 SF TOTAL WINDOW REGLAZING & REPAIR WDW WINDOWS - WOOD Window labor minimum TOTAL WINDOWS - WOOD TOTALS ; Note: Slight variances may be found within report sections due to rounding Date: 3/14/2024 1:02 PM Page: 10 WEST_000108"}, {"d": 22, "p": 294, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C Recap of Taxes, Overhead and Profit GC Overhead (0%) GC Profit (0%) Material SalesTax Monuf,Home Tax Storage Rental Tax 0.00 0.00 91.62 0.00 0.00 A en 0.00 0.00 Total 91.62 0.00 0.00 Line Items Date: 3/14/2024 1:02 PM (4.875%) (4.875%) ' 4,875%) Page: 11 WEST_000109"}, {"d": 22, "p": 295, "t": "Lz . aa } , Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C From: HOME CLMS-FIRECLAIMS (statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com) To: NEILSPENCERWEST@SBSCGLOBAL.NET; odom_bobby@yahoo.com Cec: LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM; nancy.holcomb.gave@statefarm.com Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 12:42 PM COT Christy Mebane Claim Specialist- Proximity State Farm Fire Claims Work: 644-458-4300 EXT:3099946711 &.| 1OCEs West.pdf 72.1kB WEST_000110"}, {"d": 22, "p": 297, "t": "StateFarm: Providing insurence and Financial Services Home Office, Bloomington, ib April 10, 2024 WEST, NEILS & LACYM Seve Fara Insurance Comparies LAWTON OK 73505 daria GA NORGE 7 NWBRIARCREEK DR AO 169 Fax B44 236 3646 RE: Claim Number. 36-53Q1-13C Date ofLoss: June 15, 2023 Dear Neil & Lacy Thank you for the opportunity to review your claim and the information submitted by your roofer. This letter addresses your request for an additional inspection of the roof. Your roofer has provided additional photos and his estimate for damages. This information has been elevated for review by management for a 2™ inspection. A manager has reviewed the file and the new information to make the decision on the 2\" inspection and finds the information and photos provided do not demonstrate missed damages or merit additional inspection, Based on this information we must respectfully decline your request for an additional irispection, Please refer to HW-2136, for the following applicable language: SECTION | - LOSSES NOT INSURED 1. We will not pay for any loss to the property described in Coverage A that consists of, or is directly and immediately caused by, one or more of the perils listed In Items a. through m. below, regardless of whether the loss occurs abruptly or gradually, involves isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or extemal forces, or occurs aS a result of any combination of these: g. wear, tear, decay, marring, scratching, deterioration, inherent vice, latent defect, or mechanical breakdown; SECTION | - CONDITIONS 6. Suit Against Us, No action will be brought against us unless there has been full compliance with all of WEST_000111"}, {"d": 22, "p": 298, "t": "36-53Q1-13C Page2 April 10, 2024 the.policy provisions. Any action by any party must be started within one year after the date of loss or damage. However, if the cause of loss or damage is burglary, theft, larceny, robbery, forgery, fraud, vandalism malicious mischief, confiscation, wrongful conversion, disposal or concealment, the action must be started within two years from the time the cause of action accrues. The Company does not intend, by this letter; to waive any policy defenses in addition to those stated above, and reserves its night to assert such additional policy defense at any time. If you have any questions regarding your claim or any additional information you would like us to consider, please contact me at the number below, Please provide the claim number on any correspondence you send to us. Sincerely, Christy Mebane Claims Specialist 3089946711 State Farm Fire and Casualty Company CC: Nancy Holcomb, Agent Take advantage of our self-service. options Go to statefarm.com? to easily review claim status, update communication and claim payment preferences, and many other insurance services. WEST_000112"}, {"d": 22, "p": 300, "t": "From:\"Jose Parga\" <jparga@coastalclaims.net> SentiMon, 15 Jul 2024 22:27:39 -0500 To:\"HOME CLMS-FIRECLAIMS” <statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com>; ccsvcs-OK2024040001 @claimmail.net; \"Chris McCombs\" <chrismecombs@coastalclaims.net> Subject:[EXTERNAL] 36530113C Attachments:3653Q113C_WEST_PRELIMINARY_| PA. ESTIMATE. pdf, Neil_West_Photo_Report_companycam_report. pdf Hello Statefarm, Attached is our estimate along with our photo report to evidence our request for a re inspection. Please contact me directly to set up are inspection 682-716-9565. Thank you; ~ Jose J. Parga Public Adjuster ! Coastal Claims SFervicns 2650 N Dixie Fwy | New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 Office (386) 314-0074 Fax (386) 961-4344 jparga(@coastalclaims,net www. coastalclaims.net SFF&CC/West_000261"}, {"d": 22, "p": 301, "t": "Gavia Calms Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650.N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074, www.coastalclaims.net Insured: Property: & Lacy West, Neil 7 NW Briarcreek Drive . Home: E-mail: (580) 695-0014 rieilspencenwest@sbcglobal.net Lawton, OK 73505 Claim Rep. Company: Business: Business: John Dekker E-mail: Coastal Claims Services 2650 'N Dixie Freeway (267) 261-0085 john@coastalcloims.net New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 Estimator; Bileen Dalton Company: Coastal Claims Services Cioim Number: 3653Q113C. Date of Loss: Date Inspected: Policy Number: 36CRX4058 6/15/2023 12:00 AM Price List: OKLA8X_APR24 Restoration/Serv ice/Remodel Estimate: WEST Date Received: Date Entered: Type of Loss: Hail 4/25/2024 11:07 AM “This is a PRELIMINARY estimate: produced by Coastal Claims Services. This estimate represents our current evaluation of the As we continue to evaluate this claim, there may be additional damages related to this event. dameges to the insured’s property. ; that have not been scoped at the production of this estimate.” SFF&CC/West_000262"}, {"d": 22, "p": 302, "t": "Gaisa Claims Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smymia Beach, FI 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net WEST SOURCE: EAGLEVIEW Reof QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 46.34 8Q. $7.37 0,00 531,70 3,890.23 (0.00) 46.34 SQ 23,41 0.00 216.96 1,301.78 (0.00) 3,190.23 . ——-1,301,78 4,634.00 SF 0.3 2.26 213.62 1,281.70 (6.95) 1,274.75 1.00. EA 46.348Q 55.67 SQ 346.29 32.72. 238.54 6.92 17.78 326.32 70.64 306.80 2,721.16 423,85 1,840.82. 16,327.00 (21.30) (54.70) (1,004.06) 402,55 1,786.12 15,322.94 7.61SQ 68.77 0.00 104.66 628,00 (0.00) 628.00 8, Asphalt starter - universal starter comse 331.00 LF 1.87 8:07 125.42 752,46 (24.83) 727.63 9, R&R Hip/ Ridge cap - Standard profile -’ 330.00 LF 8.25 43.60 553.22 3,319.32 (134.15) 3,185.17 composition shingles 10. R&R Gable corsiica return - laminated 5.00 BA 90.51 185 90,90 $45.30 G7) 539.59 1,00 EA 427.98 5.02 26,60 519,60 (15.43) 504.17 12, R&R Drip edge/gutter apron 331.00 LF 3.18 20,49 214.62 —‘,287.69 (63.06) 1,224.63 13. Apply roofing sealant/cement - per LF- 331.00 LF 0.72 5.00 48.66 291,98 (15,39) 276.59 14, Step flashing 16.00 LF 9.92 1.57 32.06 192.35 (4.82) 187.53 15, R&R Flashing - L flashing - 5.00 LF 5.38 0.55 5,90 32.95 (1.69) 31.26 516.00 SF 1.63 13.08 170.84 1,025.00 (40,25) 984,75 210.64 —-1,263,85 (6527) ‘1,198.58 DESCRIPTION Roofing 1, Tear off, haul and dispose of comp. shingles ~ Laminated 2. Remove Additional charge for steep roof 10/12 - 12/12 slope 3, Renailing of toof sheathing - complete re-nail 4, Saddle or cricket - 26 1050 SF 5. Roofing felt ~ 15 Ib.. 6. Laminated - comp. shingle rfg. - w/out felt 7. Additional charge for steepioof-10/1212/12 slope Flashing 11, R&R Chimney flashing - average (32” x36\") Drip Edge* galvanized & water banier 16, Ice 17. Valley nietal 172.00 LF 6.00 2121 18, Apply roofing sealant/cement~ per LFValley Metal* Ventilation. 344,00 LF ‘ 0.72 5.20 50.58 303.46 (16.00) 287,46 19, R&R Continuous ridge vent - shingle- 75.00 LF 10.77 Al 164,98 989.84 (82.65) 937.19 5.00 EA 75.20 5.84 76.38 458.22 (17.97) 440.25 1.00 EA 95,10: 2.03 19.42 116.55 (6.24) 110.31 over style 20, R&R Roof vent - turtle type - Metal Pipe Jacks, Caps, and Collars - rain cap and stesm 21, R&R Furnace vent collar, 6\" 22. R&R Flashing - pipe jack - lead 5.00 EA 88.49 12.12 90.92 545,49. (37.30) 508.19 23. Apply mastic around yent pipes to 11,00 EA 25,99. 0.53 57.28 343.70 (1.62) 342.08 prevent leakage* Miscellaucous Items WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 2 SFF&CC/West_000263"}, {"d": 22, "p": 303, "t": "Gas Clalys Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, Fi 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net CONTINUED ~ Roof QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 1,00 EA 37,55 0.00 7.32 45.07 (0.00) 45.07 1.00EA 300.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 (0.00) 300.00 40.48 0.00 40,48 242.88 (0.00) 242.88 Totals: Roof 51658 6,211.56 37,569.09 1,589.39 35,979.70 Total; SOURCE: EAGLEVIEW 516.55 211.56 37,569.09 1,589.39 35,979.70 QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV DESCRIPTION 24, Digital satellite system - Detach& reset ~GENERALS— 25. Taxes, insurance, permits & fees (Bid Item) 7 26, Roofing - General Laborer - per hour 5.00 HR Labor to hand joad materials anto roof Exterior DESCRIPTION 27. R&R Window screen, 1-9 SF 4,00BA 45:23 44 37.60 225.66 (21.97) 903.69 28. R&R Wrap wood window frame & 2,00 BA 303.21 6,56 122.60 735.58 (20.18) 715.40 13.70 160.20 96124 42.45 919.09 QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC., ACY 275,00 LF 96.00 LF 10.44 10.44 64.75 22.60 58718 204.98 3,522.93 1,229.82 (199.24) (69.55) 3,323.69 1,160.27 3.00 EA, 27.18 0.53 46.42 98.49 (1.64) 96.85 87.88 808.58 4,851.24 270.43 4,580.31 TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV trim with aluminum sheet Tofals: Extertor Gutters DESCRIPTION 29, R&R Gutter- aluminum - up to 5** - aluminum - up to 30, R&R. Downspout gre 31, R&R Gutter splesh guard Totals: Gutters Fencing DESCRIPTION WEST QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 4/25/2024 Page: 3 SFF&CC/West_000264"}, {"d": 22, "p": 304, "t": "Gone Claims Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net CONTINUED - Fencing QUANTITY UNIT PRICE DESCRIPTION O&P TAX RCV DEPREC. ACV 32. Clean with pressure/chemical spray 1,452.00 SF 0,37 0.7) 107.58 645.53 (2.18). 643,35 33. Stain - wood fence/gate {452.00 SF 0.86 24.94 25412 1,524.78 (67,52) 1,457.26 245.10 1,470.62 (3.18) 1,465.44 24.33 606.80 3,640.93 14,88 3,566.05 16.00 BA 34, Wood fence 5'-6\" high - Detach& 76.49 1.68 reset - per 8' section Totals: Fencing Main Level Bedroom Height: 8' : ! ga pr) 352.00 SF Walls 120.00 SF Ceiling. 472.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 120.00 SF Floor 13.33 SY Flooring 44.00 LF Floor Perimeter 44.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter iu 3\" Liters O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 0,00 17.82 106.94 (0.00) 106.94 200,41 0,00 40,08 240.49 (0.00) 240.49 1.00 EA 15.04 0.00 3,00 18.04 (0.00) 18.04 44,00 LF 0.54 0.11 48 28.65 (0.33) 28.32 120,00 SF 0.91 1.52 22.14 132,86. (4.68) 128.18 for paint - plastic, 40. Mask and prep 44,00 LF 1.26 0,58 11.20 67,22 (1.78): 65.44 41. R&R 1/2\" drywall - hung, taped, 32.00 SF 2.67 1.12 17.32 103.88 (3.48) 100.42 - 32.00 LF 7.07 0.53 45,34 IPAS G63) 270.48 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX 3.00 EA. 89.12. 1.00BA General: ' 35, Contents - move out then reset - Large room Celling 36, Celling fan Detach & reset 37, Detach & Reset Hea¥AC register - Mechanically attached - tape only 38. Mask and prep for paint (per LF) 39. Paint the ceiling ~ two coals Walls: paper, tape (per LF) floated, ready for paint 42. Tape joint for new to existing drywallper LF a a. 0.79 43. Texture drywall - light hond texture 32.00 SF 44, Seal the walls w/PVA primer - one 352,00 SF 0.52 coat 45, Paint the walls - two coats 352.00 SF 0.91 WEST 5,08 30.48 (0.38) 30.10 1.03 36.80 220.87 G.17) 217.70 4.46 64,96 389.74 (13.28) 376.01 0.12. 4125/2024 Page: 4 SFF&CC/West_000265"}, {"d": 22, "p": 305, "t": "Easter Clams Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway. Neéw Smyma Beach, F132168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net CONTINUED - Bedroom QUANTITY UNIT PRICE DESCRIPTION: TAX O&P Floor: DEPREC, RCV ACY 46. Mask or cover per square foot 120,00 SF 0,45 0.53 10,90 65.43 (0.00) 65.43 47, Final cleaning - construction - 120.00 SF 0.28 0,00 6:72 40,32 (0.00) 40.32 10.00 286.44 = 1,747.03 29.16 1,687.87 Residential Totals; Bedroom Bathroom Height: 8 208.00 SF Walls 248,00 SF Walls & Ceiling 4,44 SY Flooring 26.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter 40.00 SF Ceiling 40.00 SF Floor 26.00 LF Floor Perimeter QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 1.00 EA 89.12 0.00 17,82 106,94 (0,00) 106.94 1,00 BA 58.83 0.00: 11.76 70.59 (0,00) 70.59 100EA 15.04 0.00 3.00 18.04 (0.00) 18.04 26.00 LF 0.54 0.06 2.82 16.92 (0.20) 16.72 40.00 SF 0.91 0.51 738 44.29 (1.56) 42.3 - plastic, and prep for paint 53. Mask 26.00 LF 1.26 0.34 6.62 39.72 (1.05) 38.67 54, R&R V2\" drywall - hung, taped, 32.00 SF 2.67 112 17.32 {03.88 (3.46) 100.42 55. Tape joint for new to existing drywall per LF 56, Texture drywall - light hand texture’ 32.00 LF 107 0,53 45,34 272.11 (1.63) 270.48 32,00 SF 0,79 0,12 5.08 30,48 (0,38) 30.10 DESCRIPTION Generat: 48. Contents - move out then reset - Lange room Celling: | 49, Detach & Reset Bathroom ventilation fan 50. Detach & Reset Heal/AC register - Mechanically attached and prep for paint - tope only. Sl. Mask (per LF} 52. Paint the ceiling - two coats Walls: paper, tape (per LF) . floated, ready for paint 57. Seal the walls w/PVA primer - one coat 58. Paint the walls - two coats . 208.00 SF 0.52 0.61 21.76. 130.53 (1.87) 128.66 208.00 SF 0,91 2.64 38.38 230.30 (8.11) 222.19 Floor: WEST 4/25/2024 ‘Poge: 5 SFF&CC/West_000266"}, {"d": 22, "p": 306, "t": "Gas Ctejps Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net CONTINUED - Bathroom RCV DEPREC. ACV 21.82 (0.00) 21,82 2.24 14 (0,00) 13.44 183.16 1,099.06 18.26 1,080.80 QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P 59, Mask or cover per square foot 40.00 SF 0.45 0.18 3.64 60. Final cleaning - construction - 40,00 SF 0,28 0.00 6.11 DESCRIPTION ° Residential Totals: Bathroom b—«<i ems — Qu—wel Height: 8' Closet I 6! cm T ° 228.00 SF Walls & Ceiling | 24.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter il & 36,00 SF Ceiling 192.00 SF Walls 36.00 SF Floor 24.00 LF Floor Perimeter 4,00 SY Flooring QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCY DEPREC. ACY 1,00 EA 44,59 0,00 $.92 53.5} (0.00) 53,51 1.00 EA 24.00 LF $6.27 0.54 0.00 0.06 11.26 2,62 67.53 15.64 (0.00) (0.18) 67.53 15.46 36.00 SF 0.91 0.46 6.66 39,88 (1.49) 38.48 24.00 LF 1.26 0.32 6.10 36.66 (0.97) 35.69 32,00 SF 2.67 1.42 17.32 103.88 (3.46) 100,42 67, Tape joint for new to existing drywall- 32.00 LF 9.07 0.53 45,34 27241 (1.63) 270,48 68. Texture drywall - light hand texture the walls w/PVA primer - one 69. Seal 32.00 SF 192.00 SF 0,79 0,52 0.12 0.56 5.08 20.08 30,48 120.48 (0.38) (1.73) 30.10 118.75 192,00 SF 091 2.43 35.42 212,57 (7.49) 205.08 0.45 0.28 0.16 0.00 3.28 2.02 19.64 12,10 (0.00) (0,00) 19.64 12,10 DESCRIPTION General: 6]. Contents - move out then reset - Small room Ceiling: 62. Detach & Reset Light fixture 63. Mask and prep for paint - tape only (pet LF) 64, Paint the ceiling - two coats Walls; 65, Mask and prep for paint - plastic, paper, tape (per LF) 66, R&R 1/2\" drywall -hung, taped, floated, ready for paint per LF coat 70. Paint the walls - two coats Floor: 71. Mask of cover per square foot 72. Final cleaning - construction - . 36,00 SF 36.00 SF Residential WEST 4/25/2024 Pape: 6 SFF&CC/West_000267"}, {"d": 22, "p": 307, "t": "Gone Claims Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyrna Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net CONTINUED - Closet TAX 5.76 O&P 164,10 RCV 984.48 DEPREC. 1704 ACV 967.24 21.87 633.40 3,800.57 64.66 3,735.91 QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX. O&P RCV DEPREC. ACY 429,25 0.00 85.86 51541. (0,00) 515.11 6.00 55.86 $15.11 0.00 515.11 TAX O&P RCY DEPREC. ACy 0.00 21.86 131,18 (0.00) 131.18 0.00 0,00 1,24 36.60 7.44 219,59 (0.00) (0,00) 7.44 219,59 0.00 59.70 358.21 0.00. 358.21 664.33 8,566.10 51,696.39 2,041.51 49,654.88 QUANTITY UNIT PRICE DESCRIPTION Totals: Closet Total: Main Level Debris Removal DESCRIPTION 73, Dumpster load - Approx. 12 yards, 1-3 1.00 BA tons of debris Totals: Debris Removal Labor Minimums Applied QUANTITY UNIT PRICE DESCRIPTION 74, Heat, vent, & aircond, labor minimum _ 75. Electrical labor minimum* 76, Window labor minimum ‘1,00BA 1.00 EA 1,00 BA 109.32 6,20 182,99 Totals: Labor Mintuums Applied Line Htem Totals: WEST Grand Total Areas: 752.00 SF Walls 196,00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Long Wall 196.00 Floor Area 918.00 Exterior Wall Area . 196.00 SF Ceiling 21.78 SY Flooring 0.00 SF Short Wall 948.00 SF Walls and Ceiling 94.00 94,00 LF Floor Perimeter LF Ceil, Perimeter 228.67 Total Area 752,00 Interior Wall Area * 102.00 Exterior Perimeter of Walls Surface Area 0.00 Numberof Squares. 0.00 Total Ridge Length 0.00 Total Hip Length 0.00 WEST 0,00. Total'Perimeter Length 4/25/2024 Page: 7 SFF&CC/West_000268"}, {"d": 22, "p": 308, "t": "Gor Clalms Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, F1 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net Summary for Dwelling 42,465.96 664.33 Line Item Total Material Sales Tax Overhead Profit 43,130.29 4,283.05 4,283.05 Replacement Cost Value Less Depreciation $51,696.39 (2,041.51) Actual Cash Value Net Claim $49,654.88 $49,654.88 Subtotal 7,041.51 Total Recoverable Depreciation $51,696.39 Net Claim j{ Depreciation is Recovered Eileen Dalton WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 8 SFF&CC/West_000269"}, {"d": 22, "p": 309, "t": "Gon Claims Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074 www,coastalclaims,net Recap by Category with Depreclation O&P Items. RCV CLEANING 592.12 CONTENT MANIPULATION GENERAL DEMOLITION DRYWALL ELECTRICAL SPECIAL SYSTEMS - CAL ELECTRI FENCING 222.83 5,844.40 968.64 6,20 37.55 1,223.84 . Deprec. ACV 2.18 589.94 16.41 222.83 5,844.40 952.23 6.20 37,55 1,218.66 5,18 6.24 275,67 256.68 2,555.87 23,843.00 515.82 3,479.74 142,87 182,99 HEAT, VENT & AIR CONDITIONING LIGHT FIXTURES PAINTING ROOFING SIDING SOFFIT, FASCIA, & GUTTER NG & REPAIR WINDOW REGLAZI WINDOWS - WOOD 281.91 256,68 2,671.64 25,426.15 536.00 3,750.17 164.84 182.99 O&P Items Subtotal 42,165.96 2,041.51 40,124.45 Non-O&P Items RCV Deprec. ACV PERMITS AND FEES Non-O&P Items Subtotal O&P Items Subtotal Material Sales Tax 300.00 300,00 42,165.96 664,33 Overhead 4,283.05 Profit 4,283.05 Total 51,696.39 115,77 1,583.15 20.18 270.43 21,97 300.00 0.00 2,041.51 300.00 40,124.45 664,33 4,783.05 4,183.05 2,041.51 49,654,88 “The amount claimed in this estiniate is based on a preliminary inspection by a public adjuster anWor contractor and/or other experienced personouilding estimator. Nevertheless, the estimated amount niay change basedon material prices, contractor bids, and other costs which are too numerous to mention, The amount claimed may be affected by policy exclusions. Any overlap, upgrade, or mistake which would result in additional costs is unintentional. Estimate includes costs associated with code upgrades, if known, This estimate-was not made with a set of plans created by a design professional, Any plans made by a and would require approval by the local building inspector. Costs may cost l design professional would come at an additiona change based on the building department approvals, and means and methods acceptable to a general contractor. ~THIS ESTIMATE IS ONLY AN OPINION WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 9 SFF&CC/West_000270"}, {"d": 22, "p": 310, "t": "& (Gor Cisims Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway _ New Smyma Beach,Fi 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net | | WEST ]-EAGLEVIEW ROOF SKETCH 4/25/2024 Page: 10 SFF&CC/West_000271"}, {"d": 22, "p": 311, "t": "Main Level t—6! gn—— g\"— 6' gr — Bathroom O6) gr —— 5! Q! Bedroom —5! /——— 12 10° I——— 10' 8\" 4 sO -— 6! Closet N T Main Level WEST ASTANA Page: Hi SFF&CCWest_000272"}, {"d": 22, "p": 312, "t": "Will Pratt ‘Coastal Claims Services 6/6/2024 1154 Photos -oastal Claims Neil West Photo Report Gaver Page sfat Not & & Locy M. West » Nell West Phiete Report - SFF&CC/West_000273"}, {"d": 22, "p": 313, "t": "% « . Nelt West Phot Repoit 6/6/2024 Section 1 Soctton i a/al Noll $,& Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000274 -"}, {"d": 22, "p": 314, "t": "‘ 4 {6/2024 Nail Woat Phote Regia Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:2tpm Crestor: Cedsta! Clots Sorvices Project: Nelt$. & Lacy ¥. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 2:22pm Creaicr: Constal Cloims Services : Projects: Neil S, & Lacy M West Dette 3/6/2024, 2:22pm Cronice: Cooste! Cloims Sarvicas Pinject: Neil $,& Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:22pm Creatas: Coasto! Clalins Survices Section V ape Natt S. & lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000275"}, {"d": 22, "p": 315, "t": "¢ 4 6/6/2024 Nau Weal Phate Repart Project: Naif $, & Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 223pim Creator: Coostal Clatins Services | Projoct: Nell S. & Lacy M, Waost Date. 3/6/2024, 2:23pm Crestiar: Coastal Claims Services Project Neil $. & Lacy M. Wast ‘ Date. 3/6/2024, 224pin Creater: Coasto! Claims Sarvices Project: Nell § & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:2épm Crogtor: Coastal Cluiins Servicus Section 4 aL Nai S, & Gacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000276"}, {"d": 22, "p": 316, "t": "€ 4 6/6/2074 Neil West Phote Ropar Project: Nell S. & Locy M West Date 3/6/2024, 2:24pm Cragstor: Caasto! Claims Services 10 Prejact: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024 22¢pm Craater: Caasto! Clotms Servicas \" Project! Neil S.& Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 225pm Crestor, Coaste! Cloims Services: 2 Project: Neil S, & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:25pm Crestor: Coastal Clairns Services Section f fal Nail $ & Lony Mi. Wast SFF&CC/West_000277"}, {"d": 22, "p": 317, "t": "i 0/6/7028 Neil Vast Phela Report BE Project: Nell S$, & Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:26pm Creates: Coasto! Claims Services 14 Project: Neil S$, & Locy M, Wast Date: 3/6/2024, 2:26pm Creatar. Coostol Claims Services 5 Project: Nell $. & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:27pm Cresten Coastal Claims Services 16 Project: Noll S. & Locy M, West Dote: 3/6/2024, 2:27pm Creator: Coastal Claims Serv'ces Sectien 1 Nell S, & Lacy 81. West SFF&CC/West_000278"}, {"d": 22, "p": 318, "t": "t 6/6/2026 Neil West Phate Report a7 _ Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 228pm Crestor Constal Claims Services 18 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:40pm Croaiar; Codstol Cloims Services 19 Projoct: Naif $. & Lacy M. Wast Date: 3/6/2024, 2-4ipm Gigoter, Coosta! Claims Services 20 Projact: Nell & & Lacy M. Wost Date: 3/6/2024, 2:4ipm Creatce: Canslel Cioims Services. ‘ Section 1 1E3i Nait $ & Lacy t4, West SFF&CC/West_000279"}, {"d": 22, "p": 319, "t": "Gf0f7026 Mei Wert Phato Repel 2 See ees Project: Nell 8. & Lacy M. West Date: 46/2024, 2:42pm. Creaicr: Coastal Claims Services Pryject: Mell $. & Lacy M, West Dato. 3/6/2024, 282pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 23 Prefect: Nall $ & Lucy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 242pm Creates, Coasto! Claims Servicas 24 Project: Nail $. & Lacy M West Dote: 3/6/2024, 2:43pm Creates; Constat Claims Saivices Section | Nat S$. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000280"}, {"d": 22, "p": 320, "t": "¢ 6f6/2024 Neil West Phuto Repurt 25 Project: Noll $, & Lacy M, West Dato: 3/6/2024, 2:43pm. Craster! Coostal Claims Servicos 26 Projoct: Neil $.& Lacy M West ate 3/6/2024, Z43pm Creator, Coostal Claims Services a Project: Nol $. & Lacy M. Wast Date: 3/6/2024, 2:43pm Crestor: Coastal Claims Services 28 Projact: Nell $..& Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 43pm. Croaten: Coastal Cloims Services Section i Of ei Neill 6. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000281"}, {"d": 22, "p": 321, "t": "¢ 6/6/2024 Nall Viet Phate Repent 29 Peejgoct: Nei S. & Lacy M. West Date. 3/6/2024, 2:43pm Creajon Couste! Claims Services 30 Project: Noll S. & Lacy ™. West Cats; 3/6/2024, dpm Crovicr: Coaste! Claims Services 3 Preject: Neil $. & Locy M West Bate: 3/6/2024, 2:27 pm Greater. Coosta! Claims Services 32 Peajact: Nail S. & Lacy M, West Oute: 3/6/2024, 248pin Crestor: Cdasto! Claims Services Sectian t 10 / 24 Null $. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000282"}, {"d": 22, "p": 322, "t": "¥ « 6/6/2022 Noi West Phols Report 33 Prejec No S. 6 Lacy M, West Dats, 2/6/2024, 2:4apm Creatge: Coastal Claims Services 34 Project; NoilS. 6 Lacy M West Oote: 3/6/2024, 49pm Croatee: Casto! Claims Services 35 Project Noll $-G Lacy M West Qate 3/6/2024, 249pm Creaicr: Coasto! Claims Services 36 Project: Nell S & Locy 4 Wast Date: 3/6/2024, 249 jan, Creator Coostal Claims Services Section 1 wif at Nol S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000283"}, {"d": 22, "p": 323, "t": "rn 6/6/2026 Noll West Photo Report 3? Preject: Nall $,& Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 49pm Creator Caaste! Claims Services 38 Project: Ned S. & Lacy M West Gate: 1/6/2024, 20tpm Cnxtion: Coastal Claims Services a9 Project: Nel S$. & Lucy M, Wost Date: 3/6/2024, 0ipm Craotor; Coastal Cloims Services 40 Project: Noil 5, & Lacy M. Wast Dote 16/2024, 1.01pm Creation; Couste! Clukns Services Section} w/a Neil S. & Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000284"}, {"d": 22, "p": 324, "t": "% 6f672024 Ni etl West Phote Report Al Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Lote: 3/6/2024, 01pm Craton: Coastal Cleims Services 42 Peojoct: Nei 5, & Lary M. Wast Date 3/6/2024, 2:02pm Creator Constal Claims Services 43 Projeck Neil S. & Lacy M. West Bate: 6/2024, x0@prn Creaice Coastal Claims Services Picject: Neit$, & Lacy M. Wer Dale 31/6/2024, 2:02pm Croatian: Coustal Cloinis Services Section # WE fat . Naif S. § Lacy M, Weat SFF&CC/West_000285"}, {"d": 22, "p": 325, "t": "* . 67652024 Neil West Photo Repuct Project: Mell S, & Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:02pm Creator: Coasto! Claims Services 46 Project: Nel $. & Lacy M. West Digtor 3/6/2024, 2O3prt Croster; Coastal Claims Services a7 Project: Neil $, & Lacy M. West Date: 3/4/2024, 2:03pm Creates, Coastal Claims Sarvices Prcject; Noll S. & Lacy M, West Pote 3/6/2024, 03pm Croston Coastal Claims Services Section | Mie Ned §.8 Lary M, West SFF&CC/West_000286"}, {"d": 22, "p": 326, "t": "¢ £ e/of 7026 Nall Weal Pholo Repo! 49 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West ; Date: 3/6/2024, .03pm Crater: Coast! Clairis Services 50 3 Project: Nall $. & Lacy 4. West Dute: 3/6/2024, 3:03pm Crealer: Caastal Claims Services 5! Project. Noil S. & Lacy M Wast Date: 3/6/2024, kOe Cranien Coastel Claims Servicos 52 Prefect: Nail S. & Lacy M. West Dote 3/6/2024, 2:04pm Ceecstar: Caustal Clalns Services Section $ iB fat aati SG Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000287"}, {"d": 22, "p": 327, "t": "t 6/6/2024 Nail West Phato Repu §3 Project: Neil $. & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 05pm Creater, Coastal Claims Services 54 Brojant: Nell $. G Lacy M. West Cote: 3/6/2024, 2:05pm Chaaton Coasta! Cloims Soryices 55 Prajuch: Neil S. & Lacy M West Date 3/6/2024, 05pm Crovidn Coosta! Claims Services 56 Project: Nait $.& Lacy M Want Date 3/6/2024, 3:09pm Creaiae: Cousta! Ciclins Services Section t wid Nel! $. & Lacy M. Wes! SFF&CC/West_.000288"}, {"d": 22, "p": 328, "t": "< t 6/6/2024 Noil Wesi Phote Report §7 Project: Neil $, & Lacy M. West Oute 3/6/2024, 2O9pAi Croater: Caastal Claims Services 58 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:09pm Creator: Constot Claims Services 59 Project) Nail $ & Lacy M Wust Dato: 3/6/2024, 09pm Creator: Caaste! Clatris Services 60 Project: Nol S. & Lacy M. Wast Date: 1/6/2024, 209pm Croaten Coastal Claims Services Section 4 WPF at Nail S. & Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000289"}, {"d": 22, "p": 329, "t": "a 6/672024 Neil Weat Pheto Report 6} Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 09pm Crestor Coastal Clatins Services 62 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 31pm Creator Coostol Claims Services 63 Project Neil S. G Lacy M. West Date. 3/6/2024, 2izpm Creator: Coastal Claims Servicas Project: Nei $6 Lacy M. Wost Date: 3/6/2024, 3:12pm Creator: Coastol Cloims Sarvices Section + eye Noi $, & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000290"}, {"d": 22, "p": 330, "t": "« ‘ 6/6/2026 Nell West Photo Repurt 65 Frgject: Neil $. & Locy M West Dute: 3/6/2024, 3pm Cientor Coostot Claims Services 66 Project: Nall $.& Locy M. West Date; 3/6/2024, didpm Creafer: Cogste! Claims Services 67 Project: Neil $. & Lacy M, West Date; 3/6/2024, 2:14pm Crevten, Coostol Clalms Services Project: Neill S, & Lacy M. Wast Date: 3/6/2024, Eidpm Creator: Coostel Clotins Services Secticn 3 ae Nei S. & Lacy M. Wost SFF&CC/West_000291"}, {"d": 22, "p": 331, "t": "a é 64022024 Noi! West Photo Report 69 Project: Nail. & Lacy M. West Date. 3/6/2024, 3:éprn Creates: Coastal Claims Services Pichactk Neil S, & Lacy iM. West Date: 3/6/2024, idea Cragten Coaste! Claims Services n Project: Nuil S. & Lory M. West tec 3/6/2024, 3:14pm Croater, Cousta! Claims Serv'ces 72 Project. Nell S, & Lacy M. West Date 3/6/2024, 3:15pm Creator: Ceastal Claiins Services Sectien f 20/81 Nall S, & Lecy M. West SFF&CC/West_000292"}, {"d": 22, "p": 332, "t": "& ‘ 6/6/7026 Nell Wrest Phuty Report 73 Project: Nell. & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:15pm Crrator, Coastel Claims Services 74 Projact: Neil $. & Lacy. West Cate: 3/6/2024, 3:15pm Creates: Coastal Claims Services 75 Proje: Noil$; & Lucy M. West Date 46/2026, S15pm Crenioe: Coustal Claims Services: 76 M West Pegjact NeitS: & Lacy Dote. 3/6/2024, sitipm Creater: Coastal Cloims Services Section 1 . 2 fas , Nel $. & Lacy M. Vast SFF&CC/West_000293"}, {"d": 22, "p": 333, "t": "« 6/6/2028 Molt West Phalo Repost Project: Noll$. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:36pm Crestor: Codstat Cloims Services 76 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M Wost Oste: 3/6/2024; 3:16pm Creatas: Canstal Claims Services 79 Projuct’ Nell SG Lacy M. West Duta 3/6/2024, Fi6pm Creator: Coastol Claims Services BO Project: Nell $. & Locy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:46pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services Seetion 5 22f ai ‘ Nett S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000294"}, {"d": 22, "p": 334, "t": "* 6/4J2026 Nell West Plaka Repurl Project: Noll S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, Zt6pm Creoter; Coastal Claims Services 82 Project: Neil S.& Lacy.M, West Date. 3/6/2024, 3:16am ‘Creaice: Coosia! Clans Services 83 Project: Mell S, G Lacy M West Date 3/6/2024, 7 pin Creator: Coastal Claims Servicos Project: Nell S, 6 Lacy M, West te: 3/6/2024, 2. Vom Caxstor: Coustal Chairs Services Secticn } 23/4 Nel! S, & Lecy M. Wéost SFF&CC/West_000295"}, {"d": 22, "p": 335, "t": "¢ 6/6/2026 Noll Wost Photo Rapert 85 Prefart: Neil §. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:17pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services : 86 Hijack: Noll S. & Lacy M West Date: 3/67/2024, 27pm Creator: Caastol Claims Servicas Projeck: Neil $. & Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:17pm Creates: Coostal Claims Services Project, NeilS. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 7pm Crosion: Coastal Cloime Services Seetian} at fat Nell S. & Lecy M. Ylast SFF&CC/West_000296"}, {"d": 22, "p": 336, "t": "@ 6/6/2026 Noll Weal Photo Report &9 Pegjact: Neil S. & Lecy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 27pm Créater: Coastal Clalins Servicas 90 Project: Naif S. & Lacy ML West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:17pm Creator: Coustel Cloims Services 3 Project, Nol S. & Locy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 18pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services 92 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Darel 2/6/2024, 34am Cresier: Coustol Cloims Services Section 1 252 at Nett § & Lacy M4. Wiest. SFF&CC/West_000297"}, {"d": 22, "p": 337, "t": "67672024 Noi! West Photo Report 93 Project: Nell $. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 218prn Crevicr: Coastal Claims Services 94 Project: Nail S, & Lacy M. Wost Date: 3/6/2024, 3:18pm Cresign Constai Cloims Sorviees 95 Project: Nail $. & Lacy M. Wast Daie: 3/6/2024, 3:48pm Crovice Coast! Cfoims Services Projact Neil $. & Lacy M West Date: 2/6/2024, M3 pm Crestes: Snetion | 26/5) Coustal. Clots Services Noil $. & Loy M. West SFF&CC/West_000298"}, {"d": 22, "p": 338, "t": "é 2 6/6/2024 Null West Photo Rupen Peejeck Neil S, & Lacy M West Date, 3/6/2024, 2:18pm Creator: Cuastol Clots Services 98 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, :20pm Creator: Coostel Claims Services 99 Project, Nail S. & Lacy M. West Date 3/6/2024, EZipm Crestor: Coastal Clolms Services 106 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Ooty, 3/6/2024, 3:22pm Creatun Caustal Claims Services Sactien f BF fat Nat $. & Lacy M. Wee SFF&CC/West_000299"}, {"d": 22, "p": 339, "t": "3 é 6/6/7024 Null West Phetu Report 401 Freject: Neil §, & Lacy M. Wost Date: 3/6/2024,3:22pm Creator Coastal Claims Services 102 Projact: Net S$. & Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 22pm Creston: Caaste! Clotms Services 103 Project: Noll §. & Lacy M: West Dato: 3/6/2024, 3:22pm Ctouice Coastal Clatms Services 104 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M West Dete: 3/6/2024, 3.23pm Creator Coustal Claims Services Section | 23/4 4t Noel $, & Lacy M. Weal SFF&CC/West_ 000300"}, {"d": 22, "p": 340, "t": "4, 6/6/7028 Nell West Phate Repurt 105 Project: Nail $.& Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:23pm Creator: Coastol Claims Services 106 Profacy Neil’S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 225pm Creator: Coosta! Claims Sarveas 107 Project: Noll S$, & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 225m Creaiat: Coustal Cloims Sorvicas 108 Project: Nail S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:26pm Create: Coustol Claims Servicos Section 4 20 FAY Nai! §, & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000301"}, {"d": 22, "p": 341, "t": "6/6/2028 ‘Neil West Photo Ropart 109 Pecject: Mail S$ Lacy 4 West Dote: 3/6/2024, 2:26prri Creator: Coastol Claims Services +0 Pract Neil S. & Lacy M West Dote: 3/6/2024, 226pm Crontgn- Coastal Claims Services m Project: Nuil $. & Locy M West Bote 3/6/2024, k26pm Creater, Coast! Claims Services WW Prajoct; Nell S, & Loty M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 26pm Croazor: Caastol Cluims Services: Sectien V JO / 4 Nail S. & hocy M, Vas} SFF&CC/West_000302"}, {"d": 22, "p": 342, "t": "G/6/2028 Nell Woat Phoie Repaek 3 Project: Nail $. & Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 26pm Croutert Coastal Claims Sarvieos 414 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M, West Deie, 3/6/2024, 26pm Cronter: Coastal Cloimns Services 115 Project: Neil $8. & Lacy M. West Dato: 3/6/2024, 2:26pm Craazer: Coastal Clalins Sarvices 6 Sraject: NoilS, & Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:26pm Creatce Coostal Clolms Services, Section 1 Bf dt Nei S. & Lacy M. Wost SFF&CC/West_000303"}, {"d": 22, "p": 343, "t": "6/6/2022 Nell West Photo Repart mits Project: Nail S. & Lacy M. West Ole: 3/6/2024, 2:27pm Creotor: Canstal Claims Secvices i: Projact: Nall S, & Lacy M, West Deter 3/6/2024, 27pm. Crouter: Canstai Cioims Soryices 9 Project: Neil $, & Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 28pm Croater: Caastel Claims Seryces 126 Project! Net S: & Lacy M. West Date 3/6/2024, F2pra Crostur; Coastal Claims Services Section 4 Tf at Noll 5. & Lacy M. West SFF&CCWest_000304"}, {"d": 22, "p": 344, "t": "6/6/2624 Neti West Phate Report 121 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:28pm Createe: Coastal Claims Services 122 Prefect: Neil $. & Locy M. West Date. 3/6/2024, 3:33pm Creator: Cogstal Claims Services 123 Project: Nail S. & Lacy M West Date; 3/6/2024, 233pm Crevisn Coastai Claims Sarvices 124 Project Neil §. & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 233 pn Creator: Caustal Clolins Services Section } asfat Neil $, & LacyM. West SFF&CC/West_000305"}, {"d": 22, "p": 345, "t": "? 6/6/2028. Nail West, Phata Report 128 Prajact: Nall S. & Locy M Wost Date: 3/6/2024, +33pm Creater: Coastal Claims Services 126 Projact: Neil $, 6 Lacy M. Wost Date: 3/6/2024, 233pm Cragice: Canasta! Claims Services 127 Projent: Nail §. & Lacy M, West “Date 3/6/2024, 3:33pm Creator: Coastal Clalins Services 128 Projact: Nell S. & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:33pm Crealuc Coastal Claims Services Secken | 3a fa Neil §. & Locy M. West SFF&CC/West_000306"}, {"d": 22, "p": 346, "t": "4 ¢ 6/6/2022 Mel! Wool Photo Repatt 129, Praject: Nell S.& Lacy M. West Dole. 3/6/2024, :34pro Creoice Coostul Claims Services 130 Project: Neil S, 6 Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 34pm Croaters Coastal Cloims Services I Project: Nel $.& Lacy M West Dale: 3/6/2024, 3.35pm Creator. Caaste! Claims Services 132 Profxct: Neil S. & Locy Oate: M West 3/6/2024, 3:35pm Creater Coostol Cains Services Section 4 357of Neil S & Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000307"}, {"d": 22, "p": 347, "t": "% Natt West Pholo Repad 0/2024 133 Peofect: Neil §. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:36pm Crnator: Caastol Claims Services 134 Project Nei $, & Lacy M. West Dots. 3/6/2024, 1:38pm Crouter: Coastat Claims Services 135 Project: NaS. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 238pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 16 Projnet: Neil S. & LacyM. West Date: 3/6/2024, 38pm Creates: Coustol Clots Services Section 4 ; 46 f at Nod 5. & Lacy M. Wast SFF&CC/West_000308"}, {"d": 22, "p": 348, "t": "a » 64/7026 Neil West Phate Repel 37 Project: Mail S.& Lacy M, West Dole 3/6/2024, 3:38pm Craster! Coastal Claims Sarvices 138 Projact: Ned $. & Lacy M, West Dates 3/6/2024, 3:38pm Greater: Caastef Claims Services 19 Project: Muil $.& Lucy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 238pm Crestor Coastel Claims Services 140 Project: Nell S, & Lacy M. West Dote. 2/6/2024, 3:38pin Croaion Seetient sa Caastal Cluimms Services Ne? $. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000309"}, {"d": 22, "p": 349, "t": ". 64672024 Naif Wes} Phale Repurt 141 Prejact: Nail $. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 39pm Creator Coastal Claims Services 142 Project: Noll $. & Lacy M. West Dote: 1/6/2024, 3:39pm Creates: Caastal Claims Services 143 Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Date: 2/6/2024, 39pm Croats: Coostal Claims Sefvices 144 Project Nell § & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:39pm Crovter; Coastal Claims Services Socsice t 38 fal Mei $. & Lacy (4. West SFF&CC/West_000310"}, {"d": 22, "p": 350, "t": "6/6/2088 Neil West Phato Report 145 Project: NallS. & Lacy M, Wost Dute: 3/6/2024, 3:40pm Crean Coastal Cloims Services 146 Peojact: Neil S. & Lacy M..Wast. Date: 3/6/2024, 240pin Creater: Coastal Claims Services | 447 Project: Moll S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/4/2024, &40pm Crosser: Coastal Claims Services 148 Project: Noll S. & Lacy M, Wast Dote: 3/6/2024, Fé0prm Creates, Cousial Claims Services Section $ 39/4) NaltS, & Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000311"}, {"d": 22, "p": 351, "t": "« Nail Wast Phate Repent 6/6/2024 149 Prujoct: Neil S$. & Locy M. West Date: 6/6/2024, 22pm Craaict: Caastol Claims Services 480 Project: Neil $, & Lacy M. West Date: 6/6/2024 1:22pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 151 Project Nail $, & Lacy M West Date. 6/6/2024, 22pm Creater: Coastal Claims Services. 152 Project: Neil $, & Lacy M, West Dote: 6/6/2024 1:22pm Creator; Caastal Cloinis Services Section i ; 604 41 Noll S, & Lacy hf. West SFF&CC/West_000312"}, {"d": 22, "p": 352, "t": "« 0/6/2024 Nell West Phoie Report 153 Project: Noil S. & Lacy M West Date: 6/6/2024, 1:22pm Cicoror: Coastal Claims Services 154 pee Serraino reer TE Project: Nell $. & Lacy M. West Date. 6/6/2024, 1:22pm Bs & Section | ™ Creator, Coastal Claims Services Net § & Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000313"}, {"d": 22, "p": 354, "t": "From:office@coastalclaims.net Sent:Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:28:50 -0400 To:statefarmfireciaims@ statefarm.com Cerecsvcs-OK-2024040001 @claimmail.net Subject:[EXTERNAL] 36530113C Attachments:3653Q113C_WEST_PRELIMINARY PA ESTIMATE. pdf Please see attached PA preliminary estimate. If you have any questions, please reach out to the PA on file for this claim, JOHN DEKKER @ r email john@coastalclaims.net. “This isa PRELIMINARY estimate produced by Coastal Claims Services. This estimate represents our current evaluation of the damages to the insured's property. As we continue to evaluate this claim, there may be additional damages related to this event that have not been scoped at the production of this estimate.” RSS EXHIBIT SFF&CC/West_000538"}, {"d": 22, "p": 356, "t": "x Jurisdiction s¢qurep Oklahoma Search Type requires Licensee Entity Type sequireo | Individual ; % | i ‘ First Name NPN John Enter one or more additional fields: Last Name License Number _ Dekker i i i Reset | agree to the NAIC’s Terms and Conditions Advanced Criteria @ Search"}, {"d": 22, "p": 357, "t": "4} NAIC ome. Oklahoma Stote Based Sytems jurisdiction ve - Oklahoma Licensee Search Type ssquinto individual Eatlty Type requinco ws we i Enter one or more additional fields: Last Name [| Dalton| Eileen FirstName License Number NP ‘ Amanda Finch famanda.tinch@ crowedunlevy-com) is signed in a"}, {"d": 22, "p": 358, "t": "=o. sed Syctems Oklahoma State Search Type sequineo Oklahoma Jurisdiction sequiren NAIC > Licensee individual ‘Entity Type seauneo vi v Enter one or more additional fields: | | poe eneaae : License _ Number 3001635250 : 100127949 100149172 ' NPN : : License ' License . Resident? Is Address | Business : Business : Phone - (740) 343- | Date > ORLANDO. FL | 32808 6196 _ Expiration - ASSIGNED _ OKLAHOMA _ CITY, OK 73122 : Date «NO NO LINES ASSIGNED | TULSA, OK | 7ai72z : Effective | 10/31/2022 Yes NO LUNES ASSIGNED - Status » 10/19/2020 | 11/30/2013 Yes 2590 (05) 272- | (405) 512- 5159 O3B27/2012 | 02/28/2023 \"NO LINES 12/07/2020 : Type - : insurance > Inactive > Producer. : insurance _ Insurance * Producer: Inactive * Inactive * WILLIAM RYAN | Producer- _ Name | 19678672 - - 16593022 - 16854193 WESLEY » WILLIAM Designated Home State _ License _ Manager Manager | License , Ligense _ Manager"}, {"d": 22, "p": 360, "t": "From:\"Office Coastal Claims\" <office@coastalclaims.net> Sent:Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:44:10 +0000 To:\"statefarmfireclaims@ statefarm.com\" <statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com> Ce:\"ccsvcs-OK-2024040001@claimmail.net” <ccsvcs-OK-2024040001@claimmail.net> Subject:[EXTERNAL] 3653Q113C Attachments:WEST-LOR_PA.pdf, CCS.2024 W9.pdf April 24, 2024. To whomever it may concern: Please be advised that effective April 16, 2024, Coastal Claims Services, LLC is representing Neil S, & Lacy M, West for a loss sustained on 6/15/2023, We will be assisting Neil & Lacy in the preparation and negotiation of their claim. Attached you will find our Letter of Représentation, Public Adjuster Contract and W-9, in respect to this claim we are currently requesting:all previaus photos of the property, all previous communications, engineering reports, estimates, notes, and payments; We are also requesting all future-communications, photos, estimates and reportsto be sent to our office along with a Certified copy of the policy. if you would like to schedulean inspection or a recorded statement, please call our office at 386-314-0074, and ask for our scheduling department or via email at scheduling @coastalclaims.net. For any specific questions about the claim please feel free to contact the Public Adjuster, Brandon Gold, at Office (386) 314-0074, or Cell 215-791-1611. We look forwardto working with you towards a settlement for this claim. Best Regards, Griffin Cheeseman intake Specialist. Coastal Claims skakvicws 2650 N Dixie Fwy | New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 Office: (386) 314-0074 Direct: (863) 835-9202: Fax (386). 961-4344 office@coastalclaims.net. www. coastalclains. net ™» EXHIBIT SFF&CC/West_000655"}, {"d": 22, "p": 362, "t": "Docusign Envelope ID: SEFDGY1A-Ydd /-U1 UL-BUNS-SOSYBEYZE 191 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMBINS. _ ) AGENCY, INC., ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 JUDGE SHEPERD ) Defendants. ) DECLARATION OF BRANDON GOLD I, Brandon Gold, declare under penalty of perjury as follows: 1, I am over eighteen years of age and am competent to testify to the matters stated here, I am a licensed public adjuster and, at times, provide adjusting services for clients of Coastal Claims Services, LLC. . Lalso, at times, compile estimates for Trademark Exteriors—a roofing company located in Oklahoma. I reside in Holland , Pennsylvaniaand have never been to Lawton, Oklahoma. On or around March of 2024, I compiled an estimate for Trademark Exteriors for the property located at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, OK (“the Property”). I did not inspect the Property at any time. I created the estimate based solely on photos provided to me by Trademark Exteriors, and remote measurement data, including EagleView. In preparing the estimate, I was asked to prepare an estimate for a full roof replacement in connection with Trademark Exteriors’ request for a second inspection of the Property In preparing the estimate, I was not asked—nor did I—make any determinations regarding any alleged damage to the property or the cause of such alleged damage. 10. 1 was not asked to, and did not, make any determination regarding the existence, scope, or cause of any alleged damage to the Property, 11. From time to time, I refer business to Coastal Claims Services, LLC in exchange for a fee. ™> 5 Sud EXHIBIT"}, {"d": 22, "p": 363, "t": "Docusign Envelope ID: SErU6YTA-Ydd /-81UU-8USS-SOSYBEYZE 157 12, I recall referring the claim of Neil West and Lacy West relating to the Property to Coastal Claims Services, LLC in or around the same time that I prepared the estimate described above. 13. Although my name appears on a contract between Coastal Claims Services, LLC and Neil West and Lacy West, I did not provide any public adjusting services in connection with their claim. I state under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma and 12 O.S. § 426 that the foregoing ts true and correct. Date: May 25.00 2026. Location of Execution: Gold Claims, LLC's Office DacuSigned by: brandon Gold. HOGI."}, {"d": 22, "p": 365, "t": "From:\"Jose Parga” <jparga@coastalclaims.net> SentiFri, 13 Sep 2024 06:13:54 -0500 To:\"HOME CLMS-FIRECLAIMS” <statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com> Ceineilspencerwest@sbcglobal.net; ccsvcs-OK-2024040001 @claimmail.net. Subject:[EXTERNAL] 3653Q113C Attachments:West_Executed_SPOL. pdf, 3653Q113C_WEST_PRELIMINARY_PA_ESTIMATE.pdf Hello StateFann, We did have a conversation with your desk adjuster who-refiised:to fulfill her duties and provide a clear reasoning of the denial of coverage based on the.policy.. She stated that'she did not believe that the photos presented were storm related damages which is afalse and misleading statenient' which appears to be an attempt to breach the contract between StateFarm and the . insured. We did.provide her with the Date of Loss report which shows there was hail and-wind. reported. in the area along: with clear photos of the damage to roof components. She. still refused to fulfill her duties to act in good faith to provide a written ‘résponse: SFF&CC/West_000240"}, {"d": 22, "p": 366, "t": "Weare déthanding that we'speak to management to avoid escalating further as this doés not satisfy the minimum standard outlined by the:Department of Insurance. We have again attached the Sworn Proof of Loss-for the insured which has been notarized along with the estimate that reflects the full indemnity of the insured . If no factual response is provided within a reasonable time the insured along with their StateFarm agent will have to, entertain filinga complaint with the Department of Insurance Insurance Okla, Stat. tit. 36§1250.6(C) and Okla. Admin Code §365:15-3-5(c) Please give us.a call directly. 682-716-9565, Thank you, ~~ Jose J. Parga SFF&CC/West_000243"}, {"d": 22, "p": 368, "t": "From:\"HOME CLMS-FIRECLAIMS” <statefarrnfireclaims@ statefarm.com> Sent:Tue, 17 Sep 2024 13:16:51 +0000 To:\"jparga@coastalclaims.net\" <jparga@coastalclaims.net>; \"NEILSPENCERWEST @SBCGLOBALNET\" <NEILSPENCERWEST @SBCGLOBAL.NET>; \"LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM\" <LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM> Co:\"DF - FIRE~ Drop.File Document\" <OF-FIRE-CL@internal.statefarm.com> Subject:36-53Q1-13C, Dear Jose Parga, Based on our conversation this morning, Coastal Claim Services will have to send additional information over for review, when comes to the rain cap that is in question. if you have-any additional questions my contact information is listed below. Joe Wicker (he/himfnis) Claim Specialist~- Hail Reconciliation Unit ATL Park Center 3 Desk#; 469-442-1670 HRU #: 844-458-4300 Ext. 66 Statefarmfi reclaims@Statefarm. com EXHIBIT SFF&CC/West_000186"}, {"d": 22, "p": 370, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-01295-PRW Document12 Filed 09/16/25 Page 1 of6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY _ ) ) COMPANY, JONATHAN POE and JULIE POE, Case No. CIV-24-1295-PRW ) Defendant. ) ORDER Before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7), filed by Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company; the Response (Dkt. 10), filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan and Julie Pope; and State Farm’s Reply (Dkt. 11). Having considered the pleadings and applicable legal authorities, the Court GRANTS the Motion (Dkt. 7). Background This is an action for breach of contract and violation of the duty of good faith. According to the Complaint (Dkt. 1), the Poes’ home was insured by State Farm when it incurred hail damage on or about April 19, 2023. The Poes reported a claim in the summer of 2024, State Farm investigated it on August 28, 2024, and authorized payment for spot repairs on September 18, 2024.' On December 10, 2024, the Poes brought this action against State Farm seeking damages for breach of contract and violation of the duty of ! Plfs.’ Resp. (Dkt. 10), at 2."}, {"d": 22, "p": 371, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-01295-PRW Document12 Filed 09/16/25 Page 2 of 6 good faith and fair dealing and punitive damages.” State Farm now moves to dismiss as time-barred the Poes’ breach of contract and tort claims. Standard of Review In reviewing a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must satisfy itself that the pleaded facts state a claim that is plausible.’ In addition to the complaint, courts may consider “the attached exhibits and documents incorporated into the complaint by reference.”* “A statute of limitations defense may be appropriately resolved on a Rule 12 motion when the dates given in the complaint make clear that the right sued upon has been extinguished.”? Analysis I, The breach of contracts claims are time-barred. State Farm argues that the insurance policy bars the Poes from bringing an action to recover for damages which occurred before December 10, 2023, a year from the date they brought the present action. In the insurance policy at issue, there is a “Suit Against Us” provision that provides the following: Suit Against Us. No action will be brought against us unless there has been full compliance with all of the policy provisions. Any action by any party must be started within one year after the date of loss or damage. However, if the cause of loss or damage is burglary, theft, larceny, robbery, forgery, 2 Compl. (Dkt. 1), at 2-5. 3 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 4 Commonwealth Prop. Advocs., LLC v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 680 F.3d 1194, 1201 (10th Cir. 2011). 5 Sierra Club v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., 816 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up and citation omitted)."}, {"d": 22, "p": 372, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-01295-PRW Document12 Filed 09/16/25 Page 3of6 fraud, vandalism, malicious mischief, confiscation, wrongful conversion, disposal or concealment, the action must be started within two years from the time the cause of action accrues. Oklahoma law requires property-insurance policies to provide at least a one-year limitations period for bringing “an action,” with the clock starting on “the date of occurrence of the event resulting in loss.”® Here, the policy imposes just such a deadline.’ Thus, under its plain language, any claims for damages resulting from events before December 10, 2023, are time barred. The Poes do not argue that any of the provisions of the policy are ambiguous. Instead, with respect to their contract claims, they seek certification of a question to the Oklahoma Supreme Court to determine whether State Farm’s Suit Against Us provision can bar their claims. The Poes argue that past rulings of courts in this district shouldn’t control this case because their claims were submitted in a timely manner to State Farm, but the subsequent suit for breach of contract was filed after the timely claim was denied.* Plaintiffs point to 36 O.S. § 1250.5(7), which the Oklahoma Legislature amended, effective May 16, 2022, to add the following language: ... Any policy that specifies a time limit covering damage to a roof due to wind or hail must allow the filing of claims after the first anniversary but no 6 OKLA. STAT. tit. 36, § 3617; see also Clipperton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 151 F. App'x 652, 655 (10th Cir, 2005). 7 Mot. Dismiss (Dkt. 7), at 2. § Unlike in Root v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 23-870-PRW, 2024 WL 5239456, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 27, 2024) and Marhsall v, State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 24-780JD, 2025 WL817606, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 13, 2025), the Poes filed their insurance claim after the Suit Against Us limitation period had run, but still within the two-year statutory limit for filing an insurance claim under 36 O.S. § 1250.5(7)."}, {"d": 22, "p": 373, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-01295-PRW Document12 Filed 09/16/25 Page 4 of6 later than twenty-four (24) months after the date of the loss, if the damage is not evident without inspection[,.]? The Poes do not marshal an argument that 36 O.S. § 1250.5(7) operates to extend the time in which insureds can bring breach of contract claims against insurers, but instead argue that not allowing them to do so would be “at odds” with both public policy and the legislative intent of the amendment. !° Certification is appropriate where the question “(1) may be determinative of the case at hand and (2) is sufficiently novel that [the Court] feel[s] uncomfortable attempting to decide it without further guidance.”!' However, when the Court instead “see[s] a reasonably clear and principled course, [it] will seek to follow it [itself].”'? Here, the Court has no discomfort in applying the plain meaning of the law. There is no argument that there is an ambiguity in the statute, and the Court cannot detect one on its own. To the extent that application of 36 O.S. § 1250.5(7) creates troublesome policy results, that is for the people of Oklahoma to resolve through their legislators. The most “principled course” volts is for this Court “to say what the law is[,]” not what it ought to be.’ 9 OKLA. STAT. tit. 36, § 1250.5(7); 2022 Okla. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 266 (H.B. 3495) (West). 10 Plfs.’ Resp. (Dkt. 10), at 7. '! Pino y, United States, 507 F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). 2 Td. Bid. '4 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803)."}, {"d": 22, "p": 374, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-01295-PRW Document12 Filed 09/16/25 Page 5 of6 Accordingly, under the well-pleaded facts in the Complaint, the policy language controls. Any breach of contract claim relating to damages occurring before December 10, 2023, is time-barred. II. The claims in tort are time-barred. The Poes argue that 12 O.S. § 95(A)(3) governs the statute of limitations for their bad faith claims, which would allow them two years from the date of the loss to bring this action. State Farm counters that 36 O.S. § 3617 governs. The Court agrees with State Farm. While the Poes were able to produce caselaw that demonstrate instances where Oklahoma courts have found that statutory limitation periods overrode contractual limitation provisions, their cases did not deal specifically with the plain language of 36 O.S. § 3617: No policy delivered or issued for delivery in Oklahoma and covering a subject of insurance resident, located, or to be performed in Oklahoma, shall contain any condition, stipulation or agreement... limiting the time within which an action may be brought to a period of less than two (2) years from the time the cause of action accrues in connection with all insurances other than property and marine and transportation insurances; in property and marine and transportation policies such time shall not be limited to less than one (1) year from the date of occurrence of the event resulting in the loss. The Poes do not explain why the plain language of this provision does not apply to their case. It is true that a reading of 12 O.S. § 95(A)(3), which states that civil actions other than for the recovery of real property must be brought “[w]ithin two (2) years” if it is “an action for injury to the rights of another, not arising in contract, and not hereinafter enumerated[,]” superficially supports the Poes’ position. However, “the specific governs"}, {"d": 22, "p": 375, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-01295-PRW Document12 Filed 09/16/25 Page 6 of 6 the general.”!> 12 O.S. § 95 governs limitations on civil actions generally, while 36 O.S. § 3617 governs insurance policy restrictions. If the Court were to follow the Poes’ lead, the excerpted portion of 36 O.S. § 3617 above would be rendered superfluous. The best construction of 36 O.S. § 3617 leads to the conclusion that the insurance policy’s Suit Against Us provision is both valid and bars the Poes’ bad faith claims. Conclusion Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion (Dkt. 7) and DISMISSES the Poes’ breach of contract and bad faith claims to the extent that they seek to recover for damages which occurred before December 10, 2023. An order entering final judgment will follow. IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of September 2025. PATRICK R. WYRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. 15 McKenzie v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Dist. Dir., 761 F.3d 1149, 1156 (10th Cir. 2014) (citing RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. 645 (2012))."}, {"d": 23, "p": 1, "t": "FILED DISTRICT COURT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA May 27, 2026 2:12 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 NEIL and LACY WEST, a Plaintiff, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. a Vv. Case No. CJ-2025-135 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION Please notice that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230 of the Oklahoma Discovery Code, the Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company will take the deposition upon oral examination of Jose Parga, on Tuesday, June 10, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, 2525 McKinnon Street, Suite 425, Dallas, Texas 75201, before an officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the State of Oklahoma. The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic means. A subpoena will be issued to Mr. Parga for his attendance. The subpoena is attached as Exhibit 1. Dated this 27th day of May, 2026. Ze TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 23, "p": 2, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by US. Mail, postage prepaid, this 27th day of May, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 6266822 Me"}, {"d": 23, "p": 3, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. a a Plaintiff, Case No. CJ-2025-135 DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO: Jose Parga Coastal Claims Services, LLC 1413 Fox Glen Trail Crowley, Texas 76036 GREETINGS - You are hereby commanded to appear at the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, 2525 McKinnon Street, Suite 425, Dallas, Texas 75201 on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. to testify as a witness in a deposition noticed by Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, in the above-captioned case. The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic means. All parties are invited to attend and cross-examine. Hereof fail not under penalty of law. Issued this 27th day of May, 2026. GAZE TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 6266823"}, {"d": 24, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) _ Plaintiffs, ) v. FILED DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA June 1, 2026 3:20 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 ) ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ AGENCY, INC., Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) NOTICE OF SUBPOENAS TO PRODUCE AND PERMIT INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS Please take notice that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C)(2), subpoenas will be served on Arvest Bank, c/o Registered Agent, Corporation Service Company, 10300 Greenbriar Place, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73159, and Peak Appraisal Service, LLC c/o Registered Agent, Michael L. Doyle, 818 H Street, P.O. Box 349, Elgin, Oklahoma 73538, to produce and permit inspection and copying of documents. Said inspection and copying will take place on June 17, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102. Arvest Bank and Peak Appraisal Service, LLC are directed, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(A)(1)(b), to produce the documents listed on Exhibit A to the subpoenas served upon them. Copies of the subpoenas are attached hereto as Exhibits 1-2. The Subpoenas state that the witnesses need not appear in person, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C)(2)(a). Respectfully Submitted, TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY"}, {"d": 24, "p": 2, "t": "Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by US. Mail, postage prepaid, this Ist day of June, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 6268721 Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 haope"}, {"d": 24, "p": 3, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vv. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) Defendants. ) SUBPOENA TO ARVEST BANK TO PRODUCE AND PERMIT INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS TO: Arvest Bank c/o Registered Agent, Corporation Service Company 10300 Greenbriar Place Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73159 GREETINGS - You are hereby commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of documents in the possession, custody and control of Arvest Bank in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 on June 17, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. You need not appear in person, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C) (2)(a). The documents which shall be produced are described on the attached Exhibit A. In order to allow objections to the production of documents and things to be filed, you should not produce them until the date specified in this subpoena, and if an objection is filed, until the court rules on the objection. Hereof fail not under penalty of law. Issued this Ist day of June, 2026. b TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com"}, {"d": 24, "p": 4, "t": "paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 6268746"}, {"d": 24, "p": 5, "t": "Exhibit A to Subpoena to Arvest Bank 1. Appraisals and Inspections: All documents related to any appraisals, inspections, or assessments performed on the property located at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 (the “Property”), whether in connection with a home equity line of credit ““HELOC”) or other lending transaction secured by the Property involving Neil and/or Lacy West, including but not limited to: a. The appraisal reports, inspection reports, photographs, or notes from any inspections or appraisals conducted for the purpose of evaluating or underwriting or issuing a HELOC secured by the Property. b. Any correspondence or communications (including emails, letters, text messages, and internal notes) between the mortgage company and any thirdparty vendors, contractors, or professionals (such as appraisers or inspectors) related to the inspections or appraisals of the Property. 2. Mortgage-Related Documents: Any documents, reports, or communications generated or received by the mortgage company in connection with the home equity line of credit (“HELOC”) secured by the Property involving Neil and/or Lacy West, including but not limited to: a. The HELOC application, credit approval documents, and any documents reflecting the credit limit, available line, and any advances or draws, and documents reflecting the extension of a revolving line of credit secured by the Property related to the Property. b. Any valuation reports, repair estimates, or cost of repairs documents provided or requested by the mortgage company as part of the HELOC application, underwriting, or approval process. c. Any documents or communications regarding the condition of the Property, including but not limited to documents related to the Property’s market value, condition, or repair history obtained during the HELOC process. 3. Third-Party Communications: All communications between the mortgage company and any third parties (including, but not limited to, contractors, appraisers, or public adjusters) regarding the condition of the Property or any repairs made to the Property as part of the HELOC process involving Neil and/or Lacy West, including but not limited to: a. Emails, letters, or text messages concerning the condition of the Property or any inspections or repairs conducted before, during, or after the HELOC process."}, {"d": 24, "p": 6, "t": "b. Any internal communications related to concerns about the condition of the Property, repairs, or valuation, which could impact the HELOC underwriting, approval, credit limit determination, or approval or terms of the line of credit (including any conditions or limitations placed on funding or use of the HELOC). 4. Property-Related Reports: Any third-party reports or documentation related to the condition of the Property during the HELOC process involving Neil and/or Lacy West, including but not limited to: a. Insurance loss reports, repair estimates, or documentation related to prior damage or claims affecting the Property that were considered during the HELOC underwriting or approval process."}, {"d": 24, "p": 7, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vv. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) Defendants. ) SUBPOENA TO PEAK APPRAISAL SERVICE, LLC TO PRODUCE AND PERMIT INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS TO: Peak Appraisal Service, LLC c/o Registered Agent, Michael L. Doyle 818 H Street P.O. Box 349 Elgin, Oklahoma 73538 GREETINGS - You are hereby commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of documents in the possession, custody and control of Peak Appraisal Service, LLC in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 on June 17, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. You need not appear in person, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C) (2)(a). The documents which shall be produced are described on the attached Exhibit A. In order to allow objections to the production of documents and things to be filed, you should not produce them until the date specified in this subpoena, and if an objection is filed, until the court rules on the objection. Hereof fail not under penalty of law. Issued this Ist day of June, 2026. by TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700"}, {"d": 24, "p": 8, "t": "timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 6268723"}, {"d": 24, "p": 9, "t": "Exhibit A to Subpoena to Peak Appraisal Service, LLC . All documents, paper or electronic (including visual or audio recordings, photographs, etc.), relating to the house at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, Oklahoma 73505, now or previously owned and/or occupied by Neil and/or Lacy West (the “House”), and any inspections, estimates, evaluations, assessments, repairs, or other work or analysis by Peak Appraisal Service, or any related entity, of that House, and all communications with any person relating thereto. . All agreements and written communications of any kind, paper or electronic, including emails and text messages, with Neil and/or Lacy West or anyone acting on their behalf related to the House, to include hiring an attorney to represent them in recovering benefits for wind or hail damage under their State Farm policy or filing a lawsuit against State Farm, and all documents received from or provided to Neil and/or Lacy West or anyone acting on their behalf. . All written communications and agreements, paper or electronic, with Whitten Burrage, Burgess & Hightower Law Firm (“law firms”), or any of the lawyers from those firms, related to the House, or Neil and/or Lacy West (or anyone acting on their behalf), and all documents, including visual or audio recordings, photographs, etc., received from or provided to the law firms or lawyers relating to the House, or Neil and/or Lacy West (or anyone acting on their behalf). . All written communications, paper or electronic, including emails and text messages, with any homeowner, law firm, attorney, or legal representative, regarding hiring an attorney to represent a homeowner in recovering benefits for wind or hail damage under their insurance policy from January 1, 2022 to the present."}, {"d": 25, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL AND LACY WEST, ) _— ) FILED DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Plaintiff, ) June 1, 2026 3:43 PM ) ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2025-135 Vv. ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC, Defendants. Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) ) ) ) ) ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Lance E. Leffel of the firm of GABLEGOTWALS hereby enter his appearance on behalf of Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, and Nancy Holcomb Ins. Agency, Inc.. See 2 FG. Lance E. Leffel, OBA No.: 19511 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. SHERIDAN AVE., SUITE 2200 PH: 405-235-5500 Email: lleffel@gablelaw.com Attorneys for Defendants"}, {"d": 25, "p": 2, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I do hereby certify that on the Ist day of June, 2026, a true, correct and exact copy of the above and foregoing document was served by placing same in the United States mail, with proper postage thereon duly prepaid, to those parties as listed below: Stephenson, Colby 21 NW 44TH ST SUITE 201 LAWTON, OK 73505 Whitten, Reggie (Bar #9576) 512 N BROADWAY AVE STE 300 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SE GRE."}, {"d": 26, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, DISTRICT COURT ) COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA ) Plaintiffs, v. FILED June 3, 2026 2:46 PM ) ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2025-135 ) ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ AGENCY, INC., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) MOTION TO ASSOCIATE COUNSEL Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, through its counsel Timila S. Rother, Paige A. Masters, and Amanda M. Finch, Crowe Dunlevy, hereby moves the Court for an order permitting Erica B. Zolner to practice in the above-styled and numbered cause pursuant to the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association, 5 O.S. Ch. 1, App. 1, Art. II. This motion is supported by the attached “Signed Application” (Exhibit A), “Certificate of Good Standing” (Exhibit B), and the “Certificate of Compliance” from the Oklahoma Bar Association (Exhibit C), fully su F ix MILA . in ROTHER, OBA #14310 PAIGE A./MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 26, "p": 2, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this Ardday of June, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 30 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 731 Brad W, Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505"}, {"d": 26, "p": 3, "t": "APPLICATION OUT OF STATE ATTORNEY REGISTRATION Erica B. First Name Zoiner Midcle Name , Applicant, respectfully represents: Last Name 1. Applicant is an attorney at law and a member of the law firm of Redgrave LLP Applicant's mailing address is 230 West Monroe Suite 210 Mailing Address Chicago ,_ Cook City (312)800-1968 Telephone aie County 60606 State , (773_}638-2456 (Firm) ; Zip Code ,() Telephone (Applicant's Direct Dial} Fax (Applicant) ezolner@redgravellp.com_. E-mail Address (Applicant) 2. Applicant is admitted to practice and is a member in good standing (certificates of good standing attached) of the bar(s) of the highest state court(s) of the following state(s): State Date of Admission Illinois November 7, 2002 3. Applicant is admitted to practice before the following United States District Courts, United States Circuit Courts of Appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States, and/or other tribunals on the dates indicated for each, and is presently a member in good standing of the bars of said courts: Tribunal Date of Admission EXHIBIT A"}, {"d": 26, "p": 4, "t": "4, Have you ever been suspended or disbarred in any court except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. court, jurisdiction, date): No 5. Are you currently subject to any pending disciplinary proceedings by any organization with authority to discipline attorneys at law except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. court, discipline authority, date, status): No 6. Have you ever received public discipline including, but not limited to, suspension or disbarment, by any organization with authority to discipline attorneys at law except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. court, discipline authority, type of discipline, date, status): No 7. Have you ever had any certificate or privilege to appear and practice before any regulatory or administrative body suspended or revoked except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. administrative body, date, status of suspension or reinstatement): No 8. Applicant seeks admission to practice in the State of Oklahoma in the following matter (give particulars; e.g. caption of case, court or agency, type of matter, party to be represented): Note - A separate application is to be submitted for each matter in which the applicant seeks admission! Neil and Lacy West v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and Nancy Holcomb Ins. Agency District Court in and for Comanche County, Oklahoma Civil Matter Partly to be represented: State Farm Fire and Casualty Company"}, {"d": 26, "p": 5, "t": "9. The Oklahoma Bar Association member who is counsel of record for Applicant in this matter is: Timila S. Rother 14310 First Name Middle Name Last Name O,.B.A. Number 324 North Robinson Avenue Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Mailing Address City (405) 235-7700 , (405) 239-6651 Telephone Number 10. Fax Number OK, 73102, State Zip Code , Timila.rother@croweduntevy.com E-mail Address The following accurately represents the names of each party in this matter and the names and addresses of each counsel of record who appear for that party: Party Name Counsel Name Address of Counsel Lacy West Colby Stephenson 21 NW 44\" St. Ste 201 Lawton, OK 73505 Lacy West Reggie Whitten 512N. Broadway Ave. Ste 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Neil West Colby Stephenson 21 NW 44\" St. Ste 201 Lawton, OK 73505 Neil West Reggie Whitten §12 N. Broadway Ave. Ste 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Stale Farm/Nancy Holcomb Amanda M. Finch 324 N. Robinson Ave. Ste 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 State Farm/Nancy Holcomb Paige A. Masters 324 N, Robinson Ave. Ste 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 State Farm/Nancy Holcomb Timila S. Rother 324 N. Robinson Ave. Ste 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 11. Applicant certifies that he/she shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and disciplinary boards of this state with respect to the laws of this state governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association. 12. Applicant understands and shall comply with the standards of professional conduct required of members of the Oklahoma Bar Association. 13. Applicant has disclosed in writing to the client that the Applicant is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction and the client has consented to such representation."}, {"d": 26, "p": 6, "t": "I, Erica B. Zoiner , do hereby swear/affirm under penaity of perjury that the assertions of this application are true: t am the Applicant in the above referenced matter; | have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge except as to those matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to those matters | believe them to be true. | further certify that | am subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts and disciplinary boards of this state with respect to the law of this state governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association; | understand and shall comply with the standards of professional conduct required by members of the Oklahoma Bar Association; and that | am subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Bar Association with respect to any of my actions occurring in the course of such appearance. DATED this 22 dayof_ April z02b. Circe Applicant Mail with check or money order (payable to the OBA) to: Out-of-State Attorney Registration Okiahoma Bar Association P.O. Box 53036 Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3036 Form 200B 2 ; Fy [pw"}, {"d": 26, "p": 7, "t": "Certificate of Admission To the Bar of Illinois |, Cynthia A. Grant, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Illinois, do hereby certify that Erica Blaschke Zolner has been duly licensed and admitted to practice as an Attorney and Counselor at Law within this State; has duly taken the required oath to support the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES and of the STATE OF ILLINOIS, and also the oath of office prescribed by law, that said name was entered upon the Roll of Attorneys and Counselors in my office on 11/07/2002 and is in good standing, so far as the records of this office disclose. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, | have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of said Court, this 27th day of April, 2026. Cua A. Cvoucks Clerk, Supreme Court of the State of Illinois EXHIBIT B"}, {"d": 26, "p": 8, "t": "Certificate of Conmliance Oklahoma Bar Association 1901 Marth Lincoln Boulevard Vost Office Box 53036 Oblahoma City, Oklahoma 73152-3036 The Oklahoma Bar Association, in response to the application of out-ofstate attorney, submits the following certificate pursuant to 5 O.S. Ch.1 App.1, Art. Il 1. Applicant has submitted a signed application of out-of-state attorneys, certificate(s) of good standing, and the non-refundable application fee pursuant to the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar 2. Date of Application: May 1, 2026 3. Application Number: 2026-306 4, Applying Attorney: on Association, 5 O.S. Ch. 1, App. 1, Art. Il. The Application was: GRANTED Erica B. Zolner Redgrave LLP 230 West Monroe Street, Suite 210 Chicago, IL 60606 Dated this 4\" day of May, 2026. ee Gina L. Hendryx, General Counsel Oklahoma Bar Association Form 400C EXHIBIT C"}, {"d": 27, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE NEIL and LACY WEST, OF OKLAHOMA ) FILED ) — Plaintiff, DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA June 5, 2026 11:13 AM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK ) ) V. ) ) Case Number CJ-2025-135 Case No. CJ-2025-135 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ ) AGENCY, INC., ) ) Defendant ) AMENDED NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS Please notice that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230 of the Oklahoma Discovery Code, the Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company will take the deposition upon oral examination of Bobby Odom, on Thursday, June 25, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, Braniff Building, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102, before an officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the State of Oklahoma. The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic means. A subpoena will be issued to Mr. Odom for his attendance. The subpoena is attached as Exhibit 1. Further, please notice that, pursuant to 12 O.S. §3230 of the Oklahoma Discovery Code, the Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company will take the deposition upon oral examination of Derek Franklin, on Wednesday, June 24, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, Braniff Building, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102, before an officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the State of Oklahoma. The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic means. A subpoena will be issued to Mr. Franklin for his attendance. The subpoena is attached as Exhibit 2. Dated this Sth day of June, 2026."}, {"d": 27, "p": 2, "t": "bre TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this 5th day of June, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM Hannah Whitten 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 6273646 Are"}, {"d": 27, "p": 3, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) “ Case No. CJ-2025-135 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ ) AGENCY, INC., ) ) Defendant ) AMENDED DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO: Bobby Odom Trademark Exteriors Restoration LLC 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 GREETINGS - You are hereby commanded to appear at the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, Braniff Building, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 on Thursday, June 25, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. to testify as a witness in a deposition noticed by Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, in the above-captioned case. The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic means. All parties are invited to attend and cross-examine. Hereof fail not under penalty of law. Issued this 5th day of June, 2026. ze TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 6273664"}, {"d": 27, "p": 4, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. Newnes ast” Saat! ana at! aaa gt at! NEIL and LACY WEST, COUNTY Case No. CJ-2025-135 AMENDED DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO: Jose Parga Coastal Claims Services, LLC 1413 Fox Glen Trail Crowley, Texas 76036 GREETINGS - You are hereby commanded to appear at the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, 2525 McKinnon Street, Suite 425, Dallas, Texas 75201 on Wednesday, June 24, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. to testify as a witness in a deposition noticed by Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, in the above-captioned case. The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic means. All parties are invited to attend and cross-examine. Hereof fail not under penalty of law. Issued this 5th day of June, 2026. Te TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 6273668"}, {"d": 28, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL & L ACY WEST ) COMANCHE ) ) June 8, 2026 4:30 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 , _ Plaintiffs, FILED DISTRICT COURT COUNTY, OKLAHOMA ) Vv. ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB AGENCY, INC., INS. ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY’S OPPOSED APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNREDACTED RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL AND EXHIBIT 3 UNDER SEAL In accordance with 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(2) and 51 O.S. § 24A.29, and Paragraphs 6 and 12 of the Protective Order entered by this Court on May 4, 2026, Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) hereby submits this application for an Order to file Exhibit 3 to its Response to Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel (“Response”) under seal. State Farm additionally seeks leave to redact a reference to Exhibit 3 in its publicly filed version of the Response. In support hereof, State Farm states as follows: l. State Farm is filing its Response contemporaneously with the filing of the present Application. Exhibit 3 to State Farm’s Response, marked HOSIERGAR0073099PROD and LYLEGAR00003873PROD, contains a series of internal emails from March 2021 among State Farm employees Nicole Manduca, Brad Rushton, and Tom Moss regarding potential methods the company could use to review and analyze data relating to the Fire Model Enhancement (the “FME”), an initiative State Farm first undertook in 2020 to improve the quality of claim handling. The document contains and reflects State Farm’s confidential and proprietary claims handling policies, procedures and methodologies and is entitled to confidential protection. See, e.g., Ortez"}, {"d": 28, "p": 2, "t": "v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 17-CV-01202, 2018 WL 11237901, at *2-3 (D. Colo. Oct. 29, 2018) (finding that internal manuals were entitled to protection because defendant “would lose its competitive advantage if these manuals were publicly available—its competitors could replicate UPS’s methods and procedures, which it expended significant time and financial resources to develop.”); Jones v. Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 3:98-CV-2108, 2000 WL 1231402 (M.D. Pa. July 20, 2000) (ordering that “all [produced] documentation, including all company policies and all claims manuals, are to be kept confidential, for the eyes of plaintiff’s counsel only”); Toy v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CV 23-4095, 2025 WL 1179489, at *4 (E.D. La. Apr. 23, 2025) (finding that “State Farm ha[d] established good cause for issuance of [a] protective order treating its claims handling policies, procedures and methodologies as confidential and limiting the[ir] use and disclosure . . . to purposes of this litigation”); Moses Enters., LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 3:19-CV-00477, 2020 WL 7634165, at *3-4 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 22, 2020) (finding that AIG’s insurance claims manuals were entitled to confidential treatment because “they provide very detailed, specific step-by-step instructions that AIG has developed regarding its property and casualty insurance claims”); Hamilton vy. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 204 F.R.D. 420, 423 (S.D. Ind. 2001) (finding State Farm’s claims handling policies, practices and procedures constitute trade secrets or otherwise confidential and proprietary information and issuing protective order governing their disclosure); Jones v. Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 3:98-CV-2108, 2000 WL 1231402, at *4 (M.D. Pa. July 20, 2000) (ordering that “all [produced] documentation, including all company policies and all claims manuals, are to be kept confidential, for the eyes of plaintiff's counsel only”); Adams v. Allstate Ins. Co., 189 F.R.D, 331, 333-34 (E.D. Pa. 1999) (issuing protective order limiting use of claims handling material to that action). 2. State Farm produced Exhibit 3 at HOSIERGAR0073099PROD in Hosier v. State"}, {"d": 28, "p": 3, "t": "Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. CJ-2021-1741 (Okla. Cty.). In accordance with Paragraph | of the Protective Order entered in Hosier on Jan. 3, 2022, State Farm designated this document as Confidential. State Farm also produced the document at LYLEGAR00003873PROD in Lyle v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. CJ-2024-183 (Cleveland Cty.) and designated it as Confidential in accordance with Paragraph | of the Protective Order the court entered in that case on April 3, 2025. 3, To respond to Plaintiff's characterization of Exhibit 3 which they have extrapolated from a brief and which State Farm contends is inaccurate, State Farm’s Response discusses Exhibit 3 at pages 7-8. State Farm expressly reserves (and does not waive) the Confidentiality of that information, consistent with Paragraph 6 of the Protective Order, which provides: “In the event that any ‘Confidential’ material is used in any deposition, filing or court proceedings during the course of this litigation, it shall not lose its ‘Confidential’ status through such use.” State Farm redacted this discussion in the publicly filed version of its Response and requests leave to file the unredacted version under seal. 4, To allow the Court time to decide on the present Application but preserve the Confidentiality of Exhibit 3, State Farm is filing its Response with a proposed redaction and with a placeholder for Exhibit 3. If the Court grants this Application, State Farm will re-file its unredacted Response and Exhibit 3 under seal. If the Court denies the Application, State Farm requests leave to amend its Response to the Second Motion to Compel to remove this Exhibit and the discussion of it. 5, Counsel for State Farm has conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs regarding this Application, and Plaintiffs’ counsel has advised that it is opposed. 6. State Farm has attached a proposed Order for the Court’s consideration as Exhibit"}, {"d": 28, "p": 4, "t": "CONCLUSION State Farm respectfully requests the Court grant this Application and enter the proposed Order attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Res ully su i TIM nied, | | | asSTERS OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this 8th day of June, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 Jake Denne ‘la + WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102"}, {"d": 28, "p": 6, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL & LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vv. ) Case No, CJ-2025-135 ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY’S APPLICATION TO FILE UNREDACTED RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL AND EXHIBIT 3 UNDER SEAL Before the Court is Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Opposed Application for Leave to File Unredacted Response to Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel and Exhibit 3 Under Seal pursuant to Paragraphs 6 and 12 of the Protective Order entered in this matter on May 4, 2026. Upon review of the Application, and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the Application. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that State Farm may re-file an unredacted version of its Response to Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel and Exhibit 3 under seal by placing it in a sealed envelope or folder labeled “Contains Confidential Information — Subject to Court Order.” ITIS SO ORDERED this __ day of June, 2026. GRANT SHEPERD DISTRICT COURT JUDGE"}, {"d": 28, "p": 7, "t": "omy Ci ‘ [1 5) ROTHER, OBA # i 10 PAIGE A./MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 29, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE FILED DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA OF OKLAHOMA June 8, 2026 4:55 PM ROBERT NEIL & LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. ) ) AGENCY, INC., ) MORALES, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) ) Defendants. DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL"}, {"d": 29, "p": 2, "t": "Because Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel (the “Motion” or “MTC”) is built on a false narrative their counsel has created and attributed to State Farm and its counsel, this Response unfortunately must devote space to correcting it, The sole basis of Plaintiffs’ requests concerning “industry standards and/or benchmarks” is State Farm’s purported attempt, through the FME, to “meet arbitrary benchmarks” in connection with its handling of wind/hail and roof claims. MTC at 4—5.! But, as shown by the actual transcripts, in essentially every instance, counsel for Plaintiffs change State Farm’s limited reference to “data” to “standards,” which do not mean the same thing, and then extrapolate that to benchmarks for the number of roofs for which State Farm will purportedly pay. They then argue that counsel for State Farm relies on those “standards” and “benchmarks” as a defense which entitles them to what they seek to compel here. In short, Plaintiffs’ counsel creates their own false narrative and then argue they are permitted discovery based upon it. Indeed, one of Plaintiffs’ transcript cites for these arguments is shown to be false by the very next sentence in the transcript, and so counsel for Plaintiffs just omits that sentence. The need to change and exaggerate arguments to support this Motion is telling and truly inexcusable. Further, Plaintiffs’ accusation that State Farm is acting “contrary to the Discovery Code” is not only false, but is remarkable given that Plaintiffs: 1) move to compel responses to interrogatories 31-34 even though the limit is 30 absent specific procedures and leave of court, which they did not seek or obtain; 2) filed a 21-page brief without leave of court, despite the Local Rule’s 20-page limit; and 3) disregarded the Discovery Code’s requirement to respond to State Farm’s discovery in 30 days, instead responding on day116 and then only after State Farm moved to compel. By contrast, ' See, e.g., RFPs 45-52; MTC at 4-5. 2 “Pata” is simply information while “standard,” as used by Plaintiffs here, is intended to reflect a rule or criteria."}, {"d": 29, "p": 3, "t": "when State Farm does object to Plaintiffs’ irrelevant and disproportionate discovery—objections the Court has at times overruled and at times sustained—it does so timely and either complies with the Court’s Orders or seeks leave of Court when compliance is not possible. As to the actual requests, this Court recently ordered State Farm to produce what will be more than 700,000 documents when production is complete, including voluminous documents about the FME, as well as to produce for deposition Nicole Manduca, who Plaintiffs claim is the “leader” of the FME. While that is underway, and without waiting to see what it yields, Plaintiffs filed this second Motion to Compel seeking information that is either cumulative because it is directly encompassed within the scope of the Court’s April 22, 2026 Order or unnecessary given everything else ordered. It is also irrelevant and disproportionate to the needs of the case. Plaintiffs’ additional requests for deposition transcripts and exhibits from other cases, as well as claim files associated with over five years of wind/hail roof claims and underwriting information for other Comanche County insureds, have no apparent or demonstrated connection to the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim and seek confidential information of other insureds and/or information subject to protective orders in other cases. The Oklahoma Discovery Code’s proportionality and relevance standards require Plaintiffs to proceed with the extensive discovery already ordered and, only if that discovery yields a concrete basis for doing so, return to the Court to seek additional information that is genuinely relevant and proportional to this claim. The current requests rest on speculation based on a fabricated record, and should be rejected. L FACTUALAND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The underlying dispute here is whether Plaintiffs’ roof was totaled by hail. If it was and State Farm failed to find it was totaled by hail, then the question is whether that decision was in bad faith or instead simply a legitimate dispute as to the scope of the damage. There is substantial evidence that State Farm’s claim decision was in fact correct—including two post-storm inspections by 2"}, {"d": 29, "p": 4, "t": "brokers/appraisers who identified no issues with the roof and evidence that the photos submitted to State Farm to persuade it to change its decision were not even of Plaintiffs’ house. There is no evidence that State Farm’s decision was in bad faith but only conclusory allegations of a scheme to deny roof claims, based simply on the fact that State Farm put together a team to evaluate the correctness of its claim determinations, implemented quality checks and then evaluated the results. Counsel’s sinister spin on those unremarkable business operations is not evidence. Plaintiffs have requested and received, or will be receiving, vast discovery aimed at this theory. Pursuant to its originally agreed production and what was ordered by the Court, on June 1, 2026, State Farm produced almost 50,000 documents and expects to produce over 700,000 documents total? The production encompasses vast amounts of FME information that would subsume many of the requests at issue and yet Plaintiffs filed this second MTC in which they seek’: e “Industry Standards” and Benchmarks” Requests (Rogs 31-34; RFPs 45-52). These requests seek production and identification of any wind/hail and full-roof-replacement “industry standards” and “benchmarks”—including any related reports, data, models, analyses, and scope of work documents—State Farm relied on for wind/hail claims and full roof replacements in connection with the FME, including associated claims-handling practices, performance metrics, and alleged efforts to reduce full roof replacement approvals to meet internal or industry benchmarks; the role of Accenture or other third parties in developing them; and State Farm’s performance against them before and after the FME team’s 2020 Dallas kick-off and 2021 Oklahoma rollout. e Deposition Transcripts Requests (RFPs 53-57). Plaintiffs seek deposition transcripts and exhibits for five State Farm employees, none of whom were involved in Plaintiffs’ claim, taken in five unrelated cases each of which had their own protective orders: Nicole Manduca in Nida v. State Farm; Tom Moss in Barnett v. State Farm; Sharon Amold in Johnson v. State Farm; Jacqueline Draper in Hosier v. State Farm; and Jason 3 The documents include claims training materials between 2019 and 2025; information between 2019 and 2025 regarding the FME and wind/hail initiatives, including purported tracking of roof replacements, indemnity savings, and payment volumes; six years of documents and communications relating to managerial approval requirements for full roof replacements; documents about alleged efforts to reduce indemnity payments for wind/hail claims; and all documents previously produced or ordered in six unrelated lawsuits, in addition to Quality Plans and emails of certain section managers and claims personnel about FME. 4 As an organizational tool, State Farm herewith submits a chart of these requests organized by subject-matter with objections noted as Ex. |."}, {"d": 29, "p": 5, "t": "Taylor in Cunanan v. State Farm. e I. Other Insureds’ Claim Files (RFPs 58-59), Plaintiffs seek ail Comanche County homeowner claim files since January 1, 2021 involving wind and hail roof damage, plus the corresponding underwriting materials reflecting each home’s roof covering or rating. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES A. The Oklahoma Discovery Standard. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has made clear that relevance—the threshold requirement for obtaining discovery—“should be firmly applied.” See Quinn v. City of Tulsa, 1989 OK 112, { 63, 777 P.2d 1331, 1342 (quoting Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979)); see also Nitzel v. Jackson, 1994 OK 49, 879 P.2d 1222, n* (“Discovery is not without limitation. It must lead or tend to lead to relevant evidence.”). Relevance to a “party’s claim or defense”—as the Oklahoma Discovery Code requires’—is not simply assumed: when a request is overly broad, or relevance is not clear, “the requesting party must “demonstrate how their request [is] relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Chick-fil-A, Inc. v. Ogden, 2026 OK 13, 416. As such, courts routinely deny discovery that is facially overbroad and irrelevant, such as when discovery requests “sweep in. . . all manner of organizational documents.” In re Kidd, No. 3:20-CV-0800 (KAD), 2020 WL 5594122, at *12 (D. Conn. Sept. 18, 2020).’ Nor does a “plaintiffs broad theory of the case ... necessarily justify broad discovery,” and courts should thus endeavor to “thwart fishing expeditions.” Willis v. Johnson, No. CIV-18-323-D, > Nida v. State Farm et al, No. CJ-2020-4453 (Okla. Dist. Ct. Okla. Cnty.); Barnett v. State Farm et al, No. CJ2020-141 (Okla. Dist. Ct. Grady Cnty.); Johnson v. State Farm et al., No. CJ-2019-4360 (Okla. Dist. Ct. Tulsa Cnty.); Hosier v. State Farm et al., No. CJ-2021-1741 (Okla. Dist. Ct. Okla. Cnty.); Cunanan v. State Farm et al., No. Civ-23-540R (U.S. Dist. Ct, W.D. Okla). 6 12 OS. § 3226 (2025) (“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to any party's claim or defense, reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and proportional to the needs of the case, considering [various factors].”) (emphasis added), 7 See also Conservation L. Found., Inc. y. All-Star Transportation, LLC, No. 3:21-CV-00201 (JBA), 2022 WL 16901999, at *3 (D. Conn. Nov. 11, 2022) (“[T]he Court does not need an affidavit to know that, in asking for substantially all information and documents related to the defendants’ vehicles, real estate, operations, employee job responsibilities, and environmental compliance efforts ... [plaintiff] has requested production of a significant percentage of all the documents the defendants created over the past seven years.”) (citing Jn re Kidd, 2020 WL 5594122, at *11)."}, {"d": 29, "p": 6, "t": "2021 WL 8446071, at *2 (W.D. Okla. May 20, 2021). The Oklahoma Discovery Code, like the Federal Rules, provides that discovery must be “proportional to the needs of the case.” 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1)(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Indeed, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has made clear that a trial court must consider the proportionality of requests before it may compel production. See Ex. 2, Order, Werner Enters., Inc. v. Kirkland, No. 122,385 (Okla. Sept. 24, 2024); see also Chick-fil-A, Inc., 2026 OK 13, § 11. “The proper scope of discovery is that which is both relevant to the claims or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the various factors.” Dodd v. Indian Health Care Res. Ctr. of Tulsa, Inc., No. 24- CV-00327-SH, 2024 WL 4648150, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 1, 2024) (emphasis in original). In Chick-fil-A, Inc. v. Ogden, the Oklahoma Supreme Court applied the Discovery Code’s relevance and proportionality standards to a discovery request with no apparent connection to the underlying incident and was thus “overly broad on its face.” 2026 OK 13, 4 16. The Court held that the trial court erred in allowing facially overbroad discovery without requiring the requesting party to “initially demonstrate how their request was relevant to any party’s claim or defense,” id. { 16, and reaffirmed that Oklahoma’s relevance standard “focus[es] on the actual claims and defenses involved in the action,” not merely its “subject matter.” Jd. §§ 13-15. There, the parents of a two-year-old child sued Chick-fil-A for negligence and wrongful death after a vehicle struck and killed their child in the drive-through lane as the child walked toward the restaurant entrance in Yukon, Oklahoma. 2026 OK 13, § 2. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the trial court judge abused his discretion in granting the parents’ motion to compel documents concerning injuries or deaths at Chick-fil-A restaurants nationwide, along with any “complaints or petitions” alleging negligence caused a motor vehicle- related pedestrian injury or death at any such restaurant, because the requests were facially overly"}, {"d": 29, "p": 7, "t": "broad and the trial court did not “require [Plaintiffs] to initially demonstrate how their request was relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” /d. § 16. In so holding, the Court explained that 12 O.S. § 3226 “was amended in 2017 to more closely follow amendments to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” and observed that “[t]he amendments . . . omitted language that had bearing on whether a discovery request is relevant” and, specifically, that it was no longer sufficient for discovery to be related to “the subject matter” without also being related to “any party’s claim or defense.” Jd. { 12 (emphasis added). Therefore, the Court explained that “[rJecords related to any pedestrian accident that occurred in a Chick-fil-A parking lot may be relevant to the subject matter involved here. But that is no longer the standard.” Id. § 15 (emphasis added), The Court also observed that the “drafters of the federal rules” from which Section 3226 is derived “wanted to emphasize that ‘proportionality’ is a core element in assessing the scope of discovery.” Jd. § 11. Here, the Court should deny the Motion because (1) the prior discovery requests that are the subject of the Court’s April 22, 2026 Order subsume many of Plaintiffs’ requests; and, in any event, (2) Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how any of the disputed discovery requests (which are overly broad and facially irrelevant) relate to Plaintiffs’ claims. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs seek additional enterprise-wide discovery for a span of five to sixteen years, or for an undefined period, that they contend relates to the subject matter of their counsel’s invented scheme—one they have not shown impacted the claim decision they are challenging, as the law requires. B. Plaintiffs’ “Evidence” Standards” Does Not Establish A Scheme Involving “Industry As a threshold matter, as explained in the introduction, none of the testimony or arguments Plaintiffs cite supports their contention that State Farm undertook “efforts to reach some benchmark with respect to State Farm’s aggregate, pre-determined claim handling on Wind/hail Claims before those claims occur.” (MTC at 7-8.) Indeed, counsel’s false portrayal of every piece of information"}, {"d": 29, "p": 8, "t": "they put forward is alone grounds for denial of the Motion. First, Plaintiffs cite their counsel’s self-serving brief in Nida v. State Farm to argue that “Thomas Moss identified that State Farm’s Scheme appeared to reflect efforts to reach some benchmark with respect to State Farm’s aggregate, pre-determined claim handling on Wind/Hail Claims before those claims occur.” Jd. at 7. But, that brief selectively quotes from a document State Farm produced in another matter (HOSIERGAR0073099PROD) that—read in full—shows the opposite: Mr. Moss confirmed that State Farm does not P| a” Ex. 3. Second, Plaintiffs misuse the testimony of Jason Taylor in Kyger v. State Farm, where Mr. Taylor served as State Farm’s corporate representative on topics relating to Haag—mot the FME. MTC Ex. 9 at 12:1-13:10, In that off-topic questioning, Plaintiffs’ counsel asked Mr. Taylor to read cherry-picked excerpts from documents Mr. Taylor expressly testified he had never seen and could not place in context. /d, at 244:3-245:4; 256:09-258:14. That testimony proves nothing about State Farm’s alleged use of benchmarks or standards. Third, Plaintiffs also selectively quote from the statements of State Farm’s counsel at hearings in other cases, Black v. State Farm, No. CJ-2024-7827 (Okla. Cnty) and Cox, et al. v. State Farm, No. CJ-2024-7630 (U.S. Dist. Ct. W.D. Okla.), to suggest State Farm affirmatively invoked and relied on “industry standards” as a defense. MTC at 6, 9-11. But State Farm’s counsel expressly stated in Black “according to [Plaintiffs] ... you’re going to hear about standards, there aren’t standards, there aren’t benchmarks, There’s industry data.” MTC Ex. 12 at 36:6-13. And yet, counsel for Plaintiff in Black, just like here, said in a rebuttal argument moments later “Ms. Rother talked about ‘industry standards. . . ’ve seen this. It’s just industry standards’” 239 and complained that"}, {"d": 29, "p": 9, "t": "State Farm would not produce those standards. Tr. pp. 37, 69-70, Ex. 7 hereto. It was then only in response to counsel for Plaintiffs, again changing the words and the meaning, that Judge Mai made the statement that she would require production of “industry standards” if they were used Jd. Counsel for Plaintiff does it again here. Fourth, Plaintiffs’ recounting of an email exchange relating to statements from an inchambers appearance in another case, Barlow v. State Farm (MTC at 9-11; MTC Exs. 10-11), is not an admission that “industry standards” exist and the argument is silly. Initially, Plaintiffs continue their false or careless statements to the Court here by claiming that “State Farm makes this objection blindly, as the representations before Judge Russell were made by different counsel for a different firm and outside the presence of any counsel for Defendants entered into this case.” (MTC at 9). In fact, as evidenced by the attached emails (Exs. 10-11), the undersigned was in fact counsel at the federal court Barlow in Chambers meeting (it was not in “open court” (MTC at 9)). Next, Plaintiffs’ “you didn’t respond to my false email immediately so it must be true” argument is based on the untenable premise that an email not met with an immediate objection becomes an evidentiary admission. If that were the law, parties could manufacture evidence by sending false emails and then treating any delayed response—or no response at all—as proof of their own arguments. In any event, State Farm’s counsel did dispute counsel’s misstatements in an email about two weeks later (MTC Ex. 11), did so again in discovery responses, and at every hearing since. MTC at 12; MTC Ex. 12 at Rogs 31-34; RFPs 46-47, 51-52. The Court need only review the existing transcripts to see that counsel for Plaintiff is rewriting the narrative. Finally, and most egregiously, Plaintiffs’ counsel gratuitously misuses excerpts from a hearing before a discovery master in the Adair/Cox/Pruitt v. State Farm cases pending in Oklahoma County to manufacture “additional examples of State Farm’s being inconsistent regarding their"}, {"d": 29, "p": 10, "t": "‘industry standard’ defense,” claiming the undersigned “defended State Farm’s use of Haag engineering as the ‘industry standard’ on roofs, and then confusingly claimed she did not say a word about ‘industry standards.’ (MTC, p. 6) That is false. The record shows counsel for State Farm mentioned only that Haag was industry standard for training on wind hail identification, said nothing at all about data or standards for the number of roof replacements or anything like it, and yet counsel for Plaintiffs launched into the same industry standards/benchmarks for total roof replacements argument they make here (an entirely different issue than Haag training) stating: And, Judge, what I think is really important here is Ms. Rother did make a defense today about industry standards. She talked on and on about how they learned that they needed to comply with certain industry standards and that they were overpaying. Well, every single one of these claims needs to be handled on their individual merits, but to the extent that they’re relying on industry standards, they need to produce them. We have yet to see these industry standards. Cox/Pruitt/Adair Hearing Transcript, at 95, Ex. 8 hereto. Because of this specific and recurring effort to attribute to counsel arguments not made and, as proven by their arguments in this MTC, that a failure to correct will later be cited as an admission, counsel for State Farm responded: Your Honor, I will say only that .. . I did not say a word about industry standards, which they then just used to make a whole new argument with which we disagree, and I'm not going to respond to. I did not -- I said we looked at closed claims. I didn't say anything about industry standards. She attributed that to me and then Mr. Sonne picked it up and made a whole argument around it that we specifically disagree with. The only industry reference I made was to Haag being known in the industry for its training on wind and hail. Id. at 105-106. And then Plaintiffs’ counsel, to imply inconsistent arguments and positions by State Farm leave out the argument to which counsel for State Farm was responding (quoted above) and the last sentence of the response (in bold above) that explains what was referenced instead. C. Plaintiffs’ Bad Faith Allegations Do Not Justify the Requested Discovery. Plaintiffs’ bare-bones bad faith allegations do not justify their expansive discovery requests concerning, infer alia, State Farm’s enterprise-wide operations and/or dealings with other insureds. As the Oklahoma Supreme Court held in Chick-fil-A, the Court must limit discovery to the claims"}, {"d": 29, "p": 11, "t": "and defenses of the specific case at issue, not to allegations of other wrongdoings. Chick-fil-A, Inc., 2026 OK 13, § 16. Plaintiffs’ briefing and proffered evidence fail to show how the facts underlying their claim—i.e., the “specific [alleged] wrongdoing” here—reflect a “pattern and practice” or “scheme.” Jd. This alone warrants denial of the Motion. As stated in Morecroft v. Farmers Ins. Co., No. 09-CV-175-TCK-FHM, 2010 WL 1257579, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 25, 2010): Although relevancy is broadly defined for discovery purposes, it is not without bounds. The broad scope of discovery does not give a Plaintiff pursuing a bad faith claim unfettered license to examine all data regardless of how attenuated a relationship that data may have to the decision-making pertaining to Plaintiff's particular insurance claim. (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Morecroff court denied the request for policies related to the insurer’s loss ratio for Oklahoma motor vehicle claims from 2004 to 2008, because the “plaintiff [did] not provide[] the court with any information to support his theory or explain how it is applicable to this case.” Jd. at *2. Likewise, Plaintiffs offer no evidence from State Farm’s claim-specific productions showing how their claim facts intersect with the claimed scheme. Because claim- specific evidence does not support Plaintiffs’ theory, they instead distort the FME to a nefarious effort to deny roof claims. MTC at 4. State Farm has stated previously and reiterates that is simply argument of counsel and wrong. See e.g. Ex. 4, Declaration of Nicole Manduca {| 3. The alternative, abandoning all guidelines, training, and oversight, would leave policyholders exposed to arbitrary, inconsistent, and potentially uninformed decisions by untrained claim handlers. D. Plaintiffs’ Punitive Damages Claim Does Not Justify Broad Discovery. Plaintiffs erroneously contend that the discovery at issue—particularly requests relating to industry standards and other insureds’ claims files—is relevant to punitive damages. As the United States Supreme Court has made clear, punitive damages must be based on the alleged misconduct at issue in a particular case—not unrelated acts. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins, Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 422 (2003) (“A defendant’s dissimilar acts, independent from the acts upon which 10"}, {"d": 29, "p": 12, "t": "liability was premised, may not serve as the basis for punitive damages.”); see also Online Oil, Inc. vy. CO&G Prod. Grp., LLC, 2018 OK CIV APP 1 4 40, 419 P.3d 337, 350 (quoting Campbell, supra). Here, the claim file of every single homeowner in Comanche County who made a claim for wind or hail damage for the past five years, or purported “industry standards” Plaintiffs have not connected to the merits of this case, cannot justify punitive damages under that standard. To the extent Plaintiffs argue this discovery is necessary to investigate their alleged theory of the FME (MTC at 6-7, 15-17), as discussed above, the Court has already ordered FME-related discovery that _will be sufficient for Plaintiffs to “investigate” their fabricated scheme. Any additional discovery in the name of punitive damages is unwarranted and disproportionate. Plaintiffs offer no evidence that State Farm’s decision was based on anything beyond State Farm’s judgment that there was no further damage beyond that estimated by State Farm (Pet. 4 40(c), (f), (k)). Thus, there is no factual basis for the notion that a punitive damages claim will even reach the jury.® E. Industry The Additional Discovery Sought Is Irrelevant and Disproportionate. Standards & Benchmarks Requests (Rogs 31-34; RFPs 45-52). As an initial matter, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Interrogatory Nos. 31-34 should be denied outright because they exceed the statutory limit of 30, 12 O.S. §3233 (‘The number of interrogatories to a party shall not exceed thirty in number.”) If additional interrogatories are believed to be necessary, § 3233 has a very specific required procedure that Plaintiffs have not met or even attempted to meet, as follows: If counsel for a party believes that more than thirty interrogatories are necessary, counsel 8 If punitive damages were awarded based on the existence of a scheme (which State Farm denies), State Farm cannot be penalized multiple times for the same alleged conduct. See 23 O.S. § 9.1(C) (punitive damages against an insurer for breaching duty of good faith must be reduced by amounts paid in prior punitive damage verdicts in the state for the same conduct, and any award entered otherwise is void and reversible error). Plaintiffs’ counsel alleges the same purported scheme and seeks punitive damages in multiple cases against State Farm. Thus, any punitive damages award must be reduced to the extent State Farm was already penalized for the same conduct and the idea of punitive damages justifying broad and excessive discovery is increasingly ineffective. lh"}, {"d": 29, "p": 13, "t": "shall consult with opposing counsel promptly and attempt to reach a written stipulation as to a reasonable number of additional interrogatories. Counsel are expected to comply with this requirement in good faith. In the event a written stipulation cannot be agreed upon, the party seeking to submit such additional interrogatories shall file a motion with the court (1) showing that counsel have conferred in good faith but sincere attempts to resolve the issue have been unavailing, (2) showing reasons establishing good cause for their use, and (3) setting forth the proposed additional interrogatories. Id. Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory Nos. 31-33 are unauthorized, compliance with § 3233 was not even attempted and those interrogatories must be denied on that basis alone. See Wright v. Stagnaro Distributing, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-369, 2021 WL 1383374, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 13, 2021) (denying untimely motion to serve nine interrogatories over the limit, noting that “[t]he Court cannot condone defendant’s unilateral decision to ignore the requirements of [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 33(a)(1), which contains an unambiguous limitation on the number of interrogatories which can be propounded”).” As to the document requests (and the interrogatories if they were permissible), Plaintiffs’ socalled “industry standards” requests already fall within the scope of the Court’s prior order either specifically or in substance. The sole justification Plaintiffs assert for the requests in this category is their “industry standard” and “benchmark” theories under the FME (MTC at 4-5.) But Plaintiffs have already requested—and State Farm has been ordered to produce—voluminous FME-related documents and information, including documents and information related to management and executive employees involved in FME, third-party consultants and any related agreements, nationwide agent training and information dissemination, and detailed descriptions of the creation, implementation, and analyses related to FME and any other “wind/hail” initiatives. (See, ¢.g., Rogs. 9 Just last month, in three Western District of Oklahoma cases against State Farm involving nearly identical allegations and discovery, Judge Russell denied outright the plaintiffs motion to compel interrogatories that exceeded the Federal Court’s limit of 25 interrogatories. Barlow v. State Farm Fire & Cas, Co., No. 5:25-cv00044-R (W.D. Okla. May 12, 2026), Dkt. 97, Order at 6, Ex. 9; Porter v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:25-cv-00187-R (W.D. Okla. May 12, 2026), Dkt. 81, Order at 1, Ex. 10; and Cisneros v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:25-cv-00042-R (W.D. Okla. May 12, 2026), Dkt. 77, Order at 1, Ex. 11. 12"}, {"d": 29, "p": 14, "t": "6, 7, 9, 13, 28, 29; RFPs 21-24, 35-39, 43.). Plaintiffs previously argued—in support of their First Motion to Compel—that these and other such requests were relevant and necessary, infer alia, to discover “the basis, analysis, and reports used to trigger State Farm’s efforts to achieve some arbitrary industry standard.” (First MTC at 12 (emphasis added).)'° In other words, documents regarding “industry standards” related to FME, if any exist and as Plaintiffs themselves previously acknowledged, are already subsumed within Plaintiffs’ prior requests for documents associated with the FME. State Farm disagrees that the materials previously sought are at all relevant to this case. Nonetheless, State Farm’s Court-ordered production of FME-related documents—which State Farm does not concede are relevant or proportional to this case—renders moot or unnecessary a substantial portion of Plaintiffs’ Motion. In the alternative, if Plaintiffs’ discovery requests seek something other than “industry standards” related to the FME, Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy Oklahoma’s relevance standard. These requests are facially overbroad—seeking enterprise-wide information regarding, e.g., State Farm’s use of “industry standards” and work with Accenture or “any other third party” for at least 16 years— and the burden thus falls on Plaintiffs to “demonstrate how their requests are relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Chick-fil-A, 2026 OK 13, { 16. But at no point in their lengthy diatribe about “industry standards” do Plaintiffs identify any “standards” other than those related to State Farm’s alleged use of metrics and data in the FME. (See MTC at 6-11.) Thus, to the extent Plaintiffs’ new discovery requests extend beyond their old requests for documents related to the FME, Plaintiffs have provided no basis to find such documents relevant to their claims here.\" 10 See also id. at 4 (arguing that the Court should grant Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel because “Accenture provided State Farm with alleged “industry standards” on full roof replacements on Wind/Hail insurance claims nationwide” and that “State Farm and the WHMET acted upon Accenture’s consulting and worked with Accenture to develop its Wind/Hail Scheme to reduce its internal performance measures on percentages of full roof replacements to the alleged much lower industry standards”). 't Plaintiffs also mischaracterize State Farm’s counsel’s prior comments in an attempt to justify their expansive 13"}, {"d": 29, "p": 15, "t": "What is more, to the extent Plaintiffs’ requests seek to expand the scope of discovery beyond the limits of the April 22, 2026 Order, the Court should deny them for the same reasons it found that Plaintiffs’ prior requests for, inter alia, “all documents related to the Fire Model Enhancement” (RFP No. 14 (emphasis added)) and “all documents related to the implementation of any measures, program rules, tactics, claims handling procedures or policies related to the Fire Model Enhancement” (RFP No. 15 (emphasis added)) were overbroad. That is, the Court sustained State Farm’s objections to these and other unspecific requests for “all documents” related to the FME because they were insufficiently tailored. The same is true here to the extent Plaintiffs are using the new requests to end-run the Court’s prior limitations on discovery relating to the FME. ” Nor have Plaintiffs identified any claim-specific information showing that State Farm’s use of Accenture consulting services played any role in the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim. Thus, Plaintiffs’ requests for “all documents received or produced by Accenture” or “any other third party for any consulting or other work related to industry standards” (see RFP 47); all documents, data, or models supplied to Accenture regarding “industry standards” (see RFP 50); all documents, data, or models used by Accenture (see RFP 51); or all contracts, agreements, or scope of work documents between State Farm and Accenture (see RFP 52) are simply not relevant or proportionate to Plaintiffs’ claims. Courts routinely deny plaintiffs access to information about their insurer’s consultant engagements designed to improve claim handling when plaintiffs cannot directly connect that consulting work to the claim decisions at issue in their case. See, e.g., Nava v. Allstate Texas Lloyds, No. 1:20-CV-415, 2021 WL 7906872, at *6 (E.D. Tex. July 14, 2021) (denying plaintiff's requests for documents requests. See supra, at 8. 2 For example, in Barlow, Judge Russell denied requests for “all documents” and “all correspondence” related to the FME or other wind/hail initiatives finding the requests “not sufficiently tailored to the claims” and the use of omnibus phrases like “any and all” make it “difficult to identify the outer limit of the request and renders the requests overly broad.” Barlow, at 6, 9, 10. 14"}, {"d": 29, "p": 16, "t": "concerning the defendant’s relationship with a consulting firm in a bad-faith insurance dispute because the plaintiff failed to show that the requests were tailored to her specific causes of action, and deeming them “a fishing expedition.”); Hall-Williams v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. CV 07-4257, 2008 WL 11355077, at *5-7 (E.D. La. March 28, 2008) (same; citing cases). The Nava and Hall-Williams holdings are consistent with the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s directive in Chick-fil-A that trial courts must limit discovery based on the claims and defenses of the specific case at issue, not on allegations of other wrongdoing. As in Nava and Hall-Williams Plaintiffs fail to show that Accenture’s work for State Farm, or any analysis of “industry standards,” played any part in the handling of their claim. The Motion should be denied on that basis alone. Deposition Transcripts (RFPs 53-57). Plaintiffs seek the deposition transcripts and exhibits for the following current and former State Farm employees from five unrelated lawsuits involving different insureds, coverage issues, claim handling personnel, weather events, and circumstances: e Nida Claim (Deposition of Nicole Manduca). RFP 53 seeks the transcript and exhibits to the deposition of Senior Leader/Director of Property & Casualty Operations Nicole Manduca from Nida v. State Farm, which involved an insurance claim arising from a storm on or about October 6, 2019, over three years before the alleged date of loss here. ¢ Barnett Claim (Deposition of Thomas Moss). RFP 54 seeks the transcript and exhibits to the deposition of former Claim Consultant Thomas Moss from Barnett v. State Farm, which involved an insurance claim arising from a weather event in June 2019, approximately four years before Plaintiffs’ date of loss here. e Johnson Claim (Deposition of Sharon Arnold). RFP 55 seeks the transcript and exhibits to the deposition of Section Manager Sharon Arnold from Johnson v. State Farm, which involved an insurance claim arising from a storm in August or September 2017 and May or June 2019, years before the alleged date of loss here. e Hosier Claim (Deposition of Jacqueline Draper). RFP 56 seeks the transcript and exhibits to the deposition of Team Manager Jacqueline Draper from Hosier v. State Farm, which involved an insurance claim arising from a weather event on April 28, 2020, over three years before Plaintiffs’ date of loss. e Cunanan Claim (Deposition of Jason Taylor). RFP 57 seeks the transcript and exhibits to the corporate representative deposition of Team Manager Jason Taylor from Cunanan v. State Farm, which involved an insurance claim arising from a weather event on October 14, 2021, 15"}, {"d": 29, "p": 17, "t": "nearly two years before the date of loss here. Plaintiffs’ distorted characterization of the testimony in these transcripts concerning other claims—coupled with their conclusory assertions that Mr. Moss, Ms. Draper, Mr. Taylor, Ms. Manduca, and Ms. Arnold were involved in claim handling in Oklahoma and that these cases “involve[s] the same Scheme alleged here”—does not make the requested transcripts discoverable here. MTC at 11. Testimony from “other cases that involved completely different parties, circumstances and facts than those present in the instant action is irrelevant to plaintiff's claims and this lawsuit and, therefore, is not discoverable.” Randall v. Govt Emps. Ins. Co., No. CIV-09-166- M, 2009 WL 10671732, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 26, 2009)'8 (denying motion to compel production of corporate representative depositions from other bad-faith suits involving underinsured motorist claims, noting “[w]hether an insurance company has acted in good faith is extremely fact-dependent and is governed by what the insurance company knew or could have known about the specific facts and circumstances in any given claim.”). Alleging a “scheme” does not automatically entitle Plaintiffs to broad discovery from unrelated lawsuits without showing the requested discovery is relevant and proportional to the instant litigation. Chick-fil-A, 2026 OK 13, ¢ 15 (explaining relevance to the “subject matter” alone does not make information discoverable: “[t]hat is no longer the standard.”). Plaintiffs must explain how discovery concerning other insureds’ dissimilar claims is relevant and proportional to the claims and defenses at issue here. See id. Plaintiffs have not done so. This “cloned discovery” also contravenes established authority holding that “wholesale duplicates of discovery produced in other litigation,” based solely on overlapping issues, fails to meet relevance and proportionality standards. TravelPass Grp., LLC v. Caesars Ent. Corp., No. 5:18-CV- '3 Although Randall involved a corporate representative deposition, its reasoning applies equally to individual depositions taken in other cases. 16"}, {"d": 29, "p": 18, "t": "153-RWS-CMC, 2020 WL 698538, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2020).'* Documents produced in other cases are not public materials, and these requests thwart the protective orders intended to safeguard confidential information in those cases. See, e.g., Good v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2023 OK CIV APP 28, { 14, 536 P.3d 961, 970, reh'g denied (Mar. 13, 2023) (rejecting request for productions in another lawsuit because discovery materials are not public materials).'> RFPs 53-57 should be denied. Other Insureds’ Claim Files (RFPs 58-59). In its ruling on Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel, the Court sustained State Farm’s objections to Plaintiffs’ demands that State Farm produce a voluminous amount of information about other insureds’ claims in response to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory Nos. 3,' 22,!7 and 23.'8 April 22, 2026 Order. Plaintiffs acknowledge that RFPs 58 and 59 “seek substantially similar information and documents” to those they sought in the very interrogatories the Court denied in its April 22, 2026 Order. See MTC at 15. Nonetheless, they argue (in a footnote) that the Court should “revisit” its April 22, 2026 ruling as to their new Requests because they have limited those requests to “Comanche County” and the time period “2021 to the present.” See id. at n.7. This is a distinction without a difference. In fact, Plaintiffs’ new demands are even broader than the requests that the Court found irrelevant and overbroad. \\4 Se also Goro v. Flowers Foods, Inc., No. 17-CV-02580-JLS-JLB, 2019 WL 6252499, at *18 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2019). 'S See also Thomas v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., No. 16-CV-17-TCK, 2016 WL 11258178, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 29, 2016) (denying discovery into other claims arising from the same kind of loss event); AG Equip. Co. v. AIG Life Ins. Co., No. 07-CV-556-CVE, 2008 WL 5205192, at *5 (N.D. Okla. Dec. 10, 2008) (refusing to compel discovery of other insureds’ claim files because “Plaintiffs have offered no foundation from which the Court can conclude that these files are relevant to the claims and defenses herein or may lead to admissible evidence”). 16 “Please identify all Wind/Hail Claims and corresponding civil cases in Oklahoma since January 1, 2019 wherein a Total or Full Roof Replacement was denied prior to a lawsuit being filed, but was subsequently approved and/or paid to an insured after the insured filed a civil lawsuit against State Farm.” 17 1 dentify the total number of homeowners’ wind/hail claims from 2019-present in Oklahoma in which State Farm found damage the insured roofs soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to exceed the policy's deductible.” '8 Identify the total number of homeowners’ wind/hail claims from 2019 to present in Oklahoma in which State Farm found damage the insured roof's soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to warrant a Full or Total Roof Replacement.” 17"}, {"d": 29, "p": 19, "t": "Plaintiffs demand a “copy of every claim file where a homeowner made a claim for wind and hail damage to their roof in Comanche County since January 1, 2021 to the present” (RFP 58 (emphasis added)) and “any roof cover section or roof rating in the underwriting file for each home” (RFP 59). But RFPs 58 and 59 are facially overbroad, unduly burdensome, and are strikingly similar to the “dissimilar incidents” requests at issue in Chick-fil-A. These requests encompass claims arising from different weather events; handled by different claim personnel; and based on different factual circumstances. Plaintiffs have not explained, nor can they, how claims involving different policies, people, properties and storms are relevant to the issues here, See Chick-fil-A, Inc., 2026 OK 13, ff 14-15; City Nat'l Bank, 1990 OK CIV APP 89, { 18, 804 P.2d 463. Indeed, the requested discovery— claim files for al! wind/hail roof claims in Comanche County for five years regardless of claim outcome—extends even beyond the “subject matter” of the purported scheme to deny roof claims. Plaintiffs’ cases (MTC at 16-17) only underscore the overbreadth of this request.!? For example, in Jones v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., No. CYV-11-159-R, 2012 WL 12863976, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 29, 2012), the court recognized that while pattern or practice evidence may be relevant, requiring a manual search of all “relevant” claims files imposed an undue burden. On reconsideration, the court held that the burden of reviewing all claims files outweighed their minimal relevance. (See Ex. 5, Order, Jones v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., No. CIV-11-159-R (W.D, Okla. Apr. 20, 2012), Dkt. No. 86.) '9 Plaintiffs misplace reliance on Reibert v. CSAA Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., as the court in that case limited requests relating to other claims to those directly in line with the plaintiffs’ allegations regarding use of a specific thirdparty engineer for a period of three years. No. 17-CV-350-CVE-JFJ, 2018 WL 279348, at *9 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 3, 2018). Moreover, Vining v. Enters. Fin. Grp., Inc., 148 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 1998), Metzger v. Am. Fid. Assur. Co., No. CIV-05-1387-M, 2007 WL 4342082 (W.D. Okla. Dee. 7, 2007), Markham v. Nat'l States Ins. Co., 122 Fed. App’x 392 (10th Cir. 2004), Barnes v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 2000 OK 55, { 19, 11 P3d 162, 170, as corrected (July 25, 2000), as corrected (Aug. 9, 2000), as corrected (Jan. 16, 2001), and Copeland ». Tela Corp., 2003 OK CIV APP 98, { 3, 79 P.3d 1128, 1130 did not even address discovery disputes and instead involved evidentiary rulings limiting the admissible evidence to fact patterns similar to those at issue. Plaintiff also misstates Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co. v. Russell, 2025 OK 79, 579 P.3d 728. There, the Oklahoma Supreme Court did not address the relevance of the production of claim files. The writ only challenged whether insureds’ addresses could be disclosed and whether the plaintiffs properly served their request. 18"}, {"d": 29, "p": 20, "t": "The same reasoning applies here. As set forth in the Declaration of Jacob Nimesgerm (Ex. 6), claims materials are stored in State Farm’s Enterprise Claim System (“ECS”). An electronic search of ECS identified 2,969 wind/hail claims in Comanche County, Oklahoma for the period January 1, 2021, through May 1, 2025. Ex. 6, 5. State Farm cannot, however, structure a query to determine which of the 2,969 wind/hail claims involved alleged roof damage, rather than damage to other parts of the property. Id. at ] 6. As such, further filtering is not possible to identify claims that meet the full criteria of RFP 58 and State Farm must manually review all 2,969 claim files to determine if they meet the criteria. Id. Claim file volume varies from less than one hundred to several thousand pages per claim. /d. at { 7. For context, the Claim File at issue in this case is about 834 pages, Based on counsel’s experience, reviewing a single claim file to determine if RFP 58’s criteria are met would require at least 20 minutes. Applying this average to the 2,969 claims identified, the total review time would be at least 989 hours. But that would not end the inquiry. For each claim file responsive to RFP 58, RFP 59 demands production of “any roof cover section or roof rating in the underwriting file for each home.” After manually reviewing 2,969 claim files for RFP 58, State Farm would need to collect and review each responsive home’s underwriting information to identify any “roof cover section or roof rating” for production. Complying with these requests would require multiple reviewers and could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees—an extraordinary burden given the amount in controversy is a fraction of the compliance cost. See Hammond v, Lyndon S. Ins. Co., No. CIV-19-245-D, 2019 WL 6118269 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 18, 2019) (finding that the cost to review 6,753 responsive claim files outweighed any possible benefit, especially given the amount in controversy).”° The same logic the Hammond court applied to deny a compelling order applies here. 20 In Grove v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 13-CV-754-JED-FHM, 2014 WL 11636148 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 23, 2014), the court denied plaintiffs’ requests for five years of records relating to complaints of State Farm’s 19"}, {"d": 29, "p": 21, "t": "F. State Farm’s Objections Are Proper. Finally, Plaintiffs’ claim that “State Farm’s Responses here consist entirely of boilerplate objections.” (MTC at 16 (emphasis in original).) That is false. State Farm’s Responses explain how its objections apply to specific requests. Plaintiffs’ argument also disregards the governing principles of the Oklahoma Discovery Code, as well as the legitimate concerns that underlie State Farm’s objections.?! State Farm’s objections are not only proper but necessary to preserve its rights and to ensure that discovery is confined to matters of relevance, proportionality, and clarity as the law requires. Plaintiffs’ expansive and unfocused discovery requests fail to meet these standards. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel. psi } | | || “S TIMITAS. ROTHER OBA #14310 \\\\ \\/ } MASTERS, OBA # 31142 PAIGE A. AMANDA M, FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY claim handling, finding the requests were overly broad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant. 21 Plaintiffs’ reliance on Fed Ins. Co. v. Indeck Power Equip. Co., No. CIV-15-491-D, 2016 WL 5173402, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 21, 2016) and Touhy v. Walgreen Co., No. CIV-05-135-M, 2006 WL 1716646, at *] (W.D. Okla. June 21, 2006), aff'd sub nom., 526 F.3d 641 (10th Cir. 2008), is misplaced because Oklahoma law is clear that burden to demonstrate relevance of a facially overbroad request lies with the requesting party. 20"}, {"d": 29, "p": 22, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 8th day of June, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER FIRM 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John 8. Sanders Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS __ \\ 21 : wh LAW"}, {"d": 29, "p": 24, "t": "Neil and Lacy West v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. et al. — No. CJ-2025-135 (District Court of Comanche County, Oklahoma, Hon. Grant Sheperd) No. . Discovery Requests ’ es State Farm’s Objection(s) Period Covered “Industry Standards” and Benchmark Requests IROG | Identify the industry standards regarding 31 | wind/hail claims and/or full roof |e Exceeds the 30 Interrogatory limit set by 12 O.S.§ 3233(A); replacements on wind/hail claims e Seeks information not relevant to identified by counsel for State Farm at resolution of claims and defenses the Status Hearing on December 11, in this case; 2025 before Judge Russell in Barlow v. State Farm, CIV-25-44-R, including what are the standards, where such standards are published, when were such standards identified and for what timeframe and geographical location, | © which insurance companies data were litigation), and time (not limited to standards were sought, created, or provided to or by State Farm. materials applicable to Oklahoma); Seeks irrelevant information used or were otherwise relied upon in creating such standards, and why such a reasonable period of time) , and geographic area (not limited to e IROG | Identify and describe the role of 32 Unduly burdensome and not proportional to needs of case; Overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this | Accenture, or any of its affiliates, or any other third party in identifying the regarding claims of other insureds; ° industry standards regarding wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on the Status Hearing on December 11, |* Vague and ambiguous as to terms used; |* 2025 before Judge Russell in Barlow v. Seeks confidential/proprietary/ trade secret business information and/or information protected by State Farm, CIV-25-44-R, and the role attorney client or other legal of Accenture, or any of its affiliates, or any other third party in consulting, present! rights of non-p arty policyholders; wind/hail claims, including standards identified by counsel for State Farm at Seeks confidential business information invading privacy 2010 through privileges; ¢ Seeks information/documents research, and other work with State authored and/or copyrighted by Farm on the identification, development, and/or reliance by State Farm on such entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not industry standards. e at liberty to produce; and Impermissibly assumes facts. IROG | Identify and describe State Farm’s 33 _| performance in relation to any industry ' Plaintiff’s discovery requests define the “Relevant Time Period” as 2010 through the present, unless otherwise stated in a specific discovery request."}, {"d": 29, "p": 25, "t": "No. Discovery Requests standards regarding wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including standards identified by counsel for State Farm at the Status Hearing on December 11, 2025 before Judge Russell in Barlow v. State Farm, CIV-25-44-R, both before and after the FME team implemented its tactics and Kick Off in Dallas in 2020 and subsequent introduction into Oklahoma by 2021. TROG 34 Identify and describe Your actions and analysis, including models, data used, the output relied upon, data sent to Accenture or any of its affiliates, and the supporting documentation relied upon to ensure that any industry standards regarding wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including standards identified by counsel for State Farm at the Status Hearing on December 11, 2025 before Judge Russell in Barlow v. State Farm, CIV-25-44-R, were accurate, vetted, and otherwise reflected actual claims and reliable data. RFP 45 Produce the industry standards and/or other standards or benchmarks relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on Wind/Hail claims that You relied on and/or utilized in any way with respect to, regarding, or relating to (1) Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives, (ii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Dallas County, Texas; (111) implementation of Fire Model State Farm’s Objection(s) Period Covered"}, {"d": 29, "p": 26, "t": "No. Discovery Requests Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Texas; (iv) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Oklahoma; (v) claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans; (vi) Fire Model Enhancement Guidelines; (vii) tracking of indemnity savings, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims; and/or (viii) a standard percentage of Full Roof Replacements to Your internal standard on percentage of Full Roof Replacements; and/or (ix) any opportunity for internal quality improvement by seeking to lower Your percentage of approvals for full roof replacements to the industry standard and/or to a related benchmark. 46 Produce Your files, including reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements with third-parties, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis regarding the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including standards identified by counsel for State Farm at the Status Hearing on December 11, 2025 before Judge Russell in Barlow v. State Farm, CIV-25-44-R. RFP 47 Produce all documents received or produced by Accenture, or any of its affiliates, and/or any other third party for any consulting or other work related to State Farm’s Objection(s) Period Covered"}, {"d": 29, "p": 27, "t": "No. Discovery Requests the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including standards identified by counsel for State Farm at the Status Hearing on December 11, 2025 before Judge Russell in Barlow v. State Farm, CIV-25-44-R, including but not limited to reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis by Accenture and/or any other third party. 48 Produce all documents relating to State Farm’s performance on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims in relation to the industry standards identified in Interrogatories No. 31 and Requests for Production 45-47 both before and after the FME team implemented its tactics and Kick Off in Dallas, Texas in 2020 and subsequent introduction into Oklahoma by 2021, including internal quality improvement and/or lowering Your percentage of approvals for full roof replacements to the industry standard and/or to a related benchmark. RFP 49 Produce all documents ensuring that any industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims identified in Interrogatory No. 31 and Requests for Production 45-47 both before and after the FME team implemented its tactics and Kick Off in Dallas, Texas in 2020 and subsequent introduction into Oklahoma by 2021 were accurate, vetted, and otherwise reflected actual claims and reliable data. RFP 50 Produce all documents, reports, data used, models, output relied upon, and other documentation that State Farm State Farm’s Objection(s) Period Covered"}, {"d": 29, "p": 28, "t": "No. Discovery Requests State Farm’s Objection(s) supplied to Accenture, or any of its affiliates, and/or any other third party for any consulting or other work related to the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including standards identified by counsel for State Farm at the Status Hearing on December 11, 2025 before Judge Russell in Barlow v. State Farm, CIV-25-44-R. RFP 51 Produce all documents, reports, data used, models, and other documentation relating to Accenture’s (or any of its affiliates) derivation of the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including the standards identified by counsel for State Farm at the Status Hearing on December 11, 2025 before Judge Russell in Barlow v. State Farm, CIV-25-44-R. RFP 52 Produce all contracts, agreements, and/or scopes of work between State Farm and Accenture’s (or any of its affiliates) relating to industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including the standards identified by counsel for State Farm at the Status Hearing on December 11, 2025 before Judge Russell in Barlow v. State Farm, CIV-25-44-R. Depositi on Transcripts 53 Produce the deposition transcript and all exhibits attached thereto of Nicole Manduca taken on April 23, 2024 in Seeks information not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and not reasonably Nida v. State Farm et al., CJ-2020-4453, calculated to lead to relevant facts; District Court of Oklahoma County. Oklahoma. 1 Period Covered"}, {"d": 29, "p": 29, "t": "Discovery Requests No. State Farm’s Objection(s) RFP | Produce the deposition transcript and all 54 |e | exhibits attached thereto of Thomas Moss taken on August 17, 2023 in Barnett v. State Farm et al., CJ-2020- e ° Cloned discovery undermines the Seeks fo cnet math 0 depositions and al., CJ-2019-4360, District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. See supra Seeks information not relevant to Oklahoma Discovery Code - See 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1); 55 _| exhibits attached thereto of Sharon Arnold taken in Johnson v. State Farm et Note 1. Covered resolution of claims and defenses in this case; 141, District Court of Grady County, Oklahoma. See supra Note 1. RFP | Produce the deposition transcript and all Period the limits on the number of ; other discovery requests - See 12 e O.S. $8 3230(a) 3233(A); Seeks confidential business information invading privacy RFP | Produce the deposition transcript and all 56 | exhibits attached thereto of Jacqueline Draper taken in Hosier v. State Farm et | al., CJ-2021-1741, District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. See supra Note 1. tights of non-party policyholders; Seeks information protected by work product doctrine/attorney client privilege; and |* RFP | Produce the deposition transcript and all 57 | exhibits attached thereto of Jason Taylor Seeks to circumvent protective orders and confidentiality agreements that is against public policy and violates the Oklahoma Discovery Code. taken in Cunanan v. State Farm, CJ2023-520, United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Other Claims Requests REP Produce a copy of every claim file 58 | where a homeowner made a claim for e wind and hail damage to their roof in in this case; Comanche County since January 1, 2021 | ° to the present, e RFP | For every homeowner claim file 59 | produced by State Farm in response to Request for Production No. 58, include any roof cover section or roof rating in the underwriting file for each home. Seeks information not relevant to resolution of claims and defenses Unduly burdensome, and not proportional to needs of case; Seeks information not likely to Hac fo the discovery of aamussible ; y calculated to lead to relevant facts; Seeks confidential business information invading privacy rights of non-party policyholders; Seeks confidential/proprietary/ trade secret business information and/or information protected by January 1, 2021 - Present"}, {"d": 29, "p": 30, "t": "No. Discovery Requests State Farm’s Objection(s) attorney client or other legal privileges; and Seeks information/documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce. Period Covered"}, {"d": 29, "p": 32, "t": "ORIGINAL LOUIE 1059561 039% SUPRENE IN THE SUPREME ENTERPRISES, Petitioner, ATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 24 2024 JOHN D. HADD CLERK EN et INC., ee WERNER COURT OF THE STATE OF oKLaHoma® COURT No. 122,385 ee ee V. ee ee THE HONORABLE KORY KIRKLAND, et ee Respondent, and ee ae JODI CROSS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of RAE ANN DARROW, deceased, TIMOTHY CLEMONS and MICHAEL DENNIS PECK, mrad Mailed. TAA! pistrub____9¢\"1 Publish___ Nee Defendants. Posted ee and Ne ee ae Rec'd (date) AT yA yes” no ORDER Original Werner jurisdiction Enterprises, is assumed. Inc.’s Okla. Const. to assume application granted. A writ of mandamus art. 7, § 4. original Petitioner jurisdiction is is issued to Caddo County District Judge Kory Kirkland, or any assigned judge, in Jodi Cross, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rae Anne Darrow, deceased v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., et. Al., CJ-2021-47. Respondent’s certain documents proportionality December 20, 2023 compelling as Respondent is unenforceable, test as outlined Order in Title 1 12 O.S., did Section production of not consider the 3226(B)(2)(c), in"}, {"d": 29, "p": 33, "t": "determining the relevancy of the requested documents. Respondent, any other assigned judge, or a special master appointed by the district court shall review the discovery requests at issue and consider the proportionality factors stated in 12 O.S. Section 3226 (B(2)(c) along with all other statutory requirements before ruling on the discovery disputes. DONE BY THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE ON THE _23rd_ __—s DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024. CHIEF JUSTICE CONCUR: DISSENT: KANE, C.J., and WINCHESTER, GURICH, DARBY and KUEHN, JJ. ROWE, V.C.J., and KAUGER, EDMONDSON and COMBS, JJ."}, {"d": 29, "p": 36, "t": "DECLARATION OF NICOLE MANDUCA I, Nicole Manduca, make the following declaration pursuant to 12 O.S. § 426: 1. I am currently a Claims Manager at State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (‘State Farm”’) and have been in my current position since 2018. I have been a State Farm employee since 2000. Unless otherwise indicated, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and am competent to testify thereto if called as a witness. 2. As part of my work as a Claims Manager, I was part of the Wind/Hail Fire Model Enhancement (“FME”) which began in spring 2020. 3. The FME focused on quality claim handling and thus focused on both overpayment and underpayment of wind/hail claims. State Farm sought to improve consistency in handling wind/hail claims through training and documentation. 4. As part of its work, the FME prepared “Wind/Hail Guidelines” in June 2020, which provided guidance regarding claim handling and file documentation. The FME updated these guidelines throughout 2020 and into 2021. 5. The Wind/Hail Guidelines were incorporated into State Farm’s operative wind/hail determination guidance document, Operation Guide 75-160, as of February 2022. The guidelines have not been updated since June 2021. 6. I state under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma that the foregoing is true and correct. By:___ Nicole Manduca Nicole Manduca Date: 11/12/2025"}, {"d": 29, "p": 38, "t": "Case 5:11-cv-00159-R Document 86 Filed 04/20/12 Page 1 of2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ROBERT JONES and LORENE JONES, Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) ) VS. ) Case No. CIV-11-159-R ) FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., ) ) ) Defendant. ) Before the Court are Defendant’s motion to reconsider [Doc. No. 66] this Court’s Order of February 29, 2012 [Doc. No. 51] and Plaintiffs’ renewed motion to compel [Doc. No. 80]. Having reviewed these motions and the responses and replies thereto, the Court reconsiders its Order of February 29, 2012 and DENIES Plaintiff’ renewed motion to compel for the following reasons. The parties have been unable to or failed to agree on a method of sampling of Defendant’s claim files. The Court previously found that it would be unduly burdensome for Defendant Farmers to review all of its claim files to determine which of these files met the criteria set out by Plaintiffs so as to produce those files to Plaintiffs and answer Plaintiffs’ interrogatory. The Court, however, did find that the files sought by Plaintiffs were relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. The Court now specifically finds that the undue burden to Defendant of conducting the review process necessary to ascertain which, if any, of its claims files are responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery request exceeds the minimal"}, {"d": 29, "p": 39, "t": "Case 5:11-cv-00159-R Document 86 relevance those files have to Plaintiffs’ claims. Filed 04/20/12 Page 2 of 2 Defendant asserts that the shingles on Plaintiffs’ north roof’s slope had no compensable value, but acknowledges that even if they had any compensable value, Plaintiff's total contract claim would be for $4,000. Even if a jury found that Defendant’s denial of that claim was in bad faith, the potential damages and punitive damages do not justify the extraordinary expenditure of time and expense necessary to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. In summary, the Court finds that “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” F.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(c). Defendant’s motion to reconsider the Court’s Order of February 20, 2012 [Doc. No. 66] is GRANTED and the Court’s Order of February 29, 2012 is altered consistent with this Order and Plaintiffs’ motion to compel [Doc. No. 40] responses by Defendant to Interrogatory No. 20 and Requests for Production Nos. 28 and 29 is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ renewed motion to compel [Doc. No. 80] is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 20\" day of April, 2012. DAVID L. RUSSELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE"}, {"d": 29, "p": 41, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) V. ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) DECLARATION OF JACOB NIMESGERN I, Jacob Nimesgern, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the following is true and correct: 1. I am over the age of 21 years, of sound mind, legally capable of making this Declaration, and have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Declaration. 2. I am a Technology Analyst in P&C Claims Enterprise Technology at State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm Mutual”), the parent company for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”). In my role, I have access to and am knowledgeable about the regular practices and procedures of State Farm as to the storage and retrieval of claim data. 3. It is my understanding that State Farm received the following discovery request in the above-mentioned case: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Produce a copy of every claim file where a homeowner made a claim for wind and hail damage to their roof in Comanche County since January 1, 2021 to the present. [You may redact the identities and residential addresses of policyholders. | Page 1 of 3"}, {"d": 29, "p": 42, "t": "4, Materials relating to claims are kept on the State Farm Enterprise Claim System (ECS). To pull information from the ECS, certain queries need to be developed based on fields within ECS. 5. Relevant to Plaintiffs Request for Production (“RFP”) No. 58, an electronic search of ECS was conducted that included the number of wind/hail claims submitted to State Farm in Comanche County, Oklahoma with a date of loss (“DOL”) between January 1, 2021, and May 1, 2025. The report included the following parameters: fire line of business for Comanche County, Oklahoma concerning wind and hail cause of loss. This query revealed a total of 2,969 wind/hail claims in Comanche County, Oklahoma with a DOL between January 1, 2021, and May 1, 2025. 6. A query, however, can only be structured to search in ECS to identify claims for wind/hail damage to an insured property. State Farm cannot, however, further filter or structure a query to identify which of the 2,969 wind/hail claims in Comanche County involved damage specifically to the roof, as opposed to other parts of the property. As such, determining which of these 2,969 claims meet the specific criteria of Plaintiff's RFP No. 58 would require an intensive manual claim-by-claim review of each of the 2,969 unique claims. 7. The volume of materials associated with an individual claim depends on a variety of factors, including the severity of the damages alleged, the number of experts and other vendors involved, whether the claim is in active litigation, etc. The documents and/or other materials are not uniform in size or content. Accordingly, the materials associated with an individual claim may vary from less than a hundred pages to thousands of pages when provided to counsel’s office for review in PDF format. For example, the claim files for the Plaintiffs’ claim at issue here is approximately 834 pages. I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Page 2 of 3"}, {"d": 29, "p": 43, "t": "6/4/2026 and East Peoria, Illinois : (Date and Place) C 6 We y (Signature) Page 3 of 3"}, {"d": 29, "p": 45, "t": "THE BE. BLACK, JR., DISTRICT STATE COURT OF OKLAHOMA OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY yt JAMES IN ttl Met Plaintiff, CASE NO. CJ~-2024~-7827 Net etl vs. met et et St STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY AND RANDALL YOUNG INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. Defendants. 10 11 12 SEVENTH 13 14 15 HAD BEFORE ON THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS THE DAY OF 20TH HONORABLE 16 * JANUARY, NATALIE * * MAI, * 2026 DISTRICT JUDGE * 17 18 19 20 21 Reported By: 22 Regina Garnett, CSR, RPR, Official Court Reporter 23 321 Park Avenue Suite 706 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (405) 713-7116 24 CRR 73102 25 OKLAHOMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT"}, {"d": 29, "p": 46, "t": "36 not owe, because So otherwise as any premiums responsible go up company do, State Farm handling. If it's paying If it's not the accuracy of its claims it does not owe, it needs to improve. paying claims it should pay, it needs to the scheme here is, according Farm's effort out the of to Fire that claim Model Enhancement hear all improve. to them, State handling. And what Program, 10 under which State Farm -- ll not standards -- you're going to 12 aren't standards, there aren't benchmarks. There's 13 data. There's 14 that, State 15 science -- 16 rate on roofs 17 hail damage and 50 If you read 19 size, 20 so 21 it wind was after analyzing is going State about, which you're 18 to improve everybody. would evaluates So claim for that -~- and this is on that it appeared to be paying claims at during storms where there was inch per hour wind all of the industry studies, hail speed is not likely to damage a roof. And it is paying claims when based on the suggestion that mile so what And 25 not several industry concluded not. paying it there Farm should ~~ standards, analyzing evaluating uses data, after is 24 of And Farm is kinds data. State it about initiative own that 23 hear ail what Farm's of 22 a particular came claims puts OKLAHOMA in layers COUNTY does in whether it those do or categories one when which of the team as Whitten represented, - less shouldn't? by COURT or it a process DISTRICT a higher less. place Ms. based OFFICIAL the that manager, team TRANSCRIPT It"}, {"d": 29, "p": 47, "t": "69 representative It's just my here versus access to on a number question what that is is: out would MR. SONNE: MS. WHITTEN: briefly with you. analysis is not of topics What there in make sense Well, I Your I think just is that I've seen here. proportional to the claim that you want just very the universe for this case. if could -- Honor, part of Plaintiff's I the proportionality claims, but Defendants' defenses. And 10 you heard 11 standards, 12 Honor, that's 13 we have against 14 can only rely on 15 documents are locked 16 has access to all 17 the courts and say, 18 standards. 19 produce how earlier Rother proper. Your case this proportional is discuss scheme. of why State Farm, things up this so, is problem we'll because the other in protective orders. But State Farm they'll stand discovery seen we're and this. doing It's is in front But they won't I if I -- just very briefly, that when they say that these people who created these executives we're is industry 23 standards are Nicole Manduca and the 24 referring to today, because we've deposed the wanted DISTRICT to state COURT - that them for OFFICIAL of industry Honor, just COUNTY just proper.\" 22 just we record the I And public think standards, the every the Your here is here in \"I've And OKLAHOMA is sort documents. so industry done Everything And about they've 21 25 talk everything those 20 Ms. in the the are industry past. record, TRANSCRIPT"}, {"d": 29, "p": 48, "t": "70 that they're bringing the executives that up these industry they won't let us standards developed by depose. THE COURT: Well, let me assure you courtroom, if you're going to talk about industry standards, you should produce that won't be able to about it, period, so... fair on both sides. normal way And litigate li we're And that's -- THE COURT: And I think that's that's a -- case get to I think to about topics. MR. SONNE: Right. 13 that point, we 14 talked 15 they objected 16 think we 17 standards, about had subpoena. 20 Plaintiff's 21 scheme.\" the a subpoena yet, I think, Your Honor -- a federal case We issued a subpoena the same and thing Accenture and it and won't produce when -- and that's the point, point is this. When the claim,\" our response is, Court “Our but it and [ them. talk says about “Relevant is THE COURT: It will be claims and defenses, 23 MR. SONNE: I mean, our claim is not It's part the greater whole, which we have pled I think specifically based on the history of the cases, OKLAHOMA COUNTY COURT - OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Black. 25 very of DISTRICT just to the 22 24 to industry you claim to here. to to my talk there object so my not It's here in we're in to a very they'll And I guess up standards. and -- come is So But industry issued 19 this that trial. talking 18 you SONNE: a 12 else MR. I think 10 or that but yes. James"}, {"d": 29, "p": 50, "t": "Discovery Master Hearing IN THE 5/11/2026 DISTRICT COURT STATE JACOB OF 1 OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY OKLAHOMA COX, Plaintiff, vs. No. CJ-2024-7630 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and ELIZABETH GALLERY, Defendants. KOR RR RR KR RRR ROK CHRISTOPHER 10 IRR RRR RRR RRR AIK RR ARR RK RRR ERE KK RK KK PRUITT, Plaintiff, VS. No. Cd-2024-7828 11 12 STATE FARM FIRE COMPANY and JIM 13 Defendants. 14 KHEEKKEKRR ERE RRR AND CASUALTY MOORE, EKER KERR KERR EK EKER EK KEKKEKEKE KEKE KKKEKKKAESE JOHN ADAIR, 15 Plaintiff, 16 vs. No. Cd-2023-6121 17 18 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and TIM CUSTER INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., 19 Defendants. 20 ai KKK KEE KERR RRR 22 23 EKER ERE RK DISCOVERY ER RE RRR MASTER EKER EK RK EKER ERK KEKE RE EEK HEARING Before Honorable William C. Hetherington, Jr. On May 11, 2026, beginning at 2:03 p.m. All Parties Appearing Via zoom 24 25 Reported By: Becky Dame Steinkamp, CSR, PROFESSIONAL RPR REPORTERS 800.376.1008 proreporters.com"}, {"d": 29, "p": 51, "t": "Discovery Master Hearing important today on with Judge, what I think here is Rother did how they She talked on and that they needed to comply standards and that they were one of these claims learned Well, every needs to handled on to extent be to see that they these really their to relying produce on but industry them. We have yet so, all that to say, important that -- additionally, on meet and confers, I've been in Well, I'm want the quality If State it's 13 quality plans, 14 told the quality 15 happy to limit 16 plans -- because here's the 17 truly overpaying prior to 18 that. That's defense that 19 and the 20 that defense. on a my plans it Oklahoma to began that. I deal: 2020, to test State Farm has made, test Code allows us to State was really and truly in state homeowners claims to 2020, we're they used to people after Oklahoma prior 24 metrics that 25 to underpay Farm Discovery Farm the need on 23 I think we if overpaying Judge, 2021. just So 22 then merits, standards. 12 21 individual industry And il single they're need really a defense standards. industry is make overpaying. standards, 10 Ms. industry certain the 95 And, about about 5/11/2026 the entitled develop to industry is of those standards 2020. PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 800.376.1006 proreportfers.com"}, {"d": 29, "p": 52, "t": "Discovery Master Hearing right. It's roofs And 5/11/2026 we if not if replace you're standards, what front of from going you that's we're should Judge reducing one to Mai 105 number talk the to about number another of number. industry produce it. Period. talked about in And a hearing in her. And so, again, Your Honor, we would just reemphasize that this is discovery. The relevance is here. They've admitted this initiative past clearly 10 exists. Other il and 12 tried 13 continue 14 other present to district cases judges from the have ordered these documents. work with them on dates, to do so, but I just points to the forefront. cases and we will wanted to bring THE COURT: All 16 Ms. Rother, anything 17 MS. ROTHER: Your Honor, I will say only a copy of that Ms. Whitten 19 the transcript 20 word about 21 used to 22 disagree, 24 claims. 25 standards. you can all get and you can read it, I did not say which they then just I'm I did 23 standards, new not not I didn't She please? and a whole and else, you. -- industry make Thank those 15 18 right. We argument going to with respond to, at -- I said we say anything about attributed that which looked to me a we closed industry and PROFESSIONAL then REPORTERS 800.376,1006 proreporters.com"}, {"d": 29, "p": 53, "t": "Discovery Master Hearing Mr. Sonne around it 5/11/2026 picked it made a whole argument that specifically disagree with. we up and 106 only industry reference I made known in the industry for So I just, again, not that, was The to Haag being training on wind to clear up the and they picked argument, and we based industry its and hail. they -- I did and made a claims whole decisions say on aren't it standards. WHITTEN: Judge, our current -- THE COURT: Just Mr. Leffel, please. 16 MS. ROTHER: Oh, you're on 1? THE COURT: Turn on your mic, please. 18 MR. LEFFEL: Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm 11 briefly on 12 i3 Just a trying to make any 20 going back and forth ai another hour THE 22 Ms. Ms. super Whitten. Turn on your mic, argument. mute, I take Lance. not issue with ball for like a ping pong All right. Anything this here. COURT: else? Whitten? 24 25 a second, just please. 19 23 I may second. 14 15 up making MS. 10 if record, briefly. MS. WHITTEN: Mr. Weddle Yes, and Judge, I are not just very nearly as PROFESSIONAL good as REPORTERS 800.376.1006 proreporters.com"}, {"d": 29, "p": 55, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document97 Filed 05/12/26 Page1of18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA HEIDI BARLOW, et al. ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., ) ) Defendants. Case No. CIV-25-44-R ) ORDER The are presently multiple discovery motions pending before the Court.' This order resolves four of those motions, each of which is fully briefed: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel [Doc. Nos. 49, 53, 57, 65]; State Farm’s Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition [Doc. Nos. 52, 56, 59]; State Farm’s Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Deposition Notice of Nicole Manduca [Doc. Nos. 73, 78, 79, 93, 96]; and State Farm’s Motion for Protective Order to Preclude Service of Third-Party Subpoena to Accenture LLP [Doc. Nos. 69, 76, 77]. After thoroughly considering all of the briefing and materials submitted by the parties, the Court finds as follows. ' On December 11, 2025, the Court held a status conference where the parties presented their positions regarding the discovery disputes in this case and whether any of the disputes were moot in light of the nearly identical discovery that has been served in other cases. As a result of the conference, the Court held the current deadlines in abeyance and ordered the parties to submit a status report within 30 days. Having reviewed the status reports, the Court finds that the stay of should be lifted and the pending discovery motions are ripe for resolution."}, {"d": 29, "p": 56, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document97 Filed 05/12/26 Page 2 of18 Background This case arises from State Farm’s adjustment of an insurance claim for damage to Plaintiffs’ roof. Plaintiffs assert claims against State Farm for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and constructive fraud/negligent misrepresentation. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs’ home was damaged by a storm on June 17, 2023, they submitted a timely insurance claim to State Farm, State Farm performed an inadequate inspection of the property, and then wrongfully denied the claim. The Complaint also alleges that the claim denial was not an isolated occurrence but was instead part of an institution-wide “scheme” hatched by State Farm to deny storm damage claims. The scheme allegedly starts with State Farm’s “captive agents” who sell or bind a replacement cost value policy without performing an inspection of the property or disclosing secret definitions that are not included in the policy. When an insured submits a claim for storm damage, State Farm’s adjusters allegedly utilize a set of bad faith claims handling tactics to deny the claim, including employing a narrow definition of hail damage that is absent from the policy, misattributing damage to a non-covered loss like “wear and tear” or “granular loss,” misstating the date of loss, manipulating damage findings to ensure the losses fall below the policy deductible, and employing hand chosen engineering firms that will rubber-stamp the adjusters’ misrepresentations. Plaintiffs briefing in the present motions expounds on the alleged scheme.” They contend that the scheme originated when State Farm’s Property and Casualty Claims ? Notably, this case is but one of many cases brought by Plaintiffs’ counsel against State Farm alleging that a claim denial was the result of the alleged scheme. The parties’ briefing 2"}, {"d": 29, "p": 57, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document97 Filed 05/12/26 Page 3of18 Department decided to investigate ways it could reduce its indemnity payments on roof claims. State Farm purportedly created the Wind & Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team to oversee the effort, which was called the Wind/Hail Focus Initiative. The Wind/Hail Focus Initiative resulted in the alleged implementation of the bad faith claims handling tactics described in the Complaint as well as a new directive that prevented claims adjusters from issuing a full roof replacement without managerial approval. As Plaintiffs describe it, State Farm first deployed the scheme as a pilot program in Texas in June 2020, then moved it to other states, including Oklahoma. Plaintiffs allege that the denial of their claim was a part of the scheme, as evidenced by the adjuster’s manipulating the date of loss, finding only limited damage that conveniently fell below the deductible, attributing damage to noncovered losses, and using a “functional damage” definition that is absent from the policy. Against that backdrop, Plaintiffs have submitted a slew of discovery requests and a broad-ranging 30(b)(6) Notice. State Farm has indicated that it is willing to produce certain claim-specific information, but generally objects to the remaining discovery as irrelevant, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff also seeks to depose Nicole Manduca, the leader of the Wind & Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, and to obtain documents from Accenture, a consultant that worked with State Farm. indicates that the discovery disputes in this case are largely duplicative of discovery disputes that have arisen (and in some cases been resolved in the plaintiffs favor) in other actions pending in state court. Nevertheless, this Court has an independent obligation to assess the whether the discovery requests are adequately tethered to the claims and defenses in this case and fall within the scope of discovery as set out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26."}, {"d": 29, "p": 58, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document97 Filed 05/12/26 Page 4of18 Standard of Decision Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that: [plarties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. The scope of discovery under this rule 1s broad, but it “is not without limits and the trial court is given wide discretion in balancing the needs and rights of both plaintiff and defendant.” Gomez v. Martin Marietta Corp., 50 F.3d 1511, 1520 (10\" Cir. 1995) (internal quotation omitted). When the relevance of a particular discovery request “is not readily apparent, the party seeking the discovery has the burden to show the relevance of the information requested.” Barton v. Tomacek, No. 11-CV-0619-CVE-TLW, 2012 WL 4735927, at *4 (N.D. Okla. Oct. 3, 2012). Conversely, when the discovery request appears relevant, the party resisting the request has the burden of showing that the request falls outside the scope of permissible discovery. /d. To meet this burden, the objecting party must present specific arguments and “may not rely on boilerplate, generalized, conclusory, or speculative arguments.” Pruess v. Presbyterian Health Plan, Inc., 579 F. Supp. 3d 1235, 1240 (D.N.M. 2022) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) sets out the standard for deposing a corporation. It provides that a deposition notice to an organization “must describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination” and the deponent “must testify about"}, {"d": 29, "p": 59, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document97 Filed 05/12/26 Page5of18 information known or reasonably available to the organization.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). At minimum, this standard requires the topics in the deposition notice to “be stated with enough specificity to allow the corporation to designate and prepare a representative to testify.” Edwards v. Scripps Media, Inc., 331 F.R.D. 116, 121 (E.D. Mich. 2019). Additionally, the scope of discovery articulated in Rule 26(b) applies to a Rule 30(b)(6). Td. Last, Rule 26(c)(1) provides that a “court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” But the Court may cumulative, also, on its own, limit discovery that is unreasonably can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive, or that it outside the scope of permissible discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)). Discussion A. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel In resolving Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, the Court is mindful of the broad scope of discovery, but also its obligation to limit discovery that is cumulative, unduly burdensome, or disproportionate. Plaintiffs allege the denial of their insurance claim was the result of a company-wide scheme to reduce indemnity payments. Importantly, Plaintiffs’ allegations in this regard are not mere conclusory assertions that State Farm has some generic bad faith pattern and practice. Rather, they have alleged, and further described in their briefing, the details of the scheme and how it worked in Plaintiffs’ case. Plaintiffs are entitled to proportional discovery to explore these theories and State Farm’s 5"}, {"d": 29, "p": 60, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document97 Filed 05/12/26 Page 6of18 refrain that only documents related to Plaintiffs’ individual claim are discoverable is not persuasive. Additionally, although State Farm is certainly entitled to argue to a jury that there was nothing improper or nefarious about its actions, those types of merits-based arguments are premature at this point. The overarching question in the present motion is whether the discovery requests seek material that is relevant and proportional to the claims, not whether the inferences to be drawn from the evidence favors State Farm. That said, many of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests are not sufficiently tailored to the claims or utilize omnibus phrases about producing “any and all” documents that “relate” in any way to a topic such that it is difficult to discern the contours of the request. See Ward v. Liberty Ins. Corp., No. CIV-15-1390-D, 2018 WL 991546, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 20, 2018) (noting that “omnibus phrases” in discovery requests such as “all documents regarding” can be “facially overly broad”). With that framework in mind, the Court turns to the specific requests at issue. Interrogatory Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29: Rule 33(a)(1) limits the number of written interrogatories to 25, unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court. These requests are denied. Interrogatory Nos. 5, 18 and Request for Production Nos. 4, 6: On their face, these requests are overly broad and disproportionate. The requests are expansively worded and encompass policies, guidelines, and training provided to claims handling personnel about topics that potentially have no connection to the claims and allegations in this case. Although courts have discretion to modify discovery requests to bring them within acceptable limits, the Court declines to do so here. Punt v. Kelly Servs., 862 F.3d 1040, 6"}, {"d": 29, "p": 61, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document97 Filed 05/12/26 Page 7 of18 1047 (10 Cir. 2017). The parties are responsible for propounding proper discovery requests and are in a better position to narrow their requests. State Farm has indicated that it is willing to produce the policies used in adjusting Plaintiffs’ clatm and the training transcripts and materials for the personnel that adjusted Plaintiffs’ claim. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to these requests is denied, with the exception of the material State Farm has agreed to produce. Interrogatory No. 19: This request seeks policies, procedures, and training materials related to “functional damage” and coverage limitations based on the size and severity of the claim. Policies or training on these topics relates to Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants utilized hidden or narrow definitions of hail damage to deny claims. To the extent the request is not duplicative of material State Farm has already agreed to produce, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel a response to this interrogatory is granted, but limited to the policies, procedures, and training that applied to the adjustment of Plaintiffs’ claim or the policies, procedures, and training that was provided to the personnel that adjusted Plaintiffs’ claim. Request for Production No. 30: This request seeks “all documents related to the “Art of the Conversation.’” Although other documents in the record suggest that this was some sort of training document, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel does not explain what this document is or why it is related to their claims. This request is therefore denied. Request for Production No. 40: This request seeks documents reflecting whether State Farm or its agents have a duty to keep abreast of the condition of a property upon renewal. The request is related to Plaintiffs’ allegation that State Farm wrongfully denied 7"}, {"d": 29, "p": 62, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document97 Filed 05/12/26 Page 8 of18 their claim based on pre-existing damage or wear and tear despite previously renewing the policy without reporting any of these alleged issues with the property. However, the request is overly broad and disproportionate in that it appears to seek communications and documents without any temporal limitation or connection to the policies that actually applied to Plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, this request is granted, but limited to documents/ correspondence sent to the agent/personnel that actually renewed Plaintiffs’ policy or policies/procedures that were in effect at the time of Plaintiffs’ claim. Request for Production No. 42: This request seeks all Wind/Hail Claims Guidelines from January 1, 2019 to present. State Farm’s response brief indicates that it is willing to produce Wind/Hail Guidelines for the years 2020 and 2021. Plaintiffs contend the alleged scheme began in 2020 and have not adequately explained why claims guidelines postdating the adjustment of Plaintiffs’ claim are relevant. This request is therefore granted, but limited to Wind/Hail Guidelines from 2019 through the adjustment of Plaintiffs’ claim. Interrogatory No. 10 and Request for Production Nos. 5: These requests seek information about the training provided to State Farm insurance agents. The requests are overly broad on their face in that they encompass all training provided to agents without regard to whether that training has anything to do with the claims in this case. Additionally, the agent was previously dismissed from this lawsuit. These requests are denied. Interrogatory Nos. 15, 16, 17 and Request for Production Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12: These requests seek information and documents about State Farm’s relationship with Haag following jury verdicts nearly twenty years ago finding that State Farm’s reliance on Haag engineering reports was pretextual or that Haag lacked objectivity. Plaintiffs argue that 8"}, {"d": 29, "p": 63, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document97 Filed 05/12/26 Page 9of18 State Farm’s relationship with Haag is relevant to their claims because State Farm utilized Haag training as part of its Wind/Hail Initiative scheme. Fair enough, but these specific requests are not tailored to discovering information about the use of Haag training as part of the alleged scheme and instead seek “all documents” that are “related” to State Farm’s relationship with Haag during an overly lengthy period of time. Although discovery is broad, it is not intended to be a fishing expedition. These far-ranging requests are overly broad and not adequately tethered to the specific claims in this case. As the parties are in a better position to narrow the requests, the Court denies these requests but instructs the parties to confer about limiting the requests to more specific documents or topics. Request for Production Nos. 31, 34: These requests seek “all documents” related to the “Haag Refresher” and the “Haag Education Hail and Wind Assessment Video Series.” However, Plaintiffs have failed to explain how these specific items are connected to their claim. Although the Court could make certain assumptions about what they show and how they are related, the Court will not guess. State Farm has objected to these requests as overly broad and irrelevant and Plaintiffs have not put forth a sufficiently specific argument explaining what these videos are or how they fall within the scope of permissible discovery. The requests are therefore denied. Interrogatory Nos. 6, 7, 13: These requests seek the names and job title of State Farm personnel and outside consultants that served on the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team or Hail Focus Initiative as well as a description of the initiative. The requests are limited from 2019 to present. Plaintiffs allege that the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team created the Hail Focus Initiative, which resulted in the use of 9"}, {"d": 29, "p": 64, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document97 Filed 05/12/26 Page 10 of 18 bad-faith claims handling tactics in their specific case. Given these allegations, the information sought by these requests is within the scope of discovery. Further, any proportionality concerns appear to be limited given that State Farm has already provided at least a partial description of the initiative in its briefing. See Doc. No. 53 at p. 12-13. These requests are therefore granted, although the time period is limited from 2019 to the adjustment of Plaintiffs’ claim. Interrogatory No. 9: This request seeks identification of training or information that was disseminated to State Farm agents nationwide regarding the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team or the Hail Focus Initiative from January 1, 2019 to present. Although the agent is not a party to this action, changes in the way State Farm trains its personnel to evaluate wind and hails claims relates to Plaintiffs’ allegation that State Farm engaged in bad faith and constructive fraud in underwriting the policy and denying the claim. The request is therefore granted, but limited to the training and communications regarding the the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team or Hail Focus Initiative that was actually disseminated to the agent or personnel involved in the procurement of Plaintiffs’ policy or the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim from 2019 to the date of Plaintiffs’ claim. Requests for Production Nos. 14, 15, 21, 22, 24, 27, 39: These requests seek “all documents” that are “related to” the Fire Model Enhancement on Wind/Hail, the Hail Focus Initiative, and other similar topics. Some of the requests are limited to 2019 to present, others appear to seek a broader time frame. As previously noted, given the claims in this case, proportional discovery into the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team and the Hail Focus Initiative is appropriate. 10 However, Plaintiffs’ request for “all"}, {"d": 29, "p": 65, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document97_ Filed 05/12/26 Page 11 of 18 documents” that are “related” to the topics makes it difficult to identify the outer limit of the request and renders the requests overly broad. As the parties are in a better position to narrow the requests, the Court denies these requests but instructs the parties to confer about limiting the requests to more specific documents or topics. Request for Production Nos. 29, 33, 35: These requests seek all documents related in any way to “enhanced emphasis on Claim Handling Hygiene,” ten years’ worth of communications on “MyBlock,” and “Claims and Agency Weather Event Topic Discussions.” But again, Plaintiffs have not adequately explained in their motion to compel what these are or how they will produce information relevant to their claims. Additionally, some of this material is likely subsumed by other requests to produce relevant training, policies, or communications and it is therefore duplicative. These requests are therefore denied. Request for Production Nos. 23, 36, 37, 38, 43: These requests seek “all correspondence” and documents sent or recetved by specific State Farm employees that “refer[] or relat[e]” to the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative, or other wind/hail quality focus initiatives. Once again, while proportional discovery into the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team and the Hail Focus Initiative is appropriate, the use of omnibus phrases in these requests renders them overly broad and sweeps in information that may be privileged or is otherwise too attenuated to fall within the scope of discovery. The requests are therefore denied and the parties are instructed to meet and confer in a good faith effort to narrow the requests. Il"}, {"d": 29, "p": 66, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document97_ Filed 05/12/26 Page 12 of 18 Interrogatory No. 21 and Request for Production No. 25: These requests seek analyses related to adjusters’ authority to approve full roof replacements without managerial approval and documents memorializing enterprise-wide rules regarding the need for management approval of full roof replacement claims. State Farm’s response brief indicates that it is willing to produce “personal rules” that were triggered in the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim but that it does not track rules that were not triggered and does not have any responsive documents with respect to program rules. Written policies or procedures requiring adjusters to obtain managerial approval of full roof replacements are within the scope of discovery and these requests are therefore granted, but are limited to the time period from 2019 to the adjustment of Plaintiffs’ claim. Request for Production No. 26, 32, 41: These requests seek documents related to “quality plans” and initiatives, including plans to reduce or track indemnity payments and plans to track a reduction in full roof replacement approval percentages nationwide from 2019 to present. State Farm has agreed to produce the Quality Plan in effect at the time of the date of loss. However, information reflecting a change in State Farm’s policies surrounding the adjustment of roof claims for hail damage is related to Plaintiffs’ allegation that State Farm intentionally put in place practices that would reduce indemnity payments. These requests are granted, but only as to the actual quality plans or initiatives for the time period from 2019 through the adjustment of Plaintiffs’ claim. Interrogatory Nos. 11, 12, 14, 20, 21, 24, 25 and Request for Production Nos. 7, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 28: These requests seek identification and production of cost/benefit analyses or tracking data related to adjustment of storm claims, the use of Haag, use of 12"}, {"d": 29, "p": 67, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document97 Filed 05/12/26 Page 13 of 18 engineering services, roof replacements, the effect of requiring managerial approval for roof claims, and the percentage of roof claims. The requests have varying time frames and geographical limits. Plaintiffs argue that information showing that State Farm tracked the effectiveness and implementation of the alleged scheme is relevant to their bad faith claim. The Court agrees that information showing that State Farm tracked the implementation and effectiveness of the alleged scheme is within the scope of discovery, but some of the requests utilize a time period that is too long or language seeking “all documents related” to a topic that is too broad. The requests are therefore granted, but limited to the actual analyses and reports that are responsive, from 2019 to the adjustment of Plaintiffs’ claim, and only as to Oklahoma for any state specific data requested. Interrogatory Nos. 3, 22, 23: These requests ask State Farm to identify other civil cases or claims with varying features. The requests are limited to Oklahoma from 2019 to present. Interrogatory No. 3 seeks information that does not track with facts alleged here and is therefore not relevant. The remaining two interrogatories appear more closely aligned with Plaintiffs’ allegations. However, State Farm objects on the ground of undue burden and has supported its objection with an affidavit explaining that there are limitations on how it can electronically filter its claim files and counsel’s estimate that it would take over 40,000 hours to manually review the documents. Based upon this information, and the minimal relevance of the requested information, the Court concludes that State Farm has met its burden of showing that responding to these interrogatories would be unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of this case. These requests are therefore denied. 13"}, {"d": 29, "p": 68, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document97_ Filed 05/12/26 Page 14 of 18 Request for Production No. 44: This request seeks all documents produced in several other cases. Plaintiffs have not adequately shown that all documents produced in the other cases would fall within the scope of discovery for this case and the request is therefore denied. B. Motion to Quash 30(b)(6) deposition The Court turns next to State Farm’s Motion seeking a protective order and to quash the 30(b)(6) deposition notice. State Farm initially complains that Plaintiffs are seeking far ranging discovery via a corporate representative deposition notice before they have deposed any personnel involved in the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim. But the tools of discovery may generally be used in any sequence and the Court is not persuaded that deposing a corporate representative before deposing the claims adjusters is inappropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(3). However, the Court agrees with State Farm that many of the topics described in the notice are overly broad or seek irrelevant information. For example, the deposition notice requests testimony about CLUE, a claim information exchange database. However, Plaintiffs do not adequately explain how this relates to their claims, which do not allege that inaccurate information was reported to CLUE. Plaintiffs also seek wide-ranging testimony on State Farm’s relationship with Haag but, as previously noted, some of this information is too attenuated in time and subject matter to fall within the scope of discovery. Plaintiffs’ topics regarding State Farm’s relationship with its agents are also overly broad, particularly given that the agent is not a party in this case. 14"}, {"d": 29, "p": 69, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document97 Filed 05/12/26 Page 15 of 18 It is the Court’s intent to limit the deposition topics in accordance with its ruling in the motion to compel. The Court therefore instructs the parties to meet and confer in a good faith attempt to narrow the deposition topics in accordance with this order. For most topics, a relevant time frame will be from 2019 to the adjustment of Plaintiffs’ claim. If there are any outstanding disputes after the parties confer, they may present those narrowed disputes to the Court for resolution. C. Motion to Quash Deposition of Nicole Manduca State Farm also moves to quash or stay the deposition notice issued to Nicole Manduca, the leader of the Wind/Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team. State Farm contends that Ms. Manduca’s testimony is not relevant because she did not have any involvement in Plaintiffs’ specific claim and Plaintiffs’ have not adequately articulated a connection between the scheme and their claims decision. The Court disagrees with this assessment. Plaintiffs have adequately shown that Ms. Manduca was involved in the Wind/Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, which allegedly generated the claims handling tactics that underlie Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim. Thus, Ms. Manduca likely has personal knowledge of issues that are relevant and proportional to the claims asserted in this case. See Wiesman v. State Farm, No. CIV-25-00050-JD (W.D. Okla. April 3, 2026) (denying motion to quash deposition of Ms. Manduca). The Court further finds that consolidation of Ms. Manduca’s deposition with the deposition ordered in Wiesman v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-25-00050-JD (W.D. Okla. April 3, 2026) is warranted. See Cook v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-25-1098-R, (W.D. Okla. May 7, 2026). 15"}, {"d": 29, "p": 70, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document97 Filed 05/12/26 Page 16 of 18 D. Motion for Protective Order to Preclude Service of Third-Party Subpoena to Accenture LLP Last, the Court considers State Farm’s Motion to Preclude Service of a subpoena issued to Accenture. State Farm purportedly worked with Accenture on certain aspects of the Wind/Hail Initiative. Plaintiffs Notice of Subpoena seeks broad categories of documents about “industry standards” for wind/hail claims used in connection with its work with State Farm. The notice was served in violation of Local Rule 45.1(b), which states that a notice of subpoena shall not be served on a third-party if a motion to preclude service is filed. For that reason, the notice is quashed. Additionally, the Court finds that a protective order precluding service of the subpoena is warranted because the topics described in the notice are largely duplicative of discovery that has already been served on State Farm.> Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C), the Court must limit the extent of discovery if the discovery sought is unreasonably duplicative or could be obtained from some other source that is more convenient. Rule 45(d) similarly requires courts to enforce the attorney’s duty to “take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena.” Thus, although “there is no absolute rule prohibiting a party from seeking to obtain the same documents from a non-party as can be obtained from a party,...[c]ourts may refuse 3 Plaintiff does not dispute that State Farm has standing to challenge the subpoena. But even if State Farm lacks standing “a court may exercise its inherent authority to limit irrelevant or non-proportional discovery requests pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C).” Copeland v. C.A.A.LR., Inc., No. 17-CV-564-TCK-JFJ, 2020 WL 972754, at *3 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 28, 2020). 16"}, {"d": 29, "p": 71, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document97_ Filed 05/12/26 Page 17 of 18 discovery requests aimed at nonparties in cases where the same testimony or documents could instead be obtained from a party to the action.” Black Card, LLC v. VISA U.S.A, Inc., No. 15-CV-027-S, 2016 WL 7325684, at *3 (D. Wyo. May 9, 2016) (internal quotation and citations omitted). Plaintiffs do not dispute that much of the material sought from Accenture overlaps with material that it is already seeking from State Farm. Because the material can be obtained from another source in a more convenient and less burdensome manner, the Court grants State Farm’s request for a protective order. Plaintiffs should first seek the information from State Farm. The Court will then be in a better position to evaluate any remaining disputes about obtaining the requested documents, either from State Farm or from a third-party. Conclusion As outlined above, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part. State Farm’s Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition is granted in part, and the parties are directed to confer in a good faith effort to narrow the topics. State Farm’s Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Deposition Notice of Nicole Manduca is denied. State Farm’s Motion for Protective Order to Preclude Service of Third-Party Subpoena to Accenture LLP is granted. documents or testimony should be produced under a protective order. 17 Where appropriate,"}, {"d": 29, "p": 72, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document97 Filed 05/12/26 Page 18 of 18 IT IS SO ORDERED this 12\" day of May, 2026. Lidl 6 Mga L DAVID L. RUSSELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT 18 JUDGE"}, {"d": 29, "p": 74, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00187-R Document 81 Filed 05/12/26 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA WILMA and TERRY PORTER, ) Plaintiffs, ) V. ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., ) Case No. CIV-25-187-R Defendants. ORDER The following motions are fully briefed and pending before the Court: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel [Doc. Nos. 33, 38, 40, 45]; State Farm’s Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition [Doc. Nos. 37, 39, 41], and State Farm’s Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Deposition Notice of Nicole Manduca [Doc. Nos. 70, 78, 76, 79, 80]. The disputes raised in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and State Farm’s Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition are nearly identical to the discovery disputes the Court addressed in Barlow v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-25-44-R (W.D. Okla. May 12, 2026). Accordingly, for the reasons stated in Barlow, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part. State Farm’s Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition is granted in part, and the parties are directed to confer in a good faith effort to narrow the topics. If there are any remaining disputes, either party may assert those in a separate motion."}, {"d": 29, "p": 75, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00187-R Document 81 Filed 05/12/26 Page 2 of 2 For the reasons stated in Cook v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-25-1098-R, (W.D. Okla. May 7, 2026), the Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Deposition Notice of Nicole Manduca is DENIED. The Court further finds consolidation of Ms. Manduca’s deposition with the deposition ordered in Wiesman v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-25-00050-JD (W.D. Okla. April 3, 2026) is warranted. See Cook v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-25-1098-R, (W.D. Okla. May 7, 2026). Last, the Court finds the stay of this case should be, and is hereby, lifted. The parties are directed to submit a proposed amended scheduling order and a proposed amended deadline to respond to State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike within 30 days of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12\" day of May, 2026. Lidl b het L DAVID L. RUSSELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE"}, {"d": 29, "p": 77, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00042-R Document 77 Filed 05/12/26 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA BEATRIZ and RODRIGO CISNEROS, Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) v. ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) ) COMPANY, et al., ) Defendants. Case No. CIV-25-42-R ) ) The following motions are fully briefed and pending before the Court: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel [Doc. Nos. 38, 43]; State Farm’s Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition [Doc. Nos. 42, 44, 47], and State Farm’s Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Deposition Notice of Nicole Manduca [Doc. Nos. 49, 50, 51, 74]. The disputes raised in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and State Farm’s Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition are nearly identical to the discovery disputes the Court addressed in Barlow v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-25-44-R (W.D. Okla. May 12, 2026). Accordingly, for the reasons stated in Barlow, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part. State Farm’s Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition is granted in part, and the parties are directed to confer in a good faith effort to narrow the topics. If there are any remaining disputes, either party may assert those in a separate motion."}, {"d": 29, "p": 78, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00042-R Document 77 Filed 05/12/26 Page 2 of 2 For the reasons stated in Cook v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-25-1098-R, (W.D. Okla. May 7, 2026), the Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Deposition Notice of Nicole Manduca is DENIED. The Court further finds that consolidation of Ms. Manduca’s deposition with the deposition ordered in Wiesman v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-25-00050-JD (W.D. Okla. April 3, 2026) is warranted. See Cook v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-25-1098-R, (W.D. Okla. May 7, 2026). Last, the Court finds the stay of this case should be, and is hereby, lifted. Within thirty days of the date of this order, the parties are directed to submit a proposed amended scheduling order and a proposed amended deadline to respond to State Farm’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12\" day of May, 2026. Lyvidl b bret / DAVID L. RUSSELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE"}, {"d": 30, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY FILED NEIL and LACY WEST, ) DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA — ) June 10, 2026 1:37 PM Plaintiff, ) ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2025-135 v. ) ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ ) AGENCY, INC., ) ) Defendant SECOND AMENDED ) NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION Please notice that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230 of the Oklahoma Discovery Code, the Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company will take the deposition upon oral examination of Bobby Odom, on Thursday, June 18, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, Braniff Building, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102, and/or via virtual means before an officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the State of Oklahoma. The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic means. A subpoena will be issued to Mr. Odom for his attendance. The subpoena is attached as Exhibit 1. Dated this 10th day of June, 2026. Are [ TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com"}, {"d": 30, "p": 2, "t": "ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this 10th day of June, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 6276870 b"}, {"d": 30, "p": 3, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) “ Case No. CJ-2025-135 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ ) AGENCY, INC., ) ) Defendant ) SECOND AMENDED DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO: Bobby Odom Trademark Exteriors Restoration LLC 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 GREETINGS - You are hereby commanded to appear at the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, Braniff Building, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 and/or by virtual means on Thursday, June 18, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. to testify as a witness in a deposition noticed by Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, in the above-captioned case. The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic means. All parties are invited to attend and cross-examine. Hereof fail not under penalty of law. Issued this 10th day of June, 2026. Mee TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 6276878"}, {"d": 31, "p": 1, "t": "FILED DISTRICT COURT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA June 11, 2026 4:13 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) V. )} STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. Case No, CJ-2025-135 Hon. Grant Sheperd ) ) ) ) ) ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S MOTION FORA PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH AND/OR STAY PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION NOTICES OF KATHY RESS, WENSLEY HERBERT, THOMAS MOSS, AND SCOTT WELSH Before even taking the deposition this Court has ordered on Plaintiffs’ theory of institutional bad faith, and before deposing anyone with case specific knowledge, Plaintiffs have noticed the depositions of four more current or former senior leadership personnel which are at best cumulative and not proportional. Thus, Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”), pursuant to 12 0.8. §§ 3226(B)(2)(c), 3226(C), and 3226.1, respectfully moves for a protective order and to quash Plaintiffs’ May 15, 2026 Notice of Intention to Take Oral & Videotaped Deposition of Kathy Ress,' a Vice President of Operations in State Farm’s Property & Casualty department (Ex. 1); May 15, 2026 Notice of Intention to Take Oral & Videotaped Deposition of Wensley Herbert,” the Senior Vice President for Property & Casualty Claims at State Farm (Ex. 2); May 15, 2026 Notice of Intention to Take Oral & Videotaped Deposition of Thomas | This notice’s title is Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Oral & Videotaped Deposition of Thomas Moss, and the body of the notice references the deposition of Scott Welsh, but the listed deponent is Kathy Ress. As such, State Farm assumes the notice is for the deposition of Ms. Ress. ? This notice’s title is Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Oral & Videotaped Deposition of Thomas Moss, but the listed deponent is Wensley Herbert. As such, State Farm assumes this to mean the notice is for the deposition of Wensley Herbert."}, {"d": 31, "p": 2, "t": "Moss, a now-retired former Claim Consultant in State Farm’s Property & Casualty department (Ex, 3); and May 15, 2026 Notice of Intention to Take Oral & Videotaped Deposition of Scott Welsh,’ a Claims Director in State Farm’s Property & Casualty department (Ex. 4), (collectively the “Deposition Notices”). None of these individuals were involved in the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim or have personal knowledge of it and Plaintiffs have offered nothing to show relevant knowledge. State Farm submits that the Deposition Notices should be quashed for this reason alone. See Schultz vy. Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd., No. 4:15-CV-04160-LLP, 2016 WL 3149686, at *3 (D.S.D. June 3, 2016) (parties seeking discovery must “describe with a reasonable degree of specificity the information they hope to obtain and its importance to their case”) (citing Cervantes v. Time, Inc., 464 F.2d 986, 994 (8th Cir, 1972). At a minimum, these Notices are cumulative of the discovery the Court already permitted aimed at Plaintiffs’ speculative theory of a corporate-wide initiative to pre-deny wind/hail roof claims*—one Plaintiffs’ counsel persistently (and incorrectly) allege State Farm developed, implemented, and/or monitored through the Fire Model Enhancement quality program (the “FME”).°> But the Court has already ordered State Farm to provide extensive FME-related discovery, and Plaintiffs cannot explain how the depositions of these individuals would not be cumulative and/or duplicative of this ordered discovery, and certainly they do not explain how the 3 This notice’s title is Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Oral & Videotaped Deposition of Thomas Moss, but the listed deponent is Scott Welsh. As such, State Farm assumes this to mean the notice is for the deposition of Scott Welsh. ‘ Plaintiffs’ counsel has sought to depose these individuals in other cases against State Farm and, in pursuing these depositions, confirmed that they seek to elicit testimony regarding their purported knowledge and/or involvement in the alleged corporate plan to pre-deny wind/hail claims. See, e.g., Hursh v. State Farm, No. CJ-2025-2626, Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response in Opposition to State Farm’s Motions to Quash the Deposition Notices of Thomas Moss, Nicole Manduca, Scott Welsh, Wensley Herbert, Kathy Ress, Tyrone Smith, and Wendy Mazza. 5 Id. at 2 (listing noticed deponents and describing them as “key [FME] members and Scheme architects”), id. at 1 (alleging that “[e]Jach Noticed Deponent was directly and materially involved in State Farm’s reduction of indemnity payments relating to roof claims”). 2"}, {"d": 31, "p": 3, "t": "testimony would be proportionate in light of the already ordered discovery. Specifically, on April 22, 2026, the Court ordered State Farm to produce significant volumes of documents relating to the FME and, on April 10, 2026, denied State Farm’s motion to quash the deposition of Nicole Manduca, a Director in State Farm’s Property & Casualty department whom Plaintiffs describe as the FME “ringleader” and specifically seek to depose because of her involvement in the FME. See Pls.’ Resp. in Opp. to Motion to Quash Deposition of N. Manduca at 3 (“Manduca is directly responsible for key aspects of the Scheme’s origin, development, and/or implementation. Manduca is essentially the Scheme’s ringleader.”). Given the scope of these Orders,® requiring the depositions of Ms. Ress, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Welsh would at the very least be premature until Plaintiffs (1) depose the Claim Specialists and Team Managers who were actually involved in handling their claim, (2) depose Ms. Manduca and review State Farm’s FME productions; and (3) thereafter articulate how the FME is actually relevant to their claim (which it is not) and what testimony Ms. Ress, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Welsh can offer that would not be duplicative of Ms. Manduca’s testimony. Absent any such efforts, the noticed depositions serve no other purpose than to harass and burden State Farm, as the noticed individuals do not have personal knowledge about Plaintiffs’ claim or the claim decision at issue in this case. At best, because they cannot articulate what relevant, proportional, and non-duplicative information Ms. Ress, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, or Mr. Welsh could provide, Plaintiffs’ demand to depose these individuals is based on mere speculation that they may possess some useful information beyond that of Ms. Manduca. But “[mlJere speculation that information might be 6 State Farm respectfully disagrees with these orders given Plaintiffs’ failure to connect the corporate-wide discovery they are seeking with the claim decision they are challenging. But, as noted below (infra Background 4 6, 9, FN 10), State Farm is in the process of producing the compelled production, and the parties have scheduled the deposition for Ms. Manduca on June 23, 2026. 3"}, {"d": 31, "p": 4, "t": "useful will not suffice.” Jd Plaintiffs must show that the noticed deponents possess unique, relevant, and proportional information about the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim; they cannot. Further, with respect to Mr. Moss, even if Plaintiffs were able to make this showing, Mr. Moss is retired and no longer a State Farm employee, and State Farm thus cannot compel his production at a deposition. Accordingly, State Farm respectfully requests that this Court quash the Deposition Notices and enter a protective order as further stated below. BACKGROUND L. This case arises from an insurance claim for damage that Plaintiffs allege their property sustained from a storm on or about June 15, 2023. See Pet. { 40(a). Plaintiffs did not submit a claim to State Farm for purported damage until approximately six weeks later, on July 28, 2023. Id. 7 40(b). State Farm investigated the claim, identified and paid for some hail damage but did not find that the roof was totaled by hail. 2. Plaintiffs retained a contractor to inspect their property and then a public adjuster, though the public adjuster appears to have relied on the contractor’s inspection rather than conduct his own. See generally, Id. 1 40(j). State Farm requested additional information as to the source of photos the public adjuster submitted, but that information was never provided. See e.g. Email attached hereto as Ex. 5. 3. Plaintiffs instead sued State Farm and the Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. (the “Holcomb Agency”) on February 28, 2025, well outside the one-year provision in the Policy. Plaintiffs brought claims against State Farm for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; negligent procurement against the Holcomb Agency; and constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation against both Defendants. moved for summary judgment on ail claims. See Pet. {] 45-79. Defendants have"}, {"d": 31, "p": 5, "t": "Thus, the underlying dispute here is whether Plaintiffs’ roof was totaled by hail. If it 4, was, then the question is whether State Farm’s determination otherwise was in bad faith or instead simply a legitimate dispute as to the scope of the damage. There is substantial evidence that State claim Farm’s decision was in fact correct—including two post-storm inspections by brokers/appraisers who identified no issues with the roof and evidence that the photos submitted to State Farm to persuade it to change its decision were not even of Plaintiffs’ house. There is no evidence that State Farm’s decision was in bad faith but only conclusory allegations of a scheme to deny roof claims, based simply on the fact that State Farm put together a team to evaluate the correctness of its claim determinations, implemented quality checks, and then evaluated the results. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s sinister spin on those unremarkable business operations is not evidence. 5. Plaintiffs have served 59 requests for production of documents, 34 interrogatories (in excess of the limit of 30, without leave of Court), and 30 requests for admission, most of which seek sweeping discovery regarding State Farm’s enterprise-wide policies, initiatives, and dealings with other insureds, primarily aimed at the FME, with only a handful of case specific requests. To date, State Farm has produced not only 964 pages of documents relating to the Plaintiffs’ claim-— including Plaintiffs’ insurance policy, the claim file, and the basic underwriting information for Plaintiffs’ property— but also more than 50,000 documents in compliance with the Court’s April 22, 2026 Order, in addition to earlier agreed productions. State Farm expects to produce, in total, documents in excess of 700,000 to comply with the Court’s Order. 6. On December 22, 2025, Plaintiffs noticed the deposition of Nicole Manduca, a Director in State Farm’s Property & Casualty department, though she was not involved with and has no knowledge of, Plaintiffs’ claim.’ Plaintiffs seek to depose Ms. Manduca because they 7 Indeed, as a former Claim Manager and current Director, Ms. Manduca did not have responsibility for substantively managing the handling of individual insurance claims. She also had a different role and was 5"}, {"d": 31, "p": 6, "t": "describe her as the “ringleader” of the FME. See Pls.’ Resp. in Opp. to Motion to Quash Deposition of N. Manduca at 3. This Court denied State Farm’s Motion to Quash Ms. Manduca’s deposition, ® stating Plaintiffs had sufficiently “authorized/created by Manduca.” pled a scheme and cost-savings measures that were See Court Order re Mot. to Quash (April 10, 2026), That deposition is scheduled for June 23, 2026.” 7. As of the date of this Motion, Plaintiffs have not taken the deposition of a single fact specific person actually involved in this claim. 8. Instead, Plaintiffs have, apparently in a tremendous rush given the multitude of errors in the Deposition Notices as stated in footnotes 1-3 above, noticed four senior level employees—including one retired employee. 9. Thus, rather than depose individuals close to the events underlying their insurance claim or taking a measured approach to see what, if any, testimony Ms. Manduca may provide about Plaintiffs’ allegations related to the FME before seeking duplicative and unnecessary discovery, Plaintiffs pursue depositions of three more high-level State Farm employees and a nowretired, former high-ranking Claims Consultant. The Court should quash the Deposition Notices. 10. Counsel for the parties exchanged communications about the Deposition Notices and whether there was an agreed path forward without the need for a Motion to Quash. While adjacent to, and several levels above, those who actually handled Plaintiffs’ insurance claim—i.e., those persons who could testify as to the investigation that led to State Farm’s claim determination. 8 See Mot. for Protective Order and to Quash/Stay Dep. Notice of N. Manduca (Jan. 7, 2026). * Although the Court ordered State Farm to produce Ms. Manduca by May 8, 2026, counsel for both parties agreed to postpone Ms. Manduca’s deposition when the Court entered an order compelling further document productions because counsel for Plaintiffs indicated they preferred to wait for the documents before proceeding with the deposition. Plaintiffs served an Amended Notice of Deposition of Ms. Manduca on May 28, 2026 for June 9, 2026, a date that was not workable for Ms. Manduca or State Farm’s counsel. During a status conference with the parties on June 1, 2026, the Court instructed the parties to schedule Ms. Manduca’s deposition prior to July 2, 2026, and the parties have scheduled the deposition for Ms. Manduca on June 23, 2026."}, {"d": 31, "p": 7, "t": "some flexibility on dates was discussed, the parties could not otherwise reach agreement. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY I. THE COURT SHOULD QUASH THE DEPOSITION NOTICES BECAUSE THE SOUGHT TESTIMONY IS IRRELEVANT AND DISPROPORTIONAL TO THE NEEDS OF THIS CASE. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has made clear that relevance—the threshold requirement for obtaining discovery—“should be firmly applied.” Quinn v. City of Tulsa, 1989 OK 112, 4 63, 777 P.2d 1331, 1342 (quoting Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979)); see also Nitzel v. Jackson, 1994 OK 49, § 2 n.*, 879 P.2d 1222, 1223 n.* (“Discovery is not without limitation. It must lead or tend to lead to relevant evidence.”). Information is “relevant” if it has a “tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” 12 0.8. § 2401. Relevance is not simply assumed: when a request is “overly broad on its face . . . the court abuse[s] its discretion by failing to require [the requesting party] to initially demonstrate how their request was relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Chick-fil-A, Inc. v. Ogden, 2026 OK 13, 916; see also Stainsby v. Okla. ex rel. Okla. Health Care Auth., No. CIV-21-1073-D, 2022 WL 1748263, at * | (W.D. Okla. May 31, 2022) (“When the request is overly broad, or relevance is not clear, the party seeking the discovery has the burden to show the relevance of the request.”).'° Nor does a “plaintiff's broad theory of the case . . . necessarily justify broad discovery,” and courts should thus endeavor to “thwart fishing expeditions.” Willis v. Johnson, No. CIV-18-323-D, 2021 WL 8446071, at *2 (W.D. Okla. May 20, 2021); see also Ross v. Univ. of Tulsa, No. 14-CV-484-TCK-PJC, 2015 WL 13622518, at *l (N.D. Okla. Apr. 24, 2015). Moreover, as the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals 1 Because “{t]he Oklahoma Discovery Code mirrors the Federal rules,” Meritor, Inc. v. State ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma, 2019 OK CIV APP 64, § 20 n.15, 451 P.3d 914, 922 n.15, Oklahoma courts often look to “discovery procedures in the federal rules when construing similar language in the Oklahoma Discovery Code,” Crest Infiniti, IL, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, { 2, 174 P.3d 996, 999. 7"}, {"d": 31, "p": 8, "t": "has recognized, insurance cases should be handled according to their circumstances. See City Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins., 1990 OK CIV APP 89, ¥ 18, 804 P.2d 463, 469 (“[Blefore . . . bad faith may be submitted to the jury, the Trial Court must first determine, under the facts of the particular case . . whether [the] insurer’s conduct may be reasonably perceived as tortious.”). Proportionality is equally critical. The Oklahoma Discovery Code, like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure from which it is derived, requires that discovery must be “proportional to the needs of the case.” 12.0.8. § 3226(B)(1)(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In fact, “the proper scope of discovery is that which is both relevant to the claims or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case; considering the various factors.” Dodd v. Indian Health Care Res. Cir. of Tulsa, Inc., No. 24-CV-00327-SH, 2024 WL 4648150, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 1, 2024).!' The Oklahoma Supreme Court made clear that a trial court must specifically consider the proportionality of discovery requests as set forth in § 3226(B)(2)(c) before it may compel the production of documents. See Order, Werner Enters., Inc. v. Kirkland, No. 122, 385 (Okla. Sept. 24, 2024). The Oklahoma Supreme Court has cautioned that “pretrial discovery by depositions and interrogatories has a significant potential for abuse.” YWCA of Oklahoma City v. Melson, 1997 OK 81, § 24 n.41, 944 P.2d 304, 311 n.41. Accordingly, the Discovery Code requires a court to “limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed if it determines” that “the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by subparagraph a of paragraph 1 of this subsection [regarding relevance and proportionality].” issue, “for good cause shown... 12 0.8. § 3226(B)(2)(c). As such, this Court may any order which justice requires to protect a party or person” ‘| These factors include: (1}the importance of the issues at stake in the action; (2) the amount in controversy, (3) the parties’ relative access to relevant information; (4) the parties’ resources; (5) the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues; and (6) whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b\\(1). 8"}, {"d": 31, "p": 9, "t": "from “oppression or undue delay, burden or expense,” including “that the discovery not be had” or “that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions.” 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(1). Here, as set forth below, the Court must quash the Deposition Notices because they seek irrelevant information that is designed to harass and impose unreasonable burdens and expense on State Farm, and is duplicative and disproportionate to the needs of the case. A. Plaintiffs Have Not Demonstrated the Relevance of the Testimony They Seek. Plaintiffs cannot establish that the deposition testimony of Ms. Ress, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Welsh would be relevant to their claims. Nor can they. While Plaintiffs plead an enterprise-wide theory of misconduct, they of necessity have to tie the purported conduct to their claim.!2 Ms. Ress, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Welsh did not assist Plaintiffs in procuring the policy! or have any involvement in the investigation, evaluation, or decisions regarding Plaintiffs” claim, and Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that any of these individuals has information regarding Plaintiffs’ claim. Indeed, in their roles, Ms. Ress, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Welsh did not have responsibility for substantively managing the adjustment of individual claims. All four of them are (or in the case of Mr. Moss, were) several levels above those who actually handled Plaintiffs’ claim, ie., those who could testify about the investigation that led to State Farm’s coverage decision. Plaintiffs’ attempt to depose individuals with no connection to their claims is part of their 2 See, e.g., Thurston v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2020 OK 105, § 22, 478 P.3d 415, 421 (refusing to waive insured’s duty to read his insurance policy, rejecting insured’s argument to apply instead his “reasonable expectations” of what the policy covered); Estrada v. Kriz, 2015 OK CIV APP 19, q 15, 345 P.3d 403, 408 (stating that “an averment of fraud only exists where there is some ‘false suggestion or suppression of the truth’. ..”). 3 Although Plaintiffs bring a negligent procurement claim against the Holcomb Agency, the crux of Plaintiffs’ claims do not relate to the underwriting, sale, marketing, or binding of the policy. Rather, the Petition makes clear it is not the Policy or any of its terms about which Plaintiffs complain; instead, Plaintiffs complain of State Farm’s claim decisions. 9"}, {"d": 31, "p": 10, "t": "efforts to advance their unfounded theories regarding the FME, which they mischaracterize as an enterprise-wide plan to deny policyholders’ claims. See Pet. (3. But such far-reaching allegations do not justify deposing Ms. Ress, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, or Mr. Welsh, let alone all four of them. See Johnson, 2021 WL 8446071, at *2 (a “plaintiff's broad theory of the case does not necessarily justify broad discovery”). Merely alleging misconduct does not entitle Plaintiffs to broad discovery from multiple high-level employees without explaining how the requested depositions are relevant to the instant litigation. Chick-fil-A, 2026 OK 13, § 15 (explaining relevance to the “subject matter” alone does not make information discoverable: “[t]hat is no longer the standard.”). Indeed, Plaintiffs have already noticed the deposition of Ms. Manduca, whom they allege is the “ringleader” and “is directly responsible for key aspects of the Scheme’s origin, development and/or implementation.” Pls.’ Opp. to Mot. to Quash Dep. Notice of N. Manduca (Jan. 28, 2026) at 2-3. As such, it is unclear what, if any, additional relevant and non-duplicative testimony Plaintiffs seek from these additional high-level employees. '* State Farm respectfully requests that the Court quash the Deposition Notices for this reason alone. B. The Depositions of Ms. Ress, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Welsh Are Not Proportional to the Needs of the Case. Even assuming Plaintiffs could satisfy their burden of showing relevance, the Court should quash the Deposition Notices because Ms. Ress, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Welsh’s testimony would be disproportional to the needs of the case. 12 O.S. §§ 3226(B)()(a), 3226(B)(2)(c)(3).).!5 This is a case involving an approximately $51,000 dispute over damages to 4 In the Hursh matter, Plaintiffs’ counsel also contended that Scott Welsh’s testimony is relevant because, as part of the purported scheme, he was involved in State Farm’s adoption of certain training modules from global consulting and engineering firm Haag. But Plaintiffs do not allege, let alone provide facts showing, that the use of Haag’s third-party training materials had any effect on the determination of their insurance claim. 15 See also Murphy vy. Deloitte & Touche Group Ins. Plan, 619 F.3d 1151, 1163 (10th Cir. 2010) (“Rule 26(b), although broad, has never been a license to engage in an unwieldy, burdensome, and speculative 10"}, {"d": 31, "p": 11, "t": "Plaintiffs’ property, yet Plaintiffs demand that not only Ms. Manduca appear for deposition, but that Ms. Ress, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Welsh prepare for and appear for depositions as well. As noted above, Plaintiffs have not bothered to depose anyone with personal knowledge of the facts that they need to prosecute their claims. Nor have they yet deposed Ms. Manduca—the purported “ringleader” of the FME—to determine whether the FME impacted the claim at issue. Therefore, proportionality requires that this effort wait until Plaintiffs conduct the discovery the Court has already found proportional and see whether more is required. Evans vy. Allstate Ins. Co., 216 F.R.D. 515 (N.D. Okla. 2003) is instructive. In Evans, the plaintiffs sued Allstate, alleging it improperly denied their fire loss claim, and sought to depose three of its officers. Id. at 516. Allstate contended that the corporate officers whom the plaintiffs sought to depose had no unique personal knowledge of the matters at issue and that the requests were burdensome, irrelevant, and propounded solely for the purpose of harassment and abuse. Jd. at 518. Allstate also noted that the plaintiffs had taken the depositions of all adjusters and supervisors involved in the handling of plaintiffs’ insurance claim. Jd. In response, the plaintiffs argued the depositions were necessary to prove their theory that a pervasive practice of inadequate supervision over Allstate claims adjusters existed within the corporation. Jd. The court found that even if the plaintiffs had a right to explore those themes, Allstate had already provided adequate information, or that the information could be obtained from other sources without the depositions of the officers sought. Jd. Accordingly, the Northern District granted Allstate’s motion for a protective order prohibiting the depositions of the officers. Id. fishing expedition.”); Chrisman v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Oklahoma Cnty., No. CIV-17-1309-D, 2020 WL 7033965, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 30, 2020) (“While the scope of discovery is broad, it is not unlimited and is further defined by proportionality considerations. A plaintiff’s broad theory of the case does not necessarily justify broad discovery. Further, courts should thwart fishing expeditions.”) (internal cites omitted). 11"}, {"d": 31, "p": 12, "t": "Like the officers in Evans, Ms. Ress, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Welsh have no unique personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ insurance claim. Indeed, they do not, and did not, even manage those who were involved in the investigation, evaluation, or denial of Plaintiffs’ claim. To the extent Plaintiffs seek discovery regarding their allegations that the adjusters were influenced by some nefarious plan, they should test those theories with the Claim Specialists and the Team Manager with knowledge of how Plaintiffs’ claim was handled. At a minimum, Plaintiffs should also first test those theories with Ms. Manduca before seeking duplicative testimony. Subjecting the noticed deponents to depositions based on mere speculation that they may have information not available from other sources far exceeds the bounds of permissible discovery. See Schultz, 2016 WL 3149686, at *3 (“Mere speculation that information might be useful will not suffice.”). Efforts like those of Plaintiffs here have been rejected by other courts. See Todd v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, Inc., No. 219CV00085JMSDLP, 2019 WL 8272621, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 13, 2019) (“Plaintiff has yet to take a deposition in this case, but desires to start that process at the top of the food chain with the former CEO of the Defendant’s parent company . . . what the Plaintiff forgets, however, is that this case is limited to a single-plaintiff consumer protection matter regarding the handling of [Plaintiff's] mortgage loan. This is not a nationwide collective action; if it were, deposing an executive may potentially be relevant, proportional, and permissible.”). Moreover, the Court’s Order requiring Ms. Manduca’s deposition does not give Plaintiffs carte blanche to depose every other high-level employee at State Farm about the handling of their claim or the FME. Plaintiffs have available to them much less intrusive and burdensome means to prosecute their claims, and until they avail themselves of those options and demonstrate what—if any—unique, relevant knowledge Ms. Ress, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Welsh may have 12"}, {"d": 31, "p": 13, "t": "relating to their claim, the Court should not allow their depositions to proceed. C. Plaintiffs Improperly Seek the Deposition of a Senior Executive with No Unique, Relevant Knowledge. Mr. Herbert, as Senior Vice President for Property & Casualty Claims at State Farm, holds a senior executive position at State Farm. Subjecting a high-level executive like Mr. Herbert to a deposition based on mere speculation that he may have information not available from other sources far exceeds the bounds of permissible discovery. Indeed, courts routinely recognize that depositions of high-level executives are improper absent a showing that they have unique personal knowledge that could not be obtained from lower-level employees. See Crest Infiniti, If, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77 f 14-15 (recognizing that apex depositions have unique potential for abuse, and should not be had if “annoyance, oppression, and undue burden and expense outweigh the need for discovery” on those issues); Schultz, 2016 WL 3149686, at *3 (“Mere speculation that information might be useful will not suffice.”); U.S. ex rel. Galmines v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., No. 06-3213, 2015 WL 4973626, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2015) (quashing depositions of highlevel executives because relator was unable to rebut the “presumption that a high-level official’s deposition represents a significant burden upon the deponent and that this burden is undue” by establishing that executives had unique personal knowledge that could not be obtained from lowerGiven that Mr. Herbert had no involvement in level employees or less burdensome discovery). the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim, and the Court has already ordered the deposition of Ms. Manduca, the purported “leader” of the FME, Plaintiffs cannot explain how the deposition of a senior executive like Mr. Herbert would be relevant or proportional to the needs of the case. 13"}, {"d": 31, "p": 14, "t": "D. Plaintiffs Cannot Require State Farm to Produce a Retired Employee. Finally, as to Mr. Moss, Plaintiffs’ Notice is invalid because it improperly requires State Farm to produce a retired, former Claims Consultant for a deposition. In Crest Infiniti, II v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, §6, 174 P.3d 996, 1000 (Oct 10, 2007), the Oklahoma Supreme Court observed consistent with applicable federal authority that under 12 O.S. § 3230, “[w]hile a notice to a party’s counsel may be used to compel a party to attend a deposition, a subpoena is used to compel a non-party witness to attend a deposition and a witness fee must be paid.” See also Herron v. Progressive Car Fin, LLC, No. CIV-22-638-SLP, 2013 WL 11762874, ¥2 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 13, 2023) (Palk) (holding that “notice cannot be used to compel a party to produce a witness for deposition who are not its own employees, regardless of whether (or to what extent) the party exercises control over the nonparty witness.”) Courts deciding this issue in other jurisdictions are in accord. “It is well settled that ‘a corporation may not be examined through its former officers, directors, or managing agents, nor subordinate employees or stockholders.”” Gabriel v. Safeway, Inc., No. 10-2256, 2011 WL 5864033, *5 (NJ . Nov. 21, 2011) (quoting Pettyjohn v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., No. 912681, 1992 WL 168085, *1 (E.D. Pa. July 9, 1992)). “Consequently, neither the court nor a corporation has any basis to compel a former employee to be examined through deposition,\" and a party wishing to depose a non-party is required to serve them with a subpoena. Id. (citing Maynard v. Goodwill Indus, of Delaware, No. 08-801, 2009 WL 1402281, *2 (D. Del. May 18, 2009)); see also Sherman v. Sheffield Financial, LLC, 338 FR.D. 247, 254-55 (D. Minn. 2021) (quoting E.1. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Ko/on Indus., Inc., 268 FR.D. 45, 49 (E.D. Va. 2010)) (“[T]he general rule is that former employees cannot be managing agents of a corporation,” so the deposition of such an individual “must be compelled as a nonparty.”). Here, Mr. Moss is not a party to this case, and he is no longer an employee of State Farm. Therefore, even if Mr. Moss's 14"}, {"d": 31, "p": 15, "t": "deposition was relevant and proportional to the needs of this case—which it is not—State Farm cannot compel his attendance at the deposition. Plaintiffs must serve Mr. Moss with a subpoena. CONCLUSION State Farm respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion to quash the Deposition Notices and for a protective order preventing the depositions of Ms. Ress, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Welsh noticed by Plaintiffs to take place on June 15, 2026, June 17, 2026, June 12, 2026, and June 16, 2026, respectively. Respectfully Submitted, Yuin 0.W vole TIMILA &JROTHER OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA # 31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 15"}, {"d": 31, "p": 16, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 11th day of June, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER Hannah Whitten FIRM John S. Sanders 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS Yhige 0. Whew 16 LAW"}, {"d": 31, "p": 18, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, Plaintiffs, V. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CASE NO. CJ-2025-135 and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF INTENTION TO TAKE ORAL & VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF THOMAS MOSS TO: All Defendants and their counsel of record. Deponent: Kathy Ress 2403 Kaitlyn Dr. Bloomington, IL 61704 Date: Time: June 15, 2026 9:00am CST Location: State Farm Corporate Office One State Farm Plaza Bloomington, IL OR Professional Reporters 511 Couch Drive, #100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 OR Bloomington, Illinois location as agreed upon between the parties Method: In person Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Thomas Moss Page | of 4"}, {"d": 31, "p": 19, "t": "PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230(C), Plaintiffs will take the oral deposition of Scott Welsh before a Certified Court Reporter or other officer authorized to administer oaths, at the date, time, and location set forth above, and will continue from day to day until completed. This deposition will be recorded by stenographic and audiovisual means. Counsel for Defendants are invited to attend and cross-examine. All objections made at the time of any examination to the qualifications of the officer taking the examination, to the manner of the taking of the deposition, to the evidence presented, to the conduct of any party, or to any other aspect of the proceeding shall be noted by the officer upon the record of the deposition, but the examination shall proceed with the testimony being taken subject to the objections made. Any objection during the examination must be stated concisely and in a non-argumentative manner and non-suggestive manner. Dated: May 15, 2026 Respectfully submitted, Plaka Donne Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Thomas Moss Page 2 of 4"}, {"d": 31, "p": 20, "t": "& Brad Burgess Colby Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 44\" St., Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 580-355-8920 580-355-8999 (fax) brad@burgess-hightower.com colby@burgess-hightower.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Thomas Moss Page 3 of 4"}, {"d": 31, "p": 21, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 14th day of May 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Timila S. Rother Paige A. Masters CROWE & DUNLEVY, PC Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com Attorneys for Defendants State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. and Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. Bhaf Donne Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Thomas Moss Page 4 of 4"}, {"d": 31, "p": 23, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, Plaintiffs, V. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CASE NO. CJ-2025-135 and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF INTENTION TO TAKE ORAL & VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF THOMAS MOSS TO: All Defendants and their counsel of record. Deponent: Wensley Herbert 3111 Fiona Way, Bloomington, IL 61704 Date: Time: June 17, 2026 9:00am CST Location: State Farm Corporate Office One State Farm Plaza Bloomington, IL OR Professional Reporters 511 Couch Drive, #100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 OR Bloomington, Illinois location as agreed upon between the parties Method: In person Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Thomas Moss Page | of 4"}, {"d": 31, "p": 24, "t": "PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230(C), Plaintiffs will take the oral deposition of Wensley Herbert before a Certified Court Reporter or other officer authorized to administer oaths, at the date, time, and location set forth above, and will continue from day to day until completed. This deposition will be recorded by stenographic and audiovisual means. Counsel for Defendants are invited to attend and cross-examine. All objections made at the time of any examination to the qualifications of the officer taking the examination, to the manner of the taking of the deposition, to the evidence presented, to the conduct of any party, or to any other aspect of the proceeding shall be noted by the officer upon the record of the deposition, but the examination shall proceed with the testimony being taken subject to the objections made. Any objection during the examination must be stated concisely and in a non-argumentative manner and non-suggestive manner. Dated: May 15, 2026 Respectfully submitted, Blak. Sonne Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Thomas Moss Page 2 of 4"}, {"d": 31, "p": 25, "t": "& Brad Burgess Colby Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 44\" St., Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 580-355-8920 580-355-8999 (fax) brad@burgess-hightower.com colby@burgess-hightower.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Thomas Moss Page 3 of 4"}, {"d": 31, "p": 26, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 14th day of May 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Timila S. Rother Paige A. Masters CROWE & DUNLEVY, PC Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com Attorneys for Defendants State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. and Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Thomas Moss Page 4 of 4 BL jy, Se"}, {"d": 31, "p": 28, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, Plaintiffs, V. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CASE NO. CJ-2025-135 and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF INTENTION TO TAKE ORAL & VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF THOMAS MOSS TO: All Defendants and their counsel of record. Deponent: Thomas Moss 330 Gracewood Cir. Moore, SC 29369 Date: Time: June 12, 2026 9:00am CST Location: State Farm Corporate Office One State Farm Plaza Bloomington, IL OR Professional Reporters 511 Couch Drive, #100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 OR Spartanburg County, South Carolina as agreed upon between the parties Method: In person Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Thomas Moss Page | of 4"}, {"d": 31, "p": 29, "t": "PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230(C), Plaintiffs will take the oral deposition of Thomas Moss before a Certified Court Reporter or other officer authorized to administer oaths, at the date, time, and location set forth above, and will continue from day to day until completed. This deposition will be recorded by stenographic and audiovisual means. Counsel for Defendants are invited to attend and cross-examine. All objections made at the time of any examination to the qualifications of the officer taking the examination, to the manner of the taking of the deposition, to the evidence presented, to the conduct of any party, or to any other aspect of the proceeding shall be noted by the officer upon the record of the deposition, but the examination shall proceed with the testimony being taken subject to the objections made. Any objection during the examination must be stated concisely and in a non-argumentative manner and non-suggestive manner. Dated: May 15, 2026 Respectfully submitted, Plife QOnne Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Thomas Moss Page 2 of 4"}, {"d": 31, "p": 30, "t": "& Brad Burgess Colby Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 44\" St., Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 580-355-8920 580-355-8999 (fax) brad@burgess-hightower.com colby@burgess-hightower.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Thomas Moss Page 3 of 4"}, {"d": 31, "p": 31, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 14th day of May 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Timila S. Rother Paige A. Masters CROWE & DUNLEVY, PC Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com Attorneys for Defendants State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. and Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. Elaki Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Thomas Moss Page 4 of 4 Sonne"}, {"d": 31, "p": 33, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, Plaintiffs, V. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CASE NO. CJ-2025-135 and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF INTENTION TO TAKE ORAL & VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF THOMAS MOSS TO: All Defendants and their counsel of record. Deponent: Scott Welsh 3008 Rusty Ln Bloomington, IL 61704 Date: Time: June 16, 2026 9:00am CST Location: State Farm Corporate Office One State Farm Plaza Bloomington, IL OR Professional Reporters 511 Couch Drive, #100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 OR Bloomington, Illinois location as agreed upon between the parties Method: In person Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Thomas Moss Page | of 4"}, {"d": 31, "p": 34, "t": "PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230(C), Plaintiffs will take the oral deposition of Scott Welsh before a Certified Court Reporter or other officer authorized to administer oaths, at the date, time, and location set forth above, and will continue from day to day until completed. This deposition will be recorded by stenographic and audiovisual means. Counsel for Defendants are invited to attend and cross-examine. All objections made at the time of any examination to the qualifications of the officer taking the examination, to the manner of the taking of the deposition, to the evidence presented, to the conduct of any party, or to any other aspect of the proceeding shall be noted by the officer upon the record of the deposition, but the examination shall proceed with the testimony being taken subject to the objections made. Any objection during the examination must be stated concisely and in a non-argumentative manner and non-suggestive manner. Dated: May 15, 2026 Respectfully submitted, Blake Sonne Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Thomas Moss Page 2 of 4"}, {"d": 31, "p": 35, "t": "& Brad Burgess Colby Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 44\" St., Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 580-355-8920 580-355-8999 (fax) brad@burgess-hightower.com colby@burgess-hightower.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Thomas Moss Page 3 of 4"}, {"d": 31, "p": 36, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 14th day of May 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Timila S. Rother Paige A. Masters CROWE & DUNLEVY, PC Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com Attorneys for Defendants State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. and Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. Blak Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Thomas Moss Page 4 of 4 Se"}, {"d": 31, "p": 38, "t": "From:\"HOME CLMS-FIRECLAIMS\" <statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com> Sent:Tue, 17 Sep 2024 13:16:51 +0000 To:\"jparga@coastalclaims.net\" <jparga@coastalclaims.net>; \"NEILSPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET\" <NEILSPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET>; \"LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM\" <LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM> Ce:\"DF - FIRE- Drop File Document” <DF-FIRE-CL @internal.statefarm.com> Subject:36-53Q1-13C Dear Jose Parga, Based on our conversation this morning, Coastal Claim Services will have to send additional. information over for review, when comes to the rain cap that is in question. If you have any additional questions: my contact information is listed below. Joe Wicker (herhinn/his) | — Claim Specialist - Hail Reconciliation Unit ATL Park Center 3 _ Desk#: 469-442-1670 HRU #: 844-458-4300 Ext, 66 Statefarmfireclaims@Statefarm.com Se Statefarm | | OC?« SFF&CC/West_000186"}, {"d": 31, "p": 39, "t": "RBZOO0Is StateFarm State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Se, Fire Claim File Print File History Information Route To: BASIC CLAIM INFORMATION | Claim Number: 36-5301-13C Date of Loss: 06-15-2023 Policy Number: 36-CR-X405-8 Named Insured: WEST, NEILS | | FILE HISTORY File History - File Notes 12-19-2024 - 12:05 PM CST Performer: Wicker, Joe Office: WHRUREC File Note: File Note Participant: Category: Contact - Outbound Cali Working vm, COL/ Line (Participant}: 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Sub Category: RCF CTR Bob requesting claim status, CS explained that the CTR would have to contact the PA to get the claim status info. CTR said he understoad and he will ffu with the PA 42-19-2024 - 11:13 AM CST Performer: Burk, Carrie Office: WHRUREC Fite Note: Contact Participant: COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 007(Named Insured(s)) Category: Contact - Inbound Call Sub Category: CS working ACD line. RCF CTR seeking update on claim. CS reviewed update with CTR, however CTR confused by the supplemental. CS provided CO's contact information and transferred to CO to seek clarfiication. CS backing out of claim. NFH 09-17-2024 - 8:22 AM CDT Performer: Wicker, Joe File Note: File Note Participant: COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC Category: Contact - Outbound Call , Office: WHRUREC GOL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Sub Category: Date: 03-14-2025 Page 1 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000069"}, {"d": 31, "p": 40, "t": "FIRE Claim Number: 36-5301-13C RBZ000I5 Working new mail received an email from PA requesting that we review their photo, of the roof rain cap stating that this is a items we missed doing our 1st inspection. Reviewed the docs and contacted the PA Jose, CS explained that we would need additional photos verifying the location for the rain cap on the roof. PA said he understood and he will submit those docs. NFH closing claim new mail will reopen the clam. 08-15-2024 - 9:32 AM CDT File Note: pending file note Participant: Category: Pending Performer: Bradley, Yasiin Office: WHRUREC COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Cov A: RCBs paid. Cov B: n/a Cov C: n/a Sub: n/a Morigagee (Dollar One Y/N): no Closing claim pending addtional documentation to be reopened. 08-15-2024 - 9:31 AM CDT Performer: Bradley, Yasiin File Note: CTR PHOTOS FOR 2ND INSPECTION Participant: COL / Line (Participant): Category: Claim Note Sub Category: Office: WHRUREC -_ * © © @ © 2B ee @ .CTR submitted CX live photos previously submitted showing damage to the shingle CS reviewed photos submitted on 7/15/24 along with CTR EST, photos resembles previous submitted photos for CTR on 3/30/24. Per TM review “no additional damages to roofing,” CTR photos does not reflect additional damage done. All items were addressed at initial inspection by adjuster. Additional inspection is not warranted. NI and CTR were informed 2nd inspection or TRR not warranted. Decision remains, CS contacted PA and NI notifying decision remains the same at this time. Claim can be closed pending addtional supporting documentation to be reopened. 07-30-2024 - 11:31 AM CDT Performer: Wicker, Joe Office: WHRUREC File Note: File Note Participant: COL / Line (Participant): 35 /001(Named Insured(s)) Category: Contact - Inbound Call Sub Category: RCF the Agent, NI's called to get the status of the claim, CS explained that we have received the CTR's docs but we have not made it to that mail date yet. Agent said she understood. 07-26-2024 - 8:55 AM CDT Performer: Thomas, Dawn Office: WHRUREC File Note: Claim Note Participant: COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC COL / Line (Participant): 35 /001(Named Insured(s)) Category: Claim Note Sub Category: Revd claim - PA has been provided an update PHone message sent to CO in errir 07-25-2024 - 11:58 AM CDT Performer: Berndtson, Erica File Note: Contact Participant: COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC COL / Line (Participant): 35 Category: Contact Sub Category: Office:PROPVPLH /001(Named Insured(s)) CS received voicemail from PA Kelsey left voicemail requesting timeline for supplement/2nd inspection review. PA Kelsey call back number 386-478-4911. 07-25-2024 - 10:53 AM CDT File Note: File Note Participant: Category: Contact - Outbound Call Performer: Wicker, Joe . Office: WHRUREC COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s}) Sub Category: Date: 03-14-2025 Page 2 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000070"}, {"d": 32, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA FILED DISTRICT COURT NEIL and LACY WEST, ous ) soo ) ROBERT Plaintiffs, Vv, ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY } COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS.) Defendants. MOR: LES, court CLERK Case Nhe CJ-2025-135 ) AGENCY, INC., ees soneaco pat Case No. CJ-2025-135 JUDGE SHEPERD ) ) ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ MAY 28, 2026 MOTION TO ENFORCE Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm’) respectfully submits this Motion for a four day extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce filed May 28, 2026 (“Plaintiffs’ Motion’) until Friday, June 19, 2026. In support of its Motion, State Farm states as follows: 1. On April 22, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel in part, requiring State Farm to produce responsive documents by June 1, 2026 (the “Order”). Although the Order indicated that the Court Clerk would mai! a copy to the parties, counsel for State Farm was not aware of and did not receive a copy of the Order until May 4, 2026. Asa result, State Farm’s time to comply with the Order was reduced by 12 days. 2. Realizing it could not complete production by June 1, on May 22, 2026, State Farm filed its Opposed Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with the Court’s Discovery Order, seeking an additional 60 days to comply. 3. On May 28, 2026, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Enforce alleging State Farm was delaying its document production and seeking sanctions as stated in the Motion. Without the extension requested herein, State Farm’s response to that Motion would be due June 15, 2026."}, {"d": 32, "p": 2, "t": "4. On June 1, 2026, the Court held a virtual status conference in which the Court gave preliminary guidance to the parties on the issues raised by the pending Motions for Extension of Time to Comply with the Discovery Order and Motion to Enforce, but noting the Motions would be heard on July 23, 2026. Among the guidance provided by the Court was for State Farm to attempt to complete its document production by June 15 and that Ms. Manduca thereafter be produced for deposition between June 22 and July 2, 2026. 5. Since that time, State Farm has been working continuously to comply with that guidance. It was able to work with Ms. Manduca to find a date in the ordered window and she will be produced for deposition on June 23. State Farm has produced in advance of this filing and on the same date, much of what has been ordered by the Court, with priority given to documents relevant to Ms. Manduca, much of which is duplicative between what was produced anew in response to the Court’s Order and what was included in the earlier production, which has proved more difficult to produce. 6. State Farm still has work to do to complete the production and asks for the extension of time to respond to the Motion to Enforce, which will not be heard until July 23 anyway, so that it can give the Court a more complete account of the status of production and what, if anything, remains outstanding so that the Court has a full picture at the hearing on July 23. 7. This request is not made for purposes of delay. When State Farm is through producing documents it will have produced well more than 700,000 documents. Even if everything goes right, and it seldom does, there is just no way to do that quickly. Just the download of that volume of information takes hours or days which is the shortest part of the process. WHEREFORE, Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company respectfully requests the Court enter an order, a proposed form of which is submitted herewith, extending its deadline"}, {"d": 32, "p": 3, "t": "to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce from June 15, 2026 to June 952026. f s CROWE mi DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave. Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8273 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 32, "p": 4, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 15th day of June, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFES CN . . | nt 0"}, {"d": 32, "p": 5, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL & LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. ) ) AGENCY, INC., ) ) Defendants. ,) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ MAY 28, 2026 MOTION TO ENFORCE Before the Court is Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’ May 28, 2026 Motion to Enforce. Upon review of the Motion, and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that State Farm file its response no later than Friday, June 19, 2026. ITISSO ORDERED this _ day of June, 2026. GRANT SHEPERD DISTRICT COURT JUDGE EXHIBIT"}, {"d": 32, "p": 6, "t": "AMANDA/M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 33, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED NEIL and LACY WEST, PI . ) DISTRICT COURT ) COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA ) ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2025-135 iff aint June 16, 2026 9:16 AM 8s V. ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. ) ,) ) AGENCY, INC.,, Case No, CJ-2025-135 ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER ADMITTING TO PRACTICE Timila S. Rother, Paige A. Masters, and Amanda M. Finch, Crowe Dunlevy, having filed their Motion to Associate Counsel pursuant to the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association, 5 O.S. Ch. 1. App. 1, Art. II, together with a signed Application, Certificate of Good Standing, and the Oklahoma Bar Association Certificate of Compliance; and said Motion having been noticed, no objections having been made, and the Court being fully apprised in the premises, and good cause appearing, it is hereby; ORDERED, that said motion is hereby granted, and Erica B, Zolner is hereby admitted to practice in the above-styled and numbered cause of action for the purposes of the above entitled matter only, a a TIMILA S. hse OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT a /"}, {"d": 33, "p": 2, "t": "(405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 34, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE June 19, 2026 4:58 PM mgt” WEST, emt NEIL & LACY Case Number CJ-2025-135 eet” — raat” — maar Case No, CJ-2025-135 Nagel eae INS. nega” gael” Vv. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB AGENCY, INC., ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK marl Plaintiffs, COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Defendants. DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE, REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING, AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS"}, {"d": 34, "p": 2, "t": "Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Enforce” (herein, “Motion’”) is an unreasonable manufacture of a discovery emergency that does not exist and which ignores the reality of the enormous document production ordered-—with an associated unreasonable request that Plaintiffs be allowed two depositions of the same witness. As set forth in Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s (“State Farm’s”) May 22, 2026 Motion for Extension, State Farm has been diligently working to collect, review for responsiveness, and produce hundreds of thousands of documents ordered by the Court and unrelated to Plaintiffs’ individual insurance claim-——but was unable to complete this complex process by June 1, 2026. Nonetheless, State Farm will be producing virtually all of the more than 700,000 documents subject to the Court’s April 22, 2026 Order on Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel by the week of June 22. In addition, State Farm has offered and is producing Nicole Manduca for deposition on June 23, 2026, having prioritized and produced documents relevant to Ms. Manduca first. There is no basis for “discovery sanctions” for State Farm’s inability to produce all of these documents by June | (State Farm produced almost 50,000 documents that day) or by Plaintiffs’ unilaterally noticed (and now rescheduled) date of June 9, 2026 for Nicole Manduca’s deposition, which are the deadlines focused on in Plaintiffs’ Motion. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The crux of this case is whether Plaintiffs’ roof was totaled by a storm. The case involves approximately $50,000 in contract damages Plaintiffs’ home allegedly sustained from a weather event on June 15, 2023. Plaintiffs reported the claim on July 28, 2023, six weeks after the claimed date of loss. Although Plaintiffs allege this was a devastating storm that destroyed their roof, State Farm wrote and called Plaintiffs multiple times regarding their claim before finally receiving a response from them on September 16, 2023. (See generally, Pet. §40.) State Farm inspected the house on September 28, 2023 and estimated a total of $4,775.89 for damage to gutters, downspouts and window screens, as well as for staining the fence and repainting in one bedroom. I"}, {"d": 34, "p": 3, "t": "It was not until six months later, in March 2024, that Plaintiffs requested a second inspection, followed months later by demands, photos, and an estimate in the amount of $51,696.31 from a contractor and then a public adjusting firm in Florida. State Farm reviewed the photos but could not match some of the public adjuster photos with the other photos of the insureds’ roof, asked for more information and then received no response. Plaintiffs then filed this lawsuit on February 28, 2025 (well outside the one year required by the Policy)—asserting claims against State Farm for breach of contract and bad faith; claims against agent Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency for negligent procurement; and claims against all Defendants for constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation. (Pet. at {9 40, 45-79.) State Farm immediately produced all claim-specific documents, including Plaintiffs’ policy and relevant Claims Files and applicable underwriting data on the house. State Farm also agreed to produce, upon entry of a Protective Order: other significant data including underwriting guidelines in effect when the Policy issued; applicable claim-handling guidelines in place at the time of the alleged loss; Wind and Hail Guidelines from 2020 and 2021; performance evaluations for the claim handlers involved in Plaintiffs’ claims; and the Fire Property Quality Plan in effect on the dates of loss, among others. State Farm produced that information upon entry of the Protective Order. State Farm is now in the process of producing ever 700,000 additional documents in compliance with the Court’s April 22, 2026 Order on Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel. The Order specifically required State Farm to produce, by June |, claims training materials between 2019 and 2025; information between 2019 and 2025 regarding the Fire Model Enhancement (the “FME”) quality and other “wind/hail initiatives,” including purported tracking of roof replacements, indemnity savings, and payment volumes; six years of documents and communications relating to managerial approval requirements for full roof replacements; documents about alleged efforts to"}, {"d": 34, "p": 4, "t": "reduce indemnity payments for wind/hail claims; and all documents previously produced or ordered in six unrelated lawsuits. The Court also ordered State Farm to produce Fire Property Claims Quality Plans between 2019 and 2025 plus documents on initiatives concerning indemnity payments and roof replacement ratios, approval rates and payments and emails or other correspondence to or from Nicole Manduca, Sharon Arnold, Tom Moss, and Susan Maynard, from 2019 to 2025, about the FME and various metrics relating to roof replacements. Although the Order indicated that the Court Clerk would mail a copy to the parties, counsel for State Farm was not aware of and did not receive a copy of the Order until May 4, 2026 (and then only from counsel for Plaintiffs). As a result, State Farm’s time to comply with the Order was reduced by 12 days. While State Farm respectfully disagrees that the discovery at issue in the Order is at all relevant or proportional to the claims and defenses in this lawsuit, immediately following receipt of the Order, State Farm began to work diligently to search for, identify, collect, review, and produce documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests. Given the volume of documents involved, State Farm’s late notice of the Order, and the fact that many of the requests seek data from proprietary, internal systems and repositories across several business functions, State Farm moved the Court on May 22, 2026, for a 60-day extension of the Court’s June | production deadline, until July 30, 2026. (See May 22, 2026 Motion for Extension.) As State Farm explained in its motion, the Court’s Order implicates hundreds of thousands of documents over a six-and-half period from files of dozens of employees. State Farm continued to work diligently to collect, review, and prepare documents for production in compliance with the Order, and was able to produce nearly 50,000 documents by June Ist. During a status hearing on that day, the Court indicated that State Farm should endeavor to complete its production by June 15,"}, {"d": 34, "p": 5, "t": "2026, and State Farm has since worked to produce an additional 6,500 “new” documents this week. The greatest remaining volume of production is the documents ordered produced from other cases, State Farm has also been making rolling productions of those documents. These reproductions involved dozens of production volumes from separate workspaces and required State Farm to engage a third-party discovery vendor to complete the reproductions. For many of these production volumes, State Farm’s discovery vendor had to export each individual production volume to a new workspace, before West Bates stamping could be applied. State Farm expects to produce all remaining documents that were ordered to be reproduced from other matters by the week of June 22. In addition to Plaintiffs’ voluminous discovery requests, Plaintiffs have also noticed Nicole Manduca—a Director in State Farm’s Property & Casualty department who was not involved in the handling of Plaintiffs’ insurance claim or supervision of anyone involved—for a deposition. State Farm moved to quash the deposition, but the Court denied that motion and initially ordered State Farm to produce Ms. Manduca by May 8, 2026. When the Court entered its Order for document production on April 22, however, both parties agreed to postpone Ms. Manduca’s deposition because counsel for Plaintiffs indicated they preferred to wait for documents to be produced before proceeding with the deposition (though they noticed the deposition for a date and pursued that notice via motion practice when they knew the document objections would not be resolved or any of the Manduca-related production completed by the time of the deposition). But soon after State Farm’s counsel notified Plaintiffs that State Farm would not be able to complete its document production by June 1, 2026 and would be seeking relief from the Court if an ' State Farm’s motion for extension is still pending, as the Court has not yet heard argument or ruled on the merits of the motion. This Court set the June | hearing sua sponte on May 29 to address scheduling issues relating to Ms. Manduca’s deposition, and the parties briefly discussed the status of State Farm’s productions."}, {"d": 34, "p": 6, "t": "agreement could not be reached, Plaintiffs’ counsel re-noticed Ms. Manduca’s deposition for June 9, 2026, and filed their Motion to Enforce, seeking “as a discovery sanction” a second deposition of Ms. Manduca based on State Farm’s purported “abusive discovery tactics” and, specifically, if State Farm’s document production was not complete before the noticed date. Plaintiffs did not explain why it is necessary to take Ms. Manduca’s deposition prior to State Farm’s completion of its document production, or why a second deposition is necessary as a “sanction” for State Farm’s inability to complete its production by June | or June 9. The June 9 date never worked for Ms. Manduca or her counsel (and indeed was earlier than any date suggested by Plaintiffs’ counsel when first proposing dates). In any event, these dates (which are the basis of Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions) are now moot because (1) the Court indicated at the June | status hearing that it would at that time give State Farm until June 15 for the production due to the delay in receiving the Order, and then to produce Ms. Manduca for deposition between June 22 and July 2; and (2) the parties have since agreed to proceed with Ms. Manduca’s deposition on June 23,7 Moreover, State Farm has prioritized including communications from Ms. Manduca (and the FME) in its rolling productions. Indeed, State Farm produced more than 19,000 documents that included Ms. Manduca (and more than 27,000 documents with family members) in its June | production. State Farm produced an additional 2,000 documents related to Ms. Manduca on June 16. It made a smaller production that included Manduca related documents on June 18, those that had been set aside from the June | production for further review for privilege and responsiveness. Thus, State Farm believes that all documents involving Ms. Manduca were produced in advance of 2 Indeed, as noted, Ms. Manduca has started a new position at State Farm and had no time available for the deposition until after July 4. In light of the Court’s Order, she made June 23 work and State Farm’s counsel therefore made it work as well—though lead counsel is out of the country presenting at a long-scheduled conference on that date and new counsel has had to appear to defend the deposition."}, {"d": 34, "p": 7, "t": "her deposition. However, to expedite Plaintiffs’ locating of the documents they wanted from the prior Hosier production used in a deposition of Ms. Manduca in the Nida case two years ago and because State Farm was having trouble processing those voluminous documents, Plaintiffs’ counsel requested, and State Farm produced the exhibits used at Ms. Manduca’s deposition in Nida to facilitate the specific documents they wanted for the deposition (though those same documents were all or substantially all in the June 1 production). State Farm expects to complete its production of virtually all remaining documents covered by the Court’s Order early the week of June 22. Thereafter, the only documents remaining to be produced are negligible compared to the whole—and most involve requests that seek data from proprietary, internal systems and repositories across several business functions. These systems are complex and require additional technical considerations to identify responsive information. State Farm is diligently working to collect, process, and produce the remaining responsive information. IL. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES A. There Is Good Cause to Extend the Deadline for State Farm’s Production of Documents, and State Farm’s Inability to Meet the Original Deadline Is Not Cause for Sanctions. As set forth in State Farm’s Motion for Extension, there is good cause for the Court to modify its interlocutory? Order and extend the deadline for State Farm’s compliance. State Farm has, since 3A district court has the inherent authority to reconsider or modify an interlocutory, nonappealable order any time prior to entering final judgment. See Kordis vy. Kordis, 2001 OK 99, { 9, 37 P.3d 866, 870 (citing Reams v. Tulsa Cable Television, Inc., 1979 OK 171, 604 P.2d 373). As the Oklahoma Supreme Court has confirmed, “[a] trial court’s discretion to modify one of its interlocutory orders anterior to judgment is within the court’s ‘complete control’ and not limited to [specific causes under 12 Okla. Stat. § 1031].” Andrew v. Depani-Sparkes, 2017 OK 42, { 17, 396 P.3d 210, 218 (quoting LCR v. Linwood Props., 1996 OK 73, 918 P.2d 1388, 1393). “[T]he trial court is not bound by, and may hence reconsider, all of its mid-litigation rulings at any time before the case comes to an end.” Conferez y. O'Donnell, 2002 OK 67, 58 P.3d 759, 761-62; see also Snow v. TravelCenters of Am. LLC, 2023 OK CIV APP 8, ¢ 10, 527 P.3d 741, 746 (A district 6"}, {"d": 34, "p": 8, "t": "learning of the Court’s Order, been working continuously to produce more than 700,000 documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ wide-ranging discovery requests. In their Motion, Plaintiffs contend (without factual support) that “State Farm has NO Excuse for Not Complying with the Court’s Order” (see Mot. at 2) and assert generally that “Oklahoma law mandates that insurance claims be handled in a timely and prompt basis” (/d.) but provide no facts, no documents, and no declarations showing that State Farm’s inability to meet the June 1, 2026 deadline has in any way prejudiced Plaintiffs or unduly delayed this case. Indeed, the words “prejudice” and “harm” do not even appear in Plaintiffs’ Motion. That is not a coincidence—in all the parties’ extensive correspondence about the scheduling of Ms. Manduca’s deposition, Plaintiffs’ counsel never once asserted that delaying Ms. Manduca’s deposition until State Farm completed its production would prejudice Plaintiffs or their prosecution of this case, Nor can they. While Plaintiffs remark that the weather event at issue in this case occurred in “June 2023” (see Mot. at 2), insinuating that State Farm is somehow responsible for delaying the resolution of this action, this is typical one-sided hyperbole and not well taken. Plaintiffs’ (1) did not report the claim for more than a month after the weather event, (2) did not return State Farm’s calls about the claim for more than a month, (3) did not follow up with any objection to State Farm’s claim decision for almost six months, and (4) then did not even file their lawsuit until February 28,2025. This case has been pending for less time than the nearly two years Plaintiffs waited to file it. Nor is there any merit to Plaintiffs’ contention that “State Farm has had years to gather these documents.” (See Mot. at 2.) State Farm was first notified of the Court’s Order on May 4, just over a month ago. Plaintiffs cite no statute, law, or policy—and there is none—requiring State Farm to anticipate Plaintiffs’ court ruling which lacks finality and appealability is but an intermediate order in the case, [and remains] within the trial judge's complete control to modify or alter at any time before judgment.”)."}, {"d": 34, "p": 9, "t": "requests and “gather” hundreds of thousands of documents that have nothing to do with the insurance claim at issue merely because a lawsuit about that claim might be filed. Nor is there any merit to Plaintiffs’ speculation that State Farm can simply duplicate its production from other cases (such as Hursh and Wong-Faust, currently pending before Judge Palumbo in Oklahoma County).’ Plaintiffs’ cursory description of Judge Palumbo’s rulings in those cases entirely omits the subsequent procedural history. Following Judge Palumbo’s decisions in Hursh and Wong-Faust ordering State Farm to reproduce documents from prior litigations “by December 29, 2025” (see Mot. at 2 (emphasis in original)), State Farm moved for reconsideration of the court’s orders. After denial of reconsideration, State Farm pursued its right to seek Supreme Court review of Judge Palumbo’s orders by filing an Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction and Petition for Writ of Prohibition (‘Writ Application”) with the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Writ Application remains pending, and thus the scope of production in Hursh and Wong-Faust remains in dispute. And while the Supreme Court did not rule on State Farm’s application for a stay of the discovery order pending the Writ Application, the Referee at the hearing asked the parties to “forebear” on the document production issues. Thus, given that part of the basis for the writ application was burden, State Farm would not be expected to complete the production process for the Hirsh and Wong-Faust productions while the Writ Application was pending. Regardless, while there may be some overlap between the documents responsive to this Court’s and Judge Palumbo’s orders, there are significant differences in the requests and time periods at issue between the cases that do not allow for a wholesale reproduction of documents from Hursh and Wong-Faust. Plaintiffs also significantly overstate State Farm’s ability to quickly re-produce productions 4 See Wong Faust v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CJ-2025-1675 (Okla. Cty.); Hursh v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CJ-2025-2626 (Okla. Cty.)"}, {"d": 34, "p": 10, "t": "it made in other, unrelated cases (some from several years ago). To be sure, State Farm has now begun its re-production of documents produced in certain prior cases (see Pls.’ RFP No. 44). But this subset of the production alone constitutes hundreds of thousands of documents from dozens of separate production volumes that reside in multiple databases—with different firms produced over a series of different productions, all of which had to be collected, processed, Bates-stamped, and prepared for production here. There is not a single repository with all of State Farm’s prior productions, nor is there a “button” State Farm can push to re-produce those hundreds of thousands of documents automatically, and it was not possible to do so by June 1. The volume of data alone makes it time-consuming to handle. Indeed, State Farm’s discovery vendor has had to export each production volume individually, before it can be processed, Bates-stamped, and produced here. State Farm has been providing these reproductions on a rolling basis as they are ready. State Farm expects to produce the remaining re-productions by by early the week of June 22. In any event, State Farm is diligently working to produce approximately 700,000 documents total in compliance with the Order and expects to complete that production in short order. State Farm is further working diligently to identify the remaining data from its proprietary internal systems that is subject to that Order. State Farm’s inability to complete this production by June 1, 2026 is a direct result of the enormity of Plaintiffs’ document requests, not any lack of diligence and certainly not as part of any tactical decision to delay production. Further, as soon as State Farm realized that it would be unable to complete its production by the original deadline, it notified the Court and Plaintiffs and moved for an extension, and the Court initially allowed State Farm another two weeks to endeavor to complete its productions. On these facts, there is no basis for discovery sanctions. B. Plaintiffs’ Demand for “Discovery Sanctions” Is Without Merit In addition, Plaintiffs’ proposed “discovery sanctions” are without merit. Plaintiffs seek two “sanctions” for State Farm’s inability to comply with the Court’s Order: 9 (a) that State Farm be"}, {"d": 34, "p": 11, "t": "required to produce “previously produced documents” by June |, 2026; and that (b) “a second day of Manduca’s deposition will be allowed to take place following all the document production in this case if all the production is not made by June 9, 2026.” (Mot. at 3.) The first request is now moot, and the second is unreasonable. First, State Farm expects to complete most of its production in advance of Ms, Manduca’s scheduled deposition on June 23. Further, State Farm has prioritized and ensured that all Manduca specific documents were produced first and then also produced the exhibits from her deposition two years ago which used documents produced in Hosier when State Farm realized that full Hosier productions would be delayed. Second, the Court should not allow Plaintiffs to depose Ms. Manduca a second time simply because Plaintiffs sought a date for her deposition prior to the date that State Farm was able to complete its production. Plaintiffs created this situation by noticing Ms. Manduca’s deposition for June 9, 2026, on May 28—six days after State Farm filed its Motion for Extension explaining that it could not meet the Court’s original production deadline. Plaintiffs’ selection of this date, and the simultaneous filing of their Motion seeking a second deposition, strongly suggests gamesmanship. In any event, based upon the Court’s guidance at the virtual status hearing on June 1, Ms. Manduca has now been offered and noticed for deposition on June 23, the very beginning of the window identified by the Court. Moreover, State Farm prioritized producing any responsive documents from Ms. Manduca (as well as documents related to State Farm’s FME, which Ms. Manduca led for a period of time) in its June 1, 2026 production—which included more than 19,000 documents involving Ms. Manduca(and more than 27,000 documents with family members). State Farm’s June 16, 2026 production included more than 2,000 additional documents involving Ms. Manduca. Because Plaintiffs have not yet taken Ms. Manduca’s deposition, and State Farm has completed 10"}, {"d": 34, "p": 12, "t": "virtually all its Manduca-related production pursuant to the original June | date in the Order, there is simply no basis to order any additional depositions. Nor is there any emergency that would require her to be deposed before document production ts completed. Plaintiffs’ proposed “sanction” is an attempt to depose a witness twice-—it has no relation whatsoever to any (still unidentified) harm to Plaintiffs resulting from State Farm’s inability to complete its production by June 1, 2026. State Farm also pauses to note the double standard Plaintiffs are asking this Court to impose on comphance with discovery obligations. Plaintiffs did not respond to State Farm’s very basic, Plaintitf-specific discovery until 80 days after they were due and then only after State to compel. See State Farm’s Motion to Compel, filed December 12, 2025. Farm moved Once Plaintiffs did respond, Plaintiffs argued “no harm no foul” and demanded that State Farm withdraw its Motion as now being improper. Thus, it took Plaintiffs 80 days to produce approximately 700 documents, while State Farm will produce over 700,000 documents approximately 60 days after they were ordered by the Court. While Plaintiffs’ position is unreasonable based only on State Farm’s discovery record, it is indefensible given their own. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, State farm respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce, Request for Fxpedited Hearing, and Request tor Discov ctfully submitted, qnctions. Np WAUTSLO “S\\ROTHER, OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com 1]"}, {"d": 34, "p": 13, "t": "paige. masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this 19th day of June, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage rad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S$. Sanders BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FirM 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 ———_ 300 = / —"}, {"d": 35, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST FILED ) DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA ) ROBERT MORALES, ° Plaintiffs, June 22, 2026 5:03 PM ) COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 ) v. ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS.) AGENCY, INC,, ) Defendants. ) ) MOTION TO ASSOCIATE COUNSEL Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, through its counsel Timila S. Rother, Paige A. Masters, and Amanda M. Finch, Crowe Dunlevy, hereby moves the Court for an order permitting Tiffany Lynne Powers to practice in the above-styled and numbered cause pursuant to the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association, 5 O.S. Ch. 1, App. 1, Art. IL. This motion is supported by the attached “Signed Application” (Exhibit A), “Certificate of Good Standing” (Exhibit B), and the “Certificate of Compliance” from the Oklahoma Bar Association (Exhibit C). TI ILA‘ ROTHER, OBA C #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 35, "p": 2, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this 22nd day of June, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 2"}, {"d": 35, "p": 3, "t": "APPLICATION OUT OF STATE ATTORNEY REGISTRATION Tiffany Lynne Powers First Name Middle Name Last Name _, Applicant, respectfully represents: 1. Applicant is an attorney at law and a member of the law firm of Alston & Bird LLP Applicant’s mailing address is 1201 West Peachtree Street NW Mailing Address Atlanta Fulton City County (404) 881-7000 Telephone GA, 30308 ‘State Zip Code , (404) 881-4249 (Firm) ; ; , (404) 881-253 8584 Telephone (Applicant's Direct Dial) _, Fax (Applicant) tiffany. powers@alston.com E-mail Address (Applicant) 2. Applicant is admitted to practice and is a member in good standing (certificates of good standing attached) of the bar(s) of the highest state court(s) of the following state(s): State Date of Admission Georgia Bar No. 586589 November 19, 1999 District of Columbia Bar No. 466177 January 8, 2001) Virginia Bar No. 46415 September 5, 2001 Pennsylvania Bar No. 310263 January 10, 2071 3. Applicant is admitted to practice before the following United States District Courts, United States Circuit Courts of Appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States, and/or other tribunals on the dates indicated for each, and is presently a member in good standing of the bars of said courts: Tribunal Date of Admission U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia April 11. 2005 USS, District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania January 29, 2013 District of Columbia Court of Appeals January 8, 2001 EXHIBIT A"}, {"d": 35, "p": 4, "t": "U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit March 31, 2014 US. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit May 2, 2012 USS. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit June 7, 2017 USS. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit March 14, 2013 Supreme Court of Georgia November 19, 1999 Supreme Court of Virginia September 5, 2001 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania January 10, 2011 4. Have you ever been suspended or disbarred in any court except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. court, jurisdiction, date): _ No 5. Are you currently subject to any pending disciplinary proceedings by any organization with authority to discipline attorneys at law except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. court, discipline authority, date, status): No 6. Have you ever received public discipline including, but not limited to, suspension or disbarment, by any organization with authority to discipline attorneys at law except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. court, discipline authority, type of discipline, date, status): No 7. Have you ever had any certificate or privilege to appear and practice before any regulatory or administrative body suspended or revoked except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. administrative body, date, status of suspension or reinstatement): No 8. Applicant seeks admission to practice in the State of Oklahoma in the following matter (give particulars: e.g. caption of case, court or agency, type of matter, party to be represented): Note - A separate application is to be submitted for each matter in which the applicant seeks admission!"}, {"d": 35, "p": 5, "t": "Neil and Lacy West v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and Nancy Holcomb Inc. Agency, Inc.; Case No. CJ-2025-135 District Court in and for Comanche County, Oklahoma Civil Matter Party to be represented: State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 9. The Oklahoma Bar Association Applicant in this matter is: member who is counsel Timila s. Rother 14310 First Name Middle Name Last Name 0.8.4. Number 324 North Robinson Avenue Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Mailing Address City (405) 235-7700 73102, State Zip Code (405) 239-6651 Telephone Number 10. OK, of record for ‘ ; : , Timila.rother@crowedunlewy.com. Fax Number E-mail Address The following accurately represents the names of each party in this matter and the names and addresses of each counsel of record who appear for that party: Party Name Counsel Name Address of Counsel Lacy West Colby Stephenson 21 NW 44\" St. Ste 201 Lawton, OK 73505 Lacy West Reggie Whitten 512 N. Broadway Ave. Ste 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Neil West Colby Stephenson 21 NW 44\" St. Ste 201 Lawton, OK 73505 Neil West Reggie Whitten 512 N. Broadway Ave. Ste 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 State Farm/Nancy Holcomb i Amanda M. Finch 324 N. Robinson Ave. Ste 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 State Farm/Nancy Holcomb Paige A. Masters 324 N. Robinson Ave. Ste 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 | State Farm/Nancy Holcomb TimilaS. Rother 324 N. Robinson Ave. Ste 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 : 11. Applicant certifies that he/she shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and disciplinary boards of this state with respect to the laws of this state"}, {"d": 35, "p": 6, "t": "governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association. 12. Applicant understands and shall comply with the standards of professional conduct required of members of the Oklahoma Bar Association. 13. Applicant has disclosed in writing to the client that the Applicant is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction and the client has consented to such representation. |, _ Tiffany Lynne Powers , do hereby swear/affirm under penalty of perjury that the assertions of this application are true: | am the Applicant in the above referenced matter; | have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge except as to those matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to those matters | believe them to be true. | further certify that | am subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts and disciplinary boards of this state with respect to the law of this state governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association; | understand and shall comply with the standards of professional conduct required by members of the Oklahoma Bar Association; and that | am subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Bar Association with respect to any of my actions occurring in the course of such appearance. DATED this _ 30\" day of _ April Applicant (\\ Maii with check or money order (payabie to the OBA) to: Out-of-State Attorney Registration Oklahoma Bar Association P.O. Box 53036 Okiahoma City, OK 73152-3036 Form 200B , 2026 ."}, {"d": 35, "p": 7, "t": "Suprene Court State of Georgia NATHAN DEAL JUDICIAL CENTER Atlanta 30334 June 3, 2026 I hereby certify that Tiffany Lynne Powers, Esq., was admitted on the 8'\"day of September, 2010, as a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of Georgia, the highest court of this State; and, since that date she has been and is now a member of this bar in good standing, as appears from the records and files in this office. Witness my signature and the seal of this Court hereto affixed the day and year first above written. , Clerk ; oe oh Mia cs Ley 7 A. oe EXHIBIT B"}, {"d": 35, "p": 8, "t": "On behalf of JULIO A, CASTILLO, Clerk of the District af Columbia Court of Appeals, the District of Columbia Bar does hereby certify that Tiffany L Powers was duly qualified and admitted on January 8, 2001 as an attorney and counselor entitled to practice before this Court; and is, on the date indicated below, an Active member in good standing of this Bar. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of this Court at the City of Washington, D.C, on June 03, 2026. ‘ JULIO A. CASTILLO Clerk of the Court Issued By: L Lo. = } Vile Vile. David Chu - Director, Membership District of Colunbia Bar Membership For questions or concerns, please contact the D.C. Bar Membership Office at 202-626-3475 or email memberservices@dcbar.org."}, {"d": 35, "p": 9, "t": "sian] Py plAeg aueyduo-}) Cagjeynsey jo 10)93921G CEO UL, AE 5 9707 “€ SuNL ponss] ‘SUANINVXA AVE 40 CYVOd AHL Ad NAAIO NOLLWNINVX3 “1002 *s waaWaLaas NO VINIOUIA NI MW SOLLOVud ANVIL ONIGNVS €009 NIYVE ALVIS VINIOUIA FAL JO UV FHL ONISSVd ATINASSAOONS WALA OL QASNAOII SVM SUTMOd INNA HO ALVOIMILYAD YANN GAALLOVND 3.LVIOOSSV NW SISUHMOd ANNA ANVAALL LVHL ATLAS OL SI STHL YJNIGNVLS GOOD avd ALVIS VINIDUIA"}, {"d": 35, "p": 10, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING Tiffany Lynne Powers, Esq. DATE OF ADMISSION January 10, 2011 The above named attorney was duly admitted to the bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and is now a qualified member in good standing. Witness my hand and official seal Dated: June 4, 2026 ewer Foe Nicole Traini Chief Clerk"}, {"d": 35, "p": 11, "t": "p t BAR gy 5 a Xo >] % a 2 & Certificate of Compliance Oklahoma Bar Association 1901 North Lincoln Boulevard Post Office Box 53036 Oldahoma City, Oklahoma 73152-3036 The Oklahoma Bar Association, in response to the application of out-ofstate attorney, submits the following certificate pursuant to 5 O.S. Ch.1 App.1, Art. Il 1. Applicant has submitted a signed application of out-of-state attorneys, certificate(s) of good standing, and the non-refundable application fee pursuant to the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association, 5 O.S. Ch. 1, App. 1, Art. Il. 2. Date of Application: June 22, 2026 3. Application Number: 2026-412 4, Applying Attorney: Tiffany Lynne Powers Alston & Bird LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street NW Atlanta, GA 30308 5. The Application was: GRANTED Dated this 22\"? day of June, 2026. yd Katherine Ogden, A¢sistant General Counsel Oklahoma Bar Form 400C EXHIBIT C ciation"}, {"d": 36, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY LED STATE OF OKLAHOMA DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY. OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, Plaintiffs, ) June 23, 2026 3:01 PM ) ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 ) ) Vv. ) ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ ) AGENCY, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANTS’ FINAL EXHIBIT LIST Defendants, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and Nancy Holcomb Ins. Agency, Inc. “Defendants”), anticipate introducing g documents from among the following & into evidence at trial. Pp Unless otherwise noted, Defendants expect all exhibits will be used affirmatively in their case in chief or in rebuttal of witnesses and exhibits offered by Plaintiffs. Discovery is ongoing and thus Defendants reserve the right to amend this list. Accordingly, Defendants will supplement, modify, or augment these submissions as necessary, and as otherwise provided by applicable rule or Court order. Defendants also intend to use demonstrative and/or summary exhibits which they are continuing to prepare as they prepare witness testimony for trial. DESCRIPTION | State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Policy No. 36-CR-X405-8, including Declaration pages. SFF&CC/West_000002-000053 2. | State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Claim File for Claim No. 36-53Q1-13C SFF&CC/West_000054-000887 3. | AccuWeather Reports SFF&CC/West_000237-000239 4, | All Renewal Declarations for Plaintiffs’ Policy 1."}, {"d": 36, "p": 2, "t": "DESCRIPTION BATES 5. | State Farm Estimate for Total Roof Replacement of Plaintiffs’ Prior Residence related to 2009 Claim 6. | State Farm Estimate for Total Roof Replacement of Plaintiffs’ Prior Residence related to 2019 Claim 7, | Underwriting Documents produced by State Farm specific to Plaintiffs, as | SFF&CC/West_000888-000964 8. | 360Value Replacement Cost Estimate 9. SFF&CC/West_000962-000964 | State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Homeowners | SFF&CC/West_000953-000956 Application for Neil 8S. West and Lacy M. West 10. | Text Messages Holcomb between Neil West and Nancy | West_000580-000626 11. | Text Messages between Neil West and Boby Odom, | West_000426-000549 Trademark Exteriors 12. | Text Messages Franklin between Neil West and Derek | West_000650-000664 13. | August 6, 2023 Letter to Plaintiffs from State Farm | West_000065-0066 14, | August 24, 2023 Letter to Plaintiffs from State Farm | SFF&CC/West_000636 15, | September 5, 2023 Letter to Plaintiffs from State | West_000069-000070 Farm 16. | State Farm Claim Notes SFF&CC/West_000069-000087 17. | March 2024 submissions to State Farm from Bobby | SFF&CC/West_000665-000739 Odom 18. | Neil West emails with and about Brown O’ Haver West_000643-000649 19. | Trademark Exteriors Estimate submitted to State | SFF&CC/West_000321-000520 Farm 20. | Coastal Claims July 15, 2024 submission to State | SFF&CC/West_000261-000313 Farm 21. | September 13, 2024 submission by Coastal Claims to | SFF&CC/West_000240-000244 State Farm"}, {"d": 36, "p": 3, "t": "DESCRIPTION 22. | State Farm September Claims BATES 17, 2024 email to Coastal | West_000567 23. | Freddie Mac February 2026 Appraisal/Broker Price | West_000747-000770 Opinion for Plaintiffs’ Property 24. | February 27, 2026 Home Equity Line of Credit | West_000777-000804 Agreement between Neil West and Arvest Bank 25. | Documents from collection action against Lacy West, | West_000775 including but not limited to Dismissal 26. | Trademark Exteriors Roofing Agreement West_000772-000774 27. | Coastal Claims Public Adjuster Contract West_000121-000123 28. | Proof of Loss West_000131 29, | September 28, 2023 State Farm Estimate West_00087-00096 and SFF&CC/West_000867-000877 30. | State Farm March 14, 2024 Letter to Plaintiffs and | West_000097-000109 attachments, to include State Farm’s March 14, 2024 Estimate 31. | State Farm April 10, 2024 Letter to Plaintiffs West_000110-000112 32. | July 16, 2024 Email to Coastal Claims from Neil | West_000561-000562 West 33. | Email string from October 2024 to January 2025 with | West_000144-000145 Neil West, Coastal Claims and Bobby Odom. 34, | January 2, 2025 email to Coastal Claims and Bobby | West_000550 Odom from Neil West 35. | Appraisal Report for Real Property by Terry Peak for | West_000709-000737 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, OK as of 12/30/2025 36. | All Photos of West Property taken by, or on behalf of, Plaintiffs or their representatives, to include but not limited to Plaintiffs’ contractors, public adjusters, and/or real estate professionals"}, {"d": 36, "p": 4, "t": "DESCRIPTION BATES 37. | All Photos of West Property taken by, or on behalf of, State Farm during, or prior to, the handling of Plaintiffs’ at-issue Claim 38. | All Photos submitted to State Farm by, or on behalf of, Plaintiffs or their representatives, to include Plaintiffs’ contractors or public adjusters 39. | Documents Produced by Coastal Claims Services, | SUB-Coastal_000001-000348 Inc. Pursuant to Subpoena from State Farm 40. | Documents Produced by Subpoena from State Farm Arvest Pursuant to | SUB-Arvest_000001-000031 41. | Documents Produced by Brown O’Haver Pursuant to | SUB-BrownO_Haver_000004Subpoena from State Farm 000011 42. | Documents Produced by Peak Appraisal Pursuant to | SUB-PeakAppraisal_000001Subpoena from State Farm 000040 43. | Documents Produced by Trademark Pursuant to Subpoena from State Farm Exteriors 44, | Documents Produced by Rocket Mortgage Pursuant to Subpoena from State Farm 45. | Documents Produced by Fortney Fence Pursuant to Subpoena from State Farm 46, | Documents Produced by Remax/Darin Ray Pursuant to Subpoena from State Farm 47, | Trademark Estimate Exteriors Restoration Supplemental | SFF&CC/West_000321-000520 48. | Coastal Claims Services, Inc. Supplemental Estimate | SFF&CC/West_000262-000313 49. | Comanche County Assessor Information for 7 NW | Neil West Depo. Ex. 20 Briarcreek Drive 50. | Plaintiffs’ Responses to State Farm’s First Set of Discovery Requests 51. | All documents and materials requested in State Farm’s First Set of Discovery Requests that Plaintiffs have yet to produce, unless objected to by State Farm"}, {"d": 36, "p": 5, "t": "DESCRIPTION BATES 52. | Plaintiffs’ Responses to the Holcomb Agency’s First Set of Discovery Requests 53. | All documents and materials requested in the Holcomb Agency’s First Set of Discovery Requests that Plaintiffs have yet to produce, unless objected to by Defendants 54. | Plaintiffs’ Responses to State Farm’s Second Set of Discovery Requests 55. | All documents and materials requested in State Farm’s Second Set of Discovery Requests that Plaintiffs have yet to produce, unless objected to by State Farm 56. | Petition, filed 02/28/2025 57, | State Farm Operation Claims Guidelines Guide 75-01: First Party 58. | State Farm Operation Roofing Guidelines Guide 75-160: Wind/Hail 59. | State Farm Commitment to Our Policyholders 60. | State Farm Evaluating Composition Shingle Roofs Brochure 61. | Documents produced by Plaintiffs and not objected to | West_000001-000812 by Defendants 62. | Documents produced by Defendant Holcomb Agency and not objected to by Defendants 63. | Deposition exhibits from all depositions not objected to by Defendants 64. | Deposition transcripts 65. | Any exhibit necessary for impeachment or rebuttal, including any documents necessary to respond to any change in position by Plaintiffs (if permitted over Defendants’ objection)"}, {"d": 36, "p": 6, "t": "NO. DESCRIPTION 66. | All exhibits listed by BATES Plaintiffs, not otherwise objected to by Defendants 67. | Additional exhibits identified in discovery 68. | Any exhibit necessary for authentication foundation unless objected to by Defendants and 69. | Defendants’ expert materials, unless objected to by Defendants, as necessary after completion of discovery 70. | Documents produced by non-parties in discovery and not objected to by Defendants 71. | Summary exhibits 72. | Demonstrative exhibits generated demonstratives) Defendants (including computer unless objected to by 73. | Charts or enlargements of any party's exhibits not objected to by Defendants Defendants reserve the right to amend and/or supplement their Exhibit List as discovery is ongoing. Respectfull submitted \\ TIMHA 8. iss OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com"}, {"d": 36, "p": 7, "t": "ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY AND NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this 23rd day of June, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM Hannah Whitten 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 | Amanda M. ring ,"}, {"d": 37, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) pistRicT COURT ) COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA June 23, 2026 5:01 PM ) ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK J Case Number CJ-2025-135 Lo Plaintiffs, V. ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) Case No, CJ-2025-135 ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANTS’ FINAL WITNESS LIST Defendants, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and Nancy Holcomb Ins. Agency, Inc., submit their Final Witness List in accordance with the Court’s Scheduling Order. Discovery in this case is ongoing and is not to be completed until July 23, 2026. Therefore, Defendants cannot currently marshal all evidence to determine which witnesses will be necessary at trial and on which topics. Defendants reserve the right to add witnesses who become known during the remaining discovery period or whose testimony is first determined to be relevant during the remaining discovery period. Subject to these reservations, Defendants submit the following as the list of witnesses they may call at the trial of this matter, together with a brief description of anticipated testimony: PROPOSED TESTIMONY Cedric Gooch External Claim Resource — Renfroe (formerly with Eberl) c/o Crowe Dunlevy 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 Mr. Gooch may testify concerning his review and investigation of Plaintiffs’ property damage claim; his inspection of Plaintiffs’ property and finding of limited hail damage; the estimate he prepared for the damage that was identified and explanation of findings; his communications with Plaintiffs regarding their claim; State Farm’s claim handling practices and procedures as it involves Eberl; information as to other allegations in Plaintiffs’ Petition as they relate to Mr. Gooch’s role in the"}, {"d": 37, "p": 2, "t": "NAME Kristi Walls Associate Vendor Manager - Eber! c/o Crowe Dunlevy 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 Brandi Hervey External Claim Resource — Alacrity c/o Crowe Dunlevy 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 Kristin Haun Claim Specialist State Farm Fire and Casualty Company c/o Crowe Dunlevy 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 Christy Mebane Claim Specialist . State Farm Fire and Casualty Company c/o Crowe Dunlevy 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 PROPOSED TESTIMONY claim and State Farm’s defenses. Mr. Gooch may also testify as a non-retained expert witness. Ms. Walls may testify regarding her supervision and oversight of Cedric Gooch and the role of external claim resources in State Farm’s investigation of property damage claims. Ms. Walls may also testify regarding State Farm’s claim handling practices and procedures as they relate to Eberl, and information related to the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Petition as they relate to her role in the claim and State Farm’s defenses. Ms. Walls may also testify as a non-retained expert witness. Ms. Hervey may testify to her numerous efforts to reach Plaintiffs to discuss their claim; interview of Neil West; State Farm’s claim handling practices and procedures as it relates to Alacrity; information as to other allegations in Plaintiffs’ Petition as they relate to Ms. Hervey’s role in the claim and State Farm’s defenses. Ms. Haun will testify to calls with Plaintiffs’ contactor about supplemental information; review and determination of damage as reflected in the photos; State Farm’s claim handling practices and procedures; information as to other allegations in Plaintiffs’ Petition as they relate to Ms. Haun’s role in the claim and State Farm’s defenses. Ms. Haun may also testify as a non-retained expert witness. Ms. Mebane may testify to her review of supplemental information from Plaintiffs and their contractor requesting a second inspection; communications with TM Jason Taylor as to what is depicted in the photos; decision on second inspection; contactor supplemental information and communications with contractors; review and determination of damage as reflected in the photos; State Farm’s claim handling practices and | procedures; information as to other allegations in Plaintiffs’ Petition as they relate to Ms. Mebane’s role in the claim and State Farm’s defenses. Ms. Mebane may also testify as a non-retained expert witness."}, {"d": 37, "p": 3, "t": "NAME PROPOSED TESTIMONY Max Balser Team Manager State Farm Fire and Casualty Company clo Crowe Dunlevy 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 Mr. Balser may testify regarding his communication with Plaintiff Neil West concerning follow-up to a customer experience survey and discussion of the inspection of Plaintiffs’ property; explanation of the inspection process and the findings identified during the inspection, including damage observed to gutters, window screens, and fencing, and the absence of hail or wind damage to the roof shingles; his review of photographs taken during the inspection; and his communication that State Farm would consider any additional information, including photographs or estimates from Plaintiffs’ contractor, and could evaluate the property for a possible second inspection. Mr. Balser may also testify regarding State Farm’s claim handling practices and procedures and information related to the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Petition as they relate to his role in the claim and State Farm’s defenses. Mr. Balser may also testify as a non-retained expert witness. Jason Taylor Team Manager State Farm Fire and Casualty Company c/o Crowe Dunlevy 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 Mr. Taylor may testify concerning his supervision, review, and assessment of Plaintiffs’ property damage claim including the request for second inspection; review of Plaintiffs’ contractor’s estimate and photos and related information submitted to State Farm; State Farm’s estimates and payment on Plaintiffs’ claim; claim activity and status; information as to other allegations in Plaintiffs’ Petition and State Farm’s defenses. Mr. Taylor may also testify as a non-retained expert witness. Yasiin Bradley Claim Specialist State Farm Fire and Casualty Company c/o Crowe Dunlevy 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 Ms. Bradley may testify to her review of supplemental information from Plaintiffs and their contractor; what is depicted in the photos; decision on second inspection; review of contactor supplemental information; communications with contractors; review and determination of damage as reflected in the photos; State Farm’s claim handling practices and procedures; information as to other allegations in Plaintiffs’ Petition as they relate to Ms. Bradley’s role in the claim and State Farm’s defenses. Ms. Bradley may also testify as a nonretained expert witness."}, {"d": 37, "p": 4, "t": "PROPOSED TESTIMONY Joe Wicker Claim Specialist State Farm Fire and Casualty Company c/o Crowe Dunlevy 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 Temicka Collett Claim Specialist State Farm Fire and Casualty Company c/o Crowe Dunlevy 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 Mr. Wicker will testify to his review of information submitted by Coastal Claims and/or Bobby Odom purporting to be photos of damage to Plaintiffs’ house; call to Coastal Claims about the photos and requesting additional information; email to Coastal Claims about the photos and requesting additional information; calls from Bobby Odom; any other involvement by Wicker in Plaintiffs’ claims; State Farm claim handling policies and procedures; allegations in the Petition as they relate to Mr. Wicker’s role in the claim and State Farm’s defenses. Mr. Wicker may also testify as a nonretained expert witness. Ms. Collett may testify regarding her review and assessment of photographs submitted by Plaintiffs’ contractor depicting alleged shingle damage and her determination that the damage did not appear to reflect accidental direct physical loss from hail; her consideration of a contractor’s request for total roof replacement; and her determination that the materials submitted did not support such a request. Ms. Collett may also testify regarding State Farm’s claim handling practices and procedures and information related to the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Petition as they relate to her role in the claim and State Farm’s defenses. Ms. Collett may also testify as a non-retained expert witness. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 Ms. Napoles may testify regarding her review and assessment’ of the claim file and photographs provided by Plaintiffs’ contractor; her review of weather data associated with the reported date of loss; and her referral of the claim for further field review. Ms. Napoles may also testify regarding State Farm’s claim handling practices and procedures and information related to the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Petition as they relate to her role in the claim and State Farm’s defenses. Ms. Napoles may also testify as a non-retained expert witness. Corporate Representative State Farm Fire and Casualty Company c/o Crowe Dunlevy Depending on the evidence that may be admitted at trial, State Farm may, to respond to allegations of Plaintiffs, designate a witness to testify to: 1) State Alexis Napoles Claim Specialist State Farm Fire and Casualty Company c/o Crowe Dunlevy 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100"}, {"d": 37, "p": 5, "t": "NAME 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 PROPOSED TESTIMONY Farm’s Policy form and DOI approval; 2) State Farm underwriting policies and procedures 3) State Farm’s claim handling policies and procedures; and 4) Plaintiffs’ prior insurance claims in which their roof was totaled. Neil West Plaintiff c/o Whitten Burrage 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Deposed Lacy West Plaintiff c/o Whitten Burrage 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Deposed Bobby Odom It is anticipated that Mr. Odom may testify about his Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street inspection of Plaintiffs’ property; communications Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 with Plaintiffs; communications with State Farm; photos of Plaintiffs’ property; information submitted to State Farm; other facts and circumstances raised by the Petition and the defenses to the Petition. Derek Franklin Legacy Roofing 12094 State Highway 76 Lindsay, OK 73052 Jose Parga, Brandon Gold and/or John Dekker or other Representative(s) of Coastal Claims Services 2650 North Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, Florida 32168 It is anticipated that Mr. Franklin may testify about his inspection of Plaintiffs’ property; communications with Plaintiffs; and other facts and circumstances raised by the Petition and the defenses to the Petition. It is anticipated that one or more of these individuals may testify about their work as a public adjuster on Plaintiffs’ claim; communications with Plaintiffs; communications with Bobby Odom or others on behalf of Plaintiffs; submission of information to State Farm; photos relied upon in assisting Plaintiffs on their claim; estimates prepared; work performed or not performed by Coastal Claims; other facts and circumstances raised by the Petition and the defenses to the Petition. Nancy Holcomb Nancy Holcom Ins. Agency, Inc. Ms. Holcomb will testify to all allegations against her in Plaintiffs’ Petition; the absence of any"}, {"d": 37, "p": 6, "t": "NAME c/o Crowe Dunlevy 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 PROPOSED TESTIMONY requirement for or the undertaking of an underwriting inspection by agents; State Farm’s method of obtaining inspections if requested; policy provisions about inspections; the absence of any knowledge of any alleged misconduct by State Farm in claim handling; long insurance relationship with Plaintiffs; prior claims of Plaintiffs; assistance to Plaintiffs in obtaining insurance on the house on Briarcreek Drive; other communications and interactions with Plaintiffs; all other aspects of and allegations against Nancy Holcomb and her Agency in the Petition and the defenses thereto. Terry Peak Appraiser Lawton, OK December 2025 appraisal of the property of Plaintiffs at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, Oklahoma, Additional Appraiser February 2026 appraisal of the property of Plaintiffs at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, Oklahoma. Darin Ray 2025-2026 Evaluation/appraisal of the property of Broker Plaintiffs Remax Oklahoma. Expert on Property Damage Claims To be identified and determined upon receipt of opinions and information for any expert identified by Plaintiffs. Frederick J. Bingham Glynloen Insurance Consulting 1699 Upper Tug Fork Road Alexandria, KY 41001 Mr. Bingham may testify, based on his specialized expertise in insurance industry standards, concerning: rebuttal of opinions by Plaintiffs’ designated experts or witnesses, including but not at 7 NW Briarcreek limited to Walt Haskins, Mark Drive, Romano, Lawton, and/or Jared Joseph, subject to any objections as to the testimony of Plaintiffs’ designated experts or witnesses; evaluation of Plaintiffs’ State Farm Claim, Claim Number 36-53Q1-13C, and related Claim file; industry standards for claims handling; evaluation of State Farm Operation Guides and other policies, procedures, and processes, to include State Farm’s processing of wind and hail claims; and other related issues, Kevin McCarty Celtic Global Consulting Mr. McCarty may testify, based on his specialized expertise in insurance regulation, concerning: rebuttal of opinions by Plaintiffs’ designated"}, {"d": 37, "p": 7, "t": "NAME 2260 Wednesday St. #200, Tallahassee, PROPOSED TESTIMONY experts or witnesses, including but not limited to FL 32308 W. Young, subject to any objections as to the testimony of Plaintiffs’ designated experts or witnesses; industry-wide claims handling practices; factors impacting industry-wide pricing decisions from a competitive and regulatory standpoint; the use of technology in claims adjustment process; the effect of regulatory decisions on pricing; and other issues related to insurance regulation. Richard D. Phillips, PhD, Dean of Georgia State University’s J. Mack Robinson College of Business and the C.V. Starr Professor in Risk Management and Insurance 2051 Renault LN NE Atlanta, Georgia 30345 Mr. Phillips may testify, based on his specialized expertise in economics, concerning rebuttal of opinions: by Plaintiffs’ designated experts or witnesses, including but not limited to Walt Haskins, Mark Romano, and/or Christopher W. Young, subject to any objections as to the testimony of Plaintiffs’ designated experts or witnesses; factors impacting insurance company and industry solvency and profitability; the economics of ratemaking and pricing decisions; and other related financial opinions. Walt Haskins, Mark Romano, and/or Christopher Rebuttal Witnesses Witness(es) identified by Plaintiffs and not objected to by State Farm, regardless of whether such witness(es) is/are called at the time of trial. Other witness(es) discovered during remaining discovery period or the relevance of whom becomes known during the remaining discovery period. Defendants reserve the right to amend and/or supplement their Witness List as discovery is ongoing. Respectiully submifted TIMIWZAS. ROTHER, OBA#14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, @BA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCEY OBA #34650"}, {"d": 37, "p": 8, "t": "CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY AND NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this 23rd day of June, 2026, to: Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 . Amanda M. Finth"}, {"d": 38, "p": 1, "t": "FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA June 25, 2026 4:56 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 NEIL and LACY WEST, i i Plaintiffs, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. i ee ee Vv. Case No. CJ-2025-135 NOTICE OF SUBPOENAS TO PRODUCE AND PERMIT INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS Please take notice that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C)(2), subpoenas will be served on Darin Ray/REMAX Professionals, 1701 Cache Road, Lawton, Oklahoma 73507, Fortney Fence Co. LLC c/o Registered Agent, Russell Fortney, 1719 NW Ash Avenue, Lawton, Oklahoma 73507, and Rocket Mortgage, LLC, c/o Registered Agent, C T Corporation System, 1833 South Morgan Road, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73128, to produce and permit inspection and copying of documents. Said inspection and copying will take place on July 13, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102. Darin Ray/REMAX Professionals, Fortney Fence, and Rocket Mortgage are directed, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(A)(1)(b), to produce the documents listed on Exhibit A to the subpoenas served upon them. Copies of the subpoenas are attached hereto as Exhibits 1-3. The Subpoenas state § 2004.1(C)(2)(a). that the witnesses need not appear in person, pursuant to 12 OS."}, {"d": 38, "p": 2, "t": "Respectfully Submitted, TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by US. Mail, postage prepaid, this 25th day of June, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 6285682 Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 44th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 y"}, {"d": 38, "p": 4, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vv. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) Defendants. ) SUBPOENA TO DARIN RAY/REMAX PROFESSIONALS TO PRODUCE AND PERMIT INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS TO: Darin Ray/REMAX Professionals 1701 Cache Road Lawton, Oklahoma 73507 GREETINGS - You are hereby commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of documents in the possession, custody and control of Darin Ray/REMAX Professionals in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 on July 13, 2026 at 10:00 am. You need not appear in person, pursuant to 12 OS. § 2004.1(C) (2)(a). The documents which shall be produced are described on the attached Exhibit A. In order to allow objections to the production of documents and things to be filed, you should not produce them until the date specified in this subpoena, and if an objection is filed, until the court rules on the objection. Hereof fail not under penalty of law. Issued this 25th day of June, 2026. AME TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com"}, {"d": 38, "p": 5, "t": "paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 6286931"}, {"d": 38, "p": 6, "t": "Exhibit A to Subpoena to Darin Ray/REMAX Professionals 1. All documents, paper or electronic (including visual or audio recordings, photographs, etc.), relating to the house at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, Oklahoma 73505, now or previously owned and/or occupied by Neil and/or Lacy West (the “House”), and any inspections, estimates, evaluations, assessments, repairs, or other work or analysis by Darin Ray/REMAX Professionals, or any related entity, of that House, and all communications with any person relating thereto. All agreements and written communications of any kind, paper or electronic, including emails and text messages, with Neil and/or Lacy West or anyone acting on their behalf related to the House, to include hiring an attorney to represent them in recovering benefits for wind or hail damage under their State Farm policy or filing a lawsuit against State Farm, and all documents received from or provided to Neil and/or Lacy West or anyone acting on their behalf."}, {"d": 38, "p": 8, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vv. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) Defendants. ) SUBPOENA TO FORTNEY FENCE CO. LLC TO PRODUCE AND PERMIT INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS TO: Fortney Fence Co. LLC c/o Registered Agent, Russell Fortney 1719 NW Ash Avenue Lawton, Oklahoma 73507 GREETINGS - You are hereby commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of documents in the possession, custody and control of Fortney Fence Co. LLC in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 on July 13, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. You need not appear in person, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C) (2)(a). The documents which shall be produced are described on the attached Exhibit A. In order to allow objections to the production of documents and things to be filed, you should not produce them until the date specified in this subpoena, and if an objection is filed, until the court rules on the objection. Hereof fail not under penalty of law. Issued this 25th day of June, 2026. AME TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com"}, {"d": 38, "p": 9, "t": "paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 6285688"}, {"d": 38, "p": 10, "t": "Exhibit A to Subpoena to Fortney Fence Co. LLC . All documents, paper or electronic (including visual or audio recordings, photographs, etc.), relating to the house at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, Oklahoma 73505, now or previously owned and/or occupied by Neil and/or Lacy West (the “House”), and any inspections, estimates, evaluations, assessments, repairs, or other work or analysis by Fortney Fence, or any related entity, of that House, and all communications with any person relating thereto. . All agreements and written communications of any kind, paper or electronic, including emails and text messages, with Neil and/or Lacy West or anyone acting on their behalf related to the House, to include hiring an attorney to represent them in recovering benefits for wind or hail damage under their State Farm policy or filing a lawsuit against State Farm, and all documents received from or provided to Neil and/or Lacy West or anyone acting on their behalf. . All written communications and agreements, paper or electronic, with Whitten Burrage, Burgess & Hightower Law Firm (“law firms”), or any of the lawyers from those firms, related to the House, or Neil and/or Lacy West (or anyone acting on their behalf), and all documents, including visual or audio recordings, photographs, etc., received from or provided to the law firms or lawyers relating to the House, or Neil and/or Lacy West (or anyone acting on their behalf). . All written communications, paper or electronic, including emails and text messages, with any homeowner, law firm, attorney, or legal representative, regarding hiring an attorney to represent a homeowner in recovering benefits for wind or hail damage under their insurance policy from January 1, 2022 to the present."}, {"d": 38, "p": 12, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vv. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) Defendants. ) SUBPOENA TO ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC TO PRODUCE AND PERMIT INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS TO: Rocket Mortgage, LLC c/o Registered Agent, C T Corporation System 1833 South Morgan Road Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73128 GREETINGS - You are hereby commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of documents in the possession, custody and control of Rocket Mortgage, LLC in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 on July 13, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. You need not appear in person, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C) (2)(a). The documents which shall be produced are described on the attached Exhibit A. In order to allow objections to the production of documents and things to be filed, you should not produce them until the date specified in this subpoena, and if an objection is filed, until the court rules on the objection. Hereof fail not under penalty of law. Issued this 25th day of June, 2026. tre TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com"}, {"d": 38, "p": 13, "t": "paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 6285685"}, {"d": 38, "p": 14, "t": "Exhibit A to Subpoena to Rocket Mortgage, LLC 1. Appraisals and Inspections: All documents related to any appraisals, inspections, or assessments performed on the property located at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 (the “Property”), whether in connection with a home equity line of credit (““HELOC”) or other lending transaction secured by the Property involving Neil and/or Lacy West, including but not limited to: a. The appraisal reports, inspection reports, photographs, or notes from any inspections or appraisals conducted for the purpose of evaluating or underwriting or issuing a HELOC secured by the Property. b. Any correspondence or communications (including emails, letters, text messages, and internal notes) between the mortgage company and any third-party vendors, contractors, or professionals (such as appraisers or inspectors) related to the inspections or appraisals of the Property. 2. Mortgage-Related Documents: Any documents, reports, or communications generated or received by the mortgage company in connection with the home equity line of credit (“HELOC”) secured by the Property involving Neil and/or Lacy West, including but not limited to: a. The HELOC application, credit approval documents, and any documents reflecting the credit limit, available line, and any advances or draws, and documents reflecting the extension of a revolving line of credit secured by the Property related to the Property. b. c. 3. Any valuation reports, repair estimates, or cost of repairs documents provided or requested by the mortgage company as part of the HELOC application, underwriting, or approval process. Any documents or communications regarding the condition of the Property, including but not limited to documents related to the Property’s market value, condition, or repair history obtained during the HELOC process. Third-Party Communications: All communications between the mortgage company and any third parties (including, but not limited to, contractors, appraisers, or public adjusters) regarding the condition of the Property or any repairs made to the Property as part of the HELOC process involving Neil and/or Lacy West, including but not limited to: a. Emails, letters, or text messages concerning the condition of the Property or any inspections or repairs conducted before, during, or after the HELOC process. b. Any internal communications related to concerns about the condition of the Property, repairs, or valuation, which could impact the HELOC underwriting, approval, credit limit determination, or approval or terms of the line of credit (including any conditions or limitations placed on funding or use of the HELOC). 4. Property-Related Reports: Any third-party reports or documentation related to the condition of the Property during the HELOC process involving Neil and/or Lacy West, including but not limited to: a. Insurance loss reports, repair estimates, or documentation related to prior damage or claims affecting the Property that were considered during the HELOC underwriting or approval process."}, {"d": 39, "p": 1, "t": "FILED DISTRICT COURT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA July 16, 2026 4:30 PM d STATE OF NEIL and LACY WEST, OKLAHOMA ane S, COURT CLERK Venter ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 Vv. ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ AGENCY, INC., ) JUDGE SHEPERD ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE & DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7700 Facsimile: (405) 239-6651 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY C2038 38"}, {"d": 39, "p": 2, "t": "Instead of responding to Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s (“State Farm”) Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”), Plaintiffs filed only counsel’s Rule 13 Affidavit, asserting that additional discovery is needed before Plaintiffs can respond. Plaintiffs, however, have not identified specific facts necessary to oppose State Farm’s MSJ, explained how the requested discovery would create a genuine dispute as to any ground raised in the MSJ, or otherwise demonstrated entitlement to relief under Rule 13(d) or 12 O.S. § 2056(F). See Whitten Aff. Nor did Plaintiffs respond to State Farm’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts. Rule 13 requires a party opposing summary judgment to specifically controvert the movant’s properly supported material facts. Plaintiffs did not. Accordingly, if the Court denies Plaintiffs’ request for relief under Rule 13(d) and 12 O.S. § 2056(F) and proceeds to decide the Motion on the present record, State Farm’s Undisputed Material Facts should be deemed admitted, I. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT MET THEIR BURDEN UNDER RULE 13(D) OR 120.8. § 2056(F). Neither Rule 13(d) nor § 2056(F) gives a party an automatic right to postpone summary judgment until all discovery is complete. Rather, those provisions permit relief only when the party opposing summary judgment shows, by affidavit and for stated or specified reasons, that it cannot present evidentiary material or facts essential to justify its opposition. See R. Dist. Cts. Okla. R, 13(d); 12 O.S. § 2056(F). Plaintiffs were required to identify the specific facts they cannot presently present, explain why those facts remain unavailable, and show how additional discovery would create a genuine dispute as to the grounds raised in State Farm's Motion. They have not. A. PLAINTIFFS HAVE Not SHown Goop CAUSE To DELAY CONSIDERATION OF STATE FARM’S MOTION. An agreed Scheduling Order entered on December 11, 2025, required dispositive motions to be filed by May 26, 2026, and discovery to be completed by July 23, 2026. State Farm filed its MSJ on the dispositive-motion deadline. Before that deadline, counsel for State Farm offered to"}, {"d": 39, "p": 3, "t": "extend it, anticipating Plaintiffs might later claim additional discovery was needed to respond. Rother Email, May 17, 2026, Ex. 1. Plaintiffs refused, Sonne Email, May 19, 2026, Ex. 1. State Farm then filed its MSJ pursuant to the Scheduling Order. In Fed, Land Bank of Wichita v. Musgrove, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the denial of a request for additional time to conduct discovery before responding to summary judgment, explaining that “[a] party urging more time to prepare as grounds for a continuance must produce evidence of [ ] due diligence in the time [ ] already allotted.” 1990 OK CIV APP 64, 4 7, 796 P.2d 641, 644. The court further held that “it is not error to deny a continuance in order to afford time to controvert adverse evidence, when the record reflects there was a fair Opportunity to controvert and there was no explanation of the nature of the evidence expected to be adduced if the continuance was granted.” /d, That reasoning applies here. Plaintiffs were aware of the dispositive motion deadline, were offered the opportunity to extend it, and declined. The current procedural posture is therefore the product of Plaintiffs’ own litigation choices. They now seek to delay consideration of State Farm’s MSJ without explaining why the discovery they claim is necessary could not have been obtained earlier, why they declined to extend the deadline, or how the requested discovery would enable them to rebut the grounds raised in State Farm’s Motion. See Fed. Land Bank, 1990 OK CIV APP 64, J§ 7-9, 796 P.2d at 644-45; Walker v. inVentiy Health, Inc., No. 17-CV-345-JED-FHM, 2020 WL 13702741, at *3 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 28, 2020) (entering summary judgment over a Rule 56(d) request where plaintiff provided no justification for delay).! B. THE WHITTEN AFFIDAVIT DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY IS NECESSARY TO OPPOSE STATE FARM’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. ' Because Oklahoma’s summary judgment procedure was patterned after Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, federal cases interpreting Rule 56 are given special consideration. Savage y. Burton, 2005 OK CIV APP 106, § 10, 125 P.3d 1249, 1252 (quoting Kepler v. Strain, 1978 OK 52, | 7; 579 P.2d 191, 192)."}, {"d": 39, "p": 4, "t": "Even if Plaintiffs had shown good cause to delay consideration of State Farm’s MS], the Whitten Affidavit still does not satisfy Rule 13(d) or § 2056(F). Those provisions require the party opposing summary judgment to show, “for specified reasons,” that it “cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.” 12 O.S. § 2056(F); R. Dist. Cts. Okla. R. 13(d). A general assertion that discovery remains outstanding is not enough. These provisions are “not a ‘license for a fishing expedition,” and the party seeking to defer ruling on summary judgment must identify specific discovery necessary to respond to the motion. Cox v, Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC, No. 18-CV-0117-CVE-JFJ, 2019 WL 1546941, at *3 (N.D. Okla. Apr. 9, 2019) (citation omitted). To meet that burden, Plaintiffs were required to identify “the facts not available, why those facts cannot be presented without additional time, [] the steps taken to obtain the facts, and [| how additional time will enable the non-movant to rebut the motion for summary judgment.” Walker, 2020 WL 13702741 at *3 (citation omitted). “Relief should not be granted ... when the ‘desired discovery would not meet the issue on which the moving party contends there is no genuine factual issue.” Cox, 2019 WL 1546941, at *3 (citation omitted); see also Scott v. Hormel, No, CIV-18395-SLP, 2020 WL 2128584, at *2 (W.D. Okla. May 5, 2020), afd, 854 F. App’x 958 (10th Cir. 2021) (finding Rule 56(d) requirements were not met where the plaintiff failed to explain how additional time would allow him to rebut the defendants’ summary judgment arguments). The Whitten Affidavit does not make the required showing. It identifies broad categories of discovery Plaintiffs would like to obtain, but the Affidavit does not identify any specific fact Plaintiffs need in order to oppose State Farm’s MSJ. Nor does it explain why any such fact is presently unavailable or identify what steps Plaintiffs took to obtain those specific facts before State Farm filed its MSJ. And it does not explain how the requested discovery would enable Plaintiffs to rebut any particular argument raised in State Farm’s Motion."}, {"d": 39, "p": 5, "t": "That omission alone defeats Plaintiffs’ request for relief. State Farm’s MSJ is based on the Policy’s Suit Against Us provision, the undisputed facts establishing a legitimate dispute as a matter of law, the absence of evidence supporting Plaintiffs’ constructive fraud claim, and the absence of any basis for punitive damages. The Whitten Affidavit does not explain how any additional discovery would create a genuine dispute as to any of those grounds. Instead, Plaintiffs ask the Court to postpone ruling based on broad discovery categories divorced from the issues raised in State Farm’s MSJ. That is precisely what § 2056(F) and Rule 13(d) do not permit. Plaintiffs have therefore not met their burden to show that additional discovery is necessary to oppose State Farm’s Motion. JI. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO CONTROVERT STATE FARM’S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS. Although Plaintiffs filed the Whitten Affidavit seeking additional time to conduct discovery, they did not file a response to State Farm’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts. Rule 13 expressly provides that “[a]ll materia! facts set forth in the statement of the movant which are supported by acceptable evidentiary material shall be deemed admitted for the purpose of summary judgment [ ] unless specifically controverted by the statement of the adverse party which is supported by acceptable evidentiary material.” R. Dist. Cts. of Okla. R. 13(b). The Whitten Affidavit does not excuse Plaintiffs’ obligation to respond to State Farm’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts. Accordingly, if the Court denies Plaintiffs’ request for Rule 13(d)/§ 2056(F) relief and proceeds to decide the Motion on the present record, State Farm’s Undisputed Material Facts should be deemed admitted under Rule 13(b). ll. THE COURT SHOULD DECIDE STATE FARM’S MOTION ON THE PRESENT RECORD. A court considering summary judgment must evaluate the motion on the record actually presented, not on a record that is merely “potentially possible.” Fed. Land Bank, 1990 OK CIV 4"}, {"d": 39, "p": 6, "t": "APP 64, { 8, 796 P.2d 641, 644 (affirming summary judgment based upon “the record the parties have actually presented and not on a record which is potentially possible”), McClain v. Riverview Mill, Inc., 2011 OK CIV APP 57, { 7, 250 P.3d 919, 921 (affirming summary judgment where plaintiffs did not provide “reasons why [they] could not yet present evidentiary material sufficient to controvert” the undisputed material facts); Gutierrez v. Cobos, 841 F.3d 895, 909 (10th Cir. 2016) (affirming denial of Rule 56(d) motion where movant did not explain how specific information sought was essential to summary judgment opposition); Scort v. Hormel, No. CIV-18395-SLP, 2020 WL 2128584, at *2 (W.D. Okla. May 5, 2020), aff'd, 854 F. App’x 958 (10th Cir. 2021) (finding plaintiffs 56(d) request insufficient because he did not indicate “how additional time would allow for rebuttal of [] argument for summary judgment’ even if the documents and information ... were produced”). As set forth in State Farm’s Motion, the undisputed facts establish several independent grounds for summary judgment, including that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Policy’s Suit Against Us provision, that a legitimate dispute existed as a matter of law, that Plaintiffs cannot establish constructive fraud, and that punitive damages are unavailable. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have established no basis to delay consideration of State Farm’s Motion, and the Court should grant summary judgment in State Farm’s favor, IV. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs have not met their burden under Rule 13(d) or 12 O.S. § 2056(F), have not identified discovery necessary to create a genuine dispute as to any ground raised in State Farm’s MSJ, and have not filed a Rule 13 response controverting State Farm’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts. Accordingly, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ request for additional time, deem State Farm’s Undisputed Material Facts admitted under Rule 13(b), and grant State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety."}, {"d": 39, "p": 7, "t": "edtfully submitted, A TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MABTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7700 Facsimile: (405) 239-6651 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 16th day of July 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 BURGESS FIRM , HIGHTOWER 21 N 44th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS & ‘ LAW"}, {"d": 39, "p": 9, "t": "Paige Masters From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Timila S. Rother Tuesday, May 19, 2026 8:48 AM Blake Sonne; Paige Masters; Amanda Finch Reggie N. Whitten; Michael Burrage; Hannah Whitten; John Sanders; Jake Denne; Karen Stratton; Kayli Price; Autumn Hobbs; james warner RE: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca West v. State Farm - Deposition of Contractor & Public Adjuster Blake, I will, as noted, respond in more detail to the production and deposition issues, but respond quickly here to note that you overstated my question/request. My focus was on the Motion for Summary Judgment (and other) deadlines for Friday as, regardless of the timeline for depositions and production, I anticipate you all will not respond in 18 days because of ongoing discovery - even if the depositions were all agreed they would not be completed before your response is due and you have advised of an intended second motion to compel. To be transparent, I also advised that I do not believe the document production can be completed by June 1. I was not asking to extend the scheduling order, but rather anticipating that you would based on the discovery you are pursuing. I disagree with your premise that this is inconsistent with our prior objections as those are the federal court cases where the discovery was not timely pursued at all (the most recent cases) and/or was being asked to be halted in an effort to apply the Judge Palumbo orders to those cases. Indeed, in the early stages of those disputes we were noting that we would agree to a reasonable extension 30-60 days or the like, but not 120 and not on the premise that the Judge Palumbo orders were operative in the federal cases. Regardless, we will proceed with summary judgment motions on Friday and object to any requested extensions to respond given the below, noting to the Judge our effort to avoid that situation being created at all. If there is an agreement to be reached there, let me know. Perhaps we can discuss after a more full report on the status of the efforts to comply with the Judge’s Order. We have outstanding requests to you from a week ago about dates for the contractor depositions (see attached). Unless you have dates in the works, we will go ahead and notice them and then work with you to move them as needed. One of them is the public adjuster who is, I think, in Florida, and so that one will require more work to coordinate so we will likely just proceed with that subpoena and notice to get the ball moving. I anticipate we can take his deposition virtually. Thanks Timila"}, {"d": 39, "p": 10, "t": "C RO W E | timias. Rother Sharehoider/Director DUNLEVY | 405.235.7757 ( Chambers \\, RANREOIN usa t @ 4 ® #. | #225 @ Timila Rother This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or other privileges or protections. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you. From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 2:43 PM To: Timila S. Rother <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com>; Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>; Amanda Finch <amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com> Cc: Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; james warner <jwarner@nixlaw.com> Subject: Re: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca [ALERT: Email contains attachments from external sende Timila, Thank you for your email. We do not agree to any extension of the deadlines in the West case. As you know, discovery is open through the pre-trial conference on July 23, 2026. We have sought extensions on numerous occasions in other federal cases because State Farm has refused in every case to produce documents related to the FME Wind/Hail team and its implementation in Oklahoma. You have indicated an objection in every case so your request to seek an extension of deadlines now that the documents have been ordered to be produced in yet another case is not received well and is extremely inconsistent. We also object to what appears to be your statement that State Farm will not comply with the Court’s deadline of document production by June 1\", As you know, many of these documents (related to the last round of cases) were ordered to be produced by Judge Palumbo by December 24, 2025, with the remaining documents to be produced in late February I believe. If you file any motion for summary judgment, we will certainly file a response with use of these documents ordered to be produced by the Court by June 1*. We look forward to hearing from you by Wednesday on the Manduca depo and the other executives to be deposed in June. As we stated very clearly, if you re-assert your objection to those other noticed depos, we will file a motion to compel and get the issue before the Court as soon as possible so please advise. We will likewise provide some dates for the depositions of the adjusters and TM we want to depose. Thank you. BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL"}, {"d": 39, "p": 11, "t": "WHITTEN ‘BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www. whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work-product. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: \"Timila S. Rother\" <timila,rother@crowedunlevy.com> Date: Sunday, May 17, 2026 at 12:50 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>, Amanda Finch <amanda,finch@crowedunlevy.com> Cc: \"Reggie N. Whitten” <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, james warner <jwarner@nixlaw.com> Subject: RE: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca Blake, I am catching up on email after being out-of-state and in all day meetings since Thursday. I have a call scheduled with State Farm on Tuesday to discuss the issues that are raised in your series of emails and I will send a quick separate response to the email that includes Lance on the issues as to deposition scheduling for Ms. Manduca and document production on Porter, Barlow and Cisneros. As to West document production and timing, as noted I will respond more fully when I get an update from State Farm, but a couple of things. As you know, we did not receive this order until 10 days after it was entered. I am not sure if we could meet June 1 no matter what but certainly that is harder if we lost 10 days of the period allowed by the Court. I know this overlaps with other production and I know it is in the works but I am going to have to get more information. As you know, State Farm is juggling production orders in several cases. But that brings me to a scheduling question. Our first round of filings, dispositive motions and preliminary witness and exhibit lists are due on May 22. In the last several cases we have filed MSJs and you all have responded with requests to extend the response date based on discovery issues. The pretrial conference date is mid-July with a lot of other deadlines due mid-June. Do you all anticipate asking to extend the scheduling order in this case as well and/or to ask for an extension to respond to our MSJ if we file it on May 22? If so, I think it makes since to do that sooner rather than later to avoid what we both have due on Friday. IF not, we can proceed with our Motion for Summary Judgment. I just wanted to get that out there before the week gets away. And certainly in the interest of candor, I anticipate State Farm may need more time to complete the ordered document production, even if it can begin production on June 1. Hopefully I will have more clarity on that by Wednesday but I am not sure how we meet a July pretrial conference either way. 3"}, {"d": 39, "p": 12, "t": "Thanks Timila CR 0 WE | Timila $, Rother Shareholder/Director DUNLEVY | 405.238.7757 eneaaan’..-2) S usa e #2625% o Tienda Rother This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or other privileges or protections. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you, From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2026 3:49 PM To: Timila S. Rother <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com>; Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>; Amanda Finch <amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com> Ce: Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; james warner <jwarner@nixlaw.com> Subject: FW: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca [ALERT: Email contains attachments from external sendr, Timila, With respect to my email below and the West case...we will be filing our motion to compel on the second set of discovery as mentioned. We have previously discussed requests to produce the industry standards/Accenture, claim files, and the Manduca depo in a conversation and phone call. I do not recall discussing the other depos other than Taylor as well. However, I just wanted to again request production of these requested depositions and exhibits in our second requests without court intervention. Based on our conversations about Manduca and Taylor, { do not believe State Farm will produce these documents, depositions, or claim files, but please advise if you have any indication of a change in position. We plan to file Monday and of course stand willing to discuss at any time prior to any hearing on the motion. Thanks and hope you guys have a great weekend. BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL WHITTEN BURRAGE. 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www. whittenburragelaw.com"}, {"d": 40, "p": 1, "t": "FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA COMANCHE COUNTY. OKLAHOMA July 16, 2026 3:33 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Vv. ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ AGENCY, INC,, ) ) ) ) Defendants. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE SHEPERD ) ) DEFENDANT NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7700 Facsimile: (405) 239-6651 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC."}, {"d": 40, "p": 2, "t": "Instead of responding to Defendant Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc.’s (“Holcomb Agency”) Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) filed on the dispositive motion deadline, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a Rule 13 Affidavit on June 10, 2026, telling this Court that the Holcomb Agency’s MSJ is premature because Plaintiffs need to conduct discovery—despite having, as of that date, conducted no discovery of the Holcomb Agency at all, When a motion for summary judgment is filed, Oklahoma law gives a court discretion to order a continuance to enable the opposing party to conduct limited discovery, only when the opponent “shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.” 12 O.S. § 2056(F) (emphasis added). And, “[a] party urging more time to prepare as grounds for a continuance must produce evidence of his due diligence in the time that was already allotted.” Fed. Land Bank of Wichita v. Musgrove, 1990 OK CIV APP 64, { 7, 796 P.2d 641, 644. “[I]t is not error to deny a continuance in order to afford time to controvert adverse evidence, when the record reflects there was a fair opportunity to controvert and there was no explanation of the nature of the evidence expected to be adduced if the continuance was granted.” Jd. That is precisely what occurred here. This case was remanded to this Court on August 25, 2025. After the Court denied its Motion to Dismiss, the Holcomb Agency filed its Answer on November 12, 2025. An agreed Scheduling Order was entered on December 11, 2025, under which the parties agreed that dispositive motions would be due on May 26, 2026 and discovery would close on July 23, 2026, Plaintiffs did not pursue discovery from the Holcomb Agency until affer the Holcomb Agency filed its MSJ. In fact, on the same day Plaintiffs filed their Rule 13 Affidavit and the day their response to the Agency’s MSJ was due, Plaintiffs first served their First Set of Discovery Requests to counsel for the Holcomb Agency along with a notice of corporate representative deposition for"}, {"d": 40, "p": 3, "t": "the deposition to occur a month later on July 16, 2026. Thus, Plaintiffs did not even commence discovery until the day they were to respond to the MSI. In fact, anticipating this very scenario given what had occurred in other cases, counsel for the Holcomb Agency suggested extending the dispositive motion deadline if Plaintiffs’ counsel was just going to claim to be unable to respond due to the need for discovery. Rother Email, May 17, 2026, Ex. 1. Plaintiffs made clear they did not want to extend the deadline, Sonne Email, May 19, 2026, Ex. 1. Thus, the Holcomb Agency filed its MSJ pursuant to the Order of the Court. The current summary judgment posture is entirely one of Plaintiffs’ own making and they should not benefit from it. To the extent Plaintiffs do not have the information to respond to the Holcomb Agency’s MSJ, that is due to their own lack of diligence and choices. They have not and cannot explain their delay. For that reason alone, their request for more time to respond to the MS] should be denied and the undisputed material facts set forth in the MSJ should be deemed admitted. R. Dist. Cts, of Okla. R. 13(b) (“All material facts set forth in the statement of the movant which are supported by acceptable evidentiary material shall be deemed admitted for the purpose of summary judgment or summary disposition unless specifically controverted by the statement of the adverse party which is supported by acceptable evidentiary material.”); Fed. Land Bank, 1990 OK CIV APP 64, §§ 7-9, 796 P.2d at 644-45 (affirming denial of request for continuance to conduct discovery to respond to motion for summary judgment and affirming summary judgment); Walker y. inVentiv Health, Inc., No. 17-CV-345-JED-FHM, 2020 WL 13702741, at *3 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 28, 2020) (rejecting request for continuance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), finding plaintiff provided no justification for delay, and entering summary judgment).! ' “Because Oklahoma’s district court rule for disposing of matters by summary judgment, Rule 13, was patterned after Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., ‘the Federal cases thereunder are given special consideration by the Count.’” Savage v. Burton, 2005 OK CIV 2"}, {"d": 40, "p": 4, "t": "Even if Plaintiffs had been diligent in seeking discovery from the Holcomb Agency, they have not met their burden to show specified discovery is necessary before deciding summaty judgment. While their counsel provided a bare bones affidavit, it does not identify any “specified reasons” that they cannot present facts essential to justify their opposition. 12 O.S. § 2056(F). Section 2056(F) “is not a ‘license for a fishing expedition’ and the party seeking to defer a ruling on a motion for summary judgment must identify specific discovery that is necessary in order to fully respond to the motion.” Cox v, Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC, No. 18-CV-0117-CVE-JFJ, 2019 WL 1546941, at *3 (N.D. Okla. Apr. 9, 2019) (quoting Lewis v. City of Fort Collins, 903 F.2d 752, 759 (10th Cir. 1990)). This includes identification of “the facts not available, why those facts cannot be presented without additional time, [] the steps taken to obtain the facts, and [] how additional time will enable the non-movant to rebut the motion for summary judgment.” Walker, 2020 WL 13702741 at *3 (citing Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Health Care Mgmt. Partners, 616 F.3d 1086, 1096 (10th Cir. 2010)). “Relief should not be granted ... when the ‘desired discovery would not meet the issue on which the moving party contends there is no genuine factual issue.’” Cox, 2019 WL 1546941 at *3 (quoting Jones v. City and County of Denver, Colorado, 854 F.2d 1206, 1211 (10th Cir. 1988)). For the most part, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s affidavit complains about discovery requested from State Farm. Whitten Aff, {§ 7-13. As for the discovery sought from the Holcomb Agency via deposition and written discovery, a good portion of the topics identified relate to State Farm’s claim handling, including “Hail Focus Initiative,” “Claim Handling Hygiene,” so-called “Wind/Hail Playbook,” training by Haag on identification of hail damage, “HAAG Refresher,” APP 106, § 10, 125 P.3d 1249, 1252 (quoting Kepler v. Strain, 1978 OK 52, $7, 579 P.2d 191, 192)."}, {"d": 40, "p": 5, "t": "and “2021 Fire Property Claims Quality Plan,” which have nothing to do with Plaintiffs’ claims against the Holeomb Agency for negligent procurement and constructive fraud. Jd. at {9 14-15. Nor does the Holcomb Agency have any knowledge or information in its possession relating to these topics. And while the Affidavit insists “Plaintiffs require” discovery on these topics and a few others related to alleged underwriting obligations of the Holcomb Agency to “keep abreast of insured property condition,” which duties the Holcomb Agency showed in its MSJ do not exist as a matter of law, as well as complaints regarding claim handling, it makes no attempt to tie the requested discovery to any undisputed material fact in the Holcomb Agency’s MSJ or show how it “meet[s] [any] issue on which [the Holcomb Agency] contends there is no genuine factual issue.” Cox, 2019 WL 1546941 at *3. No claims or issues in the MSJ are even mentioned in the affidavit. This fails the requirements of § 2056(F), The lack of specificity of Plaintiffs’ request demonstrates that more time for discovery will not change the outcome and suggests the Affidavit was filed for purposes of delay. See 12 O.S. § 2056(G) (“If satisfied that an affidavit under this rule is submitted in bad faith or solely for delay, the court must order the submitting party to pay the other party the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result.”). Plaintiffs have not met their burden under § 2056(F) and Rule 13(d); therefore, the Court should proceed with ruling on the Holcomb Agency’s MSJ on the record before it. See Fed. Land Bank of Wichita, 1990 OK CIV APP 64, § 7, 796 P.2d at 644 (observing “St is not error to deny a continuance in order to afford time to controvert adverse evidence, when ... there was no explanation of the nature of the evidence expected to be adduced if the continuance was granted”); McClain v. Riverview Vill, Inc., 2011 OK CIV APP 57, 47, 250 P.3d 919, 921 (finding trial court did not err in entering summary judgment where plaintiffs did not provide an affidavit “stating reasons why [they] could not yet present evidentiary material sufficient to"}, {"d": 40, "p": 6, "t": "controvert” the undisputed material facts set forth in the motion); Gutierrez vy. Cobos, 841 F.3d 895, 909 (10th Cir. 2016) (affirming denial of Rule 56(d) motion where, as here, movant did not explain how specific information sought was essential to summary judgment opposition); Scoft v. Hormel, No. CIV-18-395-SLP, 2020 WL 2128584, at *2 (W.D. Okla. May 5, 2020), aff'd, 854 F. App’x 958 (10th Cir. 2021) (finding plaintiff did not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) where he did not indicate “‘how additional time would allow for rebuttal of [Defendants’] argument for summary judgment’ even if the documents and information requested ... were produced”). In its Motion to Dismiss, the Holcomb Agency urged that Plaintiffs had no claim against it and that it was joined simply to destroy federal diversity jurisdiction. It has proven this again in its MS]. Plaintiffs’ failure to pursue discovery against the Holcomb Agency to prosecute their claims confirms it. The Holcomb Agency should never have been made a party to this action, and summary judgment should be entered in its favor on all claims agai fully sub ii LULL LA S.\\ROTHER, OBA #14310 PAIGE A. VASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA MM. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7700 Facsimile: (405) 239-6651 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC."}, {"d": 40, "p": 7, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 16th day of July, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson Blake Sonne BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM Hannah Whitten John 8. Sanders 21 N 44th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 6300005 \\ ‘ C |"}, {"d": 41, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE FILED COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA July 16, 2026 4:17 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK at” NEIL and LACY WEST, Saas Case Number CJ-2025-135 Nema” Set! Plaintiffs, Case No. CJ-2025-135 Defendants. Smaart” Sweat! ggg Nears JUDGE SHEPERD Neve STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Smt” mgt v. DEFENDANT NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CORRECTED TO INCLUDE OMITTED EXHIBIT TIMILA S, ROTHER, OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7700 Facsimile: (405) 239-6651 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC,"}, {"d": 41, "p": 2, "t": "Instead of responding to Defendant Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc.’s (“Holcomb Agency”) Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) filed on the dispositive motion deadline, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a Rule 13 Affidavit on June 10, 2026, telling this Court that the Holcomb Agency’s MSJ is premature because Plaintiffs need to conduct discovery—despite having, as of that date, conducted no discovery of the Holcomb Agency at all, When a motion for summary judgment is filed, Oklahoma law gives a court discretion to order a continuance to enable the opposing party to conduct limited discovery, only when the opponent “shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.” 12 O.S. § 2056(F) (emphasis added). And, “[a] party urging more time to prepare as grounds for a continuance must produce evidence of his due diligence in the time that was already allotted.” Fed Land Bank of Wichita v. Musgrove, 1990 OK CIV APP 64, § 7, 796 P.2d 641, 644. “[I]t is not error to deny a continuance in order to afford time to controvert adverse evidence, when the record reflects there was a fair opportunity to controvert and there was no explanation of the nature of the evidence expected to be adduced if the continuance was granted.” Jd. That is precisely what occurred here. This case was remanded to this Court on August 25, 2025. After the Court denied its Motion to Dismiss, the Holcomb Agency filed its Answer on November Scheduling Order was entered on December 12, 2025, An agreed 11, 2025, under which the parties agreed that dispositive motions would be due on May 26, 2026 and discovery would close on July 23, 2026. Plaintiffs did not pursue discovery from the Holcomb Agency until after the Holcomb Agency filed its MSJ. In fact, on the same day Plaintiffs filed their Rule 13 Affidavit and the day their response to the Agency’s MSJ was due, Plaintiffs first served their First Set of Discovery Requests to counsel for the Holcomb Agency along with a notice of corporate representative deposition for"}, {"d": 41, "p": 3, "t": "the deposition to occur a month later on July 16, 2026. Thus, Plaintiffs did not even commence discovery until the day they were to respond to the MSJ. In fact, anticipating this very scenario given what had occurred in other cases, counsel for the Holcomb Agency suggested extending the dispositive motion deadline if Plaintiffs’ counsel was just going to claim to be unable to respond due to the need for discovery. Rother Email, May 17, 2026, Ex. 1. Plaintiffs made clear they did not want to extend the deadline, Sonne Email, May 19, 2026, Ex. |. Thus, the Holcomb Agency filed its MSJ pursuant to the Order of the Court. The current summary judgment posture is entirely one of Plaintiffs’ own making and they should not benefit from it. To the extent Plaintiffs do not have the information to respond to the Holcomb Agency’s MSJ, that is due to their own lack of diligence and choices. They have not and cannot explain their delay. For that reason alone, their request for more time to respond to the MSJ should be denied and the undisputed material facts set forth in the MSJ should be deemed admitted. R. Dist. Cts. of Okla. R. 13(b) (“All material facts set forth in the statement of the movant which are supported by acceptable evidentiary material shall be deemed admitted for the purpose of summary judgment or summary disposition unless specifically controverted by the statement of the adverse party which is supported by acceptable evidentiary material.”); Fed. Land Bank, 1990 OK CIV APP 64, §§ 7-9, 796 P.2d at 644-45 (affirming denial of request for continuance to conduct discovery to respond to motion for summary judgment and affirming summary judgment); Walker v. inVentiv Health, Inc., No. 17-CV-345-JED-FHM, 2020 WL 13702741, at *3 (N.D. Okia. Sept. 28, 2020) (rejecting request for continuance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), finding plaintiff provided no justification for delay, and entering summary judgment).! ' “Because Oklahoma’s district court rule for disposing of matters by summary judgment, Rule 13, was patterned after Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., ‘the Federal cases thereunder are given special consideration by the Court.’” Savage v. Burton, 2005 OK CIV 2"}, {"d": 41, "p": 4, "t": "Even if Plaintiffs had been diligent in seeking discovery from the Holcomb Agency, they have not met their burden to show specified discovery is necessary before deciding summary judgment. While their counsel provided a bare bones affidavit, it does not identify any “specified reasons” that they cannot present facts essential to justify their opposition. 12 O.S. § 2056(F). Section 2056(F) “is not a ‘license for a fishing expedition’ and the party seeking to defer a ruling on a motion for summary judgment must identify specific discovery that is necessary in order to fully respond to the motion.” Cox v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC, No. 18-CV-0117-CVE-JFJ, 2019 WL 1546941, at *3 (N.D. Okla. Apr. 9, 2019) (quoting Lewis v. City of Fort Collins, 903 F.2d 752, 759 (10th Cir. 1990)). This includes identification of “the facts not available, why those facts cannot be presented without additional time, [] the steps taken to obtain the facts, and [] how additional time will enable the non-movant to rebut the motion for summary judgment.” Walker, 2020 WL 13702741 at *3 (citing Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Health Care Mamt. Partners, 616 F.3d 1086, 1096 (10th Cir. 2010)). “Relief should not be granted ... when the ‘desired discovery would not meet the issue on which the moving party contends there is no genuine factual issue.’” Cox, 2019 WL 1546941 at *3 (quoting Jones v. City and County of Denver, Colorado, 854 F.2d 1206, 1211 (10th Cir. 1988)). For the most part, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s affidavit complains about discovery requested from State Farm, Whitten Aff, {§ 7-13. As for the discovery sought from the Holeomb Agency via deposition and written discovery, a good portion of the topics identified relate to State Farm’s claim handling, including “Hail Focus Initiative,’ “Claim Handling Hygiene,” so-called “Wind/Hail Playbook,” training by Haag on identification of hail damage, “HAAG Refresher,” APP 106, § 10, 125 P.3d 1249, 1252 (quoting Kepler v. Strain, 1978 OK 52, 4 7, 579 P.2d 191, 192)."}, {"d": 41, "p": 5, "t": "and “2021 Fire Property Claims Quality Plan,” which have nothing to do with Plaintiffs’ claims against the Holcomb Agency for negligent procurement and constructive fraud. /d. at qq 14-15. Nor does the Holcomb Agency have any knowledge or information in its possession relating to these topics. And while the Affidavit insists “Plaintiffs require” discovery on these topics and a few others related to alleged underwriting obligations of the Holcomb Agency to “keep abreast of insured property condition,” which duties the Holcomb Agency showed in its MSJ do not exist as a matter of law, as well as complaints regarding claim handling, it makes no attempt to tie the requested discovery to any undisputed material fact in the Holcomb Agency’s MSJ or show how it “meet[s] [any] issue on which [the Holcomb Agency] contends there is no genuine factual issue.” Cox, 2019 WL 1546941 at *3. No claims or issues in the MSJ are even mentioned in the affidavit. This fails the requirements of § 2056(F). The lack of specificity of Plaintiffs’ request demonstrates that more time for discovery will not change the outcome and suggests the Affidavit was filed for purposes of delay. See 12 O.S. § 2056(G) (“If satisfied that an affidavit under this rule is submitted in bad faith or solely for delay, the court must order the submitting party to pay the other party the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result.”). Plaintiffs have not met their burden under § 2056(F) and Rule 13(d); therefore, the Court should proceed with ruling on the Holcomb Agency’s MSJ on the record before it. See Fed. Land Bank of Wichita, 1990 OK CIV APP 64, § 7, 796 p2d at 644 (observing “it is not error to deny a continuance in order to afford time to controvert adverse evidence, when ... there was no explanation of the nature of the evidence expected to be adduced if the continuance was granted”); McClain v. Riverview Vill, Inc., 2011 OK CIV APP 57, §7, 250 P.3d 919, 921 (finding trial court did not err in entering summary judgment where plaintiffs did not provide an affidavit “stating reasons why [they] could not yet present evidentiary material sufficient to"}, {"d": 41, "p": 6, "t": "controvert” the undisputed material facts set forth in the motion); Gutierrez v. Cobos, 841 F.3d 895, 909 (10th Cir. 2016) (affirming denial of Rule 56(d) motion where, as here, movant did not explain how specific information sought was essential to summary judgment opposition); Scoft v. Hormel, No. CIV-18-395-SLP, 2020 WL 2128584, at *2 (W.D. Okla. May 5, 2020), aff'd, 854 F. App’x 958 (10th Cir. 202 1) (finding plaintiff did not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) where he did not indicate “‘how additional time would allow for rebuttal of [Defendants’] argument for summary judgment’ even if the documents and information requested ... were produced”). In its Motion to Dismiss, the Holeomb Agency urged that Plaintiffs had no claim against it and that it was joined simply to destroy federal diversity jurisdiction. It has proven this again in its MSJ. Plaintiffs’ failure to pursue discovery against the Holcomb Agency to prosecute their claims confirms it. The Holcomb Agency should never have been made a party to this action, and summary judgment should be entered in its favor on all claims agai thee Ca nla U LA S.\\ROTHER, [ OBA #14310 PAIGE A. ASTERS OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7700 Facsimile: (405) 239-6651 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC."}, {"d": 41, "p": 7, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 16th day of July, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Brad W, Burgess Colby A. Stephenson Blake Sonne BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 N 44th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 ul Oklahoma City, OK 73102 pea) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 6 6300005 |"}, {"d": 41, "p": 9, "t": "Paige Masters From: Sent: Timila S. Rother Tuesday, May 19, 2026 8:48 AM To: Blake Sonne; Paige Masters; Amanda Finch Ce: Reggie N. Whitten; Michael Burrage; Hannah Whitten; John Sanders; Jake Denne; Karen Stratton; Kayli Price; Autumn Hobbs; james warner RE: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca West v. State Farm - Deposition of Contractor & Public Adjuster Subject: Attachments: Blake, I will, as noted, respond in more detail to the production and deposition issues, but respond quickly here to note that you overstated my question/request. My focus was on the Motion for Summary Judgment (and other) deadlines for Friday as, regardless of the timeline for depositions and production, ] anticipate you all will not respond in 18 days because of ongoing discovery - even ifthe depositions were all agreed they would not be completed before your response is due and you have advised of an intended second motion to compel. To be transparent, I also advised that I do not believe the document production can be completed by June 1.1] was not asking to extend the scheduling order, but rather anticipating that you would based on the discovery you are pursuing. I disagree with your premise that this is inconsistent with our prior objections as those are the federal court cases where the discovery was not timely pursued at all (the most recent cases) and/or was being asked to be halted in an effort to apply the Judge Palumbo orders to those cases. Indeed, in the early stages of those disputes we were noting that we would agree to a reasonable extension 30-60 days or the like, but not 120 and not on the premise that the Judge Palumbo orders were operative in the federal cases. Regardless, we will proceed with summary judgment motions on Friday and object to any requested extensions to respond given the below, noting to the Judge our effort to avoid that situation being created at all. If there is an agreement to be reached there, let me know. Perhaps we can discuss after a more full report on the status of the efforts to comply with the Judge’s Order. We have outstanding requests to you from a week ago about dates for the contractor depositions (see attached). Unless you have dates in the works, we will go ahead and notice them and then work with you to move them as needed. One of them is the public adjuster who is, I think, in Florida, and so that one will require more work to coordinate so we will likely just proceed with that subpoena and notice to get the ball moving. I anticipate we can take his deposition virtually. Thanks Timila"}, {"d": 41, "p": 10, "t": "C RO W E | timitas. Rother Shareholder/Director DUNLEVY | 405.238.7757 LexMundi Member Pan Vroom e a USA #2925@ o Ties Rother This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or other privileges or protections. If you believe that it has been seni to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you. From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 2:43 PM To: Timila S. Rother <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com>; Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>; Amanda Finch <amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com> Cc: Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; james warner <jwarner@nixlaw.com> Subject: Re: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca [ALERT: Email contains attachments from external sender, Be cautious Timila, Thank you for your email. We do not agree to any extension of the deadlines in the West case. As you know, discovery is open through the pre-trial conference on July 23, 2026. We have sought extensions on numerous occasions in other federal cases because State Farm has refused in every case to produce documents related to the FME Wind/Hail team and its implementation in Oklahoma. You have indicated an objection in every case so your request to seek an extension of deadlines now that the documents have been ordered to be produced in yet another case is not received well and is extremely inconsistent. We also object to what appears to be your statement that State Farm will not comply with the Court’s deadline of document production by June 1\". As you know, many of these documents (related to the last round of cases) were ordered to be produced by Judge Palumbo by December 24, 2025, with the remaining documents to be produced in late February I believe. If you file any motion for summary judgment, we will certainly file a response with use of these documents ordered to be produced by the Court by June 1%. We look forward to hearing from you by Wednesday on the Manduca depo and the other executives to be deposed in June. As we stated very clearly, if you re-assert your objection to those other noticed depos, we will file a motion to compel and get the issue before the Court as soon as possible so please advise. We will likewise provide some dates for the depositions of the adjusters and TM we want to depose. Thank you. BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL"}, {"d": 41, "p": 11, "t": "WHITTEN BURRAGE. 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www. whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work-product. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: \"Timila S. Rother\" <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com> Date: Sunday, May 17, 2026 at 12:50 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>, Amanda Finch <amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com> Ce: \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, james warner <jwarner@nixlaw.com> Subject: RE: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca Blake, I am catching up on email after being out-of-state and in all day meetings since Thursday. I have a call scheduled with State Farm on Tuesday to discuss the issues that are raised in your series of emails and I will send a quick separate response to the email that includes Lance on the issues as to deposition scheduling for Ms. Manduca and document production on Porter, Barlow and Cisneros. As to West document production and timing, as noted I will respond more fully when I get an update from State Farm, but a couple of things. As you know, we did not receive this order until 10 days after it was entered. I am not sure if we could meet June 1 no matter what but certainly that is harder if we lost 10 days of the period allowed by the Court. I know this overlaps with other production and I know it is in the works but I am going to have to get more information. As you know, State Farm is juggling production orders in several cases. But that brings me to a scheduling question. Our first round of filings, dispositive motions and preliminary witness and exhibit lists are due on May 22. In the last several cases we have filed MSJs and you all have responded with requests to extend the response date based on discovery issues. The pretrial conference date is mid-July with a lot of other deadlines due mid-June. Do you all anticipate asking to extend the scheduling order in this case as well and/or to ask for an extension to respond to our MSJ if we file it on May 22? Ifo, I think it makes since to do that sooner rather than later to avoid what we both have due on Friday. IF not, we can proceed with our Motion for Summary Judgment. I just wanted to get that out there before the week gets away. And certainly in the interest of candor, I anticipate State Farm may need more time to complete the ordered document production, even if it can begin production on June 1. Hopefully I will have more clarity on that by Wednesday but I am not sure how we meet a July pretrial conference either way. 3"}, {"d": 41, "p": 12, "t": "Thanks Timila @ C ROWE td Pan, | Timila S, Rother Shareholder/Director DUNLEVY | 405.235.7757 USA ’ ry Cy P2025@ Tima Rother This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or other privileges or protections. If you believe that it has been sent fo you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you. From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2026 3:49 PM To: Timila S. Rother <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com>; Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>; Amanda Finch <amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com> Ce: Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; james warner <jwarner@nixlaw.com> Subject: FW: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca JALERT: Email contains attachments from external sende Timila, With respect to my email below and the West case...we will be filing our motion to compel on the second set of discovery as mentioned. We have previously discussed requests to produce the industry standards/Accenture, claim files, and the Manduca depo in a conversation and phone call. I do not recall discussing the other depos other than Taylor as well. However, I just wanted to again request production of these requested depositions and exhibits in our second requests without court intervention. Based on our conversations about Manduca and Taylor, I do not believe State Farm will produce these documents, depositions, or claim files, but please advise if you have any indication of a change in position. We plan to file Monday and of course stand willing to discuss at any time prior to any hearing on the motion. Thanks and hope you guys have a great weekend. BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL WHITTEN BURRAGE, 512. N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 {| Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www. whittenburragelaw.com"}, {"d": 42, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) FILED ) a Plaintiffs, DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA ) V. ROBERT MORALES. COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2025-135 ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ AGENCY, INC., July 22, 2026 11:03 AM ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) NOTICE OF SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE AND PERMIT INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS Please take notice that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C)(2), a subpoena will be served on Gold Claims, LLC, 1050 Street Road, Unit 554, Southampton, Pennsylvania 18966, to produce and permit inspection and copying of documents. Said inspection and copying will take place on August 24, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, Braniff Building, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102. Gold Claims, LLC is directed, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(A)(1)(b), to produce the documents listed on Exhibit A to the subpoena served upon it. A copy of the subpoena is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The Subpoena states that the witnesses need not appear in person, pursuant to 12 OLS. § 2004.1(C)(2)(a). Respectfully Submitted, TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700"}, {"d": 42, "p": 2, "t": "timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by US. Mail, postage prepaid, this 22nd day of July, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson Blake Sonne BURGESS Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 21 NW 44th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 6299950 WX & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM"}, {"d": 42, "p": 4, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vv. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) Defendants. ) SUBPOENA TO GOLD CLAIMS, LLC TO PRODUCE AND PERMIT INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS TO: Gold Claims, LLC 1050 Street Road, Unit 554 Southampton, Pennsylvania 18966 GREETINGS - You are hereby commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of documents in the possession, custody and control of Gold Claims, LLC in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, Braniff Building, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 on August 24, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. You need not appear in person, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C) (2)(a). The documents which shall be produced are described on the attached Exhibit A. In order to allow objections to the production of documents and things to be filed, you should not produce them until the date specified in this subpoena, and if an objection is filed, until the court rules on the objection. Hereof fail not under penalty of law. Issued this 22nd day of July, 2026. tre TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com"}, {"d": 42, "p": 5, "t": "paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 6299951"}, {"d": 42, "p": 6, "t": "Exhibit A to Subpoena to Gold Claims, LLC . All documents, paper or electronic (including visual or audio recordings, photographs, etc.), relating to the house at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, Oklahoma 73505, now or previously owned and/or occupied by Neil and/or Lacy West (the “House”), and any inspections, estimates, evaluations, assessments, repairs, or other work or analysis by Gold, Claims, or any related entity, of that House, and all communications with any person relating thereto. . All agreements and written communications of any kind, paper or electronic, including emails and text messages, with Neil and/or Lacy West or anyone acting on their behalf (to include Trademark Exteriors/Bobby Odom or Coastal Claims/Jose Parga) related to the House, to include hiring an attorney to represent them in recovering benefits for wind or hail damage under their State Farm policy or filing a lawsuit against State Farm, and all documents received from or provided to Neil and/or Lacy West or anyone acting on their behalf. . All written communications and agreements, paper or electronic, with Whitten Burrage, Burgess & Hightower Law Firm (“law firms”), or any of the lawyers from those firms, related to the House, or Neil and/or Lacy West (or anyone acting on their behalf), and all documents, including visual or audio recordings, photographs, etc., received from or provided to the law firms or lawyers relating to the House, or Neil and/or Lacy West (or anyone acting on their behalf). . All written communications, paper or electronic, including emails and text messages, with any homeowner, law firm, attorney, or legal representative, regarding hiring an attorney to represent a homeowner in recovering benefits for wind or hail damage under their insurance policy from January 1, 2022 to the present."}, {"d": 43, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED ne” July 27, 2026 12:15 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK. Case Number CJ-2025-135 Smee” nae Plaintiffs, COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Ne” DISTRICT COURT NEIL and LACY WEST, Case No. CJ-2025-135 Sere Nene? INS. Defendants. Nee Nee? STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB AGENCY, INC., mare Sear See” Vv, DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE CONFIDENTIALITY ASSERTIONS, DE-DESIGNATE DOCUMENTS, OR LIFT PROTECTIVE ORDER"}, {"d": 43, "p": 2, "t": "Plaintiffs’ Motion unreasonably mischaracterizes and disregards Oklahoma law, State Farm’s confidentiality designations, and the plain terms of the Protective Order (“PO”) in this case, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The PO—which the Court entered two months ago and which, with the exception of two paragraphs not at issue here, includes Plaintiffs’ preferred language— provides a well-established mechanism for challenging confidentiality designations in Paragraph 4. Instead of using the procedure they endorsed, Plaintiffs seek blanket cancellation of all confidentiality designations and dissolution of the PO as a litigation tactic wholly divorced from the validity of the designations. The Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for at least four reasons: (1) Plaintiffs improperly conflate sealing requirements for documents filed in court with protective order standards for discovery materials; (2) State Farm’s good faith confidentiality designations comply with the plain terms of the PO and applicable law; (3) Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good cause for modifying or lifting the PO; and (4) Plaintiffs provide no support for their novel sealing prohibition that would supplant well-established sealing standards. BACKGROUND Despite State Farm’s continued effort to keep the discovery in this case focused on the issues of this individual claim--where Plaintiffs have not pointed to a single case-specific fact to suggest institutional misconduct and the facts point instead to the correctness of State Farm’s decision—State Farm has produced, pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request and the Court’s order, nearly 800,000 documents (millions of pages), the majority of which show State Farm’s internal business operations.! Specifically, in addition to State Farm’s agreed productions, State Farm was directed ' State Farm takes specific issue with Plaintiffs’ allegation that State Farm “engaged in an unprecedented document dump.” Plaintiffs requested every one of the produced documents and on an immediate basis and the Court ordered their production. While State Farm stands by its designations, the document-by-document scrutiny that Plaintiffs appear to demand, looking for the handful of documents that might not be confidential, would have delayed production by months."}, {"d": 43, "p": 3, "t": "to produce vast quantities of sensitive information including: (a) voluminous claims training materials from 2019 through 2025; (b) information from 2019 through 2025 regarding the FME and other “wind/hail initiatives,” including, as described by Plaintiffs, purported tracking of roof replacements, indemnity savings, and payment volumes; (c) six years of documents and communications relating to managerial approval requirements for full roof replacements; (d) documents about alleged efforts to reduce indemnity payments for wind/hail claims; (e) all documents previously produced or ordered in six unrelated lawsuits where documents had their own confidentiality designations; (f) Fire Property Claims Quality Plans between 2019 and 2025; (g) documents on initiatives concerning indemnity payments and roof replacement ratios, approval rates and payments; and (h) emails or other correspondence to or from Nicole Manduca, Sharon Arnold, Tom Moss, and Susan Maynard from 2019 to 2025 about the FME and various metrics relating to roof replacements, On May 21, 2026, after briefing, the Court entered the PO, largely adopting Plaintiffs’ proposed protective order except for paragraphs 14 and 15, which the court took from State Farm’s proposed protective order. See Ex. A, May 21, 2026 PO; Ex. B, May 4, 2026 Order Re: Protective Order Dispute, State Farm produced documents as set forth above in reliance on the PO. the PO, the parties may designate as “confidential” documents Under falling within specifically enumerated categories recognized by Oklahoma law, including (1) trade secrets”, (2) confidential research, development, or commercial information’, and (3) personal confidential information? * Under the PO, “‘trade secret’ shall have the same meaning as in 78 O.S. § 86(4).” Ex. A, {3(a). 3 Under the PO, “Confidential research, development or commercial information’ shall refer to information that is maintained in secrecy from third parties and which a party in good faith believes would result in substantial competitive harm if publicly disclosed.” Jd. 3(b). * Under the PO, “‘Personal confidential information’ shall include a person’s social security number, medical records, bank records, personnel records and tax information.” Jd. §B(c)."}, {"d": 43, "p": 4, "t": "Ex. A, §§{1, 3. The PO also creates an explicit procedure for disputing confidentiality designations, whereby a party “may challenge any other party’s designation of a document or portion of a document,” with the burden on the designating party to establish confidentiality. Jd at 4 4 (emphases added). The PO does not automatically require the court to seal documents designated confidential; instead the parties seek leave for sealing by filing a motion that conforms with 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(2). Ex. A, at § 12. The PO reserves for the Court the ultimate authority to determine the treatment of designated documents, including at trial. /d. at §§ 13-14. Despite the clear language requiring document-by-document confidentiality challenges and a meet and confer process to attempt to informally resolve disputes, Plaintiffs have never challenged State Farm’s confidentiality designations pursuant to this procedure or adhered to its requirements.> Undaunted by their failure to seek good faith resolution, Plaintiffs now seek to undo the reasonable mechanisms in their own Court ordered PO, without ever setting forth any challenge basis as to specific documents. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied in its entirety for at least four reasons: (1) Plaintiffs improperly conflate sealing requirements for documents filed in court with protective order standards for discovery materials; (2) State Farm’s good faith confidentiality designations comply 5 Plaintiffs claim, in generic reliance on the 31-page email string attached as Ex. 8, that they “reached out to opposing counsel” and that “State Farm has stood by its blanket designation despite repeated attempts by undersigned counsel” is not supported by the cited email. (Plaintiffs’ Mot. at 2). Plaintiffs quote counsel for State Farm as saying in this email that: “[w]e do not agree to withdraw our confidentiality designations,” but that statement does not appear in the email thread, much less in response to the specific quote pointed to by Plaintiffs. While counsel for State Farm may have at some point stated that State Farm was not willing to wholesale withdraw its confidentiality designations in response to Plaintiffs’ generic demand untethered to the PO, State Farm includes this footnote because it is further evidence of State Farm’s continued objection to counsel’s careless and/or intentional misstatements to the Court."}, {"d": 43, "p": 5, "t": "with the plain terms of the PO and applicable law; (3) Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good cause for modifying or lifting the PO; and (4) Plaintiffs provide no support for their novel sealing prohibition that would supplant well-established sealing standards. I. PLAINTIFFS IMPROPERLY CONFLATE SEALING REQUIREMENTS PROTECTIVE ORDER STANDARDS FOR DISCOVERY MATERIALS, WITH In a troublingly consistent trend across Oklahoma cases, Plaintiffs’ counsel improperly conflates the standards governing the confidentiality of materials produced in discovery pursuant to protective orders with the standards governing the sealing of court records. These are fundamentally distinct legal concepts with different burdens of proof. | Indeed, it is a wellestablished, indisputable legal principle under both federal and Oklahoma law that there is no presumed right of access to materials exchanged in pre-trial discovery, zatless and until that material is filed or otherwise enters the judicial record. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33 (1984); see also, eg., Inhofe v. Wiseman, 1989 OK 41, 910, 772 P.2d 389, 393 (“[D]iscovered information, not yet admitted, is not a public source of information.”) (citation omitted); Chicago Trib. Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1310 (11th Cir. 2001) (“Materials merely gathered as a result of the civil discovery process, however, do not fall within the scope of the constitutional right of access’s compelling interest standard.”). In contrast, documents that have become court records as a result of being filed in court must satisfy a higher statutory statute to maintain their confidentiality due to the public’s interest in access to the courts. 51 O.S. § 24A.30. Even that interest can be overcome, however, “by an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest,” such as to protect privacy rights or confidentiality interests in commercially sensitive information, See, e.g., Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1984); see also, e.g., Williams v. FedEx Corp. Servs., 849 F.3d"}, {"d": 43, "p": 6, "t": "889, 905 (10th Cir. 2017) (“[W]e have granted motions to seal medical records and internal confidential business records in other instances.”). To support their Motion, Plaintiffs rely heavily on—and misleadingly quote extensively from—the Oklahoma Open Records Act and the public access presumption established in 51 O.S. § 24A.30 and Shadid v. Hammond, which govern the sealing of court records filed with the court, not the designation of documents produced in discovery as confidential under a protective order, Pls’ Mot. at 1-4, 14-18; Shadid v. Hammond, 2013 OK 103, 41, 315 P.3d 1008 (“Oklahoma Publishing Company is directed to file a motion requesting access to the referenced court file pursuant to the Open Records Act”) (emphasis added); Shadid at 2 (Taylor J., joined by Kauger, J., concurring) (“Court records are public records.”) (emphasis added). All of Plaintiffs’ other citations for their “public access” theory—most of which are three or more decades old from unrelated jurisdictions—are at least equally inapplicable or directly support State Farm’s arguments.° See, e.g., Inre Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 278 (1948)(78-year-old case involving a criminal defendant’s right to be heard in open court); Unifed States v. Mitchell, 551 F.2d 1252, 1265 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (50-year-old case that was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court and involved access to recordings of a highly public figure—the president of the United States—that became part of the court record by being played at trial), rev ‘d sub nom. Nixon v. Warner Comme’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978); Nixon, 435 U.S. at 610 (48-year-old case that reversed Mitchell by upholding the trial court’s restrictions on the same public court records related to a highly visible public figure); Zenith Radio Corp. yv. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 529 F. Supp. 866, 895, 898 (E.D. Pa. 1981) (45year-old case denying wholesale motion for “declassification” of public judicial records and 6 In many instances, Plaintiffs’ citations are so obviously inapplicable that it is difficult to understand how Plaintiffs can rely on them in good faith."}, {"d": 43, "p": 7, "t": "supporting State Farm’s arguments by affirming that “the public has no common law right to inspect materials that are produced in discovery but are not placed in the custody of the court”); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. y. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 555 (1980) (46-year-old case holding that criminal cases must be open to the public absent an overriding interest); United States v. Criden, 648 F.2d 814, 815, 829 3rd Cir, 1981)(45-year-old case allowing the broadcast of video and audio tapes played in open court during the criminal trial of public officials); Hammock by Hammock v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 662 A.2d 546, 558 (N.J., 1995) (31-year-old case involving a dispute over judicial records and materials filed with the court).’ Moreover, a “confidential” document subject to the restrictions of the PO must still undergo a separate, individualized judicial assessment before being sealed from the public, in which case some (but not all) of the cases Plaintiffs cite would become relevant. See The Sedona Conference, The Sedona Guidelines: Best Practices Addressing Protective Orders, Confidentiality & Public Access in Civil Cases, 8 Sedona Conf. J. at 141, 148 (2007) (“Protective orders must not confuse the confidentiality of material produced in discovery with the filing of such materials under seal.”). But that sealing assessment is completely irrelevant to the current dispute over State Farm’s designations of discovery materials, and the Court should reject Plaintiffs’ attempt to import that ” See also infra note 14; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 2021 OK CIV APP 17, §§ 32-33, 491 P.3d 759, 766 (addressing a dispute over sealing court records, not designating discovery documents confidential, and affirming the underlying sealing order); State ex rel. Oklahoma State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision v. Rivero, 2021 OK 31, 489 P.3d 36 (addressing an attempt to prevent access under the Oklahoma Open Records Act to materials disclosed in public administrative proceedings, not materials disclosed in discovery, and finding that “[w]hen a court record is turned into a confidential record, an agreement by parties to request confidentiality as to a public court record is not without statutory limits due to the Open Records Act.”) (emphasis added); Jn re Bank One Sec. Litig., 222 F.R.D. 582, 589 (N.D. Ill. 2004) (22-year-old case unsealing documents “filed of record in this case that have not been identified by Defendant as containing OCC-related information”)(emphasis added); Cook, inc. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 206 F.R.D. 244, 246 (S.D. Ind. 2001) (25-year-old case involving a dispute over the breadth of materials subject to a highly restrictive “outside counsel eye’s only” confidentiality designation),"}, {"d": 43, "p": 8, "t": "standard to the designation of discovery materials. See, e.g., Good v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2023 OK CIV, APP. 28, § 14, 536 P.3d 961, 970 (holding that there is no presumption of public access to discovery materials where a trial court has entered an order or otherwise stated that discovery materials are not required to be filed); Chicago Trib. Co., 263 F.3d at 1312 (“The better rule is that material filed with discovery motions is not subject to the common-law right of access.”). Simply put, Plaintiffs’ reliance on the public’s right of access to filed court records is misplaced, as that right has no bearing on the propriety of designating unfiled discovery materials as confidential or the validity of State Farm’s good faith designations. See, ¢.g., Littlebear v. Advanced Bionics, LLC, 2012 WL 2979023, at *2 (N.D. Okla. July 20, 2012)(“[M]ost of Plaintiff's authority and legal argument pertains to the public’s right to access judicial documents and trial proceedings, which are inapplicable and inapposite to the discovery issue at hand. . . . Despite Plaintiff's insistence, the public has no right to access discovery material”) (emphasis in original). Il. STATE FARM’S GOOD FAITH DESIGNATIONS COMPLY WITH THE PO. When the correct standard is applied, it is clear that State Farm’s designations comply with the PO because: (1) they were made in good faith consistent with the categories in the PO; and (2) the volume of designations reflects the nature of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, not bad faith. A. State Farm Designated Its Documents Categories Enumerated in the PO. in Good Faith Consistent with the Notwithstanding their attempt to improperly apply the “public access” standard for sealing, Plaintiffs recognize that the true standard is whether State Farm made its designations in good faith, a standard it easily satisfies. Ex. A, §1; Pls’ Mot. at 1. Under the “good faith” standard, all that is required is that State Farm designate documents based on a “bona fide determination” that the documents satisfy one of the three defined categories: “trade secrets,” “confidential research, development or commercial information” or “personal confidential information.” Ex. A, 41. This"}, {"d": 43, "p": 9, "t": "is a conventional standard used in protective orders across Oklahoma, and it imposes two important limitations on the right to designate documents as confidential. made in good faith. First, designations may only be Second, the documents must contain the type of sensitive or proprietary information contemplated by the enumerated categories. Critically, the good-faith standard does not require a producing party to make a particularized showing to the Court or to opposing counsel af the time of designation as to each individual document. Rather, the designation is provisional—the burden of raising the issue as to specific documents falls on the challenging party, while the burden of proof remains on the designating party if challenged. See, e.g., Cipollone v, Liggett Grp., Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 Gd Cir. 1986); Gillard v. Boulder Valley Sch. Dist. Re.-2, 196 F.R.D. 382, 386 (D. Colo, 2000) (the initial good-cause showing “may be done on a generalized as opposed to a document-by-document basis”). This allocation of burdens is precisely what the PO contemplates: State Farm designates in good faith at production; Plaintiffs challenge specific designations they dispute; and State Farm then bears the burden of justifying those challenged designations. Ex. A, 4 4. State Farm has satisfied this standard, while Plaintiffs have not. As set forth below, State Farm’s designations are limited to documents falling within the categories identified in § 3 of the PO, which is unsurprising since State Farm’s productions were generated in response to discovery requests that specifically targeted the types of information that fall squarely in these categories, including State Farm’s institutional policies, operational regarding business strategy, and financial analyses. guides, internal communications As such, the fact that a high percentage of responsive documents are confidential is a legitimate consequence of the nature of Plaintiffs’ overbroad requests for sensitive and proprietary corporate information, not evidence that State Farm pp applied its designations “indiscriminately” y or without the requisite ggood-faith determination. g"}, {"d": 43, "p": 10, "t": "1. The “First-Party Claims” Carve-out Does Not Render State Farm’s Designations Improper. Plaintiffs emphasize that the PO excludes from “trade secret” protection “any aspects of the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim as first-party insureds.” Ex. A, § 3(a)(ii)). They then leap to the conclusion that State Farm’s entire productions designations made in bad faith. must therefore be unprotectable, and its This argument fundamentally mischaracterizes the PO’s plain terms. Plaintiffs then compound this error with another fatally flawed recitation of cases that are completely inapplicable.® State Farm does not dispute that Paragraph 3(a)({ii) of the PO, drafted by Plaintiffs, explicitly excludes “any aspects of the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim as first-party insureds,” but this exclusion is specifically limited to the handling of Plaintiffs’ own claim—Neil and Lacy West—not all first-party claim handling materials across State Farm’s entire book of business. Furthermore, the exclusion applies narrowly to “trade secrets,” and does nothing to alter the separate and distinct categories of “confidential research, development or commercial information” and “personal confidential information”—both of which independently authorize confidentiality designations under the Protective Order. Ex. A, Jf 3(b), 3(c). The vast majority of State Farm’s production falls within these categories. For example, Operational Guides, Standard Claims Processes, Jurisdictional References, financial reports, employee information, and internal strategic communications all constitute “confidential research, development or commercial ® Specifically, Plaintiffs erroneously claim that “First party claim handling materials cannot be considered trade secret or proprietary under Oklahoma law.” Pls’ Mot. at 11-12. But Plaintiffs’ reliance on Beers v. Hillory, 2010 OK CIV APP 99, 241 P.3d 285, Christian v. Am. Home Assur: Co., 1977 OK 141, 577 P.2d 899, Newport v. USAA, 2000 OK 59, ¥ 15, 11 P.3d 190, Milroy v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2007 OK CIV APP 6, 151 P.3d 922, and 36 O.S. § 1250.7 in support of this claim is completely misplaced, as these cases ali address the duty of good faith and fair dealing—a substantive question that is not currently before the Court because it has nothing to do with protective orders or confidentiality designations."}, {"d": 43, "p": 11, "t": "information,” as that phrase is defined in the PO. Indeed, courts recognize that giving competitors access to information reflecting business strategy and competitive analyses “would provide [them] ‘with an enormous benefit—to [the litigant’s] detriment.” Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co., 2019 WL 12495009, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2019) (finding that such materials are entitled to protection even under the elevated standard for sealing court records) (quoting Krieger v. Atheros Comme’ns, Inc., 2011 WL 2550831, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2011)). This is especially true in the highly competitive insurance industry where disclosure of State Farm’s proprietary methods and strategies would provide competitors with a blueprint for managing their operations and deprive State Farm of its competitive advantage. See, e.g., Goodwin v. Invs. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 419 S.E.2d 766, 770 (1992) (“The insurance industry is highly competitive.”). Moreover, the documents Plaintiffs identify in their Motion are not simply records of “the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim.” Rather, Plaintiffs’ own exhibits reveal that the documents they challenge concern State Farm’s institutional strategies and programs— information about how State Farm manages its business at a national level. That enterprise-level strategic information is precisely the type of “confidential research, development or commercial information” the PO was designed to protect. As such, State Farm’s designations are proper, 2. Plaintiffs’ Reliance on Aruanelis and Star Scientific Is Misplaced. In challenging State Farm’s designations, Plaintiffs cite a twenty-five-year-old case from Massachusetts state court, Kruanelis v. Sentinel Benefits Grp., Inc., 2000 WL 33159206 (Mass. Super. Aug. 21, 2000), for the proposition that insurance companies are “hardly the kinds of businesses deeply steeped in trade secrets.” Pls’ Mot. at 8. Courts across the country, including in Oklahoma, have soundly rejected this characterization, recognizing that insurers’ claims > See supra note 3. 10"}, {"d": 43, "p": 12, "t": "handling materials, operational procedures, and business strategies constitute protectable confidential commercial information. See, e.g., Adams v. Allstate Ins. Co., 189 FR.D. 331 (B.D. Pa. 1999) (issuing protective order limiting use of claims handling material to that action); Jones v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 2000 WL 1231402, at *4 (M.D. Pa. July 20, 2000) (“[A]ll company policies and all claims manuals are to be kept confidential, for the eyes of plaintiff's counsel only.”); Hamilton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 204 F.R.D. 420, 423 (S.D. Ind. 2001) (upholding protections over claims handling policies, practices, and procedures); Fudlbright v, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 WL 300436, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 20, 2010).!° Plaintiffs’ citation to Star Sci., Inc. v. Carter, 204 F.R.D. 410, 416 (S.D. Ind. 2001) is similarly misplaced because, unlike the PO here, the protective order at issue in that case gave the parties “unilateral authority” to designate documents as confidential and did not include any definition for what constituted trade secrets or confidential research, development or commercial information. The PO here has no such problem, because it explicitly defines the categories of protectable information, requires designations to be made “after a bona fide determination made in good faith,” and expressly provides that the “burden of establishing that a document or testimony contains trade secret or personal confidential information . . . shall remain on the party making the designation” when challenged. Ex. A, at ff] 1, 4. As such, Sfar is easily distinguishable.\"! 3. Plaintiffs’ Speculative Characterization of State Farm’s Designation Motive Is Both Inaccurate and Irrelevant. Plaintiffs speculate that State Farm designated its documents confidential to protect its '0 Even if the characterization were true, as set forth above, “trade secrets” are not the only category of materials that can be designated confidential under the PO. '! In addition to being distinguishable in relation to Plaintiffs’ argument, Sfar supports many of State Farm’s designations, as it explicitly found that “customer lists, information relating to consumer purchasing habits, pricing information, and sales techniques and sales volumes” all constitute protectable trade secrets. Star, 204 F.R.D. at 414-15. I]"}, {"d": 43, "p": 13, "t": "“public image” rather than to avoid the economic disadvantage that would result from public disclosure. This is not only unsupported speculation, but also wholly irrelevant. Plaintiffs point to internal communications about State Farm’s “Wind/Hail FME work” and related programs as evidence that State Farm is trying to “hide” Plaintiffs’ alleged “scheme.” Even if the content of these documents evidenced a scheme—it does not—the materiality or relevance of documents does not determine whether those documents are confidential: it is the nature of the documents and the competitive harm that would result from their disclosure that matters. In other words, internal communications about operational strategies are confidential commercial information, even if they relate directly to claims handling practices alleged in the litigation, if those communications reveal protected information, such as State Farm’s strategic analyses or institutional methodologies. Courts have consistently recognized this distinction. See, e.g., Video Gaming Techs., Inc. v. Castle Hill Studios LLC, 2019 WL 2514705, at *1, 4-5 (N.D. Okla. June 18, 2019) (rejecting a request to de-designate documents after analyzing the nature of the designated documents and dismissing the moving party’s claims about “abuse” and “bad faith”), Cipollone, 785 F.2d at 1122, n.17 (recognizing that under umbrella protective orders, “there is a danger [] that counsel will err on the side of caution by designating confidential any potentially sensitive document”—but confirming this is a recognized and accepted feature of such orders). B. The Volume of Designations Requests, Not Bad Faith. Reflects the Nature of Plaintiffs’ Discovery One of Plaintiffs’ central contentions is that State Farm’s designation of over 700,000 documents as confidential constitutes a per se violation of the PO’s good faith requirement. This argument conflates volume with bad faith and ignores the nature of the documents at issue. State Farm produced over 700,000 documents as a direct result of Plaintiffs’ overly broad discovery requests seeking highly sensitive, proprietary corporate information, not as a document dump; the 12"}, {"d": 43, "p": 14, "t": "fact that State Farm designated documents confidential should be neither surprising nor concerning based on the nature of Plaintiffs’ requests, which sought institutional business policies, procedures, strategies, internal communications information that State Farm related to the same, maintains in secrecy from and other commercially competitors. sensitive These categories of documents-—-taken individually and in compilation—reflect years of time, money, and resources State Farm spent developing policies, procedures, and strategies relating to claims handling and underwriting. As set forth above, courts routinely find good cause to protect such information. See, e.g., Adants, 189 F.R.D. at 331; Jones, 2000 WL 1231402, at *4; Hamilton, 204 ER.D. at 423. Unsurprisingly, when discovery requests specifically target institutional policies, procedures, and strategies, a high percentage of responsive documents will legitimately be confidential, which is the exact reason courts routinely employ blanket or umbrella protective orders to such cases—modern discovery involves the production of large volumes of documents. The relevant inquiry is not the quantity of the designations, but whether the designating party had a good-faith basis for the individual designations. See, ¢.g., May V. Co. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2023 WL 8896258, at *1-2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2023) (finding that a blanket protective order was warranted despite the plaintiff’s objection and the fact that such orders permit all documents to be designated confidential); Litlebear, 2012 WL 2979023, at *3 (rejecting the plaintiffs’ volumebased protective order arguments); Cipollone, 785 F.2d at 1123, n.18 (“because in any large-scale litigation the movant will likely have far more documents that it wants to designate as confidential than the respondent will object to being so designated, the umbrella order approach is less timeconsuming and burdensome to the parties.”). Simply put, the volume of confidentiality designations is an expected reflection of the nature of the documents based on Plaintiffs’ requests, not a failure to make good faith determinations. 13 Plaintiffs cannot serve broad institutional"}, {"d": 43, "p": 15, "t": "discovery demands targeting the very categories of documents the PO protects and then cry foul when the responsive documents are designated confidential. UI. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED GOOD CAUSE FOR MODIFYING OR LIFTING THE PO. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good cause for modifying or lifting the PO because: (1) they agreed to the very language that State Farm has complied with in good faith; (2) State Farm relied on the PO in making its voluminous productions; (3) Plaintiffs’ “public interest” argument is unfounded and there is no “public health and safety” interest that overrides confidentiality protections for discovery materials; (4) the proper remedy for alleged over-designation is the challenge process, not modification or dissolution; and (5) lifting the PO would significantly increase the burden on the Court and the parties. A. Plaintiffs Agreed to the PO Language They Now Seek to Disregard. The PO the Court entered barely two months ago includes the language that Plaintiffs agreed to and moved the Court to enter, and Plaintiffs provide no support for their attempt to modify or eliminate the PO besides a conclusory allegation of “bad faith discovery tactics.” The only actual bad faith discovery tactic is Plaintiffs’ Motion, however, as the case law is clear that a party that consents to a protective order and then seeks its modification or dissolution bears a particularly heavy burden to demonstrate good cause. See, e.g., Burke v. Glanz, 2013 WL 211096, at *4-5 (N.D. Okla. Jan, 18, 2013) (denying motion to modify protective order because, among other things, “Plaintiff agreed to a protective order to assist in this case in order to expedite the discovery process, Plaintiff has received the benefit of this bargain by securing discovery without document-by-document fights.”)(emphasis in original); Zama Plastic Indus. v. Pritchett Twine and Net Wrap, LLC, 2014 WL 4825173, at *1 (D. Neb. Sept. 26, 2014) (“The burden is on the party seeking to modify the protective order to demonstrate good cause for . . . the modification”) 14"}, {"d": 43, "p": 16, "t": "(internal citations omitted); U.S. ex rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of Am., 2004 WL 2009414, at *2 (D.D.C. May 17, 2004) (“The party seeking modification of an existing protective order bears the burden of showing that good cause exists for the modification. .. . a continuing objection to the terms of an order does not constitute good cause to modify or withdraw a protective order”). Plaintiffs have identified no change in circumstances between entry of the PO and the filing of their Motion that justifies modification, and their disagreement with State Farm’s good faith application of the PO’s plain terms does not justify such a decision. B. State Farm Relied on the PO in Making Its Productions. State Farm has already produced nearly 800,000 documents in reliance on the protections afforded by the PO.'* State Farm has not designated all documents confidential, but those that are so designated include commercially sensitive claims handling procedures, Operational Guides, internal business strategies, and other proprietary information that State Farm maintains in secrecy from competitors. State Farm made these productions—including pursuant to the Court’s Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel—with the understanding that the PO would prevent the wholesale public dissemination of this information. Consequently, modifying or dissolving the PO now would be presumptively and categorically unfair to State Farm, which relied on the PO’s protections in making its productions. See, e.g., AT&T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 562 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A party’s reliance on a protective order in making the disclosures required of it creates a presumption in favor of the order’s preservation.”); S.E.C. v. Merrill Scott & Assocs., Ltd., 600 F.3d 1262, 1272 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[C]ourts should be wary of retroactive attempts to '2 Over 600,000 of these documents are reproduced from other cases where they are subject to the confidentiality provisions of settlement agreements and/or protective orders. Even if the Court decides to lift the PO in this case—which it should not—the confidential designations for these documents should remain. Any other ruling would interfere with the jurisdiction of other courts and further undermine the reasonable reliance that allows the Oklahoma court system to function. 15"}, {"d": 43, "p": 17, "t": "modify [protective orders] in ways that undermine the justified reliance... on a valid order circumscribing the use and availability of information disclosed through discovery.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted).!> Here, there has been no change in circumstances that would eliminate the harm State Farm will suffer if its confidential documents are made public and Plaintiffs have not identified any such changes. Consequently, modifying the PO “would impede discovery in future cases, because parties would be discouraged from disclosing documents for fear of forced disclosure later.” SRS Techs., Inc. v. Physitron, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 525, 530 (N.D. Ala. 2003). The Court should deny Plaintiffs’ proposal accordingly. C. There is No “Public Health and Safety” Interest That Overrides Confidentiality Protections for Discovery Materials. Plaintiffs argue that the documents at issue relate to matters of “public health and safety” and that the Oklahoma Attorney Generai’s (“AG”) recent petition against State Farm (CJ-20261066)—which was filed after the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the AG’s improper intervention in private litigation against State Farm and which State Farm is vigorously opposing as equally improper—demonstrates a public interest in disclosure. The applicable case law supports neither argument, however, and neither argument changes the analysis for discovery materials exchanged between private parties.'4 As the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in Seattle '3 See also Wolters Kluwer Fin. Servs, Inc. v. Scivantage, 2007 WL 1498114, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2007) (“Where there has been reasonable reliance by a party or deponent, a District Court should not modify a protective order granted under Rule 26(c) ‘absent a showing of improvidence in the grant of [the] order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need.’”) (quoting S.E.C v. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222, 229 (2d Cir. 2001)) (internal quotations omitted). 4 Plaintiffs’ citation to the 31-year-old case of Hammock, 662 A.2d 546 (N.J., 1995) is misleading at best as it does not support their position even remotely. On the contrary, Hammock: (1) resolved the question of “whether the public has a right of access to judicial records and materials filed with the court in civil litigation,” not materials produced in discovery, (2) made the quote Plaintiffs cherry-picked in relation to prescription drugs, not insurance, and (3) explicitly affirmed that “there must continue to be confidentiality of materials submitted in the discovery process. The discovery delivered to a plaintiff's counsel under a protective order is not subject to public 16"}, {"d": 43, "p": 18, "t": "Times, the public right of access does not extend to discovery materials that have not been filed with the court. 467 U.S. at 33. Even materials that are filed may be sealed upon appropriate showing under 51 O.S. § 24A.29. The fact that the AG has filed a separate action does not transform discovery in this private lawsuit into public records. The AG’s action involves different claims, different parties, and different discovery, and nothing prevents the Attorney General from obtaining through its own discovery whatever documents it needs—assuming its case proceeds at all. Perhaps more importantly, dissolving the PO would not serve the public interest. To the contrary, it would set a dangerous precedent that harms State Farm’s competitive position by publicly disclosing proprietary business information, discourage future discovery cooperation from not just State Farm, but all corporations, and undermine the fundamental premise upon which protective orders facilitate the efficient exchange of information in civil litigation. D. The Proper Remedy for Alleged Over-Designation Is the Challenge Process, Not Modification or Dissolution. As Plaintiffs acknowledge, the PO already provides a specific mechanism for challenging confidentiality designations. Pls’ Mot. at 9. Under 94, the receiving party may object to any designation, and if the parties cannot resolve the dispute through the meet-and-confer process, judicial review may be sought. Plaintiffs have not availed themselves of this process. Rather than challenge specific designations they believe are improper on a document-by-document basis as contemplated by their own PO language, Plaintiffs leap to the most extreme remedy available: wholesale modification or dissolution. This approach is contrary to the weight of authority. See, e.g., Cipollone, 785 F.2d at 1121 (endorsing umbrella protective orders with challenge procedures access as long as it remains in the private domain of plaintiff’s counsel.” /d, at 548, 558 (emphasis added). The over 20-year-old Shingara v. Skiles, 420 F.3d 30! Gd Cir. 2005)—which involved an employment action in Pennsylvania and discovery related to public figures rather than private parties—is equally inapplicable. See also supra, Section I. 17"}, {"d": 43, "p": 19, "t": "as an “appropriate allocation of burdens” that “allows discovery to proceed without undue delay,” while at the same time permitting the receiving party to challenge specific designations); see also S2 Automation LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc., 283 F.R.D. 671, 683 (D.N.M. 2012) (“Protective orders facilitate production. Corporations are quicker to release their documents if they know the information will not be revealed in the Mall Street Journal or in the local papet’s business section the next day.”). Even if the Court ultimately determines that some of State Farm’s documents require de-designation, that would not warrant dissolution of the entire PO. Instead, the proper remedy would be de-designation of those specific documents—i.ec., the exact mechanism the PO already provides. Plaintiffs’ refusal to use that mechanism does not transform the mechanism into a basis for eliminating the PO entirely. E. Lifting the PO Would Significantly Increase Burden on the Court and Parties. As set forth above, the current PO facilitates, rather than hinders, efficient litigation, and lifting the PO would not eliminate the need for confidentiality protections—it would simply shift the mechanism from an efficient, agreed-upon process to protracted, document-by-document litigation over hundreds of thousands of documents. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ proposal that State Farm seek in camera review of all documents it deems confidential would grind litigation to a halt as State Farm would be required to seek individualized protection for each of the more than 700,000 documents it has produced, As such, even if Plaintiffs’ erroneous claim that “essentially every filing made by the parties in the case would have to be under seal” due to State Farm’s designations were true, the burdens associated with document-by-document confidentiality assessment for everything State Farm produces would be exponentially greater than the burden and cost of adjudicating sealing motions, which are limited to discrete documents that relate to specific issues before the Court. Pls’ Mot. at 2; $2, 283 F.R.D. at 682-83 (“The toll on the federal court system’s docket would indeed be severe if district courts had to review, on a document-by-document basis, 18"}, {"d": 43, "p": 20, "t": "materials to determine whether they were confidential.”). Moreover, dissolving the PO would not preclude State Farm from filing motions to seal documents pursuant to 51 O.S. § 24A.29 or eliminate the Court’s obligation to make sealing determinations under Oklahoma law—indeed, this is precisely what Plaintiffs’ fourth requested form of relief explicitly seeks to require.'> And while Plaintiffs complain about being “forced” to “file all of the motions or briefs, responses as well as the exhibits attached thereto” under seal, this burden on Plaintiffs is de minimis at best and is tied entirely to their own decisions on what to file. See, e.g., United States v. Woods, 2017 WL 11380132, at *1 (W.D. Ark. Nov, 6, 2017) (“The Court does not see how the requirement to file something under seal rather than on the public docket creates any impediment to motion practice.”), Nothing about this single homeowner’s case should necessitate filings that require reams of confidential material for support, and Plaintiffs’ strategic decision to press for cumulative, irrelevant and overbroad discovery disconnected from their claim cannot justify PO dissolution on the grounds of self-imposed burdens. Simply put, State Farm should not need to sacrifice its competitive advantage in the market because of Plaintiffs’ strategy of pursuing discovery with no connection to their case and including confidential information in their briefing for the sole purpose of manufacturing disputes. IV. PLAINTIFFS PROVIDE NO SUPPORT FOR THEIR SEALING PROHIBITION THAT WOULD SUPPLANT WELL-ESTABLISHED SEALING STANDARDS. While 51 O.S. § 24A.29 and § 24A.30 impose important procedural requirements before court records may be sealed, the final form of relief Plaintiffs seek—a blanket prospective prohibition on all future under-seal filings absent a “particularized showing of harm”—is itself a 'S See Pls’ Mot. at 18 (“Plaintiffs respectfully request an order of this Court that: . . . (4) prohibits the filing of any further motions, briefs, appendices or other documents under seal without a specific order of the Court that finds that specific documents, exhibits or portions of a filing be kept under seal based upon a particularized showing of harm.”)(emphasis in original). 19"}, {"d": 43, "p": 21, "t": "novel and overbroad remedy for which Plaintiffs provide no citation and that would prejudice State Farm’s ability to protect legitimately confidential information in future filings. The proper procedure under 51 O.S. § 24A.29 and § 24A.30 is for the Court to evaluate sealing requests on a case-by-case basis as they arise, applying the least-restrictive-means standard and making the required findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether there is a “compelling privacy interest”. § 24A.30; see also, e.g., Matthews v. Black & Veatch Corp., 2021 WL 5988323, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 27, 2021) (applying the standard Oklahoma approach under which courts evaluate individual sealing requests on their merits as they arise and make findings with respect to specific documents based on compelling privacy interests, rather than issuing prospective blanket prohibitions requiring “particularized harm.”), A prospective blanket prohibition on sealed filings in the absence of particularized harm, entered before State Farm has had the opportunity to make showings with respect to specific future documents under the statutory privacy standard, would effectively prejudge the confidentiality of documents not yet before the Court and have drastic consequences. See, e.g., Good, 536 P.3d at 969 (endorsing the case-by-case approach and warning that “[o]rdering public disclosure of all sealed documents... could lead to severe, irreversible consequences and disclosure of information to the public that should not be accessible.”). As such, the Court should affirm the language in the PO that requires that requests to file under seal be made by a motion that “conform[s] to the requirements set forth in 12 O.S. 3225(C)(2),” rather than categorically tying the possibility of future sealed filings to particularized harm. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion in its entirety. To the extent Plaintiffs believe specific designations are improper, the appropriate remedy is the challenge procedure set forth in §4 of the PO—not wholesale dissolution of the protections upon which State Farm relied in producing nearly 800,000 documents in response to Plaintiffs’ overbroad discovery. 20"}, {"d": 43, "p": 22, "t": "imifa S. in OBA #14310 Paige A. Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M./inch, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave. Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8273 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 27th day of July, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S, Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BurGEssS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS \\ | 4 {\\ 4 | | i 21 — ©"}, {"d": 43, "p": 24, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA : County \"Conan FICE ie Office of the Court Clerk 09s y NEIL and LACY WEST, MAY 2 1 Plaintiffs, % vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY Deputy CASE NO. C¥-2025-135 and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC,, Defendants. PROTECTIVE ORDER All Parties to this litigation, defined as Plaintiffs Neil and Lacy West (“Plaintiffs”), Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”), and Defendant Nancy Holcomb Ins. Agency, Inc. (“Holcomb”), acknowledge that certain documents produced in this action may contain trade secret or other confidential information as defined in paragraph 3 of this Protective Order. The Parties, by and through their attorneys of record, therefore agree and it is hereby ordered as follows: I. Any party may designate as “Confidential” any documents or any portion of a document produced by it in this litigation. The party making the designation of confidential material represents that it has done so after a bona fide determination made in good faith that the material is in fact trade secret or other confidential information as defined in paragraph 3. Each document or portion of a document the party in good faith believes to contain confidential information shall be marked “Confidential.” The party shall take care that its designation does not obscure or render illegible the information on the document so designated. 7"}, {"d": 43, "p": 25, "t": "2. Any party may designate as “Confidential” a portion of a deposition taken in this matter by stating on the record that the party is designating a portion of the deposition “Confidential” or by advising the court reporter and counsel for all other Parties, in writing, within thirty (30) days of receiving the deposition transcript of the page(s) and lines of the deposition that the party deems “Confidential.” Nothing within this Protective Order shall allow a party to designate an entire deposition transcript as “Confidential” without first obtaining an order from this Court allowing such designation. 3, As used in this Protective Order, “Confidential” information shall only apply to the following materials: a. “Trade secret” shall have the same meaning as in 78 O.S, §86(4). i. \"Trade secret\" mcans information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process, that: a, derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from ifs disclosure or use, and b. is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. ij. “Trade secret” shall explicitly not include any aspects of the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim as first-party insureds, including but not limited to attempts to lower indemnity payments on Plaintiffs’ claim, including the total roof replacement requested, and anything regarding denying or partially denying Plaintiffs’ claim."}, {"d": 43, "p": 26, "t": "b, “Confidential research, development or commercial information” shall refer to information that is maintained in secrecy ftom third Parties and which a party in good faith believes would result in substantial competitive harm if publicly disclosed, c “Personal confidential information” shail include a person’s social security number, medical records, bank records, personnel records and tax information. 4, Any party may challenge any other party’s designation of a document or portion of a document as “Confidential.” A party shall not be obliged to challenge the propriety of a “Confidential” designation at the time made, and failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge thereto. In the event that any party to this litigation takes issue at any stage of these proceedings with such designation, such party shall provide to the producing party written notice of its disagreement with the designation, The producing party shall respond, in writing, within twenty (20) days, by stating whether it agrees or disagrees that designation should be removed. The Parties shall attempt to dispose of such dispute in good faith on an informal basis. If the Parties are unable to reach an agreement, the producing party shall have thirty (30) days to submit a motion for relief from the Court. If the producing party fails to timely file said motion for relief within the time prescribed, the document shall no longer be subject to this Protective Order. The fact a document has been designated as “Confidential” shall not create a presumption the document is, in fact, confidential or a trade secret entitled to protection by this Protective Order. The burden of establishing that a document or testimony contains trade secret or personal confidential information and is entitled to the protection of this Protective Order shall remain on the party making the designation. Further, a party's agreement to this Protective Order does not prejudice the party’s right to move the Court to lift the Protective Order for good cause."}, {"d": 43, "p": 27, "t": "5. Documents and/or deposition transcripts designated as “Confidential” shall not disseminated publicly, and may be disclosed only to the following persons, unless prior written consent to further disclosure has been obtained from counsel for the designating party or permission for such disclosure has been given by the Court: a. The Court pursuant to the terms of this Protective Order; b. The attorneys working on this action on behalf of any party, including inside, outside and consulting counsel, their legal associates, paralegals, and employees working under the supervision of such counsel; Any director, officer or employee of a party who is required by such party to work directly on this litigation, with disclosure only to the extent necessary to perform such work; Any person not employed by a party who is expressly retained or sought to be retained by any attorney described in paragraph 5(b) to assist in the prosecution or defense of this action, including outside experts and their employees; Any actual or potential deposition or trial witnesses in this action; Any mediator mutually agreed upon by the Parties in this action; and & Any other Court or Judiciary with jurisdiction over this action. The persons described in paragraphs (c), (d), and (c) shall have access to “Confidential” material only after they have been made aware of the terms of this Protective Order and have manifested their assent to be bound thereby. 6. It shall not be deemed a violation of this Protective Order for counsel to disseminate documents designated as “Confidential” at deposition or as part of their filings with the Court. If any “Confidential” material is used in any deposition, filing or court proceeding during the course"}, {"d": 43, "p": 28, "t": "of this litigation, it shall not lose its “Confidential” status through such use, This notwithstanding, any materials specifically designated as “Confidential” under this Protective Order shall, when filed with the Court, be submitted in a sealed envelope or other container, and shall be prominently labeled on the first page: “Contains Confidential Information - Subject to Court Order.” 7. This Protective Order is not intended to preclude use or disclosure of any document, deposition transcript or information which is in the public domain, which has been provided to a party, his/her/its attorneys or experts, by a source independent of the designating party or his/her/its attorney. 8, Any of the undersigned may request the Court to modify or otherwise grant relief from any provision of this Protective Order. Nothing in this Protective Order shall operate as an admission by any party that any particular document is, or is not, admissible in evidence at the trial of this action. 9, Nothing in this Protective Order shall be construed as a waiver of any rights by any party with respect to matters not specifically provided for herein. 10. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this Protective Order and decide any issues relating to or arising from it. If the terms of this Protective Order are violated, the Court may grant such relief to the producing party as is just and necessary, including but not limited to sanctions, 11, The terms and conditions of this Protective Order shall remain in full force and effect and shall survive the final resolution of this litigation unless the Protective Order is terminated or modified in writing by the Parties or by further order of the Court."}, {"d": 43, "p": 29, "t": "12. All requests made by a party for a document to be filed “under seal” in accordance with this Protective Order shall be made by motion and conform to the requirements set forth in 12.0.8, § 3226(C)(2). 13, The outcome of any “Confidential” designations made in this Proceeding will be subject to judicial review and determination by the Court pursuant to 51 Okla, Stat. §§ 24A.29- 24A.30 and 12 Okla. Stat. § 3226(C)(2). 14, Once the case proceeds to trial, the outcome of “Confidential” designations of any Document or Testimony admitted at trial will be determined by the Court at the final pretrial conference and/or the time of trial. With respect to any Document or Testimony designated under this Protective Order as “Confidential” and not admitted at trial, or admitted at trial in a manner that preserves the “Confidential” designation, within thirty (30) days after the final disposition of this Action, including appeals, each person or Party who has received information designated “Confidential” pursiantie-Paragrapht2 shall be obligated to (a) return to counsel of record for the Producing Partty all information designated “Confidential” and all copies made thereof that are not in custody of the Court and certify to the Producing Party that such return has been done; or (b) destroy or see to the destruction of all such Confidential Materials and writings related thereto, and certify to the Producing Party that such destruction has been done. Counsel of record for a Party shall ensure that any person to whom they provided Confidential Material pursuant-te Parapraph-t2-abide by the return and destruction obligations of this Paragraph. 15. To the extent that this Protective Order requires the destruction or return of Documents or Testimony at the conclusion of this Action, this requirement is not intended to require State Farm to return or destroy any Documents or Testimony that it is otherwise required to maintain-and-as-set-forthin-Paragrapht$-above,"}, {"d": 43, "p": 30, "t": "IT I$ SOORDERED THIS A! St day of Mov , 2026. THE HONORABLE GRANT SHEPERD JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT"}, {"d": 43, "p": 31, "t": "APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dol. Mind LAD Regpie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 Whitten Burrage 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK. 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 _ rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne(@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Nie 0.W ida) Timila $.Qother, OBA #14310 Paige A. Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com Attorneys for Defendants"}, {"d": 43, "p": 33, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLA NEIL & LACY WEST ) v. ) Plain tiffs, Comanche Coun A FILED in th Office of the Court Clerk MAY 0.4 2096 Case No. CJ-2025-135 @ ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY, — ) Defendants, ) & NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE __ ) ) AGENCY, INC By_. Deputy COURT ORDER NOW on this 4\" day of May, 2026 the Court, after reviewing the competing Protective Orders finds as follows: Good Cause has been shown to validate the entry of a Protective Order. The parties, unsurprisingly, are at opposite ends of the spectrum concerning the makeup of the Protective Order. The Court believes both Protective Orders contain valid provisions and hereby Orders the parties to abide by the proposed Protective Order attached as Exhibit 1. However, counsel for Plaintiff will amend their proposed Protective Order by adding paragraphs 30 and 31 which are attached as Exhibit 2. Paragraphs 30 and 31 will be renumbered as paragraphs 14 and 15 in the final Protective Order. If there is any confusion or disagreement concerning the contents of paragraphs 30 and 31 with the other provisions of the Protective Order then the provisions of paragraphs 30 and 31 will supersede and control. Counsel for Plaintiff is to craft the final Protective Order and send to the Court and counsel for Defendant within 5 days of receipt of this Order, Clerk to mail a copy of this order, with certificate of mailing, to the attorneys for the parties."}, {"d": 43, "p": 34, "t": "ITIS SO ORDERED, L JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT"}, {"d": 43, "p": 35, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA , NEIL and LACY WEST, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY . CASE NO. CJ-2025-135 and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC, Defendaits. PLAINTIFES' PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiffs Neil and Lacy West submit the following proposed protective order, Plaintiffs propose the folowing terms: All Parties to this litigation, defined as Plaintiffs Neil and Lacy West (‘Plaintiffs’), Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Pam”), and Defendant Nancy Holcomb Ins. Agency, Inc, (“Holcomb”), acknowledge that certain documents produced in this action may contain trade secret or other confidential information as defined in paragraph 3 of this Protective Order. The Parties, by and through their attomeys of record, therefore agree and it is hereby ordered as follows: 1. Any party may designate as “Confidential” any documents or any portion of a document produced by it in this litigation, The party making the designation of confidential materiol represents that it has done so after a bona fide determination made in good faith that the material is in fact trade secret or other confidential information as defined In paragraph 3, Each document or portion of a document the party in good faith believes to contain confidential : EXHIBIT NO, IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE 3 DIETS a DATE:"}, {"d": 43, "p": 36, "t": "a OE a an obscure or render illegible the information on the document so designated, 2. Pr information shalf be marked “Confidential.” The party shall take care that its designation does nol Any party may designate as “Confidential” a portion of a deposition taken in this matter by stating on the record that the party fs designating a portion of the deposition “Confidential” or by advising the court reporter and counsel for al} other Parties, in writing, within thirty (30) days of receiving the deposition transcript of the page(s) and lines of the deposition that the party deems “Confidential.” Nothing within this Protective Order shall allow a party fo designate an entire deposition transcript as “Confidential® without first oblaining an order from this Court allowing such designation, 3. Asused in this Protective Order, “Confidentia}” information shall only apply to the following materials: a, “Tende secret” shall have the same meaning as in 78 O.S. §86(4), i, “Trade secret\" means information, including a formula, pattern, ° compilation, program, device, method, technique ot process, that: a, derives Independent econotnic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertalnable by proper means and b, is the subject of efforts that ave reasonable under the circumstances to muintain its secrecy, “Trade secret” shall explicitly not include any aspects of the handling of Plaintiffs’ olaim as first-party insureds, including but not fimited (0 attempts to lower indomnity payments on Plaintiffs’ claim, including the total roof 2 ae, Suds Med them babeerett rte? PERRET EEN A Bary bE Rhett vite PRE ee EMER ESOERND Ninn mt 2 Shae a Metta eee net HE ee emg tie Seer sents eater ent gear ot by, other persons who can obtain economic value from Its disclosure or use,"}, {"d": 43, "p": 37, "t": "replacement requested, and anything regarding denying or partially denying b, “Confidential research, development ov conmercial information” shall refer to information that is maintained in secrecy from third Pantes and which a party in oS uence tun t wey Plaintiffs* claim. disclosed. “Personal confidential information” shall include a person’s social security oumber, medical records, bank records, personnel records and tax information. 4, Any party may challenge any other party's designation of a document or portion of a document as “Confidential.” A party shall not be obliged to challenge the propricty of a “Confidential” designation at the time made, and fallure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge thereto. In the event that any party to this litigation takes issue at any stage of these proceedings with such designation, such party shall provide to the producing party written notice of Its disagreement with the designation. The producing party shall respond, in writing, within twenty (20) days, by stating whether it agrees or disagrees that designation should be removed, The Parties shall attempt to dispose of such dispute In good faith on an informal basis. If the Parties are unable to reach an agreement, the producing party shall have thirty (30) days to submit a motion for reticf from the Court. If the producing party fails to timely file said motion for rellef within the time prescribed, the document shall no longer be subject to this Protective Order. The fact a document has been designated as “Confidential” shall not create a presumption the document is, in fact, confidential or a trade secret entitled to protection by this Protective Order, The burden of establishing that a document or testimony contains. trade secret or personal confidential information and is entitled to the protection of this Protective Order shall remain on the party Wat ne rte geht Shite hing ame tid then tna ge erat etabinttg A # mete wae c Pa yaset bane ARO LAME ED bane age wee ont good faith befleves would result in substantial competitive harm if publicly"}, {"d": 43, "p": 38, "t": "Documents and/or deposition transcripts designated as “Confidential™ shall not disseminated publicly, and may be disclosed only to the following persons, unless prior written from counsel for the designating party or ee eeanane tat aeeess oe oe permission for such disclosure has heen given by the Court: HL The Court pursuant to the terms of this Protective Order: b. The attorneys working on this action on behalf of any party, including inside, outside and consulting counsel, their tegal associates, paralegals, and employees working under the supervision of such counsel; Any director, officer or employee of a party who is required by such party to work directly on this fitigation, with disclosure only to the extent necessary to perform An ah such work; HHH aeons WEES ened onda HOE Atpmalee se ed ows ates consent to further disclosure has been obtained Any person not employed by 9 party who is expressly retained or sought to be retained by any attorney described in paragraph 5(b) to assist in the proscoution or San ate wee erent oe 5. beet atonaeninians + the party's right to move the Court to Hift the Protective Order lor good cause. ateeess oete OFF ET EMM etee RE Te making the designation, Further, a party's agreement to this Protective Order does not prejudice defense of this action, including outside experts and their employees; g Any actual or potential deposition or trial witnesses in this action; f, Any mediator mutually agreed upon by the Parties in this action; and g. Any other Court or Judiciary with jurisdiction over this action. only aftor they have been made aware of the terms of this Protective Order and have manifested their assent to be bound thereby, fon ew S ene The persons described in pavagraphs (c), (d), and (e) shall have access to “Confidential” material"}, {"d": 43, "p": 39, "t": "ee ste Itshall not be deemed a violation of this Protective Order for counsel to disseminate Pena sae 6, documents designated as “Confidential” at deposition or as part of their fillngs with the Court. If any “Confidential” material is used In any deposition, filing ar court proceeding during the course of this titigation, it shall not lose its “Confidential” status through sueh tse. This notwithstanding, any materials specifically designated as “Confidential” under this Protective Order shall, when document, deposition transcript or information which is in the public domain, which has been provided to a party, his/her/its atlorneys or experts, by a source independent of the designating party or his/her/its attorney, 8 Any of the undersigned may request the Court to modify or otherwise grant relief from any provision of this Protective Order. Nothing in this Protectlve Order shall operate ay an ne coneree Ss ‘This Protective Order is not intended to preclude use or disclosure of any errenress 7, netted Reet n tore labeled on the first page: “Contains Confidential Information - Subject to Court Order.” ores filed with the Cont, be submitted Ina sealed envelope or other container, and shall be prominently admission by any party that any particular document is, or is not, admissible in evidence at the trial of this action, 9. Nothing in this Protective Order shall be construed as a waiver of any rights by 10. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this Protective Order and decide any issues relating to oy arising from it. If the terms of this Protective Order are violated, the Court may grant such relief to the producing party as is just and necessary, including but not limited fo sanctions, Y hen ee mart A ae URE erae any party with respect (o matters nat specifically provided for herein."}, {"d": 43, "p": 40, "t": "I. The terms and conditions of this Protective Order shall remain in full force and effect and shalt survive the final resolution of this litigation unless the Protective Order ts terminated or modified in writing by the Parties or by further order of the Court. 12, All requests made by a party for a document to be filed “under seal\" in accordance with this Protective Order shall be made by motion and conform to the requirements set forth jn 12 OS. § 3226(C)(2). 13. The outeame of any “Confidential” designations made In this Proceeding will be subject to judicial review and determination by the Court pursuant to 5) Okla. Stat. 88 24A.2924A,30 and 12 Okla. Stat. § 3226(C}(2). day of , 2026, hat ete ae anet sree 27 4¢ tees neem mame OSE wor wanes ananmne a: THE HONORABLE GRANT SHEPERD JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT Satta ee IT 1S S$O ORDERED THIS REA Ma ee hatte ot Min oat BASALT Od LAA NDS ALERT NRO AI ALe Lite MAU Eat aS NETO EE ME EN ANE oe Chee 8 6 nen eek ehuedtgetg he te"}, {"d": 43, "p": 41, "t": "a) 30, Once the case proceeds to trial, the outcome of “Confidential” designations of any Document or Testimony admitted at trial will be determined by the Court at the final pretrial conference and/or the time of trial. With respect to any Document or Testimony designated under this Protective Order as “Confidential” and not admitted at trial, or admitied at trial in a manner that preserves the “Confidential” designation, within thirty (30) days after the final disposition of this Action, including appeals, each person or Party who has received information designated “Confidential” pursuant to Paragraph 12 shall be obligated to (a) return to counsel of record for the Producing Party all information designated “Confidential” and all copies made thereof that are not in custody of the Court and certify to the Producing Party that such return has been done; or (b) destroy or see to the destruction of all such Confidential Materials and writings related thereto, and certify to the Producing Party that such destruction has been done. Counsel of record for a Party shall ensure that any person to whom they provided Confidential Material pursuant to Paragraph 12 abide by the return and destruction obligations of this Paragraph. a) \\Is 31*° “'lo the extent that this Protective Order requires the destruction or return of Documents or Testimony at the conclusion of this Action, this requirement is not intended to require State Farm to return or destroy any Documents or Testimony that it is otherwise required to maintain and as set forth in Paragraph 15 above. 32. As to those materials that contain or reflect Confidential information, but that constitute or reflect counsel’s work product and/or attorney-client communications, counsel of record for the Parties shall be entitled to retain such work product and/or attorney-client communications in their files in accordance with the provisions of this Protective Order, so long as it is clearly marked to reflect that it contains information subject to this Protective Order, Such materials may not be used in connection with any other proceeding or action. Counsel shall b EXHIGITNO, So” _ IDENTIFICATIONEVIDENCE pO pq jon DKA DATE:"}, {"d": 44, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL & LACY WEST, _ Plaintiffs, V. ) ) ) ) ) FILED DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA July 27, 2026 4:54 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 Case No. Ci-2025-135 ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXHIBIT 2 TO ITS MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND DEPOSITION PROTOCOL GOVERNING COUNSEL’S CONDUCT AT DEPOSITIONS UNDER SEAL In accordance with 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(2) and 51 O.S. § 24A.29, Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) hereby submits this Application for an Order to file Ex. 2 (the deposition transcript of Nicole Manduca) to its Motion for Entry of a Protective Order and Deposition Protocol Governing Counsel’s Conduct at Depositions (“Motion”) under seal. In support hereof, State Farm states as follows: L. State Farm is filing its Motion contemporaneously with the filing of the present - Application. Exhibit 2 to State Farm’s Motion is the deposition transcript of Nicole Manduca. As previously briefed to this Court, Ms. Manduca was a claim consultant involved with the Fire Model Enhancement (“FME”) whose deposition was taken on June 23, 2026, the conduct of which by Plaintiffs’ counsel is the subject of this Motion. The Motion raises misconduct of counsel that permeated the deposition and thus the Motion cites to many pages of the deposition (though it quotes only a few). A substantial part of the deposition of Ms. Manduca quotes from or summarizes documents designated confidential under the Protective Order including on the"}, {"d": 44, "p": 2, "t": "pages cited by State Farm to identify the issues prompting this Motion. State Farm had not yet completed its confidentiality designations of the transcript because it was not received until July 7 and State Farm has 30 days, until August 7, to make those designations. Therefore, out of a desire to provide the Court a full and fair picture of the questioning and interaction by providing the entire deposition and because even the specific pages to which State Farm cites include confidential information, State Farm here requests that it be permitted to file the deposition of Ms. Manduca under seal, or alternatively to submit it to the Court in camera. 2, The deposition contains and reflects State Farm’s confidential and proprietary claims handling policies, procedures and methodologies and is entitled to confidential protection. See, e.g., Ortez v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 17-CV-01202, 2018 WL 11237901, at *2-3 (D, Colo. Oct. 29, 2018) (finding that internal manuals were entitled to protection because defendant “would lose its competitive advantage if these manuals were publicly available—its competitors could replicate UPS’s methods and procedures, which it expended significant time and financial resources to develop.”); Jones v. Nationwide Ins. Co,, No. 3:98-CV-2108, 2000 WL 1231402 (M.D. Pa. July 20, 2000) (ordering that “all [produced] documentation, including all company policies and all claims manuals, are to be kept confidential, for the eyes of plaintiff's counsel only”); Toy v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CV 23-4095, 2025 WL 1179459, at *4 (E.D. La. Apr. 23, 2025) (finding that “State Farm haf{d] established good cause for issuance of [a] protective order treating its claims handling policies, procedures and methodologies as confidential and limiting the[ir] use and disclosure . . . to purposes of this litigation”); Moses Enters., LLC vy. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 3:19-CV-00477, 2020 WL 7634165, at *3~4 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 22, 2020) (finding that AIG’s insurance claims manuals were entitled to confidential treatment because “they provide very detailed, specific step-by-step instructions that AIG has"}, {"d": 44, "p": 3, "t": "developed regarding its property and casualty insurance claims”); Hamilton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 204 F.R.D. 420, 423 (S.D. Ind. 2001) (finding State Farm’s claims handling policies, practices and procedures constitute trade secrets or otherwise confidential and proprietary information and issuing protective order governing their disclosure); Jones v. Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 3:98-CV-2108, 2000 WL 1231402, at *4 (M.D. Pa. July 20, 2000) (ordering that “all [produced] documentation, including all company policies and all claims manuals, are to be kept confidential, for the eyes of plaintiff's counsel only”); Adams vy. Allstate Ins. Co., 189 F.R.D. 331, 333-34 (E.D. Pa. 1999) (issuing protective order limiting use of claims handling material to that action). 3, To allow the Court time to decide on the present Application but preserve the Confidentiality of Exhibit 2, State Farm is filing its Response with a placeholder for Exhibit 2. If the Court grants this Application, State Farm will re-file its Motion with a sealed Exhibit 2. If the Court denies the Application, State Farm requests leave to amend its Motion. 4, Counsel for State Farm asked counsel for Plaintiffs whether they object to this Application, but as of the filing had not received a response. However, given Plaintiffs’ pending Motion to (1) Strike Defendant State Farm’s Blanket Confidentiality Assertion, (2) De-Designate Documents Produced, and/or (3) to Lift the Protective Order for Good Cause Based on State Farm’s Failure to Engage in Good Faith as Required, counsel for State Farm anticipates that Plaintiffs do object. 5. State Farm has attached a proposed Order for the Court’s consideration as Exhibit CONCLUSION State Farm respectfully requests the Court grant this Application and enter the proposed"}, {"d": 44, "p": 4, "t": "Order attached hereto as Exhibit 1. ectfully smitty ILA $. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this 27th day of July, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM Hannah Whitten 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 John S. Sanders Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 ee, 0"}, {"d": 44, "p": 6, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL & LACY WEST, Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) V. ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) Defendants. Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) ) ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY’S APPLICATION TO FILE EXHIBIT 2 TO ITS MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND DEPOSITION PROTOCOL GOVERNING COUNSEL’S CONDUCT AT DEPOSITIONS UNDER SEAL Before the Court is Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Application for Leave to File Exhibit 2 to its Motion for Entry of a Protective Order and Deposition Protocol Governing Counsel’s Conduct at Depositions Under Seal. Upon review of the Application, and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the Application. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that State Farm may file an unredacted version of Exhibit 2 to its Motion for Entry of a Protective Order and Deposition Protocol Governing Counsel’s Conduct at Depositions under seal by placing it in a sealed envelope or folder labeled “Contains Confidential Information — Subject to Court Order.” ITIS SO ORDERED this __ day of , 2026. GRANT SHEPERD DISTRICT COURT JUDGE"}, {"d": 44, "p": 7, "t": "APPROVED: TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 45, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, FILED ) ) ae Plaintiffs, ) DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA July 27, 2026 4:54 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2025-135 v. ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND DEPOSITION PROTOCOL GOVERNING COUNSEL’S CONDUCT AT DEPOSITIONS, AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”), pursuant to 12 O.S. §§ 3226(B)(2)(c), 3226(C), and 3226.1, respectfully moves for entry of a protective order and deposition protocol governing counsel’s conduct at any future depositions. Regrettably, such an order is necessary to address Plaintiffs’ counsel’s egregious misconduct at the June 23, 2026 deposition of Nicole Manduca—including numerous violations of Local Rule 28 and the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Standards of Professionalism—and to prevent similar misconduct at any future depositions of State Farm employees noticed by Plaintiffs’ counsel At Ms. Manduca’s deposition, Reggie Whitten, Plaintiffs’ counsel, repeatedly attempted to bully Ms. Manduca into changing her testimony and accepting his own misinterpretation of what documents “meant.” This misconduct took several forms. First, Plaintiffs’ counsel regularly interrupted Ms. Manduca’s testimony, shouted at Ms. Manduca, and effectively called her a liar when she disagreed with his assumptions. Second, Plaintiffs’ counsel repeatedly—and incorrectly—told Ms. Manduca that she could answer his questions only with “yes” or “no,” and"}, {"d": 45, "p": 2, "t": "threatened to call the Court when she attempted to clarify her answers. T. hird, counsel provided incomplete and misleading information by showing her only selected excerpts of exhibits on screen (placed on a wail far from the witness)—after failing to bring complete hard copies of exhibits to the deposition or to otherwise make full copies visible to her, failing to provide copies to Defendants’ counsel, and refusing to allow Ms. Manduca to review the entirety of the exhibits on the record. A protective order and deposition protocol governing counsel’s conduct and the use of deposition exhibits is necessary to prevent such conduct in the future. Thus, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court enter the proposed Protective Order and Deposition Protocol attached hereto as Exhibit 1, which will address what occurred at the Manduca deposition and (1) prohibit counsel from threatening or badgering a witness; (2) prevent counsel from making false statements to a witness regarding deposition “rules” or procedures; and (3) require counsel to either (a) bring hard copies of exhibits to the deposition or, (b) where that is not feasible, provide Bates numbers of the exhibits one day prior to allow the parties and the deponent ample time to review the entirety of an exhibit before answering questions regarding the document (and bring their own copies if they choose to do so). State F arm leaves it to the Court’s discretion to determine if sanctions or other relief are warranted as a result of the conduct at Ms. Manduca’s deposition. BACKGROUND Over State Farm’s objection as to relevance and other grounds, Plaintiffs noticed the deposition of Nicole Manduca, a Director in State Farm’s Property & Casualty department who was not involved in the handling or supervision of Plaintiffs’ claim—but whom Plaintiffs contend was an “architect” of a supposed “scheme” by State Farm to lower indemnity payments. (See Jan, 30, 2026, Pls.’ Opp. to State Farm’s Mot. for Prot. Order at 1-2 (emphasis in original).) On June 23, 2026, Plaintiffs deposed Ms. Manduca on the record for the entire six hours 2"}, {"d": 45, "p": 3, "t": "allowed under the Oklahoma rules.' Plaintiffs’ counsel—in violation of established law, and disregarding norms of the baseline expectations for professional conduct—repeatedly interrupted, berated and shouted at Ms. Manduca whenever Ms. Manduca failed to agree with his assumptions or interpretations of the “meaning” of documents. For example, when Ms. Manduca truthfully testified that she was not aware who authored one of the exhibits shown to her, Plaintiffs’ counsel began shouting at Ms. Manduca and threatening to “move for sanctions” if she did not change her testimony: Q: _.. Who wrote this document? A: I don’t know who wrote the document. Did I write this document? Did I have access to State Farm’s computer? Did my clients, hundreds of them throughout Oklahoma, did they write it? MR LEFFEL: Objection. Form. Counsel. She just told us she didn’t know who wrote it. Well, it was produced to us recently by State Farm. State Farm wrote this document, didn’t they? You can see their logo on it. © > --- it’s the table. The — excuse me. O&O Answer my question first. F I believe I did answer your -- OD No. I’m not going to raise my voice with you, and I would appreciate it if you didn’t raise your voice with me. on oe Answer my question first. yr What J also see here - - - ' The deposition actually lasted from 8:39 a.m. in the morning until 5:26 p.m. in the evening, in large part to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s insistence that Ms. Manduca review any exhibits presented at the deposition “off the record.”"}, {"d": 45, "p": 4, "t": "Q: Ma’am, if you would answer my question -I’m trying to be very polite and calm with you. Q: You have been totally and completely nonresponsive. That’s why we’re going to move for sanctions against you. Very rare, almost nonexistent, that I have to do that. Most people follow the rules. Ma’am, State Farm wrote this document. Will you at least agree to that? It was produced to us by State Farm’s lawyers. Yes or no? A! I don’t know who wrote the document, sir. (See Exhibit 2, June 23, 2026 N. Manduca Dep. Tr. at 287:16-288:24,) Plaintiffs’ counsel also repeatedly made self-serving speeches and engaged in namecalling, accusing Ms. Manduca of lying or “redefining the English language” when she gave answers that contradicted Plaintiffs’ allegations. For instance, when Ms. Manduca did not agree with what Plaintiffs’ counsel represented she “meant” when she wrote certain terms. Plaintiffs’ counsel responded: Q: Here’s the great thing. You wrote -- we can we see how long this email is. You could have written anything you wanted. You could have written the same excuse you just now gave the court and jury under oath, but you chose not to. ... A: You're putting words in my mouth. capacity — Q: Here’s what ?'m A: -- it will take. Q: It says right there for the effort and — --not doing. I’m not putting words in your mouth because you’re not telling the truth. You know what you meant, and anybody reading this knows what you meant. You had the opportunity to say otherwise, and ? Because the time to designate the portions of Ms. Manduca’s deposition that are confidential has not passed, because the deposition includes extensive excerpts of confidential documents, and to allow the Court to see all questioning in context, State Farm herewith submits the entire transcript to be filed under seal. State Farm contemporaneously files its Application to Seal the transcript and files a placeholder with the copy filed with the Court Clerk pending ruling on the Application to Seal."}, {"d": 45, "p": 5, "t": "you didn’t; isn’t that true? MR. LEFFEL: Objection. Form. And, Counsel, commenting on the veracity of witnesses is improper. Isn’t that true? QF & You meant return on investment. -- dollars and cents to State Farm. A! I wholly disagree with you. That means -- I wholly disagree with you. (id. at 339:20-340:19; see also id. at 200:21-201:1.) Plaintiffs’ counsel similarly launched into inappropriate commentary when Ms. Manduca rejected his misinterpretation of her intent in using certain terms in internal documents: Q: And you didn’t write it either. 2 Well. F But that is suggesting .... Q Weil, you may not understand how we refer to reinspection results. Again, do you -— ~-... Pm not trying fo interrupt you, referring to. A: Q: Do you think Oklahomans are dumb sir, but that is what that is enough to believe what you’re saying? That this is all sweetness and light when you’re reducing payments? Because that’s exactly what happened to hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of Oklahomans throughout this state, and they’re all going to testify to that. Just a coincidence? MR. LEFFEL: A: Objection to form. Sir, that isn’t what it says. (Id. at 362:5~23.) Q: State Farm is comparing this, the accuracy results, which I’ve argued to you all day, you guys use these words, quality and accuracy, to mean saving State Farm money. I disagree with you."}, {"d": 45, "p": 6, "t": "Q: [know you do. But the documents speak for themselves and the math never lies. A: J disagree with you. Q: We're going to have an economist look at every bit of this. State Farm saved millions and millions, hundreds of millions, billions of dollars, according to their own records, didn’t they? By people like you running this team and redefining the English language; isn’t that true? & Isn’t that true? F No, sit. That’s not true. O MR. LEFFEL: Objection. Form. You can go ahead. And that’s what this says. zy I’m sorry. So I was actually responding, and you continue to interrupt me and you continue to raise your voice. I have been calm with you all day. I’m asking for us to have a polite exchange. (/d, at 368:13-369:11.) These are but a handful of numerous examples of Plaintiffs’ counsel shouting at and attempting to intimidate Ms. Manduca into testifying to his theory of the case. (See also, e.g, id. at 109:4~15, 118:25~119:23; 186:15-187:11; 218:16-219:9; 222:13-23: 226:18-227:6, 247:13-249:11; 262:10-22; 264:25-265:20; 290:6-29 1:16; 293:18-294:4.) Plaintiffs’ counsel also repeatedly misstated to Ms. Manduca that “the rules” prevented her from answering his questions with anything other than a “yes” or “no”—even after being warned by State Farm’s counsel that this instruction was improper and often after lobbing multiple and compound questions at once (see id. at 34:18-35:17). As just two of many examples: Q: ... Isn’t it true that based on your training about good faith and fair dealing, itis against the law behind the scenes to write these little secret messages and lower indemnity dollars to these people who bought insurance from State Farm? your training? MR. LEFFEL: Q: Form. Go ahead. Yes or no, please, ma’am, Now, isn’t that the law, based on"}, {"d": 45, "p": 7, "t": "MR. LEFFEL. Q: Same. For once, follow the rules and say yes or no. MR. LEFFEL: Same -- Q: It is against the law to lower indemnity payments in secret, isn’t that true? MR. LEFFEL: Same objection. It is improper, Counsel, to tell the witness how they must answer a question. If that’s the case, you don’t need to take a deposition, just testify. A: Sir, we have no focus on lowering indemnity payments. Our focus is to handle each claim on its merits and pay every dollar we owe. (id. at 134:13-135:15.) Likewise: Q: =» you don’t answer? I mean, if I ask you if it’s light or dark in here, can you say yes, it’s light? Can you ever answer a question, yes or no? A: I just wanted to make clear that that’s our — our commitment to handle claims fairly for all of our customers. Q: It would it be also clear to just say yes or no? MR. LEFFEL: Q: Objection. Form. You can go ahead. Is there something wrong with that? MR. LEFFEL: Objection. Form. You can go ahead. A: ] just wanted to make it clear that’s our focus for all of our policy holders. Q: Well, I’m requesting politely if you’ll answer these yes or no. These are training questions. This will actually go a lot smoother if you’ll do that and follow the rules.... (id. at 138:16-139:11; see also id. at 159:3-22.~ Plaintiffs’ counsel also interrupted Ms. Manduca—repeatedly and consistently attempting to prevent Ms. Manduca from finishing or 3 The Tenth Circuit has criticized similar behavior by counsel at trial, noting that a court “need not endorse inferences premised on deliberate confusion, inaccurate hypothetical questions, or misstatements of earlier testimony to induce misleading testimony from a later witness.” See Roesler v. TIG Ins. Co., 251 Fed. App’x 489, 496 & n.9 (10th Cir. 2007) (unpublished). 7"}, {"d": 45, "p": 8, "t": "clarifying her answers—and misrepresented to Ms. Manduca that she was “cheating” by providing further context. For instance: Q: Now, 4.1 is a larger number than 2.3. Yes or no, please, ma’am? 2 Now — FF -- data on two -- OP Yes, that is comparing - - Let me ask my next question ~ OF -- based upon your yes. y- -- separate -- I’m sorry, P'm sorry. THE REPORTER: One at a time, please. THE DEPONENT: You're raising your voice again. Q: No, ma’am. You’re cheating and violating the rules. I’m trying to make a point, and you’re — you’re stubbornly refusing to allow me to make my point. This will go smoother and easier if you will let me cross -I’ve been doing this 45 years. I know the rules. (id. at 247:13-248:6.) And Plaintiffs’ counsel falsely represented to Ms. Manduca that Ms. Manduca’s reasonable request for counsel to clarify a confusing and compound question was “not following the rules”: Q: And State Farm, I assume, spent a lot of time and money on employees to put this Fire Enhancement project together. Would that be a true statement? There was a lot of people involved. A lot of time and money and effort was spent by State Farm to do this. Would that be a true statement? © You don’t need to repeat my question. - I’m trying to ~ earlier today -- GQ Is it a true statement that State Farm spent a lot of money? You don’t need to repeat it out loud. You can think all you want."}, {"d": 45, "p": 9, "t": "A: I’m just trying — Q: I’m asking you to quit repeating my question out loud. MR. LEFFEL: It’s not - Q: I’m asking you politely. MR. LEFFEL: MR. WHITTEN: It’s not improper for her to seek ~ It is improper. MR. LEFFEL: -- clarification of the question. Q: Well, if the judge says its improper, it’s improper. So I’m just making a request, and you have steadfastly refused to follow any of my requests, and you’re not following the rules. So, we’ll ask the judge to rule on that.... (/d. at 160:13-161:16.) Mr. Whitten also threatened that he would “ask that [Ms. Manduca] be ordered to come down and give your deposition in person in the courtroom before Judge Sheperd because you're not following the rules.” (/d. at 197:25-198:3.) Again, this is only the tip of the iceberg. (See also, e.g., id. at 62:8-16; 82:1-22; 89:22-90:1; 90:22-91:5: 115:25-116:18; 117:11- 13; 119:18-23; 122:6-9; 161:20-22; 163:3~-6; 188:2-6; 194:8-16; 246:2-247:11; 250:18-25; 25 1211-17; 260:9-12; 260:25-261:5; 327:1-328:3; 368:18~-369:22: 386:16-21:; 387:9-389:5,) In addition, Plaintiffs’ counsel repeatedly attempted to obtain testimony from Ms. Manduca about exhibits that counsel did not provide her with sufficient time to fully review; that counsel would not show to her in their entirety; that counse! did not provide to State Farm’s counsel; and that counsel did not provide in hard copy or an electronic copy prior to or during the deposition. Rather than follow longstanding and well-established procedure, Plaintiffs’ counsel flashed excerpts from exhibits on a screen—placed far away from Ms. Manduca—and instructed Ms. Manduca to answer questions based on whatever cherry-picked excerpt counsel displayed, without context. When Ms. Manduca reasonably requested time to review an exhibit as a whole, Plaintiffs’ counsel insisted that Ms. Manduca was not “following the rules” and required Ms. Manduca to go 9"}, {"d": 45, "p": 10, "t": "off the record to if she wanted to review an exhibit she was being questioned about. For example: Q: How about you just tell the jury yes? A: And you’re showing one portion of a document. I’m happy to review the entire document and answer every one of your questions. Q: Ma’am, you spent days preparing with a bunch of lawyers. I’m not getting into that. I have to take it word for word, compare. I only have six hours of this, so | have to do this. So I’m not going to explain myself again. It’s a very simple question. Will you tell the jury, just a yes or no, whoever wrote this considered closing more files without payment. The number went up, they said that was a positive trend. Then, yes or no, please? A: I am not going to speak for whoever authored the document. And again, there are five pages here where there is potentially more context. I’m happy to review the entire document, and I’m happy to answer any question that you may have. Q: I will object as non-responsive and ask for another instruction from the Court to the jury, when this is played, that you are not following the rules,... (id. at 254:25-255:22; see also id. at 170:9-25; 184:4-25: 230:16-24; 344:24-345:7,) Plaintiffs’ counsel insisted they were not required to provide anything more than a Bates number to identify an exhibit excerpted for purposes of the deposition and that State Farm’s counsel could “pull it up on [its] end.” That is: MS. WHITTEN: State Farm also has all this production. So to the extent we provide Bates, you’re more than welcome to pull that up on your end. MR. LEFFEL: Respectfully, we don’t have the documents with us and we don’t know what exhibits you’re going to use. We’re just asking [counsel] for a chance to review — MR. WHITTEN: No, come on. You guys got it on your computer, just like we did. (id. at 238:22-239:6.) Plaintiffs’ counsel even went as far as to claim that State Farm’s counsel’s request that Plaintiffs’ counsel identify a Bates number for an exhibit was improper because it interrupted his questioning of Ms. Manduca. (See id. at 239:9-24.) Both the witness and defense counsel have the right to review the entirety of an exhibit to ensure the witness understands the 10"}, {"d": 45, "p": 11, "t": "full context before answering questions. This foundational principle promotes accurate testimony, prevents misleading and out of context questioning, and ensures the witness has a fair opportunity to understand the document before responding. Because Plaintiffs’ counsel refused to acknowledge this hallmark of fair examination, a deposition protocol is now required.4 ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY Pursuant to 12 0.8. § 3226(C) and 12 O.S. § 3226.1, the Court, upon good cause shown, “may enter any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, harassment, embarrassment, oppression or undue delay, burden, or expense,” including an order specifying “that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions.” § 3226(C); see also 12 O.S. § 3226.1. 12 0.8. Courts across the country have, under similar authority, entered deposition protocols governing how a deposition may be conducted—both by stipulation and over an opposing party’s objection. See, e.g., In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/ Personal Injury Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 4:22-md-03047-YGR (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2024) (attached as Exhibit 3) (entering deposition protocol that, inter alia, provides that “[c]ounsel are expected to adhere to the Northern District of California Guidelines for Professional Conduct” and establishing rules for the use of hard copy and electronic exhibits); Jn re Uber Technologies, Ine. Passenger Sexual Assault Litig., MDL No. 3084 CRB (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2024) (attached as Exhibit 4) (entering deposition protocol that requires, infer alia, counsel using exhibits “should have at least five (5) copies” of such exhibits to distribute to the witness, opposing counsel, and * Prior to filing this motion, counsel for State Farm attempted to confer in good faith with Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the proposed Deposition Protocol. State Farm’s counsel provided a copy of the Protocol to Plaintiffs’ counsel on Friday, July 24, noted that due to the time-sensitive nature of this Motion, State Farm was intending to file the Motion on Monday, July 27, and requested that Plaintiffs’ counsel meet and confer telephonically on Friday. Plaintiffs’ counsel, however, refused to make themselves available to meet or confer regarding the Protocol until Wednesday, July 29. 7"}, {"d": 45, "p": 12, "t": "the court reporter, and incorporating the “Guidelines for Professional Conduct, including those related to Discovery and Depositions, of the United States District Court, for the Northern District of California”); United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Chesapeake Energy Corpo., No. CIV-09-1114-D, 2012 WL 3067438, at *1 (W.D. Okla. July 27, 2012) (establishing a deposition protocol after counsel’s allegedly improper behavior where opposing counsel requested such protocol “to prevent such conduct in future depositions.”). Here, there is good cause to enter State Farm’s proposed Protective Order and Deposition Protocol (see Ex. 1, “Deposition Protocol”) to protect additional witnesses from being subjected to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s improper deposition tactics. Plaintiffs have noticed six depositions in this action—in addition to Ms. Manduca, and not including any claim specific personnel (none of whom have been noticed as of the date of this Motion). The Court denied State Farm’s motion to quash those depositions, and State Farm expects that Plaintiffs’ counsel will continue this improper behavior in those depositions. Entering the Deposition Protocol will ensure that Plaintiffs’ counsel is on notice that such behavior is prohibited and will minimize any disagreements or arguments regarding the propriety of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s deposition conduct. I, THE COURT PROTOCOL SHOULD ENTER STATE FARM’S PROPOSED DEPOSITION Given Plaintiffs’ counsel’s conduct at Ms. Manduca’s deposition, as is amply demonstrated in the deposition transcript excerpted above and attached in its entirety to this Motion (under seal), State Farm’s proposed Deposition Protocol most importantly and fundamentally imposes compliance with Local Rule 28 and the Rules of Professionalism established by the Oklahoma Bar Association. More specifically, it does three things. First, it prohibits counsel from bullying or threatening a deponent, shouting at the witness, interrupting the witness’s answers, or improperly commenting on the witness’s credibility or the hypothetical reactions of a judge or jury to the 12"}, {"d": 45, "p": 13, "t": "witness’s testimony. Second, the Deposition Protocol prohibits counsel from making false statements to a deponent regarding the deposition “rules” or procedures. Third, it requires counsel to either (a) bring hard copies of all exhibits to the deposition or (b) where that is not feasible, provide Bates numbers for or an electronic copy of each exhibit one day prior to the deposition to allow the witness and the opposing party ample time to review the entirety of the exhibit before the deponent answers questions regarding the document (and bring copies to the deposition if they so choose). These procedures, similar to those that have been adopted by courts across the country in other contentious litigation, will allow the parties to complete the remaining depositions courteously and professionally. A. There Is Good Cause to Enter a Protocol Implementing and Enforcing Local Rule 28 and the Oklahoma Bar’s Professionalism Standards. First and foremost, the Deposition Protocol is necessary to ensure counsel conducts depositions in accordance with Local Rule 28 and the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Standards of Professionalism—both of which assail the sort of bullying and offensive conduct Plaintiffs’ counsel exhibited at Ms. Manduca’s deposition. Local Rule 28, regarding courtroom conduct, directs that “lawyers owe duties of professionalism to their clients, opposing parties and their counsel, the courts and other tribunals, and the public as a whole. Those duties include among others: civility, professional integrity, personal dignity, candor, diligence, respect, courtesy, cooperation, and competence” and provides that “[IJawyers shall conduct their business before the Court in an appropriate and professional manner at all times.”° > of See Local Oklahoma, Court Similarly, the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Standards of Professionalism Rules Effective for Jan. the District 1, 2024 Court (Rule of No. Comanche 28 County Courtroom State Conduct, https.//www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465238 (last accessed July 23, 2026). 13"}, {"d": 45, "p": 14, "t": "provide, inter alia, that the Bar’s members: ¢ “[W]ill not, even when called upon by a client to do so, abuse others of indulge in offensive conduct directed to other counsel, parties or witnesses” and “refrain from disparaging personal remarks or acrimony towards other counsel, parties and witnesses” and “will treat adverse parties and witnesses with civility and fair consideration.” ¢ “(Will avoid repetitive and argumentative questions and those asked solely for the purpose of annoyance and harassment’ e “[Whill refrain from self-serving speeches during depositions” and e “(Wil not engage in any conduct during a deposition which would not be allowed in the presence of a judicial officer, including disparaging personal remarks or acrimony toward opposing counsel or the witness, as well as gestures, facial expressions, audible comment, or other manifestations of approval or disapproval during the testimony of the witness” and “will not engage in undignified or discourteous conduct which degrades the legal proceeding or the legal profession.” (See Oklahoma Bar Assoc., OBA Standards of Professionalism (Apr. 20, 2006)° (emphasis added).) Berating and shouting at a deponent, accusing her of lying and threatening the deponent with “sanctions” is not professional behavior, violates Local Rule 28 and the Bar’s Professionalism standards, and should not be tolerated. As such, the Deposition Protocol incorporates Local Rule 28 and the Standards of Professionalism for depositions. Cf Ex. 3 at 2 (entering deposition protocol providing that “[c]ounsel are expected to adhere to the Northern District of California Guidelines for Professional Conduct”), Ex. 4 at 18-19 (entering deposition protocol incorporating the “Guidelines for Professional Conduct, including those related to Discovery and Depositions, of the United States District Court, for the Northern District of California”). © hitps://www.okbar.org/ec/standardsofprofessionalism/ (last accessed July 23, 2026.) 14"}, {"d": 45, "p": 15, "t": "B. There Is Good Cause to Enter a Protocol Preventing Misrepresenting to a Deponent the “Rules” of a Deposition. Likewise, there is good cause to enter State Counsel from Farm’s Deposition Protocol prohibiting counsel from misstating to a deponent that the “rules” of a deposition require the deponent to answer a question in a certain way—including misrepresenting that a deponent must respond with a oneword answer or that the deponent may not clarify an answer or ask for clarification of a question. For one, no “rules” require a deponent to restrict their responses to simple one-word answers. See generally 12 O.S. § 3230, Depositions upon Oral Examination (2025) (setting forth no limits on the length or form of deponents’ answers); see also id. § 3230(D) (“Examination and cross-examination of witnesses may proceed as permitted at the trial under the provisions of Section 2101 et seq. of this title except Section 2104.”); see also 12 O.S. § 2101, et seq. (setting forth no limits on the length or form of deponents’ answers.). Plaintiffs’ counsel’s repeated representations that Ms. Manduca was not “following the rules” by offering additional context were simply misstatements of law. Nor is there any “rule” or law preventing a witness from clarifying an answer or asking counsel to repeat or clarify a question. See id. To the contrary, it is common practice for deposing attorneys to instruct and invite testifying witnesses at the outset of a deposition to seek clarification about a question they did not fully hear or understand, and Courts have even imposed such requirements. See Damaj v. Farmers Insurance Co., Inc., 164 F.R.D. 559, 561 (N.D. Okla. 1995) (imposing requirement for future depositions that “[a]t the beginning of the deposition, deposing counsel shall instruct the witness to ask deposing counsel, . . . for clarification, definition, or explanation of any words, questions or documents presented during the course of the deposition. The witness shall abide by these instructions.”); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Dowdy ex rel. Dowdy, 445 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1294 (N.D. Okla. 2006). 15"}, {"d": 45, "p": 16, "t": "Indeed, Plaintiffs’ counsel began the deposition by specifically instructing Ms. Manduca that he wanted to make sure she understood his question—and demanded that if Ms. Manduca had “a problem with [his] questions,” she should tell him “out loud.” (See Ex. 2, June 23, 2026 N. Manduca Dep. Tr. at 10:22-25.) Counsel further instructed Ms. Manduca that if she “didn’t tell [him] she had a problem with [his questions],” he would assume that she “answered truthfully.” (See id, at 11:2-8.) Yet, during the deposition, Plaintiffs’ counsel repeatedly claimed that “the rules” meant that Ms. Manduca could not ask for clarification of his questions. Not only is this contrary to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s own instructions to the deponent at the outset, but it is a misstatement of the law. Furthermore, it is not permissible for an attorney to instruct a witness how to answer a question. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Baltazar v. Warden, 302 F.R.D. 256, 267 (N.D. IL. 2014) (imposing additional guidelines on future conduct during depositions including that examining counsel “shail not characterize or comment on any answer given by a witness” and “shall not engage in any argument with the witness or opposing counsel. Any objection shall be made on the record and appropriate relief may be sought from the Court.”). Plaintiffs’ counsel’s repeated misstatements of the law, in conjunction with his insistence that Ms. Manduca be required to answer each question “yes” or “no,” is in direct violation of the very “rules” he repeatedly tried to misrepresent to the witness. The Deposition Protocol makes clear that counsel is not permitted to make misrepresentations about “the rules” or the “law,” and may not instruct a witness on how to answer a question. 16"}, {"d": 45, "p": 17, "t": "Cc There Is Good Cause to Enter a Protocol Requiring Counsel to Provide Copies of Exhibits to the Deponent and the Opposing Party. Finally, the proposed Deposition Protocol provides a consistent process for using exhibits at a deposition. It requires that the party using an exhibit either (1) provide a hard copy of the entire exhibit to the deponent and provide the deponent an opportunity to review the document before asking questions regarding it; or (2) alternatively, identify for the witness and opposing party—at least 24 hours before the start of the deposition—-each document, by Bates number, that counsel intends to use with the witness or send an electronic copy of the documents to be used. This will allow counsel for the opposing party to either print hard copies or gather electronic copies of the complete exhibits prior to the deposition and to ensure that the witness has a way to sufficiently review the exhibits in their entirety. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s refusal to provide copies of his exhibits at Ms. Manduca’s deposition was not only contrary to professional courtesy, but it was also contrary to law. Further, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s insistence on using a screen—-placed far away from the deponent—to display exhibits created several issues when Ms. Manduca was unable to see the content of the materials displayed on the screen and had to stand and walk over to the screen just to attempt to see it. (See, e.g., Ex. 2, N. Manduca Dep. Tr. at 323:7-324:12.) Oklahoma law is unambiguous that when counsel produces “documents and things . . . for inspection during the examination of a witness,” those materials “may be inspected and copied by any party.” 12 0.8. § 3230(G)(1) (emphasis added). Further, if the party providing the exhibits “desires to retain them,” he may either “offer copies to be marked for identification and annexed to the deposition and to serve as originals if he affords to all parties fair opportunity to verify the copies by comparison with the originals,” or “offer the originals to be marked for identification, after giving to each party an opportunity to inspect and copy them.” Id. (emphasis added). There 17"}, {"d": 45, "p": 18, "t": "is no provision in the Oklahoma Code that permits counsel to selectively excerpt portions of an exhibit, show the witness only those portions, and refuse to allow the opposing party to inspect and copy the remainder of the exhibit, Further, the Rule of Completeness requires that “[w]hen a record or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other record that should in fairness be considered with it.” 12 O.S. § 2107 (emphasis added); see also 12 O.S, § 3230(D) (“Examination and cross examination of witnesses [at a deposition] may proceed as permitted at the trial under the provisions of Section 2101 et seq. of this title except Section 2104.”). Oklahoma law further contemplates that deposition exhibits will be furnished to opposing counsel, since the Discovery Code authorizes courts to tax as costs the “{rJeasonable expenses for taking and transcribing deposition testimony, for furnishing copies to the witness and opposing counsel, and for recording deposition testimony on videotape.” 12 O.S. § 942 (emphasis added), There is also an independent evidentiary basis for requiring disclosure to State Farm’s counsel, apart from the discovery rules discussed above. Courts confronting this exact scenario require deposing counsel to furnish exhibits to the witness and opposing counsel either before the deposition or contemporaneously with their use. The leading case is Hall v. Clifton Precision, which arose from a nearly identical dispute where deposing counsel refused to give the witness’s own counsel copies of documents before showing them to the witness. 150 F.R.D. 525 (E.D. Pa. 1993). The court’s resulting guideline required that “{dJeposing counsel shall provide to the witness’s counsel a copy of all documents shown to the witness during the deposition,” and that “[t]he copies shall be provided either before the deposition begins or contemporaneously with the showing of each document to the witness.” Jd. at 531-32. An Oklahoma federal court considering a party’s Motion for an Order Directing Counsel to Cease"}, {"d": 45, "p": 19, "t": "Obstructionist Tactics During Oral Deposition imposed this exact same requirement for future depositions, holding that the witness’s counsel was entitled to a copy of all the documents shown to the witness during the deposition either before the deposition or contemporaneously with the showing of the document at the deposition. Damaj, 164 F.R.D. at 561. Plaintiffs’ counsel satisfied neither prong here: they did not provide the exhibits to State Farm’s counsel in advance, and the screen-only display of excerpted pages during the deposition did not give Ms. Manduca or her counsel the ability to see the whole document, so their conduct likely fails even the more permissive “contemporaneous” branch of this rule. State Farm’s Deposition Protocol is consistent with these rules and with similar protocols that have been adopted across the country. Cf, ¢.g., Ex. 3 at 15 (entering deposition protocol providing that “[hjard copies of documents which the examining attorney expects to use to exainine a deponent should be provided to primary Counsel for the Parties and the deponent during the course of any in-person deposition”); Ex. 4 at 7-8, 10 (entering deposition protocol requiring that at a remote deposition “full and complete copies of deposition exhibits must be provided to the witness and counsel who are attending the deposition” and that at a live deposition, “[c]ounsel conducting an examination should have at least five (5) copies of all exhibits utilized with the witness available for use by the witness (1 copy), the witness’s counsel (1 copy), other counsel (2 copies) and the Court reporter (1 copy)”). There is good cause to adopt a similar Protocol to prevent further improper exhibit gamesmanship by Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s requiring Ms. Manduca to go off the record to review a document, rather than continuing the examination while she did so, is equally unsupported. Examination and cross-examination at a deposition must proceed even over an objection, with “the examination . . - proceed[ing], with the testimony being taken subject to the objections.” 12 0.S. § 3230(D). The 19"}, {"d": 45, "p": 20, "t": "correct course is to state the request or objection on the record and continue the examination, not to suspend the deposition. Federal authority further confirms that a deponent’s on-the-record review of a document is not the sort of delay that impedes a fair examination or warrants sanctions or additional deposition time for the examining party.’ Zealous advocacy does not excuse uncivil conduct, A deposition protocol is necessary to ensure that future witnesses are not subjected to the same distasteful treatment. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion for entry of a Protective Order and Deposition Protocol to curb Plaintiffs’ counsel’s misbehavior in subsequent depositions in this matter, ” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1) (court “must allow additional time . . . if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent . . . impedes or delays the examination”); Rheault v. Hala Holdings Inc., No. 23-700-WCB, 2024 WL 5262908, at *1-2 (D. Del. Dec. 30, 2024) (denying request for additional deposition time based on delays from document review where most such instances took less than a minute, and even an eleven-minute review of a nine-page document containing fine print and redline edits did not materially prejudice the examining party, and noting that the examining party could have minimized any delay by sending the documents to the witness in advance of the deposition); Borenstein v. Animal Found., No. 2:19-cv-00985-CDS-NJK, 2024 WL 5683398, at *2 n.4 (D. Nev. Feb. 14, 2024) (rejecting the contention that a witness impeded a deposition through document review where the only example provided reflected one minute spent reviewing a document). This follows from the well-established purpose of a deposition, which is “to find out what the witness saw, heard and knows, or what the witness thinks, through a question and answer conversation between the deposing lawyer and the witness”---not to permit examining counsel to dictate the terms on which a witness may examine the documents she is being questioned about. Damaj, 164 F.R.D. at 560-61 (adopting, with modifications, the deposition- conduct framework set forth in Hall y. Clifton Precision, 150 F.R.D. 525 (E.D. Pa. 1993)); accord In re Stratosphere Corp. Sec, Litig., 182 F.R.D. 614, 621 (D. Nev. 1998) (agreeing that “a questioning attorney is entitled to have the witness, and the witness alone, answer questions,” and that “[n]Jeither the deponent nor his or her counsel may initiate . . . interruption of the proceeding to confer about the question, the answer, or about any document that is being examined, except to assert a claim of privilege”). 20"}, {"d": 45, "p": 21, "t": "tfully sybinitied, Resp / H | i Vel ; fa | V se Paige A. \\ } OBA #14310 Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave. Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8273 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 27th day of July, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be hand-delivered to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 And mailed on the 27th day of July, 2026, to: Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BurGEss & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 a | | a[) |"}, {"d": 45, "p": 23, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vv. ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLDOMB AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) INS. ) Defendants, [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER AND DEPOSITION PROTOCOL This Order shall govern the conduct of all depositions in the above-captioned case. A. General Provisions i. The parties and their counsel acknowledge their duty to work together cooperatively in both scheduling and conducting depositions. Nothing in this Order diminishes or otherwise limits the parties’ and their counsel’s obligations to conduct, participate, and defend depositions in accordance with governing law. 2. At least three (3) days prior to a scheduled deposition, the party taking the deposition shall disclose to all other parties and their counsel the names and business addresses of (a) the court reporter and (b) videographer conducting the deposition. B. Professionalism and Conduct at Depositions l. At any deposition in this case, counsel are expected to adhere to the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Standards of Professionalism, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein. 2, At any deposition in this case, counsel must also adhere to the Local Rules, including Local Rule 28, which directs that “lawyers owe duties of professionalism to their clients, opposing parties and their counsel, the courts and other tribunals, and the public as a whole. Those |"}, {"d": 45, "p": 24, "t": "duties include among others: civility, professional integrity, personal dignity, candor, diligence, respect, courtesy, cooperation, and competence” and provides that “[l]awyers shall conduct their business before the Court in an appropriate and professional manner at all times.” 3, Counsel will not make aggressive or threatening statements or gestures during the deposition or during breaks in the deposition and will not otherwise attempt to physically or verbally startle, intimidate, or agitate the deponent, the deponent’s counsel, the parties (including any employees or representatives of the parties), or the parties’ counsel. 4. To the extent counsel’s conduct does not comport with the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Standards of Professionalism, the Local Rules, or paragraphs (B)(1)-(3) of this Order, such conduct will be prima facie evidence that the deposition at issue is being conducted in bad faith or in such manner as to unreasonably annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent and/or the opposing party pursuant to 12 O.S. § 12-3230(E)(2). C. Counsel’s Representations to a Deponent at Depositions l, Counsel conducting an examination of a deponent may not represent to the deponent that any rules, law, or other authority require the deponent to answer a question in a particular way or to only use certain words when answering the question. 2. All objections, except those as to form and privilege, are reserved until trial or other use of the deposition. Once a question is asked, counsel should not coach the deponent or suggest answers, whether though objections or other means. Deposition objections may be made as to privilege or may be made only as required in order to preserve the objection. Speaking objections or those calculated to coach the deponent are prohibited. Counsel shall refrain from engaging in colloquy during a deposition. However, this paragraph shall not prevent counsel from moving to strike answers that are believed to be non-responsive or statements of counsel that are in the nature of testimony rather than questions, or to otherwise make a record as necessary while maintaining 2"}, {"d": 45, "p": 25, "t": "decorum and not needlessly interrupting the flow of a deposition. 3, Counsel may instruct a deponent not to answer a question only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation directed by the Court, or to present a motion under 12 O.S. § 12-3230(E)(2). When a privilege is claimed, the deponent should nevertheless answer questions relevant to the existence, extent or waiver of the privilege, such as the date of the communication, who made the statement, to whom and in whose presence the statement was made, other persons to whom the contents of the statement have been disclosed, and the general subject matter of the statement, unless such information itself is privileged. Private conferences between deponents and their counsel while on the record are improper and prohibited except for the sole purpose of determining whether a privilege should be asserted. 4, Counsel conducting the examination may not interrupt the deponent while the deponent is answering a pending question or refuse to allow a deponent to clarify an answer previously given. Counsel may not misrepresent to a deponent that any rules, law, or any other authority prevent the deponent from clarifying an answer to a pending or prior question. 5. Counsel conducting the examination may not instruct a witness not to ask for clarification of a pending question and may not misrepresent to a deponent that any rules, law, or any other authority prevent the deponent from asking for clarification of a pending question. 6. To the extent counsel violates paragraphs (C)(1)—(5) of this Order, such conduct will be prima facie evidence that the deposition at issue is being conducted in bad faith or in such manner as to unreasonably annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent and/or the opposing party pursuant to 12 O.S. § 12-3230(E)(2). D. Use of Exhibits at a Deposition I. Documents which the examining attorney expects to use to examine a deponent should be provided to counsel for the parties and the deponent in hard copy during the course of 3"}, {"d": 45, "p": 26, "t": "any in-person deposition as set forth in paragraph (D)(2) herein, except as otherwise permitted by paragraph (D)(3) herein. 2. Counsel conducting the examination should have at least three (3) copies of all hard copy exhibits utilized with the deponent available for use by the deponent (1 copy), the deponent’s counsel and other counsel (1 copy) and the Court reporter(I copy). 3, If a document to be used at a deposition is so voluminous as to make its use in hard copy infeasible, counsel conducting the examination shall notify the deponent and counsel for all parties at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of the deposition that counsel intends to use an electronic copy of the document when examining the deponent. Counsel shall, at that time: (1) if the document has received production numbering, provide the Bates numbers associated with the document to the deponent and counsel for all parties; (2) if the document has not received production numbering, provide an electronic copy of the document to the deponent and counsel for all parties. To the extent counsel fails to make the disclosures identified in this paragraph at least 24 hours prior to the deposition, counsel is prohibited from using the document electronically at the deposition. 4. To the extent counsel conducting an examination has made the disclosures identified in paragraph (D)(3), counsel may use a screen to display an electronic copy of a document to be used as an exhibit at the deposition. 5, Before marking any document as an exhibit to the deposition or asking any questions regarding the document, counsel conducting the examination must provide the deponent a reasonable amount of time to review the document—or at least the portion of the document that gives fair context to the question asked. Counsel conducting the examination may not require that the deponent go off the record to review a document though counsel may agree to an off the record"}, {"d": 45, "p": 27, "t": "review if fairness requires it. To the extent this process unreasonably erodes the time permitted for the deposition, counsel should work to agree on some reasonable additional time or otherwise seek relief from the Court. Dated: Hon. Grant Sheperd"}, {"d": 45, "p": 30, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 1 of 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No.: 4:22-md-03047-YGR IN RE: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation This document relates to: MDL No. 3047 Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers Honorable Peter H. Kang STIPULATION AND ORDER GOVERNING PROTOCOL FOR FACT DEPOSITIONS AND RULE 30(B)(6/PMQ DEPOSITIONS ALL ACTIONS This Stipulation and Order Governing Protocol for Fact Depositions and Rule 30(b)(6)/PMQ Depositions (“Order”) shall govern the conduct of fact as well as Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)/PMQ depositions for all cases! currently in MDL No. 3047 (“MDL”) and hereafter added or transferred to MDL No. 3047, all cases currently in California JCCP No. 5255 (“ICCP”) and hereafter added or transferred to JCCP No. 5255, and any deposition that is originally noticed in the MDL or JCCP and cross-noticed by parties in Related Actions.2 Terms relating to crossnoticed depositions are further addressed in Section II.H of this Order, ' Unless otherwise specified in this Order, “cases” and “action” include those cases filed on behalf of individuals, Local Government and School Districts, and State Attorneys General in the MDE and JCCP. ? For purposes of this Order, “Related Actions” are identified in Appendices A, B, C, and D which may be modified or supplemented as needed pursuant to Section IV. 1,"}, {"d": 45, "p": 31, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 ~— Page 2 of 36 All Plaintiffs* and Defendants in the MDL and JCCP (collectively, the “Parties,” or where singular, the “Party”) will submit modified protocols for expert depositions at a later time. I, GENERAL OBJECTIONS A. NN Professional Conduct, Section 9. Discovery (As to Depositions) (the “Guidelines”), “NN 2. CO Counsel are expected to adhere to the Northern District of California Guidelines for JCCP Counsel to avoid duplicative discovery, including in non-case-specific fact and corporate oOo L. Cooperation witness depositions. Plaintiffs’ MDL and JCCP Counsel shall also make reasonable efforts Plaintiffs’ MDL Counsel shall coordinate the scheduling of depositions with Plaintiffs’ through the meet and confer process to coordinate the scheduling of any cross-noticed depositions with counsel for plaintiffs in Related Actions. B. Attendance 1. Who May be Present. Unless otherwise ordered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), and subject to the provisions of the Protective Order in this MDL (see Doc. 586) (the “Protective Order”), depositions may be attended by members of the Court-appointed Plaintiffs’ Leadership, the State Attorneys General, and employees of their firms/offices or their designees, Counsel of record in any proceeding in which the deposition is cross-noticed, members and employees of their firms, attorneys specially engaged by a Defendant or Plaintiffs for purposes of the deposition, the Parties or the representative of each respective Party (including in-house Counsel), any person who is assisting a Party and whose presence is reasonably required by the aforementioned Counsel of record (such as a consulting expert), court reporters, videographers, document technicians, court interpreters, the deponent, and Counsel for the deponent. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Order, Counsel may not attend a deposition of a Party, or of a current or former employee of a Party, unless they are Counsel of record in an action or cross-noticed action in which that Party is a named Plaintiff or Defendant, without that Party’s consent. Absent agreement, a State Attorney General may not attend a 3 Unless otherwise specified in this Order, “Plaintiffs” include all individuals, Local Government and School Districts, and State Attorneys General that have filed cases in the MDL or JCCP. 2"}, {"d": 45, "p": 32, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 3 of 36 deposition of a Defendant, or of a current or former employee of that Defendant, if the Defendant is not a named Party in an action brought by that State Attorney General, and Defendants and Plaintiffs who are not Parties in an action brought by a State Attorney General may not attend a deposition noticed by a Defendant in that State Attorney General’s case. No deposition or a part of a deposition from which a Party is excluded pursuant to this provision may be used against that Party in the MDL or JCCP, 3, As an exception, a State Attorney General may attend the deposition of any former employee of a Defendant that it has named as a Party in an action brought by that State Attorney General, even if that employee has been or is currently employed by a Defendant that the State Attorney General has not so named. 4, Unnecessary Attendance. Unnecessary attendance by Counsel is discouraged and may not be compensated in any fee application to the Court. Counsel who have only marginal interest in a proposed deposition or who expect their interests to be adequately represented by other Counsel should elect not to attend but may exercise an option to observe a deposition remotely to the extent practicable. 5. Notice of Intent to Attend a Deposition. In order to make arrangements for adequate deposition space and logistics, Counsel for each Party shall confer regarding the expected inperson attendance in advance of the deposition. Specifically, absent agreement by the Parties, at least seven (7) days prior to a deposition, all Parties shall inform the person(s) hosting the deposition of the number of expected in-person attendees, and shall provide the identity of any inperson attendees at least two (2) business days prior to the deposition with the understanding that such names are provided in good faith and could be subject to change. Il. CONDUCT OF DEPOSITIONS A. Examination I. Counsel for the Noticing Party or Parties shall confer prior to the deposition concerning allocation of time to examine a deponent. To the extent a deposition in this action is cross-noticed in any state court or other federal court proceedings, including California JCCP No. 5255, those attorneys representing Parties in the cross-noticed cases that are not in the MDL or"}, {"d": 45, "p": 33, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 4 of 36 JCCP may also examine the witness, but Counsel for the Noticing Party or Parties shall make efforts to coordinate as to who examines the deponent and attends, including allocation of time to depose the witness. 2. For each deposition, Plaintiffs may designate up to three examining attorneys, including no more than one such attorney representing Plaintiffs in the MDL; no more than one 0] the claims of the State Attorneys General in the MDL (including witnesses associated with oOo such attorney representing Plaintiffs in California JCCP No. 5255; and for witnesses relating to Defendants sued by the State Attorneys General and third-party witnesses), no more than one such attorney representing State Attorneys General in the MDL. Only one examiner may address 10 the deponent at a time, and subsequent examiners shall make best efforts not to repeat the same or 1] substantially the same question asked by earlier Counsel. The primary examining attorneys for Plaintiffs described in this paragraph may change from deposition to deposition. 3. Each named Defendant may designate one (1) primary defending or examining attorney per Defendant per deposition to the extent practical. That primary defending or examining attorney for the named Defendant may change from deposition to deposition. 4, A witness may be deposed in their individual capacity only once across the MDL and JCCP, unless otherwise agreed to by the Parties in writing, or authorized by an order of the Court upon a showing of good cause by the Party seeking the additional deposition. For crossnoticed depositions involving parties in Related Actions, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to coordinate with each other and with counsel for parties in the Related Actions regarding the scheduling of depositions to minimize the number of times a witness shall appear for deposition, The MDL/JCCP Party receiving notice of a deposition in a Related Action shall provide counsel for such outside parties in Related Actions with a copy of this Order and any other applicable Orders within five (5) days of receiving notice of the deposition. B. Examination of Third-Party Witness I. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern the depositions of third-party witnesses unless otherwise stated in this Order or agreed-to by the Parties and the third-party witness. The Parties shall confer prior to the deposition concerning allocation of time to examine 4"}, {"d": 45, "p": 34, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 5 of 36 the third-party witness. To avoid unnecessary disputes, the default assumption should be that the 7-hour time limit of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1) governs the deposition of third-party witnesses, but for third-party witnesses applicable to the bellwether cases, which shall be governed by the Court’s Discovery Limits Order. Parties should reserve time for re-cross and re-direct to avoid exceeding these time limits. The time limit does not include time spent in questioning by the third-party’s defending attorney. A copy of this Order shall be attached to each third-party subpoena issued or served in this action’s proceedings requesting deposition testimony. C. Duration l. Absent agreement of the Parties or order of this Court based on a showing of good cause, a deposition shall be limited to the time and other parameters set forth in the Court’s Discovery Limits Order, 2. After questioning by the Noticing Party or any other Party permitted to ask questions pursuant to this Order, the Party defending the deposition may elect to question the deponent. Other non-noticing Parties from the defending side may also elect to question the deponent. If the defending Party elects to question the deponent, then the Noticing Party shall be entitled to perform re-cross examination, which shall be limited in scope to the matters covered by the defending Party. Following any re-cross examination, the Party defending the deposition shall be entitled to perform re-direct examination, which shall be limited in scope to the matters covered by the Noticing Party on re-cross examination. All time spent questioning the deponent by the Noticing Party or other Party designated to examine the deponent shall count toward that Party’s per-deposition and cumulative time limits as set forth in the Court’s Discovery Limits Order. All time spent questioning the deponent by the defending Party (and those aligned with the defending Party) shall not count toward the per-deposition or cumulative time limits, but such Parties shall use best efforts to be efficient in their questioning of the deponent. 3, At the deponent’s election, any deposition may be adjourned after seven hours on the record, or as otherwise agreed to by the Parties. The Parties will use best efforts to complete all direct, redirect, and re-cross examination on the same day. If a deposition is adjourned pursuant to this provision, the deposition will continue the following day to the extent practical 5"}, {"d": 45, "p": 35, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 6 of 36 for the deponent and Counsel. D. Means of Recording I, Stenographic Recording, A certified court reporter shall stenographically record all deposition proceedings and testimony with “real-time feed” capabilities. The court reporter shall administer the oath or affirmation to the deponent. A written transcript by the court reporter shall constitute the official record of the deposition for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e) and similar state court rules addressing filing, retention, certification and the like. 2. Witnesses will have the opportunity to review transcripts and provide a statement of errata changes if they so choose, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P, 30(e). The deponent shall submit the errata sheet and Parties will submit confidentiality designations to the court reporter within forty-five (45) days of the deponent’s, or their Counsel’s, receipt of the final transcript, whichever is earlier. The court reporter shall serve copies of the errata sheet and confidentiality designations on all Parties purchasing the transcript. The Parties may, upon agreement, modify this requirement as may be necessary. Any modification shall be placed on the record at the deposition or in writing. If no corrections are made within forty-five (45) days after receipt of the final transcript from the court reporter, and if good cause is not shown for an extension of the forty-five (45) days? limitation, the Parties shall have the right to use a certified copy of the transcript in any further proceedings as though the copy were the original transcript. 3, The Noticing Party shall bear the expense of stenographic recording, video recording (except as provided in Section II.N), and any applicable witness fees. Any Party attending a deposition may, at their own expense, request a Real Time transcript directly from the Court Reporter. 4, Subject to the terms of the Protective Order, any Party to an action whose attendance is permitted at a deposition under Section I.B may, at its own expense, obtain a copy of the audio/video files and the stenographic transcript of that deposition by contacting the court reporter. E. Scheduling 1, Each deposition notice shall include the name, address, email address, and 6"}, {"d": 45, "p": 36, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 7 of 36 telephone number of an attorney point of contact designated by the Noticing Party or side as well as the date, time, and place of the deposition. The Noticing Party shall confer reasonably in advance of the deposition with opposing Counsel and unrepresented proposed deponents to schedule depositions at mutually convenient times and places. Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties or ordered by the Court, the deposition notice shall be served no less than thirty (30) days prior to a deposition scheduled in accordance with Section D of the Court’s Standing Order for Discovery in Civil Cases; said notice shall not be filed on the Court docket. 2. After noticing a deposition of a Party or a non-party, the Noticing Party must confer about the scheduling of the deposition with opposing Counsel in the event the noticed date, time, and location are not mutually convenient. If the noticed date is unworkable for the witness or their Counsel, Counsel for the witness shall, within ten (10) days of receipt of the notice, provide alternative dates within thirty (30) days of the noticed date, in accordance with Section D of the Court’s Standing Order for Discovery in Civil Cases. To facilitate scheduling, the witness or their Counsel shall provide three (3) alternative dates within ten (10) days of receipt of the notice. If the time or place of the deposition changes after conferring, the Noticing Party will serve an amended notice of deposition. 3. For in-person depositions, absent agreement by the Parties, the Defending Party will be responsible for arranging a deposition venue within reasonable proximity to the city in which the deponent resides or works, or as otherwise agreed to by the Parties. If the deponent is a Plaintiff or Plaintiff-affiliated witness, then the Plaintiff gets to choose the deposition venue (presumably, offices of Plaintiffs’ Counsel). If the deponent is a Defendant or Defendantaffiliated witness, then the Defendant gets to choose the deposition venue (presumably, offices of Defendant’s Counsel). The Defending Party will bear the costs associated with the use of the deposition space at the selected venue. The venue must include a main deposition room and a breakout room for the examining Party’s Counsel, The Party noticing a deposition has the option to notice an in-person or virtual deposition. The Parties will meet and confer regarding the service to be used to host virtual depositions."}, {"d": 45, "p": 37, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 8 of 36 F. Deposition Day I, To the extent the Parties cannot reach agreement regarding scheduling of depositions pursuant to the terms of this Order or Section D of the Court’s Standing Order for Discovery in Civil Cases, the Party resisting the deposition shall move for a protective order or other relief pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules. 2. The Court expects Counsel to mutually agree upon deposition locations. In the absence of agreement, depositions of witnesses located in the United States will take place in the deponent’s home district, G. Interpreters 1, Where a witness indicates their intention to respond to questions in a language other than English, interpreters will be selected by the Party for the witness to interpret and translate between the foreign language and English. Multiple interpreters may be employed to allow for rotation of interpreters, and nothing shall prevent the non-witness Party from retaining their own interpreter to attend the deposition for purpose of verifying the interpretation or translation provided by the interpreter. Each interpreter will swear under oath or affirm prior to each deposition to provide honest and truthful translations and to sign the Acknowledgement and Agreement to be Bound attached as Exhibit A to the Protective Order. A monitor displaying “real-time” transcription will be placed in front of the interpreters to assist in the translation. 2. Counsel defending a deposition will notify Counsel for the Party noticing the deposition at least fifteen (15) days in advance of the deposition if the witness will require the services of an interpreter. Subject to their being informed of the terms of this Order, Counsel for third-party witnesses will notify Counsel for the Party noticing the deposition at least fifteen (15) days in advance of the deposition that the examination will require the services of an interpreter. In the event the Noticing Party receives such a notice from a third party or his/her Counsel, then the Noticing Party shall inform the non-noticing side within twenty-four (24) hours of receiving such notice. 3, Defendants and Plaintiffs who participated in the deposition will share the fees and costs of the interpreters equally between the two sides."}, {"d": 45, "p": 38, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR 4. Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 9 of 36 Objections as to the accuracy of any translations of deposition testimony shall be reserved. H. Cross-Noticing 1. To ensure efficiency, the Parties in the MDL, JCCP, or any other Related Action may be permitted to cross-notice and attend depositions (except as otherwise provided herein), regardless of whether the deposition was originally noticed in the MDL, JCCP, or in any Related Defendants shall provide notice to Plaintiffs’ Counsel of any deposition of one of S« 2. their current or former employees that has been noticed to take place in a Related Action within oe oO Action. five (5) days of Defendants receiving notice. 3. Upon notice from Defendants, Plaintiffs will have twenty-one (21) days to decide whether to cross-notice a deposition into this MDL. If Plaintiffs cross-notice such a deposition, the individual and cumulative time limits for depositions apply to that cross-noticed deposition. If Plaintiffs do not cross-notice the deposition of a witness in a Related Proceeding but later elect to depose that witness in the MDL or JCCP, the Parties shall first meet and confer to determine whether the party defending the witness consents. If the defending Party does not consent to the witness's re-deposition, the Parties shall follow the dispute resolution procedures in the Court’s Standing Order for Discovery. If, after completing all meet and confers to try to resolve any such dispute, the dispute remains unresolved, the Parties shall file a Joint Discovery Letter to this Court regarding the dispute pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order for Discovery, in which both Parties shall address whether or not there is good cause for such leave to be granted, and whether or not there is good cause for the Court to grant a protective order barring Plaintiffs from redeposing such witness. 4, For depositions originating outside the MDL or JCCP that are cross-noticed by Parties in the MDL or JCCP, any time used by an MDL/JCCP Party questioning the witness in that cross-noticed deposition shall count toward that Party’s per-deposition and cumulative time limits agreed to or as set forth in this Court’s Discovery Limits Order. 5. The time limits will not apply to non-parties to the MDL and JCCP (e.g,, state 9"}, {"d": 45, "p": 39, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 10 of 36 court litigants). The MDL/JCCP Parties will use best efforts to meet and confer and coordinate with such non-parties to maximize efficient use of time in the cross-noticed deposition and to minimize burden on the deponent, consistent with the provisions and purpose of this Order, In all events, the MDL/JCCP Parties shall have the full amount of deposition time allotted to them as set forth in this Court’s Discovery Limits Order. 6. To the extent there is an operative protocol or order in an outside proceeding that would apply to a cross-noticed deposition, the MDL/JCCP Parties will take reasonable steps and engage in good-faith efforts to coordinate with each other and the parties to that outside proceeding regarding the appropriate rules and procedures to follow in that deposition with the goal of maximizing efficiency and minimizing burden to the deponent. 1. Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions l, For the purposes of efficiency, all corporate representative depositions across the MDL and JCCP and any other Related Action in which the deposition has been cross-noticed, will take place as 30(b)(6) depositions, Any Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the proposed matters for examination. It shall be narrowly-tailored to assist the Noticing Party with identifying relevant discovery in the related proceedings. 2. A Party that receives a notice of deposition under Rule 30(b)(6) may provide more than one witness to address the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. J. Objections and Directions Not to Answer l. Counsel shali comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) and the Northern District of California Guidelines on Professional Conduct regarding objections at a deposition. 2. Each side shall identify one (1) attorney responsible for making objections. Unless otherwise specified, an objection by such Counsel shall be deemed an objection by all similarly situated Counsel (i.e., all Plaintiffs or all Defendants) with no need to join in the objection, However, unless otherwise specified, an instruction not to answer by Counsel should not be deemed an instruction not to answer by any other similarly situated Counsel. Each Party retains the right to make objections as appropriate. 3. All objections, except those as to form, are reserved. 10"}, {"d": 45, "p": 40, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR 4, Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 11 of 36 if requested by the examining attorney, the objecting Party shall provide a sufficient explanation for the objection to allow the examining attorney fo rephrase the question. 5. In accordance with Section D of this Court’s Standing Order for discovery in Civil Cases (effective June 1, 2023), private consultations between deponents and their attorneys on the record during the actual taking of the deposition are improper, except for the purpose of determining whether a privilege should be asserted. Unless prohibited by the Court for good cause shown, consultations may be held during normal recesses, adjournments (including overnight or over multiple days), or if there is a break in the normal course of examination and no questions are pending. K, Disputes During or Relating to Denositions I, Disputes between Parties should be resolved in accordance with Section D or H of the Court's Standing Order for Discovery in Civil Cases. If a dispute arises during a deposition, prior to contacting the Court, the primary examining and primary defending attorneys at the deposition must first meet and confer to attempt to resolve the issue. If the dispute remains, lead trial counsel for the Party represented by each of these attorneys must also meet and confer (in person if they are at the deposition or otherwise physically nearby each other, or by videoconference) to attempt to resolve the issue. If the dispute remains, the Parties may then contact the Court for an emergency telephonic hearing pursuant to Section D of the Court’s Standing Order for Discovery. The Parties will alert the court reporter to be prepared to read the deposition question and answer at issue to the Court during any such emergency hearing. 2. Nothing in this Order shall deny Counsel the right to suspend a deposition pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(3), file an appropriate motion with the Court at the conclusion of the deposition, and appear personally before the Court. Notwithstanding this procedure, Counsel are reminded of their professional responsibilities as officers of the Court and strongly encouraged to make all efforts to resolve disputes through good-faith negotiations to minimize involvement of the Court. L. Use of Confidential and Highly Confidential l. Access to, use, and designation of Confidential and Highly Confidential i] (Competitor) Information"}, {"d": 45, "p": 41, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 12 of 36 (Competitor) testimony and information used in depositions will be governed by the Protective Order. Pursuant to paragraph 5.6 of the Protective Order, Counsel for any Producing Party shall have the right to exclude from oral depositions, other than the deponent and deponent’s Counsel, any person who is not authorized by the Protective Order to receive or access Protected Material during periods of examination or testimony regarding such Protected Material. M. Joint Deposition Status Chart I, Effective immediately and until further Order of this Court, the Parties shall submit a Joint Deposition Status Chart as an exhibit to the monthly Discovery Management Conference (“DMC”) Statement. The Joint Deposition Status Chart shall be formatted with columns to identify the names (including titles, affiliations, last known contact information, and other such identifying information, to the extent known by the listing Party) of each individual witness to be deposed by a Party in this case. A Party identifying a witness to be deposed is thereby representing to the Court and all Parties that the identifying Party reasonably expects in good faith to depose each such witness in this case. 2. The Joint Deposition Status Chart shall be regularly updated and exchanged by the Parties, and at a minimum, the chart shall be updated as part of the process for drafting each month’s DMC Statement. Prior to updating the chart for the DMC Statement each month, the Parties shall meet and confer regarding scheduling and identifying proposed dates for all the listed witnesses’ depositions, where the depositions shall be scheduled at times and dates within the fact discovery period. 3. The chart shall have columns identifying the date each identified witness was first identified to the other Parties as a deponent, the Party who identified each such witness, and the date(s) for each identified witness’s deposition, 4, The Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to cooperate diligently in setting dates for depositions and shall be prepared to report on the progress and status of scheduling depositions at each DMC, 5. The Parties shall follow this process for identifying witnesses in good faith, and the Parties shall not abuse the process of identifying witnesses for deposition and shall not abuse 12"}, {"d": 45, "p": 42, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 13 of 36 the Joint Deposition Status Chart (and related custodial file) procedure by over-designating and then later withdrawing persons to be deposed. The Parties shall be prepared to report to the Court at each month’s DMC how the process is working and whether any reasonable modifications need to be proposed. The Court will consider modifications to this process as appropriate, and may impose sanctions for abuse of this deposition process.. 6. As an incentive for the Parties to disclose witnesses each side intends to depose and thus start the discussion as to scheduling depositions as early as possible: a) Ifa Party first identifies a witness for deposition on or before April 30, 2024, that identifying Party shall be permitted one (1) hour of additional deposition time for that identified witness, where that additional one hour (if taken) shall not be counted against I that identifying Party’s cumulative time limits allocated for depositions. 12 b) 13 particular witness, shall not carry over to another witness, and that additional one hour is 14 “additional” in the sense that the deposing Party can take one more hour of deposition of Absent agreement between the Parties, that additional one hour, if unused for that that witness over and above the total time that Party could otherwise take under the 16 Court’s prior hours limits per deposition. For example, as the Court stated at the March 17 18, 2024 hearing, if a Party has a twelve-hour time limit for a deposition of a witness 18 under the existing discovery limits, that Party can take a total of thirteen hours of 19 deposition time for that witness if that witness is identified by April 30, 2024 (but if that 20 Party only uses, for example, six hours of deposition time for that witness, even though 21 that Party could have taken up to twelve hours, then the additional hour is unused and 22 does not subtract from the six hours actually used for purposes of calculating how much 23 time a Party has used for their total cumulative deposition hours allocated). 24 c) 25 witness for deposition on or before May 31, 2024, that identifying Party shall be permitted 26 forty-five (45) minutes of additional deposition time for that identified witness, where that 27 additional forty-five minutes shall not be counted against that identifying Party’s 28 cumulative time limits allocated for depositions, Following the same process explained in M.6(a)-(b), if a Party first identifies a 13"}, {"d": 45, "p": 43, "t": "pase 4:22-md-03047-YGR d) Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 14 of 36 Ifa Party first identifies a witness for deposition on or before June 30, 2024, that identifying Party shall be permitted thirty (30) minutes of additional deposition time for that identified witness, where that additional thirty minutes shall not be counted against that identifying Party’s cumulative time limits allocated for depositions. 7. A Party shall identify a witness for deposition and thus for placement on the Joint oO i Deposition Status Chart in writing to all Parties (either by email, fax, overnight express delivery service, or by First Class mail with return receipt requested) by providing at least the first and last name of the witness, their title (or last known title) or position if known, the Defendant who either employs or employed them or with whom they are affiliated for purposes of discovery in this MDL (or, if they are not affiliated with a Defendant, their current employer if known), and their contact information (or last known contact information) if known. The date that a witness was identified for purposes of the chart shall be the date of receipt of the writing identifying that witness, Counsel for the Party with whom the witness is or was affiliated shall promptly confirm to all Parties the date of receipt of the writing. A Party which receives a writing identifying a witness which that receiving Party believes to be incomplete or inaccurate shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with the identifying Party to correct any information concerning that witness for accuracy of the chart and for reasonable planning for depositions. The Parties shall cooperate in drafting the Joint Deposition Chart to agree upon and insert the date each witness was identified. 8. The Parties shall meet and confer to discuss swapping any additional time from depositions of minors to other witnesses, where appropriate, to limit the amount of deposition time for witnesses who are minors. N. Documents Used in Connection with Depositions lL. Custodial Files. The custodial file for each deponent identified in the Joint Deposition Status Chart shall be produced by the Party by whom that deponent is (or was) employed (or by the Party who is otherwise representing that deponent for purposes of discovery in this case) within sixty (60) days after each such person is identified for inclusion in the Joint Deposition Status Chart. The Parties shall cooperate in good faith to discuss extensions of time i4"}, {"d": 45, "p": 44, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 15 of 36 for such productions of custodial files. If, after following the Court’s dispute resolution procedures for discovery disputes, the Parties cannot resolve a dispute concerning production of a custodial file, the Parties shall file a Joint Discovery Letter discussing the issue in dispute regarding timing of such production. As noted at the March 18, 2024 hearing and to provide the Parties guidance, the Court will grant reasonable extensions of time to complete a production for good cause shown. The Joint Deposition Status Chart shall include a column identifying the date on which production of the custodial file for each identified witness has been produced’, 2, Production of Documents by Third-Party Witnesses. Third-party witnesses subpoenaed to produce documents shall, to the extent possible, be served with the document subpoena at least thirty (30) calendar days before a scheduled deposition, with a copy of the subpoena served as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. 3. Copies. Hard copies of documents which the examining attorney expects to use to examine a deponent should be provided to primary Counsel for the Parties and the deponent during the course of any in-person deposition. 4, Objections to Documents. Objections to the relevance or admissibility of documents used as deposition exhibits are not waived and are reserved for later ruling by the Court. 5. Translation of Documents, Objections as to the accuracy of any translations of documents shall be reserved unless a stipulation is reached by the Parties in advance of the deposition. 6. Confidential and Highly Confidential (Competitor) Documents. Nothing in this Order modifies or reduces the obligations of the Parties as it pertains to disclosure of Highly Confidential (Competitor) documents to third parties, including deponents, which shall be governed by the Protective Order. 7. Marking of Deposition Exhibits, Unless otherwise agreed, each document referred to at a deposition shall be referred to by its alpha-numeric production number except in the case * The production date provided in the Deposition Status Chart does not preclude limited followon document productions, such as the production of documents downgraded during privilege review and the production of redacted documents. 15"}, {"d": 45, "p": 45, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 16 of 36 of documents which have not yet received production numbering at the time of the deposition. Documents that are produced in native format shall have the slip sheet with the Bates number affixed to the front of the document. Counsel shall use best efforts to mark exhibits sequentially during each deposition and across depositions, consistent with Northern District of California Local Rule 30-2. O. Video Depositions I. All depositions will be recorded by videotape or digitally recorded video pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3) unless the Noticing Party expressly states in the deposition notice that the deposition will not be video recorded or otherwise agreed-to by the Parties, Where a nonNoticing Party wishes to video record the proceeding, a notice to video record the deposition shall be submitted in writing to all Parties no later than seven days before the date on which the deposition is scheduled to occur. The Party wishing to video record the deposition, if not originally noticed as such, shall be responsible for arranging and paying for the video recording, Video recorded depositions shall be subject to the following rules: a) Video Operator. The operator(s) of the video recording equipment shall be subject to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(c). At the commencement of the deposition, the operator(s) shall swear or affirm to record the proceedings fairly and accurately. b) Index. The video record operator shall use a counter on the recording equipment, and after completion of the deposition shall prepare a log, cross-referenced to counter numbers, that identifies the counter number on the tape where examination by different Counsel begins and ends, where objections are made and examination resumes, where exhibits are identified, and where an interruption of continuous tape-recording occurs, whether for recesses, “off-the-record” discussions, mechanical failure, or otherwise. c) Attendance. Each witness, attorney, and other person attending the deposition shall be identified on the record at the commencement of the deposition. To the extent any person joins attendance of a deposition after its commencement, such person shall be identified on the record prior to or immediately following the next recess. d) Standards. Unless physically incapacitated, the deponent shall be seated at a table 16"}, {"d": 45, "p": 46, "t": "pase 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 17 of 36 except when reviewing or presenting demonstrative materials for which a change in position is needed. If the deponent is a Party or affiliated with a Party, the defending Party shall be responsible for ensuring that the deposition will be conducted in an appropriate setting, against a solid background with only such lighting as is required for accurate video recording; if the deponent is a third party, the Noticing Party shall have this responsibility. Lighting, camera angle, lens setting, and field of view will be changed only as necessary to record accurately the natural body movements of the deponent. Sound levels will be altered only as necessary to record satisfactorily the voices of Counsel and the deponent. The witness shall appear in ordinary business attire (as opposed to, for instance, a lab coat) and without objects such as a bible, medical equipment, or other props. The video recording shall include the court reporter administering the oath or affirmation to the witness. Thereafter, the deponent and, if necessary, exhibits and any demonstratives will be videotaped. e) Filing and Preservation. After the deposition is completed, the video operator shall certify on camera the correctness, completeness, and accuracy of the video recording in the same manner as a stenographic court reporter, and file a true copy of the video record, the transcript, and the certificate with Counsel for whomever noticed the deposition. f) Protective Order. No part of the video or audio recording of a video deposition shall be released or made available to any member of the public, except for use in these proceedings in accordance with the terms of the Protective Order. P. Remote/Virtual Depositions I. For depositions noticed as in-person, participating attorneys (i.¢., those examining or defending) and witnesses are expected to attend that deposition in-person rather than remotely (except by agreement of the Parties, or by operation of section I1,0.2, ot by order of the Court). For depositions noticed as virtual (“Remote Deposition”), attorney(s) defending the deposition (and, if the witness has separate representation, the witness’ Counsel) may be present with the witness, and such Counsel must alert the Noticing Party seven business days in advance of the deposition and must be present on camera at all times that the witness is. Regardless of whether a 17"}, {"d": 45, "p": 47, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 18 of 36 deposition is taken in person or is a Remote Deposition, the Noticing Party shall make arrangements to have each deposition video conferenced, so that all other persons who are permitted to attend a deposition under Section 1.B, of this Order may attend the deposition via Zoom or a similar videoconferencing platform. 2. By indicating in its notice of deposition that it wishes to conduct a Remote Deposition, a Party shall be deemed to have moved for such an order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4). Unless an objection is filed and served within ten (10) calendar days after such notice is received, the Court shall be deemed to have granted the motion. 3. To avoid any potential disruptions of a Remote Deposition, those attending shall silence notifications for applications not in use, including but not limited to instant messaging and/or e-mail notifications, The Court recognizes that the microphones for certain attendees (such as the witness, the court reporter, the attorney taking the deposition, and the attorney defending the deposition) must remain on when the deposition is on the record. Other attendees should mute microphones when not speaking. All examining attorneys and all attorneys defending the depositions must be visible to all other participants during the deposition. 4. During the deposition examination, no person attending the deposition, or anyone acting on their behalf, shall be permitted to communicate with the witness by any means not recorded in the same manner as the deposition itself (e.g., no text or email exchanges with the witness and no additional means of communicating with the witness, such as an additional computer or tablet). However, the witness’s Counsel may communicate with the witness, including telephonically, by other electronic means, or directly (if he or she is present with the witness), during breaks as consistent with FRCP 30(c)(1) and other applicable law. 5. If any privileged information is disclosed during a Remote Deposition due to a technical disruption, or to the extent any privileged conversation between a witness and his or her Counsel is inadvertently heard by any other Party and/or captured by any recording device, such disclosure shall not be deemed a waiver of privilege. 6. Use of Electronic and Hard Copy Exhibits in Remote Depositions, Counsel taking a Remote Deposition shall use electronic exhibits pursuant to the following provisions: 18"}, {"d": 45, "p": 48, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR a) Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 19 of 36 For any exhibit presented electronically, the exhibit must be made available to the deponent to review in ifs entirety, the witness must be afforded the independent ability to review the exhibit in its entirety, and the witness must be afforded the independent ability to control manipulation of the document (scrolling, etc.) to facilitate that review. Full electronic copies of the exhibit must be transmitted to all Participants, and received by them, before questioning begins on the exhibit. The attorney using the exhibit will be responsible for providing the marked original to the court reporter. b) Ifa questioning Party wishes also to show or share an electronic version of an exhibit during the course of the deposition, it may do so, but, the witness may not be required to review a document on the screen if he or she chooses instead to review the downloaded electronic document on their own. c) While the default assumption shall be that electronic exhibits will be used in most instances, the Parties agree to work in good faith to reach agreements regarding the provision of hard copy exhibits to a deponent on request. To the extent hardcopy exhibits are provided to the deponent, the package containing the documents shall be sealed, and the witness shall unseal it only when asked to do so on the record at the deposition. 7. Defending lawyers and the witness shall take appropriate steps in advance of the deposition to ensure that the witness is reasonably capable of using the Remote Deposition technology, which can be satisfied by arranging a test of the witness’s video/audio equipment and internet connection in advance of the deposition by the vendor retained for the Remote Deposition. Q. Stipulation Regarding the Transcript l. Depositions of Parties. Unless otherwise agreed, the following stipulation shall apply to all depositions taken of Parties and Party-affiliated witnesses and shall be included in each transcript by the court reporter: Upon completion of the transcription of this deposition, the original transcript shall be sent to Counsel for the witness by the court reporter. Counsel shall promptly forward it to the witness for review, correction, and signature under penalty of perjury. Within 45 days of receiving the final transcript from the court reporter, the witness’ Counsel shall forward the original transcript plus corrections to the court reporter, who will promptly notify all 19"}, {"d": 45, "p": 49, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 20 of 36 Counsel who questioned the witness and all Counsel who requested a certified copy of the transcript of its receipt and any changes made by the witness, The Parties may shorten this time period by agreement and, if the Parties cannot agree, the Party seeking a shortened time period may seek relief from the Court. 2. If'a Party or Party-affiliated witness is not represented by Counsel, the original transcript will be sent to the witness by the court reporter. After review, correction, and signature SN reporter, who will notify all Counsel of its receipt and any changes to testimony made by the So witness. The Parties may shorten this time period by agreement and, if the Parties cannot agree, Oo within 45 days from the date of receipt, the witness shall return the original transcript to the court the Party seeking a shortened time period may seek relief from the Court, 3. 10 1] The court reporter will provide the original transcript to the first examining attorney. That attorney shall be responsible for maintaining the original transcript and will make it available for any hearings or trials upon reasonable request by another Party. In the event the original transcript is lost, stolen, or otherwise unavailable, a certified copy reflecting any changes made to the original transcript may be used in place of the original. 4, Depositions of Third-Party Witnesses. The stipulation set forth above shall be proposed to Counsel for any third-party witness, or, if such witness is not represented by Counsel, to the witness, Il. USE OF DEPOSITIONS I. This Order does not address the admissibility for trial purposes of any testimony taken by deposition. Determinations on the admissibility of any such testimony shall be made by the trial court. 2, Third parties in any other cases (such as a Related Action) who seek copies of a deposition transcript from this MDL (such as by way of discovery in such other cases) shall first agree to be bound by the Protective Order governing this case (by signing Exhibit A to the Protective Order) or by a substantially similar Protective Order in that other Related Action before receipt of any such deposition transcript and shall treat any such deposition transcript pursuant to the terms of the applicable Protective Order. To the extent copies of a deposition transcript from this MDL are sought from a Party other than the Designating Party under the 20"}, {"d": 45, "p": 50, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 21 of 36 Protective Order, Counsel for the Party receiving such request shall notify the Designating Party of the request before producing the transcript. IV. AMENDMENTS TO THIS ORDER L Minor amendments and changes to this Order for any deposition, such as the time allotted for questioning, dates, and Counsel permitted to attend depositions, may be made by agreement of the Parties without further order of the Court. All such minor amendments shall be placed on the record at the beginning of the deposition or as soon as practicable. Changes to the terms of this Order that apply to the procedure as a whole shall be brought to the Court after the Parties first meet and confer in good faith. Vv. FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE APPLICABLE I, The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence shall apply to the taking of depositions pursuant to this Order unless specifically modified herein. IT IS SO STIPULATED, through Counsel of Record. DATED: April 3, 2024 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Lexi J. Hazam LEXI J. HAZAM LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 BATTERY STREET, 29TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: 415-956-1000 lhazam@Ichb.com PREVIN WARREN MOTLEY RICE LLC 401 9th Street NW Suite 630 Washington DC 20004 T: 202-386-9610 pwarren@motleyrice.com Co-Lead Counsel! CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER SEEGER WEISS, LLP 55 CHALLENGER ROAD, 6TH RIDGEFIELD PARK, NJ 07660 21 FLOOR"}, {"d": 45, "p": 51, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 22 of 36 Telephone: 973-639-9100 Facsimile: 973-679-8656 cseeger@seegerweiss.com Counsel to Co-Lead Counsel JENNIE LEE ANDERSON ANDRUS ANDERSON, LLP 155 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 900 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 Telephone: 415-986-1400 Jennie@andrusanderson.com Liaison Counsel RON AUSTIN RON AUSTIN LAW 400 Manhattan Blvd. Harvey LA, 70058 Telephone: (504) 227-8100 raustin@ronaustinlaw.com MATTHEW BERGMAN GLENN DRAPER SOCIAL MEDIA VICTIMS LAW CENTER 821 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2100 SEATTLE, WA 98104 Telephone: 206-741-4862 matt@socialmediavictims,org glenn@socialmediavictims.org JAMES J. BILSBORROW WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 700 BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-558-5500 Facsimile: 212-344-5461 jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com PAIGE BOLDT WATTS GUERRA LLP 4 Dominion Drive, Bldg. 3, Suite 100 San Antonio, TX 78257 T: 210-448-0500 PBoldt@WattsGuerra.com THOMAS P. CARTMELL WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 22"}, {"d": 45, "p": 52, "t": "pase 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 23 of 36 Kansas City, MO 64112 T: 816-701 1100 teartmell@wellp.com JAYNE CONROY SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC 112 MADISON AVE, 7TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10016 Telephone: 917-882-5522 jconroy@simmonsfirm.com CARRIE GOLDBERG C.A. GOLDBERG, PLLC 16 Court St. Brooklyn, NY 11241 T: (646) 666-8908 carrie@cagoldberglaw.com SIN-TING MARY LIU AYLSTOCK WITIKIN KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 200 PENSACOLA, FL 32502 Telephone: 510-698-9566 mliu@awkolaw.com ANDRE MURA GIBBS LAW GROUP, LLP 1111 BROADWAY, SUITE 2100 OAKLAND, CA 94607 Telephone: 510-350-9717 amin@classlawgroup.com EMMIE PAULOS LEVIN PAPANTONIO RAFFERTY 316 SOUTH BAYLEN STREET, SUITE 600 PENSACOLA, FL 32502 Telephone: 850-435-7107 epaulos@levinlaw.com ROLAND TELLIS DAVID FERNANDES BARON & BUDD, P.C. 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 839-2333 Facsimile: (818) 986-9698 rtellis@baronbudd.com 23"}, {"d": 45, "p": 53, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 24 of 36 dfernandes@baronbudd.com ALEXANDRA WALSH WALSH LAW 1050 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 500 oo CO “YY AWA Washington D.C. 20036 T: 202-780-3014 awalsh@alexwalshlaw.com MICHAEL M. WEINKOWITZ LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 WALNUT STREET SUITE 500 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 Telephone: 215-592-1500 mweinkowitz@lfsbalw.com DIANDRA “FU” DEBROSSE ZIMMERMANN DICELLO LEVITT 505 20th St North Suite 1500 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Telephone: 205.855.5700 fu@dicellolevitt.com HILLARY NAPPI HACH & ROSE LLP 112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor New York, New York 10016 Tel: 212.213.8311 hnappi@hrsclaw.com JAMES MARSH MARSH LAW FIRM PLLC 31 HUDSON YARDS, 11TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10001-2170 Telephone: 212-372-3030 jamesmarsh@marshlaw.com Attorneys for Individual Plaintiffs 24"}, {"d": 45, "p": 54, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 25 of 36 PHILIP J. WEISER Attorney General State of Colorado /s/ Bianca E. Miyata Bianca E. Miyata, CO Reg. No. 42012, pro hac vice Senior Assistant Attorney General Lauren M. Dickey, CO Reg. No. 45773 First Assistant Attorney General Megan Paris Rundlet, CO Reg. No. 27474 Senior Assistant Solicitor General Elizabeth Orem, CO Reg. No. 58309 10 11 Assistant Attorney General Colorado Department of Law Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center Consuiner Protection Section 1300 Broadway, 7th Floor Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (720) 508-6651 bianca.miyata@coag.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Colorado, ex rel. Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General ROB BONTA Attorney General State of California /s/ Megan O'Neill Nick A. Akers (CA SBN 211222) Senior Assistant Attorney General Bernard Eskandari (SBN 244395) Supervising Deputy Attorney General Megan O’Neill (CA SBN 343535) Joshua Oiszewski-Jubelirer (CA SBN 336428) Marissa Roy (CA SBN 318773) Deputy Attorneys General California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Ave., Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Phone: (415) 510-4400 Fax: (415) 703-5480 Megan.oneill@doj.ca.gov 25"}, {"d": 45, "p": 55, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 26 of 36 Attorneys for Plaintiff the People of the State of California RUSSELL COLEMAN Attorney General Commonwealth of Kentucky /s/ J. Christian Lewis J. Christian Lewis (KY Bar No. 87109), Pro hac vice Philip Heleringer (KY Bar No. 96748), Pro hac vice Gregory B. Ladd (KY Bar No, 95886), Pro hace vice Zachary Richards (KY Bar No, 99209), Pro hac vice Assistant Attorneys General 1024 Capital Center Drive, Suite 200 Frankfort, KY 40601 CHRISTIAN.LEWIS@KY.GOV PHILIP.HELERINGER@KY.GOV ZACH.RICHARDS@K Y.GOV DANIEL.KEISER@K Y.GOV Phone: (502) 696-5300 Fax: (502) 564-2698 Attorneys for Plaintiff the Commonwealth of Kentucky 26"}, {"d": 45, "p": 56, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 27 of 36 COVINGTON & BURLING LLP By: /s/ Ashley M. Simonsen Ashley M. Simonsen, SBN 275203 COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 332-4800 Facsimile: + 1 (424) 332-4749 Email: asimonsen@cov.com Phyllis A. Jones, pro hac vice Paul W. Schmidt, pro hac vice COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One City Center 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001-4956 Telephone: + 1 (202) 662-6000 Facsimile: + | (202) 662-6291 Email: pajones@cov.com Attorney for Defendants Meta Platforms, Inc. Jék/a Facebook, Inc.; Facebook Holdings, LLC; Facebook Operations, LLC; Facebook Payments, Inc.; Facebook Technologies, LLC; Instagram, LLC; Siculus, Ine.; and Mark Elliot Zuckerberg FAEGRE DRINKER LLP By: /s/ Andrea Roberts Pierson Andrea Roberts Pierson, pro hac vice Amy R. Fiterman, pro hae vice FAEGRE DRINKER LLP 300 N. Meridian Street, Suite 2500 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: + | (317) 237-0300 Facsimile: + | (317) 237-1000 Email: andrea.pierson@faegredrinker.com Email: amy. fiterman @faegredrinker.com GEOFFREY DRAKE, pro hae vice David Mattern, pro ha vice KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Tel.: 404-572-4600 Email: gdrake@kslaw.com Email: dmattern@kslaw.com 27"}, {"d": 45, "p": 57, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 28 of 36 Attorneys for Defendants TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ine. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSEN LLP By: 4s/ Jonathan H. Blavin Jonathan H. Blavin, SBN 230269 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-3089 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 Email: jonathan.blavin@mto.com Rose L. Ehler (SBN 29652) Victoria A. Degtyareva (SBN 284199) Laura M. Lopez, (SBN 313450) Rowley J. Rice (SBN 313737) Ariel T. Teshuva (SBN 324238) Faye Paul Teller (SBN 343506) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 Email: rose.ehler@mto.com Email: victoria. degtyareva@mto.com Email: laura.lopez@mto.com Email: rowley.rice@mto.com Email: ariel.teshuva@mto.com Email: faye.teller@mto.com Lauren A. Bell (pro hac vice) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave., NW St., Suite 500 E Washington, D.C. 20001-5369 Telephone: (202) 220-1100 Facsimile: (202) 220-2300 Email: lauren.bell@mto.com Attorneys for Defendant Snap Ine. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation By: £/ Brian M. Willen Brian M. Willen (pro hac vice) WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 28"}, {"d": 45, "p": 58, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 29 of 36 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, New York [0019 Telephone: (212) 999-5800 Facsimile: (212) 999-5899 Email: bwillen@wsgr.com oO iro Lauren Gallo White (State Bar No. 309075) Samantha A. Machock (State Bar No. 298852) WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI PC One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, Suite 3300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 947-2000 Facsimile: (415) 947-2099 Email: lwhite@wsgr.com Email: smachock@wsgr.com Christopher Chiou (State Bar No. 233587) Matthew K. Donohue (State Bar No. 302144) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC 953 East Third Street, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (323) 210-2900 Facsimile: (866) 974-7329 Email: cchiou@wsgr.com Email: mdonohtie@wsgr.com Attorneys for Defendants YouTube, LLC and Google LLC WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP By: /s/ Joseph G. Petrosinelli Joseph G. Petrosinelli, pro hac vice Ashley W. Hardin, pro hae vice WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 680 Maine Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20024 Tel.: 202-434-5000 Fax: 202-434-5029 Email: jpetrosinelli@we.com Email: ahardin@we.com Attorneys for Defendants YouTube, LLC and Google LEC MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP By: /s/ Yardena R. Zwang-Weissman Yardena R. Zwang-Weissman (SBN 247111) 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor 29"}, {"d": 45, "p": 59, "t": "pase 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 30 of 36 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Tel.: 213.612.7238 Email: yardena.zwang-weissman@morganlewis.com Brian Ercole (pro hac vice) 600 Brickell] Avenue, Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131-3075 “SSN Tel.: 305.415.3416 Email: brian.ercole@morganlewis.com oO Stephanie Schuster (pro hac vice) 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW NW Washington, DC 20004-2541 Tel.: 202.373.6595 Email: stephanie.schuster@morganlewis.com Attorneys for Defendants YouTube, LLC and Google LLC IT IS SO ORDERED that the foregoing Stipulation is approved. DATED: April 3, 2024 HONORABLE PETER H. KANG United States District Court Magistrate Judge 30"}, {"d": 45, "p": 60, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 31 of 36 APPENDIX A- META RELATED ACTIONS Meta lists below the litigations within the scope of Related Actions*: State of Arkansas, ex rel. Tim Griffin, Attorney General v, Meta Platforms, Inc.; Facebook Holdings, LLC; Facebook Operations, LLC; Meta Payments Inc.; Facebook Technologies, LLC; Instagram, LLC; and Siculus, Inc., Case No. 5TCV-23-47 (Arkansas Circuit Court, Polk County). District of Columbia v. Meta Platforms, Inc. and Instagram, LLC, Case No. 2023 CAB 006550 (D.C. Superior Court). Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Meta Platforms, Inc. and Instagram, LLC, Case No. 2384CV02397 (Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County). State of Mississippi, ex rel. Lynn Fitch, Attorney General v. Meta Platforms, Inc.; Instagram, LLC; Meta Payments, Inc., and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC, Case No. 25CH1:23-cv-01205 (Mississippi Chancery Court, First Judicial District). State of New Hampshire v. Meta Platforms, Inc., and Instagram, LLC, Case No. 2172023-CV-00594 (New Hampshire Superior Court, Merrimack, SS). State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Gentner Drummond, Attorney General of Oklahoma v. Meta Platforms, Ine., and Instagram, LLC, Case No. CJ-2023-00180 (Oklahoma District Court, Osage County). State of Tennessee, ex rel. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter v. Meta Platforms, Inc., and Instagram, LLC, Case No. 23-1364-1V (Tennessee Chancery Court, Davidson County). Utah Division of Consumer Protection v. Meta Platforms, Inc., and Instagram, LLC, Case No. 230908060 (Utah Third District Court, Salt Lake County). State of Vermont v. Meta Platforms, Inc., and Instagram, LLC, Case No. 23-CV-04453 (Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden County). State of New Mexico, ex rel. Raul Torrez, Attorney General v, Meta Platforms, Inc.; Instagram, LLC; Meta Payments Inc.; Meta Platforms Technologies, Inc; and Mark Zuckerberg, Case No. D-0101-CV-202302838 (New Mexico First Judicial District Court, 3]"}, {"d": 45, "p": 61, "t": "Pase 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 32 of 36 Santa Fe County). State of Nevada v. Meta Platforms, Inc., and Instagram, LLC, Case No. A-24-886110-B (Nevada District Court, Clark County), State of Nevada v. Meta Platforms, Inc., and Instagram, LLC, Case No. A-24-886115-B oO —SNN (Nevada District Court, Clark County). State of Nevada y. Meta Platforms, Inc., and Instagram, LLC, Case No. A-24-886120-B (Nevada District Court, Clark County). A G. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.; Instagram, LLC; Facebook Payments, Inc.; Siculus, Ine.; Facebook Operations, LLC; and Tory Dwanell Saidstuart , Case No. 3:23-cv-01861 (D. 10 Or.). 11 Norma Nazario, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Zackery Nazario vy. Bytedance LTD.; Bytedance, INC.; TikTok, Inc.; Meta Platforms, Inc., Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and New York City Transit Authority, Case No. 0151540/2024 (N.Y. Supreme Ct., New York County). *Upon agreement between the Plaintiffs and Meta, this list may be updated without leave of Court and by serving it on all Parties. 32"}, {"d": 45, "p": 62, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 33 of 36 APPENDIX B —- SNAP RELATED ACTIONS Snap lists below the litigations within the scope of Related Actions*: State AG Nevada v. Snap, Inc., A-24-886113-B (Nevada District Court, Clark County) ° Kennedy Harris, et al v. Snap, 05251 LACV044283 (lowa District Court, Dallas County) Linda Blea v. Snap, D-412-CV-2022-00236 (New Mexico — 4th Judicial District, San Miguel County) VV. and E.Q., individually and as next friends to minor C.O., y. Meta, et al., FBT-CV-23- 5050779-S (Conn. Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport); 3:23-cv00284-SVN (D. Conn.); UWYCV235032685S (Conn. Superior Court, Complex Waterbury Dist.) Cody Dahl and Tonya Cole Dahl vy, Alphabet, Inc., et al., 4:23-cv-9472 (W.D. Tex.) * Upon agreement between the Plaintiffs and Snap, this list may be updated without leave of Court and by serving it on all Parties, 33"}, {"d": 45, "p": 63, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 34 of 36 APPENDIX C - TIK TOK RELATED ACTIONS TikTok lists below the litigations within the scope of Related Actions*: Nasca, et al. v. ByteDance Ltd., et al, No. 2:23-cv-02061 (E.D.N.Y.) Anderson, et al. v. TikTok Inc., et al, No. 2:22-cv-01849-PD (E.D. Pa.), appeal docketed, No. 22-3061 (3d Cir.) Bogard, et al. vy. TikTok Ine., et al., No. 3:23-cv-00012 (S.D. Ind.) Nazario, et al. v. ByteDance Ltd, et al, No. 151540/2024 (New York Supreme Court, New York County) Nevada v. TikTok Inc., et al, No, A-24-886127-B (Nevada District Court, Clark County) Utah y. TikTok Inc., et al, No. 230907634 (Utah Third District Court, Salt Lake County) Arkansas y. TikTok Inc., et al., No. 12CV-23-65 (Arkansas Circuit Court, Cleburne County) Towa v. TikTok Inc., et al., No. 24-1522 (lowa District Court, Polk County) Kansas v. TikTok Ine., et al, (Kansas District Court, Shawnee County) ® Indiana v. TikTok Inc., et al., No. 23A-PL-03110 Und. Ct. App.) * Upon agreement between the Plaintiffs and TikTok, this list may be updated without leave of Court and by serving it on all Parties. 34"}, {"d": 45, "p": 64, "t": "Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 35 of 36 APPENDIX D -YOUTUBE RELATED ACTIONS YouTube lists below the litigations within the scope of Related Actions*: * Cody Dahl et al. v. Alphabet, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01496 (W.D. Tex.) (removed December |1, 2023) * Upon agreement between the Plaintiffs and YouTube, this list may be updated without leave of ~~ Court and by serving it on all Parties. 35"}, {"d": 45, "p": 65, "t": "Fase 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 742 Filed 04/03/24 Page 36 of 36 ATTESTATION I, Jesse S. Krompier, hereby attest, pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 5-1, that the concurrence to the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory hereto. Dated: April 3, 2024 /s/ Jesse S. Krompier Jesse S. Krompier 36"}, {"d": 45, "p": 67, "t": "Case 3:23-md-03084-CRB Document 866 Filed 08/09/24 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC, PASSENGER SEXUAL ASSAULT LITIGATION MDL No. 3084 CRB PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 16: STIPULATED DEPOSITION PROTOCOL This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS This Order shall govern the conduct of all depositions! in the following cases: (1) those actions transferred to this Court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) pursuant to its order entered on October 4, 2023, (2) any tag-along actions transferred to this Court by the JPML pursuant to Rules 7.1 and 7.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Panel, after the filing of the final transfer order by the Clerk of the Court, and (3) all related actions originally filed in this Court or transferred or removed to this Court and assigned thereto as part of Jn re: Uber Technologies, Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, MDL No. 3084 (‘MDL 3084”). These cases will be referred to as the “MDL Proceedings.” ' The Court anticipates entering a subsequent order addressing in more detail the depositions of Plaintiffs and other plaintiff-specific witnesses, including their health care providers and any Uber employees or other individuals who were specifically involved in responding to the alleged incident. This subsequent order will address limitations on the number and length of examinations, as well as any issues relating to the identity of Plaintiff and disclosure of confidential documents to third parties. ORDER RE: DEPOSITION PROTOCOL MDL NO. -|3084 CRB"}, {"d": 45, "p": 68, "t": "Case 3:23-md-03084-CRB L Document 866 _ Filed 08/09/24 Page 2 of 19 General Provisions The Parties and their counsel acknowledge their duty to work together cooperatively in both scheduling and conducting depositions. Any Party’s agreement to and appearance on this Stipulation does not constitute a waiver of any defense or right not specifically addressed. A. Noticing Depositions I. Notice of Deposition Procedures, All deposition notices shall comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b) and include the name, address, and telephone number of an attorney point of contact designated by the Party noticing the deposition (the “Deposition Liaison Counsel”) as well as the date, time, and place of the deposition, including 10 whether the deposition will proceed in person or remotely. The Deposition Liaison Counsel will Fi be responsible for all logistical issues and communications related to the noticed deposition. If a 12 deposition is cross-noticed, the notice shal! comply with the rules of the relevant jurisdiction. A 13 party that cross-notices a deposition in one or more cases outside the MDL Proceedings is 14 responsible for service of both the original notice and cross-notice on all parties entitled to receive 15 such notice, both in this MDL and the other action(s). All depositions noticed or properly cross- 16 noticed in this MDL are subject to this deposition protocol. Defendants shall include the following 17 E-mail address [email to be provided] on all communications requesting deposition testimony 18 and/or document production. Plaintiffs shall include the following E-mail address [email to be 19 provided] on all communications requesting deposition testimony and/or document production. 20 2. Third-Party Depositions. All third-party subpoenas seeking deposition testimony shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. A copy of this Protocol shall be attached to each 22 third-party subpoena issued or served in the MDL Proceedings requesting deposition testimony. 23 All third-party subpoenas requesting deposition testimony and/or document production shall be 24 served as provided in Section LA.1, 25 B. 26 Absent extraordinary circumstances, counsel for the noticing party should consult in 27 advance (“Initial Notification”) with counsel for the deponent to schedule depositions at mutually 28 convenient times and locations, Scheduling and Production of Custodial Files -2- ORDER RE: DEPOSITION PROTOCOL MDL NO. 3084 CRB"}, {"d": 45, "p": 69, "t": "Case 3:23-md-03084-CRB Document 866 Filed 08/09/24 Page 3 of 19 The parties agree that ten (10) days after a party makes an “Initial Notification” that it would like to schedule a deposition (the “Requesting Party”), the party receiving that notification (the “Receiving Party”) shall either: |. Propose 2 dates for the witnesses’ deposition; or 2, Notify the Requesting Party that the Receiving Party cannot yet propose dates for the requested deposition(s) and provide the basis for the Receiving Party’s inability to provide such dates. Within three days of receiving proposed deposition dates from the Receiving Party under paragraph (1) above, the Requesting Party will confirm by e-mail acceptance of the proposed dates or ask for alternative dates. If the Requesting Party accepts the proposed dates, the Requesting Party will issue a Deposition Notice (“First Confirmed Date”). The portions of the custodial file that a party is obligated to produce shall be produced at least twenty-one (21) days in advance of the First Confirmed Date. If a First Confirmed Date is subsequently rescheduled, the production of the custodial file shall not be delayed because of the rescheduling, unless the rescheduling occurs because of an issue concerning production of a custodial file. If there is an issue with the timely production of a custodial file, the producing party must upon learning of the issue promptly notify the Receiving Party, describe the issue, and provide a good-faith estimated date as to when the issue is expected to be resolved and its production will be substantially complete. If the initial response by the Receiving Party is to notify the Requesting Party that there is no date pursuant to paragraph (2) above, the Receiving Party shall have seven (7) additional days to either provide reasonable proposed dates for the deposition or a further update on the Receiving Party’s efforts to provide dates for the deposition (“Second Response”). If no date is proposed by the Second Response deadline, then the Receiving Party shall produce the custodial file on the earlier of the following dates: twenty-one (21) days from the Second Response date or twenty-one (21) days in advance of any deposition date subsequently agreed, whichever date is earlier. Ten (10) days after any party produces a custodial file, the producing party shall provide a privilege log that corresponds to the custodial file and complies with the requirements of the -3- ORDER RE: DEPOSITION PROTOCOL MDL NO. 3084 CRB"}, {"d": 45, "p": 70, "t": "Case 3:23-md-03084-CRB Document 866 Filed 08/09/24 Page 4 of 19 Court’s Order related to Privileged Materials. Any challenges to those privilege logs will be made within seven (7) days. The Parties will meet and confer about any challenges within four (4) days. The Parties will make good faith and reasonable efforts to produce documents initially withheld in whole or in part on grounds of privilege that are downgraded in the privilege logging or meet lod “SS and confer process within five (5) calendar days of serving the log or the conclusion of the meet and confer unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties. For Defendants’ employee or former employee witnesses, personnel files will be produced 14 days before the deposition. When counsel have agreed on mutually acceptable dates and location for a deposition, all parties shall be notified of the scheduled deposition pursuant to Section [.A.1. If the parties cannot agree on a date, time, or location for the deposition after undertaking good faith efforts to reach agreement, the deposition may still be noticed, subject to appropriate motions to quash. Once a deposition has been scheduled, except upon agreement of counsel for the noticing party and the deponent, or upon leave of the Court, it shall not be taken off calendar, postponed, or rescheduled fewer than three (3) calendar days in advance of the date upon which the deposition has been scheduled to occur, Cc, Location for Depositions Unless the parties agree otherwise, depositions of Defendant and their current or former officers and employees will take place within seventy-five (75) miles of the location where the deponent resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, or, where agreed by both the noticing party and the deponent, at the offices of counsel for the parties, the federal courthouse in the witness’s home federal jurisdiction, or the courthouse in the Northern District of California. Counsel will make reasonable efforts to obtain the agreement of former employees to appear at designated locations. Unless otherwise agreed, the deposition of an expert witness will take place in the expert witness’s home federal jurisdiction or, where agreed, at the offices of counsel for the party who has retained the expert witness. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c) shall govern the location of third-party depositions. ~4- ORDER RE: DEPOSITION PROTOCOL MDL NO. 3084 CRB"}, {"d": 45, "p": 71, "t": "Case 3:23-md-03084-CRB dD, Document 866 Filed 08/09/24 Page 5 of 19 Remote Depositions Conducting in-person depositions is not always feasible. A noticing party may choose to Oe deponent, all other persons entitled to attend, and all other necessary persons (e.g., the officer/court ON conducted by a video-conferencing platform, or by another means agreed to by the parties. A ~~ remote deposition shall be considered taken in the county and at the place where the deponent is oO conduct the deposition remotely (remote deposition), that is, in a manner that allows for the located, or other reasonable location agreed to by the patties, reporter) to participate without attending the deposition in person. A remote deposition may be If'a deposition proceeds remotely (“Videoconference Deposition”), the following shall also apply: l. If the witness’s counsel or any Party’s counsel is physically located in the room or facility where the witness is located, then the noticing counsel has the right to be physically located in the room or facility where the witness is located. This arrangement shall be disclosed to the requesting or noticing counsel as soon as practicable within fourteen (14) days of the initial request to deponent’s counsel for a deposition and, if any event, no later than twenty-one (21) days in advance of the confirmed deposition as reflected in a formal deposition notice, 2. Any Videoconference Deposition taken pursuant to this Court’s Orders must comply with the requirements in Rule 30(b)(5). This includes the requirements that, (1) “[uJnless the parties stipulate otherwise, a deposition must be conducted before an officer appointed or designated under Rule 28,” and (2) that officer must administer the oath or affirmation to the deponent. Fed, R. Civ. P. 30(b)(5). A Videoconference Deposition taken pursuant to this Order will be deemed to have been taken before an appropriate officer despite the court reporter not being in the same physical location as the witness—as long as the court reporter attends the deposition by the same remote means as the other participants and is able to hear and communicate with other attendees. To the extent permitted by the law of the state in which the witness is located, the witness may be sworn in remotely with the same effect as an oath administered in person. -5- ORDER RE: DEPOSITION PROTOCOL MDL NO. 3084 CRB"}, {"d": 45, "p": 72, "t": "Case 3:23-md-03084-CRB Filed 08/09/24 Page 6 of 19 must list the location(s) (city and state) from where the witness will attend and which information the witness’s counsel must provide upon request of the hoticing party. 4. All deposition notices must identify the company that will host and record the remote deposition (the “Remote Deposition Vendor”) and contain a general description of how those attending may access the remote connection being utilized (¢.g., Zoom, GoToMeeting, detailed instructions regarding how to participate in the Videoconference Deposition at least three (3) business days before the deposition. oo Oo WebEx). The party noticing the deposition must provide the witness and all other attendees with Oo SDH mn fe OND The deposition notice for any Videoconference Deposition pursuant to Rule 30 BH 3, Document 866 I] 5. At the time of the deposition, the witness must advise the court reporter of their physical location. The witness should endeavor to participate in the deposition from a quiet, welllit, indoor location, while seated in front of a neutral background and facing the camera being used to record the witness, To avoid any potential disruptions of a Videoconference Deposition, those attending must enable “do not disturb” settings for applications not in use, including but not limited to, Skype, instant messaging, and/or e-mail notifications. The Court recognizes that the microphones for certain attendees (such as the witness, the court reporter, the attorney taking the deposition, and the attorney defending the deposition) must remain on when the deposition is on the record. Other attendees should mute microphones when not speaking. The Remote Deposition Technology must be able to show in real-time a list of all persons attending the Videoconference Deposition. 6. Counsel serving as a first or second chair and/or the interpreter shall be on camera, including counsel present in the room with the witness, and shall ensure no audio disruption if there are multiple remote attendees in a single location. 7. During live testimony on the record, no one, including attorneys, shall communicate in any manner with the deponent in any way that cannot be heard or seen by all Participants to the deposition. This includes silent signals and private messages of any kind, including, but not limited to, instant messages or text messages conveyed through phones, smart watches, or similar devices. Such prohibition shall not affect the right of the deponent and their -6- ORDER RE: DEPOSITION PROTOCOL MDL NO. 3084 CRB"}, {"d": 45, "p": 73, "t": "Case 3:23-md-03084-CRB Document 866 Filed 08/09/24 Page 7 of 19 lawyer(s) to communicate in private off the record to the extent otherwise permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c)(1). 8. During the deposition, full and complete copies of deposition exhibits must be provided to the witness and counsel who are attending the deposition. Deposition exhibits may be made available in physical (hardcopy) form or via the Remote Deposition Technology, file sharing software, or other electronic means. A witness may be required to use a keyboard, mouse, or other similar means to open and/or advance the pages of an exhibit. Access to a full copy of the deposition exhibit electronically via iPad, tablet, laptop, or other device, will be deemed to equate to hardcopy access. During the deposition, the Remote Deposition Technology must allow: (1) the witness to privately access any part of the exhibit; (2) counsel to display and annotate exhibits for the witness; (3) counsel to add and remove exhibits; and (4) counsel to change the order in which the exhibits are presented to the witness. 9. Any pauses, lags, and/or disruptions in technology, including but not limited to interruptions in Internet connectivity, will not result in waiver of objections by any party, If any pauses, lags, and/or disruptions are persistent or prolonged, the Parties should: (1) extend the remote deposition by an amount of time equal to the duration of the pause, lag, and/or disruption, provided that the additional time is fess than an hour; or (2) consider rescheduling the remote deposition for a later date, if the additional time required is an hour or more. E. Attendance i. Who May Be Present. Unless otherwise ordered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and subject to the terms of the Protective Order entered in the MDL Proceedings, only the following individuals may attend depositions: attorneys of record in the Uber MDL and the State Court JCCP Case;? attorneys specially engaged by a party for purposes of the depositio n; parties or in-house attorneys of a party; court reporters; videographers; the deponent; and counsel for the deponent. An expert or non-testifying consultant for a parly may attend if the party employing that expert or non-testifying consultant provides: (a) advance notice of their attendance, * In Re Uber Rideshare Proceeding No. 5188. Cases, Case No. CJC-21-005188, -7- Judicial Council Coordination ORDER RE; DEPOSITION PROTOCOL MDL NO. 3084 CRB"}, {"d": 45, "p": 74, "t": "Case 3:23-md-03084-CRB Document 866 Filed 08/09/24 Page 8 of 19 per section E.3; and (b) confirmation that the expert or consultant has signed attestations confirming adherence to all applicable protective orders. Any party that objects to the attendance of such expert or consultant may seek relief from the Court in advance of the deposition. 2, Unnecessary Attendance. Unnecessary attendance by counsel is discouraged. Counsel who have only marginal connection with a deposition or who expect their interests to be adequately represented by other counsel! should not attend. 3. Notice of Intent to Attend a Deposition. In order for counsel to make arrangements for adequate deposition space, representatives for Plaintiffs and Defendants shall share the number of expected attendees with each other no fewer than five (5) business days prior to the deposition, whenever feasible. Nothing in this section shall prevent a party or counsel hosting a deposition from requiring, for security purposes, the names of all attendees appearing at the deposition. If requested, this information must be provided at least two (2) business days in advance of the deposition. 4, Remote Attendance. The noticing party shall provide a call-in number and any other information necessary to attend a deposition by phone or alternatively provide a zoom link and other information necessary to attend a deposition via remote video and audio means. 5, Identify Attendance on the Record: Under no circumstances shall a person attend any part of a deposition in person, or by any remote means such as telephone, internet link-up, videoconference, or any other kind of remote-access communication, without being identified on the record. F, Coordination of Depositions l. Coordination with State Court Proceedings: The parties to this MDL shall use their best efforts to communicate, cooperate, and coordinate with state court litigants in the pending Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding Case No. 5188, Case No. CJC-21-005188, assigned to the Honorable Ethan P. Schulman (hereafter the “JCCP Proceedings”) to schedule and take depositions, including working on agreements for the cross-noticing of depositions that are common to the JCCP and MDL Proceedings. The Court recognizes that the state courts are independent jurisdictions; the parties in the MDL shall facilitate communication with counsel in -8- ORDER RE: DEPOSITION PROTOCOL MDL NO, 3084 CRB"}, {"d": 45, "p": 75, "t": "Case 3:23-md-03084-CRB Document 866 Filed 08/09/24 Page 9 of 19 the JCCP Proceedings to efficiently conduct discovery.? Absent good cause or court order, common witnesses should not be deposed separately in this MDL Proceeding and the JCCP case. 2. Limitation on Repeated Depositions. Depositions taken in this MDL pursuant to this Order shall not be retaken in this MDL without a further Order of the Court upon good cause shown, ¢.g., incomplete custodial file initially produced, or an agreement of the parties. Counsel for any witness, and, in the case of former employees, for a party affiliated with that witness, shall use best efforts to minimize the necessity for the continued or further deposition of any witness by ensuring that deposing counsel have the complete production of information relevant to the witness sufficiently in advance of the deposition to permit proper and comprehensive examination of the witness on the dates scheduled. The Court may enter additional provisions regarding repeated depositions in subsequent Orders. 3, Use of Depositions. All depositions noticed in this MDL or appropriately cross- noticed pursuant to this Protocol are deemed noticed and taken in the MDL Proceedings, subject to appropriate evidentiary objections to the admission of deposition testimony or exhibits on summary judgment or at trial. Hi. Conduct of Depositions A. Examination I. Examiners: Absent extraordinary circumstances, questioning related to the MDL deposition notice or cross-notice should be conducted by no more than two MDL Plaintiffs’ attorneys for all Plaintiffs in the case of depositions noticed by Plaintiffs. Likewise, for depositions noticed by Defendants, questioning should be conducted by no more than two attorneys for Defendants. Nothing in this protocol requires parties to waive their rights to question a witness. Counsel shall confer prior to the deposition concerning allocation of time to question a deponent. Counsel’s failure to allocate time among themselves or to enforce that allocation of time among themselves during a deposition shall not constitute grounds to extend a deposition. Counsel should cooperate in the allocation of time to ensure efficiency for witnesses, and to comply with the time limits set by the Court. 3 The Court expects this issue will be subject to a separate agreement involving those parties, -9. ORDER RE: DEPOSITION PROTOCOL MDL NO. 3084 CRB"}, {"d": 45, "p": 76, "t": "Case 3:23-md-03084-CRB 2. Document 866 Filed 08/09/24 Page 10 of 19 Sequence of Questioning. The questioning of current or former employees of Defendant(s) will be conducted in the following presumptive sequence: (1) examination by the opposing parties, (2) questioning by other parties; (3) counsel for the witness and the witness’s employer; (4) any reexamination by the counsel listed above. The questioning of a third-party will be conducted in the following presumptive sequence: (1) examination by the noticing party, (2) questioning by other parties; (3) counsel for the witness and/or the witness’s employer; (4) any reexamination by the counsel listed above. If a party contends that the presumptive examination sequence should not apply to a particular deposition, the affected parties shall, upon receipt of the notice, promptly meet and confer to try to resolve the matter; if the matter cannot be resolved by agreement of counsel, it shall be submitted to the Court so that the deposition can proceed without delay. Counsel designated to conduct the examinations shall coordinate with each other to conduct as thorough and non-duplicative and non-repetitive an examination as is practicable and to ensure that the needs of all examining parties are reasonably accommodated. Sequencing of plaintiffspecific depositions, including depositions of health care providers, will be set by separate order, 3. Production of Documents by Third-Party Witnesses. lf a third-party witness subpoenaed to produce documents does not provide documents within ten (10) calendar days before the date of a scheduled deposition, the noticing party shall have the right to reschedule the deposition to allow time for inspection of the documents before the examination commences. 4, Copies. Counsel conducting an examination should have at least five (5) copies of all exhibits utilized with the witness available for use by the witness (1 copy), the witness’s counsel (I copy), other counsel (2 copies), and the Court reporter (1 copy). 5, Objections to Documents, Objections to the relevance or admissibility of documents used as deposition exhibits are not waived and are preserved pending a later ruling by the Court or by the trial judge. All parties shal! cooperate as necessary so that the Court may issue a ruling on any objection to a document prior to trial or prior to any remand of cases for trial in the transferor courts. 6. Adherence to the Protective Order. All parties shall adhere to all Protective Orders entered in this matter and shall take steps to ensure deponents adhere to Protective Orders as -{Q- ORDER RE; DEPOSITION PROTOCOL MDL NO. 3084 CRB"}, {"d": 45, "p": 77, "t": "Case 3:23-md-03084-CRB Document 866 Filed 08/09/24 Page 11 of 19 applicable. Nothing in this Protocol modifies the terms of any Protective Order entered by the Court in the MDL Proceedings, B, Duration Absent agreement of the Parties or a Court order allowing additional time or reducing the allowed time, the time limits for depositions are (a) seven (7) hours of direct examination by the MDL Plaintiffs’ attorneys of a witness whom the JCCP has not elected to depose, (b) ten and one half (10.5) hours for the combined direct examination by MDL and JCCP Plaintiff attorneys (subject to agreement or Court order from the JCCP), and (c) seven (7) hours for the combined direct examination by all the Defendants’ attorneys, in each case depending on whether a Plaintiff or Defendants noticed the deposition. The seven (7) hours of examination (or 10.5 if combined examination by MDL and JCCP Plaintiff attorneys) shall not include questioning by the party defending the deposition or other opposing counsel, or time on re-direct or re-cross. Additionally, Plaintiffs shall be allowed to designate fifteen (15) depositions that will last 14 hours for the combined examination by MDL and JCCP Plaintiff attorneys. The noticing party shall be entitled to a minute-for-minute re-cross following any examination conducted by the defending party and/or other opposing counsel. To the extent that the party defending the deposition and/or other opposing counsel conducts a further re-direct examination following the noticing party’s re-cross, the noticing party shall be entitled to a minute-for-minute re-recross, Absent agreement of the parties or an Order of the Court, Plaintiffs shall be limited to 45 fact depositions of Uber witnesses, including 30(b)(6) witness depositions. This number is a “soft cap,” or a presumptive number subject to discussions between counsel for the parties to allow for additional depositions if there is good cause for such depositions, taking into account discovery already obtained, and whether or not additional depositions would be unreasonably cumulative or duplicative. This number is not meant to be an absolute cut off of depositions and is intended to allow for the flexibility for additional depositions as dictated by the discovery process generally, including, but not limited to, the scope of discovery, document productions and supplementation thereto, and the ability of Uber’s witnesses to adequately cover the timeframes and issues relevant to this litigation. -Il- ORDER RE: DEPOSITION PROTOCOL MDE NO. 3084 CRB"}, {"d": 45, "p": 78, "t": "Case 3:23-md-03084-CRB Document 866 Filed 08/09/24 Page 12 of 19 It is understood that the Plaintiffs may notice and take multiple Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of Defendants. The party noticing a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition may limit a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice to a discrete subject matter category and notice topics concerning that category (without prejudice to serving additional Rule 30(b)(6) notices as the discovery period continues). For depositions pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), the noticing party shall make a good faith effort to include all topics that relate to a discrete subject matter category in a single notice. Every ten and one half (10.5) hours of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony (or 14 hours, if Plaintiffs designate a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition for additional time pursuant to this Order) shall count as one (1) deposition against the overall “soft cap” of forty-five (45) depositions of Uber defendants. The ten and one half (10.5) hours (or 14 hours, if Plaintiffs designate a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition for additional time pursuant to this Order) shall not include questioning by the party defending or other opposing counsel, or time on re-direct or re-cross. C, Objections and Directions Not to Answer 1. Objections: Counsel shall comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Any objection by a Defendant at a deposition shall be deemed to have been made on behalf of all other Defendants. Any objection by a Plaintiff shall be deemed to have been made on behalf of all other Plaintiffs. All objections, except those as to form and privilege, are reserved until trial or other use of the depositions. Once a question is asked, a lawyer should not coach the deponent or suggest answers, whether through objections or other means. Counsel shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c)(2). Deposition objections may be made as to privilege or may be made only where required in order to preserve the objection. Speaking objections or those calculated to coach the deponent are prohibited. Counsel shall refrain from engaging in colloquy during a deposition. A person may instruct a deponent not to answer a question only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation directed by the Court, or to present a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(3). When a privilege is claimed, the witness should nevertheless answer questions relevant to the existence, extent or waiver of the privilege, such as the date of the communication, who made the statement, to whom and in whose presence the statement was made, -42- ORDER RE; DEPOSITION PROTOCOL MDL NO. 3084 CRB"}, {"d": 45, "p": 79, "t": "Case 3:23-md-03084-CRB Document 866 Filed 08/09/24 Page 13 of 19 other persons to whom the contents of the statement have been disclosed, and the general subject matter of the statement, unless such information itself is privileged. Counsel may be subject to sanctions if they consistently impede, or otherwise unreasonably delay, the fair examination of the deponent. Private conferences between deponents and their attorneys in the course of deposition are improper and prohibited except for the sole purpose of determining whether a privilege should be asserted. D, Authenticity of Documents. iF Authenticity of Documents Provided or Generated by a Party a. Documents Presumed Authentic: Documents produced and/or purportedly generated by any party that purport to be copies of documents prepared or received by the party, or by an officer, director, employee or agent of the party, shall—subject to Paragraphs 2—4 below—be presumed to be a faithful and authentic reproduction of the original and, subject to other applicable rules of evidence, admissible as such, unless any objecting party establishes, through a motion in limine or otherwise, that the document is not authentic. All other evidentiary objections other than authenticity are preserved. b. Presumption of Authenticity Limited to Portion Generated by Party: For the purposes of this Order, a document in its entirety is deemed to have been generated by a party only if that party or one of its then-directors, officers, agents, or employees created all of the document. Ifa party or one of its then-directors, officers, agents, or employees created only part of a document, such as a part of a chain of electronic mail, only that part of the document is deemed to have been generated by that party. 2. Objections to Documents Marked as Exhibits to Depositions Within 30 calendar days of the receipt of the transcript of a deposition hereafter taken in the coordinated and consolidated proceedings, any party wishing to contest the presumptive authenticity of any document(s) previously produced and/or purportedly generated by that party that were placed into the record of that deposition as deposition exhibits shall advise Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel in writing of: (a) the deposition and exhibit number, as well as the bates numbers, of any exhibit where the producing or purportedly generating party -13- ORDER RE: DEPOSITION PROTOCOL MDL NO. 3084 CRB"}, {"d": 45, "p": 80, "t": "Case 3:23-md-03084-CRB Document 866 Filed 08/09/24 Page 14 of 19 claims lack of authenticity; and (b) a detailed statement (including if appropriate references to other pertinent documents and knowledgeable persons) of the grounds for the claim of lack of authenticity. Any objection shall be deemed to have been made for all depositions for which the exhibit is used in the future. Any such exhibits not so identified within that time shall be deemed faithful and authentic reproductions of the original. The parties shall not mark deposition exhibits en masse for the sole purpose of bringing those exhibits within the scope of this paragraph. 3, Documents Provided by Nonparties Documents produced and/or purportedly generated by a nonparty shall be presumed to be a faithful and authentic reproduction of the original, unless any objecting party establishes, through a motion in limine or otherwise, that a document is not authentic. Documents produced and/or purportedly generated by a nonparty that are placed into the record as deposition exhibits in any deposition in the coordinated and consolidated proceedings shall be deemed to be faithful and authentic reproductions of the original unless any party raises an objection within the requisite time frames set forth above in paragraph D.2. 4, Remedies After Notification of Any Objection to Authenticity Upon being notified that an exhibit is claimed to be inauthentic, after meeting and conferring with opposing counsel, either Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel or Defendants’ Counsel may, with consent of opposing counsel or with leave of Court, initiate appropriate discovery limited to seeking to further establish authenticity. a. Limited Scope of Deposition: Any deposition noticed solely to establish the authenticity of a document shall be limited strictly to that purpose for the specific document at issue and shall not address any other issues. b. Depositions Not Applicable to Other Established Limit: Where such a deposition is taken, that deposition shall not be counted towards the “soft cap” and/or limits on the number, days, or hours of depositions that may otherwise be imposed by this Order. ¢. Additional Time for Discovery: In the event any written objection to the authenticity of a document within the meaning of Rule 902(11) is made near or after the close of fact discovery, the objecting party agrees to allow for additional discovery for up to thirty days -|4. ORDER RE: DEPOSITION PROTOCOL MDL NO. 3084 CRB"}, {"d": 45, "p": 81, "t": "Case 3:23-md-03084-CRB Document 866 Filed 08/09/24 Page 15 of 19 afier written objection is received by the nonobjecting party, regardless of whether the discovery subject to the challenge. Limitations of Protocol Regarding Authenticity Challenges a. No En Masse Marking of Deposition Exhibits to Trigger Presumptions: The ON 5, parties may not mark deposition exhibits en masse for the sole purpose of bringing those exhibits ~F O Can period is closed, for the sole purpose of establishing the authenticity of documents that are the within the scope of Paragraphs D.1—4. b. No Effect on Other Rules of Evidence: This Order addresses only the authenticity of any particular document and is without prejudice to application of any other rule of evidence that may be implicated by a particular document. Further, in the event that the Court is called | upon to rule on the admissibility of a document, this Order does not alter the burdens of proof with respect to admissibility. ¢. No Waiver of Objections to Similar Documents: The failure of any party to object to any document shall not constitute an admission or concession by that party that similar documents to which the party does object are authentic under applicable federal or state laws. For example, the failure to object to each email being treated as authentic does not foreclose such an objection to any individual email. d. No Advance Rulings on Authenticity Without Leave of Court: A party may only seek a ruling on the authenticity of evidence by first securing leave of the Court to present the dispute(s) for adjudication or filing (within thirty days after the close of fact discovery) their request for a ruling. To request leave to seek an early ruling, the party shall file an administrative motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, Ifa dispute remains, MDL Lead Counsel may request an in limine hearing on their objections. Absent exigent circumstances or Court Order, in limine hearings may only occur every ninety (90) days or after the accumulation of 50 or more unresolved written objections, whichever is sooner. All objected to exhibits will be presented in one filing. Any ruling shall be treated as any other pre-trial ruling in limine at trial. Unless and until the Court orders otherwise (upon application of a party or sua sponte), except to the extent necessary to rule upon any application to take limited discovery pursuant to Paragraph 4 above, -|5- ORDER RE: DEPOSITION PROTOCOL MDL NO. 3084 CRB"}, {"d": 45, "p": 82, "t": "Case 3:23-md-03084-CRB Document 866 Filed 08/09/24 Page 16 of 19 the Court will not rule on disputes about the authenticity of any documents subject to this Order until after the parties complete discovery. In advance of that time, the parties shall meet and confer to propose a process and deadlines to resolve any disputes concerning the authenticity of documents subject to this Order. @. Parties to Meet and Confer on Disputes: The parties shall make good faith, cooperative efforts, through the meet and confer process or otherwise, to resolve any issues or disputes concerning this Order and the authenticity of documents subject to this Order to minimize the time and resources of the parties and of the Courts devoted to such matters. A party may seek relief from the Court only after meeting and conferring with the opposing parties. 10 K. Disputes During Depositions ia Disputes between the MDL parties shall be addressed to this Court rather than the District Court in the District in which the deposition is being conducted. Disputes arising during depositions that cannot be resolved by agreement and that, if not immediately resolved, will significantly disrupt the discovery schedule, or require rescheduling of the deposition, or might result in the need to conduct a supplemental deposition, shall be presented to Magistrate Judge Cisneros or, if she is unavailable, to the Court by telephone at 415-522-2043. In the event the Court and Magistrate Judge Cisneros are unavailable by telephone to resolve disputes arising during the deposition, the deposition shall nevertheless continue to be taken as to matters not in dispute. Nothing in this Order shall deny counsel the right to (1) suspend a deposition pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(3); (2) file an appropriate motion with Magistrate Judge Cisneros after the deposition, and appear personally before Magistrate Judge Cisneros, or (3) file a motion to prevent any decision or recommendation of Magistrate Judge Cisneros from taking effect as may be otherwise permitted. F, Video Depositions By so indicating in its notice of a deposition, a party, at its expense, may record a deposition by videotape or digitally recorded video pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3) subject to the following rules: -16- ORDER RE: DEPOSITION PROTOCOL MDL NO. 3084 CRB"}, {"d": 45, "p": 83, "t": "Case 3:23-md-03084-CRB i. Document 866 Filed 08/09/24 Page 17 of 19 Real-Time Feed. All video depositions will be steno-graphically recorded by a court reporter with real-time feed capabilities. 2. Video Operator. The operator(s) of the video recording equipment shall be subject to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(c). At the commencement of the deposition, the operator(s) sb Attendance. Each witness, attorney, and other person attending the deposition shall be identified on the record at the commencement of the deposition. Under no circumstances may CO 3, a person attend the deposition remotely in any manner without being identified, pursuant to section SS DR shall swear or affirm to record the proceedings fairly and accurately. I(E)(5), above. 4. Standards, Unless physically incapacitated, the deponent and examiner shall be seated at a table except when reviewing or presenting demonstrative materials for which a change in position is needed. To the extent practicable, the deposition will be videotaped against a solid background with only such lighting as is required for accurate video recording. Lighting, camera angle, lens setting, and field of view shall be nonobtrusive to the deponent and will be changed only as necessary to record accurately the natural body movements of the deponent. All parties may inspect the image to be recorded, including the framing of the witness as it will appear on camera. Exhibits or demonstrative aids used in the examination may be video recorded by separate video recording equipment at the expense of the party wishing to do so. Any demonstrative aids used in the examination will be marked as exhibits for future determination by the Court as to whether inclusion on screen is appropriate. Sound levels will be altered only as necessary to record satisfactorily the voices of counsel and the deponent. 5. Filing. The video operator(s) shall preserve custody of the original video medium (tape or DVD) in its original condition until further order of the Court. 6. Interruptions, No attorney or party shall direct instructions to the video operator as to the method of operating the equipment, The video camera operation will be suspended during the deposition only upon stipulation by counsel. 7. Other Recording. No one shall use any form of recording device to record the deposition during a deposition other than the designated videographer or court reporter. This shall -{7- ORDER RE: DEPOSITION PROTOCOL MDL NO. 3084 CRB"}, {"d": 45, "p": 84, "t": "Case 3:23-md-03084-CRB Document 866 Filed 08/09/24 Page 18 of 19 include recording using any form of remote transmitting device, computer recording device, laptop, camera, and personal device, including smart phones, tablets, iPads, Androids, iPhones, Blackberries, or other PDAs. Any person who violates this provision shall be immediately identified and reported to the Court for the possible imposition of sanctions. Nothing in this provision prevents or limits the taking of notes by those identified on record. 8. Stenographic Record: A written transcript by the Court reporter shall constitute the official record of the deposition for purposes of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(e) and 30(f). G. Correction and Signing of Depositions Unless waived by the deponent, the transcript of a deposition shall be submitted to the deponent for correction and signature within thirty calendar days after the end of the deposition. The deposition may be signed by the deponent before any notary within thirty (30) calendar days after the transcript is submitted to the deponent. If no corrections are made during this time, the transcript will be presumed accurate. If the witness is not represented by counsel, the original transcript will be sent to the witness by the court reporter. After review, correction, and signature within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt, the witness shall return the original transcript to the court reporter, who will notify all counsel of its receipt and any changes to testimony made by the witness. If no corrections are made during this time, the transcript will be deemed to be accurate. The court reporter will provide the original transcript to the first examining attorney. If, for any reason, the original is lost, misplaced, not returned, not signed, or unavailable, a certified copy may be used in its place for all purposes. H. Cost of Deposition The noticing party shail bear the initial expense of both videotaping and stenographic recording. The parties shall pay for their own copies of transcripts and videotapes of depositions. I. Guidelines for Professional Conduct and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Applicable The parties incorporate herein the Guidelines for Professional Conduct, including those related to Discovery and Depositions, of the United States District Court, for the Northern District ~ 18 - ORDER RE: DEPOSITION PROTOCOL MDL NO. 3084 CRB"}, {"d": 45, "p": 85, "t": "Case 3:23-md-03084-CRB Document 866 Filed 08/09/24 Page 19 of 19 of California. Unless specifically modified herein, nothing in this order shall be construed to abrogate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of this Court, IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: August 9, 2024 3076492.) -19- ORDER RE: DEPOSITION PROTOCOL MDL NO. 3084 CRB"}, {"d": 46, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED al Sarat ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 Case No, CJ-2025-135 Defendants. Sygate Ne STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., tt! et Samet Vv. COUNTY, OKLAHOMA July 27, 2026 4:54 PM Saat Plaintiffs, COMANCHE Saat NEIL & LACY WEST, DISTRICT COURT DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION TO ENFORCE AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS"}, {"d": 46, "p": 2, "t": "Plaintiffs’ “Renewed Motion to Enforce” (herein, “Renewed Motion”) is yet another increasingly unreasonable request for sanctions based on alleged “delays” that, in fact, stem directly from the extraordinarily broad scope of Plaintiffs’ own discovery requests. As set forth in Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s (“State Farm’s”) May 22, 2026 Motion for Extension, its June 19 Response to Plaintiff’s prior Motion to Enforce, and its Reply/Supplement in Support of its Motion for Extension filed July 20, State Farm has been continuously working to collect, review for responsiveness, and produce hundreds of thousands of documents subject to the Court’s April 22, 2026 Order. While State Farm was unable to complete this burdensome undertaking by June 1, 2026,' it has now produced over 700,000 documents in compliance with the Order and has supplemented its Responses to Interrogatories (the “Supplemental Responses”) based on the documents it produced, as well as its reasonably diligent (and continuing) search for documents the interrogatories asked it to “identify.” There is no basis for “discovery sanctions” for State Farm’s inability to provide its Supplemental Responses by June 1, given that State Farm (1) knew it was not going to be able to complete its productions by June | and thus on May 22 sought an extension of the date for compliance with this Court, and (2) made a substantial production on June | of documents responsive to the interrogatories and continuous productions thereafter, prioritizing documents involving Ms. Manduca in light of her scheduled deposition. In any event, State Farm served its Supplemental Responses on July 17, 2026, when it could do so with reasonable completeness, which should render Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion moot. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND State Farm does not here repeat the factual background of the insurance claim but refers the Court to prior discovery briefing and State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment to re-urge that the ' At the June [, 2026 virtual status conference, the Court preliminarily extended State Farm’s date to try to complete its productions in compliance with the Order to June 15. I"}, {"d": 46, "p": 3, "t": "ordered discovery is disproportionate to the facts of this case and that the request for sanctions of adverse instructions or loss of defenses is not only legally wrong, but itself disproportionate to the circumstance and Plaintiffs’ own discovery history. State Farm does, however, repeat the discovery history given that Plaintiffs’ purported sanction motion is apparently based on the claimed failure to supplement interrogatory responses, which were tied primarily to document production. At the outset of this case, State Farm produced all claim-specific documents, including Plaintiffs’ policy, their Claim File, and basic underwriting information for their property. In addition, upon the Court’s entry of the Protective Order, State Farm produced, infer alia: underwriting guidelines in effect when the Policy was issued, applicable claimhandling guidelines in place at the time of the alleged loss, Wind and Hail Guidelines from 2020 and 2021, and similar claim handling information. Plaintiffs also requested, moved to compel, and have now received over 700,000 State Farm documents that have nothing to do with the claim decision they are challenging, but that Plaintiffs allege are necessary to prove their theory around the served State Farm with FME. Specifically, during discovery, Plaintiffs 123 written discovery requests (including 34 interrogatories, 59 document requests, and 30 requests for admission), and the Court’s April 22 Order granted many of these requests, though it denied others. Among other things, this Order required State Farm to produce, by June 1, claims training materials between 2019 and 2025; information between 2019 and 2025 regarding the replacements, indemnity FME and other “wind/hail initiatives,” including purported tracking of roof savings, and payment volumes; six years of documents and communications relating to managerial approval requirements for full roof replacements; documents about alleged efforts to reduce indemnity payments for wind/hail claims; and all documents previously produced or ordered in six unrelated lawsuits. The Court also ordered State Farm to"}, {"d": 46, "p": 4, "t": "produce Fire Property Claims Quality Plans between 2019 and 2025 plus documents on initiatives concerming indemnity payments and roof replacement ratios, approval rates and payments, and emails or other correspondence to or from Nicole Manduca, Sharon Arnold, Tom Moss, and Susan Maynard, from 2019 to 2025, about the FME and various metrics relating to roof replacements, even though none of these individuals were involved in any aspect of the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim. Although the Order indicated that the Court Clerk would mail a copy to the parties, counsel for State Farm was not aware of and did not receive a copy of the Order until May 4, 2026 (and then only from counsel for Plaintiffs). As a result, State Farm’s time to comply with the Order was reduced by 12 days. While State Farm respectfully disagrees that the discovery at issue in the Order is at all relevant or proportional to the claims and defenses in this lawsuit, immediately following receipt of the Order, State Farm began working diligently to identify, review, and produce documents potentially responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests. Given the volume of documents involved, State Farm’s late notice of the Order, and the fact that many of the requests seek data from proprietary, internal systems and repositories across several business functions, State Farm moved the Court on May 22, 2026, for a 60-day extension of the Court’s June | deadline to comply with the discovery order, until July 30, 2026. (See May 22, 2026 Motion for Extension.) As State Farm explained in its motion, the Court’s Order implicates hundreds of thousands of documents over a six-and-a-half-year period from files of dozens of employees, including institutional communications, training materials, enterprise policies, and documents from State Farm’s P&C Claims division. State Farm nonetheless continued to work diligently to collect, review, and prepare documents for production in compliance with the Order, and was able to produce nearly 50,000 documents by June 1, and has now produced over 700,000 total documents. documents These included reproductions from other matters, which involved dozens of production"}, {"d": 46, "p": 5, "t": "volumes from separate workspaces and required State Farm to engage a third-party discovery vendor to complete. State Farm’s discovery vendor had to export many of these production volumes to a new workspace, run each production with its original Bates numbering and, once all these productions were complete, re-run each production to add Bates numbering specific to West. Because State Farm’s Supplemental Responses were based in large part on State Farm’s investigation and review of the documents it has produced, the same complicating factors that extended the time it took for State Farm to produce documents caused a reasonable and justifiable delay in State Farm’s ability to supplement its Responses to Interrogatories—which it has now served. Il. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES A. There Is Good Cause to Extend the Deadline for State Farm’s Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories, and State Farm’s Inability to Meet the Original Deadline Is Not Cause for Sanctions. As set forth in State Farm’s Motion for Extension, Reply in Support of its Motion for Extension, and its Response to Plaintiffs’ First Motion for Enforcement, there is good cause for the Court to modify its interlocutory? Order and extend the deadline for State Farm’s compliance. State Farm has, since learning of the Court’s Order, been consistently working to produce—and has now produced—more than 700,000 documents (at the last hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel identified it as 800,000 documents) responsive to Plaintiffs’ wide-ranging discovery requests. Supplementing its ? A district court has the inherent authority to reconsider or modify an interlocutory, non-appealable order any time prior to entering final judgment. See Kordis v. Kordis, 2001 OK 99, { 9, 37 P.3d 866, 870 (citing Reams v. Tulsa Cable Television, Inc., 1979 OK 171, 604 P.2d 373). As the Oklahoma Supreme Court has confirmed, “{a] trial court’s discretion to modify one of its interlocutory orders anterior to judgment is within the court’s ‘complete control’ and not limited to [specific causes under 12 O.S. § 1031].” Andrew v. Depani-Sparkes, 2017 OK 42, 4 17, 396 P.3d 210, 218 (quoting LCR v. Linwood Props., 1996 OK 73, 918 P.2d 1388, 1393). “[T]he trial court ts not bound by, and may hence reconsider, all of its mid-litigation rulings at any time before the case comes to an end.” Conterez v. O'Donnell, 2002 OK 67, J 7, 58 P.3d 759, 761-62; see also Snow v. TravelCenters of Am. LLC, 2023 OK CIV APP 8, § 10, 527 P.3d 741, 746 (A district court ruling which lacks finality and appealability is but an intermediate order in the case, [and remains] within the trial judge's complete control to modify or alter at any time before judgment.”). 4"}, {"d": 46, "p": 6, "t": "Responses to Interrogatories required State Farm to first search for documents the interrogatories requested and then review and analyze documents to determine whether they were responsive. Plaintiffs have asserted no prejudice resulting from extending the June 1, 2026 deadline. In their Motion, Plaintiffs contend (without factual support) that “State Farm has NO Excuse for Not Complying with the Court’s Order” (see Mot. at 2) and assert generally that “Oklahoma law mandates that insurance claims be handled ina timely and prompt basis.” (/d.) But Plaintiffs provide no facts, no documents, and no declarations showing that State Farm’s inability to meet the June 1 deadline has, in any way, prejudiced Plaintiffs or unduly delayed this case. Nor do Plaintiffs even allege that they have suffered any “prejudice” or “harm” by the delay, despite insisting that the delay constitutes “severe sanctionable conduct.” See Mot. at 3. While Plaintiffs remark that the weather event at issue in this case occurred in “June 2023” (see Mot. at 2), insinuating that State Farm is somehow responsible for delaying the resolution of this action, this is typical one-sided hyperbole. Plaintiffs’ (1) did not report the claim for more than a month after the weather event, (2) did not return State Farm’s calls about the claim for more than a month, (3) did not follow up with any objection to State Farm’s claim decision for almost six months, and (4) then did not even file their lawsuit until February 28, 2025. This case has been pending for less time than the nearly two years Plaintiffs waited to file it. Nor is there any merit to Plaintiffs’ contention that “State Farm has had months to fashion interrogatory responses but is intentionally delaying providing this information as Plaintiffs move forward with key depositions and discovery in this case.” (See Mot. at 2.) State Farm first received notice of the Court’s Order on May 4, less than a month before the June I deadline. Between the time State Farm received notice * As State Farm explained in its July 20, 2026 Reply in Support of its Opposed Motion for Extension of Time, despite its best efforts, its investigation into certain discovery requests remains ongoing. To the extent State Farm identifies additional responsive documents, State Farm will supplement its interrogatories as necessary."}, {"d": 46, "p": 7, "t": "of the Court’s Order and Plaintiffs filed this Renewed Motion, State Farm worked diligently to produce the documents that would inform their Supplemental Responses and sought an extension of the deadline from this Court. In any event, State Farm remedied the issue by providing its Supplemental Responses on July 17, 2026, after conducting a reasonably diligent investigation and search for documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories. State Farm’s delay was attributable to the enormity of Plaintiffs’ document requests and the complexity of the document production process that informed its Supplemental Responses, not any lack of diligence and certainly not as part of any tactical decision to delay production. Further, as soon as State Farm realized that it would be unable to comply by the original deadline, it notified the Court and Plaintiffs and moved for an extension, and the Court allowed State Farm another two weeks to endeavor to complete its productions. On these facts, there is no basis for discovery sanctions. Further, most of the interrogatories the Court ordered supplemented were, as noted, requests to identify certain documents (Rogs 5, 9-12, 14, 19-21, 24) or questions specifically about FME (Rogs Rogs 6, 7, 13, 28, 29), as is evidenced by the focus of their motion. That is all information Plaintiffs could have and, in most instances, did ask of Ms. Manduca when they deposed her on June 23, 2026. Thus, Plaintiffs had access to the person they described as the “architect” of the FME in that deposition and thus access to the information requested via the interrogatories and otherwise. There was no prejudice, no denial of access to information, and no good faith basis for any sanction, particularly given that State Farm, well in advance of its deadline, asked for an extension given that it knew it could not comply as ordered. B. Plaintiffs’ Demand for “Discovery Sanctions” is Meritless. Plaintiffs’ proposed “discovery sanctions” are hyperbolic and without merit. Plaintiffs seek three “sanctions” for State Farm’s inability to search for, process, and produce 700,000 documents 6"}, {"d": 46, "p": 8, "t": "and supplement 20 related interrogatories within 30-45 days depending on the times used as follows: (1) adverse jury instructions as to State Farm’s purported violation of Court orders and alleged withholding of information relating to the FME; (2) orders from the Court allowing certain discovery and depositions following receipt of such interrogatory responses to be determined by the Plaintiffs; and (3) any other sanction the Court deems appropriate. In the rare cases where sanctions are even appropriate (and they are not here), Oklahoma courts require sanctions to be proportional to the alleged discovery violation and grounded in prejudice and culpability. In Barnett v. Simmons, 2008 OK 100, 99 17-24, 197 P.3d 12, the Oklahoma Supreme Court explained that a trial court evaluating discovery sanctions should consider, among other things, whether a party failed to obey a court order, whether the party violated a duty to preserve evidence, the degree of culpability, and whether the opposing party was unfairly prejudiced. Although willfulness is not an absolute prerequisite to every sanction under 12 O.S. § 3237(B)(2), culpability remains central to the severity and propriety of the sanction imposed. Id. 4 17-19. That is especially true for the extraordinary sanction Plaintiffs request here—an adverse inference instruction. Oklahoma’s uniform instruction governing an inference from failure to produce evidence provides that, as a general matter, no such instruction should be given merely because a party did not produce evidence or a witness. OUJI-CIV 3.11. An adverse inference instruction may be appropriate only in the spoliation context, where the court first finds a duty to preserve the evidence and willful destruction, withholding, or failure to preserve it. OUJI-CIV 3.11 A; Phillips v. Nat'l Oilwell Varco, L.P.,2024 OK CIV APP 4, J 17-18, 544 P.3d 980 (discussing QUJI-CIV 3.11A and the requirement that the court make threshold findings before giving a spoliation instruction)."}, {"d": 46, "p": 9, "t": "Oklahoma courts have therefore treated adverse inference instructions as a harsh remedy reserved for materially different circumstances than those presented here. See, e.g., Akins v. Ben Milam Heat, Air & Elec, Inc., 2019 OK CIV APP 52, J] 23-27, 451 P.3d 166 (reversing adverse inference instruction where the record did not support the required culpability and prejudice findings and recognizing the significant effect such an instruction can have on the jury). Simply put, the adverse inference instruction under Oklahoma law is designed for spoliation of evidence—the willful destruction, withholding, or failure to preserve evidence—not for a delayed supplementation of interrogatory responses where the information still exists and has been produced.’ This is not a case where the delay has resulted in spoliation of evidence, and even in such cases, no sanction is warranted where the conduct is substantially justified and not undertaken in bad faith, See Barnett, 2008 OK 100, §§ 17-24 (affirming denial of fees as a spoliation sanction where the party was substantially justified given the complex nature of digital forensics and electronic discovery and his novice level of knowledge at that time); Akins, 2019 OK CIV APP 52, [23-27 (reversing adverse jury instruction for spoliation of evidence where plaintiffs had reasonable explanations for their failure to preserve the evidence at issue). Plaintiffs do not allege spoliation or identify any other bad faith conduct by State Farm, relying instead on the conclusory allegation that “State Farm’s tactic is more delay and to thumb its nose at Court orders across Oklahoma.” (Mot. at 2.) They identify no destroyed evidence, no hidden evidence, and no willful withholding designed to deprive Plaintiffs of proof, nor could they, since State Farm has since ‘ Oklahoma cases addressing failures to supplement interrogatory responses confirm that, even if State Farm had failed to supplement its interrogatory responses—which it has not— different remedies would be implicated. In West v. Cajuns Wharf, Inc., 1988 OK 92, 4] 8-10, 770 P.2d 558, for example, the Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed whether a new trial was warranted where a party failed to supplement interrogatory responses identifying a key witness. The Court focused on whether the withheld information caused significant prejudice and whether the moving party exercised diligence—not on imposing an adverse inference instruction. Jd."}, {"d": 46, "p": 10, "t": "provided the Supplemental Responses at issue and will further supplement its interrogatories if and when it uncovers additional responsive information. Section 3237 likewise does not support the extraordinary relief Plaintiffs seek where the record shows continuing good-faith compliance, rolling productions, and ongoing supplementation, because such conduct does not constitute “abusive litigation practices” or “abuse of judicial process.” 12 OS. § 3237(B)(2). At a minimum, the scope, timing, volume, and technical complexity of the ordered discovery justify State Farm’s actions, as well as its forthrightness as to its ability to comply from the beginning. Indeed, none of the sanctions Plaintiffs request are necessary or appropriate, most critically because Plaintiffs can show no prejudice resulting from the delay of approximately one month between the original deadline and when they received the Supplemental Responses. And, as noted, they had access to information they believed they urgently needed regarding State Farm’s productions through Ms. Manduca. Nor do Plaintiffs cite any authority supporting their vague request for undefined orders from the Court allowing “certain discovery and depositions” that are “to be determined by the Plaintiffs.’ Discovery under Oklahoma law must be relevant and proportional, and Plaintiffs are not entitled to any discovery they deem fit, particularly because they cannot even articulate what additional discovery they are seeking and how it relates to the claims and defenses of their single homeowner insurance case. Furthermore, as State Farm noted in its Response to Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Enforce, Plaintiffs are asking this Court to impose sanctions for alleged delay despite their own discovery delays. Plaintiffs themselves did not respond to State Farm’s very basic, Plaintiff-specific discovery until 80 days after their responses were due, and then only after State to compel. See State Farm’s Motion to Compel, filed December 12, 2025. Farm moved Once Plaintiffs did"}, {"d": 46, "p": 11, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 27th day of July, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 1]"}, {"d": 46, "p": 12, "t": "respond, they argued “no harm no foul” and demanded that State Farm withdraw its motion as improper. Thus, it took Plaintiffs 80 days to produce approximately 700 pages (comprising maybe 100 documents) and they, to this day, continue to supplement with information called for by the original requests. Plaintiffs’ own delays make their request for sanctions even more unreasonable and untenable. See Paycom Payroll, LLC v. Boodoosingh, 2021 OK CIV APP 43 (reversing fee award where there was a mutual lack of professional courtesy between the parties and their counsel). CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiff's Renewed abe Motion to Enforce, Request for Expedited Hearing, and Request for Discovery Vat ie Sanctigis. OBA #14310 Paige A. Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M! Finch, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave. Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8273 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 10 -"}, {"d": 47, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED NEIL and LACY WEST, DISTRICT COURT _ COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Plaintiffs, July 29, 2026 11:11 AM V. ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 COMPANY FIRE AND CASUALTY CASE NO. CJ-2025-135 Hon. Grant Shepard and NANCY HOLCOMB AGENCY, INC., INS. Defendants. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE R. Ryan Deligans hereby enters their appearance as counsel of record for Plaintiffs, Neil and Lacy West, in the above captioned case. Oklahoma City, OK 73102-2610 Telephone: (405) 235-9584 Facsimile: (405) 235-0551 rdeligans@dlb.net ~and~ Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 Whitten Burrage 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300"}, {"d": 47, "p": 2, "t": "Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage(@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com -and- Brad Burgess, Esq. Colby Stephenson, Esq. BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 44th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 Telephone: (580) 355-8920 Facsimile: (580) 355-8999 brad@burgess-hightower.com colby@burgess-hightower.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs"}, {"d": 47, "p": 3, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 29, 2026, the above and foregoing was emailed and/or mailed to: Timila S. Rother Paige A. Masters CROWE & DUNLEVY, PC Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com -and- Lance E. Leffel GABLE GOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com Attorneys for Defendants ) Rydh Deligans"}, {"d": 48, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY FILED NEIL and LACY WEST, DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Plaintiffs, August 6, 2026 4:45 PM STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. Case No. CJ-2025-135 el Vv. Case Number CJ-2025-135 ee ee ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK. DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION NOTICE OF STATE FARM’S CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JON FARNEY"}, {"d": 48, "p": 2, "t": "Plaintiffs’ Response to State Farm’s Motion to Quash is long on rhetoric but lacks any justification for deposing State Farm’s CEO. Plaintiffs point to three emails (out of over 700,000 documents State Farm has produced) which show de minimis reference to Mr. Farney—and nothing relevant to this claim or to the FME. Certainly, there is nothing relevant that has not been or could not have been covered with other State Farm employees who are included on those emails, including Ms. Manduca (who has already been deposed) and Mr. Welsh (whose deposition has been ordered). None of those emails suggest Mr. Farney has any unique, relevant knowledge: indeed, they suggest the opposite. Ordering the deposition of Mr. Farney in these circumstances would be unprecedented: Plaintiffs cite no case in which a defendant was forced to produce its highest-ranking executive for a deposition on arguments as flimsy as these. I. MR. FARNEY’S TESTIMONY IS NOT UNIQUELY RELEVANT TO THIS CASE. A. Plaintiffs Concede Mr. Farney Has No Unique, Relevant Information Regarding Their Insurance Claim. Courts across the country have repeatedly quashed depositions of “apex” witnesses like Mr. Farney when the party seeking the deposition could not articulate any unique, relevant testimony the proposed deponent could provide.’ (See Mot. at 7-10 (citing cases).)” As set forth ' Plaintiffs’ suggestion that State Farm has failed to meet its “burden” to establish the “marginal relevance” of Mr. Farney’s testimony (see Pls.’ Resp. at 9) has no basis in fact. State Farm has submitted declarations from both Mr. Farney and Ms. Manduca establishing that Mr. Farney has no unique, relevant information about Plaintiffs’ insurance claim or the FME. Plaintiffs submit no evidence to the contrary. * None of the cases Plaintiffs cite are contrary. Rather, Plaintiffs miscite numerous cases regarding depositions of non-apex witnesses. See, e.g., Kulp Minerals, LLC v. Apache Corp., No. 2:23-408 KG/KRS, 2025 WL 872531, at *3 (D.N.M. Mar. 20, 2025) (permitting depositions of an accountant and the accountant’s supervisor after a corporate representative “testif[ied] that [the accountants] had personal knowledge of Defendant’s payment and invoicing processes”); Halley v. State of Okla., No. 14-CV-562-JHP, 2016 WL 4995393, at *1 (E.D. Okla. Sept. 19, 2016) (denying motion to quash deposition of eight-year-old “on whose behalf [the] case was brought”); Denson v. Corp. of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, No. 2:18-cv-00284, 2018 WL 10247390, at *1 (D. Utah Dec. 4, 2018) (denying motion to quash third-party subpoena 1"}, {"d": 48, "p": 3, "t": "in Mr. Farney’s declaration (and while it may have gone without saying, but to be clear) Mr. Farney did not assist Plaintiffs in procuring their Policy or have any involvement in the investigation, evaluation, or decisions regarding Plaintiffs’ insurance claim. (See Ex. 2, J. Farney Decl. 4 5-6.) Plaintiffs concede these facts. (See Pls.’ Resp. at 7 (“Plaintiffs do not allege Farney performed specific adjusting tasks on Plaintiffs’ Claim.”).) B. Plaintiffs Concede—By Their Silence—That Mr. Farney Has No Unique, Relevant Information Regarding The FME. In their transmittal letter accompanying the Farney Notice, Plaintiffs initially contended that Mr. Farney’s testimony was relevant because he was copied on unidentified “emails back in 2019” supposedly related to the FME. (See Mot. at Ex. 3, Letter from B. Sonne (June 30, 2026).) As State Farm explained in its Motion, none of those referenced emails has anything to do with the FME. (See Mot. at 16-17.) And in any event, Mr. Farney was not directly involved in the FME and did not attend the FME meetings. (See Mot. at Ex. 2, J. Farney Decl. 7; id. at Ex. 4, N. Manduca Decl. 45.) In their Opposition, Plaintiffs do not attach such emails and do not even account for their prior allegation that Mr. Farney was “involved” in the FME. Indeed, they only to fact witness in sexual assault case); Roberts v. City of Riverside, No. 5:19-cv-01877-JGB-SHK, 2021 WL 5993528, at *1, 8 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2021) (denying motion to prohibit deposition of police officer witnesses in wrongful conviction case where officers were previously defendants); Tri Minh Huynh v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., No. 18-cv-01631-VC (SK), 2019 WL 4645724, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2019) (denying plaintiff’s motion to quash the deposition of his wife where plaintiff claimed emotional distress); Jennings v. Family Mgmt., 201 F.R.D. 272, 273-79 (D.D.C. 2001) (granting motion to compel deposition of plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorney where plaintiff’s state of mind was at issue); Naftchi v. New York Univ. Med, Ctr, 172 F.R.D. 130, 132-33 (S.D.N-Y. 1997) (denying motion to quash deposition of one of several named defendants where defendant “does not assert that he lacks familiarity with any of the matters at issue”); Frideres v. Schiltz, 150 F.R.D. 153, 159 (S.D. Iowa 1993) (granting protective order as to deposition of plaintiff’s sister in sexual assault case); Motsinger v. Flynt, 119 F.R.D. 373, 378-79 (M.D.N.C. 1988) (granting plaintiffs’ motion to continue his deposition due to illness); Zn re McCorhill Pub., Inc., 91 B.R. 223, 224 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988) (granting creditor’s motion for a protective order to prevent the deposition of its Chairman of the Board); Reed v. Illinois, 318 F.R.D. 77, 81 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (denying motion by non-party, the sister of the plaintiff, to quash a third-party subpoena)."}, {"d": 48, "p": 4, "t": "mention the FME once, in introductory filler unrelated to Mr. Farney. (See Pls.’ Resp. at 1-2.) While Plaintiffs argue generally that “pattern and practice” evidence is relevant to bad faith claims (see id. at 11-12), they provide no connection between Mr. Farney and any “pattern and practice” regarding the FME or anything else alleged to apply to Plaintiffs’ claim.* As such, they concede that Mr. Farney has no unique, relevant information regarding the initiative that—up until now— Plaintiffs have repeatedly represented was the supposed “scheme.” C. The FPTF Is Not Relevant And Mr. Farney Does Not Have Unique Personal Knowledge. Unable to justify Mr. Farney’s deposition based on unique knowledge of their claim or FME, Plaintiffs make a new claim—that a Fix Profit Task Force (“FPTF”) “continued to develop and implement” the “tactics” created by the FME. (See Pls.’ Resp. at 2.) evidence whatsoever for that notion—nor is it true. Plaintiffs provide no In fact, as Ms. Manduca explains in her declaration in support of State Farm’s Motion, the FPTF and FME have nothing to do with each other. (See Ex. 4, N. Manduca Decl. § 6.) The Court should not allow Plaintiffs to depose State Farm’s highest-ranking executive based on new speculation supported by absolutely nothing. But even if, counterfactually, the FPTF were relevant, Plaintiffs provide no evidence that Mr. Farney has any unique, relevant knowledge regarding the FPTF. Rather, out of the over 700,000 > Again, none of the “pattern and practice” cases cited by Plaintiffs is on point: none grants an apex deposition on the basis of such allegations. See, e.g., Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co. v. Russell, 2025 OK 79, 579 P.3d 728, 729 (ruling that certain claims files “may be produced with proper redactions to personal identifiers”); Barnes v. Okla. Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co., 2000 OK 55, 11 P.3d 162, 170 (discussing availability of punitive damages in bad faith action); Magellan v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 16-CV-668-CVE-FHM, 2017 WL 3579209, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 18, 2017) (granting in part motion to compel certain claims files); Reibert v. CSAA Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 17-CV-350-CVE-JFJ, 2018 WL 279348, at *8 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 3, 2018) (granting motion to compel document discovery in bad faith case); Vining v. Enterprise Fin. Grp., 148 F.3d 1206, 1218 (10th Cir. 1998) (discussing the admissibility of documentary evidence in bad faith action); Metzger v. Am. Fidelity Assurance Co., No. CIV-05-1387-M, 2007 WL 4342082, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 7, 2007) (ruling on motions in limine)."}, {"d": 48, "p": 5, "t": "documents State Farm produced in this case, Plaintiffs cite to three emails that include Mr. Farney, all of which also include multiple other individuals—and only one of which relates to the FPTF:* Plaintiffs attach a December 16, 2023 email from Michael Roper to Mr. Farney and sixteen other State Farm employees, with high level data about claims trends. (See Pls.’ Resp. at Ex. 3, WEST00020132-33.) While Plaintiffs focus on one line in this email, they fail to mention that they already questioned Ms. Manduca about this line—and she made clear that the line referred to automobile claims. Plaintiffs do not explain why such testimony is relevant in a homeowners’ case or—even if it were relevant—why Mr. Farney, rather than the author of the email or one of the sixteen other employees copied on it, is uniquely positioned to testify regarding its contents. Plaintiffs cite to a December 14, 2023 email from Mr. Farney changing the agenda of a single meeting of the FPTF. (See Pls.’ Resp. at Ex. 3, WEST00020133.)° Plaintiffs do not provide any evidence that Mr. Farney—trather than one of the other seventeen State Farm employees who received the revised meeting notice—has any unique, relevant knowledge of what was discussed at that or any other FPTF meeting, let alone that any FPTF meeting, including the one in question, had anything to do with the claims and defenses in this case. Plaintiffs attach an October 5, 2021 email from Tracy Haus, a Louisville, Kentucky State Farm agent, to State Farm’s executives, including Mr. Farney. (See Resp. at Ex. 6.) There is no indication that Mr. Farney even read this email, and the follow up email shows that any response was delegated to others. (/d.) Once again, Plaintiffs do not explain why testimony regarding an email pre-dating the date of loss by nearly two years is relevant here, or why Mr. Farney, rather than those to whom a response was delegated, is uniquely positioned to testify on this email. There is nothing unique—or relevant—about Mr. Farney’s supposed “involvement” in the FPTF that requires Plaintiffs to depose State Farm’s CEO.° + Nor are Plaintiffs’ citation to documents regarding “reinspection results” at all relevant (see Resp. at 4.) State Farm has a reinspection process by which claim handling is evaluated post hoc to identify both overpayments and underpayments—and State Farm does not request repayment if an overpayment is identified during reinspection. That State Farm tracks these results, along with the percentage of claims that are “closed without payment” (or “CWP”) is not nefarious but is part of its larger effort to ensure that claims are paid correctly. > Plaintiffs also mischaracterize this email and incorrectly assert that the purpose of all FPTF meetings was to discuss claim payment trends when the document shows that the whole point was to change just one meeting to that discussion. (See Resp. at 2, citing Ex. 3.) ° Plaintiffs cite only four cases regarding apex depositions—none of which supports Plaintiffs’ demands. See, e.g., Rolscreen Co. v. Pella Prods. of St. Louis, Inc., 145 F.R.D. 92, 96-98 (S.D. 4"}, {"d": 48, "p": 6, "t": "IL. THE DEPOSITION OF MR. FARNEY IS NOT PROPORTIONAL. Plaintiffs’ Response also confirms Mr. Farney’s deposition is entirely disproportionate. Despite now having access to over 700,000 State Farm documents, having deposed Ms. Manduca for 6 hours, and with the depositions of four other senior claim personnel ordered by the Court, Plaintiffs are unable to identify a single fact to which Mr. Farney could testify that cannot be obtained from some other source—because there is none. Nor do they explain why State Farm’s CEO must spend hours preparing and testifying in a case involving an individual contract dispute. Plaintiffs’ insistence that the tremendous burden to Mr. Farney—and State Farm—of depriving the company of its highest executive for at least a day is alleviated simply because Plaintiffs offer to take the deposition “where Farney is located” (see Pls.’ Resp. at 14) is a non sequitur.’ Courts across the country have routinely quashed similar, burdensome efforts (see Mot. at 7-10) and this Court should do the same. Iowa 1992) (allowing deposition in case regarding termination notice where president admitted that “he approved the sending of the conditional termination notice”); Crest Infiniti, I, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, § 20, 174 P.3d 996, 1005 (issuing a writ of prohibition directing the trial court “not to enforce its order requiring [deponents] to appear for depositions”); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd., 282 F.R.D. 259 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (allowing limited depositions of highranking executives where there was substantial evidence that the executives had unique personal knowledge and personal roles in the challenged actions); Gauthier v. Union Pac. RR. Co., No. 1:07-CV-12 (TH/KFG), 2008 WL 2467016, at *4 (E.D. Tex. June 18, 2008) (quashing deposition notices to four current and former executives of defendant, holding that “Plaintiffs should first attempt to obtain the sought information through . . . less burdensome means of discovery”). ’ Plaintiffs’ references to State Farm’s profitability are also red herrings, because proportionality must be determined “in an even-handed manner that will prevent use of discovery to wage a war of attrition or as a device to coerce a party, whether financially weak or affluent.’ Lawson v. Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., No. 18-1100-EFM-ADM, 2020 WL 3288058, at *14 (D. Kan. June 18. 2020) (emphasis added); see also id. (“[C]onsideration of the parties’ resources does not [in the context of determining proportionality] justify unlimited discovery requests addressed to a wealthy party.”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), Advisory Committee’s Note to 2015 Amendment)."}, {"d": 48, "p": 7, "t": "Respect ly submit su Timila S. Rb i OBA hae 10 Paige A. pes, OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave. Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8273 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 6th day of August, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRMP 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS : \" . | Timila S. Rother 6315353 6 Lhe"}, {"d": 49, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED DISTRICT COURT NEIL and LACY WEST, Plaintiffs, ) COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA ) ) August 10, 2026 1:18 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2025-135 v. ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. ) AGENCY, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER CONSOLIDATING THE DEPOSITIONS OF WENSLEY HERBERT, THOMAS MOSS, KATHY RESS, AND SCOTT WELSH AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”), pursuant to 12 O.S. §§ 3226(B)(2)(c), 3226(C), and 3226.1 and 12 O.S. § 2018(C), respectfully moves for entry of a protective order consolidating Plaintiffs’ noticed depositions of State Farm employees Wensley Herbert, Kathy Ress, and Scott Welsh, and retired employee Thomas Moss (collectively, the “State Farm Deponents”) with the pending depositions of those same individuals ordered in Hursh v. State Farm, Case No. CJ-2025-2626 (Okla. Cty.) (herein, “Hursh”).! Plaintiffs in both this case and Hursh (represented by the same counsel) have sought to take the depositions of the State Farm Deponents not because they have knowledge of the specifics of the insurance claim of these Plaintiffs or any other plaintiffs, but because they allegedly have knowledge of State Farm’s Fire Model Enhancement (“FME”) quality initiative. While State Farm objects to the relevance of the ' State Farm also understands that plaintiffs in Wong-Faust v. State Farm, Case No. CJ-2025-1675 (Okla. Cty.) intend to serve deposition notices for the same individuals. To the extent the WongFaust plaintiffs do so, State Farm intends to request consolidation of those depositions as well. l"}, {"d": 49, "p": 2, "t": "State Farm Deponents’ testimony, to avoid repetitive, inefficient, and burdensome discovery— including undue burdens on Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, Ms. Ress, and Mr. Welsh—State Farm respectfully moves for a protective order consolidating their depositions with the depositions ordered in Hursh. Consolidating the State Farm Deponents’ pending depositions here and in Hursh is consistent with established law and several recent federal decisions in parallel cases against State Farm. In particular, federal courts overseeing nine cases with the same FME allegations have uniformly held that the deposition of Nicole Manduca, a Director in State Farm’s Property & Casualty department, should be consolidated across each of those cases—reasoning that such consolidation is necessary to promote judicial economy and avoid the undue burden that would result from requiring Ms. Manduca to testify repeatedly regarding the same topics in multiple cases. The same reasoning applies here: State Farm requests that this Court follow the example of the federal courts in Barlow, Cisneros, Cook, Dressel, Johnson, Newell, Porter, Stafford, and White, and consolidate the State Farm Deponents’ pending depositions here with their depositions in Hursh. BACKGROUND The central dispute in this case is whether State Farm owes Plaintiffs approximately $50,000 under their insurance policy to replace a roof as a result of a weather event on June 15, 2023. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on February 28, 2025, asserting claims against State Farm for breach of contract and bad faith; claims against agent Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency for negligent procurement; and claims against all Defendants for constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation. (Pet. {§ 40, 45-79.) Plaintiffs allege that this case involves a plan by State Farm to lower indemnity payments by, inter alia, misattributing roof damage from storms to noncovered “wear and tear” through the FME. (See generally id.) 2"}, {"d": 49, "p": 3, "t": "Plaintiffs have noticed the depositions of high-ranking State Farm employees Mr. Herbert, Ms. Ress, and Mr. Welsh, and retired employee Mr. Moss, to which State Farm objected and moved to quash. In response, Plaintiffs urged that—though none of the State Farm Deponents had any connection to the insurance claim at issue—each of these individuals could provide relevant testimony regarding the FME initiative. (See, e.g., June 26, 2026 West Pls.’ Resp. to State Farm’s Mot. to Quash.) Based on the arguments of counsel relating to FME, on July 23, 2026, the Court denied State Farm’s motion to quash the depositions of the State Farm Deponents. The Hursh case involves damages the Hursh plaintiffs claim to have sustained to their house during weather events on October 4, 2023 and May 21, 2024. The Hursh plaintiffs contend State Farm should have paid approximately $22,000 for alleged roof damage and assert claims against State Farm for breach of contract and bad faith, and against all Defendants for constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation. (See Hursh Pet. {§ 40, 45-79.) Just as here, the Hursh plaintiffs allege that their case involves a plan by State Farm to lower indemnity payments by, inter alia, misattributing damage to non-covered “wear and tear.” (See generally id.) The Hursh plaintiffs—represented by Plaintiffs’ counsel—earlier noticed the depositions of several high-ranking State Farm employees, including the State Farm Deponents. State Farm moved to quash the depositions in Hursh, and Plaintiffs’ counsel opposed, contending (just as counsel did here) that while none of the State Farm Deponents was involved in the Hursh’s insurance claim, their depositions were relevant because each was one of the “architects” and “members” of the FME quality initiative. (See, e.g., Nov. 14, 2025 Hursh Pls.’ Consol. Opp. to State Farm’s Mots. to Quash at 2, 12.) State Farm has been directed to produce these four deponents expeditiously and the depositions will commence at the end of August. As previously described in State Farm’s Motions to Quash the Depositions of the State"}, {"d": 49, "p": 4, "t": "Farm Deponents, each is (or, in the case of Mr. Moss, was) a high-ranking State Farm employee, and requiring them to prepare for and sit for a single deposition—let alone multiple depositions— will impose significant burdens on them as individuals and on State Farm as well. There is no reason to require the State Farm Deponents to appear for multiple, 6-hour depositions regarding the same subject matter—i.e., their purported involvement in the FME quality initiative. It is undisputed that none of the State Farm Deponents has specific knowledge regarding the insurance claims of Plaintiffs herein or the Hursh’s. As such, any deposition—conducted by the same counsel in both cases—will be duplicative. The Court, consistent with recent federal court authority consolidating depositions in cases involving the same allegations, should enter a protective order consolidating the depositions of the State Farm Deponents with their depositions in Hursh. ARGUMENT L AND AUTHORITY THE COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO CONSOLIDATE DEPONENTS’ DEPOSITIONS WITH THOSE IN HURSH. THE STATE FARM Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3226(C), the Court “may enter any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, harassment, embarrassment, oppression or undue delay, burden or expense.” 12 O.S. § 3226(C); see also id. at 3226(B)(2)(c) (providing that the Court “shall limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed if it determines that .. . the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by subparagraph a of paragraph 1 of this subsection’); Farmers Ins. Co. v. Peterson, 2003 OK 99, 4 3, 81 P.3d 659, 660 (“Discovery may be limited or denied when discoverable material is sought in an excessively burdensome manner.”); Capitol Records, Inc. v. Foster, No. Civ. 04-1569-W, 2007 WL 9710830, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 10, 2007) (“It is well established that trial courts have broad discretion in issuing protective orders and"}, {"d": 49, "p": 5, "t": "determining what degree of protection is required.”).? Moreover, “[o]n motion or on its own, the court shall limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed if it determines that . . . the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(2)(c)(1); see also Ad Astra Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Heath, No. 18-1145-JWB-ADM, 2019 WL 5864785, at *2 (D. Kan. Nov. 8, 2019) (“The court retains an independent ongoing obligation to assess proportionality.”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendment (stating that courts have a “responsibility to consider the proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving discovery disputes”). Courts also have an obligation to consider proportionality in connection with all discovery. See, e.g., Dodd v. Indian Health Care Res. Ctr. of Tulsa, Inc., No. 24-CV-00327-SH, 2024 WL 4648150, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 1, 2024) (“The proper scope of discovery is that which is both relevant to the claims or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the various factors.””) (emphasis in original); Ad Astra Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Heath, No. 18-1145-JWB-ADM, 2019 WL 5864785, at *2 (D. Kan. Nov. 8, 2019) (“The court retains an independent ongoing obligation to assess proportionality.”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)). Further, and pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2018(C), “when actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it ... may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” ” Because “[t]he Oklahoma Discovery Code mirrors the Federal rules,” Meritor, Inc. v. State ex rel. Bad. of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 2019 OK CIV APP 64, ¢ 20 n.15, 451 P.3d 914, 922 n.15, Oklahoma courts often look to “discovery procedures in the federal rules when construing similar language in the Oklahoma Discovery Code.” Crest Infiniti, IT, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, § 2, 174 P.3d 996, 999. See also A-Plus Janitorial & Carpet Cleaning v. Employers’ Workers’ Comp. Ass'n, 1997 OK 37, J 24 n.42, 936 P.2d 916, 928 n.42 (“The terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 2018(C) and (D) are identical to Federal Rule 42, Fed. R. Civ. P..”). 5"}, {"d": 49, "p": 6, "t": "12 O.S. § 2018(C); see also Hernandez-Blanco v. Grant, No. CIV-26-278-R, 2026 WL 543769, at *] (W.D. Okla. Feb. 26, 2026) (noting that trial courts have “’broad discretion to decide whether consolidation under [the federal equivalent rule] would be desirable.’”) (quoting 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2383 (3d ed. 2008)). Courts are granted “broad discretion” to consolidate for purposes of discovery. Kent v. City of Oklahoma City, 2020 OK CIV APP 21, 4 34, 467 P.3d 726, 734. “Consolidation is a procedural mechanism to enhance the efficiency of judicial process and tts economy.” Jd. If the court determines that “common questions of law or fact” exist and thus consolidation would “plainly foster judicial economy,” consolidation may be granted. Phillips v. Nat’l Oilwell Varco, LP, 2024 OK CIV APP 4, 9 26-27, 544 P.3d 980, 989. Pursuant to this authority, courts may order a single consolidated deposition of a witness across multiple cases. See Section II infra. II. COURTS OVERSEEING NINE SIMILAR FEDERAL ANALOGOUS FEDERAL AUTHORITY, OF STATE FARM DEPOSITIONS. HAVE CASES, RECOGNIZING ORDERED CONSOLIDATION This Court is not the first to consider whether to consolidate a deposition of a State Farm corporate witness with the same witness’s deposition in other cases Plaintiffs’ counsel has brought alleging the same purported corporate misconduct. In nine pending federal cases, courts have granted State Farm’s motions for protective orders consolidating the depositions of Nicole Manduca, a Director in State Farm’s Property & Casualty department who was not involved in the individual plaintiffs’ insurance claims but whom plaintiffs alleged was a participant in the FME initiative and an “architect” of the same supposed scheme alleged in this action.’ See Barlow v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:25-cv-00044-R (W.D. Okla.) (Dkt. No. 97); Cisneros v. State Tn particular, each of these nine orders consolidates the deposition of Ms. Manduca with her deposition in a tenth federal case with the same allegations, Wiesman v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:25-cv-00050-JD (W.D. Okla.)."}, {"d": 49, "p": 7, "t": "Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:25-cv-00042-R (W.D. Okla.) (Dkt. No. 77); Cook v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:25-cv-01098-R (W.D. Okla.) (Dkt. No. 25); Dressel v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:25-cv-00860-HE (W.D. Okla.) (Dkt. No. 46); Johnson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:25-cv-01000-HE (W.D. Okla.) (Dkt. No. 39); Newell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:25-cv-005620-R (W.D. Okla.) (Dkt. No. 54); Porter v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:25cv-00187-R, (W.D. Okla.) (Dkt. No. 81); Stafford v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:25-cv00008-HE (W.D. Okla.) (Dkt. No. 89); White v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:25-cv-00561HE (W.D. Okla.) (Dkt. No. 39). In granting State Farm’s motions to consolidate Ms. Manduca’s deposition across these cases, the federal courts have recognized—over plaintiffs’ objections—that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) (directly analogous to 12 O.S. § 3226(C)) allows a court to “issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” and that a court “may also, on its own, limit discovery that is unreasonably cumulative, can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive, or that [is] outside the scope of permissible discovery.” See, e.g., Newell, Dkt. No. 54 at 2 (attached as Exhibit 1). As those courts held, ‘Plaintiffs’ counsel is seeking to depose Ms. Manduca in several cases that contain similar—if not identical—allegations related to State Farm’s alleged company-wide scheme to reduce wind and hail payments,” and “[g]iven the common topics that are likely to be explored, the need to protect the witness from undue burden, and the need to avoid needless duplication, a consolidated deposition is warranted.” See id. at 3. These federal decisions are consistent with an established body of caselaw, from courts across the country, confirming that trial courts have the authority to order consolidated depositions of common witnesses across multiple cases that involve common issues of law or fact—even"}, {"d": 49, "p": 8, "t": "where the cases remain separate for all other aspects of discovery. See, e.g., Rowe v. Heritage Auto. Grp., Inc., No. 5:17-cv-38, 2018 WL 3458356, at *1-2 (D. Vt. July 18, 2018) (granting request to consolidate deposition of common witnesses across cases because “[a]n order which results in one deposition rather than two in cases which share factual and legal elements is a sound exercise of the discretion and responsibility the civil rules extend to trial judges”); Babjak v. Arcelormittal USA, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-40-JVB-PRC, 2016 WL 4191050, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 9, 2016) (consolidating cases “for a limited purpose—to avoid parallel depositions of fact witnesses”); Hicks v. Grove, No. ELH—12—1422, 2014 WL 768685, at *2 (D. Md. Feb. 25, 2014) (“[T]o save the parties and the witnesses the time and expense of conducting separate depositions, and to avoid establishing the same background facts twice—such as a witness’s personal information, educational background, and employment history—I will require a single deposition of those witnesses with knowledge of facts pertinent to both cases,” but denying motion to consolidate cases in their entirety).* 4 See also Friends of Merrymeeting Bay v. Miller Hydro Group, No. 2:11-cv-36-GZS, 2012 WL 458618, at *1 (D. Me. Feb. 9, 2012) (granting motion to allow plaintiffs to present common witness for consolidated deposition to minimize costs and maximize efficiency, “as compared to four completely separate depositions”); cf J4 Promotions, Inc. v. Splash Dogs, LLC, Nos. 2:09-cv-136, 2:10-cv-432, 2010 WL 3063217, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug 3, 2010), objections overruled, No. 2:09- CV-0136, 2010 WL 4809101 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 18, 2010) (denying motion for consolidation but noting that potential for duplication of depositions of common witnesses with testimony relevant to multiple cases could be addressed through consolidated deposition); Arnold v. City of Columbus, No. 2:08-cv-0031, 2009 WL 10679012, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 23, 2009) (denying motion for consolidation but finding consolidated deposition might be appropriate for common witnesses, such as “if the same investigators have testimony that is relevant to all four cases”); Franklin v, Highland Park Police Officer Hollis Smith, No. 15-12995, 2016 WL 6652744, at *1 (E.D. Mich. July 7, 2016) (explaining that serial depositions of a single witness are disfavored because of the cost and burden, and because they “provide[] the deposing party with an unfair strategic advantage, offering it multiple bites at the apple, each time with better information than the last’); ANN. MANUAL COMPLEX LIT. § 11.45 (4th ed.) (“Depositions . . . tend to be the most costly and time-consuming activity in complex litigation.”). Thus, in related cases “pending before different judges, the judges should attempt to coordinate the depositions of common witnesses[.]” Jd. at § 11.455. Federal courts also routinely prevent multiple depositions of the same witness on the 8"}, {"d": 49, "p": 9, "t": "Oklahoma courts have recognized these same principles. For example, in Phillips v. National Oilwell Varco, LP, 2024 OK CIV APP 4, two plaintiffs filed actions against the same defendant—one in Oklahoma County and the other in Canadian County. /d. at 3. The trial court consolidated these actions in their entirety, and a plaintiff sought appellate review, arguing that the lower court erred in consolidating plaintiffs’ claims. /d. at 91. The appellate court disagreed, reasoning that “[a] trial court has broad discretion to manage the orderly processing of litigation before it, and its decision whether or not to consolidate proceedings for trial will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” Jd. at § 22. Moreover, the appellate court instructed that “[cJonsolidation is a procedural mechanism to enhance the efficiency of judicial process and its economy .... Section 2018 provides for consolidation of actions that deal with common questions of law or fact.” Id. at § 26. The case of McSharry v. UnumProvident Corp. 1s also particularly illustrative of how a court dealing with facts similar to those in this case consolidated depositions to reduce the burden on a deponent facing numerous separate depositions on the same issues. In McSharry, plaintiff, a former UnumProvident employee suing for wrongful termination, alleged that UnumProvident had a practice of denying disability insurance claims. See McSharry v. UnumProvident Corp., No. 0000804 SOM/BMK, 2002 WL 32080544, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 9, 2002). In addition to administering its own disability insurance benefit policies, UnumProvident also administered policies for other insurers. Jd. Separate from McSharry’s suit, certain insureds sued same topics under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), including where the successive depositions are sought by different plaintiffs. See, e.g., In re Lincoln Nat’! COI Litig., No. 16-cv6605-GJP, 2019 WL 7582770, at *3 (E.D. Pa. July 15, 2019) (consolidated cases); Salt Lake City Corp. v. ERM-W.,, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-1174-TS-PMW, 2014 WL 6386802, at *4-6 (D. Utah Nov. 14, 2014) (multiparty case); Hunter's Ridge Golf Co., Inc. v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., No. 3:02-cv602-J-25MCR, 2006 WL 8439142, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 2006) (different cases). 9"}, {"d": 49, "p": 10, "t": "UnumProvident and some of the other insurers for which it administered disability policies for denial of disability benefits. Jd. McSharry received deposition subpoenas from over twenty of those plaintiffs who sought to depose him about UnumProvident’s corporate policies. /d. Those plaintiffs’ depositions of McSharry were initially scheduled to occur over three non-consecutive days. /d. at *2. Both McSharry and Defendants moved to quash the subpoenas. /d. at *1—2. In opposing the motions to quash, the plaintiff insureds conceded that McSharry had no knowledge of or involvement in their individual claims. Rather, they sought to depose him only about his knowledge of UnumProvident’s corporate policies regarding the review of disability claims. The court found that it would be “untenable” for McSharry to be “subjected to numerous depositions concerning the same subject, i.e., the alleged policies and practices of UnumProvident in reviewing disability claims.” Jd. at *2. Accordingly, the court ordered a consolidated deposition of McSharry. /d. at *3. Il. THE COURT, CONSISTENT WITH THIS ESTABLISHED AUTHORITY, SHOULD CONSOLIDATE THE STATE FARM WITH THEIR DEPOSITIONS IN HURSH. DEPONENTS’ DEPOSITIONS Just as in Barlow, Cisneros, Cook, Dressel, Johnson, Newell, Porter, Stafford, and White, Plaintiffs’ counsel has sought the depositions of high-ranking State Farm employees in multiple cases alleging the very same purported scheme. Plaintiffs do not—and cannot—allege any facts showing that the State Farm Deponents have unique information regarding the insurance claims at issue. To the contrary, as Plaintiffs here and in Hursh have both argued (repeatedly), Mr. Herbert’s, Mr. Moss’s, Ms. Ress’s, and Mr. Welsh’s testimony, to the extent it is relevant at all, is related solely to their roles in the FME. As the federal court reasoned in Cook when granting State Farm’s request to consolidate Ms. Manduca’s deposition in that case with her deposition in Wiesman, “courts are generally 10"}, {"d": 49, "p": 11, "t": "encouraged to exercise their discretion to limit the cost and duration of discovery and avoid duplicative discovery.” (Exhibit 2, Cook, Dkt. No. 25 at 3 (quoting Rowe, 2018 WL 3458356, at *1).) The Cook court also highlighted its “authority to consolidate proceedings, including for the limited purpose of conducting a deposition of a witness, when those proceedings share common questions of law or fact.” (/d., Cook, Dkt. No. 25 at 3-4 (citing authorities).) Because plaintiffs’ counsel in Cook, who is also Plaintiffs’ counsel in this case, sought “to depose Ms. Manduca in several cases that contain similar, if not identical, allegations related to the [FME]” and could not “genuinely dispute that Ms. Manduca’s deposition would cover the same factual topics or that a consolidated deposition would be more efficient,” the court found consolidation was warranted to protect Ms. Manduca from undue burden and avoid cumulative discovery. (/d. at 4.) In subsequently ordering consolidation of Ms. Manduca’s deposition in Wiesman with her depositions in Barlow, Porter, and Cisneros, that court applied the same logic. See Barlow, Dkt. 97; Porter, Dkt. 81; Cisneros, Dkt. 77. This reasoning applies with equal force here—where the same counsel represents the plaintiffs here and in Hursh, makes the same broad “scheme” allegations here and in Hursh and seeks depositions of the State Farm Deponents for the same reasons here as in Hursh. Just as in Barlow, Cisneros, Cook, Dressel, Johnson, Newell, Porter, Stafford, and White, questions Plaintiffs pose to the State Farm Deponents will be duplicative of those asked of the deponents in their depositions in Hursh. Just like Ms. Manduca, Mr. Herbert, Ms. Ress, and Mr. Welsh are full-time employees with numerous management-level job duties—and requiring each of them to take time away from their regular assignments to prepare for and sit through multiple depositions will unnecessarily impede their ability to carry out their responsibilities. Moreover, allowing Plaintiffs’ counsel—also counsel to plaintiffs in Hursh—to depose Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, Ms. Ress, and Mr. Welsh multiple times will result in cumulative and duplicative discovery 1]"}, {"d": 49, "p": 12, "t": "that is unnecessary and serves no constructive purpose. Accordingly, the Court, consistent with the decisions in Barlow, Cisneros, Cook, Dressel, Johnson, Newell, Porter, Stafford, and White, and established authority both in Oklahoma and across the nation, should enter a protective order consolidating the State Farm Deponents’ depositions in this case with their depositions in Hursh. There is no risk that single consolidated depositions of the State Farm Deponents would create delay, confusion, or prejudice to Plaintiffs or the Hursh plaintiffs. On the contrary, instead of having to schedule multiple depositions and related travel, plaintiffs in both cases could obtain all the information they seek from Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, Ms. Ress, and Mr. Welsh more efficiently in a single deposition. Moreover, there is little risk of confusion because: (1) the same counsel represents plaintiffs in both this case and in Hursh; (2) Plaintiffs here and in Hursh have alleged nearly identical facts and claims; and (3) Plaintiffs here and in Hursh all seek identical information from Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, Ms. Ress, and Mr. Welsh regarding the FME. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ counsel cannot genuinely dispute that the State Farm Deponents’ depositions would cover the same factual topics across both cases, or that consolidated depositions would be more efficient. To the contrary, Plaintiffs’ counsel—following the federal courts uniform rulings overruling plaintiffs’ objections to consolidation—have now agreed to consolidate depositions of Ms. Manduca in other pending federal cases and have expressed interest in consolidating “notices and subpoenas with respect to Ress, Herbert, Mazza, Moss, and others” in federal court. (See Exhibit 3, July 19, 2026 Email from B. Sonne.) There is no rationale for Plaintiffs’ counsel’s refusal to extend this same agreement to cases involving identical allegations now pending in state court. Just as in McSharry, requiring the State Farm Deponents to be “subjected to numerous depositions concerning the same subject, i.e., the alleged policies and practices of’ the FME—is, frankly, “untenable.” See McSharry, 2002 WL 32080544, at *2. The 12"}, {"d": 49, "p": 13, "t": "Court should rule in accordance with the federal courts (and Plaintiffs’ counsel’s own expressed agreement to consolidate depositions in federal court) and consolidate the State Farm Deponents’ depositions here with their depositions in Hursh. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court enter a protective order consolidating any depositions of Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, Ms. Ress, and Mr. Welsh in this case with their ordered deposition in Hursh in light of the common issues of fact and to mitigate the burden on these deponents and State Farm and grant such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. “CA “tn hee Timila S. Rp ther, OBA #14310 Paige A. pies, OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave. Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8273 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 13"}, {"d": 49, "p": 14, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 10th day of August, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRMP 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS ; | her Timila S. Rother 14"}, {"d": 49, "p": 16, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00562-R Document54 Filed 07/14/26 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA JANEVA K. NEWELL, ) Plaintiff, vs. Case No. CIV-25-562-R STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, et al, ) ) Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Motion for Protective Order Staying the Deposition of Nicole Manduca in this Case to Allow for a Single Consolidated Deposition of Nicole Manduca. [Doc. No. 47]. The matter is fully briefed [Doc. Nos. 50, 53] and at issue. This action arises from State Farm’s allegedly wrongful denial of Plaintiff's insurance claim for storm damage. Plaintiff alleges that the claim denial was part of a company-wide scheme to reduce indemnity payments related to roof damage from wind and hail claims. Plaintiffissued a deposition notice to Nicole Manduca, a State Farm claims manager who was purportedly involved in promulgating the policies underlying the scheme. State Farm maintains that the testimony is irrelevant and disproportional but, in the interest of efficiency, seeks a protective order staying and consolidating Ms. Manduca’s deposition in this case with a deposition that was ordered in a similar case pending in this district. See Wiesman v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-25-00050-JD (W.D. Okla. April 3, 2026). This Court has previously ruled, under similar circumstances to those here, i"}, {"d": 49, "p": 17, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00562-R Document54 Filed 07/14/26 Page 2 of 3 that consolidation of Ms. Manduca’s deposition is warranted. See Cook v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-25-1098-R, (W.D. Okla. May 7, 2026), As explained in Cook, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) provides that a court may, upon the request of a party and for good cause, “issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” The Court may also, on its own, limit discovery that is unreasonably cumulative, can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive, or that it outside the scope of permissible discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Indeed, “courts are generally encouraged to exercise their discretion to limit the cost and duration of discovery and avoid duplicative discovery.” Rowe v. Heritage Auto. Grp., Inc., No. 5:17-CV-38, 2018 WL 3458356, at *1 (D. Vt. July 18, 2018). Additionally, courts have the authority to consolidate proceedings, including for the limited purpose of conducting a deposition of a witness, when those proceedings share common questions of law or fact. See Fed, R. Civ. P. 42(a)(3); 26(b)(2)(C); see also Rowe, 2018 WL 3458356, at *1 (“An order which results in one deposition rather than two in cases which share factual and legal elements is a sound exercise of the discretion and responsibility the civil rules extend to trial judges.”); Friends of Merrymeeting Bay v. Miller Hydro Grp., No. 2:11-CV36-GZS, 2012 WL 458618, at *1 (D. Me. Feb. 9, 2012) (“In the Court’s assessment, the parties can and should consolidate the depositions of common witnesses in order to minimize costs and maximize efficiency.”); Arnold v. City of Columbus, No. 2:08-CV0031, 2009 WL 10679012, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 23, 2009) (“[I]f the same investigators have testimony that is relevant to all four cases, the parties may either agree to, or request 2"}, {"d": 49, "p": 18, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-00562-R Document54 Filed 07/14/26 Page 3 of 3 the Court to order, consolidated depositions for those or other witnesses that the cases have in common.”). Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel is seeking to depose Ms. Manduca in several cases that contain similar ~ if not identical — allegations related to State Farm’s alleged companywide scheme to reduce wind and hail payments. Given the common topics that are likely to be explored, the need to protect the witness from undue burden, and the need to avoid needless duplication, a consolidated deposition is warranted. The consolidation is for the limited purpose of completing the deposition of Ms. Manduca and does not apply to any other aspect of the case. Accordingly, Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Motion for Protective Order Staying the Deposition of Nicole Manduca in this Case to Allow for a Single Consolidated Deposition of Nicole Manduca [Doc. No. 47] is GRANTED, IT IS SO ORDERED this 14\" day of July, 2026. Ldviel bt ernst / DAVID L. RUSSELL , UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE"}, {"d": 49, "p": 20, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-01098-R Document 25 Filed 05/07/26 Page 1of5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA CHRISTOPHER T. COOK and ALLISON C, COOK, Plaintiffs, VS. ) ) ) ) ) ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. CIV-25-1098-R ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Before the Court is Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Motion for Protective Order and to Quash and/or Stay Deposition Notice of Nicole Manduca in this Case, or in the Alternative to Allow for a Single Consolidated Deposition of Nicole Manduca. [Doc. No. 21]. The matter is fully briefed [Doc. Nos. 23, 24] and at issue. This action arises from State Farm’s allegedly wrongful denial of Plaintiff's insurance claim for storm damage to their house. The Complaint alleges that the claim denial was part of a company-wide “scheme” to reduce indemnity payments related to roof damage from wind and hail claims. Plaintiffs further allege that during the handling of their claim, State Farm deployed a third-party inspector with the goal of denying the claim in furtherance of the scheme, ignored patent hail damage to the roof, and engaged in other bad faith claims handling tactics. Plaintiffs assert claims against State Farm for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and constructive fraud/negligent misrepresentation."}, {"d": 49, "p": 21, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-01098-R Document 25 Filed 05/07/26 Page 2 of 5 Plaintiffs issued a deposition notice to Nicole Manduca, a State Farm claims manager that was purportedly involved in promulgating the policies underlying the scheme. State Farm argues that the deposition should be quashed as irrelevant and disproportional because Ms. Manduca was not personally involved in the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim and Plaintiffs’ have not shown a connection between the alleged scheme and their specific case. In the alternative, State Farm requests the deposition be consolidated with the deposition of Ms. Manduca that was ordered in a similar case pending in this district. See Wiesman v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-25-00050-JD (W.D. Okla. April 3, 2026). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(b)(1) governs the scope of discovery: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The scope of discovery under this rule is broad, but it “is not without limits and the trial court is given wide discretion in balancing the needs and rights of both plaintiff and defendant.” Gomez v. Martin Marietta Corp., 50 F.3d 1511, 1520 (10th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation omitted). Further, under Rule 26(c)(1), a court may, upon the request of a party and for good cause, “issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” The Court may also, on its own, limit discovery that is unreasonably cumulative, can be obtained from"}, {"d": 49, "p": 22, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-01098-R Document 25 Filed 05/07/26 Page 3 of5 some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive, or that it outside the scope of permissible discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Here, Plaintiffs seek to depose Ms. Manduca because she was the team leader of State Farm’s Fire Model Enhancement, which allegedly generated the company-wide scheme and claims handling tactics to which Plaintiffs were subjected. Although State Farm disputes that there is any nefarious scheme to deny claims, they do not dispute that State Farm had a “quality initiative” related to roof claims known as the Fire Model Enhancement and that Ms. Manduca played a role in it. See Doc. No. 21 at p. 1, 3. Given Plaintiffs’ allegation that they were subjected to a company-wide scheme that was the product of the Fire Model Enhancement, the information sought is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and within the scope of discovery. See Wiesman, No. CIV-25-00050-JD (W.D. Okla. April 3, 2026) (denying motion to quash deposition of Ms. Manduca). Although Plaintiffs have demonstrated the relevance of the information they seek, the Court may still impose limits on discovery when that discovery is unduly burdensome or cumulative. Indeed, “courts are generally encouraged to exercise their discretion to limit the cost and duration of discovery and avoid duplicative discovery.” Rowe v. Heritage Auto. Grp., Inc., No. 5:17-CV-38, 2018 WL 3458356, at *1 (D. Vt. July 18, 2018), Additionally, courts have the authority to consolidate proceedings, including for the limited purpose of conducting a deposition of a witness, when those proceedings share common questions of law or fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(3); 26(b)(2)(C); see also Rowe, 2018 WL 3458356, at *1 (An order which results in one deposition rather than two in cases which share factual and legal elements is a sound 3 exercise of the discretion and"}, {"d": 49, "p": 23, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-01098-R Document 25 Filed 05/07/26 Page 4 of5 responsibility the civil rules extend to trial judges.”); Friends of Merrymeeting Bay v. Miller Hydro Grp., No. 2:11-CV-36-GZS, 2012 WL 458618, at *1 (D. Me. Feb. 9, 2012) (“In the Court’s assessment, the parties can and should consolidate the depositions of common witnesses in order to minimize costs and maximize efficiency.”); Arnold v. City of Columbus, No. 2:08-CV-0031, 2009 WL 10679012, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 23, 2009) (“[I]f the same investigators have testimony that is relevant to all four cases, the parties may either agree to, or request the Court to order, consolidated depositions for those or other witnesses that the cases have in common.”). Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel is seeking to depose Ms. Manduca in several cases that contain similar, if not identical, allegations related to the Fire Model Enhancement and State Farm’s company-wide scheme to reduce wind and hail payments. State Farm requests that any deposition of Ms. Manduca ordered in this action be consolidated with the deposition of Ms. Manduca that has previously been ordered in Weisman, No. CIV-25- 00050-JD (W.D, Okla. April 3, 2026), given the common topics that are likely to be explored at both depositions. Plaintiffs do not genuinely dispute that Ms. Manduca’s deposition would cover the same factual topics or that a consolidated deposition would be more efficient but nevertheless resist State Farm’s request for consolidation. The Court finds that State Farm has established that consolidating the deposition of Ms. Manduca in this action with the deposition in Weisman is warranted. Consolidation is necessary to protect the witness from undue burden and to avoid needless duplication. The consolidation is for the limited purpose of completing the deposition of Ms. Manduca and does not apply to any other aspect of the case. 4"}, {"d": 49, "p": 24, "t": "Case 5:25-cv-01098-R Document 25 Filed 05/07/26 Page 5of5 Accordingly, Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Motion for Protective Order and to Quash and/or Stay Deposition Notice of Nicole Manduca in this Case, or in the Alternative to Allow for a Single Consolidated Deposition of Nicole Manduca. [Doc. No. 21] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. State Farm’s request to quash/issue a protective order precluding the deposition of Ms. Manduca is denied. State Farm’s request to consolidate the deposition of Ms. Manduca with the deposition ordered in Weisman is granted. The parties and directed to meet and confer, in good faith, regarding any extension of the duration of the deposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). IT IS SO ORDERED this 7\" day of May, 2026, Lwid b beet / DAVID L. RUSSELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE"}, {"d": 49, "p": 26, "t": "Paige Masters From: Sent: To: ca Subject: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sunday, July 19, 2026 9:16 AM Timila S. Rother; Paige Masters; Amanda Finch; Lance Leffel; Carrie McNeer Reggie N. Whitten; Michael Burrage; Hannah Whitten; John Sanders; Jake Denne; Karen Stratton; Kayli Price; Autumn Hobbs; james warner; Brad Beskin Re: State Farm - WEST and Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca [ALERT: Email contains attachments from extemal send Timila and Lance, Hope all is well. Following up on the federal cases and status of: (1) consolidated deposition of Manduca — Paige Shelton just confirmed her agreement to have the Peggy Moore and Studdard cases pending in the Northern District consolidated with the other federal cases. (2) document production in Barlow, Cisneros, and Porter — you mention below these docs would not be produced by June as State Farm has been working on the West and Hursh production. We of course are in possession of many responsive documents and more are inbound to our understanding. However, State Farm did not delineate as we believe is required by the Oklahoma Discovery Code as to specific interrogatories or requests for production. Regardless, we believe Judge Heaton’s comments are directly on point once the documents have been produced to our law firm as to reaching an agreement on documents in all cases. (3) In a related note, Judge Russel! ordered us to meet and confer on a substantial number of topics that he delayed any ruling on in his Order on the Motion to Compel. We have requested a couple of times to schedule these confer meetings. Again, we are in possession and are still receiving ongoing document production that would be responsive as based on the other motions to compel in state court. Judge Heaton specifically discussed waiting until these documents were produced, the OK Supreme Court ruled on the discovery writ, and after Manduca’s federal court deposition before proceeding with any scheduling order. If State Farm wishes to engage in further motion practice with respect to documents we already have in the federal court cases (docs that would be used across the board in every wind/hail case — not case specific docs), please advise but anticipate further extension of deadlines in the federal court litigation. We are happy to discuss as well knowing right now we are strictly in discovery stages and all objections to relevance at trial are preserved. (4) We will be issuing new notices and subpoenas with respect to Ress, Herbert, Mazza, Moss, and others and propose some sort of consolidation of these depos based on the various rulings from the federal judges. Happy to discuss as well. I look forward to your response. Thank you. BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Ok ahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405. 516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Celt bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www. whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work-product. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you."}, {"d": 50, "p": 1, "t": "PIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA ) August 17, 2026 3:24 PM ) Plaintiffs, ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 ) ) v. )} Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) Defendants. FILED DISTRICT COURT ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS"}, {"d": 50, "p": 2, "t": "Plaintiffs’ July 28, 2026 Motion for Discovery Sanctions (“Motion”), filed a day after State Farm’s Motion for Entry of a Deposition Protocol (“Protocol Motion”) based on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s improper conduct at Nicole Manduca’s deposition, is apparently designed to distract from the seriousness of counsel’s misconduct or perhaps attempt to excuse it.! It does neither, and the Motion’s absence of merit is apparent on its face—and more compellingly apparent on a reading of Ms. Manduca’s deposition. Plaintiffs’ Motion only underscores the need for the protocol requested by State Farm. Ms. Manduca fully answered Plaintiffs’ counsel’s questions throughout her deposition—despite being repeatedly interrupted, shouted at, demeaned, and threatened. Plaintiffs’ Motion reflects only continued frustration that Ms. Manduca’s answers did not align with counsel’s false narrative, which he built into most of his questions. To the extent Plaintiffs contend, incorrectly, that any question their counsel posed to Ms. Manduca remains unanswered, the proper procedure was for Plaintiffs to bring a motion to compel further responses. They did not; and cannot now seek sanctions premised on Ms. Manduca’s supposed noncompliance with a nonexistent Court order on that nonexistent motion to compel. The Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion. ! Plaintiffs’ counsel knew State Farm’s Protocol Motion was imminent. Counsel for State Farm emailed Plaintiffs’ counsel with a request to confer about its Protocol Motion on Friday, July 24, attaching the draft protocol, but was advised that counsel for Plaintiffs was “tied up” and not available to do so until the following Wednesday. State Farm’s filing was time sensitive because Your Honor had taken under advisement State Farm’s Motion to Quash the depositions of four current or former senior claim personnel, and the Protocol Motion needed to be decided before those depositions occurred. See Ex. 1. When, on Monday, State Farm received the ruling from the Court allowing those depositions to proceed, it went forward with filing the Protocol Motion in the hope of having it decided before those depositions occurred. Nonetheless, State Farm advised counsel for Plaintiffs of its continued willingness to confer in an effort to agree to a protocol. In contrast, counsel for Plaintiffs filed their Motion with no effort to confer at all. The Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for that reason alone."}, {"d": 50, "p": 3, "t": "BACKGROUND On June 23, 2026, Plaintiffs deposed Ms. Manduca for a full day - which was 6 hours of actual questions and answers and (improperly) additional time off the record to have her review documents before questioning continued. The deposition was beyond the pale due to conduct by Plaintiffs’ counsel that violated Local Rule 28 and the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Standards of Professionalism, as detailed in State Farm’s Protocol Motion. First, counsel continuously interrupted Ms. Manduca, shouted at her, and accused her of being dishonest when she disagreed with his assumptions. (See Protocol Mot. at 3-6.) Second, counsel repeatedly - and incorrectly instructed Ms. Manduca that she could answer his questions only with “yes” or “no,” and threatened to call the Court when she attempted to clarify her answers. (See id. at 6-9.) Third, he attempted to mislead Ms. Manduca by showing her only selected excerpts of exhibits on screen (placed on a wall far from the witness)—after failing to bring complete hard copies of exhibits to the deposition or to otherwise make full copies visible to her, failing to provide copies to Defendants’ counsel, and refusing to allow Ms. Manduca to review the entirety of the exhibits on the record. (See id. at9-11.) This conduct violated Local Rule 28, the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Standards of Professionalism, and authority from courts across the country. (See id. at 13~20.) Yet another of counsel’s improper questioning was to insist that Ms. Manduca - a lay witness who has not been designated as an expert on the law or on any other matter in this case answer “yes” or “no” to legal hypotheticals with no relation to the facts of the case. As just one of dozens of examples, Plaintiffs’ counsel—after being informed by Ms. Manduca that counsel’s interpretation of the meaning of a certain phrase in an email was incorrect-—insisted that Ms. Manduca admit that, hypothetically, if his misinterpretation of the email was in fact correct, that State Farm would have been acting in “bad faith”:"}, {"d": 50, "p": 4, "t": "And I’m asking you now a hypothetical question . If [my] statement is true, that would be bad faith. MR. LEFFEL: Form. Yes or no? Pr Or OF @ Ff MR. LEFFEL: Form. Go ahead. Sir, we want to --Please. ---pay every claim that we owe--Please answer my question. ---in good faith. Yeah. We want to pay every claim--MR. LEFFEL: Please don’t interrupt the witness--A --that we owe in good faith, and that is my testimony. MR. WHITTEN: Objection. Q: You are not being responsive to the question I am asking. I’m asking you a hypothetical question. You are an insurance expert. That is proper under the Oklahoma rules, So if this says what I stated, that you meant State Farm’s opportunity for saving money on future claims was to lower total roof replacements, that would be bad faith; yes or no? MR. LEFFEL: Objection. Form and to the characterization of the witness as an expert as to the fact. You can go ahead. ... A: There should not ever be an intent to reduce indemnity payments. We should pay what we owe. (Protocol Motion at Ex. 2, N. Manduca Dep. Tr. at 102:6-103:21.) Plaintiffs’ counsel continued to insist that Ms. Manduca answer other “hypotheticals” throughout the day, and repeatedly instructed Ms. Manduca that she “ha[d] to answer the hypothetical questions.” (See, e.g., id. at 70:2-71:3.) At one point, counsel threatened to “go to the judge, and ask for an instruction from the judge” that Ms. Manduca was “not cooperating” by purportedly not answering his hypothetical"}, {"d": 50, "p": 5, "t": "question whether an insurance company would be operating in “good faith” if it intentionally underpaid some claims after it overpaid others: Q: You — well, we’re going to come back here. I’m going to go to the judge, and I’m going to ask for an instruction from the judge — you’re not cooperating — but I’m also going to ask for a second deposition. All you have to do is answer the question. You’ve reworded my question. You’ve said, I’ve never seen that. I didn’t ask that. Isn’t it true that because you owe — you being the insurance company ~— a duty of good faith and fair dealing? You cannot underpay the claim on Friday, 50 percent, because you allegedly overpaid the claim on Monday, 50 percent? You cannot do that, can you? MR. LEFFEL: Objection to the commentary and the attempt by this lawyer to intimidate this witness, and I object to the form. Go ahead. A: Again, what you’re describing is not anything I’ve ever experienced. (Id. at 71:6-24.) Likewise, Plaintiffs’ counsel pressed Ms. Manduca to admit that, hypothetically, denying claims “in whole or in part” could be “fraud”: Q: Will you answer my question? It started with the word “if” so it is a hypothetical. If State Farm denies claims, either in whole or in part, refuses to pay money that they owe the insureds, that too, can be fraud? MR. LEFFEL: Form. A Go ahead. Again, we should pay every claim that we owe. (id. at 189:19-190:2.) Plaintiffs now insist that Ms. Manduca and State Farm should be sanctioned because she did not opine about the application of legal principles to made-up facts that have no relation to any evidence in this case.’ 2 Ms. Manduca’s declination to simply avoid the confrontation and agree to the improper hypotheticals was not only correct procedurally but prudent. As is evident from every brief and oral argument in this case, counsel for Plaintiffs take statements of State Farm and its personnel out of context and convert them to sound bites that do not reflect the truth. So, here, if Ms. Manduca agreed that any hypothetical was fraud, briefing and oral presentation going forward would include claims that State Farm had admitted to fraud. 4"}, {"d": 50, "p": 6, "t": "Despite that Plaintiffs’ counsel repeatedly threatened during the deposition to “go to the Court” or “seek sanctions” against Ms. Manduca, Plaintiffs made no motion to such effect for over a month—when they apparently rushed to file it immediately after the filing of State Farm’s Protocol Motion. That is, on July 23, 2026, counsel for State Farm notified Plaintiffs’ counsel that State Farm intended to request the Court enter a deposition protocol to govern future depositions. On July 24, 2026, counsel for State Farm followed up via email, requesting that Plaintiffs notify State Farm of Plaintiffs’ position on that motion and offering to meet and confer. (See Exhibit 1, July 24, 2026 Email from T. Rother.) In response, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that they were “tied up” and could not meet and confer regarding State Farm’s proposed motion until “Wednesday” July 29. (See id, July 24, 2026 Email from R, Whitten.) Plaintiffs then filed their Motion on July 28—without notifying State Farm or offering to meet or confer regarding it—one day before the first date they had offered to meet and confer regarding State Farm’s Protocol Motion. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY I. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS PROCEDURALLY IMPROPER. As an initial matter, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion as being completely without merit but, even more fundamentally, because it is procedurally improper—it seeks sanctions under § 3237 for Ms. Manduca’s purported failure to comply with a Court order to answer certain questions that does not exist. That is, while referencing a number of provisions in their Motion, Plaintiffs specifically request that the Court award sanctions against Ms. Manduca “[u]nder § 3237(A)(3).” (Mot. at 4 (emphasis in original).)? This is indecipherable. Section 3237(A)(3) is a subsection of Section 3 While Plaintiffs also reference 12 O.S. § 3230(E)(1) at other points in their Motion (which Plaintiffs appear to miscite in places as “3230(D)(1)”), that section addresses “objection[s] to evidence during a deposition.” See 12 O.S. § 3230(E)(1). It does not provide an independent basis for sanctions for a deponent who allegedly fails to answer a question. Rather, Section 3237 5"}, {"d": 50, "p": 7, "t": "3237(A), which concerns a “MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY.” See 12 0.8. § 3237(A). That section permits a party to “move for an order compelling an answer” where “[a] deponent fails to answer a question propounded or submitted under Section 3230 or 3231 of this title,” and subsection 3237(A)(3) clarifies that “[fJor purposes of this subsection, an evasive or incomplete answer is to be treated as a failure to answer.” 12 O.S. § 3237(A)(3) (emphasis added). In short, Plaintiffs are seeking sanctions under a Code provision regarding a motion to compel discovery—a provision that, as previously discussed, requires that Plaintiffs first meet and confer and certify compliance (which they did not do). See 12 O.S. § 3237(A)(2). While § 3237(B) provides for sanctions, it does so only where a party “FAIL[S] TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER.” See 12 0.8. § 3237(B). This is a critical prerequisite that Plaintiffs have entirely failed to satisfy. As courts throughout the country have recognized,’ where a deponent allegedly fails to answer questions posed at a deposition, “the proper remedy [is] to file a motion to compel discovery,” not a motion for sanctions. See, e.g., Ramirez v. Olympic Health Memt. Sys., Inc., No. CV 07-3044-EFS, 2009 WL 10670878, at *3 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 14, 2009) (denying motion to prevent a witness from testifying at trial on a topic where she purportedly “refused to answer questions about the same at her deposition,” holding that “the proper remedy for Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with [the deponent’s] deposition answers was for [Plaintiff] to file a motion to compel”). addresses such misconduct, as Plaintiffs recognize by seeking sanctions specifically “under § 3237(A).” (See Mot. at 4.) ‘ Because “[t]he Oklahoma Discovery Code mirrors the Federal rules,” Meritor, Inc. v. State ex rel. Bad. of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 2019 OK CIV APP 64, 451 P.3d 914, 922 n.15, Oklahoma courts often look to “discovery procedures in the federal rules when construing similar language in the Oklahoma Discovery Code.” Crest Infiniti, IT LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, § 2, 174 P.3d 996, 999. See also A~Plus Janitorial & Carpet Cleaning v. Employers’ Workers Comp. Ass’n, 1997 OK 37, 936 P.2d 916, 928 (“The terms of 12 0.S.1991 § 2018(C) and (D) are identical to Federal Rule 42, Fed. R. Civ. P..”)."}, {"d": 50, "p": 8, "t": "For example, in R. W. International, the trial court improperly awarded a dismissal sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)° against plaintiffs for, inter alia, plaintiff’s sole shareholder’s “refus[al] to answer certain questions that were asked [at his deposition] regarding the tax-exempt status of plaintiff.” R.W. Int’l Corp. v. Welch Foods, Inc., 937 F.2d 11, 14 (1st Cir. 1991). The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court Aad no authority to impose sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2) where there was no order compelling answers to the questions in dispute—despite that the Court had previously entered a scheduling order including the deponent’s deposition. See id. at 14-16. As the First Circuit held, “{t]he rule’s language clearly requires two things as conditions precedent to engaging the gears of the rule’s sanction machinery: a court order must be in effect, and then must be violated, before the enumerated sanctions can be imposed.” Id. at 15. “The taxonomy of Rule 37 is progressive. [fan order to answer is issued under Rule 37(a), and then disobeyed, Rule 37(b)(2) comes into play, authorizing the trial court to impose further sanctions.” Id. In R.W. International, because “no Rule 37(a) order to compel answers to [the deposition questions] was extant,” defendants’ motion for sanctions was premature, and “the district court’s premature resort to Rule 37(b)(2) cannot be upheld.” Jd. The same analysis applies here:* Plaintiffs are improperly seeking sanctions under § 3237(B) for purported violation of a nonexistent Court order—and any reconceptualization of their Motion as a “motion 5 Plaintiffs concede that 12 O.S. § 3732(B)(2) is “patterned after Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” and that “federal jurisprudence [regarding Rule 37(b)(2)] is instructive when interpreting the Oklahoma provisions.” (Mot. at 3, quoting Barnett v. Simmons, 2008 OK 100, { 16.) 6 Notably, the First Circuit in R.W International also rejected the argument that a general scheduling order could substitute for “an order to answer specific deposition questions.” See 937 F.2d at 16. As such, Plaintiffs cannot point to the order compelling Ms. Manduca’s deposition as a substitute to the requirement that they move to compel answers to specific questions under § 3237(A) before seeking sanctions under § 3237(B). 7"}, {"d": 50, "p": 9, "t": "to compel” under Rule 3237(A) fails because, as previously discussed, they have failed to satisfy the Section’s unambiguous meet-and-confer requirement. See 12 O.S. § 3237(A)(2). Oklahoma law interpreting § 3237 is in accord. For example, in Helton v. Coleman, the Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed a situation in which sanctions were imposed on defendant’s counsel “under the discovery code” for purported misconduct during trial. 1991 OK 43, 4 2, 8. The Supreme Court held that the trial court was “without authority under the discovery code to impose [such sanctions],” because “[t]here is no indication that [plaintiff] first moved for and obtained a court order compelling discovery as is required by the statute.” Jd. Fj 10, 11. Indeed, the sole case Plaintiffs cite in the portion of their motion discussing “The Appropriate Sanction,” Barnett (see Mot. at 7), involves a situation in which defendants sought sanctions under § 3237 after defendants first “filed a motion to compel production of plaintiff's hard drive” and after the trial court “orally granted the motion to compel” and “a minute order was entered.” See id. 2008 OK 100 9] 4, 5. In Barnett, the Oklahoma Supreme Court specifically recognized that “faj/ motion to compel is a prerequisite to sanctions being imposed under § 3237.” Id. § 14, citing Helton, 1991 OK 43. Further, the Supreme Court made clear that “§ 3237 sanctions must be based upon the failure to obey an order of the court.” Jd., citing Martin v. Johnson, 1998 OK 127 4 37, 975 P.2d 889, 899,’ Barnett, which controls here, requires denial of Plaintiffs’ procedurally improper motion under Section 3237, 7 While the Barnett court also recognized that a trial court also “has the power to sanction for abusive litigation practices or for abuse of judicial process, even if an order compelling discovery has not been made,” see 2008 OK 100, 4 14, Plaintiffs premise their sanctions motion as to Ms. Manduca on a purported failure to answer questions under § 3237(A), and have not provided any evidence supporting the assertion that State Farm, its counsel, or Ms. Manduca engaged in “abuse of the discovery process.”"}, {"d": 50, "p": 10, "t": "I. THE COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION BECAUSE THERE IS NO OBLIGATION FOR A LAY WITNESS TO ANSWER HYPOTHETICAL LEGAL QUESTIONS WITH NO RELATION TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. Even if Plaintiffs’ Motion were procedurally cognizable, the Court should deny it because it is entirely too vague to demonstrate precisely what Ms. Manduca failed to answer and leaves it to the Court and State Farm to sort it out, though State Farm does not believe she failed to answer questions at all. Much of what Plaintiffs point to appears based on Ms. Manduca’s refusal to answer hypothetical questions calling for a legal conclusion (see, e.g., Protocol Motion at Ex. 2, N. Manduca Dep. Tr. at 102:6-103:21; id. at 71:6-24; id. at 189:19-190:2)—but the law has no such requirement, It is improper to ask a lay witness such as Ms. Manduca to opine about hypothetical questions regarding facts not in evidence. That is, 12 O.S. § 2701 provides that where a witness “is not testifying as an expert, the witness’s testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are” (1) “[rjationally based on the perception of the witness,” (2) “[hJelpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue,” and (3) “[nJot based on scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Section 2702 of this title [for witnesses qualified as an expert].” 12 O.S. § 2701. Asking Ms. Manduca-——who is not an expert, and who State Farm is not offering as an expert—questions about whether hypothetical situations would constitute “bad faith” or “fraud” is not a good faith attempt to obtain evidence that would be admissible at trial.® Nor are counsel’s hypothetical legal scenarios ones that Ms. Manduca was required to answer. While “[t]here is no prohibition against asking hypothetical questions of a lay witness 8 Indeed, Plaintiffs’ counsel suggested he was well aware of this rule—insisting, wrongly, that he could ask hypothetical questions because Ms. Manduca was an “insurance expert.” (See Protocol Motion at Ex. 2, N. Manduca Dep. Tr. at 103:3-6.) But a deponent does not become an “expert” simply on counsel’s say so."}, {"d": 50, "p": 11, "t": "during a deposition,” Miller v. Vill. of Pinckney, No. A 07-CV-10928-DT, 2008 WL 4190619, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 9, 2008), “such questions ‘must be based upon facts of record.” Id., quoting Williams v. Thomas Jefferson Univ., 54 F.R.D. 615, 617 (E.D. Pa. 1972) (emphasis added). “Questions based upon facts not established or an incomplete statement of the facts are not proper.” Miller, 2008 WL 4190619, at *1, citing Williams, 54 F.R.D. at 617. Where counsel asks a lay deponent hypothetical questions based on an incomplete statement of the facts or facts not established in the record, the deponent is not required to answer. See, e.g., Miller, 2008 WL 4190619, at *1 (denying “Plaintiff’s request to have Defendant appear at another deposition” where the Defendant purportedly failed to answer incomplete hypotheticals). For example, in the recent Howira v. New York City Health and Hospital Corporation, the appellate court upheld a lower court’s denial of a motion for sanctions nearly identical to Plaintiffs’ here. See 249 A.D. 3d 506, 507 (N.Y. App. Div. 2026). In Howira, the plaintiff sought sanctions for “defense witness’s purported refusal to answer deposition questions.” /d. The trial court denied the motion, finding the deposition questions “inappropriate, either because they were vague, confusing, or of unclear or marginal relevance; because they called for the deponent medical professional to opine about a conduct or standard of care applicable not to themselves but to other medical professionals; or because they asked hypothetical scenarios not before the deponents.” Id. (emphasis added). The appellate court upheld the trial court’s determination, finding that the trial court had “properly denied plaintiff’s motion that was directed at deposition testimony.” /d. The same reasoning applies here. Asking Ms. Manduca to opine on the legal import of factual scenarios that Plaintiffs’ counsel admitted were not based on record evidence is improper, and there is no basis to support sanctions for alleged failure to answer such questions. See id. 10"}, {"d": 50, "p": 12, "t": "Il. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO IDENTIFY ANY QUESTIONS THAT MS. MANDUCA DID NOT ANSWER. Finally, and in any event, Plaintiffs’ Motion fails to identify any specific question Ms. Manduca failed to answer.” Despite claiming that there were “numerous occasions” on which Ms. Manduca purported were “evasive” or “provid[ed] no answer at all” (Mot. at 4), Plaintiffs cite only three specific examples of Ms. Manduca’s purported failure to answer. As to each, Plaintiffs omit important context confirming that Ms. Manduca properly answered the question: ° First, Plaintiffs incorrectly assert that Ms. Manduca failed to answer whether “State Farm cannot lower claims before they happen.” (Mot. at 4, citing N. Manduca Dep. Tr. at 106:18-25.) As previously noted, such question is an improper hypothetical question to a lay witness, and no answer was required. See supra at Section Il. Regardless, Plaintiffs omit that upon follow-up questioning, Ms. Manduca confirmed that “[State Farm] cannot operate in that manner.” (See Protocol Motion at Ex. 2, N. Manduca Dep. Tr. at 108:1-109:3.) Plaintiffs’ counsel may not have been satisfied with the precise wording of that answer, but there can be no dispute that Ms. Manduca answered counsel’s question. ° Second, Plaintiffs point to a question from counsel regarding whether Ms. Manduca wrote explanatory information in an email. (See Mot. at 4, citing N. Manduca Dep. Tr. at 275:12-15.) To be sure, the email (which Plaintiffs’ counsel used as an 9 Plaintiffs also suggest that they are seeking sanctions against State Farm’s counsel for “speaking, coaching, and suggestive objections.” (See Mot. at 2 n.1.) But similarly, they fail to identify any such improper objections—let alone provide evidence that any objection was sanctionable. Further, it is inappropriate to sanction counsel for objections where “nothing in the deposition transcript demonstrates . . . that counsel acted for [an] inappropriate purpose.” See, e.g., Ollison v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 337 F.R.D. 165, 173 (C.D. Ill. 2010) (declining to award sanctions for defending counsel’s improper objections where there was no evidence counsel’s objections were “made in bad faith or for some other, illegitimate reason”). Il"}, {"d": 50, "p": 13, "t": "exhibit) speaks for itself, and a question about what is or is not written in the email is completely unnecessary. But again, Ms. Manduca answered the question—in the very next follow-up question, in which Plaintiffs’ counsel asked Ms. Manduca to confirm that “[t]he context is not written on the page.” Ms. Manduca responded, “{t’s not written on the page that our claim volume was down and the severity of that claim volume was lower.” (See Protocol Motion at Ex. 2, N. Manduca Dep. Tr, at 275:16-23,) Finally, Plaintiffs point to an example of one (of many questions) at the deposition in which Plaintiffs’ counsel insisted, wrongly, that Ms. Manduca was required to answer a compound, vague, and confusing question with a “yes or no” answer, (See Mot. at 4—5, citing N. Manduca Dep. Tr. at 327:13-16.) Plaintiffs’ Motion omits the full question, which vaguely and confusingly states: Q: — And what I said isn’t commentary. It’s true. Um saying to you today because I can read it and the jury can read it, “Results are reflective of improved quality claim handling behaviors in identifying wind and hail damage to roof surfaces.” So I havea couple of points I want to ask you about separately. Number one, the words you just said in your defense, oh, the numbers are going down. It doesn’t say that. Your explanation is not reflected in this document, is it? Yes or no, please, ma’am? (Protocol Motion at Ex. 2, N. Manduca Dep. Tr. at 327:1-11.) Plaintiffs further omit that any cognizable question from this diatribe was already asked and answered—counsel’s prior question demanded that Ms. Manduca confirm whether the email in question “doesn’t say anything about claim volume went down,” and Ms. Manduca answered, “It does not state that there.” (/d. at 326:17-24.) Plaintiffs’ counsel’s attempt to “gild the lily” by asking the same question a different way does not entitle him to a different answer. 12"}, {"d": 50, "p": 14, "t": "To the extent Plaintiffs are complaining about any other purported “failure to answer” or “evasive” answer, it is incumbent upon Plaintiffs to identify the specific question and answer about which they are complaining, rather than simply labeling unidentified answers as “evasive” or “nonresponsive.” In this vein, it is telling that Plaintiffs’ apparent best “examples” of Ms. Manduca’s answers only underscore counsel’s misconduct and do not show any failure to answer by Ms. Manduca—and certainly nothing that rises to the level of sanctionable misconduct.!° IV. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE COURT SHOULD SUMMARILY DENY PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO MEET AND CONFER OR SUBMIT A CERTIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH 12 OS. § 3237. Finally, and in the alternative, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion outright because Plaintiffs failed to meet or confer with State Farm, or certify they had done so, before filing their Motion. Plaintiffs contend that they are seeking relief under “12 O.S. § 3237.” (Mot. at 1; see also id. at 4 (seeking sanctions “under § 3237(A)”).) In particular, they assert that they are entitled under Section 3237 “to move for an order compelling discovery when ‘a deponent fails to answer a question propounded or submitted under Section 3230 or 3231 of this title.” (Ud. at 2, citing 12 None of the cases Plaintiffs cite in their Motion are at all applicable—and they concern egregious misconduct unlike the answers here. See, e.g., GMAC Bank v. HFTC Corp., 248 F.R.D. 182, 189- 90 (E.D, Pa. 2008) (awarding sanctions where deponent repeatedly failed to respond to questions, derided and insulted counsel taking the deposition, and used inappropriate language); Van Pilsum v. lowa State Univ. of Sci. & Tech., 152 F.R.D. 179, 180 (S.D. lowa 1993) (awarding sanctions where counsel defending the deposition, inter alia, “engaged in ad hominem attacks on [opposing counsel’s] ethics, litigation experience, and honesty” and due to the defending counsel’s interruptions “there are numerous instances where the reporter is required to read back a question due to the length of time between the question and the witness’ opportunity to answer”); Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 115 F.R.D. 292, 293-94 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (awarding sanctions where counsel defending the deposition engaged in “outrageous obstructions,” including “ad hominem attacks on opposing counsel,” “constant interruptions,” “speech[es],” and improper “question[s] to the examiner”); DeVille v. Givaudan Fragrances Corp., 419 F. App’x 201, 204 d Cir. 2011) (upholding sanctions against an attorney defending an expert’s deposition where the attorney “went beyond suggesting an answer [to the deponent] and amounted to testifying for the expert witness throughout the deposition testimony.”) (alterations and quotations omitted). 13"}, {"d": 50, "p": 15, "t": "O.S. § 3237(A)(2).) Plaintiffs omit, however, that Section 3237(A) contains a meet-and-confer requirement, providing that any such motion “must include a statement that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer either in person or by telephone with the person or party failing to make the discovery in an effort to secure the information or material without court action.” 12 0.8. § 3237(A)(2) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs’ Motion contains no such certification. Nor could it, because Plaintiffs’ counsel made no effort whatsoever to confer with State Farm regarding the Motion before they filed it. In fact, Plaintiffs’ counsel, when they learned on July 23 and 24 of State Farm’s intent to move for entry of a deposition protocol due to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s misbehavior at Ms. Manduca’s deposition, insisted that they could not meet and confer regarding State Farm’s motion until July 29th at the earliest. (See Ex. 1, July 24, 2026 Email from R. Whitten.) Plaintiffs then filed their Motion on July 28—a day that Plaintiffs’ counsel claimed they were “tied up” and nof available to meet or confer. (See id.) This is the conduct that § 3237 was designed to prevent. Federal courts interpreting the equivalent Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) have routinely denied discovery motions where the movant failed to certify compliance with the meet-and-confer requirement. See, e.g., Blackburn y. United States, No, CIV-22-983-G, 2026 WL 937941, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 7, 2026) (denying plaintiff’s motions to compel that “include no such [meet-and-confer] certification”); Mathis v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., No. CIV-25-207-SLP, 2026 WL 373248, at *6 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 10, 2026) (denying plaintiff’s motion to compel where plaintiff “failed to demonstrate meaningful compliance” with the meet-and-confer requirement); Rigdon v. Flowserve Corp., No. 16-CV-81GKF-FHM, 2017 WL 2821939, at *1 (N.D. Okla. June 29, 2017) (agreeing “it would be appropriate to deny [movant’s] motion for its failure to engage in the good faith conference 14"}, {"d": 50, "p": 16, "t": "required” and “denying the motion on its merits”); Johnson v. Old Republic Ins. Co., No. 10-CV460-JHP-FHM, 2012 WL 1672995, at *2 (N.D. Okla. May 14, 2012) (denying plaintiff’s motion to compel where plaintiff’s counsel did not “personally [meet] and confer[ ] in good faith in a sincere attempt to resolve their differences over discovery”). As these courts have noted, “[t]he failure to engage in a meaningful meet and confer process is wasteful of the parties’ resources and those of the court.” Bush for Est. of Garland v. Bowling, No. 19-CV-98-GKF-FHM, 2020 WL 3073093, at *1 (N.D. Okla. June 10, 2020). Plaintiffs’ Motion should likewise be denied. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth herein, State Farm thus respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Discovery Sanctions. Res ec if submitted, ae OBA #14310 meas. A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDAM. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY AND NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC. 15 Me"}, {"d": 50, "p": 17, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this 17th day of August, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 TimilaS. Rother 16"}, {"d": 50, "p": 18, "t": "Timila S. Rother i een From: Sent: Timila S. Rother Monday, July 27, 2026 2:42 PM To: Reggie N. Whitten Cc: Michael Burrage; Blake Sonne; Hannah Whitten; John Sanders; Brad Burgess; Colby Stephenson; Lance Leffel; Mike Angelovich; Brad Beskin Subject: RE: West v. State Farm - Deposition Protocol Reggie, Thank you for your email especially if you were out of the office and I hope you had a good weekend. I wish we had the benefit of more time. However, we received the Court’s Order denying our Motion to Quash the depositions of Ress, Herbert, Moss and Welsh today and we need to start the process for decision on the Deposition Protocol in the event we are unable to reach agreement, which seems a possibility given the history here. I can confer on Wednesday afternoon and I think Lance can as well. However, we will go ahead and file in West and then we can amend if we reach a partial or full agreement. What time Wednesday works for your team? Lance and I are available after 2:00. Also, we need to file portions of the brief and exhibits under seal given the inclusion of discussion of confidential documents. Given your pending motion to set aside the PO I assume you will object to that but I wanted to confirm. Thanks Timila —) CR OW E DUNLEVY LexMundi Member Timila S. Rother t Shareholder/Director | 405.235.7757 ry Chambers ry é usa Ja @? Pa RANKED IN # 2025% tJ Timila Rother This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or other privileges or protections. |f you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you, From: Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 4:06 PM To: Timila S. Rother <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com>"}, {"d": 50, "p": 19, "t": "Cc: Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Brad Burgess <brad@burgess-hightower.com>; Colby Stephenson <colby@burgess-hightower.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; Mike Angelovich <mangelovich@npraustin.com>; Brad Beskin <bbeskin@whittenburragelaw.com> Subject: Re: West v. State Farm - Deposition Protocol {ALERT: Email contains:attachments from external sender. Timila, most of us are off today. Be cautious... Blake and Hannah are both out of state. We are all tied up Monday and Tuesday, but are happy to meet and confer Wednesday works for you? Wednesday. What time Reggie Sent from my iPad On Jul 24, 2026, at 1:10 PM, Timila S. Rother <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com> wrote: Counsel, I mentioned at the hearing yesterday that we intend to ask the Court to enter a deposition protocol to govern future depositions. Given the pending request for depositions of several other senior level individuals and not knowing how the Court will rule on our motions to quash (and given the anticipated future deposition of claim personnel either way), we believe this is time sensitive and so plan to file a motion for its entry on Monday. A draft is attached. Please let me know if you agree to the entry of this protocol. We are happy to confer about it by phone this afternoon if productive. Of note, and Lance is copied as Hursh may be the most imminent example, State Farm anticipates it may file for the entry of this protocol in other cases where senior level depositions are pending or where they are ordered in the future, and also perhaps more broadly for claim handling personnel depending on the case and circumstances. Thanks Timila Timila S. Rother Shareholder/Director Braniff Building . 324 N. Robinson Ave., Ste. 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73162 direct line:405.235.7757 mobile: 405.642.0845 timila.rothep@croweduntevy.com y-card blo website"}, {"d": 50, "p": 20, "t": "This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or other privileges or protections. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you. <2026-07-23 Proposed Deposition Protocol(6306931.1).docx>"}, {"d": 51, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA August 18, 2026 9:57 AM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK NEIL and LACY WEST, ) Case Number CJ-2025-135 ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) V. ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) Hon. Grant Sheperd ) INS. ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANT NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL NANCY HOLCOMB’S COMPLIANCE WITH 12 O.S. § 3230(C) VOLUME I"}, {"d": 51, "p": 2, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No, CJ-2025-135 ) v. ) Hon. Grant Sheperd ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANT NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL NANCY HOLCOMB’S COMPLIANCE WITH 12 Q.S. § 3230(C) The crux of Plaintiffs’ Motion is that, because the Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. (“Holcomb Agency” or “Agency”) kas no knowledge of the claim handling practices alleged (“State Farm”)-—the subject matter on which against State Farm Fire & Casualty Company Plaintiffs want to impose liability against the Agency for constructive fraud—the Agency should acquire that knowledge from State Farm. The Holcomb Agency is not State Farm nor is it an employee or even a subsidiary of State Farm; it is a separate entity that does not know everything State Farm knows, nor is it required to have that knowledge. Thus, the entire premise of this Motion is wrong, and the Court should deny the motion denominated Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Nancy Holcomb’s Compliance with the Requirements of 12 0.8. § 3230(C). Plaintiffs sued State Farm alleging that State Farm underpaid their insurance claim in bad faith. To prevent the case from being removed to federal court, Plaintiffs sued the Holcomb Agency as a non-diverse defendant. The Agency has filed a motion for summary judgment establishing that claims against it are time barred and otherwise fail as a matter of law. Nonetheless, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230(C)(5), Plaintiffs seek to depose the Holcomb 1"}, {"d": 51, "p": 3, "t": "Agency not only about matters known to the Agency, but also about matters known only to State Farm. The flaws in Plaintiffs’ argument are evidenced by the first sentence in their purported “Legal Standard” which claims that in the context of bad faith claims, “the jury may be shown the entire course of conduct between the parties.” (Pls. Mot. at 1 (quoting Timmons v. World Globe, 1982 OK 97 4 33, 653 P.2d 907, 917)). As set forth below, Oklahoma law is clear that no cause of action for bad faith exists as to the Agency, and the Agency’s conduct is not attributed to State Farm for such claim. It appears that Plaintiffs know this law because they did not sue the Agency for bad faith, nor have they claimed that the Agency’s conduct is evidence of any alleged bad faith by State Farm. Instead, they attempted to state a claim against the Agency for causes of action recognized under Oklahoma law—negligent procurement and constructive fraud. The constructive fraud claim is premised, in part, on the notion that the Agency knew ofa plan by State Farm to deny roof claims through the Fire Model Enhancement (“FME”) or other initiatives and failed to inform the Plaintiffs! The Holcomb Agency, however, has no knowledge of either the FME or other claim handling initiatives. Thus, Plaintiffs are now trying to force the Agency to undertake a litigation-driven investigation to manufacture such knowledge. The law does not require the Agency to undertake such an investigation. Nor is it possible, as a practical matter, for the Agency to obtain the information Plaintiffs seek. To the extent Plaintiffs are entitled to that information about State Farm, they can and are seeking it from State Farm. The Court should deny the Motion to Compel. BACKGROUND ' The law puts no such obligation on agents because they have no responsibility for claim decisions, which is also why the Agency lacks knowledge about the claim handling topic included in the Notice. See cases cited at pp. 8-9, infra."}, {"d": 51, "p": 4, "t": "Defendants have briefed the background of this case several times and, therefore, the Holcomb Agency does not repeat the entire background here. However, because it is relevant to Plaintiffs’ effort to force the Holcomb Agency to learn information outside of its possession, custody, and control—that it is neither required nor supposed to know—the Holcomb Agency reiterates that, to date: (1) State Farm has produced nearly 800,000 documents including (a) voluminous claims training materials; (b) voluminous agency training materials; (c) information regarding the FME and other “wind/hail initiatives,” including purported tracking of roof replacements, indemnity savings, and payment volumes and similarly-described initiatives; (d) documents and communications relating to managerial approval requirements for full roof replacements covering a period of six years; (e) documents previously produced or ordered in six unrelated lawsuits; and (f) emails or other correspondence to or from Nicole Manduca, Sharon Arnold, Tom Moss, and Susan Maynard about the FME and various metrics relating to roof replacements; (2) State Farm produced the applicable claim file, underwriting file and policy information to Plaintiffs immediately; (3) Plaintiffs have deposed Nicole Manduca for a full day about FME and claims initiatives; (4) the Court has ordered State Farm to produce Wensley Herbert, Scott Welsh and Kathy Ress and allowed the deposition of Tom Moss (a former employee who will require a subpoena); and (5) most recently, the Court ordered substantial additional document production including information involving Accenture, depositions and exhibits of other witnesses in different cases, and some claim files of other insureds. Plaintiffs’ claims against the Holcomb Agency are premised on their allegations that the Agency was aware of State Farm’s allegedly fraudulent claim-handling practices and failed to notify Plaintiffs about them—-practices they urge were implemented after State Farm twice paid to replace the roof on a different house they owned in 2009 and 2019. Pet. ff] 35 (“State Farm’s"}, {"d": 51, "p": 5, "t": "captive agents (including Agent here) are fully aware of the narrow and limited definition... .”), 73 (“Defendants failed to disclose . .. any material facts regarding the Scheme, including the Hail Focus Initiative .. . .”). Plaintiffs admit, though, that they have no evidence that the Holcomb Agency knew about State Farm’s purported changes in the way it handled claims, which is what Plaintiffs refer to as a scheme. See N. West Dep. at 116:19-118:4, Ex. 1; L. West Dep. at 100:125, Ex. 2. Accordingly, their attorneys are insisting that State Farm must educate the Holcomb Agency on the purported scheme to concoct evidence to salvage their claims. On June 10, 2026, Plaintiffs served a notice of deposition (“Notice”) pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230(C)(5) on the Holcomb Agency purporting to require the Agency to designate a witness to testify about ten topics, with a total of 55 subtopics. Pls. Ex. 6. While the Holcomb Agency has knowledge of and will testify about many of the topics in the Notice, several topics seek information unknown and unavailable to the Agency, including information about the following: « State Farm’s “Wind/Hail Focus Initiative” (Topic 1); = State Farm’s “Wind/Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team” (Topic 2); « “Hygiene” training (Topics 3, 4(f)); « State Farm training regarding its claim handling (Topic 4); = Haag Education and Haag Engineering (Topics 5, 8(i)); « loss ratio statistics (Topic 8(c)); and = State Farm’s use of MyBlock and MAX software (Topics 6(e)-(f), 8(g)-(h)). Pls. Mot. Ex. 6. Accordingly, in response to the Notice, the Holcomb Agency sent a letter to Plaintiffs notifying them that the Agency would designate Nancy Holcomb to testify as to the knowledge of the Agency but advised that the Agency did not have knowledge regarding the topics listed above."}, {"d": 51, "p": 6, "t": "Pls. Mot. Ex. 1. Acknowledging that the Agency does not have personal knowledge of the disputed topics, Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Compel arguing that the Agency must educate itself not regarding its own corporate knowledge, but rather, regarding “State Farm’s corporate knowledge.” Pls. Mot. at 1, 5 (“All topics in the deposition notice (see Exhibit 6), including State Farm’s internal rules, policies, procedures, processes, and practices on wind/hail claims that operated to deny Plaintiffs’ claim (i.e., the ‘Wind/Hail Focus Initiative’). . .”), As set forth below, the Holcomb Agency is not required to educate itself regarding information only known to State Farm. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY I. There Is No Cause of Action Against the Agency for Bad Faith Nor Is State Farm’s Good or Bad Faith Judged on the Conduct of the Agency. Plaintiffs’ argument goes off track immediately because they cite legal standards applicable to a bad faith cause of action and suggest that, based on those standards, the Holcomb Agency must learn what State Farm knows because “the entire course of contact between the parties” is of material to the bad faith claim (Pls. Mot. at 1). But, Oklahoma law does not recognize a cause action against insurance agents for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Guideone 871. Nor can Am. Ins. Co. v. Shore Ins. Agency, Inc., 2011 OK CIV APP 69, 9 24, 259 P.3d 864, Ins. an insurer be liable for bad faith based on conduct of the agent. Hays v. Jackson Nat'l Life and acts Co., 105 F.3d 583, 590 (10th Cir. 1997) (“Under Oklahoma law, the alleged knowledge of of the agent at the time of the application [are] not imputed to the principal for purposes Co., determining whether the principal acted in bad faith.”); Claborn v. Washington Nat'l Ins. in selling and 1996 OK 8, J 15, 910 P.2d 1046, 1051 (“[T]he conduct of the insurer and the agent issuing the policy, cannot give rise to the tort of bad faith breach of an insurance contract.”). While an insurer might be bound in contract based on the conduct of an agent operating within the scope of its agency, i.e. procuring policies, agents do not handle claims. Thus, in this context, the conduct 5"}, {"d": 51, "p": 7, "t": "of an agent cannot be imputed to the insurer. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs use this false premise and build an argument around State Farm documents that reference agent complaints about claim handling or the sharing of information with “agency leadership,” to suggest that agents were or might have been exposed to such information. The documents Plaintiffs cite establish nothing about the Holcomb Agency’s knowledge at all. Plaintiffs’ counsel can ask Ms. Holcomb on behalf of her Agency if she or her employees have received complaints, talked to State Farm about complaints, received training on claim handling, heard of FME, or any of the other topics they think the Agency has learned from State Farm. The Agency is specifically not asking this Court to prohibit them from asking those questions. Ms. Holcomb has investigated what her Agency knows and will be prepared to answer any such questions, though the answer in many instances will be that the Agency has no such knowledge. The Agency is objecting to the notion that it must learn information it does not know from a separate entity—State Farm—to obtain knowledge to answer questions on behalf of the Agency. The law has no such requirement. And the opening premise that there is something about the law of bad faith and the “entire course of contact between the parties” that requires the Holcomb Agency to do so is entirely wrong. I]. Section 3230(C)(5) Does Not Require the Holcomb Agency to Learn Information in State Farm’s Possession. The Discovery Code does not require the Holcomb Agency to educate itself regarding information known to and in the possession of State Farm to satisfy its discovery obligations. As Plaintiffs acknowledge, 12 O.S. § 3230(C)(5) obligates an entity to prepare a deponent to testify only as to “matters known or reasonably available to the organization.” If an organization “does not possess such knowledge” to prepare a witness “then its obligations under” the statute cease. See Dravo Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 164 F.R.D. 70, 76 (D. Neb. 1995) (applying Fed. R. Civ. 6"}, {"d": 51, "p": 8, "t": "P. 30(b)(6), the federal equivalent to 12 O.S. § 3230(C)(5)). In other words, “[a] party cannot be compelled to produce what it does not have.” List v. Carwell, No. 18-CV-2253 (DSD/TNL), 2020 WL 5988514, at *6 (D. Minn. Oct. 9, 2020) (collecting cases). The separateness of entities for purposes of corporate representative notices is so fundamental there is little authority even discussing this issue (and Plaintiffs cite none). However, the question comes down to one of control which does arise in the context of other discovery. Courts examining the extent of matters “reasonably available to [an] organization” at times look to whether the information is within its “control” within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. CEVA Logistics Singapore, Ltd., 348 F.R.D. 54, 78 (E.D. La. 2024), review denied, No. CV 22-4561, 2024 WL 5086077 (E.D. La. Dec. 12, 2024) (“Recognizing the varying decisions addressing the issue, this Court finds that mere ‘control’ under Rule 34 does not automatically render information known by an affiliate as ‘reasonably in the available’ for purposes of Rule 30(b)(6) when the affiliate had no role or involvement underlying transaction.”); Murphy v. Kmart Corp., 255 F.R.D. 497, 508 (D.S.D. 2009); Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Marvel Enters., Inc., No. 01 CIV 3016(AGS) (HB, 2002 WL 1835439, n at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2002). Materials outside of an entity’s “control” for document productio purposes are not “reasonably available” for purposes of a corporate representative deposition. See e.g., Goodyear Tire, 348 F.R.D, at 78. Plaintiffs, as the parties seeking the information, bear the Ins. burden of proving that the Holcomb Agency has the requisite control. Barron v. Nat’l Health Co., No. CIV-19-591-SLP, 2020 WL 9600579, at *1 (W.D. Okla. May 14, 2020). They have not and cannot do so. ing 2 The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that federal law may serve as a guide in interpret Swinton, § 3230(C)(5) due to its similarities with Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Crest Infiniti, I, LP v. 2007 OK 77, { 2, 174 P.3d 996, 999, as corrected (Oct. 10, 2007). 7"}, {"d": 51, "p": 9, "t": "To that end, Oklahoma law recognizes that there are limits to what is in a litigant’s control. For example, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals has held that an employee does not have “control” of his employer’s records for purposes of a request for production. See Newell v. Nash, 1994 OK CIV APP 143, 4 11 & n.5, 889 P.2d 345, 348 & n.5 (citing 12 O.S. § 3234). There, the court found that “{rJegardless of the possibility that the records may have contained discoverable information, the trial court certainly did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order Appellee to produce such records of which he was neither in possession nor control.” Jd. The relationship between the Holcomb Agency and State Farm is not even an employeremployee relationship. Rather, as an independent contractor, the Agency’s relationship with State Farm is even more attenuated than that of an employee to an employer. Thus, even more than the employee relationship in Newell, here, the Agency has no control over documents and information in State Farm’s possession. Following the logic in Goodyear Tire and other federal cases, information that is in State Farm’s control, rather than the Agency’s control, is not “reasonably available” to the Agency for purposes of § 3230(C)(5). Nor does the Agency’s contractual relationship with State Farm permit the Agency to demand confidential, proprietary claim-handling materials from State Farm for the purpose of responding to discovery requests or otherwise. dismissing suits brought against State As other Oklahoma courts have recognized, in Farm agents, State Farm captive agencies are not liable for State Farm’s claim handling because agencies do not handle claims. See e.g., Wiesman v. State Farm, CIV-25-00050-JD, 2025 WL 2918043, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 14, 2025); Rain Drop Found. Inc. v. State Farm, CIV-24-1101-D, 2025 WL 582562, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 21, 2025). Because"}, {"d": 51, "p": 10, "t": "State Farm agents do not handle claims, agencies are not privy to the vast amount of information about claim-handling that Plaintiffs request in their notice of deposition.’ Further, State Farm’s claim handling procedures are confidential and constitute valuable proprietary information. See e.g., Moses Enters., LLC y, Lexington Ins. Co., No. 3:19-CV-00477, 2020 WL 7634165, at *3-4 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 22, 2020) (holding AIG’s insurance claims manuals were entitled to confidential treatment because “they provide very detailed, specific step-by-step instructions that AIG has developed regarding its property and casualty insurance claims.”); Hamilton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 204 F.R.D, 420, 423 (S.D. Ind. 2001) (holding documents reflecting State Farm’s claim handling procedures would be valuable to a competitor and constitute trade secrets). Publicly filed declarations of State Farm personnel confirm the confidential nature of its claim handling and training materials. E.g., Ex. 3, J 2-14 (Manduca Declaration, Carson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CJ-2024-01847 (Tulsa Cty., Aug. 6, 2026) (“State Farm does not publicly disclose this information and consistently treats it as confidential in the ordinary course of business. Access to such information is generally limited to employees and others with a business need to know it.”), The Agency, thus, only has access to information as State Farm allows and cannot, as a practical matter, legal matter, or otherwise, require State Farm to provide the information requested in the Notice of Deposition.’ See Barron, 2020 WL 3 Plaintiffs attempt to manufacture a factual dispute over the Agency’s control of and access to State Farm’s information by pointing to a handful of internal State Farm documents—a 2021 “SEO Roofing Claim Update,” a February 2021 email among State Farm personnel, and an internal PowerPoint presentation script—that refer generally to communications with State Farm’s “agents” and “Agency Leadership,” the latter of which refers to State Farm employees. See Pls. Mot. Exs. 3-5. None of these documents mention the Holcomb Agency, and Plaintiffs identify nothing showing that the Agency had knowledge of the Wind Hail Model Enhancement Team’s (“WHMET”) underlying analysis, recommendations, and data that Topics 1 and 2 seek, nor can they. 4 The fact that the same counsel represent the Holcomb Agency and State Farm is irrelevant to this analysis as courts do not impute confidential knowledge an attorney learns in the representation of 9"}, {"d": 51, "p": 11, "t": "9600579 at *1 (denying motion to compel insurer to produce information it represented was in the possession, custody, or control of third-party claim administrator, where plaintiff failed to provide evidence of control, such as an agreement between the insurer and third-party administrator giving the insurer the legal right to obtain copies of the information and documents requested); McGrath v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:16-CV-284, 2017 WL 735585, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2017) (noting that contractual provisions addressing rights to information may be decisive as to question of possession, custody, or control, and denying motion to compel insurer to produce information in the possession of its agent where insurer’s “counsel ha[d] signed a discovery response certifying that [insurer] d[id] not have possession, custody, or control” of the information and plaintiff had “not presented any evidence to the contrary”); Coats v. Chaudhri, No. 1:13-CV-02032BAM-PC, 2016 WL 1046233, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2016) (denying motion to compel where responding party indicated information was not in his possession, custody, or control because “as an independent contractor, he d[id] not have a right to obtain the information”). Finding that State Farm’s information is not “reasonably available” to the Holcomb Agency is consistent with well-established agency law principles. Indeed, and critically, while an agent’s knowledge may, in some circumstances, be imputed to the principal, courts do not impute the principal’s knowledge to the agent. See Schmitt v. FMA All., 398 F.3d 995, 997 (8th Cir. 2005) (“[E]stablished agency law . . . dictates that while the knowledge of the agent is imputed to one client to other clients, See Bean v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., No. CV 11-08028-PCT-FJM, 2012 WL 1078662, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 30, 2012) (declining to “impute the confidential knowledge plaintiff’s lawyers learned in other copyright litigation to a non-party who happens to retain the same counsel”); Jn re Locust Bldg. Co., 299 F. 756, 769 (2d Cir. 1924) (“[A]s the doctrine of imputed notice to a client rests upon the ground that the attorney has knowledge of something material to the particular transaction which it is his duty to communicate to his principal, it has been held that notice will not be imputed to the client where it would be a breach of professional confidence to make the communication” (citation omitted)). 10"}, {"d": 51, "p": 12, "t": "the principal, the converse is not true.” (collecting cases)); S.0.G.-San Ore-Gardner vy. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 658 F.2d 562, 567 (8th Cir. 1981) (“[I]t is well settled that an agent may rely upon the representations of his principal and that the principal’s undisclosed knowledge is not imputed to him.” (citing Brooks v. Smith, 220 S.W.2d 801, 803 (Ark. 1949); W. Seavey, Law of Agency 187, 222-23 (1964); Restatement (Second) of Agency §§ 320, 348 (1958))). Plaintiffs seek to violate this established principle of law by requiring the Holcomb Agency to investigate and learn facts which, as a matter of law, cannot be imputed to the Agency. None of the very few authorities that Plaintiffs cite support their flawed interpretation of § 3230(C)(5) or that the Holcomb Agency has access to the information contained in their Notice. Rather, the authorities they cite regarding a corporate deponent’s responsibility to testify about matters beyond his or her personal knowledge do not address whether the Agency itself is required to become educated about information beyond its own possession, custody, and control. Pls, Mot, at 6 (citing E.E.O.C. v. Unit Drilling Co., No. 13-CV-147-TCK-PJC, 2014 WL 3548845, at *6 n.3 (N.D. Okla. July 17, 2014) (holding that corporate witness could not limit Rule 30(b)(6) testimony to her own personal recollection where information was known or reasonably available to Unit Drilling, the organization that designated her as its witness); Butterfly-Biles v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., No. 09-CV-086-CVE-PIC, 2010 WL 346838, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 21, 2010) (examining whether State Farm satisfied its own Rule 30(b)(6) obligation to provide testimony on matters “known or reasonably available” to State Farm, and cautioning that State Farm’s own trial testimony could be limited if State Farm’s witness could not speak to matters within State Farm’s own knowledge). Nor does Plaintiffs’ citation to Neil West’s deposition testimony establish that 1]"}, {"d": 51, "p": 13, "t": "the Agency has access to State Farm’s claim-handling information. Plaintiffs offer no authority in support of their assertion that the Agency has a responsibility to learn confidential information belonging to State Farm to satisfy its obligations under 12 O.S. § 3230(C)(5). Plaintiffs’ reliance on 12 O.S. § 1435.3(A) fares no better. That statute provides that, in a dispute between an insured and the insurer, the producer is treated as representing the insurer rather than the insured such that a producer’s representations can bind the insurer. It says nothing about which entity controls, and must produce in discovery, the insurer’s internal claim-handling and underwriting materials. Il. Plaintiffs Seek Irrelevant Discovery That Disproportionate to the Needs of the Case. The Oklahoma Discovery Code, like the Federal Rules from which it is derived, provides that discovery must be relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. See 12 OS. § 3226(B)(1)(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevance to a “party’s claim or defense”-—-as the Oklahoma Discovery Code requires*—is not simply assumed: “[w]hen the request is overly broad, or relevance is not clear, the party seeking the discovery has the burden to show the relevance of the request.” Stainsby v. Okla. ex rel. Okla. Health Care Auth., No. CIV-21-1073-D, 2022 WL 1748263, *1 (W.D. Okla. May 31, 2022). 5 While Plaintiffs assert that “Plaintiffs have testified that Holcomb knows about the Wind/Hail Focus Initiative,” the cited portion of Neil West’s deposition testimony states only a self-serving “belief” that she knew of it, based on absolutely nothing. Pls. Mot. at 8 (“The hail focus initiative, 1 think that she knew more about it.”) (quoting Pls. Mot. Ex. 2, p. 49:20-21)). Nothing about this self-serving speculation supports the notion that the Agency must educate itself about the hail focus initiative. 6 12 O.S, § 3226 (2025) (“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to any party’s claim or defense, reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and proportional to the needs of the case, considering [various factors].”) (emphasis added). 12"}, {"d": 51, "p": 14, "t": "Discovery must also be “proportional to the needs of the case.” 12 0.8. § 3226(B)(1)(a). See Werner Enters., Inc. v. Kirkland, No. 122,385 (Okla. Sept. 24, 2024). “The proper scope of discovery is that which is both relevant to the claims or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the various factors.”” Dodd v. Indian Health Care Res. Ctr. of Tulsa, Inc., No. 24-CV-00327-SH, 2024 WL 4648150, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 1, 2024) (emphasis in original). Here, even if the Agency could obtain information from State Farm to provide to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs cannot establish the point of such an exercise. By definition, information unknown to the Agency but leamed from State Farm for purposes of a corporate representative deposition would not be based on the Agency’s own knowledge, and a representative of the Agency would lack a foundation to testify about such matters. 12 O.S. § 2602. Even if this evidence were potentially admissible, the probative value of such testimony would be vastly inferior to the evidence Plaintiffs have already obtained and are seeking regarding the same subject matter directly from State Farm, as discussed below. While the potential benefit of requiring the Holcomb Agency to testify as to “State Farm’s corporate knowledge” is non-existent, the burdens associated with such an exercise and the potential for confusion are large. Discovery in this matter has ballooned to encompass nearly 800,000 documents with thousands more ordered and production pending. Requiring the Agency to review even a portion of this material is overly burdensome. Further, doing so would substantially impair the Agency’s ability to defend itself. The Petition alleges that certain matters were known to the Agency when Plaintiffs purchased or renewed their policy. Yet Plaintiffs seek 7 These factors include: (1) the importance of the issues at stake in the action; (2) the amount in controversy; (3) the parties’ relative access to relevant information; (4) the parties’ resources; (5) the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues; and (6) whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. See 12 0.8. § 3226(B)(1)(a). 13"}, {"d": 51, "p": 15, "t": "to compel deposition preparation that would require the Agency representative to become educated on a broad range of State Farm claim-handling subjects far removed from the Agency’s actual knowledge. Such preparation would create a significant risk of contaminating the witness’s testimony by conflating historical knowledge with information leamed years later solely in response to litigation. Plaintiffs would have every incentive to exploit that confusion by attempting to characterize litigation-acquired knowledge as evidence of what the Agency supposedly knew when the policy was sold or renewed. Nor can Plaintiffs establish the relevance of testimony from the Agency about information belonging to State Farm, and the burdens of manufacturing this evidence would be disproportionate and indeed detrimental to the needs of the case. In short, the Court should not permit discovery that requires the Agency to manufacture the knowledge Plaintiffs contend existed in the first place, when such knowledge did not exist. IV. The Requested Discovery Is Unreasonably Cumulative and State Farm to the Extent Plaintiffs Are Entitled to the Discovery. Available from Under the Oklahoma Discovery Code, the Court shall limit the frequency or extent of discovery if “the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” § 3226(B)(2)(c)(1). 12 O.S. To the extent discovery exists and Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery about State Farm’s claim-handling practices, Plaintiffs are obtaining this discovery from State Farm. Indeed, the Court previously granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, requiring State Farm to respond to discovery requests that overlap with Plaintiffs’ noticed deposition topics. See Journal Entry, April 22, 2026. For example, Topic 1, which seeks information about State Farm’s “Wind/Hail Focus Initiative” overlaps with Interrogatories 6, 7, 9, 13, and 28-29 and Requests for Production 21-24 and 39 that Plaintiffs propounded to State Farm and which the Court compelled State Farm to answer. Compare, Pls. Mot. Ex. 6 with Ex. 4 (SF First Disc Resp.). Topic 2, which 14"}, {"d": 51, "p": 16, "t": "seeks information about State Farm’s “Wind/Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team,” similarly overlaps with Interrogatories 6, 7, 9, 13, and 28-29 and RFPs 21-24, 35-39, and 43. Notably, the noticed topics include matters for which the Court sustained State Farm’s objections. Compare Topic 3 (regarding claim “hygiene”) with RFP 29 (objection sustained); compare Topic 4(e) (regarding “Art of the Conversation”) with RFP 30 (objection sustained); compare Topic 4(k) (regarding MyBlock) with RFP 33 (objection sustained). Plaintiffs have also deposed Nicole Manduca, who Plaintiffs have represented to be the architect and leader of the scheme that they allege. Pls. Resp. to Motion for Protective Order, at 2 (Jan. 28, 2026) (“Nicole Manduca was the /eader of the WHMET.”). Plaintiffs are deposing other State Farm senior executives they claim have personal knowledge of the topics in the deposition notice to the Agency, including Wensley Herbert, Scott Welsh and Kathy Ress. To the extent the Court has found that Plaintiffs are entitled to the discovery they seek, they have obtained it from State Farm. To the extent that Plaintiffs are entitled to more discovery on the same topics, Plaintiffs are seeking it from State Farm. Requiring the Agency to educate itself to provide testimony on these same subjects—about which it has no knowledge—would be the definition of unreasonably cumulative and duplicative discovery. CONCLUSION The Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. requests that the Court deny the motion to compel. 15"}, {"d": 51, "p": 17, "t": "we ONL fTLA X ROTHER, OBA #14310 ie | PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE & DUNLEVY, PC Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7700 Facsimile: (405) 239-6651 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 17th day of August, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy. of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Brad Burgess Colby Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 44th Street, Suite 201 \"ene wil Lawton, OK 73505"}, {"d": 51, "p": 18, "t": "NEIL IN THE and LACY DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY WEST, ee Plaintiffs, ee Case Number CJ-2025-135 ae ae Vs. ee ee ee STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. VIDEO DEPOSITION OF Taken on behalf on the 19th in REPORTED BY: of day Lawton, * NEIL SPENCER the of WEST Defendants March, 2026 Oklahoma * TAMARA * * WAGGONER, CSR EXHIBIT 1"}, {"d": 51, "p": 19, "t": "think if those them, she had Because the changes and knew about a duty to tell me about them. not only is she an agent for State Farm, that she served as already established here agent, too. Like neighbor State there. Contact My agency a good your local agent. exists between State Farm State Farm and me. relay that information ROTHER: MS. She had and Farm is agent. An her 13 and a dual to me. Move to strike as MR. SANDERS: to form. Q (By Ms. Object Rother) One 14 she knew about it. 15 what she knew or 16 MR. SANDERS: Object 17 THE WITNESS: Do did not know? (By Ms. Rother) what 19 she QO 20 not -- 21 and say, 22 she didn't obligation to Do did can you -- I know that tell me? you not thing have said was knowledge about I to the form. have any knowledge knew or did in front of a sit Holcomb knew about Object to the form. 24 THE WITNESS: I sit in front of confidence that she say I have reasonable jury this SANDERS: can of she MR. and if know? you Ms. you any What could the 23 25 my nonresponsive. 12 18 she we've 10 11 were a and jury has to"}, {"d": 51, "p": 20, "t": "go through regular training and is and they learned MS. ROTHER: Okay. THE WITNESS: What business what she should @) (By agents the are ones Ms. what have known Rother) independent that understand make that; what she or insurance along the way. should have -- And you understand and claim decisions, right? SANDERS: Object to 11 THE WITNESS: I necessarily Ms. 6) (By 14 A I that. 16 Ms. Do you know Holcomb -- A Let me if I Nancy can if that is what Q Right. mostly agree agents could -- with has clarify the claim. the question was at. Do you believe Farm's claim decision? don't think so. A I 24 Q And you're of training kind I deny 23 some think -- 20 State I that that over -- Okay. think believe 25 form. learning. 19 21 Rother) think I'm Q 18 22 don't the that. 13 17 not you MR. 15 that they're 10 12 or known. contractors the the just she supposing about State that. I don't If that -- has any control that agents Farm's claim get"}, {"d": 51, "p": 21, "t": "decision making? MR. SANDERS: Q (By The A IT Q Okay. A I apologize. MS. ROTHER: Oh, THE WITNESS: We're time is Witness) now record. The time (By Ms. Rother) break, back Q 14 short 15 you about 16 the -- 17 Number 18 A Ready. 19 Q On lunch your it's is that? course. off the record. The in the 1 Against 21 action will 22 been 23 provisions. 24 within Us be right back on the p.m. All on right, the it's sir. record. I Will you policy. six in provision. compliance are Page 26, We hada was asking look at Bates corner. brought Any We and paragraph Suits RECESS) 1:18 insurance Exhibit 20 And supposing break. of VIDEOGRAPHER: full form. 12:54. 13 25 Potty THE 26 the You're (LUNCH 11 to am. 10 12 Object the left And it against with action by column, states, us unless all of the any party one year after the date of do you agree that you filed the \"No there has policy must loss or your be started damage.\" petition"}, {"d": 51, "p": 22, "t": "and LACY DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY WEST, ee Plaintiffs, Case CJ-2025-135 Number ae VS. ee THE ae NEIL IN ee ee ee STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. VIDEO DEPOSITION Taken on on the behalf 20th in BY: LACY of day Lawton, * REPORTED OF MICHELLE the of WEST Defendants March, 2026 Oklahoma * TAMARA * * WAGGONER, CSR EXHIBIT 2"}, {"d": 51, "p": 23, "t": "Q So looking on over to extensive and detailed going 10 wind, hail State Farm's at -- focus by A Yes. @) Okay. 6, through Page initiative former there by are 9, probably there allegations internal testimony Page are about State definitions a Farm, of hail factual information do through which support what is in Pages the State Farm specific 6 saw damage, You to that; 10, MR. SANDERS: Form. 12 THE WITNESS: The that it does -- given Farm and our current hand in hand with what now. And, yeah, that's attest to. (By Ms. Rother) So because your have is 14 with State 15 seems to 16 experiencing 17 all I 18 go can 6) right 19 paid in 2019 but was 20 roof was paid in 2019, 21 roof replacement 22 consistent 23 or 24 document; is 25 A Yes. in right? you have is information? 11 13 purported employees. What -- not You only -- but can answer. factual our knowledge prior experience experience, this we're really claim your claim for your claim for a total was not paid, that's with the change in your view philosophy that is that what the scheme you're described saying? was total 2023 in I approach in this"}, {"d": 51, "p": 24, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA DEAN CARSON, ) Case No. CJ-2024-01847 ) Plaintiff, ) VS. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and JASON STRICKLAND, The Honorable Kevin Gray ) ) ) ) _) ) Defendants. ) DECLARATION OF NICOLE MANDUCA I, Nicole Manduca, make the following declaration pursuant to 12 O.S. § 426: 1. I am employed by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) as a Property & Casualty (“P&C”) Claims Fire Director. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and, if called as a witness, could competently testify thereto. 2. On April 1, 2026, I provided deposition testimony in this action, Dean Carson v. State Farm Fire Casualty Company and Jason Strickland. Portions of that testimony concerned State Farm’s internal business operations, including the Fire Model Enhancement (“FME”) work, internal wind and hail claim-handling processes, quality measurements, manager-review requirements, training, personnel evaluation, and compensation-related processes. Those are among the subjects discussed in the portions of my deposition testimony that State Farm designated as confidential. 3. The information and documents discussed in the designated portions of my testimony are not generally known to the public. They concern internal processes, methods, guidelines, performance measurements, training practices, and operational procedures used within State Farm’s claims organization. EXHIBIT 3"}, {"d": 51, "p": 25, "t": "4. State Farm does not publicly disclose this information and consistently treats it as confidential in the ordinary course of business. Access to such information is generally limited to employees and others with a business need to know it. 5. Based on my experience and familiarity with these subjects, the information discussed in the designated testimony reflects internal business practices and operational methods that State Farm has developed and refined over time. State Farm has invested substantial resources in developing, implementing, maintaining, and improving these processes. State Farm creates its own claim handling resource materials, including internal training presentations, job aids, manuals, and other instructional or training materials and disseminates them to authorized personnel only. They are unique to State Farm and reflect proprietary claim handling procedures, techniques, processes, methods, systems, and policies. 6. State Farm considers these materials to be proprietary intellectual property. State Farm has incurred substantial expense and devoted many hours to their development, which is based on knowledge State Farm has gained through claim handling and other business experiences that provide it with an advantage over its competitors. 7. The creation, evaluation, and updating of resource materials for claims personnel is an ongoing, expensive, and time-consuming process that requires input from numerous highlyqualified claims and legal personnel. State Farm expends significant resources, including valuable personnel time and resources, in maintaining and updating the resource materials for continued use in State Farm’s business. 8. Public disclosure of the information discussed in the designated testimony would reveal details regarding State Farm’s internal claim handling procedures, training practices, management-review processes, performance measurements, and employee-evaluation systems."}, {"d": 51, "p": 26, "t": "Disclosure of such information could provide insight into State Farm’s internal operations that is not otherwise available to the public. 9. The FME work I testified about includes analyses of State Farm’s reinspection data and claim handling data, as well as guidelines, policies, and procedures related to claim handling. This work goes to the heart of State Farm’s business and its commitment to its policyholders— investigating claims, making coverage determinations, and paying what it owes to customers— and disclosure of such information poses a serious competitive disadvantage to State Farm. 10. State Farm does not disclose information about its claim handling and underwriting procedures, techniques, processes, methods, systems, or policies to the general public or to its competitors, and it would be injurious to State Farm’s competitive position in the marketplace if such information became public. 11. Ifcompetitors were to obtain the information discussed in the designated testimony, they would receive the benefit of State Farm’s work product at no cost. This would especially benefit insurers that do not have the resources to develop their own claims procedures and guidelines, training documents, and other instructional materials and guidelines. Such insurers would be able to simply copy and adopt State Farm’s confidential programs and procedures, and the value of those programs and procedures to State Farm would be impaired. Farm’s confidential techniques, processes, information methods, surrounding systems, claim handling and policies would Release of State and underwriting provide procedures, competitors with a “blueprint” of how to manage their operations, thereby causing irreparable injury to State Farm and the loss of a business advantage. 12. Further, the competitor’s development time and cost for the concept, method, or process would be greatly reduced if it had access to State Farm’s confidential information. The"}, {"d": 51, "p": 27, "t": "competitor would realize substantial cost savings and thereby gain an unfair advantage without properly compensating State Farm for the expenses it incurred in developing these ideas. 13. Public disclosure of the information designated in my testimony could also cause competitive harm to State Farm by revealing to competitors and bad actors the capabilities of State Farm’s procedures. Information about how State Farm evaluates claims, if made public, would make it easier for malicious actors to file fraudulent claims and evade detection from State Farm. 14. I state under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma that the foregoing is true and correct. Scottsdale, AZ py, cole Manduca [Date and Place] Nicole Manduca"}, {"d": 51, "p": 28, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL AND LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No, CJ-2025-135 ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY; and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ ) AGENCY INC., ) Defendants. ) ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm” or “Defendant’”) submits the following answers, responses, and objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS State Farm’s Responses are based on information and documentation presently available to State Farm and which State Farm believes, based on current information, to be relevant and reasonably responsive. State Farm anticipates that further investigation, research, and analysis will supply additional facts and documents, add meaning to known facts, and perhaps establish new factual conclusions, all of which may in turn lead to additions or changes to these Responses. Accordingly, State Farm reserves the right to amend these Responses as additional facts are ascertained, analyses are made, research is completed, and contentions become apparent. In addition, State Farm will fulfill its obligation to supplement these Responses pursuant to the Oklahoma Discovery Code. EXHIBIT 4"}, {"d": 51, "p": 29, "t": "OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEFINITIONS Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Address/Telephone Number.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ request for “both the current business and residential address and telephone number” of natural persons on the grounds that such information constitutes personally identifiable information sought in violation of those individuals’ right to privacy. The business addresses and business telephone numbers of natural persons are sufficient to identify and contact potential witnesses. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—*Claim.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim.” State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code and seeks discovery regarding “all requests for indemnity to [State Farm].” State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Claim File.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “claim,” “document(s),” and “communication(s)” and applies each to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim file.” State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim file” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code and seeks discovery regarding any “claim for indemnity under a policy of insurance coverage [State Farm has] issued.” In addition, State Farm objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. State Farm further states that it does not maintain a physical file folder with respect to most claims. Information regarding"}, {"d": 51, "p": 30, "t": "Plaintiffs’ Claim is created, stored, managed, and accessed primarily in and through the Enterprise Claims System (“ECS”), a proprietary web-based system used by State Farm claims associates. “Claim File” has a distinct meaning to State Farm based upon the portion of its Claim Procedures Guide that provides instructions on what to retrieve from ECS to generate a Claim File for production outside the ECS environment. State Farm maintains the information for each claim as required by 36 O.S. § 1250.4 (“Such files shall contain all notes and work papers pertaining to a claim in such detail that pertinent events and the dates of such events can be reconstructed.”), Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Claims Handling Personnel.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claims handling personnel.” In addition, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition as vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “performing work or services related to,” 39 66 “receipt,” “response,” 3 “adjustment,” 39 66 “appraisal,” and “handling of formal and informal disputes.” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—‘Communication(s).” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “communication(s).” State Farm objects to the inclusion of “oral” exchanges in Plaintiffs’ definition of “communication(s)” on the grounds that the Oklahoma Discovery Code does not require State Farm to produce “communications” that do not already exist on a medium from which information can be obtained. State Farm also objects to the inclusion of text or instant messaging system(s) and social media platform(s) in Plaintiffs’ definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to produce such materials, which are not captured by State Farm in its ordinary course of business."}, {"d": 51, "p": 31, "t": "Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Custodian(s).” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “custodian(s).” Objection and Response to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Document(s).” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “communication(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s).” Additionally, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and to the extent Plaintiffs seek production of all identical copies of ESI. ESI is frequently duplicated and disbursed in the ordinary course of business, and discovery regarding all identical copies of ESI would be cumulative, duplicative, and impose unnecessary burdens without any benefit to the adjudication of this action. State Farm also objects to the extent that Plaintiffs seek production of ES] from sources that are not reasonably accessible, as such discovery would require extraordinary efforts that are not proportional to the scope of the matter. State Farm also objects to the extent this definition seeks discovery regarding ESI that is ephemeral in nature, such as temporary computer files, log/history files, or file fragments, as the preservation and production of such things is not proportional to the needs of the case. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and beyond the scope of permissible discovery to the extent Plaintiffs purport to include system information not created by State Farm users, such as caches, cookies, or logs, or otherwise seek to require State Farm to record and/or provide discovery regarding records and information that are not ordinarily captured and/or are overwritten in the ordinary course of operating State Farm’s computing systems. State Farm objects to the inclusion of “every copy” in Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” on the grounds that copies are not universally relevant to the claims and defenses"}, {"d": 51, "p": 32, "t": "of a case and are likely to be cumulative or duplicative. To the extent that a copy is not a business record stored in a central repository in State Farm’s ordinary course of business, discovery regarding “every copy” would not be proportional to the needs of the case. Finally, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” to the extent it would require the production or disclosure of information protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or other privileges recognized by law. Notwithstanding these objections, to the extent any responsive documents or ESI are produced, State Farm will produce reasonably accessible, relevant, non-privileged information in reasonably usable formats as set forth in State Farm’s objections to the ESI Protocol. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Employee.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “employee(s)” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code and seeks discovery from “all employees, past and present.” State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—‘Engineering Services.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Engineering Services” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. In addition, State Farm objects to this definition as vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “any of which embraces such services or work.”"}, {"d": 51, "p": 33, "t": "Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to a corporation. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” when used in reference to a “corporation, firm, or other entity” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to a meeting or conference. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” to the extent it seeks information about “meeting[s] or conference[s]” that is overly broad and not relevant to the claims and defenses of any party. State Farm further objects to the definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to provide such detailed information for all “meeting[s] or conference[s].” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to a telephonic conversation. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” to the extent it seeks information about “telephone communication|s]” that is overly broad and not relevant to the claims and defenses of any party. State Farm further objects to the definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to provide such detailed information for all discoverable “telephone communication|s].” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to a “writing.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” when used in reference to a “writing.” State Farm further objects that while capitalized, “Writing” is not separately defined in Plaintiffs’ First Set of Discovery Requests."}, {"d": 51, "p": 34, "t": "In addition, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” with respect to “writings” as overly broad and not relevant to the claims and defenses of any party. State Farm further objects to the definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to provide such detailed information for all discoverable “writings.” State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ definition insofar as it seeks the “present location or custodian” of all discoverable “writings” on the grounds that the definition is overly broad and unduly burdensome and such information is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case. There are multiple ways that ESI may be held, stored, or used together by one or multiple custodians, such as on a shared or personal hard drive, in a container file, or in a database, and State Farm cannot reasonably catalogue and describe the information regarding any myriad of ways ESI may be held, stored, or used together without undue burden. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” insofar as it seeks details regarding “writings” that are “no longer [{] in [State Farm’s] possession or control” on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and purports to impose obligations greater than those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. There is no basis to demand State Farm generally describe all requested information that may have existed at some time. State Farm further objects to this definition as unduly burdensome and beyond the scope of permissible discovery to the extent it purports to call for forensic investigation into computing devices or systems to determine or locate information indicating or evidencing ES] that was deleted or that is no longer accessible as active data on that device or system. State Farm further objects that ES] and/or documents that were deleted or no longer exist are not reasonably accessible, and discovery about the same would require extraordinary efforts that are not proportional to the scope of the matter, Furthermore, State Farm objects on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ definition is not limited in"}, {"d": 51, "p": 35, "t": "time or scope and State Farm had no duty to preserve relevant information prior to the time this litigation was reasonably anticipated. Finally, State Farm objects to this definition to the extent that it purports to require State Farm to provide information more properly requested via separate interrogatory. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to an “Oral Conversation.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” to the extent it seeks information about “oral communication[s]” that is overly broad and not relevant to the claims and defenses of any party. State Farm further objects to the definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to provide such detailed information for all discoverable “oral communication[s].” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to an “individual natural person.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” when used in reference to an “individual natural Person” insofar as it seeks the “residential address” of natural persons on the grounds that such information constitutes personally identifiable information sought in violation of those individuals’ constitutional right to privacy. To the extent required to address the claims and defenses at issue in this case, the business addresses and business telephone numbers of natural persons will be sufficient to identify and contact potential witnesses. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Relevant Time Period.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Relevant Time Period” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. State Farm"}, {"d": 51, "p": 36, "t": "will not produce any documents prior to one year prior to the date of loss or after the filing of the Petition unless otherwise stated in its responses. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“You.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “You” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm further objects to this definition as overly broad to the extent it purports to include individuals “purporting to act on behalf” of various entities, individuals acting on behalf of “any merged or acquired predecessors, successors, and/or divested facilities, division, or subsidiaries of State Farm,” and individuals “serving or having served on any governing board of any State Farm.” OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INSTRUCTIONS Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 1. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 1. State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 1 to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm will provide documents and information within its possession, custody, and control in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 2. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 2 to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm will fulfill its obligation to supplement these Responses pursuant to the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 4, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 4 on the grounds that it exceeds the parameters of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm"}, {"d": 51, "p": 37, "t": "will state its Objections and Responses to the Requests in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code and substantive law. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 5. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 5. State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 5 on the grounds that it exceeds the parameters of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm will state its Objections and Responses to the Requests in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code and substantive law. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 6. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 6 on the grounds that it exceeds the parameters of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm will state its Objections and Responses to the discovery in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code and substantive law. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 7. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 7. State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 7 on the grounds that the inclusion of “no longer [] in [State Farm’s] possession or control” is overly broad and because it imposes obligations that are unduly burdensome and greater than those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code, State Farm further objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 7 on the grounds that it exceeds the parameters of the Oklahoma Discovery Code and because State Farm had no duty to preserve relevant information prior to the time this litigation was reasonably anticipated. State Farm will state its Objections and Responses to the discovery in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code and substantive law. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8. 10"}, {"d": 51, "p": 38, "t": "In addition, State Farm restates and incorporates its objections to Plaintiffs’ ESI Protocol and applies them to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8. State Farm also restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 9 and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8. State Farm further objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8 to the extent it seeks to unilaterally dictate a form of production. State Farm will produce documents and ESI in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 9. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s”) and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 9. In addition, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 9 to the extent it seeks to unilaterally dictate a form of production. State Farm will produce documents and ESI in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 10. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 10 to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. To the extent State Farm withholds any information on the basis of privilege, State Farm will provide a privilege log in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 11. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 11 as overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case on the grounds that it requires State Farm to provide information and documents relating to “all States of the United States in which [State Farm] conduct[s] business.” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 12. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Relevant Time Period” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 12. {1"}, {"d": 51, "p": 39, "t": "OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ ES] PROTOCOL Objection to Plaintiffs’ “ESI Protocol.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ attempt to unilaterally impose an “ESI Protocol” in their Instructions and Exhibit 1 to govern the scope of discovery. The Oklahoma Discovery Code addresses the form of production of ESI and does not require parties to produce ESI in any particular way or allow requesting parties to unilaterally dictate a form of production. Instead, it allows the requesting party to specify a form of production and, in response, the producing party can object and state the form of production it intends to make. 12 OS. § 3234(B)(1)(c)-(d). In fact, Oklahoma law only requires that the format be “reasonably usable” and further provides that “a party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.” 12 O.S. § 3234(A)(1)(a) and § 3234(B)(2)(e). State Farm further objects to Plaintiffs’ “ESI Protocol” because it exceeds the scope of permissible discovery and imposes obligations above and beyond those set forth under the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ ESI Protocol to the extent it requires the production of documents or discovery of information that is not reasonably accessible to State Farm on the ground that such discovery would require extraordinary efforts that are not proportional to the scope of this matter. 12 O.S. § 3226(B); Werner Enter., Inc. v. Kirkland et al., No. 122,385 (Okla. Sept. 24, 2024) (“Respondent, any other assigned judge, or a special master appointed by the district court shall review the discovery requests at issue and consider the proportionality facts stated in 12 O.S. Section 3226 (B)(2)(c) along with all other statutory requirements before ruling on the discovery disputes.”). State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ “ESI Discovery Protocol,” attached as Exhibit 1 for the same reasons. To the extent ESI is produced, State Farm will produce reasonably accessible, relevant, non-privileged information in image format, accompanied by document-level text files containing 12"}, {"d": 51, "p": 40, "t": "searchable text (either extracted text or text created with optical character recognition (“OCR”)). The information pertinent to the claims and defenses in this case can be found in the text of the documents and is not generally found in metadata and Plaintiffs have not set forth any basis or arguments to the contrary. Notwithstanding State Farm’s objections and format set forth above, where applicable, metadata load files will be produced in .DAT file format and image load files in .OPT format (i.e., industry standard “Concordance” formatted load files). The exceptions to this approach are: e State Farm will produce responsive, non-privileged, and unredacted spreadsheets (e.g., Microsoft Excel files) in native format. e State Farm will produce responsive, redacted Excel-file documents in near-native format with redacted text, unless doing so would be unduly burdensome or render the file(s) unusable, in which case State Farm will seek to meet and confer with Plaintiffs on the proper redaction method. e State Farm will produce responsive, non-privileged, and unredacted ESI maintained in presentation formats (e.g., Microsoft PowerPoint) in native format if relevant information exists that cannot be displayed on an image (e.g., animations or embedded audio files). « State Farm will produce responsive, redacted ES] maintained in presentation formats (e.g., Microsoft PowerPoint) as image files with redacted text, unless doing so would be unduly burdensome or render the file(s) unusable, in which case State Farm will seek to meet and confer with Plaintiffs on the proper redaction method. e State Farm may choose to produce ESI that is difficult or impracticable to render in Bates stamped image format, such as video or audio files, in native format. To the extent there is a need for any deviation from the above, State Farm will meet and confer and negotiate in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute with Plaintiffs’ counsel. Objection and Response to Plaintiffs’ Definition of “Electronically Stored Information.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “document(s)” and “communication(s),” and “Electronically Stored Information.” 13 apphes each to Plaintiffs’ definition of"}, {"d": 51, "p": 41, "t": "Objection to Plaintiffs’ ESI] Production No. 1. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 1 on the grounds that the Oklahoma Discovery Code addresses the form of production of ESI and does not require parties to produce ES] in any particular way or allow requesting parties to unilaterally dictate the form of production. State Farm will produce ESI in a reasonably usable format as set forth above, which is all the Oklahoma Discovery Code requires. Objection to Plaintiffs’ ESI] Production No. 2. State Farm restates and incorporates its objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “document(s),” and “communication(s),” and applies each to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 2. State Farm further restates and incorporates its General Objection to Plaintiffs’ ESI Protocol and applies it to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 2. Objection to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 3. State Farm restates and incorporates its objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “document(s),” and “communication(s),” and applies each to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 3. State Farm further restates and incorporates its General Objection to Plaintiffs’ ESI Protocol and applies it to Plaintiffs’ EST Production No. 3. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ PROTECTIVE ORDER STATEMENT State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ unilateral and self-serving statements and conclusions concerning their hugely overly broad discovery requests seeking State Farm’s confidential and proprietary institutional documents that have no relevance to Plaintiffs’ claim and are vastly disproportionate even if they were relevant. State Farm objects further because, contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, Oklahoma law expressly grants courts permission to enter protective orders protecting the use of confidential information produced during discovery. 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(g); YWCA of Oklahoma City v. Melson, 1997 OK 81, § 18-24 n.41, 944 P.2d 304, 310-11 n41 (holding that the need for pretrial disclosure should “be harmonized” with a party’s “right of privacy,” and preventing public disclosure of sensitive information “is sufficient justification for 14"}, {"d": 51, "p": 42, "t": "the authorization of protective orders”); State ex rel. Oklahoma State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision y. Rivero, 2021 OK 31, { 79, 489 P.3d 36, 64 (explaining that courts’ authority under Section 3226(c) to enter protective orders has “conceptual origins in [its] counterparts found in” Rule 26 of the Federal Rules.”). State Farm will thus not produce documents it deems to be Confidential until the entry of a mutually acceptable protective order unless otherwise ordered by the Court. State Farm is submitting a proposed protective order with these discovery responses. For purposes of its below Responses to Plaintiffs’ specific Requests, and to avoid repeating its objections stated in these introductory sections, State Farm’s above General Objections, Objections to Plaintiffs’ Definitions, Objections to Plaintiffs’ Instructions, Objections to Plaintiffs’ ESI Protocol and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Protective Order Statement shall be collectively referred to as “State Farm’s Universal Objections.” INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Provide the name, address, and job title of any Claims Handling Personnel who were involved with, adjusted, managed, supervised, investigated, worked on, reviewed, or provided any work or oversight on any aspect of Plaintiffs’ Claim or the handling thereof. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad in scope. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or documentation. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm states that the persons involved in the claim and their role is as reflected in the claim file being produced herewith, Bates numbered SFF&CC/West_000054-000887, and Plaintiffs can review the file and determine 15"}, {"d": 51, "p": 43, "t": "whose work meets the categories identified by Plaintiffs. However, the claim representative for this claim was External Claims Resource Cedric Gooch of Eberl. He was assigned to investigate and evaluate Plaintiffs’ claim with the supervision of External Claim Resource Team Manager (“TM”) Max Balser. As reflected in the claim notes, Gooch inspected Plaintiffs’ property on September 28, 2023 and prepared an estimate to reflect the damage identified. Thereafter, the claim was re-assigned to State Farm’s Wind and Hail Reconciliation Unit (“WHRU”). The WHRU is a team environment and follow-up claim activity is undertaken by the individual in the group available at the time without individual claim assignments, though with complete access to all prior claim activity. Some of the claim personnel are employees of State Farm and some are employees of external vendors who provide claim assistance to State Farm. Thus, there are multiple claim personnel in the file whose involvement was primarily to follow-up on information received from Plaintiffs, their contractor, or their public adjuster. The work of each of the individuals who reviewed or took any action on Plaintiffs’ claim and the specific action he or she took 1s reflected in the claim notes produced and Bates numbered SFF&CC/West_000069-000077, along with any related documents. In March 2024, Plaintiffs submitted a contractor’s estimate and photos and requested a second inspection. Claim Specialist (“CS”) Kristin Haun reviewed the submitted information and found it did not support a second inspection. CS Haun did update State Farm’s estimate to allow for additional payments related to repairs for interior damage and issued a supplemental claim payment. Plaintiffs submitted additional photos, which were reviewed by CS Temicka Collett who determined they did not reflect accidental direct physical loss to the shingles, so State Farm’s decision remained unchanged. CS Alexis Napoles later talked with Plaintiffs’ contractor and reviewed photos provided by the contractor and assigned the claim to the field to review for a possible second inspection. CS Christy Mebane reviewed the claim and photos, with the supervision of TM Jason Taylor. They 16"}, {"d": 51, "p": 44, "t": "determined the pictures did not support a second inspection. CS Mebane conveyed the decision to Plaintiffs. The claim was reassigned to the WHRU. In April 2024, Plaintiffs’ public adjuster requested a copy of Plaintiffs’ policy and declaration pages. CS Erica Berndtson arranged for the documents to be sent to the public adjuster. Plaintiffs’ contractor submitted photos once again and requested a second inspection. These photos were reviewed by CS Yasiin Bradley, who determined they did not support a second inspection. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: If State Farm maintains Plaintiffs failed to comply with the terms of the Policy, please set forth (a) the facts that support such contention; (b) all persons with knowledge to support such contention; and (c) all documents or other evidence that may support such contention. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory as overbroad because it is not limited to the time period of the handling of Plaintiffs’ property claim or to the property claim that is at issue in this litigation. Further, discovery has just begun, and all facts and history regarding the insurance policy and property, Plaintiffs’ conduct following the loss, and other issues are not fully known. State Farm will produce information regarding the insurance claim at issue in the Petition only. State Farm additionally objects to this Interrogatory as invasive of the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine and because it improperly seeks a legal conclusion and application of law to specific facts, which is premature and is not required in the early stages of this tigation. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory because it improperly asks State Farm to marshal its evidence. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm states that Plaintiffs did not comply with the “Duties After Loss” provision of the Policy (Section I — Conditions, p. 20), requiring that “[a]fter a loss to which this insurance may apply, [Plaintiffs] must 17"}, {"d": 51, "p": 45, "t": "cooperate with [State Farm] in the investigation of the claim” and see that certain duties are performed, including but not limited to, “giv[ing] immediate notice” of the claim to State Farm. Plaintiffs also did not comply with the Suits Against Us provision (Section I - Conditions, { 6, p. 22), providing that “[n]o action will be brought against [State Farm] unless there has been full compliance with all of the policy provisions. Any action by any party must be filed within one year after the date of loss or damage.” Plaintiffs reported that their property was damaged by a storm on June 15, 2023 but did not report the claim to State Farm unti! July 28, 2023. After receiving the claim, State Farm attempted to contact Plaintiffs multiple times by phone and letter. Claim representatives were not able to connect with Plaintiffs to discuss their claim until September 16, 2023. Additionally, the lawsuit was filed on February 28, 2025—more than one year after the date of loss. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ demand that State Farm pay to repair or replace items that did not sustain accidental direct physical loss as required by the Policy (Section I — Losses Insured, p. 12) before requested benefits are owed does not satisfy the Policy’s terms. The information that supports State Farm’s position is in SFF&CC/West_000001-000053, numbered the Policy, being produced herewith, Bates numbered and in the claim file also being produced herewith, Bates SFF&CC/West_000054-000887. State Farm further states that the persons with knowledge of Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the terms of the Policy include ECR Cedric Gooch, ECR Max Balser, CS Kristin Haun, CS Temicka Collett, CS Christy Mebane, TM Jason Taylor, and CS Yasiin Bradley. State Farm is not presently aware of other provisions of the Policy with which Plaintiffs have failed to comply but reserves the right to identify other non-compliance if it becomes known. 18"}, {"d": 51, "p": 46, "t": "INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all Wind/Hail Claims and corresponding civil cases in Oklahoma since January 1, 2019 wherein a Total or Full Roof Replacement was denied prior to a lawsuit being filed, but was subsequently approved and/or paid to an insured after the insured filed a civil lawsuit against State Farm. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. It is also overly broad and the search for and production of such information would be unduly burdensome. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks information regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates; relating to insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claim at issue in this litigation; and involving information about individuals other than the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in this action, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information, or information protected by the attorney client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or other legal privileges. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Describe with specificity, in detail, and by date any and all inspection(s) conducted by any of the named defendants, or anyone acting on their behalf, of the Insured Property at the inception of replacement cost coverage being sold and upon any renewal. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because the condition, State Farm’s knowledge of the condition, and inspections of Plaintiffs’ 19"}, {"d": 51, "p": 47, "t": "house, in addition to any other information encompassed in the discovery request, presume obligations that do not exist and encompass information that is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case. The scope and particularities of what is requested are also vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome as written. State Farm objects to producing underwriting information on the ground that it is neither relevant nor proportional, as there is no dispute that the applicable policy was in effect on the date of loss. Also, it must be noted that “[t]here are no Oklahoma cases which have concluded that the tort of bad faith encompasses non-claims related conduct—sales, pricing and underwriting . . .” Moreover, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has concluded that “‘the conduct of the practices insurer and the agent in selling and issuing the policy, cannot give rise to the tort of bad faith breach of insurance 8017244, contract.” Miller v. Farmers Ins. at *14 (W.D. Grp., No. CIV-10-466-F, 2012 WL Okla. Mar. 22, 2012) (citation omitted). The Request also seeks information which may be in the possession of persons other than State Farm, including, in some instances, Plaintiffs. To the extent such information exists, it may also encompass confidential and proprietary information of State Farm or third parties and potentially information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm will produce the Policy which describes the relationship with the Plaintiffs as it relates to policy issuance and inspections and the Underwriting File for this Policy, which will reflect underwriting inspections of the property if they exist. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify all policies, procedures, guidelines, manuals and/or training materials, which You used to train any of the Claims Handling Personnel involved with the Claim in any way. 20"}, {"d": 51, "p": 48, "t": "ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, and overly broad with respect to the use of the terms “all policies, procedures, guidelines, manuals and/or training materials.” State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma); potentially unduly burdensome; and seeks information that is neither relevant to the claims/defenses of any party nor proportional to the needs or issues in this case. State Farm’s procedures are intended to provide guidance, but each claim is handled on its own merits. Moreover, training materials that were obsolete on the date of loss, pertain only to other losses, and/or pertain only to other areas of the country, are not relevant to the matters at issue in this case. State Farm additionally objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce. Finally, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, and upon entry of an approved protective order, State Farm will produce the relevant parts of the claim handling procedures that may have been used to adjust claims alleged to have arisen from the weather event that occurred on the date of loss. This includes the Estimatics and Claim Handling Practices (“ECHP”)—a compilation of claim handling procedures that State Farm prepares in connection with weather events, such as the one here. 2]"}, {"d": 51, "p": 49, "t": "INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify all State Farm management and/or executive employees who served on the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail team and/or the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team and/or the Hail Focus Initiative team. Please include titles and job descriptions for all such employees and dates of service. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of this action. In particular, the requested information is not probative of the reasonableness of State Farm claim handling and determination under the facts of this case nor is it probative of whether Plaintiffs’ property, and which parts, were in fact damaged by wind and/or hail. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, particularly with regard to what is meant by the conflated references to teams and initiatives as well as “management,” overly broad in time, and unduly burdensome because State Farm does not maintain a historical and comprehensive list of individuals who assisted with Wind/Hail Fire Model Enhancement, and that changed over time. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identify all third-party entities or individuals who consulted with State Farm management and/or executive employees relating to the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail team and/or the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team and/or the Hail Focus Initiative team. Please include titles and job descriptions for all third-party entities or individuals and disclose whether there existed or exists any agreement or contract with any such entity or individual. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of this action. In particular, the requested information is not probative 22"}, {"d": 51, "p": 50, "t": "of the reasonableness of State Farm claim handling and determination under the facts of this case nor is it probative of whether Plaintiffs’ roof or other property was in fact damaged by wind and/or hail, and to what degree. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, particularly with regard to what is meant by the conflated references to teams and initiatives as well as “consulted,” overly broad in time, and unduly burdensome because State Farm does not maintain a historical and comprehensive list of individuals involved with Fire Model Enhancement. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: If State Farm contends that damage to the Insured Property was pre-existing or unrelated to the hail damage, please set forth (a) the facts that support such contention; (b) all persons with knowledge to support such contention; and (c) all documents or any other evidence that may support such contention. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: State Farm objects to Interrogatory No. 8 because it is vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “pre-existing” damage and assumes obligations of State Farm which do not exist. Inquiries as to “pre-existing” damage seek information which is not relevant to any party’s claim or defenses or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and discovery related thereto is not proportional to the needs of the case. The Policy requires the existence of accidental direct physical loss which did not exist as to the shingles and State Farm had no obligation to determine what it was instead. Further, the requested information is overly broad and unduly burdensome generally and for the same reason. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm’s assessment of the conditions of the roof as part of its claim inspection is included in the claim file being produced 23"}, {"d": 51, "p": 51, "t": "herewith, Bates numbered SFF&CC/West_000054-000887. State Farm further states that the persons with knowledge of State Farm’s assessment of the conditions of Plaintiffs’ roof'as part of its inspection include ECR Cedric Gooch, ECR Max Balser, CS Kristin Haun, CS Temicka Collett, CS Christy Mebane, TM Jason Taylor, and CS Yasiin Bradley. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify and describe dissemination of information provided to State Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind all training, information, and/or Farm agents nationwide regarding the Fire Model and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative from January 1, 2019 until the present time. If such training, information or dissemination is conducted or transmitted via an entity other than State Farm, please identify and describe such entity and the process of dissemination to State Farm agents. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “all training, information, or dissemination of information” and the various conflated references to teams and initiatives. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory as it has no relevance to the facts or handling of the claim underlying this lawsuit. The claim sued upon involves a dispute as to whether and what extent the roof of Plaintiffs’ house was damaged by wind and/or hail. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information of State Farm. State Farm stand on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify all training You have provided to any captive agent regarding the marketing, sale, procurement, and or binding of homeowners insurance coverage in Oklahoma since January 1, 2019. 24"}, {"d": 51, "p": 52, "t": "ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: State Farm objects to this Interrogatory as it seeks information that has no relevance to the facts or handling of the claim underlying this lawsuit or to a valid claim in the Petition. There is no question that the policy was issued and that it applies to wind and hail claims. The claim sued upon involves a dispute as to whether and what extent the roof of Plaintiffs’ house was damaged by wind and/or hail. State Farm’s underwriting requirements and sales training materials are not probative on that dispute. State Farm also objects to the Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information of State Farm. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, Youconducted or commissioned concerning Your adjustment and/or handling of wind- and/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma since 2010. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, specifically with respect to the terms “Analyses,” “Analysis” and “commissioned.” State Farm further objects because this Interrogatory seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is seeking “all” with respect to vague and potentially broad categories of documents and information for a total of 15 years and is thus overly broad and unduly burdensome either in volume or in efforts to locate, or both. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secret information, and to the extent it seeks information potentially protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or 25"}, {"d": 51, "p": 53, "t": "other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Farm stands on its objections. Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, You conducted or commissioned concerning Your use of Haag Engineering, Haag Education, and/or any other Haag enterprise or subsidiary with regard to wind- and/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, specifically with respect to the terms “Analyses,” “Analysis” and “commissioned.” State Farm also objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. Haag Engineering had no involvement in this claim. Further, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secret information, and to the extent it seeks information potentially protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Farm stands on its objections. Identify and describe in detail the Fire Model Enhancement-Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative with a similar title. Please outline and 26"}, {"d": 51, "p": 54, "t": "describe how any such team or initiative was created and/or implemented and any Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, you performed regarding such implementation. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous in its conflated references to teams and initiatives as well as “created and/or implemented” and “any Analyses.” State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications without any time or geographic restrictions, regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates, relating to insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowners’ claims at issue in this litigation; and involving information about individuals other than the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in this action, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information, or information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: — Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, concerning Your use of Engineering Services with regard to wind- and/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on 27"}, {"d": 51, "p": 55, "t": "the grounds that it improperly assumes facts and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. There were no engineers or engineering services involved in the inspection or evaluation of this claim. Further, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “Analyses,” “Analysis” and “use of.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Further, depending on the interpretation of the Interrogatory, it may be unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs have not established that such information, if any exists, is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned into HAAG following a. the jury’s verdict in Watkins v State Farm, b. the jury’s verdict in Nicolau vs State Farm, and/or C. the Mississippi Attorney General’s Investigation and/or U.S Attorney’s investigation into Your handling of claims arising from hurricanes Katrina and/or Rita. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses 28"}, {"d": 51, "p": 56, "t": "or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time, given the events referenced in (a) — (c) above took place 18, 27, and 18 years ago, respectively, long before this action was filed; and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, Haag Engineering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claim. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned,” and to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attomey client or other legal privileges. And, the search for any such information would be unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Identify any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned into the following: a. HAAG’S objectivity and/or bias b. Your relationship with HAAG C. Your continued use of HAAG d. Your moratorium on Your use of HAAG ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope 29"}, {"d": 51, "p": 57, "t": "(not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, Haag Engineering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claim. State Farm also objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned into . . objectivity... relationship . . . continued use . . . [and] moratorium,” and to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. And, the search for any such information would be unduly burdensome. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Identify any date on which Your moratorium on Your use of HAAG, initiated June 5, 2006, was lifted, terminated, modified, or cancelled. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17: State Farm objects to this Request because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “use of” and “lifted, terminated, modified, or cancelled.” State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to 30"}, {"d": 51, "p": 58, "t": "materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, Haag Engineering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claim. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Identify all training materials You have utilized (whether internal or from an outside source like HAAG) to train Your Claims Handling Personnel on windand/or hailstorm claims. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “all training materials You have utilized.” State Farm’s procedures are intended to provide guidance, but each claim is handled on its own merits. Moreover, training materials that were obsolete on the date of loss, pertain only to other losses, and/or pertain only to other areas of the country, are not relevant to the matters at issue in this case. State Farm additionally objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information 31"}, {"d": 51, "p": 59, "t": "and/or documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce. Finally, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, and upon entry of an approved protective order, State Farm will produce the relevant provisions of the claim handling procedures that may have been used to adjust claims alleged to have arisen from the weather event that occurred on the date of loss. This includes the Estimatics and Claim Handling Procedures (“ECHP”)-a compilation of claim handling procedures that State Farm prepares in connection with weather events, such as the one here. INTERROGATORY NO, 19: Identify all Your policies, procedures, and/or practices relating to the training of State Farm adjusters and third-party adjusters on the definition of “functional damage” for roof claims, as well as any coverage limitations based on the size and severity of the hail damage and the amount of wind speeds. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO, 19: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it improperly assumes facts and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “all Your 32"}, {"d": 51, "p": 60, "t": "policies, procedures, and/or practices relating to the training.” The interrogatory may also be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. State Farm’s procedures are intended to provide guidance, but each claim is handled on its own merits. Moreover, training materials that were obsolete on the date of loss, pertain only to other losses, and/or pertain only to other areas of the country, are not relevant to the matters at issue in this case. State Farm additionally objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce. Finally, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, and upon entry of an approved protective order, State Farm will produce the relevant provisions of the claim handling procedures that may have been used to adjust claims alleged to have arisen from the weather event that occurred on the date of loss. This includes the Estimatics and Claim Handling Practices (“ECHP”)—a compilation of claim handling procedures that State Farm prepares in connection with weather events, such as the one here. For information reflecting the application of claims procedures to Plaintiffs’ claim, see the Claim File for the claim at issue in this litigation. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, You conducted or commissioned specifically targeting full roof replacements with regard to wind- and/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma from 2010 to present. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: State Farm objects to this Interrogatory because it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, specifically with respect to the 33"}, {"d": 51, "p": 61, "t": "use of the terms “commissioned” and “Analyses.” State Farm also objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, You conducted or commissioned regarding State Farm adjusters’ and third-party adjusters’ authorization and/or ability to approve full roof replacements without managerial approval from 2010 to present. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague with respect to the use of the terms “commissioned” and “Analyses.” It may also be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. State Farm further objects because this Interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject 34"}, {"d": 51, "p": 62, "t": "claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it improperly assumes facts. Managerial approval of roof replacements is fact dependent including factors such as the experience level and therefore monetary authority of the adjuster and the nature of the storm. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Farm stands on its objections. Identify the total number of homeowners’ wind/hail claims from 2019-present in Oklahoma in which State Farm found damage the insured roof’s soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to exceed the policy’s deductible. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claim with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. 35"}, {"d": 51, "p": 63, "t": "State Farm further objects because the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “found damage the insured roof’s soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to exceed the policy’s deductible.” State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Identify the total number of homeowners’ wind/hail claims from 2019-present in Oklahoma in which State Farm found damage the insured roof’s soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to warrant a Full or Total Roof Replacement. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claim with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. 36"}, {"d": 51, "p": 64, "t": "State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). Moreover, State Farm objects because the Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “found damage the insured roof’s soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to warrant a Full or Total Roof Replacement.” State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Identify and describe any policies, procedures, and/or methods to review and/or track percentages of total or full roof replacements by individual adjusters and managers adjusting or working on Oklahoma wind/hail claims, including recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking, or analysis related to total or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, which did not involve a total roof replacement. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “any” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “policies, procedures and/or methods to review” and “recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking or analysis” and may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State 37 Farm objects to this Interrogatory to"}, {"d": 51, "p": 65, "t": "the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Please identify, state, and describe (whether measured quarterly, yearly, or some other way) the Wind and Hail Full Roof Replacement Percentage from January 1, 2019 to the present in Oklahoma. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claim with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “Wind and Hail Full Roof Replacement Percentage.” It may also be unduly burdensome"}, {"d": 51, "p": 66, "t": "depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, and because Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Please identify, state, and describe (whether measured quarterly, yearly, or some other way) the Total or Full Roof Replacement to Partial Roof Replacement Ratio on Wind/Hail Claims from January 1, 2019 to the present in Oklahoma. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claim with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. State Farm further objects because this Interrogatory is unduly burdensome and overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time).” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business 39"}, {"d": 51, "p": 67, "t": "information and/or trade secrets, and because Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. It may also be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Please identify, state, and describe (whether measured quarterly, yearly, or some other way) the Total Roof Payment volumes on Wind/Hail claims from January 1, 2019 to the present in Oklahoma. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claim with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is unduly burdensome and overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “Total Roof Payment volumes on Wind/Hail claims.” It may also be unduly burdensome 40"}, {"d": 51, "p": 68, "t": "depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, and because Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections, INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Please identify, state, and describe how the Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative from January 1, 2019 until the present implemented such initiatives or plans in Oklahoma, including claims handling tactics or rules used, tracking of indemnity savings in Oklahoma, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio in Oklahoma, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims in Oklahoma. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague with respect to the terms “Fire Model Enhancement .. . and/or any hail quality focus initiative,” “implemented such initiatives,” and “claims handling tactics or rules.” It may also be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates, relating to insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowners’ claims at issue in this litigation; and involving information about individuals other than the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim. The investigation and evaluation of other 4]"}, {"d": 51, "p": 69, "t": "claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in this action, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information, or information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Please identify, state, and describe how the Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative kicked off in Texas, including how such initiatives or plans were implemented in Texas, including claims handling tactics or rules used, tracking of indemnity savings in Texas, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio in Texas, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims in Texas. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 29: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague with respect to the terms “Fire Model Enhancement . . . and/or any hail quality focus initiative,” “implemented such initiatives,” and “claims handling tactics or rules.” It may also be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates, in different geographies, relating to insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information p ertaining to their homes and homeowners’ claims at issue in this litigation; and involvin 42"}, {"d": 51, "p": 70, "t": "information about individuals other than the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in this action, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information, or information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Please identify any and all duties of State Farm and/or its captive Agent(s) to keep abreast of the condition of the properties State Farm insures upon renewal, including but not limited to reducing the risk of insuring the property, maintaining the exterior of the property, reducing the risk of additional damage to the roof, replacing the roof, replacing shingles with granular loss, eligible roofing material used, and how the insured gets this information to State Farm and/or its captive Agent(s). ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 30: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because it impermissibly calls for a legal conclusion. It is also vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “duties,” “keep abreast,” and “how the insured gets this information to State Farm and/or its captive Agent(s).” It may also be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. It is also overly broad as it is unlimited as to time or geographic location or the type of property insured and for that reason also seeks information which is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case. State Farm additionally objects to this Interrogatory as invasive of the attorneyclient privilege and/or work-product doctrine and seeks confidential and proprietary information of State Farm. 43"}, {"d": 52, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY OST eenopr STATE OF OKLAHOMA COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA August 18, 2026 9:57 AM NEIL and LACY WEST, ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) V. ) Hon. Grant Sheperd ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB AGENCY, INC., INS. ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANT NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL NANCY HOLCOMB’S COMPLIANCE WITH 12 O.S. § 3230(C) VOLUME I"}, {"d": 52, "p": 2, "t": "Subject to and without waiving these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm refers Plaintiffs to the Policy, including all declaration pages and notices, which are produced with these responses. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Produce color copies of all Documents related to either Plaintiff, Plaintiffs’ Dwelling Policy, and/or the Claim in State Farm’s Enterprise Claims System (“ECS”), including, but not limited to the Claim File. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 1 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case to the extent it seeks information from policy periods prior to or beyond the policy period relevant to the Claim at issue. State Farm further objects to the Request insofar as it seeks production of ESI in “color” on the grounds that color does not convey meaning, is not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and is not proportional to the needs of this case and maybe unduly burdensome. Additionally, State Farm objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad in time (not limited by any reasonable period or to the timeframe for handling of the specific insurance claim at issue in this litigation) and scope (not limited to Plaintiffs’ insurance claim at issue in this lawsuit) and due to the use of the term “all” with respect to the broad categories of documents requested. Further, due to the overly broad nature of this Request, it is a potential invasion of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm will produce the Claim File for the claim at issue in this litigation in reasonably usable format as it is kept in the 44"}, {"d": 52, "p": 3, "t": "ordinary course of business. State Farm will also produce the underwriting file for the Policy covering the property at issue herein. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Produce all Documents related to any inspection You conducted or arranged to be conducted of Plaintiffs’ Dwelling in relation to the Policy. This Request includes (but is not limited to) any inspection conducted by a third-party vendor at Your direction, instruction, or request. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 2 because the condition, State Farm’s knowledge of the condition, and inspections of Plaintiffs’ house, in addition to any other information encompassed in the Request, presume obligations that do not exist and encompass information that is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case. The scope and particularities of what is requested are also vague, and ambiguous as to what is meant by “inspection . . . in relation to the Policy.” It is thus also overly broad and unduly burdensome as written. State Farm objects to producing underwriting information on the ground that it is neither relevant nor proportional, as there is no dispute that the applicable policy was in effect on the date of loss. The Request also seeks documents which may be in the possession of persons other than State Farm, including, in some instances, Plaintiffs. To the extent the documents exist, they may also encompass confidential and proprietary information of State Farm or third parties and potentially information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, in addition to the Claim File being produced in response to Request No. 1, State Farm will produce inspections of the house by third-parties as part of an underwriting review, if any, which should be in the underwriting file, which is being produced contemporaneously herewith. 45"}, {"d": 52, "p": 4, "t": "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Produce all Documents You identified, relied upon, referred to, or consulted in preparing Your response to any Discovery Request in this Action. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 3 because it improperly asks it to marshal its evidence and amounts to at least a hundred separate Requests for Production because it requests documents relied upon in responding to “any” discovery request and is therefore unduly burdensome as well. State Farm further objects to the extent this Request is not limited to Plaintiffs’ insurance claim at issue in this lawsuit, seeks information that is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case, and seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Moreover, State Farm objects to the Request as overly broad, vague, and lacking specificity and as an improper omnibus discovery request because it uses the terms, “all” and “relied upon, referred to, or consulted.” Subject to these objections and its Universal Objections, State Farm will produce documents identified as responsive to any request herein, subject to entry of an approved Protective Order where applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Produce all Documents containing any policies, procedures, guidelines, manuals and/or training materials, which You used to train any of the Claims Handling Personnel involved with the Claim in any way. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 4 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. The request for “all Documents containing any policies, procedures, guidelines, manuals and/or training materials” and for any individual “involved with the Claim in any way” is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad and may be unduly 46"}, {"d": 52, "p": 5, "t": "burdensome depending on its interpretation. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claims and/or coverages at issue in this litigation), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). State Farm’s procedures are intended to provide guidance, but each claim is handled on its own merits. Moreover, training materials that were obsolete on the date of loss, pertain only to other losses, and/or pertain only to other areas of the country, are not relevant to the matters at issue in this case. State Farm additionally objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce. Finally, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secret. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections and upon execution of an approved protective order, State Farm will produce the relevant portions of the claim handling procedures that may have been used to adjust claims alleged to have arisen from the weather event that occurred on the date of loss. This includes the Estimatics and Claim Handling Practices (“ECHP”)—a compilation of claim handling procedures that State Farm prepares in connection with weather events, such as the one here. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. §: Produce all underwriting guidelines, binding rules, contractual agreements, and training materials which were relied upon or utilized by State Farm, and/or its captive Agent(s) with respect to selling and issuing Plaintiffs’ policy and for each renewal thereafter. 47"}, {"d": 52, "p": 6, "t": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 5 because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “underwriting guidelines, binding rules, contractual agreements, and training materials .. . relied upon or utilized . . . with respect to selling and issuing Plaintiffs’ policy and for each renewal thereafter” and may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. State Farm further objects to this Request on grounds the information sought is not relevant to any party’s claim or defense or proportional to the needs of the case, There is no question that the house satisfied State Farm’s underwriting guidelines because the policy issued. The Claim sued upon involves a dispute as to whether and to what extent the shingles on Plaintiffs’ roof were damaged by the weather event at issue, and State Farm’s underwriting requirements and sales training materials are not probative on that dispute. State Farm further objects to this Request as overly broad and to the extent it seeks privileged, confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information of State Farm. Subject to these objections and its Universal Objections, State Farm will produce the underwriting guidelines in effect on the date of issuance of Plaintiffs’ Policy, subject to an approved Protective Order. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Produce all documents You have utilized (whether internal or from an outside source like HAAG) to train Your Claims Handling Personnel on wind-and/or hailstorm claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 6 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. The request for “any training materials You have utilized... to train Your Claims Handling Personnel on wind- and/or hailstorm claims” is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad and may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials 48"}, {"d": 52, "p": 7, "t": "applicable to the specific insurance claims and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). State Farm’s procedures are intended to provide guidance, but each claim is handled on its own merits. Moreover, training materials that were obsolete on the date of loss, pertain only to other losses, and/or pertain only to other areas of the country, are not relevant to the matters at issue in this case. State Farm additionally objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce. Finally, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Subject to and without waiving these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections and upon entry of an approved protective order, State Farm will produce the relevant provisions of the claim handling procedures that may have been used to adjust claims alleged to have arisen from the weather event that occurred on the date of loss. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: — Produce all Documents from January 1, 2019 to the present relating to any review and/or tracking of percentages of total or full roof replacements by individual adjusters and managers adjusting or working on Oklahoma wind/hail claims, including recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking, or analysis related to total or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 7 because it improperly assumes facts, and is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, 49"}, {"d": 52, "p": 8, "t": "the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “any” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “review and/or tracking,” “adjusting or working on,” and “recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking or analysis” and may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Produce all Documents related to any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned into HAAG following: a. the jury’s verdict in Watkins v State Farm, b. the jury’s verdict in Nicolau vs State Farm; and/or C. the Mississippi Attorney General’s Investigation and/or U.S Attorney’s investigation into Your handling of claims arising from hurricanes Katrina and/or Rita. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 8 because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of any party’s claims or defenses nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue 50"}, {"d": 52, "p": 9, "t": "in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time, given the events referenced in (a) — (c) above took place 18, 27, and 18 years ago, respectively, long before this action was filed; and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma.). Moreover, Haag Engineering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claim. State Farm also objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned” and it may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Further, State Farm objects to this Request io the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Produce all Documents related to any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned into the following: a. HAAG’S objectivity and/or bias b. Your relationship with HAAG c. Your continued use of HAAG d. Your moratorium on Your use of HAAG RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 9 because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject 51"}, {"d": 52, "p": 10, "t": "claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, Haag Engineering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claim. State Farm also objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned into. . . objectivity . . . relationship . . . continued use . . . [and] moratorium” and it may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Further, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Produce all Documents related to Your issuance of a moratorium on Your use of HAAG, dated June 5, 2006, following the jury verdict rendered in Watkins v State Farm. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 10 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, Haag Engineering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claim. 52"}, {"d": 52, "p": 11, "t": "State Farm also objects to this Request because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous with respect to the phrase “use of’ and it may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable, State Farm stands on its objections. REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Produce all Communications You sent to or received from Haag Engineering, Haag Education, or any division, subsidiary, or parent thereof (including any representative thereof) from 2012 until Present relating to any payments You made or received from any such HAAG entity or representative pursuant to any Indemnity Agreement. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 11 because it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. The Request is also overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “any division, subsidiary, or parent” and “any payments” and it may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Moreover, Haag Engineering did 53"}, {"d": 52, "p": 12, "t": "not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claim. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: — Produce all Documents related to any Indemnity Agreement entered into between Youand HAAG Engineering, HAAG Education, or any division, subsidiary, or parent thereof (including any representative thereof) from 2012 until Present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 12 because it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. The Request is also overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “any division, subsidiary, or parent” and it may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. In addition, Haag Engineering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claim. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State its objections. 54 Farm stands on"}, {"d": 52, "p": 13, "t": "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Produce all Documents related to any Cost/Benefit Analysis concerning Your adjustment and/or handling of wind- and/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma since 2010. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 13 because it improperly assumes facts and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. It is also vague and ambiguous and may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. The Request is also overly broad in scope (seeking “any Cost/Benefit Analyses”; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST Model Enhancement FOR PRODUCTION on Wind/Hail NO. 14: Produce all documents related to the Fire from January 1, 2019 until the present, including any and all presentations, memos, documents, or plans of the FME Wind/Hail, whether in draft or final format. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14: State Farm objects to Request for Production No, 14 because it impermissibly assumes facts, seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, and because it encompasses confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information of State Farm. It is also unduly burdensome. 55"}, {"d": 52, "p": 14, "t": "Specifically, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. State Farm also objects to the extent the Request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Plaintiffs have not established such information is probative of any issue in the case or, therefore, discoverable. State REQUEST FOR Farm stands on its objections. PRODUCTION NO. 15: Produce all documents related to the implementation of any measures, program rules, tactics, claims handling procedures or policies related to the Fire Model Enhancement on Wind/Hail from January 1, 2019 until the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 15 because it impermissibly assumes facts, seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, and because it encompasses confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information of State Farm. It is also vague and ambiguous and thus unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Specifically, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. State Farm also objects to the extent the Request seeks information protected 56"}, {"d": 52, "p": 15, "t": "by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case or, therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Produce all documents related to the Wind and Hail Full Roof Replacement Percentage from January 1, 2019 to the present, including nationwide and state specific tracking of such percentages. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 16 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claim with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits, Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. State Farm further objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “Wind and Hail Full Roof Replacement Percentage” and because it is overly broad in scope (seeking “all documents related to . . .”; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); geographic area; and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). It is also unduly burdensome depending on 57"}, {"d": 52, "p": 16, "t": "its interpretation. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case or, therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Produce all documents related to the Total or Full Roof Replacement to Partial Roof Replacement Ratio on Wind/Hail Claims from January 1, 2019 to the present, including nationwide and state specific tracking of such ratios. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17: State Farm objects to Request No. 17 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and the burden or expense of the proposed discovery, which outweighs its likely benefit. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claim with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different Policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. State Farm also objects to this Request as overly broad in scope (seeking “afl documents related to... .”; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); geographic area; and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). It 58"}, {"d": 52, "p": 17, "t": "is also vague and ambiguous and thus unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case or, therefore, discoverable, State REQUEST FOR Farm stands on its objections. PRODUCTION NO. 18: Produce all documents related to the Total Roof Payment volumes on Wind/Hail claims from January 1, 2019 to the present, including nationwide and state specific tracking of such ratios. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 18 because it is overly broad, improperly assumes facts, and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and the burden or expense of the proposed discovery, which outweighs its likely benefit. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claim with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different Policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. State Farm further objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “Total Roof Payment volumes on Wind/Hail claims” and because it is overly broad in scope (seeking “all documents related to . . .”; not limited to information applicable to the 59"}, {"d": 52, "p": 18, "t": "specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). It is also unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case or, therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Produce all documents from January 1, 2019 until the present, relating to your review, monitoring, and/or tracking of the percentages of total or full roof replacements by individual adjusters and managers on wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 19 because it is overly broad, improperly assumes facts, and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); geographic area; and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “review, monitoring, and or tracking.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Depending on its interpretation, the Request may also be unduly burdensome. State Farm stands on its objections. 60"}, {"d": 52, "p": 19, "t": "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Produce any policies, procedures, and/or methods to review and/or track percentages of total or full roof replacements by individual adjusters and managers adjusting or working on Oklahoma wind/hail claims, including recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking, or analysis related to total or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 20 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking or analysis” and may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Produce all Documents related to the Fire Model Enhancement-Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative for the kick offin Texas in 2020, 61"}, {"d": 52, "p": 20, "t": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 21: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 21 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue im this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use and conflation of the various references to teams and initiatives. It may also be burdensome depending on its interpretation. In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Farm stands on its objections. NO. 22: Produce all Documents related to the Fire Model Enhancement-Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative referencing Oklahoma from January 1, 2019 until the present, including plans to implement such initiatives or plans in 62"}, {"d": 52, "p": 21, "t": "Oklahoma, implementation in Oklahoma, tracking of indemnity savings in Oklahoma, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio in Oklahoma, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims in Oklahoma. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 22 because it improperly assumes facts, is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use and conflation of the various references to teams and initiatives. It may also be burdensome depending on its interpretation. This Request is also overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. 63"}, {"d": 52, "p": 22, "t": "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: — Produce all correspondence sent to or by Nicole Manduca from January 1, 2019 to the present referring or relating to the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other wind/hail quality focus initiatives. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 23: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 23 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, Nicole Manduca was not involved in the adjustment or handling of Plaintiffs’ claim. Moreover, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the use and conflation of the various references to teams and initiatives. It may also be burdensome depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client 64"}, {"d": 52, "p": 23, "t": "or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Produce all Documents related to the Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives, including any presentations, metrics, claim handling tactics or rules, tracking of results, and/or Cost/Benefit Analyses You performed regarding any such initiative or program. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 24: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 24 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the use and conflation of the various references to teams and initiatives. It may also be burdensome depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade 65"}, {"d": 52, "p": 24, "t": "secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Farm stands on its objections. Produce all Documents memorializing any enterprise-wide rule You have stated, implemented, or enforced regarding the need for any management approval of full roof replacements on wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 25: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 25 because it impermissibly assumes facts, is overly broad, and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma), Further, State Farm objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “enterprise-wide rule . .. stated, implemented, or enforced regarding the need” and may be overly broad depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, invades the privacy rights of policyholders who are not parties to this lawsuit, or seeks information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. State Farm further objects to the extent this Request purports to imply that State required management Farm implemented an enterprise-wide rule that approval of full roof replacements on all wind/hail claims. Rather, managerial approval for total roof replacements depends on the experience and level of authority of the adjuster and/or the nature of the weather event. Plaintiffs have not established that such 66"}, {"d": 52, "p": 25, "t": "information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 26: Your Quality plan(s), program(s), and/or initiative(s) to reduce or track indemnity payments, reduce or track the total or full roof replacement to partial roof ratio, reduce or track full roof replacement approval percentages, and reduce or track nationwide total roof payment volume on wind or hail claims from January 1, 2019 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 26: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 26 because it impermissibly assumes facts and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma), Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “Quality plan(s), program(s), and/or initiative(s)” and is unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. State Farm also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. 67"}, {"d": 52, "p": 26, "t": "Subject to these and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm agrees to produce State Farm’s Fire Property Claims Quality Plan that was in effect on the date of loss, upon entry of an approved protective order. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 27: = Your Wind/Hail claims Focus Models, including the Fire Model Enhancement — Wind/Hail, pertaining to homeowners’ claims from 2016 to present, including all presentations, internal memos, or related documents. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 27: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 27 because it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “Wind/Hail claims Focus Models” and “related documents” and is unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. State Farm further objects because this Request is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is 68"}, {"d": 52, "p": 27, "t": "protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: The matrices which relate to or involve the tracking of Your financial savings (and future financial savings) tied to reduction in indemnity payments on wind/hail claims, reduction in the total or full roof replacement to partial roof ratio, nationwide total roof payment volume, and/or reduction of the full roof replacement percentage on wind or hail claims from January 1, 2019 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 28: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 28 because it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “matrices which involve the tracking of’ and may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. State Farm further objects to this Request because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. 69"}, {"d": 52, "p": 28, "t": "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: way Produce all Documents related in any to “enhanced emphasis on Claim Handling Hygiene.” RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 29: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 29 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “all Documents related in any way”; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “related in any way” and “enhanced emphasis on Claim Handling Hygiene” and therefore may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State confidential, proprietary business Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and/or trade secrets, information containing attommey work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. 70"}, {"d": 52, "p": 29, "t": "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Produce all Documents related to the “Art of the Conversation.” RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 30: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 30 because it improperly assumes facts and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “a/l Documents related to... .”; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). It is also vague and ambiguous and therefore may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Produce all Documents related to the “HAAG Refresher.” RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 31: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 31 because it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “all Documents related to... .”; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic 71"}, {"d": 52, "p": 30, "t": "area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). State Farm further objects to this Request as vague, specifically with respect to the use of the term “HAAG Refresher” and therefore may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. State Farm further states that its procedures are intended to provide guidance, but each claim is handled on its own merits. Moreover, training materials that were obsolete on the date of loss, pertain only to other losses, and/or pertain only to other areas of the country, are not relevant to the matters at issue in this case. State Farm additionally objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and/or documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce. Finally, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST “2021 FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Produce all Documents related to the Fire Property Claims Quality Plan.” RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 32: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 32 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope and unduly burdensome (seeking “all Documents related to. . . .”; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, 72"}, {"d": 52, "p": 31, "t": "circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Subject to these and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm agrees to produce State Farm’s 2021 Fire Property Claims Quality Plan upon entry of an approved protective order. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Produce full and complete copies of all communications on “MyBlock” for the last ten (10) years related to wind/hail claims, total roof replacements, and/or the Fire Model Enhancement — Wind/Hail or related Team. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 33: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 33 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope and unduly burdensome (seeking “all communications”; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Moreover, State Farm objects to this 73"}, {"d": 52, "p": 32, "t": "Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. It is also unduly burdensome to search for and/or produce such information. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Produce full and complete copies of all “HAAG Education Hail and Wind Assessment Video Series,” including but not limited to: Chapter 1 — Hail and Wind Basics contains four segments and is | hour and 28 minutes; Chapter 2 — Composition Shingles contains nine segments and is 2 hours and 33 minutes long. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 34: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 34 because, in requesting “full and complete copies of “HAAG Education Hail Assessment Video Series,” it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope because it is not limited to trainings applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation. State Farm further objects to this Request because Haag has taken the position that State Farm does not have the authority to produce these videos. According to Haag, the videos constitute its intellectual property, and State Farm’s license to use the videos “does not confer upon State Farm any authority or sufficient control over the videos to reproduce, disclose, or otherwise produce Haag’s proprietary materials in litigation.” See Decl. of R. Holdhusen, attached hereto. As such, Plaintiffs’ request should be directed to Haag. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Documents or Communications Produce full and complete copies of all pertaining to “Claims 74 and Agency Weather Event Topic"}, {"d": 52, "p": 33, "t": "Discussions” and any transcriptions of the following: “Claim managers will host calls with Agency leadership from mid-January 2021 through February 2021 to discuss wind/hail topics that were frequent points of discussion with Agency in 2020. These topics may include a review of 2020 claim wind/hail volume, additional inspections, matching, roofer inspections prior to a claim being submitted to State Farm, timelines for obtaining replacement cost benefits, Roof/Exterior Inspection Assist Program, SFPSP Roofing Services Program (RSP)/Contractor Services Program (CSP), Roof Surfaces Payment Schedule Endorsement, and Metal Roof Exclusion for Hail (Section 1 — Additional Coverage: Metal Roof Endorsement).” RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 35: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 35 because it is overly broad, improperly assumes facts, and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Additionally, in requesting “all” documents on the broadly described topics, the Request is vague and ambiguous and unduly burdensome. 75"}, {"d": 52, "p": 34, "t": "Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: — Please produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or other correspondence or documents sent or received by Nicole Manduca from January 1, 2019 until the present time regarding or relating to (i) Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives, (ii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Texas; (11i) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Oklahoma; (iv) claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans; (v) Fire Model Enhancement Guidelines; and/or (vi) tracking of indemnity savings, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 36: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 36 because it is duplicative of Request for Production No. 23. In addition, State Farm objects to this Request because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, Nicole Manduca was not involved in any way with the handling or adjustment of Plaintiffs’ claim. 76"}, {"d": 52, "p": 35, "t": "Moreover, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “any and all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable time period); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the conflation in the use and references to various teams and initiatives as well as “claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans”; therefore, it may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: — Please produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or other correspondence or documents sent or received by Tom Moss from January 1, 2019 until the present time regarding or relating to (1) Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives, (11) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the 77"}, {"d": 52, "p": 36, "t": "Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Texas; (iii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Oklahoma; (iv) claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans; (v) Fire Model Enhancement Guidelines; and/or (v) tracking of indemnity savings, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 37: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 37 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, Tom Moss was not involved in the handling or adjustment of Plaintiffs’ claim. Moreover, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “any and all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable time period); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, in the conflation 78"}, {"d": 52, "p": 37, "t": "of the use and references to various claims and initiatives as well as “claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans”; therefore, it may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation, especially as to the terms/phrases “Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives” and “claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans.” Moreover, confidential, proprietary business State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Please produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or other correspondence or documents sent or received by Susan Maynard from January 1, 2019 until the present time regarding or relating to (1) Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiattve and/or any hail quality focus initiatives, (ii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Texas; (iii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Oklahoma; (iv) claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans; (v) Fire Model Enhancement Guidelines; and/or (v) tracking of indemnity savings, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims. 79"}, {"d": 52, "p": 38, "t": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 38: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 38 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, Susan Maynard was not involved in the handling or adjustment of Plaintiffs’ claim. Moreover, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “any and all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable time period); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner's claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, in the conflation of the use and references to various claims and initiatives as well as “claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans;” therefore, it may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Additionally, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. 80"}, {"d": 52, "p": 39, "t": "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: Produce all Fire Model Enhancement Guidelines for Wind/Hail. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 39: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 39 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). It 1s also unduly burdensome. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: Produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or other correspondence or documents duties of State Farm and/or its captive Agent(s) to keep abreast of the condition of the properties State Farm insures upon renewal, including but not limited to reducing the risk of insuring the property, maintaining the exterior of the property, reducing the risk of additional damage to the roof, replacing the roof, replacing shingles with granular loss, eligible roofing material used, and how the insured gets this information to State Farm and/or its captive Agent(s). RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 40: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 40 because it improperly assumes facts and seeks information which is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case. The Request is also vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “duties,” 81"}, {"d": 52, "p": 40, "t": "“keep abreast,” and “how the insured gets this information to State Farm and/or its captive Agent(s)” and therefore may be unduly burdensome depending on the interpretation. State Farm additionally objects to this Interrogatory as invasive of the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine and because it improperly seeks a legal conclusion. The Request is also objectionable because it is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information 1s probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: Produce any Fire Property Claims Quality Plan from January 1, 2019 until the present time. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 41: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 41 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly 82"}, {"d": 52, "p": 41, "t": "broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm agrees to produce State Farm’s Fire Property Claims Quality Plan that was in effect on the date of loss, upon entry of an approved protective order. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: Produce any Wind/Hail Claims Guidelines from January 1, 2019 until the present time. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 42: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 42 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information ts probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. 83"}, {"d": 52, "p": 42, "t": "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: Please produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or other correspondence or documents sent or received by Sharon Arnold from January 1, 2019 until the present time regarding or relating to (i) Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives, (ii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Texas; (ii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Oklahoma; (iv) claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans; (v) Fire Model Enhancement Guidelines; and/or (v) tracking of indemnity savings, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 43: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 43 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, Sharon Armold was not involved in the handling or adjustment of Plaintiffs’ claim. Moreover, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “any and all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable time period); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising 84"}, {"d": 52, "p": 43, "t": "under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “any hail quality focus initiatives,” “claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans,” “total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio,” “full roof replacement approval percentages,” and “total roof payment volume.” Therefore, it may be unduly burdensome depending on its interpretation. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: Produce all documents previously produced i and/or ordered by the respective court to be produced by You in the following cases: Nida v. State Farm, CJ-2020-4453 (Oklahoma County) - Hosier y, State Farm, CJ-2021-1741 (Oklahoma County) - Kyger v. State Farm, CJ-2022-3990 (Oklahoma County) - McDow vy. State Farm, CJ-2022-1857 (Oklahoma County) - Barnett v. State - MeNeil v. State Farm, CJ-2021-926 (Cleveland County) Farm, CJ-2020-141 (Grady County) RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 44: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 44 as an improper attempt to circumvent the protective orders governing the disclosure of 85"}, {"d": 52, "p": 44, "t": "Confidential information in other cases and the relevance requirements for each case. State Farm further objects because this Request is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of any party’s claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, as each of the cases listed in this Request involves different insureds, policies, properties, weather events, and facts of loss. This Request is also overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; and not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it is improper “cloned discovery” and to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets or information. Plaintiffs have not established that such discoverable. State information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, Farm stands on its objections. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that Plaintiff notified State Farm Fire and Casualty Company of the loss pertinent to the present action as required under the Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 2: Admit that Plaintiff complied with all provisions of the policy with regard to filing a claim for loss. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2: Denied. 86"}, {"d": 52, "p": 45, "t": "REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that it is standard practice in the insurance industry for claims departments to adjust claims in a manner that does not violate the provisions of the Oklahoma Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, 36 O.S, § 1201, et seq. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3: State Farm objects to Request for Admission No. 3 because it is vague and ambiguous, harassing, and serves no legitimate purpose. It is improper to ask State Farm to admit or deny information as to what is or is not “standard practice” of other insurers, which is how the request is framed. For that reason and others, the admission request seeks information which is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm admits that it handles claims in accordance with the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act provisions that are applicable to the specific claim being handled and not prevented by circumstances outside of State Farm’s control. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that State Farm Fire and Casualty Company must conduct a reasonable and prompt investigation of Plaintiffs’ insurance claim. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4: State Farm objects to Request for Admission No. 4 because it is vague and ambiguous. What is “reasonable” and “prompt” is subject to interpretation and prevents State Farm from admitting or denying the request with precision as written. The request also improperly asks State Farm to admit or deny a legal conclusion. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm admits that it must conduct a reasonable and prompt investigation, the determination of which varies based upon the facts of each claim. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that State Farm Fire and Casualty Company must promptly pay Plaintiffs all benefits owed under Plaintiffs’ Policy."}, {"d": 52, "p": 46, "t": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5: State Farm objects to Request for Admission No. 5 because it is vague and ambiguous. What constitutes “promptly” is subject to interpretation and prevents State Farm from admitting or denying the request with precision as written. The request also improperly asks State Farm to admit or deny a legal conclusion. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm admits that it must pay Plaintiffs benefits State Farm determines are owed under the Policy within a reasonable time of determining they are owed. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION _NO. 6: Admit that State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s claim file for Plaintiffs must contain contemporaneous and detailed documentation of each action taken and all work performed on Plaintiffs’ claim. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6: State Farm objects to Request for Admission No. 6 because it is vague and ambiguous. What is “contemporaneous” and “detailed” is subject to interpretation and prevents State Farm from admitting or denying the request with precision as written. The request also improperly asks State Farm to admit or deny a legal conclusion. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm denies the request as written. What the statute requires is that State Farm include notes and papers in the claim file “in such detail that pertinent events and the dates of such events can be reconstructed.” REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that Plaintiffs’ Policy afforded coverage to Plaintiffs for the structural damage to the Subject Property and that said Coverage was active at all times relevant to this lawsuit. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7: State Farm objects to Request for Admission No. 7 because it is vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “structural damage” and that “said Coverage was active.” It also assumes facts—‘structural damage’”—that do not exist. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, the request for admission is denied 88"}, {"d": 52, "p": 47, "t": "because there was no “structural damage” (as it is understood by State Farm) to the “Subject Property” from a June 15, 2023 date of loss (or otherwise based on the information known to State Farm), State Farm admits that the Policy was in force on the date of loss. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that Plaintiffs have paid the premiums in full on the Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8: State Farm objects to Request for Admission No. 8 because it seeks information which is not relevant, likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, or proportional to the needs of the case. State Farm is not urging any defense based on any non-payment or late-payment of premiums. State Farm admits that the policy was in force on the date of loss. State Farm stands on its objection as to any further response to this admission request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit at the time of the inception of Plaintiffs’ Policy, State Farm required its agents, including Agent, to inspect all new business, including rewrites to new locations. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9: Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that State Farm data regarding the characteristics of Plaintiffs’ Dwelling utilized assumptive in the calculation of Plaintiffs’ replacement cost value. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10: State Farm objects to this Request as it is vague and ambiguous as worded, does not define the “assumptive data” referenced, does not distinguish whether it relates to the underwriting process or the claims handling process, and appears to be overly broad in time and scope, an incomplete hypothetical irrelevant to the Plaintiffs’ claim and/or policy, which is an improper request for admission. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s 89"}, {"d": 52, "p": 48, "t": "Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit the term “hail damage” is not defined in Plaintiffs’ Policy. State Farm objects to this Request because the RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11: policy is a written document that speaks for itself and it improperly assumes that a policy form must define hail damage. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm’s policy states that it “will pay for accidental direct physical loss” to covered property “unless the loss is excluded or limited” in the policy and thus includes hail damage. State Farm otherwise admits that “hail damage” is not a defined term in the policy. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit the term “functional damage” is not defined in Plaintiffs’ Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12: State Farm objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous, and the policy is a written document that speaks for itself. State Farm also objects that this Request improperly assumes that functional damage applies and that a policy form must define functional damage. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm’s policy states that it “will pay for accidental direct physical loss” to covered property “imless the loss is excluded or limited” in the policy and includes hail damage. State Farm admits that “functional damage” is not a defined term in the policy. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that if there is an accidental direct physical loss sustained by Plaintiffs to the insured Dwelling under the Policy, then there must be a specific exclusion in the Policy to support any denial. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13: State Farm objects to this Request as calling for a legal conclusion. It is also vague and ambiguous and an incomplete hypothetical. Subject to these 90"}, {"d": 52, "p": 49, "t": "objections and State REQUEST Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit You do not define hail damage in Plaintiffs’ Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14: State Farm objects to Request for Admission No. 14 because it is duplicative of Request for Admission No. 11. State Farm further objects to this Request because the policy is a written document that speaks for itself. State Farm also objects that this Request improperly assumes that a policy form must define hail damage. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm’s policy states that it “will pay for accidental direct physical loss” to covered property “unless the loss is excluded or limited” in the policy and includes hail damage. State Farm admits that “hail damage” is not a defined term in the policy. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit You do not define “accidental direct physical loss” in Plaintiffs’ Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15: State Farm objects to this Request because the policy is a written document that speaks for itself. State Farm also objects that this Request improperly assumes that a policy form must define accidental direct physical loss. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm’s policy states that it “will pay for accidental direct physical loss” to covered property “unless the loss is excluded or limited” in the policy, but admits that “accidental direct physical loss” is not otherwise a defined term in the policy. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit You train Your claims personnel that excessive granular loss to composition shingles caused by hail is not to be considered damage under the terms and conditions of State Farm’s homeowners policies. 9]"}, {"d": 52, "p": 50, "t": "State Farm objects to this Request because it is RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16: vague and ambiguous as to “excessive granular loss” and “not to be considered.” Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit a home with construction defects to the roof does not qualify for a State Farm homeowners policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17: State Farm objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to “construction defects.” Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 18: NO. Admit You developed the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other initiatives or programs to apply on first-party claims to seek a reduction in the amount You spent each year on total roof replacements, lower the ratio of total or full roof replacements to partial roof replacements, lower the full roof replacement approval percentage, and/or lower nationwide total roof payment volume. State Farm objects to this Request because it is RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18: vague and ambiguous. State Farm further objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit You tracked the results of the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other initiatives or programs in the amount You spent each year on total roof replacements, the ratio of total or full roof replacements to partial roof replacements, the full roof replacement approval percentage, and/or nationwide total roof payment 92"}, {"d": 52, "p": 51, "t": "volume. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19: State Farm objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. State Farm further objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: = Admit that You targeted Oklahoma certain States to implement the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other similarly named initiatives or programs. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20: State Farm objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. State Farm further objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit that You started implementation of the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other similarly named initiatives or programs in Texas. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 21: State Farm objects to this Request because is vague and ambiguous. State Farm further objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 22: Admit that You targeted Oklahoma as a state to implement the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, 93 the Wind and Hail Fire Model"}, {"d": 52, "p": 52, "t": "Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other similarly named initiatives or programs after implementation in Texas. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22: State Farm objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. State Farm further objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: Admit that you have trained and/or made known the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other similarly named initiatives or programs to State Farm captive agents since January 1, 2019. State Farm objects to this Request because it is RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 23: irrelevant, improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. Admit You developed a team management REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: approval system wherein adjusters who recommend a full roof replacement on a wind/ hail claim must get team manager approval for such full or total roof replacement. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 24: State Farm objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Admit that You compared the industry standards on percentage of Full Roof Replacements to Your internal standard on percentage of Full Roof Replacements and identified an opportunity for internal quality improvement by seeking to lower Your percentage of approvals for full roof replacements to the industry standard and/or to 94"}, {"d": 52, "p": 53, "t": "arelated benchmark. State Farm objects to this Request because it is RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 25: irrelevant, improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. Admit that since January 1, 2019, You review REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: and/or track the percentages of total or full roof replacements by individual adjusters and managers on wind/hail claims. State Farm objects to this Request because it is RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 26: irrelevant, improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27: Admit that you have policies, procedures, and/or methods to review and/or track percentages of total or full roof replacements by individual adjusters and managers adjusting or working on Oklahoma wind/hail claims, including recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking, or analysis related to total or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims. State Farm objects to this Request because it is RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 27: irrelevant, improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. Admit that You believe “negotiation” is an REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28: element of accurate claim handling. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 28: State Farm objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections and the General Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29: Admit You acted in direct opposition to any 95"}, {"d": 52, "p": 54, "t": "moratorium on the use of Haag. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 29: State Farm objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30: Admit that You created and/or implemented a claims handling Playbook and/or developed claims handling Tactics as part of the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other initiatives or programs for adjusting, handling, and/or investigating wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 30: State Farm objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. Respectfully submitted, ¥ TIMILA S#@ROTHER, OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE & DUNLEVY, PC Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7700 Facsimile: (405) 239-6651 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 96"}, {"d": 52, "p": 55, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 29th day of September, 2025, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Brad Burgess Colby Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 44th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 97 6077963"}, {"d": 52, "p": 56, "t": "VERIFICATION I, Jason Taylor, a duly authorized representative of State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”), which is a defendant in West v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, verify that I have reviewed State Farm’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory Nos. I, 2, and 8 in Plaintiffs’ First Set of Discovery Requests to State Farm (the “Responses”). I am informed and believe that the facts stated therein are true and, on that ground, verify such matters as true to the best of my knowledge. The Responses were prepared with the assistance and advice of counsel for State Farm. The Responses were prepared with information available from other sources and not based entirely upon my personal knowledge. The Responses are limited by the information presently recollected and thus far discovered in the course of preparation of the Responses. 1 state under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma true and correct pursuant to 12 O.S. § 426. Sigffure € foregoing is aN Name (typed or printed) [Er Mir fee Title 6077854 Woensy OC VES Date and Place (City, State) ,"}, {"d": 52, "p": 57, "t": "1410 Lakeside Pkwy., Ste. 100 800.527.0168 Flower Mound, Texas 75028 214.614 6500 HaagGlobal.cam 214.614.6501 fax DECLARATION My name is Ryan Holdhusen, Vice President of Haag Education Co. (“Haag”) I am above the age of eighteen (18) years, and | am fully competent to make this declaration. Haag is the provider of the “Hail and Wind Damage Assessment” seminar, which includes training videos developed exclusively by Haag for educational purposes. State Farm holds a license to utilize Haag’s training videos solely for internal training purposes. This license, however, is limited in scope and does not confer upon State Farm any authority or sufficient control over the videos to reproduce, disclose, or otherwise produce Haag’s proprietary materials in litigation. The videos remain the intellectual property of Haag and any production or dissemination beyond the scope of the license would violate Haag’s proprietary rights. Therefore, Haag maintains that State Farm’s license does not authorize the production of the “Hail and Wind Damage Assessment” seminar videos and/or transcripts in this or any litigation. (lit Ryan Holdhusen Vice President of Haag Education Co."}, {"d": 52, "p": 58, "t": "JURAT My name is Ryan Holdhusen. I am Vice President of Haag Education Co. J declare under penalty of perjury that every statement in the foregoing Declaration is within my personal knowledge and is true and correct. Executed in Denton County, State of Texas on the 17th day of December, 2024. (it Ryan Holdhusen"}, {"d": 53, "p": 1, "t": "FILED DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA August 21,2026 3:47 PM IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 Plaintiff, V. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. Newnes ast” Saat! ana at! aaa gt at! NEIL and LACY WEST, COUNTY Case No. CJ-2025-135 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION Please notice that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230 of the Oklahoma Discovery Code, the Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company will take the deposition upon oral examination of Derek Franklin, on Friday, September 11, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, Braniff Building, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102, before an officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the State of Oklahoma. The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic means. A subpoena will be issued to Mr. Franklin for his attendance. The subpoena is attached as Exhibit 1. Dated this 21st day of August, 2026. AM Ze TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 53, "p": 2, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this 21st day of August, 2026, to: 9010632 Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson Blake Sonne BURGESS Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 by & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM"}, {"d": 53, "p": 4, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Plaintiff, Vv. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. Newnes ast” Saat! ana at! aaa gt at! NEIL and LACY WEST, COUNTY Case No. CJ-2025-135 DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO: — Derek Franklin Legacy Roofing & Construction, LLC 12094 State Highway 76 Lindsay, Oklahoma 73052 GREETINGS - You are hereby commanded to appear at the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, Braniff Building, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 on Friday, September 11, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. to testify as a witness in a deposition noticed by Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, in the above-captioned case. The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic means. All parties are invited to attend and cross-examine. Hereof fail not under penalty of law. Issued this 21st day of August, 2026. ee TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 9010633"}, {"d": 54, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY FILED STATE OF OKLAHOMA DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA August 24, 2026 1:41 PM Plaintiff, Vv. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. Newnes ast” Saat! ana at! aaa gt at! NEIL and LACY WEST, ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 Case No. CJ-2025-135 AMENDED NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION Please notice that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230 of the Oklahoma Discovery Code, the Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company will take the deposition upon oral examination of Derek Franklin, on Friday, September 11, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, Braniff Building, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102, before an officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the State of Oklahoma. The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic and videographic means. A subpoena will be issued to Mr. Franklin for his attendance. The subpoena is attached as Exhibit 1. Dated this 24th day of August, 2026. AM Ze TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 54, "p": 2, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by US. Mail, postage prepaid, this 24th day of August, 2026, to: 9010632 Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson Blake Sonne BURGESS Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 by & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM"}, {"d": 54, "p": 4, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Plaintiff, Vv. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. Newnes ast” Saat! ana at! aaa gt at! NEIL and LACY WEST, COUNTY Case No. CJ-2025-135 DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO: — Derek Franklin Legacy Roofing & Construction, LLC 12094 State Highway 76 Lindsay, Oklahoma 73052 GREETINGS - You are hereby commanded to appear at the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, Braniff Building, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 on Friday, September 11, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. to testify as a witness in a deposition noticed by Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, in the above-captioned case. The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic and videographic means. All parties are invited to attend and cross-examine. Hereof fail not under penalty of law. Issued this 24th day of August, 2026. ee TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 9010633"}, {"d": 55, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY FILED DISTRICT COURT STATE OF OKLAHOMA COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA mat! August 24, 2026 4:15 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK tl NEIL and LACY WEST, mgt Case Number CJ-2025-135 aaa Plaintiffs, Defendants. Se” Nm See ee COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., CJ-2025-135 Some STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY Case No.: Se mal Vv. DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Timila S. Rother, OBA #14310 Paige Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7700 Facsimile: (405) 239-6651 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 55, "p": 2, "t": "This case arises from a dispute over the scope of alleged hail damage to Plaintiffs’ property. The undisputed record shows State Farm investigated Plaintiffs’ claim, paid for covered damage, and determined that the roof shingles were not damaged by hail. Plaintiffs’ disagreement with that conclusion presents, at most, a legitimate dispute—not bad faith—and they identify no evidence that State Farm acted unreasonably, conducted an inadequate investigation, or relied on anything other than the facts developed during the claim. While the Fire Model Enhancement initiative is not evidence of bad faith it had nothing to do with this claim anyway. Plaintiffs’ claims also fail for independent reasons. The Policy required that suit be filed within one year of the alleged loss, yet Plaintiffs did not file this action until February 28, 2025— more than a year after the alleged June 15, 2023 loss. Significantly, Plaintiffs have not repaired the roof but have had the Property evaluated twice since the alleged destruction of their roof, and neither evaluation identified damage to their roof or any decrease in the Property’s value attributable to the roof’s condition—though Plaintiffs claim more than $50,000 to replace it. Their own claim submissions further undermine their position: for example, the materials submitted to support full roof replacement included photographs that, on their face, did not depict Plaintiffs’ roof, and when State Farm requested additional information to locate the questioned rain cap, Plaintiffs’ representatives failed to respond or provide any explanation. At minimum, the record shows a legitimate dispute—not evidence from which a reasonable jury could find bad faith.! ' State Farm previously filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on May 26, 2026. After the Court reset the dispositive-motion deadline, but the parties completed additional discovery and so State Farm files this Amended Motion to present the complete summary-judgment record. This Amended Motion supersedes State Farm’s prior motion."}, {"d": 55, "p": 3, "t": "STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS (“UMF”) PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY & POLICY 1. In 2009 and 2019, Plaintiff, Neil West, submitted claims to State Farm for hail damage to his prior residence at 7710 SW Crystal Hills Place in Lawton. On both occasions, because hail damage is “accidental direct physical loss” under the Policy and because there was damage sufficient to warrant a total roof replacement, State Farm paid to replace the roof of the house. N. West Dep. at 42:23-43:3, 43:10-21, Ex. 1; Nancy Holcomb Decl., 7 3, Ex. 2. 2. Plaintiffs purchased the property located at 7 NW Briarcreek, Lawton, OK on December 28, 2021. Comanche County Assessor Records, Ex. 3. 3. On December 6, 2021, Plaintiffs applied for a policy through the Holcomb Agency to insure the property located at 7 NW Briarcreek (“House”). Application, SFF&CC/West_953 (“SF_”), Ex. 4. State Farm issued Policy No. 36-CR-X405-8 (“Policy”) effective December 29, 2021. Id. The Policy automatically renewed each year thereafter and was in effect for the period December 29, 2022—December 29, 2023. Policy Declarations (“Decl.”), SF_44, Ex. 5. 4. Neil West testified that, when procuring the Policy, he asked for replacement-cost coverage like he had on his prior residence and was told they were “covered” or “good to go.” N. West Dep. at 135:18-137:14, Ex. 1. When asked to identify the affirmative statements by Nancy Holcomb that he claimed were false, he identified no statement that State Farm or the Holcomb Agency would inspect the Property or advise Plaintiffs concerning its condition. /d.; id. at 97:1698:8, 100:9-101:1; 142:16-144:12. Lacy West testified that she had no conversations with Nancy Holcomb about procuring the Policy and that no one at the Holcomb Agency made any representations to her about the Policy or its coverage. L. West Dep. at 31:3-19, Ex. 6. 5. Plaintiffs admit the Property was insured under the Policy, subject to its terms, conditions, and exclusions. See Pls.’ Resp. to Req. for Admis. No. 1, Ex. 7. Plaintiffs also admit 2"}, {"d": 55, "p": 4, "t": "they received a copy of the Policy and kept it in their possession. Jd. Nos. 2-3. Plaintiffs did not read the Policy. L. West Dep. at 41:9-21, Ex. 6; N. West Dep. at 101:21-25, Ex. 1. 6. Plaintiffs had $309,000 in coverage for the dwelling for the period December 29, 2022—December 29, 2023. Decl., SF_45, Ex. 5. Plaintiffs’ deductible during this same period was $3,090. Id.; see Pls.’ Resp. to Req. for Admis. No. 11, Ex. 7. Plaintiffs admit the Policy provides that State Farm pays only that portion of a covered loss exceeding the deductible. Jd. at No. 12. 7. Under Plaintiffs’ Policy, State Farm agreed to “pay for accidental direct physical loss to the” House, “unless the loss [wa]s excluded or limited in SECTION I - LOSSES NOT INSURED.” Policy at SF_16, Ex. 5. Wind and hail are covered under the Policy; they were not excluded perils listed in SECTION I- LOSSES NOT INSURED. /d. at 12-22; Pet., 9 31; N. West Dep. at 104:11-16 (agreeing the Policy covers wind and hail damage), Ex. 1; Holcomb Decl., § 4, Ex. 13. “[W]ear, tear, [and] ... deterioration,” however, are excluded. Policy at SF_19, Ex. 5. 8. Plaintiffs’ Policy Declarations show their dwelling coverage is “Al Replacement Cost — Similar Construction.” Jd. at SF 45. The Policy provides that “until actual repair or replacement is completed, [State Farm] will pay only the actual cash value of the damaged part of the property, up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, not to exceed the cost to repair or replace the damaged part of the property.” Jd. at SF_22. “[W]hen the repair or replacement is actually completed, [State Farm] will pay the covered additional amount [Plaintiffs] actually and necessarily spend to repair or replace the damaged part of the property, or an amount up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, whichever is less.” Id. 9. The Policy further provides that State Farm has no obligation to “make inspections and surveys of the insured location at any time,” provide insureds with “reports on conditions,” or “recommend changes.” Jd. at SF_36; cf N. West Dep. at 101:21-25, Ex. 1."}, {"d": 55, "p": 5, "t": "10. The Policy also states under “Suit Against Us” that “[a}ny action by any party must be started within one year after the date of loss or damage.” Policy at SF 26, Ex. 5. 11. Plaintiffs’ roof, which was constructed of composition shingles, was installed in or around 2017. See 2025 Appraisal at West_713, Ex. 8; Holcomb Texts at West_580, Ex. 9. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM SUBMISSION 12. Plaintiffs submitted a claim for hail damage to their House on July 28, 2023, with a claimed date of loss of June 15, 2023 (“Claim”). Pet., 4] 5; Claim Notes, 13. Between August 6, 2023, and September 5, 2023, SF_ 86-87, Ex. 11. External Claim Resource (“ECR”) Brandi Hervey attempted multiple times to contact Plaintiffs by telephone to discuss their claim and schedule an inspection, and sent three written communications, but was unable to reach them. /d. at SF_77; Aug. 6 Ltr., Ex. 12; Aug. 24 Ltr., Ex. 13; Sept. 5 Ltr., Ex. 14. 14. State Farm finally spoke to Mr. West on September 16, 2023, at which time he reported damage to the roof, interior, exterior, and soft metals. Claim Notes at SF_76, Ex. 11. 15. State Farm’s September 28, 2023 inspection found no wind or hail damage to the roof shingles, chimney flue cap, or metal roof vents. /d. at SF_74-75; Gooch Decl., §§ 4-7, Ex. 15. State Farm did, however, identify light hail damage to gutters, downspouts, window screens, and fence stain, along with water staining on Plaintiffs’ bedroom ceiling, and prepared an estimate totaling $4,775.89. State Farm Estimate, Ex. 16. After depreciation and application of Plaintiffs’ deductible, State Farm issued payment of $918.50. Id.’ ? The claim note contains one internally inconsistent statement that the roof warranted full replacement based on the recorded shingle impacts, but Cedric Gooch testified by declaration that this was a clerical error and did not reflect his findings. Gooch Decl., 4] 13, Ex. 15. His inspection findings, scope sheet, photos, estimate, and payment determination otherwise showed no hail damage to the shingles. /d. at {§ 5-13; Claim Notes at SF_75, Ex. 9; State Farm Estimate, Ex. 16. 4"}, {"d": 55, "p": 6, "t": "16. Before State Farm’s September 28 inspection, Neil West told Bobby Odom he had “decided to go in a different direction on the roof’ and asked Odom not to attend. Odom Texts at WEST_ 000433, Ex. 17. West also told Odom, “My brother is going to do the roof,” but later testified that neither brother inspected the roof. /d.; N. West Dep. at 41:14-44:4, Ex. 1. Meanwhile, West was communicating with Derek Franklin about a second opinion. /d. at 160:20-162:7. 17. Neil West testified that Bobby Odom inspected the House and showed him photos of what Odom identified as hail damage. /d.at 17:16-19:11. West testified that Odom told him the roof had damage sufficient to require full replacement. /d. Odom testified that he sent the matter to Brandon Gold to prepare an estimate for full roof replacement and the other conditions Odom had identified as hail damage. Odom Dep. at 112:13-113:17, Ex. 18. Gold declared that he prepared an estimate based on information from others, but did not inspect the Property, determine whether any damage existed, determine the cause of any alleged damage, or provide public adjusting services in connection with Plaintiffs’ claim. Gold Decl. {§] 4-6, Ex. 19. 18. West testified that Derek Franklin also inspected the roof and told him there was enough storm damage to warrant a new roof. N. West Dep. at 67:5-21, 164:17-167:1, Ex. 1. Franklin declared that he inspected the Property once in or around September 2023 and did not recall any other inspection. Franklin Decl. {{{ 3-4, Ex. 20. Franklin confirmed he has no notes, photos, or other documentation of his inspection, but recalled observing damage only to two slopes and did not investigate or determine the date of loss for that damage. Jd. §§j 5-6. 19. Neil West emailed Kevin Miller of Brown-O’ Haver, “Adjusters for the Insured,” on November 28, 2023, after Derek Franklin gave him Miller’s contact information and West spoke with Miller about the Claim. N. West Dep. at 168:21-170:2, Ex. 1; Brown-O’ Haver Records, SUB-BrownO’ Haver 000004, Ex. 21. In his email, West identified Derek Franklin as the “good"}, {"d": 55, "p": 7, "t": "guy” contractor, “the one [he] trust[ed],” and asked Miller to review the materials and tell him whether the Claim was “worth pursuing.” /d. Miller’s intake note recorded that West reported two roofers had looked at the roof; one said it was a total loss, and the other said there was damage but “not necessarily a total replacement.” /d. at SUB-BrownO’ Haver_000008. 20. On March 30, 2024, Bobby Odom submitted Trademark’s $46,201.55 estimate for a total roof replacement. Trademark Estimate, Ex. 22. Odom also attached photos and requested a second inspection. /d. State Farm Claim Specialist Kristen Haun reviewed Trademark’s estimate, photos, and signed contract. Claim Notes at SF_73, Ex. 11. Haun revised State Farm’s estimate to add floor protection and contents reset for the interior repairs, increasing the total replacementcost value to $5,283.17, but determined the materials submitted did not reflect additional covered damage beyond what State Farm had already identified and thus did not warrant a second inspection. /d.; State Farm Supp. Est., Ex. 23. After applying Plaintiffs’ deductible, State Farm paid an additional $1,274.67 and notified Plaintiffs by letter of that determination and the Policy’s one-year suit limitation. /d.; April 10 Ltr. at SF_196—98, Ex. 24. 21. On April 24, 2024, public adjuster Coastal Claims submitted a notice that it represented Plaintiffs in connection with the Claim. Coastal Claims Notice, Ex. 25. On April 25, 2024, Coastal transmitted a $51,696.39 estimate for total roof replacement. Coastal Est., Ex. 26° 3 Coastal’s estimate and transmitting email identified John Dekker as Plaintiffs’ public adjuster. Coastal Est., Ex. 26. Dekker confirmed, however, that he was not licensed as an Oklahoma public adjuster and did not inspect the Property, review photos, prepare or assist with any estimate, or provide public-adjusting services for Plaintiffs’ claim. Dekker Decl. 4] 4-8, Ex. 27. The estimate identifies Eileen Dalton as the estimator, and the later-submitted photo report bears William Pratt’s name; neither appears in the licensing results as a licensed Oklahoma public adjuster. NAIC Licensing Results, Ex. 28; Parga Dep. at 72:15—74:18, 78:4-80:13, Ex. 29. 6"}, {"d": 55, "p": 8, "t": "22. Odom uploaded photos to JobNimbus for use in preparing or supporting the supplement and testified that Brandon Gold had access to JobNimbus and could provide those materials to Coastal Claims. Odom Dep. at 79:1-80:24, 81:10—24, Ex. 18. 23. On July 15, 2024, Jose Parga provided Coastal’s estimate with supporting photos. July 15 Email, Ex. 30. Parga testified, however, that he never physically inspected Plaintiffs’ Property, did not prepare the estimate, and did not recall preparing the photo report. Parga Dep. at 59:19-25, 72:15—74:18, 78:4-80:13, Ex. 29. Parga further testified that the photos he submitted were collected and transferred to him, he did not know who took them, and he could not guarantee they all depicted the West Property. /d. at 85:1-86:10, 139:9-18. 24. State Farm reviewed Coastal’s submission, noted that the photos attached in Coastal’s report appeared to be the same photos submitted by Plaintiffs’ contractor on March 30, and—after claim specialist and team-manager review—determined the photos did not show additional damage beyond what State Farm had already identified, but advised the Claim could be reopened with additional supporting documentation. Claim Notes at SF_70, Ex. 11. 25. Parga later sent State Farm a photo of a heavily dented rain cap and asserted State Farm had missed damage to it. Sept. 13 Email, Ex. 31. State Farm could not locate the depicted rain cap on Plaintiffs’ roof and asked Coastal by phone and email to provide a photo identifying the component’s location on the House. Claim Notes at SF_69-70, Ex. 11; Sept. 17 Email, Ex. 32. 26. After State Farm requested more information about the location of the rain cap, Parga asked Odom to obtain “better photos of the roof,” including “overviews of the entire house and close-ups of the rain caps.” Oct. 1 Email, Ex. 33. Parga and Neil West followed up with Odom multiple times regarding this request. /d.; Odom Texts at WEST_000540-545, Ex. 17."}, {"d": 55, "p": 9, "t": "27. Odom confirmed the rain cap photo and several other photos submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ Claim did not depict Plaintiffs’ roof. Odom Dep. at 203:13—205:11, Ex. 18. 28. After Odom uploaded the additional photos and repeatedly requested updates from Brandon Gold, Gold advised Odom in December 2024 that “there’s not going to be anything more that can be done” and that they did not believe there were “enough grounds,” which Odom understood to mean Coastal lacked sufficient grounds to continue pursuing the Claim. Odom Dep. at 193:1-195:25, Ex. 18; JobNimbus Notes at BobbyOdom_000009-010, Ex. 34. 29. State Farm received no additional information, including the requested information about the rain cap’s location. Claim Notes at SF_69-—70, Ex. 11; N. West Dep. at 189:1-7, Ex. 1. PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY POST-LITIGATION 30. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on February 28, 2025. See generally Pet. 31. When asked in their depositions to identify the basis for their claim against State Farm, Plaintiffs testified that their dispute with State Farm centers on its determination that the roof did not sustain hail damage and its refusal to pay to replace the roof. See N. West Dep. at 50:3-6, 90:17-25, Ex. 1; L. West Dep. at 34:24-35:5, 43:23-47:8, Ex. 6. 32. Plaintiffs have not repaired or replaced the roof of the Property since submitting their claim. N. West Dep. at 93:18—21, Ex. 1; L. West Dep. at 66:15-18, Ex. 6. 33. In December 2025, Plaintiffs’ Property was appraised by Peak Appraisal Service, LLC. 2025 Appraisal, Ex. 8. The report noted “minimal depreciation due to age/condition,” characterized the roof as in average condition and assigned the Property an “as is” market value of $340,000. /d. at West_713-14. The appraiser performed a “complete visual inspection of the interior and exterior areas,” but noted that an appraisal is not a home inspection. /d. at West_71517. The appraisal did not identify or reference storm damage to the roof. Jd. at West_713-724."}, {"d": 55, "p": 10, "t": "34. — In February 2026, a RE/MAX broker completed an interior/exterior Broker Price Opinion of the Property for Plaintiffs’ home-equity financing. Broker Price Opin. at West_747, 751, Ex. 10. The broker reported the Property was in average condition, the roof was free of leaks and temporary repairs, and no interior or exterior repairs were observed. /d. at West_748—49. The broker valued the Property at $296,300 both “as-is” and with repairs. /d. at West_751. 35. On June 24, 2026, Andrew D. Harold, M.S., S.E., P.E., evaluated Plaintiffs’ unrepaired roof, relevant exterior components, and relevant interior areas. Harold Decl. {{] 6-8, Ex. 35. Harold found no evidence of hail damage to the shingles that would warrant repair or replacement, and no storm-created openings that would allow water to enter the home. /d. ¥ 10. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES I. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE TIME-BARRED. Plaintiffs’ Policy provides that “[a]my action by any party must be started within one year after the date of loss or damage.” UMF 10 (emphasis added). This provision comports with 36 O.S. § 3617, which permits property policies “delivered or issued for delivery in Oklahoma and covering a subject of insurance resident, located, or to be performed in Oklahoma” to limit the time in which an action must be brought to a period of one year “from the date of occurrence of the event resulting in the loss.” Plaintiffs plead that their property was damaged “on or about June 15, 2023.” UMF 12; Pet., § 40(a). Plaintiffs did not file suit until February 28, 2025, despite State Farm advising them of the Policy’s “Suit Against Us” provision in its April 10, 2024 letter. UMFs 20, 30. Because the lawsuit was filed more than one year after the alleged date of loss, all claims are barred by the “Suit Against Us” provision. See Order at 2-6, Poe v. State Farm, CIV-24-1295PRW (W.D. Okla. Sept. 16, 2025), ECF No. 12, Ex. 36 (dismissing bad faith and contract claims pursuant to identical “Suit Against Us” provision because filed more than one year after the date of loss); Burwell v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 2006 OK CIV APP 97, [ff 9-16, 142 P.3d 1005, 10079"}, {"d": 55, "p": 11, "t": "09 (affirming summary judgment under a similar provision finding there was no dispute that the suit was untimely commenced more than one year after the loss.). For this reason alone, summary judgment is appropriate as to Plaintiffs’ breach of contract and bad-faith claims. The Suit Against Us provision should likewise apply to bar the constructive fraud claim against State Farm because it applies to “any action” between the parties and the fraud claim is duplicative of the contract and bad-faith claims. UMF 10. But even in absence of the contractual limitations provision, the claim is also barred by the two-year statute of limitations for torts. 12 O.S. § 95(A)(3); Grubb v. DXP Enters., Inc., No. 19-CV-0443-JH-JFJ, 2022 WL 16842309, at *5 (N.D. Okla. July 25, 2022) (applying Oklahoma law). It is based on alleged implied representations made through the mere issuance of the Policy. As explained in § III, infra, such representations do not form the basis of a constructive fraud claim and Plaintiffs testified they were not made in any event. To the extent they were, they would have been made in December 2021 when the Policy issued, more than three years before suit was filed. UMFs 2-5. II, PLAINTIFFS’ BAD FAITH CLAIM FAILS ON THE MERITS AS A MATTER OF LAW. Even if Plaintiffs’ bad-faith claim were not time-barred, summary judgment is proper. An insurer’s refusal to pay all amounts demanded does not constitute bad faith. The Oklahoma Supreme Court specifically held, when recognizing the cause of action, that a legitimate dispute between the insurer and insured as to coverage or the amount of a loss, even in the face of a “wrong” decision by the insurer, is not bad faith conduct as a matter of law. Christian v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 1977 OK 141, § 26, 577 P.2d 899, 905. “[T]here can be disagreements between insurer and insured on a variety of matters such as insurable interest, extent of coverage, cause of loss, amount of loss, or breach of policy conditions.” /d. Such disagreements do not create tort liability for bad faith. /d. Rather, “tort liability may be imposed only where there is a clear showing that the insurer unreasonably, and in bad faith, withholds payment of the claim of its msured.” Jd. 10"}, {"d": 55, "p": 12, "t": "(emphasis added).* Courts consistently hold that a legitimate dispute requires judgment as a matter of law in favor of the insurance company, regardless of whether its decision was correct.” The “question is whether the insurer had a ‘good faith belief, at the time its performance was requested, that it had justifiable reason for withholding payment under the policy.’” Buzzard v. Farmers Ins. Co., 1991 OK 127, 4 14, 824 P.2d 1105, 1109 (Okla. 1991) (citation omitted). “The fact that a reasonable jury could find in favor of the insurer based on all facts known or that should have been known by the insurer when it denied a claim 1s strong evidence that a dispute is “legitimate.” Lunday v. State Farm, CIV-20-1238-G, 2022 WL 2705263, at *5 (W.D. Okla. July 12, 2022) (quoting Shotts v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 943 F.3d 1304, 1316 (10th Cir. 2019)). Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must show a level of culpability beyond simple negligence to recover for bad faith. Badillo v. Mid Century Ins. Co., 2005 OK 48, ¢ 28, 121 P.3d 1080, 1094. Oklahoma courts apply a two-part analysis: “First, ‘the court considers whether there is a legitimate dispute between the insurer and the insured regarding coverage or the value of the claim.’ Then, if there is a legitimate dispute, the court ‘considers whether the plaintiff offered specific additional evidence to demonstrate bad faith.” Absent production of such evidence, ‘judgment as a matter of law is to be granted to the insurer.”” Lunday, 2022 WL 2705263 at *5 (quoting Shotts, 943 F.3d at 1315). The undisputed facts here show only a legitimate dispute. 4 See also Skinner v. John Deere Ins. Co., 2000 OK 18, § 16, 998 P.2d 1219, 1223 (“disagreements can arise concerning the amount of coverage, cause of loss, and breach of policy conditions|;] the tort of bad faith does not prevent the insurer from resisting payment or resorting to a judicial forum to resolve a legitimate dispute.”); Bailey v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2006 OK CIV APP 85, § 18, 137 P.3d 1260, 1264 (“Insurers are free to make legitimate business decisions (and mistakes) regarding payment, as long as they act reasonably and deal fairly and in good faith with their insureds.”). > See e.g., Manis v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 1984 OK 25, §§ 11-14, 681 P.2d 760, 762 (holding badfaith claim failed as a matter of law because insurer had legitimate dispute even though plaintiff prevailed on issue of coverage on breach of contract claim). See also Branch vy. Farmers Ins. Co., 311 F.3d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 2002) (affirming summary judgment for property insurer on ground of its “reasonable position taken in litigation of a legitimate coverage dispute”). I]"}, {"d": 55, "p": 13, "t": "A. A legitimate dispute exists regarding the scope of loss. This case is the classic legitimate dispute as to the “amount of loss”: a disagreement between Plaintiffs and State Farm regarding the scope of hail damage to Plaintiffs’ roof and thus the amount Plaintiffs are owed under the Policy. See Emmanuel Baptist Church v. State Farm, CIV-11-595-D, 2012 WL 3595093, at *9 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 21, 2012) (applying Oklahoma law and finding that a disagreement between an insurer’s inspectors and plaintiffs’ roofer and expert was insufficient to sustain a bad faith claim); Hubbell v. State Farm, 21-CV-0341-CVE-JFJ, 2022 WL 3050020, at *3 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 2, 2022) (granting summary judgment on bad-faith claim, even where parties had obtained expert testimony in support of their positions concerning the need to replace plaintiffs’ roof, and “State Farm clearly ha[d] a legitimate basis to dispute coverage”). State Farm agreed that wind and hail damaged portions of Plaintiffs’ property—an “accidental direct physical loss” under the Policy. UMFs 7, 15. Mr. Gooch inspected the Property and found no hail damage to the roof shingles, chimney flue cap, or metal roof vents, but identified limited covered damage to other components. UMF 15. He prepared a $4,775.89 estimate, and after depreciation and the $3,090 deductible, State Farm paid Plaintiffs $918.50. Jd. Plaintiffs allege State Farm refused to include hail damage to their shingles in its estimate and instead determined the damage to the shingles was “wear, tear, .. . deterioration, ... ,” which is not covered under the Policy. Pet., § 40(d)(j). Plaintiffs allege that their public adjuster “affirmed that the Insured Property sustained deep hail damage to shingles across its entire roof” and created an “estimate of over $50,000.00 to repair and/or replace [the] damage.” Pet., §§ 40(k)-(1). Plaintiffs’ own testimony confirms their dispute with State Farm centers on its determination that the roof did not sustain hail damage and its refusal to pay to replace the roof. UMF 31. Discovery confirmed the dispute’s legitimacy. Plaintiffs’ roof-replacement demand rested on materials State Farm reasonably questioned, including photos Odom later confirmed did not 12"}, {"d": 55, "p": 14, "t": "depict Plaintiffs’ roof; and neither Plaintiffs nor their representatives provided the additional information State Farm requested to evaluate the alleged rain-cap damage. UMFs 20-29. Harold’s post-litigation inspection further confirmed State Farm’s conclusion: Plaintiffs’ unrepaired roof had no hail damage to the shingles that would warrant repair or replacement. UMF 35. That is a “legitimate dispute” and not bad faith as a matter of law. See Lopez v. Farmers Ins. Co., CIV-10-0584-HE, 2011 WL 1807158, at *3 (W.D. Okla. May 6, 2011) (granting summary judgment on bad-faith claim where, as here, “[t]he crux of plaintiff's argument is that defendant disagreed with his roofer and expert regarding the cause of the damage to his roof”); Phillips v. State Farm, 640 F. Supp. 3d 1103, 1109 (N.D. Okla. 2022) (finding legitimate dispute where adjuster inspected the roof and estimated covered damage; plaintiffs’ roofer concluded the wind and hail damage necessitated replacement; and insurer reviewed contractor information and maintained its determination); Cunanan v. State Farm, 750 F. Supp. 3d 1298, 1303 (W.D. Okla. 2024) (finding legitimate dispute where insurer inspected and determined shingles had no hail impacts attributable to the date of loss); Revocable Tr. Agreement of [ ] Ellis v. State Farm, 614 F. Supp. 3d 963, 978 (N.D. Okla. 2022) (“[T]here is a legitimate dispute between plaintiffs and defendant based on the professional opinions of their [] experts.”). B. The record is devoid of evidence that State Farm acted in bad faith. “To successfully rebut [State Farm’s] defense of having a legitimate dispute as to coverage,” Plaintiffs “must present evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that [State Farm] did not have a reasonable good faith belief for withholding payment of [their] claim.” Lunday, 2022 WL 2705263 at *7 (quotations omitted). “The additional evidence required for this showing may take several forms... . a plaintiff may demonstrate bad faith by providing evidence that the insurer did not actually rely on the legitimate dispute to deny coverage, denied the claim for an illegitimate reason, or otherwise failed to treat the insured fairly. A plaintiff may also show 13"}, {"d": 55, "p": 15, "t": "bad faith by providing evidence that the insurer performed an inadequate investigation of the claim.” /d. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Absent production of such evidence, ‘judgment as a matter of law is to be granted to the insurer.’” Jd. (quoting Shotts, 943 F.3d at 1315). No such evidence exists. Generic “scheme” allegations are insufficient, particularly where the undisputed evidence demonstrates that State Farm reasonably investigated and evaluated Plaintiffs’ claim. See Revocable Tr. Agreement, 614 F. Supp. 3d at 978. The UMFs show State Farm promptly and thoroughly investigated Plaintiffs’ claim and reached a coverage decision: e State Farm repeatedly tried to contact Plaintiffs and schedule an inspection. UMFs 13-14. e An independent adjuster inspected the Property, found no wind/hail damage to the shingles, identified limited damage to other components, and prepared an estimate. UMF 15. e After Plaintiffs’ contractor submitted an estimate and photos, State Farm reviewed those materials, added minor interior-repair items, and issued a supplemental payment while maintaining its determination that the shingles were not damaged by hail. UMF 20. e State Farm reviewed Coastal’s estimate and photos and determined they did not show additional covered damage or warrant a second inspection. UMFs 21-24. e When Coastal claimed additional damage based on a photo of a heavily dented rain cap, State Farm requested information needed to identify the component and further evaluate the Claim; neither Plaintiffs nor their representatives provided it. UMFs 25-29. e Plaintiffs obtained two post-loss evaluations after the storm they claim caused more than $50,000 in damage to their (still-unrepaired) roof. Neither identified damage to the roof nor any property-value decrease attributable to the roof’s condition. UMFs 32-34. e Harold’s post-litigation inspection of Plaintiffs’ still-unrepaired roof found no hail damage to the shingles that would warrant repair or replacement. UMF 35. In contrast, Plaintiffs have not proffered evidence from which a reasonable jury could find State Farm’s determination unreasonable. The record shows State Farm inspected the Property, reviewed supplemental submissions, requested additional information when those materials raised questions, and had its determination confirmed by Plaintiffs’ post-loss evaluations and Harold’s post-litigation inspection. UMFs 13-15, 20-29, 32-35. Bad faith claims reach a jury only where “the insurer’s defense to the underlying claim [i]s so weak that a reasonable inference could be 14"}, {"d": 55, "p": 16, "t": "drawn that the insurer denied the claim in bad faith,” i.e. where the insurer has “constructed a sham defense” or “intentionally disregarded undisputed facts supporting the insured’s claim.” Oulds v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 1431, 1442 (10th Cir. 1993). There is no such evidence here. See Phillips, 640 F. Supp. 3d at 1109 (State Farm conducted an adequate investigation when it “investigated the damage, processed the claim, and reviewed plaintiffs’ supplemental information multiple times and determined that an additional inspection was not warranted”); Revocable Tr. Agreement, 614 F. Supp. 3d at 978 (same). Plaintiffs’ own claim history confirms State Farm has previously paid to replace their roofs when covered damage was identified. UMF 1. State Farm’s decision regarding the scope of damage is, at most, a legitimate dispute. Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden on either step of the bad-faith analysis. This is not a bad-faith case, and judgment should be entered in favor of State Farm on Plaintiffs’ bad-faith theory. See Evans v. Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 13-CV-0390-CVE-PJC, 2014 WL 5846730, at *10 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 12, 2014) (“The mere fact that Reliable did not pay plaintiff the full amount that plaintiff sought is not enough to show an unreasonable act.”); Price v. CSAA Gen. Ins. Co., 687 F. Supp. 3d 1179, 1185 (W.D. Okla. 2023) (entering summary judgment, reasoning “[i]n sum, there was a legitimate dispute between CSAA and Plaintiffs regarding both causation of damage and coverage under Plaintiffs’ Policy, and Plaintiffs otherwise lack evidence of CSAA’s bad faith.”). II. PLAINTIFFS’ CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD CLAIM FAILS ON THE MERITS. Plaintiffs assert constructive fraud against both State Farm and the Agent based on identical allegations found insufficient by other courts. Porter v. State Farm, CIV-25-187-R, 2025 WL 1151682, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 18, 2025). To recover, Plaintiffs must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that State Farm (1) owed a duty of full disclosure, (2) misstated a fact or failed to disclose a fact, (3) the misstatement or omission was material, (4) Plaintiffs relied on it, 15"}, {"d": 55, "p": 17, "t": "and (5) suffered damages as a result. Lillard v. Stockton, 267 F. Supp. 2d 1081, 1113 (N.D. Okla. 2003). Plaintiffs cannot establish a statement, duty, reliance, causation, or actionable falsehood. Plaintiffs allege “Defendants” made misrepresentations and/or omissions concerning calculations, coverage, underwriting, and claim handling. Pet., § 73(a)-(f). But Plaintiffs testified their dispute concerns only State Farm’s refusal to replace their roof. UMF 31. The Petition also fails to plead fraud with particularity under 12 O.S. § 2009(B). Where “fraud is alleged against multiple defendants, blanket allegations of fraud... ‘by the defendants’ are insufficient . . . , the alleged fraudulent activity of each defendant must be set forth.” Lillard, 267 F. Supp. 2d at 1112. They do not identify who made any statement, when it was made, or what was said, and impermissibly lump Defendants together. Discovery did not cure that defect: Plaintiffs still identify no actionable statement or omission distinct from State Farm’s claim determination. Their constructive fraud claim, seeking damages for State Farm’s refusal to replace their roof, is just a “breach of contract claim masquerading as something more.” Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Fiasco v. Oceanus Ins. Group, 13-CV-762-JED-PJC, 2014 WL 3891267, at *4 (N.D. Okla. 2014). “Oklahoma law does not permit the simultaneous pursuit of fraud and breach of contract claims where the two claims are not sufficiently distinct.” /d. at *5. A. Plaintiffs cannot establish a misrepresentation or duty to disclose. There is no evidence, let alone clear and convincing evidence, of any misrepresentation. At most, Neil West testified that, when procuring the Policy, he requested replacement-cost coverage like he had on his prior residence and was told they were “covered” or “good to go.” UMF 4. But Plaintiffs identify no statement by State Farm, the Holcomb Agency, or Agent Holcomb that anyone would inspect the Property, advise Plaintiffs about its condition, determine whether the roof was hail-damaged, or guarantee payment for any future roof-replacement claim. 7d. Plaintiffs must offer evidence that a misstatement was made. Lillard, 267 F. Supp. 2d at 1112. 16"}, {"d": 55, "p": 18, "t": "Constructive fraud requires a duty to speak, which “‘may arise if a party selectively discloses facts that create a false impression.”” Jd. (quoting Specialty Beverages, L.L.C. v. Pabst Brewing Co., 537 F.3d 1165, 1181 (10th Cir. 2008)). Plaintiffs allege no such disclosure. Their theory rests on assumptions—not affirmative statements—and no witness identified any disclosure creating a false impression about inspections, underwriting, claim handling, hail determinations, or future roof-replacement payments. UMF 4. Plaintiffs instead allege Defendants failed to disclose an alleged scheme relating to hail claims. See Pet., 4 73(f)-(g). But silence or implied representations are insufficient as a matter of law. Pratt v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., CIV-20-93-D, 2020 WL 4735350, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 14, 2020). Neither State Farm nor the Holcomb Agency owed a duty to disclose the matters alleged, and the claim fails on that basis alone. See id.; see also Hall v. State Farm, CIV-25-12-JD, 2025 WL 2905205, at *6 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 13, 2025) (declining to recognize constructive-fraud theory based on “an inherent or implied representation attendant to the issuance of an insurance policy”); Barlow v. State Farm, CIV-25-44-R, 2025 WL 1139489, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 17, 2025) (finding no duty where “Plaintiffs d[id] not identify any affirmative statements by [agent about | claims handling or policy interpretation”). B. Plaintiffs cannot establish reasonable reliance. Plaintiffs contend they relied on the Holcomb Agency, which is in the business of selling insurance—not inspecting roofs, to inspect their property, ensure it was in good condition, and advise of any issues. See Pet., (§] 25-28. But Plaintiffs identify no statement by the Holcomb Agency promising to inspect the Property, warrant its condition, or advise Plaintiffs of roof issues. UMF 4. After the alleged loss, Plaintiffs obtained an appraisal and a Broker Price Opinion, neither of which identified roof damage or any decrease in value attributable to the roof. UMFs 33-34. As a matter of law, an insurance company does not owe a duty to inspect or underwrite for the insured’s benefit. See e.g., Marino v. State Farm, CIV-22-885-HE, 2023 WL 11915691, at *3 17"}, {"d": 55, "p": 19, "t": "(W.D. Okla. Aug. 7, 2023); Hall, 2025 WL 2905205 at *6; Gray v. Derderian, 464 F. Supp. 2d 105, 110 (D. R.I. 2006). Underwriting exists for the insurer’s benefit, not the insured’s. See Gray, 464 F. Supp. 2d at 109. Accordingly, the Policy expressly provides that State Farm has no obligation to “make inspections and surveys of the insured location at any time,” provide insureds with “reports on conditions,” or “recommend changes.” UMF 9. Plaintiffs also cannot establish reliance because they received a copy of the Policy. UMF 5. Oklahoma law imposes a duty “to read and know the contents of the polic[y]” before they accept it, and an applicant who accepts a policy with provisions “plain, clear, and free from all ambiguity, is chargeable with knowledge of the terms and legal effect.” Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. T.M. Richardson Lumber Co., 1902 OK 7, ¥ 5, 69 P. 936, 937; see also Country Gold, Inc. v. State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., CIV-14-1398-D, 2015 WL 431638, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 2, 2015) (dismissing constructive fraud claim and rejecting reliance where plaintiff received the policy). C. Plaintiffs cannot establish causation. Plaintiffs’ only alleged injury is State Farm’s refusal to pay for a roof replacement. UMF 31. That decision was based on State Farm’s determination that hail did not damage the roof shingles—not on underwriting, inspections, or coverage limits. Plaintiffs had $309,000 in dwelling coverage, enough to pay the claimed roof estimate if covered. UMFs 6, 21. Courts reject attempts to transform scope-of-loss disputes into tort or misrepresentation claims. See, e.g., Weichbrodt v. State Farm, CIV-25-360-R, 2025 WL 1848819, at *4 (W.D. Okla. July 2, 2025) (finding coverage was not negated by the “determination that some of the clatmed damage is attributable to a non- covered cause,” but rather a dispute over “the extent of the damage and whether some of [it] was caused by wind or hail”); Hall, 2025 WL 2905205 at *6 (same principle). This case is no different: the alleged injury stems from State Farm’s claim decision, not any alleged misrepresentation. 18"}, {"d": 55, "p": 20, "t": "D. Any alleged misrepresentations were true and/or non-actionable. The House qualified for and was insured under an RCV policy covering hail. UMFs 1-8. Plaintiffs had sufficient coverage to replace their roof consistent with the contractor’s estimate. UMEFs 6, 21. And Plaintiffs admit State Farm identified and paid for covered damage; they contend it should have paid for more. UMFs 15, 31; Pet., § 40(d), (j), (1). To the extent Plaintiffs rely on alleged statements regarding claim handling or policy application, such statements are non-actionable. “[F]or a false representation to be the basis of fraud, such representation must be relative to existing facts or those which previously existed, and not as to promises as to future acts.” Citation Co. Realtors v. Lyon, 1980 OK 68, § 8, 610 P.2d 788, 790; CMI Roadbuilding v. SpecSys, No. CIV-18-1245-G, 2021 WL 2189190, at *3 (W.D. Okla. May 28, 2021) (same requirement for constructive fraud). Further, any representations about State Farm’s past claim handling decisions would convey an adjuster’s opinion. See Cupit v. Dancu Chemical Co., 1957 OK 193, 4 7, 316 P.2d 593, 596 (claim decision is an opinion and not “misrepresentation or concealment of facts”). “Fraud may not be predicated on a mere expression of opinion.” Eckert v. Flair Agency, 1995 OK CIV APP 151, 47, 909 P.2d 1201, 1204. IV. STATE FARM IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY PUNITIVE DAMAGES. JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM FOR “Even where there is evidence to support the recovery of actual damages in a bad faith action against an insurer, which there is not here, submission of the issue of punitive damages to a jury may be improper.” Perry v. Safeco Ins. Co., 18-CV-539-TCK-FHM, 2020 WL 1180726, at *7 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 11, 2020). The Oklahoma Supreme Court has emphasized that “[p]unitive damages are awarded only in the most egregious circumstances and are aimed at punishing the offending party.” Estrada v. Port City Props., Inc., 2011 OK 30, § 16, n.21, 258 P.3d 495, 502 n.21. Even where bad faith is established, punitive damages require evidence that the insurer acted 19"}, {"d": 55, "p": 21, "t": "with “oppression, malice, fraud or gross negligence or wantonness.” Buzzard v. Farmers Ins. Co., 1991 OK 127, 940, 824 P.2d at 1115.° See also Combs v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 551 F.3d 991, 1000 (10th Cir. 2008) (finding punitive-damages claim for constructive fraud required evidence defendant acted with evil intent or gross negligence before submission to the jury). Plaintiffs are not, as a matter of law, entitled to any type of punitive damages, as they can make no competent showing that State Farm acted in bad faith or engaged in constructive fraud, let alone with malice or gross negligence. Whether punitive damages may be submitted to the jury is a question of law for the Court. Estrada, 2011 OK 30, 4 20, 258 P.3d 495 at 504. There is no evidence of egregious circumstances here, no malice, no gross negligence, and no oppression or wanton or reckless disregard for the insureds’ rights. The UMFs reveal that Plaintiffs disagreed with State Farm’s conclusions, nothing more. At most, Plaintiffs might be able to show State Farm was mistaken as to the scope of covered damage to their roof, not that State Farm acted with malice or ill intent toward them or anyone else. Submission of the issue of punitive damages to the jury, therefore, “would be improper.” Combs, 551 F.3d at 1000. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, State Farm requests summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Summary judgment is appropriate where no substantial controversy exists as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Cyanostar Energy, Inc. v. Chesapeake Expl., L.L.C., 2014 OK CIV APP 7, ¥ 8, 317 P.3d 217, 219; Rules for Dist. Cts. of Okla. R. 13(e). ® Oklahoma’s punitive damages statute, 23 O.S. § 9.1, is unconstitutional because it permits, without any safeguards, consideration of harm to others in setting the amount of a punitive award. Moody v. Ford Motor Co., 506 F. Supp. 2d 823, 849 (N.D. Okla. 2007). 20"}, {"d": 55, "p": 22, "t": "i Submitted, TIMILA S. ROTHER OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA # 31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 24th day of August, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER FIRM Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 Are ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 21 LAW"}, {"d": 55, "p": 24, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Neil West 03/19/2026 DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA and LACY WEST, COUNTY ml THE naa” NEIL IN Sn Plaintiffs, gael Sma Case ge vs. Number CJ-2025-135 Nee Nett met Nt STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., VIDEO Ne Defendants. DEPOSITION OF Taken on behalf on the 19th in REPORTED of day Lawton, * BY: NEIL * SPENCER the of WEST Defendants March, 2026 Oklahoma * TAMARA * WAGGONER, Word for Word Reporting, LLC CSR 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) = EXHIBIT ——"}, {"d": 55, "p": 25, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMBE INSURANCE Page 17 Neil West 03/19/2026 got hit things like if you see that the normal see, you know, just you know, if shingle off. I mean, person would probably You know, you can -- inside your gutters looking there's -- if there's Also, when -- when some Bobby, pictures and from the roof, he things that I could saw State Farm, 14 roof from his 15 based upon those things. 16 Q Ms. Rother) 17 information 20 gutters. inspect from totalled the roofer own title is, pictures of -- of the that determine to by hail? MR. SANDERS: Object to the THE WITNESS: Sure. I -- roof, explained roof, your were now, shingles the opinions sufficient have you Did I made so And just about the by the perspective. your see. what know me showed me showed pictures similar the I don't talking in damage first 13 I'm -- that the inspector. 18. and can you hail first on a recognize. 12 (By things just I had I also then And 11 21 you You Trademark, 19 that hail. by 10 obvious know, by sign a be could damage granular form. You so when I had he showed me to me can answer. 22 23 Bobby 24 photographs 25 was. Odom And inspect and he he showed the me -- or tried what hail damage to explain where Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 55, "p": 26, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 18 Neil West 03/19/2026 He was. it that it -- it was -- damage to constitute a full roof some other significant was there explained was replacement. me showed He on I remember at least one of the two, a smaller like a single, and wide. I remember specifically the have a double I -- I had recognized 11 there when he -- I fence line 14 storm because 15 when we moved 16 for had only recently in, so it on the I say a ton, with -- with house. When big brooms one of those 21 industrial 22 out 23 granules 24 them the off And, of kind and so kind of like thing, and I would have to there, were the also, I the off sweep corners, to it, on heads hit. existence granules have big in and too, the back of saw them in because screens, then, you up fence of I the been the of that put the on pings ton a the like still storm of 20 were the back I they when the 19 only had on and 25 we saw 18 -- that I personally And because was that years it. some were there that of couple a in it. I knew and 13 17 inspected noticed and before, it garage dents decent some were there 10 I some there then 12 were as We and -- such doors. single I and that recognized, immediately pings spots know, front an sweep the push patio. front of the Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) walkway."}, {"d": 55, "p": 27, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 19 Neil West 03/19/2026 it that. A little feet bare my feet. in And I would look at them and are like sandy tan, you know. And, immediately what they were on weakened screens that saw some from -- so the Q 13 about granules, 14 from your testimony as 15 saw them was the ground? 16 A Correct. 17 Q Okay. 18 A Ground and in and on I think it the see could I I from noticed the were talking this became apparent in the I've been -- you where But continued. I that. I never assume my you And Rother) (By Ms. I wind. of underneath granules also well, out the 12 19 there. feel I knew wind. bit could mean, 11 after I some before, weeks and that 10 15th go to I like because it I knew And a little and here bit and weeks like for continued 2023, June hailstorm that after just wasn't it And as gutters yeah. 20 Q Okay. All right. 21 on you a bit. Have you 22 A I have. 23 Q Okay. 24 A Yes, ma'am. 25 Q And I know given you're an jumping a deposition attorney. before? Have Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) around you"}, {"d": 55, "p": 28, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 41 Neil West 03/19/2026 somebody who was a public Q But no one your roof; is I A there for adjuster. that true? wouldn't know. wasn't I did, they If inspected Claims Coastal from it. Q Okay. Derek Franklin, what company is he A I don't even know. I think he has his own in the text message a with? business. 10 Q I may 11 reference to 12 A 13 important 14 Q 15 roofer. seen have I think I saw that, at the time, I You indicated Has he Q Where 18 A He lives 19 Q And is 20 A Full-time 21 contractor. 22 Q Okay. 23 A But 25 years as your that your in his -- what hunter a on, wasn't it. is brother a live? Missouri. his is and a bell? ring roof? Warrenton, a retired He's days get didn't brother 17 three It does No. like too. your A 24 that inspected 16 as Does Roofing. Legacy employment? part-time fisherman, -- firefighter and so he would firefighter, you know, days off, so all of his do -- he was a four a firefighter he would Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) do"}, {"d": 55, "p": 29, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 42 Neil West 03/19/2026 contractor. did Okay. he specialize A General in or contractor general a he was And Q roofing? some does still He contractor. today. the has that you live A This one, no. @) Right. Did Crystal Lake? Do house on you house 11 A Crystal Hills. 12 Q Crystal Hills, 13 A Yeah, he 14 Q Okay. And you 15 employed with State Parm, 16 a little more detail, 17 replaced two roofs; 18 A 19 State 20 Q roof of your the on it. replaced -- while you we'll look at had have you. Thank and but they've haven't they? never been actually employed were this in paid to by Farm. I'm I Let's meant to say. period that you were replaced two roofs? 22 over. Insured is what during the 25 A Farm, it I up. State where strike question 24 know just that So don't sorry. 21 23 roof sorry. actually I've the at look he inspected now? in 10 First, ever he -- Q they've I messed and start insured Correct. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) by"}, {"d": 55, "p": 30, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 43 Neil West 03/19/2026 And Hills house? A Yes, ma'am, Q Okay. And at your Crystal what's your brother's one that we're Christopher West. -- which -- indicate that there were those of both Q -- your name? about 10 have I A many, but the -- Q Yeah. A -- is Chris -- Q Okay. And did State Farm's you 11 tell 12 was 13 then 14 Christopher, a one in I -- 20 or a total roof in think it was '19. Did both of replace Chris, A He 16 Q Okay. 17 A The 18 Q Okay. 19 A My 20 Q Okay. Is Roger 21 A He at the 22 Q Where does Roger 23 A He 25 did Christopher records replacement roof or 15 24 talking those 2009 roofs? not. 2019 he replace? the roof a roofer? roof. replaced Who brother was did one Which lives in 2009? Roger. also time. live? in Godfrey, -- is Illinois. G-O-D-F-R-E-Y. Q And has his last name West also? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) I'll and"}, {"d": 55, "p": 31, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 44 Neil West 03/19/2026 A Yes, ma'am. Q Okay. Has your inspected the roof other brothers that are any other brothers? many -- siblings do youngest of Roger West at any time? you have any have current house A No, ma'am. Q Do of roofers? A No. Q Do you A Oh, I Q Okay. 11 have? 12 A I'm 13 Q Okay. 14 A So I have four older brothers, 15 sisters. 16 Q And other than Roger and 17 you've 18 sib -- 19 or roofing? 10 20 21 the 22 with do. How the described as of your other brother A My Army Corps of inspecting how in being seven work so Engineers, a few buildings. Where does 23 Q Okay. 24 A In Lawton, 25 Q All right. Rick he older two who Christopher, in a retired is has do any your of construction engineer with his share had live? Oklahoma. Any other of you kids. roofing, siblings Rick many your immediate Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 55, "p": 32, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 50 Neit West 03/19/2026 an employee, when then And I filed this claim that came out inspector Farm State nothing. September, after Bobby telling me that, you damage. There preexisting damage. if they're And was 10 have disclosed ll yes, it's 12 like somebody 13 and that a weird to me. also know they misrepresented you. 14 Q And 15 A I deal 16 Q And you've 17 A We have. 18 Q Did you 19 personally but And there was -- so, to be able to that they let you down with for fraud? us to her sued ever call explain it? her SANDERS: Object 21 THE WITNESS: I if 23 wasn't 24 Q 25 substantive much have that. MR. know, should Nancy 20 you that -- to 22 me any think to conflict was I damage, preexisting there there tell to try to going tries claim, my that indication in think preexisting is this know, no was I submitted had the and and to the she think her ask form. called filed a claim, there just wasn't. noting that we discussion about it. There Rother) So have you had a conversation with her at all -- -- (By Ms. ask, Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) well,"}, {"d": 55, "p": 33, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page67 Neil West 03/19/2026 to consider. Consider downsizing. Q When did first A Two-ish you and two -- take 2023? the date. Q Was it prior A We did. I Q Okay. A So these are discussion. You know, trying and have going June 15, think we had one, yeah. things what are Ramsey plans and just, you know, buckling to get my to do that. all cutting back on budget 11 up. So I'm like, I 12 don't know contacted I So I ago. to 10 13 renter? years recall I'm a a half don't how on roof another roofer to get Derek -- yeah, in just I done and a second He Derek. 14 opinion, and that would be 15 came out and said, yeah, Dude, you need a new roof. tell me exactly what he said. You or you have Well, Q 16 17 need 18 roof? 19 A a new roof I don't -- 20 it's -- you 21 that it warrants remember enough a roof. And you the photos and 23 at 24 they were 25 this earlier. hail the there's Q 22 hail new were earlier seeing your but exact words, damage to talking about looking concluding that marks and damage . I'm pretty have you had But to damage any sure your I asked you on how training Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) house"}, {"d": 55, "p": 34, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 90 Neil West 03/19/2026 able insureds know. you determine what it approval from that get that the inspector in could not grant a full roof permission -- to get could deny on the spot 10 superior 11 sort. 12 There 13 attempts 14 were 15 percent 16 they 17 -- a was become to banking were And so when this -- and -- I knew to 21 thing and they didn't. my head I'm going absolutely is not denied all of make sure and 50 was a legitimate Farm to do the isn't right. right. This -- know I just everything it that this we through came I did I mean, State get storm, this. 25 situation my when so tried 25 such it. and that as challenging claim by they and not 20 damaged some Farm's State between it a of on people I could 24 out a pay that that just be and 19 23 to through all In from came with 22 approval that 18 to get denying claims the to profitable more systematically of or about read I replacements going was there if sorry. I'm roof had they damage, significant policy a change had let and had and And was. they replacement They know, -- I time Since that for, to be basically recommendation whatnot, or replacement the a make -- recommend was this and -- Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) right This roof I'm was being"}, {"d": 55, "p": 35, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 92 to A Absolutely, Q And ma'am. those allegations? A That's why we're here, Q Yeah. All right. So do things you read, many ways the allegations MR. SANDERS: 10 Q (By Ms. 11 A When 13 of 14 systematically I to the form. I those are my one of those I shouldn't was and denied -- Petition was one people that got have been. I words. know that's an allegation; And you understand that the 18 disagreement here is whether 19 damage Q And 16 A I do. 17 Q to your roof SANDERS: (By Ms. 22 MR. SANDERS: Object. 23 THE WITNESS: I are, ma'am. 21 Q 24 defenses 25 Q (By Ms. correct? fundamental or not there's to form. hail -- MR. 20 this I had you 15 in Okay. my that people. those essentially Petition? in your Rother) realization deep accounts Absolutely. I read 12 media ma'am. the Object THE WITNESS: entitled mirror they and is Farm State that agree you defend m WW N Nei! West 03/19/2026 Object Rother) Rother) -- the correct? don't know Okay. Did what all State Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) your Farm"}, {"d": 55, "p": 36, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 97 Neil West 03/19/2026 A I have not. Q So me and that's I'm glad tell from there. for the roof that you have into told me because So your and all is that you're owed storm, and the based upon should have Holcomb Ms. Farm's claim handling she caused you, but are you claiming 12 separate from the fact that 13 your and you had emotional 15 just distress 11 A Yes, ma'am. MR. SANDERS: the form. Okay. What other Q (By Ms. Rother) 17 financial injury did 18 A 19 before 20 therefore 21 anything 22 She could 23 have -- she could have said you are not ~- 24 meet our standards on this, but she did not. 25 issued it -- not by in this. she And have should have because and cause inspected the person, not She signed me me that policy. the she's now so And by up you? property not. did she in denied of Holcomb Nancy pay didn't distress? to Object damage any Farm State to practices 16 She work can from disclosed 14 and narrative, damage the earlier we now 10 claim this decision. claim State you long allegation claiming You're asking the got emotional Farm's State I was we how you -- drone, for a policy. should She saying by you don't you're good Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 55, "p": 37, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 98 Neil West 03/19/2026 to roof your guess what to come in beforehand, no. is just -- Q But that A She is negligent in those duties. of her negligence in doing that, it absolutely led to I would later you because that distress say and on walking was somebody or damage preexisting that's Now trying is somebody now happens, this. all have can you go, And develop. was my question, wondering if there that But Okay. Q 10 11 stress. I'm just 12 claiming you overpaid 13 any the claim Ms. Holcomb I pay a very nice amount you are premiums, underpaid premiums, you injury No. A 14 15 other -- have caused? money didn't total -- insurance 16 Q Right. 17 A -- to 18 Q And you have -- State if it had totalled your have your roof Object to the form. And all the other close to $300,000, you have plenty your roof. But 20 have enough coverage 21 correct? Q 23 SANDERS: (By Ms. policy 24 Your 25 contract to MR. Rother) insures damage is insured. house my keep 19 22 for of you for 50,000, so Farm you roof, for; paid Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) damage. your of"}, {"d": 55, "p": 38, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 100 Neil West 03/19/2026 Now, Okay. Q Ms. Holcomb her a Yes, she don't 0D FF We DO Okay. F Maybe Oo Are inspect older said of yours and you've known than you? talk a few you age. years. really contending that it on your roof get to obligation Holcomb's 11 you ma'am. Is Ms. -- time? A 10 Ms. a friend is long of terms in was and it? 12 MR. SANDERS: Object to 13 THE WITNESS: Ma'am, I am contending on the roof to We have great technology she or somebody 15 or put a 16 these 17 Q 18 didn't 19 A 20 discovery. 21 Q Have 22 practice in 23 knowledge about 24 insurance agent's 25 there. could it of your roof? didn't see it footage MR. this How -- you're.a area. Do but you have any personal regard you obligation to inspect to the Object it they don't lawyer with SANDERS: that in your is the inspect know law what that happened. you drone you form. do Rother) I certainly easily have Ms. (By do up drone days, get should 14 the to an property? form. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 55, "p": 39, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 101 Neil West 03/19/2026 THE WITNESS: Q (By Ms. reading, have opinions which not be do Rother) not. And in that to inspect property? Object to the THE WITNESS: That's a question of the lawyers. Ms. Rother) Okay. But my question was, do form. How is -- law to well, have you read those -- doing, have you read any decisions on that issue? SANDERS: Object to the THE WITNESS: What I have is that -- (By Ms. Rother) No, asking you federal court opinions. 10 agreed. 11 in all the 12 of the federal court 13 MR. 14 those? by and courts (By 17 fact SANDERS: ‘@) about court MR. the 16 your in agent's found by Q of federal have determined 15 all several the read you duty a have I you reading the were 18 MR. SANDERS: Object 19 THE WITNESS: The I read was to Have the actual 20 themselves, 21 Q 22 insurance policy 23 inspections are 24 MR. SANDERS: Form. 25 THE WITNESS: Not form. you read form. opinions no. (By Ms. And Rother) to what see have it you says read about required? that I know of. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) your whether"}, {"d": 55, "p": 40, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 104 Neil West 03/19/2026 saying, that's not damage. And I'm like, what what about this. No, sir, that's not and this or that's exactly what he said. And do you Q and damage covered have you policy your under understand know don't I damage. hail not damage, about then you have damage to the form. that's excluded? 10 MR. SANDERS: Object THE WITNESS: I a that's understand thing, yes. 12 because you've 13 damage, that the 14 A Yes. 15 Q And 16 A Yes. 17 Q | And 18 adjuster, 19 this is roofs two had policy but you know replaced due to hail covers hail? wind? what Gooch, Mr. covered 20 MR. SANDERS: Object 21 THE WITNESS: I name that's what like it sounds not of the was he said to you to the form. damage? Q (By Ms. Rother) you understand, sir, 22 And Okay. Rother) (By Ms. Q 11 believe that's Okay. And that 23 do 24 roof to have wear or tear 25 damage, all kinds of things, it's he still -- wasn't possible deterioration, and correct. for your preexisting have Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) hail"}, {"d": 55, "p": 41, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 135 Neil West 03/19/2026 the books, necessarily same time if that you were new house and you A Not driveway Was sidewalk. 11 Q Okay. 12 A She kind of things occur. you've that called but I driveway of the in standing described, Nancy? front yard, yes. West with you then? was around. She was not standing she was -- she So was she a -- she was not a participant my inquiry of the when I've 16 A Correct. In 17 correct. 18 Q have told 19 questions 20 Ms. Holcomb, that you think she failed 21 your property and tell you about its 22 that she failed to tell you that State 23 changed way it evaluates hail damage. 24 characterize those correctly? A You how about the You me, you think you by property. the at was conversation? 25 My Mrs. the 15 in these of said Q we're know, conversation 10 14 the me paying you -- some as The But at with not me. attention was co-existing 13 times she maybe the many mean, I but you so works -- think on just would Q way it We us. for that finances, policy, you asked damaged were to by inspect and condition, Farm did. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) had Did I"}, {"d": 55, "p": 42, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 136 Neil West 03/19/2026 affirmative make any claim are Did omissions. are those So Okay. Q you that you she statements to or are false? to the form. You can got misrepresentations MR. SANDERS: Object THE WITNESS: You know, just said we've need, and I believed answer. you covered, we've got what you her. And it turns out she didn't. (By Ms. Q this is my only chance to 11 you can -- tell me what -- 12 specifically recall her 13 MR. SANDERS: Object THE WITNESS: Yeah. 14 words you to the form. It was a conversation what using. can You answer. 15 16 What trial. before ask 10 because just So Okay. Rother) on phone. the (By Ms. Q 17 18 the conversation 19 of your new 20 A Correct. 21 Q And 22 what? 23 A I get And Rother) you where talking we're were standing you told in about yard the house? you said, Correct. called hey, coverage 24 need to 25 want replacement we're buying this house. on costs. and I made her this spec exactly house, we -- I I want -- I made Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 55, "p": 43, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 137 Neil West 03/19/2026 the storm back in 2019, I make sure that we've got the same kind of coverage that we did then. I said if we have to overinsure it to get proper valuation for today's -- I didn't say it, but in my that, you know, to of thing, she She asked know, a few questions year of the 10 house, the 11 many square feet. 12 back to me. And 13 responded 14 you're 15 up, she'll look it at some point we've got you say at some point 16 responded to. Did -- how did 17 issuing policy or -- and 18 any Yes. Sure. later on 21 don't even 22 multiple 23 the 24 know. and you were she respond, by you haven't produced So I don't recall if it was -- I just -- I so. e-mails, 20 up hooked all you get were we Well, A how bedrooms, Q 19 the many go. the of how to good year the about She'll then Yes, to. roof, kind it. got okay, said, to inflation of cost covered -- cost for replace you thinking, I'm head 25 want I said to reference same day or within if we hung up the phone conversations on the same -- time range. I -- we -- you that know same five, But at some 10 minute point, obviously, had and like Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) within I don't know,"}, {"d": 55, "p": 44, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 142 Neil West 03/19/2026 would be out don't I of pocket know that my $3,000 or 3100. your of rest the I understand question. Did State Farm A Oh, they did. Q And what was that A $1200 or so. I don't know why they look at the to payment a subsequent make Q you? 10 And, frankly, I was, oh, you here coverage that Holcomb or that said you? 14 said to Ms. 15 A I think we've 16 Q Okay. And have we 18 A Right. 19 Q And 20 claim 21 A you 24 that 25 wanted make if know, you to covered said you what it, to you ma'am. was, full coverage; right? said you made reference to I want to the 2019 -I believe 23 she a sidetracked, placing anything was, in in -- 22 notes else any on claim I get 13 sure It before minute. make it. sent But right. All 12 17 know, I don't -- don't for? go. We'll Okay. Q il payment sure roof. full that So in so, -- if we've my right. So because the point we're out a roof then I want full coverage to replace was telling her that got mind, replacement I cost. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) I"}, {"d": 55, "p": 45, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 143 Neil West 03/19/2026 your mind, you said to in Well, Q exactly what Okay. Q So you -- and I wrote you told her you wanted full best recollection and what to the form. THE WITNESS: I've said many things a 12 anything more 13 Q (By 14 understand 15 and so I need to know very 16 said and what she said to 17 the level of fraud. 18 remember? 19 A Not that 20 Q And I one that I and the only 22 with about -- sentence and can't. I than I've already said. Rother) Okay. Well, Ms. I that rises else you can anything can recall. you we've established, would have had but on your new house? you know -- State Farm in fact correct, and suing on it? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Do you're to she's conversation a policy the fraud you whether So think of what specifically see you you Holcomb Ms. accusing you're reinsert give cannot just just that 21 a take to me asking today you're I'm know, You true. 11 policy; said? Object all the that Is -- said you SANDERS: basically 25 that coverage. you 10 comma down MR. were they need her. A of know to I but Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) issued a"}, {"d": 55, "p": 46, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 144 Neil West 03/19/2026 A Yes. Yes, Q Okay. So State Farm underwriting conclude that your house was sufficient to issue coverage; A Sure. Yes, ma'am. Q And I think we've talked terms of what you claim Ms. disclose, it relates to claims evaluates hail State in Farm and 10 allegation 11 told is ma'am. if that for agreed? about this. But Holcomb failed to damage. she knew the And that handles Farm State way the did your she should I'm just have you? 12 A Agreed. 13 Q I'm 14 flipping 15 and making 16 Are 17 -- just for through your answers sure that we you claiming that your excludes weather related record, interrogatories our to anything. omitted haven't policy has -- the form. that it losses? 18 MR. SANDERS: Object 19 THE WITNESS: The one that I or the one for? The one that I signed up for signed up for, was And State Farm I signed 20 that 21 or 22 weather that I thought related losses. — Ms. Rother) (By Q 23 I up 24 for weather related 25 much as think you losses, they to they should; just got covered it did pay didn't pay right? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) as"}, {"d": 55, "p": 47, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 160 Neil West 03/19/2026 Q him tell you e-mail Mr. State Farm is coming on two; correct? then that 12 and A A text, Q Oh, between but me bottom, September I have decided roof. As time. And Thank you.\" Why did Mr. Odom? A I was going 14 I hadn't talked to him 15 second opinion as well. 16 to down, if he 17 just 18 needed 19 thing. 20 Q 21 come to talking my yet. I just a of September as to Derek Franklin? that time, A Around 23 Q So 24 September 14, 25 A Right. that's Exhibit on come not he direction down. come the were then I which just right you also yeah. 6, a brother couldn't because doing 26th, Mr. 22 if I was on the my opinion that Neil. I wanted second sure it's I wanted and make the -- could, get And so And to wanted at brother have to 13 432 a different go to decide you kids direction you that ask my \"Bobby, in a different to go and on then 1:43. at 26th I would 11 29th September that do I such, Friday. and Odom yes. Sorry. the all correct than on yes. 10 12 431 And starts 2023? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) on I"}, {"d": 55, "p": 48, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 161 Neil West 03/19/2026 Q And A to So, Mr. Odom Mr. Franklin That was part it. my brother come, I think I was yeah, off because come instead? I get could I if well. contacted Derek as get some second ask him just trying to you call Chris a I was -- I was Chris, you I wanted -- I just yeah, so, And get to wanting put have opinion. second Chris you to going were did opinions. did Q And 10 A I know 11 asking 12 fishing 13 that and 14 know, he's 15 with my 16 getting 17 just 18 I don't talked. we and I ended was like he that I heard think I think trip or a hunting trip or something as I, you know, kind of processed in Missouri, making his him. a I crew, wasn't the on your Q Okay. So back is Exhibit 19 Mr. Odom, which 20 you know, what happened 21 mind, you say my brother 22 This is September 23 A Yeah. 24 Q But -- 25 A In my 26th; head I best in you work him head my I idea. with exchange 5. When he asks what to make you change your is going to a on it, and that like up like schedule logistically think it that thought things and schedule come? to do the -- roof. correct? -- in my head I was Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) going to"}, {"d": 55, "p": 49, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 162 Neil West 03/19/2026 have to him do the roof, but Q But on September Mr. Franklin; correct? A Yeah. Q And -26th, talking you're also your brother; Yeah. not is Franklin Mr. correct? A. Correct. Q All with the question 10 back to Exhibit 11 welcome 12 context. 13 read the prior But I think if you to If always you're sure at 652 and three, you coordinate for Mr. Franklin to house. And then on from you that look trying 15 come and look at 16 September 28th there's a 17 \"State Farm day early 18 now. He 19 called out 20 or your text notice. without roof. And first guy saying no do you mean \"also basically guy,\" who are you talking the first guy is Bobby. that damage says, Here basically to no have you make were said go you to all damage to garage fence.\" 21 A Yeah. 22 Q What 23 earlier. help page 14 came will and 654, Page to you I asked 6, this I think Then right. first that 24 A So 25 Q Okay. about? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) called out"}, {"d": 55, "p": 50, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 164 Neil West 03/19/2026 tear and people when he leaves?\" on the that would A Yeah. Q Do you think of what you account I believe A so. He said that there were said these spots would have the roof. Yeah, if kind of 10 presence 11 Q So then 12 November 8th after 13 leaves?\" And he 14 on 15 then the next text 16 happened from September 17 A He came out, Derek roof and he said you got you've got a I don't the 18 the 19 you've 20 to 21 don't. 22 you 23 State be replaced. know, he knew said anything until 28th call you when he Did you talk to him September 28th and to So November 8th? storm looked damage. I here that roof his at mean, needs I words, exact a little bit policy with, I talked your who's he out, came full what 8th. remember we a I the November is remember I And about, said Farm. you I had, 24 25 -- got it. is that Because phone? processing \"sure.\" says, know, \"Can say, you day? you see don't I that was, I was how of sense on it texted, I what that's told walking people from been were he -- walking people accurate an be you I call Can roof. walking that I had know -- another I think we talked that he person, I don't know that Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) he"}, {"d": 55, "p": 51, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 165 Neil West 03/19/2026 Bobby's that he -- that need of a full in State it's know, to know left and right. says Farm, he State Farm that need You as being due to the hail. it and he goes, but, you know, about talked we roof the replacement roof I, and Derek they valued had Bobby you can -- you he says, but I think up against this, but you're -- you know, you're I'm like, well, I what else to says -- or shortly it. And 11 and so I At a certain this 12 13 if it's 14 you know, 15 adjuster, 16 I 17 appraiser 18 Claim, 19 be conversation damage do. and I don't know he says, after such a thing as a public you could -- and I'm like what's come to out and evaluate and then at the roof, whatever, advocate for myself as 21 Oklahoma City, 22 earlier in one 23 remember who 24 time 25 on getting it was a public I kind of made of my earlier ahold when that was of I was able in to that reference I answers. with. And then to the kind adjuster I spoke them. So of consumer. there recall I do a that. independent basically information, evaluator or -- roof is 20 the hill there look an he point general the get know don't on a big full a have claims can know, with you you denying just is proceed 10 -- but that, like anything or name knew reach don't I had when that I did person, Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) a hard get"}, {"d": 55, "p": 52, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 166 Neil West 03/19/2026 remember don't I again, I as me it just explained of kind he was, who you, to it explained it to you know, we had served -- you know, we see that there's actual damage, make sure there's here, and if it is then, you the best we can to advocate for the price was and I got it's haven't made a claim claim legitimate we'll do I asked what -- we'll to looked a know, you. And 10 percent if you percent if you have made a 11 you -- that we help you recover That's when 12 to anything 25 percent. I'm like, well, is Bobby, do I want to stay with I just -- at the end of the day I 14 Derek, and 15 like I had a stronger 16 you know, knew him 17 so I went back to Bobby 18 what, I'm kind of stuck Because I need to 20 longer with Bobby, and said, okay, you on this. slightly percent roof this get get then, you know, do, but I want you to know, I'm -- I'm in the wrong. 21 $50,000 roof from whatever 22 maybe that's what I 23 continue to fight. Because, 24 absolutely satisfied that we're 25 And at some I, I if done pay when and to to to know pocket have have fixed and own my of out 20 that's felt I just, I guess, relationship I do with want so that stay 13 19 and back I go So claim. 10 25 and you not point thereafter, Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) got a"}, {"d": 55, "p": 53, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 167 Neil West 03/19/2026 Bobby back on board. Did messages, it your once? roof me that he just looked to say he actually came out but I I want to say that he Q Do you know if he took A I know he -- it and to appears I want A text the from just -- Franklin Mr. Q did at again don't know. know if 11 think -- 12 just don't 13 yeah, Q Will you and ask 15 are sending a Right. 17 Q -- the house? of A Right. 20 Q When 21 State 22 A I did. 23 Q Okay. 25 had Farm point, A there was I at look question. 19 that I think a -- If time. Il second time. I some -- well, let me pause here In these text messages you some Franklin Mr. A 24 second you 16 of the remember. 14 18 photos took he 10 I don't time. first the didn't photos? water -- photos the stains from discover those interior Right. -- you did And you discussed don't there? been already and the believe after Mr. Odom interior had not, damage? so. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) to"}, {"d": 55, "p": 54, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 168 Neil West 03/19/2026 June 15th A and room moved there at there. 11 June 2023? I do know. we were In the time. already then 2022, of they were there they arose in I after shortly not they were they weren't 2022 January in that because painted We paint. on painted ceilings the for know there had we Because So after sometime 2023? A Correct. 13 Q Whether 14 A And to be are in a master 15 noticed 16 was in 17 two closets, 18 never like 19 like -- so 20 check it all 21 Q 22 group 23 Mr. Franklin, 24 inspectors.\" A not January in. 12 25 were feeling And 15, have leaving Okay. Q 10 of have didn't we those that certain you to way any do And Okay. Q of the middle -- the first ones that a bedroom. And then the second bathroom closet. I'm I once it was never in so and -- clear, out, in So just God, I West 661 in that one, and then, yeah. Okay. Will you texts. This is \"Do you have the name of And I think you mean public Right. where better my that to was oh, saw go I I've But master. there. one have actually We the I asking you're private the adjusters? Right. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 55, "p": 55, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 169 Neil West 03/19/2026 one to more comfortable take pictures If they say it's and call it good. worth 10 the roof. I having one of those guys If say they that manner contacts if read that to fix the you could send that would them, 12 correctly? 13 A You 14 Q Okay. 15 doubt 16 by about be roof.\" those I great.\" Did expressing you did. Was Mr. Franklin whether he thought roof the some was totalled hail? 17 A No. 18 Q But 19 A He was had doubts Or that State totalled by hail? Right. Oh, there Brown O'Haver. 20 that 21 it. he Q was in you know 23 something use 11 22 it's to me losses that proceed \"If evaluation. my I'll Q out come cut then Yeah. feel will I then bust, a hire can just independent an make for A I that fighting I hope and so at and to about look a take come talked you \"That Q 24 A 25 there, Kevin you at he think -- expressing that -- didn't that State Farm Farm he was would expressing pay would determine is. There it Word for Word Reporting, LLC it 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) out on that it is right"}, {"d": 55, "p": 56, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 170 Neil West 03/19/2026 Q Yes. A That was the Q Yes. And with Exhibit This MS. ROTHER: City one. that I will show you an e-mail that you I think this is also is 11. Oklahoma produced. it but from there, John. communication that's been MR. SANDERS: redacted 10 it 12 names to forwarded being 11 redacted? That would literally just be us. And so literally just the that make the -- 13 MS. ROTHER: Okay. 14 MR. SANDERS: -- 15 in sense, Timila? MS. ROTHER: Yeah. 17 MR. SANDERS: It's 18 literally 19 top. ROTHER: Q (By Ms. West, this Mr. 23 they 24 an 25 Kevin could Rother) you produce to or -- at Brown is forwarded at the Okay. is e-mail it -- nothing being message the just MS. 20 22 Does e-mail. 16 21 a privilege that Is information some there's probably like looks pre-litigation All sharing us this communication O'Haver, So right. with I think, your counsel so -- I guess it's e-mail that you had with is how you pronounce I think Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 55, "p": 57, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 189 Neil West 03/19/2026 to rain was on the roof? see any of explanation from Am Q Did you Claims about where that rain response to State Farm's question? A I didn't, no. Q Did ever complain I -- you -- I think to Ms. Coastal in roof was on the I asked you this. Did state Farm's cap about Holcomb decision? claim MR. SANDERS: Object 12 THE WITNESS: I don't think she called I 13 complained. 14 middle of it 15 we -- she noticed 16 yet. And I 17 words. no But said we hadn't checks -- that was amount of damages that we should 21 really a complaint, I guess just 22 fact. 25 ceiling? Rother) of checks the 20 damage the cashed it interior cashed remember that 24 if don't hadn't Ms. asked I satisfied (By she we wasn't Q the -- 19 23 in somewhere that -- the Have house, I that know I because sometime form. the to 11 18 that where explanation A you 10 cap an Farm State provide the exact I because we have. got the So not a statement of you repaired the the stains on the Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 55, "p": 59, "t": "- DECLARATION OF NANCY HOLCOMB I, Nancy Holcomb, hereby declare and state: 1, My name is Nancy Holcomb, 1 am a State Farm insurance agent in Lawton, Oklahoma. I own and operate the Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. 2. | have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and know each of them to be true and correct. 3, I have served as Nei] and Lacy West’s insurance agent for many years and considered them friends, I assisted Mr. West in procuring a policy to insure his house located at 7710 SW Crystal Hills Place in Lawton, Oklahoma. The policy covered “accidental direct physical loss,” which included wind and hail damage. 4. Jn 2021, the Wests bought a new house located at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive in ’ Lawton, and I assisted them in purchasing a State Farm policy to insure that house, State Farm Homeowners Policy No. 36-CR-X405-8 (“Policy”), Like the Policy insuring the Wests’ prior house, the Policy insures against “accidental direct physical loss,” which includes wind and hail damage. 5. State Farm sometimes engages third parties to conduct inspections or reviews of properties, However, State Farm did not require or request an inspection of the Wests’ house to issue the Policy in 2021. If there had been wn inspection, J would not have completed it, J do not inspect roofs as an agent, nor am J required by, State Farm to do so, I declare under penalty of perjury under the Iaws of Oklahoma that the foregoing is truo and correct pursuant to 12 0.8. § 426. i"}, {"d": 55, "p": 60, "t": "Signed this 26th day of May, 2026, in Lawton, Oklahoma, 6265356"}, {"d": 55, "p": 62, "t": "actDataScout™ 4 Parcel: O2N13W-26-1-94900-020-0003 5/1/2025 1:27:05 AM ID: 160077521 Comanche County Report Property Owner Name: Mailing Address: _ Property Information WEST, NEIL & LACY 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR Subdivision: PECAN VALLEY SOUTH . \"LAWTON, OK 73505-4213 Type: Physical Address: : (Ri) Res, Improv. Tax District: (9) CACHE RURAL 107.89 Millage Rate: 107.89 ee 0020 / 0003 $-T-R: 26-02N-13W : Fair Taxable 48,000 41,010 4614 Building | 256,713 242,330 27,262 | Totals | 304,713 283,340 31,876 | Exemptions 1,000 - Taxable $30,876 Assessed PECAN VALLEY SOUTH BLK 20 Ba\" LoT3 Ful Fair Assessed. = Cash — Land) Legal: 0.00 Taxes Cash BS cn Block/Lot: Size (Acres): Market and Assessed Values cee Note: Tax amounts are Estimated 3.331 Taxes: | 7\" estimates only. Contact the county treasurer for exact amounts. | Exemptions: | 1,000 . EXHIBIT Land Land Use '‘Size Units LOT AREA 1.00 “Lot"}, {"d": 55, "p": 63, "t": "‘Land Use ‘Size ‘Total 1.00 - Units Deed Transfers Deed Date | Book 12/28/2021 Page Deed Type \"Stamps \"Est. Sale 8967 212 JTWO 390.00 $260,000 BURNS, BILLIE D & VIOLA F 6/241997 0 Wart.Deed 0.00 624997 «0ST 0 Grantor $0 252.75 WILSON, HAROLD W & DOROTHY~A $168,500 RHEA, PETE Residential Card Residential Card 1 Details i 2 Occupancy Story Construction Total Liv | Grade “Single Family ONE Veneer,Masonry 2383 95 Age Year Built 27 1997 Condition : Beds “Very Good Exterior Wall: : Veneer, Masonry Plumbing: | Full: 2 Half: N/A Foundation: N/A Heat/Cool: | Central Year Remodeled: N/A Base Structure Item _ Label . Description “SINGLE 1/S FIRE PL \"SINGLE 1/S FIRE PL 4 2 | Slab Porch with Roof | Slab Porch with Roof | 20 3 Slab Porch with Roof Slab Porch with Roof 54 4 Open Slab Porch : Open Slab Porch 210 1 Area 3"}, {"d": 55, "p": 64, "t": "Outbuildings and Yard Improvements 7 Card # Item Size / Dim Quality Age to “SINGLE 1/S FIRE PL 1 : N/A : N/A 4 Slab Porch with Roof 30 NIA | NIA | 1 “Slab Porch with Roof | | 54 NA 4 : Open Slab Porch 210 NYA | Parcel Photos N/A LNA 10f5 Parcel Sketch 3 “oy 1h PRED 0 WOO! 40 6 LSS! OKI 6 3 il a 231 4 Atlached Garage dD 8 443 35 7) iUH ROO pw Map OS"}, {"d": 55, "p": 65, "t": "Privacy - Terms - FAQ - Help Desk - About Us - Accessibility © 2025 - DataScout, All Rights Reserved,"}, {"d": 55, "p": 67, "t": "36-CR-X%405-8 State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Homeowners Application - OK Cancel/New 42-29-2021 Effective Date: Agent: Nancy Holcomb Nancy Holcomb Ins Agcy Inc App Date: 12-06-2021 App Time: 09:14 AM Agent Code: 2175 AFO Code: 26FAF3 Birlh date CUSTOMER: Applicant. © WEST, NEIL S Co-Applicant: WEST, LACY M H-19c9 Home Phone Business Phone (580) 510-0427 H-1920 &LACY M Show name(s} on policy as: WEST, NEIL S Nailing Address: SSN 7710 SW CRYSTAL HILLS PL LAWTON, OK 73505-6431 is any applicant an existing State Farm customer: Yes if yes, State / Prov: OK Home / Auto discount: Yes if yes, State / Prov: OK Does the applicant want to replace an existing State Farm policy with this transaction: Yes Existing State Farm policy number being replaced: 36-CU-1467-1 Existing policy's cancel date: 12-29-2021 Existing policy's State / Prov; OK is the properly location for this new policy the same as the existing policy's location: No Is applicant the named Insured on the existing State Farm policy: Yes if yes, existing policy type being replaced: Homeowners Number of residents: 2 Location: Property Location: County: Territory zone: Subzone: Street: 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR City: LAWTON State / Prov: OK ZIP / Postal: 73505-9537 Comanche 20 99 is the dwelling inside city limits: No is the dwelling located within 10 road miles of a responding fire department: Yes is the dwelling accessible to fire department protection equipment year round: Yes Does the dwelling have an adequate water source available for fire protection year round: Yes Pre-eligibility: Farm/Ranch policy In the last 30 days and Has any applicant had a State Farm Homeowners, Manufactured Home, Renters, Condominium Unitowners, or qualifies for the Loyal Customer Discount: Yes if yes, Tenure Details: Enter information from the State Farm Policy that carries the oldest tenure date: From date: 12-2004 EXHIBIT To date: 12-2021 State / Prov: OK Years with State Farm: 20 Tenure policy number: 36-CU-1467-1 Tenure date: 12-19-2001 Has applicant had any losses, insured or not, in the past § years: Yes If yes, is applicant a current State Farm policyholder having a qualifying residential policy: Yes EA25400K25 Rev. 05-2021 Page 1 of 4 1000008 2018 128191 218 03-10-2020 SFF&CC/West_000953"}, {"d": 55, "p": 68, "t": "Homeowners Application - OK State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 36-CR-X405-8 Loss caused by Flood, Identity Restoration, Earthquake in California, Mine Subsidence; or was the loss a Home Systems Protection (Equipment Breakdown), Service Line, Personal Articles Policy, or Personal Liability Umbrella loss: Loss description: wind hail Date of loss: 05-28-2019 Catastrophe related: Yes Weather related: Yes Total amount of loss: 13,480 Number of homeowners rating claims: 0 No - Dwelling: Estimate number; G214-13QA-3 Estimated replacement cost source: Estimated replacement cost tool Total finished square feet: 2053 Number of stories: 1 Story Estimated replacement cost: 292,000 Date of estimate: 12-06-2021 Year built: 1997 Heating / Cooling year: Original if Updated, enter year: Electrical year: Original if Updated, enter year: Plumbing year: Original If Updated, enter year: Construction: Masonry veneer 1s there a solid fuel appliance, such as a wood or coal stove, fireplace inserl, or free-standing fireplace unit inside any dwelling or structure on the premises: No Roof Installation Year: 2019 Roof material: Composition - Architectural Shingle {s roof impact resistant: No Occupancy: Owner Number of weeks owner occupied (per calendar year): 52 Number of families: 4 Coverages: Desired coverage effective date: 12-29-2021 Estimated replacement cost: 292,000 Dwelling (Coverage A): 292,000 Rate IV: 100% Increased Dwelling - Option /D: Included Dwelling Extension: 29,200 Are there any detached structures on the premises: No Personal Property (Coverage B): 249,000 Loss Settlement: Loss Settlement Option - Dwelling: A1 - Replacement Cost - Similar Construction Loss Settlement Option - Personal Property: 81 - Limited Replacement Cost Policy deductible: 1% Personal Liability (Coverage L) each occurrence: 100,000 Medical Payments (Coverage M) each occurrence: 1,000 Adjustments: Deadbolt locks: Yes Fire extinguisher: Yes Sprinkler system: None Fire or smoke alarm: Local only Burglar alarm: Local only Options / Endorsements: Jewelry and Furs: Yes EA25400K25 Rev, 05-2024 Page 2 of4 1000009 2018 126191 218 03-10-2020 SFF&CC/West_000954"}, {"d": 55, "p": 69, "t": "Homeowners Application - OK State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 36-CR-X405-8 JF fimit: 1,800 / 2,500 Option JF included Silver/Goldware Theft - Option SG: Yes SG limit: 2,500 included Business Property - Option BP: Yes BP limit: 7,500 included Building Ordinance or Law - Option OL {% of Coverage A): Yes OL limit: 10% included Firearms - Option FA: Yes FA limit: 2,500 included Fire Department Service Charge Increased Limits: Yes Limit: 500 included Quote Resuits: CRE 5613 Quote description. 100% Replacement Cost Annual premium: 2,758.00 Monthly premium: 229.83 Estimated replacement cost: . Rate IV: 292,000 100% Construction: Territory zone: Subzone: LRF: Masonry veneer 20 99 L Coverages Dwelling (Coverage A) Increased Dwelling - Option ID Dwelling Extension Personat Property (Coverage B) Personal Liability (Coverage L} each occurrence Medical Payments (Coverage M) each occurrence Credit Card / Bank Card and Forgery Damage to Property of Others (Each Occurrence) Loss of Use Loss Settlement Provision Loss Settlement Option - Dwelling Limit Premium 292,000 58,400 29,200 219,000 400,000 1,000 4,000 4,000 87,600 5,881.00 At - Replacement Cost Similar Construction Bi - Limited Replacement Cost Loss Settlement Option - Persanai Property Deductibies Policy deductible 1% 2,920 Charges / Credits Ciaim Record Home alert Home / Auto discount Loyal customer discount (470.00) (66.00) (4,515.00) (1,082.00) Policy Options and Endorsements Jewelry and Furs 1,500 / 2,500 Option JF included 2,500 included 1,500 included 10% 29,200 2,500 included Silver/Goldware Theft - Option SG Business Property - Option BP Building Ordinance or Law - Option OL (% of Coverage A) Firearms - Option FA EA 2540 OK.25 Rav. 05-2021 Page 3 of 4 1OW0O0G 2018 128194 218 03-10-2020 SFF&CC/West_000955"}, {"d": 55, "p": 70, "t": "Hameowners Application - OK State Farm Fire and Casualty Company §00 included Fire Department Service Charge Increased Limits Additional interests: Type: Mortgagee Name: Street: Cily: State/Prov: ZIP/Postal: 36-CR-X405-8 ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA PO BOX 202070 FLORENCE SC 29502-2070 Loan number: Documents / Photos Bind: Market Assistance Program App: No Bind application: Yes Desired coverage effective date: 12-29-2021 Application taken date: 12-06-2021 Application taken time: 09:14 AM Billing / Payment: Minimum amount due: 459.66 Annual premium: 2,758.00 Payment Options: Put application on SFPP: No Annuat premium: 2,758.00 Amount paid: 0.00 Premium transfer from other policy: 0.00 Balance due: 2,758.00 Billing information: Should named insured be billed for first year’s premium: No Should named insured be billed for renewals: No If no, renewals will be billed to ihe name below: Name: ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Should named insured be billed for endorsements: No ifno, endorsements will be billed to the name below: Name: ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA EA 2540 OK.25 = Rev, 05-2024 Page 4 of4 1000009 2018 128194 218 03-10-2020 SFF&CC/West_000956"}, {"d": 55, "p": 72, "t": "S® StateFarm’ Certified Policy Record |, the undersigned, do hereby confirm that | am custodian of the records pertaining to the issuance of policies by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. | certify that the attached documents represent a true and accurate record of the terms and conditions of Policy Number 36-CR-X405-8 including any endorsements, if applicable, for the policy term(s) 42/29/2022 to 12/29/2023 and insuring WEST, NEIL S & LACY M based on available records. The policy was in effect on the loss date of 06/15/2023. Mile Mitchell Daugherty? Underwriting Team Manager Date: 03/17/2025 cer saci EXHIBIT § 1011493 2000 157822 200 02-09-2022 a SFF&CC/West_000001"}, {"d": 55, "p": 73, "t": "S& StateFarm This policy is one of the broadest forms available today, and provides you with outstanding value for your insurance dollars. However, we want to point out that every policy contains limitations and exclusions. Please read your policy carefully, especially “Losses Not Insured” and all exclusions. State Farm® Homeowners Policy Oklahoma HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000002"}, {"d": 55, "p": 74, "t": "HOMEOWNERS POLICY TABLE OF CONTENTS AGREEMENT .......cccssccsssssssssssesssessssesseesnee 1 DEFINITIONS... sasessennnecgesgeceesesessessetsssenes 1 DEDUCTIBLE nc INFLATION COVERAGE ........cscccccsseteeeeenens 14 SECTION I- LOSSES INSURED uuu... suse {2 cessssessssessseessseccnsescesensssnesesnsorsene 5 COVERAGE A = DWELLING. esssssesesseees 42 SECTION | - PROPERTY COVERAGES .occcccsessccsssec 5 COVERAGE B ~ PERSONAL PROPERTY............. 42 COVERAGE A— DWELLING.......ccccccccsseccssscsrsssessoe 5 SECTIONI-LOSSES NOT INSURED... 14 Dwell ..scsscsssseesecseseeescatstetsesstesnesneranenensansnensnn 5 SECTION 1-LOSS SETTLEMENT ou...eecccccceseeee 18 Other Structures... sess 5 Property Not Covered... ssscseesessseseeensees 5 COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY............... 5 Property Covered oo ecccsssesseeeesossssssssssseecsenses 5 COVERAGE A - DWELLING......sssccsssssessssrsseesnse 18 A( ~ Replacement Cost Loss Settlement — Similar CONStUCHON wc sessessssessesssenseeeeseeenete 18 A2 - Replacement Cost Loss Settlement - Special Limits of Liabllity ....csssscccsseneneseee 6 Common Gonstruction.....scrssssserenensesuse 18 Property Not Covered .....sssssusesssssssessissesee 6 COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY.......... 19 COVERAGE C- LOSS OF USE..csscssccsesssessein 8 oo Additional Livifig EXP@NSe o.....ssesesscssssesecseenesvese 8 Fait Rental Value essesroom Prohibited Use... sees vb SECTION | - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES..........0.. 8 Debris REMOVAL... ccsesscss 8 Bi ~ Limited Replacement Cost Loss Settlement ........cccseeseersseens 49 B2 — Depreciated Loss Settlement sessunounn 9 SECTION 1- CONDITIONS rs 20 insurable Interest and Limit of Liability... 20 Your Duties After Loss 20 Temporaty REpairS.....cccccssscsssssessonuseneteasin 9 Loss to a Pair or Set... 20 Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping ........ssssssssssese 9 APPraiSal.cecsssssssscsesen 21 Fire Department Service Charge... cesses 9 Property REMOVEG ........scsscseeseseeesesetenseereuerinens 9 Credit Card, Bank Fund Transfer Card, Other Insurance.. Suit Against Us...., Our OPTION 22 22 22 . .ec s esc s es tes enseone Forgery, and Counterfeit Money Loss Payment..vosscsssassssssenssstusacuaesssee 22 Power Interruption nro rere Abandonment of Propetty.......sscsssecusesnon 22 Refrigerated Products .........:csco Mortgagee Clause ) ArsOn REWAIG ccs cssecssssssnnssseeesenesssesersaeesaenee No Benefit to Bailee 93 Voloantic ACHION ee ssesrsssecsussneersienieee Recovered Property 23 COMSPSE oa cseeeeccesssecceennensceseeetseesesssnmnnnsnenesees Assignment of Claim 93 Locks and Remote Devices.....csessssrssresseessee 11 Fuel Oil Release......cccseessseneevesnee 11 Tear Out sesssssrssssnsssssssensesensessesesseesegeseresenencenss 11 Home Certification ...sesccccssssssnsssssesccnssnesserenes 11 SECTION [F- LIABILITY COVERAGES vercccsssccccccccccce 23 COVERAGE L. - PERSONAL LIABILITY........<... 3 COVERAGE M - MEDICAL PAYMENTS TO OTHERS .sessssscsscsssssssesesceseceeseccssuesessecceueesnensansceeectees 23 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000003"}, {"d": 55, "p": 75, "t": "SECTION I! - ADDITIONAL COVERAGEG............ 23 Claim EXp@nSeS ...sssssssesssssssessssssessesseensenseseecer 24 First Aid Expenses .......0.cccceessssssenisesseses 24 Damage to Property of Others .........sseene 24 SECTION fl - EXCLUSIONS. ........ccccssssssssssssssssssvssesnees 24 Death. eescssesccsstseosascsscsenssessovennesasenssseessscneseseess 34 Conformity to State LAW w.ecscssssssossssenssesersersenes 31 PREMIUM ....cccssscscssssecarstcesssearssossvesesnesnseseasessenes 34 Right to InSPeCt.. ss sssssssesseesseeccnesersessencseee 32 SECTION El — CONDITIONS 0... Joint and Individual Interests .........scsrsseccesen 32 ec esccssussssseseteessns 28 Limit Of LiaDility os asessesssssssseceesesesseseeees 28 Severability of InSUANCE 0... esseossasseseeseneses 28 Duties After LOSS ...ccsesecsscsssesssessesesereensnsssnnns 28 Coverage M Requirements ...ssusscecsssessssseass 29 Payment of Claim ~ Coverage M or Damage to Property of Others ....scvsesccsersssessnssenneses 28 Suit Against US... css 29 Bankruptcy of an Insured ..seescereosseenneees 29 Other Insurance ~ Coverage Lessee 29 SECTION | AND SECTION Il - CONDITIONS............. 29 Policy Period .......sessssssssssssesrseescsescsssnsessees 29 Concealment of Fraud... 29 Liberalization Clause 0... cssecscssssseesessernnesees 29 Waiver or Change of Policy Provisions............ 29 Cancellation ....cssscsccsecssecsecsensseresssssssinessstinens 29 Nonrenewal 30 Assignment of Policy .....ssssosssssssssssessecesseeeuee 30 Change of Policy Address ..........sssssssssessscssenees 32 Electronic Delivery... cscssssessesssseseresesenesressnses 32 Our Rights Regarding Claim Information.......... 32 Duties Regarding Claim Information................ 33 OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS... ssessseseene 33 Option Al - Additional Insured... 33 Option BP - Business Property.........sscrsseeseee 33 Option BU — Business Pursuits ....csecccrssens 33 Option FA - Firearms ......ccccessssssnssssnsessnsesssssnes 34 Option ID - increased Dwelling Limit.............. 34 Option 10 - Incidental Business .........cn00 34 Option JF — Jewelry and FurS......sscssssssssesssnssss 35 Option OL - Building Ordinance or Law........... 36 Option SG - Silverware and Goldware Theft... 37 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile fasurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000004"}, {"d": 55, "p": 76, "t": "HOMEOWNERS POLICY AGREEMENT We agree to provide the insurance described in this policy: 4. based on your payment of premium, in a form acceptable to us, for the coverages you chose; 2. based on your compliance with all applicable pravisions of this policy; and 3. based on the information you have given us and your statements in this agreement. You agree, by acceptance of this policy, that: {. you will pay premiums when due and comply with the provisions of this policy; 2. the statements in this agreement are your statements and are true; 3. we insure you on the basis your statements are true; and 4, this policy contains all of the agreements between you and us and any of our agents. Unless otherwise indicated in the application, you state that during the five years preceding the time of your application for this insurance you have not had any losses, insured or not. When you request changes to this policy, or the information or factors used to calculate the premium for this policy changes during the policy period, we may adjust the premium in accordance with the change during the policy period and you must pay any additional premium due within the time we specily. DEFINITIONS We define the following words and phrases for use throughout this policy. These definitions apply to the singular, plural, and possessive forms of these words and phrases. Defined words and phrases are printed in bold italics. 1. 2. loss of services, and death resulting therefrom. Bodily injury does not include: a. any of the following which are communicable: “actual cash value” means the value of the damaged part of the property at the time of loss, calculated as the estimated cost to repair or replace such property, less a deduction to account for pre-loss depreciation. For this calculation, all components of this estimated cost including, but not limited to: a. disease, bacteria, parasite, virus, or other organism, any of which are transmitted by any insured to any other person; b, the actual or alleged exposure to any such disease, bacteria, parasite, virus, or other organism by any insured to any other person; or c. emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, mental distress, mental injury, or any similar injury unless it arises out of actual physical injury to some person. materials, including any tax; b. _ labor, including any tax; and ¢. of the damaged part of the property. “bodily injury” means physical injury, sickness, or disease to a person. This includes required care, overhead and profit; are subject to depreciation. The depreciation deduction may include such considerations as: a age: b. condition; c. reduction in useful life; d. obsolescence; and é@ any pre-loss damage including wear, tear, or deterioration; 3. “building structure” means a structure fully enclosed with permanent walls and a roof. A permanent wall or roof does not include any kind of temporary materials including but not limited to tarps, plastic sheeting, or other similar material. A structure that is otherwise fully enclosed with permanent walls and a roof, that is undergoing repairs due fo a recent foss insured, using materials such as tarps, plastic sheeting, or other similar material, is still considered a building structure. 1 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW.2436 SFF&CC/AWest_000005"}, {"d": 55, "p": 77, "t": "the actual electrical power usage by the residence premises in the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss; or A building structure includes: a. the foundation supporting the structure, including: e. (1) slabs; (2) basement walls; “Declarations” means the policy Declarations, any amended Declarations, the most recent renewal (3} crawl space walls; (4} footings; and Declarations, an Evidence of Insurance form, or (5) gravel, stone, or sand, used as fill material any endorsement changing any of these. and located not more than 12 inches directly below a slab described in item a.(1), including water supply lines, domestic water pipes, and sewer pipes located within this fill material; and b, ownership of the residence premises by the person or organization shown in the Declarations as Additional Insured. “diminution in value” means any reduction in the value of any covered property prior fo or following repair or replacement as compared to the value of that properly immediately before the loss. “dwelling” means the building structure on the residence premises used as the primary private residence and includes structures attached to the dwelling. wall-to-wall carpeting attached to the structure. “business” means any full-time or part-time activily, trade, profession, employment, or occupation or a commercial, mercantile, or industrial undertaking of an economic nature. It does not matter whether it is continuous or reguiar, is a secondary or supplemental source of income, or is an insured's principal means of livelihood. Profit and profit motive are irrelevant. “fungus” means any type or form of fungus, including mold, mildew, mycotoxins, spores, scents, or byproducts produced or released by fungi. “insured” means: a you; Business does not include: b. your relatives; and a. c. any other person under the age of 21 in the care of a person described above, volunteer activities for a not-for-profit or nonprofit organization or public agency for which no money is received other than payment of expenses; b. incidental and infrequent personal economic activity such as a hobby, garage or yard sale, or traditional farm activities when the farm products are intended only for the personal use of the insured; c. any occasional or part-time self-employed activity by a person under 19 years of age that involves no employees or subcontracted independent contractors and is a type of activity normally performed by persons under 19 years of age, including but not limited to, child care, lawn Under Section Il, insured also means: d. out permission of the owner, is not an insured: and e. mowing, or paper delivery; d. the person or organization legally responsible for animals or watercraft to which this policy applies. However, the animal or watercraft must be owned by you or a person included in 9.b. or 9.c. above. A person or organization using or having custody of these animals or watercraft in the course of a business, or with- the ownership, maintenance, or use of systems 10. and equipment used to generate electrical power up to but not exceeding 125 percent of with respect to any vehicle fo which this policy applies, any person while engaged in your employment or the employment of a person included in 9.b. or 9.c. above. “insured location” means: a. the residence premises; 2 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutua! Automobile Inswanca Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000006"}, {"d": 55, "p": 78, "t": "the part of any other premises, other structures, and grounds used by you as a residence. This includes premises, structures, and grounds you acquire while this policy is in effect for ¢, a “recreational or utility vehicle” while off an insured location. “Recreational or utility vehicle\" means a motorized vehicle designed for recreation or utility purposes, used principally off public roads, and that is owned or leased by an insured. This includes, but is not limited to, a motorized all-terrain vehicle, side-by-side vehicle, utility work vehicle, amphibious vehicle, dune buggy, go-cart, golf cart, snowmobile, teailbike, minibike, and personal assistive mobility device. “Leased” does not include temporary rental: d. a “locomotive” while off an insured location. “Locomotive” means a self-propelled vehicie for pulling or pushing freight or passenger cars on tracks that is large enough to carry a person and is owned or leased by an insured. “Leased” does not include temporary rental; e. a bulldozer, track loader, backhoe, high-hoe, trencher, grader, crane, self-propelled scraper, excavator, pipe-ayer, cherry picker, telehandler, logging vehicle, mining vehicle, or road building vehicle that is owned or leased by an insured while off an insured location. “Leased” does not include temporary rental; and f. any vehicle while being towed or pushed by or cartied on a vehicle included in 12.a, through 12.e. above. your use as a residence; any premises used by you in connection with the premises included in 10.a. or 10.b. above; any part of a premises not owned by an insured but where an insured is temporarily residing; land owned by or rented to an insured on which a one or two family dwelling is being constructed as a residence for an insured: individual or family cemetery pilots or burial vaults owned by an insured; any part of a premises occasionally rented to an insured for purposes other than business; vacant land owned by or rented to an insured. For the purposes of this definition, vacant land does not include: (4) farm land; (2} land containing a residence; or (3) land containing fences, corrals, boat docks, tool sheds, barns, grain bins, and similar structures, unless they are used solely for the personal use of the insured; or The following are not motor vehicles: farm land {without buildings}, rented or held for rental to others, but not to exceed a total of 500 acres, regardless of the number of locations. 1. 12. “Igss insured\" means a loss as described under SECTION | - LOSSES INSURED, COVERAGE A DWELLING and SECTION I - LOSSES INSURED, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY. a, aboat, camper, home, or utility trailer not being towed or pushed by or carried on a vehicle included in 12.4. through 12.e. above: b. a motorized jand vehicle in storage on an in- sured location not intended to be operated for an extended period of time and rendered ineperable by placing the vehicle on blocks or removing parts essential for its operation; ¢. amotorized golf cart while used for golfing purposes; d. amotorized vehicle or trailer designed to assist persons with disabilities that is not designed for travel on public roads or subject to motor vehicle registration; or “motor vehicle’, when used in Section {I of this policy, means: a land motor vehicle designed for travel on public roads or subject to motor vehicle registration; a traifer or semi-trailer designed for travel on public roads and subject fo motor vehicle registration; 3 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutuat Atomobile Insurance Company, 2047 SFF&CC/West_000007"}, {"d": 55, "p": 79, "t": "e. a commercially manufactured two, three, or four wheeled personal conveyance powered only by or assisted by an unmodified motor or engine with a manufacturers power rating of no more than 1 horsepower and capable of a top speed of no more than 20 miles per hour. b. where you reside and which is shown in the Declarations. 18. bodily injury, or b. property damage, during the policy period. All bodily injury and property damage resulting from one accident, series of related accidents, or from continuous and repeated exposure to the same general conditions is considered to be one occurrence. “State Farm Companies” means one or more of the following: a. 13. “eccurrence”, when used in Section It of this pollcy, means an accident, including accidental exposure to conditions, which first resuits in: a. adoption; c. mariage; or d. civil union, domestic partnership, or other substantially similar legal relationship that is recognized and valid in the state where, and at the time when, the legal relationship was established; 19. “vacant dwelling” means: a. the one, two, three, or four family dwelling, other structures and grounds; or adwelling: (1) that has not been occupied as a residence for more than 30 consecutive days immediately before the loss; and (2) where a predominant amount of personal property has been removed or is absent such that the dwelling is not functional as a habituat place of residence. A dwelling will be considered occupied only if it is being used as a habitual place of residence with your knowledge and approval. 16. “residence employee” means an employee of an a, insurance subsidiaries or affilates of either 18.4. or 18.b. above, and who resides primarily with you. 17. “residence premises” means: Automobile c. b. insured, or an employee leased to an insured by a labor leasing firm under an agreement between an insured and the labor leasing firm, who performs duties, including household or domestic services, in connection with the maintenance or use of the residence premises. This includes employees who perform similar duties elsewhere for you. This does not include employees while performing duties in connection with the business of an insured, Mutual State Farm Fire and Casualty Company; and 15, “relative” means any person related to you by: b. Farm b, destruction of tangible property, including loss of use of this property. Theft or conversion of property by any insured is not property damage. blood; State Company; 44, “property damage” means physical damage to or a. that part of any other building structure, A dwelling that is under active construction will not be considered a vacant dwelling. A dwelling is under active construction when itis: (1) (2) being built as a new structure; (3) undergoing being repaired due to damage otherwise covered by this policy; or substantial improvements, ranovations, remodeling, or modifications; and the construction results in substantial continuing activities by persons associated with the construction project at the premises during the relevant time periods, 20. “we”, “us”, and “our” mean the Company shown in the Declarations. 21. “you” and “your” mean the person or persons shown as “Named Insured” in the Declarations. Ifa “Named insured” shown in the Declarations is a human being, then you and your include: a. aspouse of a “Named Insured”; 4 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW.2136 SFF&CC/West_000008"}, {"d": 55, "p": 80, "t": "b. aparty fo a civil union with a “Named Insured”, c. adomestic partner of a \"Named Insured”; or d. a person in a substantially similar legal relationship with a “Named insured”; if such relationship is recognized and valid in the state where, and at the time when, the legal relationship was established, so long as the person in the above relationship resides primarily with that “Named Insured”. DEDUCTIBLE Declarations. Deductibles will be applied per occurrence. Deductibles apply to specific losses as described in this policy. . in case of loss under this policy, we will pay, subject fo specified policy limits, only that part of the amount of the loss that exceeds the deductible amount shown in the SECTION | - PROPERTY COVERAGES 3. COVERAGE A - DWELLING 1. Property Not Covered. We do not cover: a, _ fand, including the fand necessary to support any Coverage A property. We also do not cover. Dwelling. We cover the dwelling and materials and supplies located on or adjacent to the residence premises for use in the construction, alteration, or repair of the dwelling or other structures on the residence premises. (1) any costs required to replace, rebuild, stabilize, or otherwise restore the land; or (2) the costs of repair techniques designed to compensate for or prevent land instability to any property, whether or not insured under Coverage A; Other Structures. We cover other structures on the residence premises, separated from the dwelling by clear space. Structures connected to the dwelling by only a fence, utility line, or similar con- b. _ trees, shrubs, live or artificial plants, lawns, or arti- nection are considered to be other structures. ficial grass, except as provided in SECTION I -ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping; or We do not cover other structures: a. not permanently attached to or otherwise forming a part of the realty; b. used either completely or in part for business purposes unless such use consists solely of office space for paperwork, computer work, or use of a telephone, and consists solely of activities that are: c. COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY (1) duties of the insured’s employment by another; and Property Covered. a. (2) performed solely by the insured; or c. We-cover personal property owned or used by an insured while it is anywhere in the work. This includes structures not permanently attached to or otherwise forming a part of the realty. At your request, we will cover personal property: rented or held for rental unless: (1) rented to a person who is a tenant of the dwelling; (1) owned by others while the property is on the part of the residence premises occupied exclusively by an insured; (2) rented for use solely as a private garage; or (3) systems and equipment used to generate electrical power exceeding 125 percent of the actual electrical power usage by the residence premises in the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss. rented either completely or in part, for exclusive use as a residence, for no more than 30 nights in the 12-month period prior (2} owned by a guest or a residence employee, while the property is in any other residence occupied by an insured; and to the date of the loss. 5 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000009"}, {"d": 55, "p": 81, "t": "and standard media or non-media equipment for use with the above devices; (3) owned by roomers, boarders, tenants, and other residents, any of whom are related to you. $1,500 on securities, checks, cashiers checks, travelers checks, money orders, gift certifi- We cover personal property usually located at an insured's residence, other than the residence premises, for up fo $1,000 or 10% of the Coverage B limit, whichever is greater. This limitation does not apply to personal prop- cates, gift cards, rechargeable debit cards, phone cards, and other negotiable instruments, accounts, deeds, evidences of debt, letters of credit, notes other than bank notes, manu- erty: scripts, passports, and tickets; (1) in a newly acquired principal residence for the first 30 days affer you start moving the property there. Ifthe residence premises is a newly acquired principal residence, personal property in your immediate past principal residence is not subject to this limitation for the first 30 days after the inception of this policy; and $1,500 on watercraft of all types and outboard (2) of a student who is an insured while located at a residence away from the residence premises. $2,500 for loss by theft of firearms; motors, including their trailers, fumishings, and equipment; $1,500 on trailers not used with watercraft; $2,500 on stamps, trading cards, and comic books, including any of these that are a part of a collection; $2,500 for loss by theff of silverware and goldware; Special Limits of Liability. These limits do not increase the Coverage B limit. The special limit for each of the following categories is the total limit for each loss for all property in that categary: $5,000 on any one article and $10,000 in the aggregate for loss by theft of any rug, carpet (except wall-to-wall carpet), tapestry, wall-hanging, or other similar article; $200 on money, coins, and medals, including $1,000 on commercially manufactured two, silver other than motor a b. three, or four wheeled personal conveyances by or assisted by an unmodified poweredor only engine with a manufacturer's power any of these that od part of a collection, gold other than goldware, bank notes, bullion, silverware, and platinum; rating of no more than 1 horsepower and capa- $1,500 on property used or intended for use in a business, including merchandise ble of a top speed of no more than 20 miles per held as hour, This does not include such conveyances samples or for sale or for delivery after sale, while on the residence premises. This cover- that are: age {s limited to $750 on such property away from the residence premises. (1) designed for assisting disabilities: Electronic data processing system equipment or the recording or storage media used with (2) with . , not designed for travelon public roads; and (3) not subjectto motor vehicle registration; and that equipment is not included under this cov- c. persons erage, and is addressed in item c. below; $1,000 for loss by theft of jewelry, watches, fur $10,000 on electronic data processing system equipment used or intended for use in a business, including but not limited to computers, tablets, mobile personal communication equipment, global positioning systems, mobile personal electronic devices used for the reproduction of sound, garments and garments trimmed with fur, and precious and semi-precious stones. 2. Property Not Covered. We do not cover: a. articles separately described and specifically insured in this or any other insurance; 6 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000010"}, {"d": 55, "p": 82, "t": "animals, birds, or fish; any engine-propelled or motor-propelled vehicle or machine, including parts, designed for movement on land, except as provided in Special Limits of Liability, item k. However, we do cover those vehicles or machines: (1) that are: (a) not designed for travel on public toads; and (b) (2) not subject to motor vehicle registralion; and that are: (a) used primarily to service the insured location; or {b) designed for assisting persons with disabilities; any electronic equipment, devices, or accesso- ries designed for the recording, reproduction, or storage of audio, video, photos, or other data that is permanently installed in or permanently fastened to an engine-propelled or motorpropelled vehicle or hard-wired directly to the vehicle’s electrical system. We also do not cover removable products that may be used with the equipment or devices described above, including but not limited to tapes, discs, videos, or memory cards while in an enginepropelled or motor-propelled vehicle; aircraft and parts. This does not apply to unmanned aircraft systems used as model aircraft and operated solely for recreational or hobby purposes; property of roomers, boarders, tenants, and other residents not related to you, property regularly rented or held for rental to others by an insured, This does not apply to property of an insured: (1) in a sleeping room when the dwelling is rented in part, for use as a permanent residence, by either one or two full-time roomers of boarders; or (2) on the residence premises if it is rented, either completely or in part, for exclusive use as a residence, for no more than 30 nights in the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss; property rented or held for rental to others away from the residence premises, any radio devices or transmitlers, global positioning systems, radar or laser detectors, antennas, and all other similar equipment that is permanently installed in or permanently fastened to an engine-propelled or motorpropelled vehicle or that is hard-wired directly to the vehicle's electrical system; books or records of accounts receivable, abstracts or other journals, architectural or technical drawings, card index systems, or other records. This does not apply to any recording or storage media for electronic data processing. We will cover the cost of blank books, cards, or other blank material plus the cost of labor you incur for transcribing or copying such records; recording or storage media for electronic data processing that cannot be replaced with property of like kind and quality on the current retail market: purchased or created audio, video, photos, or other data that cannot be replaced with like kind and quality on the current retail market and that is transferred or downloaded onto mobile communication equipment, global positioning systems, or electronic devices designed for the recording, reproduction, or storage of audio, video, photos, or other data; . contraband, or any property used in the course of illegal consumption, possession, import, export, or trade; outdoor hardscape property used for aesthetic purposes except as provided in SECTION | ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping; or electronic currency, digital currency, virtual currency, crypto-currency, and other similar mediums of exchange. 7 ©, Copyight, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2436 SFF&CC/West_00001 1"}, {"d": 55, "p": 83, "t": "if the damage had occurred to property on the residence premises; COVERAGE C - LOSS OF USE The most we will pay for the sum of all losses combined under Additional Living Expense, Fair Rental Value, and Prohibited Use is the limit of liability shown in the Declarations for Coverage C - Loss of Use. 1. b. in 3.a, above; and c. Additional Living Expense. When a /oss insured causes the residence premises to become uninhabitable, we will pay the reasonable and necessary increase in cost incurred by an insured to maintain their normal standard of living for up to 24 months. Our payment is limited to incurred costs for the shortest of: the time required for your household to settle elsewhere; or c, 24months. (1) dangerous physical conditions resulting from the continuation of the cause of loss identified in 3.a. above; , (2} dangerous physical conditions resulting from the damage caused by the cause of loss identified in 3.a. above; or (3) the need to gain free access to property damaged by the cause of loss identified in 3.a. above. We will not pay for loss or expense due to cancella- This period of time is not limited by the expiration of this policy. tion of a lease or agreement. SECTION | - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES We will not pay more than the limit of flability shown in the Declarations for Coverage C - Loss of Use. Any normal expenses that are reduced or discontinued due to a /oss insured will be subtracted from any amount owed. The following Additional Coverages are subject to all the terms, provisions, exclusions, and conditions of this policy. 1. Fair Rental Value. When a loss insured causes that part of he residence premises rented to olhers or held for rental by you to become uninhabitable, we will pay its fair rental value. Payment will be for the shortest time required to repair or replace the part of the premises rented or held for rental, but not fo exceed 12 months, This period of time is not limited by the expiration of this policy. Fair rental value will not include any expense that does not continue while that part of the residence premises rented or held for rental is uninhabitable. Debris Removal. We will pay the reasonable expenses you incur in the removal of debris of covered property damaged by a foss insured. This expense is included in the fimit applying to the damaged property. The following coverages and limits also apply: a. Prohibited Use. We will pay Additional Living Expense and Fair Rental Value, for a continuous period not to exceed two weeks, beginning when a civil authority issues an order of evacuation or prohibits your use of the residence premises, provided that: a. the action of the civil authority is taken in response to: a. _ the time required to repair or replace the premises; b. the residence premises is wilhin one mile of properly damaged by a cause of loss identified When the amount payable for the property damage plus the debris removal exceeds the fimit for damaged property, an additional 5% of that limit is available for debris removal expense. This additional amount of insurance does not apply to SECTION | ~ ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping. b. direct physical damage occurs to any property, other than covered property located on the residence premises, arising from a cause of loss that would be a foss insured under this policy We will also pay up to $1,000 total for each loss to cover the reasonable expenses you incur in the removal of tree debris and stumps from the residence premises, unless otherwise excluded. This coverage applies when: (1) the tree has caused a foss insured to Coverage A property, or 8 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000012"}, {"d": 55, "p": 84, "t": "for up to 30 days while removed, We will also pay for reasonable expenses incurred by you for the removal and return of the covered property, This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the property being removed, (2) the tree debris felled by windstorm, hail, or weight of snow or ice blocks: 2. (a) the driveway, on the residence premises, and prevents land motor vehicle access to or from the dwelfing: or (b) a ramp designed to assist persons with disabilities, on the residence premises, and prevents access to or from a building structure. Credit Card, Bank Fund Transfer Card, Forgery, and Counterfeit Money. a. (1} the legal obligation of an insured to pay because of the theft or unauthorized use of credit cards and bank fund transfer cards issued to or registered in an insured’s name. {f an insured has not complied with all terms and conditions under which the cards are issued, we will not pay for use by an insured or anyone else; Temporary Repairs, if damage is caused by a /oss insured, we will pay the reasonable and necessary cost you incur for temporary repairs fo covered property to protect the property from further immediate damage or loss. This coverage does nol increase the limit applying to the properly being repaired, Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping. We will pay for (2) loss to an insured caused by forgery or alteration of any check or negotiable instrament; and accidental direct physical loss to outdoor: a. trees, shrubs, live or arlificial plants, and lawns; b. artificial grass; and c. _hardscape property used for aesthelic purposes not permanently affixed to really; We will pay up to $4,000 for: (3) loss to an insured through acceptance in good faith of counterfeit United States or Canadian paper currency. on the residence premises, caused by the following perils: Fire or lightning, Explosion, Riot or No deductible applies to this coverage. We will not pay more than the limit stated above for forgery or alteration committed by any one person. This limit applies when the forgery or alteration involves one or more instruments in the same loss. civil commotion, Aircraft, Vehicles (not owned or operated by a resident of the residence premises), Vandalism or malicious mischief, or Theft. The timit for this coverage, including the removal of debris, will not exceed 5% of the amount shown in the Declarations for COVERAGE A ~ DWELLING. We will not pay more than $750 for any one outdoor tree, shrub, plant, or hardscape item, including debris removal expense. This coverage may increase the limit otherwise applicable. We will not pay for any loss to property grown for business purposes. b. We will not pay for loss arising out of business pursuits or dishonesty of an insured. c. Defense: (1) We may make any investigation and settle any claim or suit that we decide is appropriate. Our obligation to defend claims or suits ends when the amount we pay for Fire Department Service Charge. We will pay up to $500 per occurrence for fire department charges incurred when the fire department is called to save or protect Coverage A property from fire, lightning, or explosion. No deductible applies to this coverage. This coverage may increase the limit otherwise applicable. (2) Property Removed. We will pay for any accidental direct physical loss to covered property while being removed from a premises endangered by a /oss insured, This coverage also applies fo the property if claim is made or a suit is brought against an insured for liability under the Credit Card or Bank Fund Transfer Card coverage, we will provide a defense. This defense is at our expense by counsel of our choice. (3) We have the option to defend at our expense an insured or an insured’s bank the loss equals our limit of liability. 9 HW-2156 ©, Copyright, Slate Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000013"}, {"d": 55, "p": 85, "t": "7. All volcanic eruptions that occur within any 168-hour period will be considered one volcanic eruption. against any suit for the enforcement of payment under the Forgery coverage. Power Interruption. We will pay for accidental direct physical loss caused directly or indirectly by a change of temperature that results from power interruption that takes place on the residence premises. The power interruption must be caused by a oss insured occurring on the residence premises. The power lines off the residence premises must remain energized. This coverage does not increase the limit applying fo the damaged property. This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the damaged property, it. Collapse. We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to covered property invalving the abrupt, entire collapse of a buflding structure or any part of a building structure. a. Refrigerated Products. Coverage B is extended to cover the contents of deep freeze or refrigerated units on the residence premises for loss due to power failure or mechanical failure. {f mechanical failure or power failure is known to you, all reasonable means must be used to protect the property insured from further damage or this coverage is void. Power failure or mechanical failure does not include: a. removal of a plug from an electrical outlet; or b. turning off an electrical switch unless caused by a loss insured, This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the damaged property. Arson Reward. We will pay $1,000 for information that leads fo an arson conviction in connection with a fire loss to property covered by this policy. This coverage may increase the limit otherwise applica- Collapse means the abrupt and entire falling down, caving in, or falling into pieces of a building structure or any part of a building structure, Collapse does not include any of the following: a RO — (1) setting, cracking, crumbling, deterioration, shrinking, bulging, expansion, sagging, bowing, leaning, or bending; substantial structural impairment: mm imminent or threatened collapse; a building structure or any part of a building structure that |s in danger of falling down or caving in; or a part of a building structure that is standing even if: ble. However, the $1,000 limit will not be increased regardless of the number of persons providing information. 10. Volcanic Action. We wil pay for accidental direct physical loss to a covered buifding structure or covered property contained in a building structure b. (a) ithas separated from another part of the building structure; or (b) it shows evidence of settling, cracking, crumbling, deterioration, shrinking, bulging, expansion, sagging, bowing, leaning, or bending. The collapse must be directly and immediately caused by one or more of the following: (1) perils described in SECTION | ~ LOSSES INSURED, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY. These peris apply to building structures covered under Coverage A or Coverage B for loss insured by this Additional Coverage; resulting from the eruption of a volcano when the loss is directly and immediately caused by: a, _aitbome volcanic shock waves; b. ash, dust, or particulate matter; or c. lava flow. We will also pay for the removal of that ash, dust, or particulate matter that has caused accidental direct physical loss to a covered building structure or covered property contained in a building structure. decay or deterioration of, or damage from animals, birds, or insects to: (a) a connector; or (b} a structural member of a building Structure; 10 HW-2436 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000014"}, {"d": 55, "p": 86, "t": "This coverage includes surface clean up only. will not pay for: The decay, deterioration, or damage must be hidden from view and unknown io all insureds prior to the collapse; (3) weight of contents, equipment, animals, or people; {4) weight of ice, snow, sleet, or rain that collects on a roof, porch, or deck; or a. the cost to repair or replace the fuel oil fank, apparatus, and pipes; or b. the cost of testing, monitoring, removing, treating, or detoxifying of soil, air, or water. This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the damaged property. (5) use of defective material or methods in the construction {includes remodeling or renovation) of the building structure, if the collapse occurs during the course of the construction of the building structure. 14. Tear Out. ifa foss insured to CoverageA property is caused by water, steam, or sewage escaping from a system or appliance, we will also pay the reasonable cost you incur to tear out and replace only that particular part of ihe building structure necessary to gain access to the specific point of that system or appliance from which the water, sleam, or sewage escaped, We will not pay for the cost of repairing or replacing the system or appliance itself. This coverage does not increase the limit applying to Coverage A property. Loss to awnings, fences, patios, pavement, swimming pools, underground pipes, flues, drains, cesspools, septic tanks, foundations (including slabs, basement walls, and crawl space walls), retaining walls, bulkheads, piers, wharfs, docks, trellises, or antennas and their supporting structures is not included under items (2}, (3), and (4} immediately above unless the loss is the direct and immediate result of the collapse of a building structure or any part of a building structure. 15. Home Certification. if damage to covered properly is caused by a /oss insured, we will pay the reasonable increase in cost to repair or replace only the damaged property to maintain the dwelling’s FORTIFIED HOME or FORTIFIED FOR SAFER LIVING certification in place at the time of the loss, This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the damaged property. This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the damaged property. 12. Locks and Remote Devices. We will pay up fo $1,000 for each loss for the reasonable expenses you incur to rekey, replace, recode, program, or reprogram locks on exterior doors to the dwelling or other structures located on the residence premises when the keys or remote devices used with those doors are part of a covered theft loss. This coverage includes remote devices designed solely for locking, unlocking, opening, or closing doors, including garage doors and gates. We will not pay: No deductible applies to this coverage. 13. Fuel Oil Release. We a. any increase in cost until the repair or replacement of the property is complete; or b. for increased costs resulting from enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the construction or repair of the dwelling except as provided under OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS, Option OL ~ Building Ordinance or Law. This coverage does not apply if Loss Settlement provision A2 ~ Replacement Cost Loss SettlementCommon Construction is shown In the Dectarations. We will pay up to $10,000 for each loss for accidental direct physical loss to covered property caused by the abrupt and accidental escape of liquid fuel oil from a fixed household tank, apparatus, or pipes that are part of a heating unit for the dwelling. This includes damage to covered property resulting from an accidental spill or overflow of fuel oil in the course of filling a fixed household tank. INFLATION COVERAGE The limits of liability shown in the Declarations for Coverage A, Coverage B, and when applicable, Option iD will be increased at the same rate as the increase in the inflation Coverage Index shown in the Declarations, 4 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, Slata Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000015"}, {"d": 55, "p": 87, "t": "The limits of liability will not be reduced to less than the amounts shown in the Declarations. To find the limits on a given date: 1. _ divide the Index on that date by the Index as of the effective date of this Inflation Coverage provision; then if during the term of this policy the Coverage A limit of liability is changed at your request, the effective date of this Inflation Coverage provision is changed to coincide wilh the effective date of such change. multiply the resulting factor by the limits of liability for CoverageA, Coverage B, and Option ID separately. SECTION | - LOSSES INSURED (2) an object propelled from the tire or body of a vehicle; COVERAGE A - DWELLING We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A, unless the loss is excluded or limited in SECTION 1 ~ LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. (3) the upset or collision of a vehicle with a stationary object or other vehicle, including damage to personal property carried on the exterior of the vehicle; or However, loss does not include and we will not pay for, any diminution in value. (4) COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY This peril does not include loss: We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage B caused by the following perils, unless the loss is excluded or limited in SECTION | LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. However, loss does not include and we will not pay for, any diminution in value. 1. Fire or lightning. 2. Windstorm or hail. This peri does not include loss to property contained in a structure caused by rain, a vehicle door or trunk lid being closed on personal property. (1) to personal property that falls off a vehicle and strikes the ground, any other surface, or any object; (2) caused by shifting of the load being carried in or on a vehicle; or (3) to the vehicle itself unless the vehicle is property covered under COVERAGE B ~ PERSONAL PROPERTY and the loss is caused by the weight, force, power, or movement of another vehicle. snow, sleet, sand, or dust. This limitation does not apply when the direct force of wind or hail damages the structure causing an opening in a roof or wall and the rain, snow, sleet, sand, or dust enters through this opening. Smoke, meaning abrupt and accidental damage from smoke. This peril includes loss to watercraft of all types and their trailers, fumishings, equipment, and outboard motors, only while inside a building structure. This peril does not include loss caused by smoke from agricultural smudging or industrial operations. Vandalism or malicious mischief, meaning only willful and malicious damage to or destruction of 3. Explosion. 4. Riot or civil commotion. property. Aircraft, including spacecraft. Theft, including attempted theft and loss of property from a known location when it is probable that the properly has been stolen. 5. self-propelled missiles and Vehicles, meaning accidental direct physical joss to covered property caused by the weight, force, power, or movement of a vehicle. a. This peril does not include: a. loss of a precious or semi-precious stone from its setting; b. loss caused by theft: This includes: (1) the impact of a vehicle; 12 HW-2196 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000016"}, {"d": 55, "p": 88, "t": "(2} watercraft of all types, including their furnishings, equipment, and outboard mo- (1) committed by an insured or by any other person regularly residing on the insured location. Property of a student who is an insured is covered while located at a res- tors; or (3) trailers and campers designed to be pulled by or carried on a vehicle. idence away from the residence premises, if the theft is committed by a person who is not an insured, if the residence premises is a newly acquired principal residence, property in the immediate past principal residence will not be considered property away from the residence premises for the first 30 days after the inception of this policy. in or to a dwelling under construction or of materials and supplies for use in the construction until the dwelling is completed and occupied; or from the part of a residence premises rented to others: (a) 10. Falling objects, This peril does not include loss to property contained in a structure unless the roof or an exterior wall of the structure is first damaged by a falling object. Damage to the falling object itself is not included. caused by a tenant, members of the tenant's household, or the tenant's employees unless the residence premises |s rented, either completely or in pari, for exclusive use as a resi- 14. Weight of ice, snow, or sleet that causes damage to property contained in a structure. dence, for no more than 30 nights in 12. Abrupt and accidental discharge or overflow of water, steam, or sewage from within a plumbing, heating, air conditioning, or automatic fire protective sprinkler system, or from within a household appliance. the 12-month period prior fo the date of the loss; of money, bank notes, bullion, gold, goldware, silver, silverware, pewler- This peril does not include loss: ware, platinum, coins, and medals; (¢) of securities, checks, cashiers checks, travelers checks, money or- ders, gift certificates, gift cards, re- a. to the system or appliance from which the water, steam, or sewage escaped; b. caused by or resulting from: (1) freezing; chargeable debit cards, phone cards, and other negotiable instruments, accounts, deeds, evidences of debt, let- (2) water or sewage from outside the residence premises plumbing system that enters through sewers or drains, or water that enters into and overflows from within a sump pump, sump pump well, or any other system designed to remove subsurface water that is drained from the foundation area; or ters of credit, notes other than bank notes, manuscripts, passports, tickets, and stamps; or (d) of jewelry, watches, fur garments and garments trimmed with fur, and precious and semi-precious stones; or c, loss caused by theft that occurs away from the residence premises of (3) (1) property while at any other residence owned, rented to, or occupied by an insured, except while an insured is temporarily residing there. Property of a student who is an insured is covered while at a residence away from the residence premises; c, the pressure from or presence of tree, shrub, or plant roots; or that occurs or develops over a period of time and is caused by or resulting from: (1) condensation or the presence of humidity, moisture, or vapor; or (2) seepage or leakage of water, steam, or sewage that is: 13 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insuranca Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000017"}, {"d": 55, "p": 89, "t": "LTD This peril does not include: co repeating; a, ob af &] continuous; gradual; freezing; or d intermitlent; e) slow; or {f} trickling. 13. Abrupt and accidental tearing asunder, cracking, burning, or bulging of a steam or hot water heating system, an air conditioning system, an automatic fire protective sprinkler system, or an appliance for healing water. This peril does not include loss: a. caused by or resulling from freezing; or b. that occurs or develops over a period of time and is caused by or resulting from: (1) condensation or the presence of humidity, moisture, or vapor; or atti, qt [=% te ty inn em (2) seepage or leakage of water or steam that is: a) continuous; ) repeating; ¢) gradual; ) intermittent; e) slow; or (f} trickling. 14, Freezing of a plumbing, heating, air conditioning, or automatic fire protective sprinkter system, or of a household appliance. loss fo a portable hot tub or portable spa unless you have used reasonable care to prevent b. loss on the residence premises unless you have used reasonable care {o: (1) maintain heat in the building structure at 55 degrees Fahrenheit or higher; or (2) shut off the water supply and drain the system and appliances of water. However, if the building structure is protected by an automatic fire protective sprinkler system, you must use reasonable care to continue the water supply and maintain heat in the building structure at 55 degrees Fahrenheit or higher for coverage to apply. 15, Abrupt and accidental damage to electrical appliances, devices, fixtures, and wiring from an increase or decrease of artificially generated electrical current. We will pay up to $3,000 under this peril for each damaged item described above. 16. Breakage of glass, meaning damage to personal property caused by breakage of glass that is a part of a structure on the residence premises. We will not pay for loss or damage to the glass. 17. Wild bears or deer, meaning damage caused by wild bears or deer to property located in a building structure. SECTION | - LOSSES NOT INSURED We will not pay for any loss to the property described in Coverage A that consists of, or is directly and immediately caused by, one or more of the perils listed in items a. through m. below, regardless of whether the foss occurs abruptly or gradually, involves isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or extemal forces, or occurs as a result of any combination of these: a. b. collapse, except as specifically provided in SECTION | - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Collapse; freezing of a plumbing, heating, air conditioning, or automatic fire protective sprinkler system or of a household appliance; or discharge, leakage, or overflow from within the system or appliance caused by freezing. This does not apply if you have used reasonable care to: (1) maintain heat in the building structure at 55 degrees Fahrenheit or higher; or (2) shut off the water supply and drain the system and appliances of water. However, if the building structure is protected by an automatic fire protective sprinkler system, you must use reasonable care to continue the water supply and maintain heat in the 14 ©, Copyright, Slate Farm Mutual Aulomobite Insurance Company, 2017 HW.-2136 SFF&CC/West_000018"}, {"d": 55, "p": 90, "t": "building structure at 55 degrees Fahrenheit or higher for coverage to apply; freezing, thawing, pressure, or weight of water, ice, snow, or sleet, whether driven by wind or not, to: (1) a swimming pool, hot tub, or spa, including their covers, filtration, and circulation systems; or (2) an awning, fence, pavement, patio, foundation {including slabs, basement waiis, crawl space walls, and footings), retaining wail, bulkhead, pier, wharf, or dock; theft in or to a dwelling under construction, or of materials and supplies for use in the construction, until the dwelling is completed and occupied; theft, vandalism, malicious mischief, or breakage of glass and safety glazing materials if the dwelling is a vacant dwelling; wear, tear, decay, marting, scratching, deterioration, inherent vice, latent defect, or mechanical breakdown; corrosion, electrolysis, or rust; wet or dry rot; contamination or pollution, meaning the presence, discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release, or escape of contaminants or pollutants at or from any source. This does not apply if the presence, discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release, or escape is itself caused by a peril described in SECTION | - LOSSES INSURED, COVERAGE B ~- PERSONAL PROPERTY. (1} Contaminants and pollutants include but are not limited to any: (a) solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal initant, including smoke from agricultural smudging or industrial operations, smog, soot, vapor, fumes, acids, al- seepage or leakage of water, steam, or sewage that occurs or develops over a period of time: kalis, chemicals, pathogens, noxious substances, asbestos, or lead; (1) andis: (a) ( b) contaminants or pollutants resulting from any natural resource extraction activities; or continuous; repeating; (c) ( ¢) gradual: (d) intermittent; {e) slow; or ( f) trickling; and (2) from a: (a) heating, air conditioning, or automatic fire protective sprinkler system, (b) (c) household appliance; or plumbing system, including from, within or around any shower stall, shower bath, tub installation, or other plumbing fixture, including their walls, ceilings, or floors. We also will not pay for losses ansing from condensation or the presence of humidity, ” moisture, or vapor that occurs or develops over a period of time; fuel oil except as specifically provided in SECTION | — ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Fue! Oi Release. We also will not pay for: (a) losses arising from contamination or pollution caused by or resulting from defective building materials, nuclear substances, and waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, re. conditioned, or reciaimed; the cost to extract contaminants or pollutants from land, water, or air, or the cost to remove, restore, or re- place contaminated or polluted land, water, or air; or the cost of testing, monitoring, cleaning, removing, containing, treating, detoxifying, neutralizing, remediating, disposing of, or assessing the effects of contaminants or pollutants; is) ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2436 SFF&CC/West_000019"}, {"d": 55, "p": 91, "t": "k, b. settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging, or expansion of pavements, patios, foundations (including slabs, basement walls, crawl space walls, and footings), walls, floors, roofs, or ceilings; |. — all animals, birds, or insects. (4) This includes: (1) earthquake; (2) landslide, mudstide, or mudflow, (a) nesting, infestation, gnawing, feeding, breeding, or discharge or release of waste products or secretions by ani- (3) sinkhole or subsidence; (4) mals, birds, or insects; (2} (a) improper compaction; (b) site selection; costs to prevent the animals, birds, or insects from returning to the property, (c)_ natural resource extraction activities; or (d) excavation; However, we will pay for: (5) erosion; (6) pressure by surface or subsurface earth or (a} losses caused by wild bears or deer, and fill; or (b) the breakage of glass or safety glaz- (7) any volcanic activity, except as specifically provided in SECTION | ~ ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Volcanic Action. ing material that is a part of a building structure, when caused animals, birds, or insects; or m. by However, we will pay for any accidental direct physical loss by fire resulting from earth movement, provided the resulting fire loss is itself a loss insured. pressure from or presence of tree, shrub, or plant roots. However, we will pay for any resulting loss from items a. through I. unless the resulting loss is itself a Loss Not Insured as described in this Section. Cc. Water, meaning: {1} flood; (2) surface water. This does not include water solely caused by the release of water from a swimming pool, spigot, sprinkler system, hose, or hydrant; We will not pay for, under any part of this policy, any loss that would not have occurred in the absence of one or more of the following excluded events. We will not pay for such loss regardless of: (a) the cause of the excluded event; or (b) other causes of the loss; or (c) whether other causes acted concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded event to produce the loss; or (d) whether the event occurs abruptly or gradually, involves isolated or widespread damage, occurs on or off the residence premises, arises from any natural or extemal forces, or occurs as a result of any combination of these: a. movement resulting from: sects from the covered property; and (b) costs to remove animals, birds, or in{c) Earth Movement, meaning the sinking, rising, shifting, expanding, or contracting of earth, all regardiess of whether combined with water, sewage, or any material carried by, or otherwise moved by the earth. Earth movement includes but is not limited fo: (3) waves (including tidal wave, tsunami, and seiche); (4) tides or tidal water, (5) overflow of any body of water (including any telease, escape, or rising of any body of water, or any water held, contained, controlled, or diverted by a dam, levee, dike, or any type of water containment, diversion, or flood contral device); (6) spray or surge from any of the items c.(1) through c.(5) described above, all whether driven by wind or nol; Ordinance or Law, meaning enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the construction, repair, or demolition of a building structure or other structure. 16 HW-2136 ®, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000020"}, {"d": 55, "p": 92, "t": "g. (7) water or sewage from outside the residence premises plumbing system that enters through sewers or drains, or water or sewage that enters into and overflows from within a sump pump, sump pump well, or any other system designed to remove subsurface water that is drained from the foundation area; (1) cost to: (a) remove the fungus from covered property or fo repair, restore, or re- place that property; or (b) tear out and replace any part of the building structure or other property as needed to gain access to the fungus; of material carried or otherwise moved by any of the water or sewage, as described in items c.(1) through c.{8} above. However, we will pay for any accidental direct physical loss by fire, explosion, or theft resulting from water, provided the resulting loss is itself a loss insured. {3} the cost of any testing or monitoring of air of property to confirm the type, absence, presence, or level of fungus, whether performed prior to, during, or after removal, repair, restoration, or replacement of covered property. Neglect, meaning neglect of the insured to use all reasonable means to save and preserve property at and after the time of a loss, or when property is endangered. intentional Losses. If any insured intentionally causes or procures a loss to property covered under this policy, we will not pay any insured for this loss. This applies regardless of whether the insured is charged with or convicted of a crime. War, including any undeclared war, civil war, insurrection, rebellion, revolution, warlike act by a military force or military personnel, destruction or seizure or use for a military purpose, and including any consequence of any of these. Discharge of a nuclear weapon will be considered a warlike act even if accidental. f, any loss of use or delay in rebuilding, repairing, or replacing covered property, including any associated cost or expense, due {to interference at the residence premises or location of the rebuilding, repair, or replacement, by fungus; (2) any remediation of fungus, including the (8) water or sewage below the surface of the ground, including water or sewage that exerts pressure on, or seeps or leaks through a building structure, sidewalk, driveway, swimming pool, or other struclure; or (9) Fungus, including: This does not apply to an insured who did not participate in, cooperate in, or contribute to causing or procuring the loss. Nuclear Hazard, meaning any nuclear reaction, radiation, or radioactive contamination, all whether controlled or uncontrolled or however caused, or any consequence of any of these. Loss caused by the nuclear hazard will not be considered loss caused by fire, explosion, or smoke, 3, We will not pay for, under any part of this policy, any loss consisting of one or more of the items below. Further, we will not pay for any loss described in paragraphs 1. and 2. immediately above regardless of whether one or more of the following: (a) directly or indirectly cause, contribute to, or aggravate the loss; or {b} occur before, at the same time, or after the loss or any other cause of the loss: However, we will pay for any accidental direct a. conduct, act, failure to act, or decision of any person, group, organization, or govemmental body whether intentional, wrongful, negligent, or without fautt; physical loss by fire resulting from the nuclear hazard, provided the resulting fire loss is itselfa loss insured. 7 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Aulomobiie Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000021"}, {"d": 55, "p": 93, "t": "b. defect, weakness, soundness in: inadequacy, (4) fault, or un- of any property (including land, structures, or improvements of any kind) whether on or off the residence premises; or (1) planning, zoning, development, surveying, ot siting; (2) design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, or compaction; (3} maintenance; c. weather conditions. However, we will pay for any resulting loss from items 3.4, 3.b., and 3.c. unless the resulting loss is itself a Loss Not insured as described in this Section. materials used in repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, or compaction; or SECTION | - LOSS SETTLEMENT the damaged part of the property within two years after the date of loss, and notify Only the Loss Settlement Provisions shown in the Declarations apply, We will settle covered property losses according to the following, However, the valuation of any covered property losses does not include, and we will not pay, any amount for diminution in value. us within 30 days after the work has been completed; and (4) COVERAGE A ~ DWELLING 1, A1~- Replacement Cost Loss Settlement - Similar Construction. We will pay the cost to repair or replace with a, similar construction and for the same use on the premises shown in the Declarations, the damaged part of the property covered under SECTION | - PROPERTY COVERAGES, COVERAGE A - DWELLING, except for wood fences, subject to the following: b. 2. (1) unti! actual repair or replacement is completed, we will pay only the actual cash value of the damaged part of the property, up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, not to exceed the cost to repair or replace the damaged part of the property; (2) when the repair or replacement is actually completed, we will pay the covered additional amount you actually and necessarily spend to repair or replace the damaged part of the property, or an amount up {fo the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, whichever is less; Wood Fences: We will pay the actual cash value for loss or damage to wood fences, not to exceed the limit of liability shown in the Declarations for COVERAGE A - Other Structures. A2 - Replacement Cost Common Construction. a. replacement cost basis, you must com- Loss Settlement - We will pay the cost to repair or replace with common construction and for the same use on the premises shown in the Declarations, the damaged part of the property covered under SECTION | - PROPERTY COVERAGES, COVERAGE A - DWELLING, except for wood fences, subject to the following: (1) (3) to receive any additional payments on a we will not pay for increased costs resulting from enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the construction, repair, or demolition of a buifding structure or other structure, except as provided under OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS, Option OL - Building Ordinance or Law. we will pay only for repair or replacement of the damaged part of the property with common construction techniques and materials commonly used by the building trades in standard new construction. We will not pay the cost to repair or replace obsolete, antique, or custom construction with like kind and quality; plete the actual repair or replacement of 18 HW-21% ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000022"}, {"d": 55, "p": 94, "t": "(4) until repair or replacement is completed, we will pay only the actual cash value of the damaged property; (2) until actual repair or replacement is completed, we will pay only the actual cash value of the damaged part of the property, up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, not to exceed the cost to repair or replace the damaged part of the property as described in a.(1} above; (2) after repair or replacement is completed, we will pay the difference between the actual cash value and the cost you have actually and necessarily spent to repair or replace the property; and (3) when the repair or replacement is actually completed as described in a.(1) above, we will pay the covered additional amount you actually and necessarily spend to repair or replace the damaged part of the property, or an amount up to the applicable limit of Hability shown in the Decfarations, whichever is jess; We will pay market value at the time of loss for: (1} antiques, fine arts, paintings, statuary, and similar articles which by their inherent nature cannot be replaced with new articles; (2) (3) TIONAL ‘POLICY PROVISIONS, Option 2. 1. B1~Limited Replacement Cost Loss Settlement. a, We will pay the cost to repair or replace property covered under SECTION | - PROPERTY COVERAGES, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, except for property listed in item b, befow, subject fo the following: pose. ({) ourcost to replace at the time of loss; (2) the full cost of repair; (3) any special limit of liability described in this policy; or (4) any applicable Coverage B limit of liability. 62-Depreciated Loss Settlement. a. tures, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY property not useful for its intended pur- However, we will not pay an amount exceeding the smallest of the following for items a. and b. above: we will not pay for increased costs resulting from enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the construction, repair, or demolition of a building structure or other structure, except as provided under OP- Wood Fences: We will pay the actual cash value for loss or damage to wood fences, not to exceed the limit of liability shown in the Decfarations for COVERAGE A - Other Struc- articles whose age or history contribute substantially to their value including, but not fimited to, memorabilia, souvenirs, and collectors items; and to receive any additional payments on a replacement cost basis, you must complete the actual repair or replacement of the damaged part of the property within two years after the date of loss, and notify us within 30 days after the work has been completed; and OL ~ Building Ordinance or Law. if property is not repaired or replaced within two years after the date of loss, we will pay only the actual cash value. b. We will pay the actual cash value for property covered under SECTION | - PROPERTY COVERAGES, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, except for property listed in item b. below. We will pay market value at the time of loss for: (1) antiques, fine arts, paintings, statuary, and similar articles which by their inherent nature cannot be replaced with new articles; (2) articles whose age or history contribute substantially to their value including, but not limited to, memorabilia, souvenirs, and collectors items; and 19 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automodlie Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000023"}, {"d": 55, "p": 95, "t": "(3) (2) the full cost of repair; property not useful forits intended purpose. However, we will not pay an amount exceeding the smallest of the following for items a. and b. above: (3) any special limit of liability described in (1) our cost to replace at the time of loss; (4} any applicable Coverage B limit of liability. this policy; or SECTION | —- CONDITIONS (3) Insurable interest and Limit of Liability. Even if more than one person has an insurable interest in the property covered, we will not be liable: a. to the insured for an amount greater than the insured’s interest; or b. for more than the applicable limit of liability. (4) Your Duties After Loss. After a loss to which this insurance may apply, you must cooperate with us in the investigation of the claim and also see that the following duties are performed: a. e. give immediate notice fo us or our agent and also nolily: (b) submit to examinations under oath; and produce employees, members of the insured’s household, or others for examination under oath to the extent itis within the insured’s power to do so; and submit to us, within 60 days after the loss, your signed, sworn proof of loss that sets forth, to the best of your knowledge and belief: vandalism, or any other criminal act; and (2) the credit card company or bank if the loss (3) other insurance that may cover the loss; (4) protect the property from furlher damage or loss and also: (5) specifications of any damaged structure and detailed estimates for repair of the damage; (6) an inventory of damaged or stolen personal property described in 2.c.; (2) keep an accurate record of repair expenses; (7) prepare an inventory of damaged or stolen personal property: (t). showing in detail the quantity, description, age, replacement cost, and amount of loss; and receipts for additional living expenses incurred and records supporting the fair rental value loss; and (8} evidence or affidavit supporting a claim under SECTION {| - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, (2) attaching all bills, receipts, and related documents that substantiate the figures in Credit Card, Bank Fund Transfer Card, Forgery, and Counterfeit Money coverage, stating the amount and cause of loss. the inventory; as often as we reasonably require: changes in title or occupancy of the prop- erty during the term of this policy; (1) make reasonable and necessary temporary repairs required to protect the property, and d. give statements; and (2) interest of the insured and all others in the property involved and all encumbrances on the property; involves a credit card or bank fund transfer card; ¢. {a} (1) the time and cause of loss; (1} the police if the loss is caused by theft, b. while notin the presence of any other insured: 3. Loss to a Pair or Set. In case of loss to a pair or (1) exhibit the damaged property, set, we may choose to: (2) provide us with any requested records and documents and allow us to make copies; a. repair or replace any part to restore the pair or set fo its value before the loss; or 2 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000024"}, {"d": 55, "p": 96, "t": "b. 4, Appraisal. If you and we fail to agree on the amount of loss, either parly can demand that the amount of the loss be set by appraisal. Only you or we may demand appraisal. A demand for appraisal must be in writing. You must comply with SECTION | - CONDITIONS, Your Duties After Loss before making a demand for appraisal. At least 10 days before demanding appraisal, the party seeking appraisal must provide the other party with written, itemized documentation of a specific dispute as to the amount of the loss, identifying separately each - {tem being disputed, a. {a) written notice of the intent to file, identifying the specific location and identity of the court at least 10 days prior to submission of the written application; and pay the difference between the depreciated value of the property before the loss and the depreciated value of the property after the loss. Each party will select a competent, disinterested appraiser and notify the other party of the ap- praiser’s identity within 20 days of receipt of the wiitten demand for appraisal. The appraisers will then attempt to set the amount of the loss of each item in dispute as specified by each party, and jointly submit to each party a written report of agreement signed by them. In all instances the written report of agreement will be itemized and state separately (b) a copy of the written application; and (3) a written report of agreement, as required in item b., signed by any two (appraisers or appraiser and umpire) will set the amount of the loss of each item in dispute. In all instances the written report of agreement will be itemized and state separately the actual cash value, replacement cost, and if applicable, the market value of each item in dispute. To qualify as an appraiser or umpire for a loss to property described in COVERAGE A DWELLING, a person must be one of the following and be licensed or certified as required by the applicable junsdiction: (1) an engineer or architect with experience and training in building construction, repair, estimating, or investigation of the type of property damage in dispute; (2) if applicable, the market value of each item in dispute. an adjuster or public adjuster with experience and fraining in estimating the type of property damage in dispute; or The written report of agreement will set the amount of the loss of each item in dispute. (3) a contractor with experience and training if the two appraisers fail to agree upon the amount of the loss within 30 days, unless the period of time is extended by mutual agreement, they will select a competent, disinterested umpire and will submit thelr differences to the umpire. If the appraisers are unable to agree upon an of the type of property damage in dispute. the actual cash value, replacement cost, and umpire within 15 days: (1) you or we may make a written application for a judge of a court of record in the same state and county (or city if the city is not within a county) where the residence premises is located to select an umpire; (2) the party requesting the selection described in item c.(1) must provide the other party: in the construction, repair, and estimating A person may not serve as an appraiser or umpire if that person, any employee of that person, that person's employer, or any employee of their employer: (1) has performed services for either party with respect to the claim at issue in the appraisal; or (2) has a financial interest in the outcome of the claim at issue in the appraisal. Each party will be responsible for the compensation of their selected appraiser. Reasonable expenses of the appraisal and the reasonable a ©, Copyright, Stale Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000025"}, {"d": 55, "p": 97, "t": "Loss Payment. We will adjust all losses with you. We will pay you unless some other person is named in the policy or is legally entitled to receive payment. Loss will be payable: compensation of the umpire will be paid equally by you and us. g. h. You and we do not waive any rights by demanding or submitting to an appraisal, and retain all contractual rights to determine if coverage applies to each item in dispute. a. (1) Appraisal is only available to determine the amount of the loss of each item in dispute. The appraisers and the umpire have no authority to decide: (1) b, any other questions of fact; 9, (3} questions of coverage; Abandonment of Property. We need not accept any property abandoned by an insured. trustee. (5} to conduct appraisal on a class-wide basis. 5. 30 days after we receive your proof of loss and there is an entry of a final judgment. 10, Mortgagee Clause. The word ‘morigagee” includes (4) other contractual issues; or j. reach agreement with you; or (2) there is a filing of an appraisal award with us; OF (2) questions of law, |. 60 days afler we receive your proof of loss and: a. Appraisal is a non-judicial proceeding and does not provide for or require arbitration. Neither party will be awarded attorney fees. The appraisal award may not be entered as a judgment in a court. fa mortgagee is named in this policy, any loss payable under Coverage A will be paid to the mortgagee and you, as interests appear. If more than one mortgagee is named, the order of payment will be the same as the order of precedence of the mortgages. A party may not demand appraisal after that party brings suit or action against the other party relating to the amount of loss. b. Other Insurance. Ifa loss covered by this policy is also covered by other insurance, we will pay only our share of the loss. Our share is the proportion of the loss that the applicable limit under this policy bears to the total amount of insurance covering the loss. Suit Against Us. No action will be brought against us unless there has been full compliance with all of the policy pravisions. Any action by any party must be started within one year after the date of loss or damage. However, if the cause of loss or damage is burglary, theft, larceny, robbery, forgery, fraud, vandalism, malicious mischief, confiscation, wrongful conversion, disposal or concealment, the action must be started within two years from the time the cause of action accrues. if we deny your claim, that denial will not apply to a valid claim of the morigagee, if the mortgagee: (1) notifies us of any change in ownership, occupancy, or substantial change in risk of which the mortgagee is aware; (2) pays on demand any premium due under this policy, if you have not paid the premium; and submits a signed, swom statement of loss within 60 days after receiving notice from us of your failure to do so. Policy conditions relating to Appraisal, Suit Against Us, and Loss Payment apply to the mortgagee. c. If we cancel this policy, the mortgagee will be notified at least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect. Proof of mailing will be proof of notice. Our Option. We may repair or replace any part of the property damaged or stolen with similar property, Any property we pay for or replace becomes our d. property. If we pay the mortgagee for any loss and deny payment to you: 22 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, Slate Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000026"}, {"d": 55, "p": 98, "t": "(1) 12. Recovered Property. If either you or we recover any property alter loss settlement, that party must give the other prompt notice. At your option, you may keep the property or we will retum it to you. Otherwise, it will become our property. [f you choose to keep the property, the loss payment will be adjusted based on the amount you received for the recovered property. we are subrogated to all the rights of the mortgagee granted under the mortgage on the property, or (2) at our option, we may pay to the mortgagee the whole principal on the mortgage plus any accrued interest. In this event, we will receive a full assignment and transfer of the mortgage and all securities held as collateral to the mortgage debt. Subrogation does not impair the right of the é. mortgagee to recover the full amount of the mortgagee’s claim. 11. No Benefit to Bailee. We will not recognize an assignment or grant coverage for the benefit of a person or organization holding, storing, or transporting property for a fee. This applies regardless of any other provision of this policy. 13. Assignment of Claim. Assignment to another party of any of your rights or duties under this policy regarding any claim, or any part of any claim, will be void and we will not recognize any such assignment, unless we give our written consent. However, once you have complied with all policy provisions, you may assign to another party, in writing, payment of claim proceeds otherwise payable to you. SECTION II — LIABILITY COVERAGES 4. COVERAGE L. ~ PERSONAL LIABILITY to a person on the insured location with the per- mission of an insured, if a claim is made or a suit is brought against an insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this coverage applies, caused by an occurrence, we will: 1. pay up to our limit of liability for the damages for which the insured is legally liable. We will not pay for criminal restitution; and to a person off the insured location, if the bodily injury. provide a defense at our expense by counsel of our choice. We may make any investigation and settle any claim or suit that we decide is appropriate. Our obligation to defend any suit ends when the amount we pay for damages, to effect settlement or satisfy a judgment resulting from the occurrence, equals our limit of liability, We will not provide a defense to any insured for criminal prosecution or proceedings. COVERAGE M - MEDICAL PAYMENTS TO OTHERS a. arises out of a condition on the insured focation or the ways immediately adjoining; b. is caused by the activities of an insured, c. is caused by a residence employee in the course of the residence employee’s employment by an insured, or d. is caused by an animal owned by or in the care of an insured: or 3. We will pay the necessary medical expenses incurred or medically ascertained within three years from the date of an accident causing bodily injury. Medical expenses means reasonable charges for medical, surgical, x-ray, dental, ambulance, hospital, professional nursing, rehabilitation, pharmaceuticals, orthopedic devices, prosthetic devices, and funeral services. This coverage applies only: to a residence employee if the occurrence causing bodily injury occurs off the insured location and arises out of or in the course of the residence employee’s employment by an insured. SECTION Il - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES The following Additional Coverages are subject to all the terms, provisions, exclusions, and conditions of this policy, We will pay for the following in addition to the limits of lability: 2 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Aulomobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000027"}, {"d": 55, "p": 99, "t": "Claim Expenses. We will pay: (1) replacement cost al the time of loss; a. (2) full cost of repair; or b, ¢. d. expenses we incur and costs taxed against an insured in suits we defend. Taxed costs do not include attorney fees; (3) the limit of liability shown in the Declarations for Damage to Property of Others for any one occurrence. premiums on bonds required in suits we defend, but not for bond amounts greater than the Coverage L limit. We are not obligated to apply for or furnish any bond; We will not pay for property damage: (1) for a loss that is recoverable under Section | of this policy. We also will not pay for any applicable deductible regardless of whether the amount of the loss exceeds reasonable expenses an insured incurs at our request. This includes actual loss of earnings (but not loss of other income) up to $250 per day for aiding us in the investigation or defense of claims or suits; the deductible; {2} interest the insured is legally liable to pay on damages payable under Coverage L above before a judgment, but only the interest on the lesser of: (3) fo property, other than a rented golf cari, owned by, or rented fo an insured, a tenant of an insured, or a resident in your household: (1) that part of the damages we pay; or (4} (2) the Coverage L limit; and e. caused intentionally by an insured 13 years of age or older; arising outof: {a} business pursuits; interest on the entire judgment that accrues after entry of the judgment and before we pay or tender, or deposit in court that part of the judgment that does not exceed the limit of liability that applies. (b} any act or omission in connection with a premises an insured owns, rents, or controls, other than the insured location; {c) First Aid Expenses. We will pay expenses for first aid to others incurred by an insured for bodily injury covered under this policy. We will not pay for first aid to you or any other insured. a condition on the insured location or the ways immediately adjoining; or (d) the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft, including airboat, air cushion, Damage to Property of Others. personal a. similar type watercraft; or b. We will pay for property damage to property of others caused by the activities of an insured. watercraft, sail board, or (5) if a payment is made under COVERAGE L~ PERSONAL LIABILITY for the same properly damage. We will not pay more than the smallest of the following amounts: SECTION Il - EXCLUSIONS Coverage L. and Coverage M do not apply to: (2) was intended by the insured; or a. (3) would have been expected by the insured based on a reasonable person standard. bodily injury or property damage that: (1) was a result of a: (b} criminal: However, exclusions a.(2) and a.(3) above do not apply to bodily injury or property damage resulting trom the use of reasonable force to act or omission of the insured; protect persons or property. (a) willful and malicious; or 24 HW-2135 @, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000028"}, {"d": 55, "p": 100, "t": "Exclusions a.(1), a.{2}, and a.(3) above apply to all bodily injury or property damage even if the: (1) bodily injury or property damage was sustained by a different person, entity, or property than was expected or intended; (2} bodily injury or property damage was of a different kind, quality, or degree than was expected or intended; (3) insured lacked the mental capacity to control his or her conduct; (4) insured was not charged with or convicted of a criminal act or omission; or (5) insured was impaired by drugs or alcohol; bodily injury or property damage arising out of business pursuits of any insured, excepl as provided in item c. below. This exclusion does not apply to activities that are ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits; bodily injury or property damage arising out of the rental of any part of any premises by any insured. This exclusion does not apply: (1} to the rental of the residence premises: (a) either completely or in part, for exclusive use as a residence, for up to 30 nights in the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss; (b) in part, for use as a permanent residence, by either one or two full-time roomers or boarders; or {c)_ in part, as an office, school, studio, or private garage; d. bodily injury or property damage arising out of the rendering or failing to render professional services; bodily injury or property damage arising out of any premises currently owned or rented to any insured which is not an insured location. This exclusion does not apply to bodffy injury to a residence employee arising out of and in the course of the residence employee’s employment by an insured; bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use, loading, or unloading of: (1} an aircraft. This exclusion does not apply to the ownership, maintenance, use, joading, or unloading of unmanned aircraft systems used as model aircraft: (a) solely for recreational or hobby pur- poses; (b) designed to be operated within the visual line of sight of the operator and operated within the visual fine of sight of the operator; and (c) weighing not more than 55 pounds at the time of operation; unless the ownership, mainienance, use, loading, or unloading of such aircraft results in: (a) property damage to any aircraft; or (b} bodily injury or property damage resulling from interference with an aircraft carrying people regardless of whether the bodily injury or property damage is sustained by people or property on the aircraft or not; (2) when the dwelling on the residence premises is a two, three, or four family dwelling and you occupy one part and rent the other part to others; (2) a motor vehicle owned or operated by or rented or loaned to any insured; or (3) to farm land (without buildings), rented to others, but not to exceed a total of 500 acres, regardless of the number of locations; or (a) owned by or rented to any /nsured if it has inboard or inboard-outdrive motor power of more han 50 horsepower, (4) to activities that are ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits; (3) a watercraft: (b) owned by or rented to any insured if it is a sailing vessel, with or without 25 ©, Copyright, State Fann Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000029"}, {"d": 55, "p": 101, "t": "meaning of part 9.a., 9.b., or 9.c. of the definition of insured to share damages with or repay someone else who may be obligated to pay damages because of the bodily injury sustained by any insured within the meaning of part 9.2, 9.b., or 9.c. of the definition of in- auxiliary power, 26 feet or more in overall length; (c} powered by one or more outboard motors with more than 25 iotal horsepower owned by any insured; (d) designated as an airboat, air cushion, or simitar type of craft; or sured, any claim made or suit brought against any insured by: (e) owned by any insured if it is a personal watercraft using a water jet pump powered by an internal combustion engine as the primary source of propulsion, (1) This exclusion does not apply to bodily injury to a residence employee arising out of and in the course of the residence employee’s employment by an insured. Exclusion £.(3) does not apply while the watercraft is on the residence premises, any person in the care of any insured because of child care services provided by or at the direction of: (a) any insured; (b) any employee of any insured, or (c) any other person actually or apparently acting on behalf of any insured; or (2) any person who makes a claim because of bodily injury to any person in the care of any insured because of child care services provided by or at the direction of: bodily injury or property damage arising out of: (1) the entrustment by any insured to any person; (2) the supervision by any insured of any person; (a) (3) any liability statutorily imposed on any insured, or (c) any insured, (b) any employee of any insured; or (4) any liability assumed through an unwritten or written agreement by any insured; any other person actually or apparently acting on behalf of any insured. This exclusion does not apply to the occasional child care services provided by any insured, or to the part-time child care services provided by any insured under 19 years of age; with regard to the ownership, maintenance, or use of any aircraft, watercraft, or motor vehicle not covered under Section II of this policy; bodily injury or property damage arising out of an insureds participation in, or preparation or practice for, any prearranged or organized race, speed or demolition contest, or similar competition involving a motorized land vehicle or motorized watercraft. This exclusion does not apply to a sailing vessel less than 26 feet in overall length with or without auxiliary power; bodily injury or property damage caused directly or indirectly by war, including undeclared war, or any. warlike: act including destruction, seizure, of use for a military purpose, or any consequence of these. Discharge of a nuclear weapon will be considered a warlike act even if accidental: bodily injury to any insured within the meaning of part 9.a., 9.b., or 9.c. of the definition of insured. bodily injury or property damage arising out of the use, sale, manufacture, distribution, de- livery, transfer, or possession, by any insured, of any substance that is illegal or is a controlled substance under either federal or state law. This exclusion also appiies to any claim made or suit brought against any insured within the Pa) HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Auiomobila insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000030"}, {"d": 55, "p": 102, "t": "(2) This exclusion does not apply to the legitimate use of legally prescribed drugs, under either federal or state law, by a person following orders of a licensed health care professional; (3) corporal punishment; by the insured: bodily injury or property damage arising out of the actual, alleged, or threatened inhalation of, ingestion of, contact with, exposure to, existence of, or presence of any fungus at or from any source or location. . bodily injury or property damage arising out of the actual, alleged, or threatened presence, discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release, escape of, or exposure to contaminants or pollutants at or from any source or location. We also do not cover any loss, cost, or ex- Contaminants and pollutants include but are not limited fo any solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal initant, including smoke ftom agricultural smudging or industrial operations, smog, soot, vapor, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, pathogens, noxious substances, fuel olf, asbestos, or lead, pense arising out of any: (1) request, demand, order, or statutory or regulatory requirement that any insured or others test for, monitor, clean up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify, neutralize, remediate, dispose of, or in any way respond to or assess the effects of fungus; or This exclusion does not apply to bodily injury of property damage arising out of smoke or fumes caused by fire or explosion. (2) claim or suit for damages because of testing for, monitoring, cleaning up, removing, containing, treating, detoxifying, neutralizing, remediating, disposing of, or in any way responding to or assessing the effects of fungus; or We also do not cover: (1) any loss, cost, or expense arising out of any request, demand, order, or statutory or regulatory requirement that any insured or others test for, monitor, clean up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify, neutralize, remediate, dispose of, or in any way re- bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of systems and equipment used to generate electrical power exceeding 125 percent of the actual electrical power usage by the residence premises in the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss. spond to or assess the effects of contaminants or pollutants; (2) any loss, cost, or expense arising out of any claim or suit by or on behalf of a governmental authority for damages because of testing for, monitoring, cleaning up, removing, containing, treating, detoxifying, neutralizing, remediating, disposing of, or in any way responding to or assessing the effects of contaminants cr pollutants; or (3) 2. Coverage L does not apply to: liability: (1) for your share of any loss assessment charged against all members of any type of association of property owners, or contamination or pollution arising out of actually or allegedly defective building materials, nuclear substances, or waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned, or reclaimed; (2) imposed on or assumed by any insured through any unwritten or written contract or agreement. This exclusion does not apply to liability for damages that the insured would have in absence of the con- bodily injury or property damage arising out of any actual, alleged, or threatened: (1) sexual harassment, sexual molestation, or sexual misconduct; physical or mental abuse; or tract or agreement; b. property damage to properly owned by any insured at the time of the occurrence; 27 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2047 HW-2436 SFF&CC/West_000031"}, {"d": 55, "p": 103, "t": "¢. d. e. f. property damage to property rented to, used or occupied by, or in the care, custody, or control of any insured at the time of the occurrence. This exclusion does not apply to property damage caused by fire, smoke, explosion, or abrupt and accidental damage from water; This exclusion also applies to any property damage to the sold or transferred real property itself. bodily injury to a person eligible to receive any benefits required to be provided or voluntarily provided by an insured under a workers’ compensation, non-occupational disability, or occupational disease law; (2) property damage arising smoke, or explosion. However, this exclusion does not apply to: (1} bodily injury arising out of fire, smoke, explosion, electrocution, or carbon monox- ide poisoning; or 3. out of fire, Coverage M does not apply to bodily injury: a. to aresidence employee if it occurs off the insured location and does not arise out of or in the course of the residence employee’s employment by an insured, b. to a person eligible to receive any benefits required to be provided or voluntarily provided under any workers’ compensation, nonoccupational disability, or occupational disease jaw, Canada, or any of their successors; c. bodily injury or property damage arising out of any real property any insured has sold or transferred. This includes but is not limited to bodily injury or property damage arising out of known, unknown, hidden, or alleged properly toa person other than a residence employee of an insured, regularly residing on any part of the insured location; or d. from nuclear reaction, radiation, or radioactive contamination, all whether controlled or uncantrolled or however caused, or any consequence of any of these, bodily injury or property damage for which an insured under this policy is also an insured under a nuclear energy liability policy or would be an insured but for its termination upon exhaustion of its limit of fiability. A nuclear energy liability policy is a policy issued by Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance Association, Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters, Nuclear Insurance Associalion of conditions, problems, or defects. SECTION i! - CONDITIONS Limit of Liability. The Coverage L limit is shown in the Declarations. This is the limit for all damages from each occurrence for the policy period in which the bodily injury or property damage first occurs, regardless of the number of insureds, claims made, or persons injured. No additional limits or coverage will be available for the occurrence under any additional policy periods while this policy remains in force. The Coverage M limit is shown in the Declarations. This is our limit for all medical expenses for bodily injury to one person as the result of one accident. Severability of Insurance. This insurance applies separately to each insured. This condition does not increase our limit of lability for any one occurrence, Duties After Loss. In case of an accident or occurrence, the insured must cooperate with us in the investigation, setllement, or defense of any claim or suit and also perform the following duties that apply. You must cooperate with us in seeing that these duties are performed: a. give written notice to us or our agent as soon as possible, which sets forth: (4) the identity of this policy and the insured, (2) reasonably avaitable information on the time, place, and circumstances of the accident or occurrence; and 2 ©, Copyright, Slate Farm Mutual Aulomobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West__000032"}, {"d": 55, "p": 104, "t": "(3) names and addresses of any claimants b, the injured person's submission to physical examinations by a physician selected by us when and as cften as we reasonably require; and ¢. any authorizations from the injured person as we may require. and available witnesses: b. c. immediately forward to us every notice, demand, summons, or other process relating to the accident or occurrence; at our request, assist in: (1) 5, making settlement; Property of Others. Payment under either of these is not an admission of liability by an insured or us. (2) the enforcement of any right of contribution or indemnity against a person or organization who may be Hable to an insured: Suit Against Us. No action will be brought against us unless there has been compliance with the policy provisions. (3) the conduct of suits and attend hearings and trials; and No one will have the right to join us as a party fo an (4) securing and giving evidence and obtaining action against an insured. Further, no action with the attendance of witnesses: d. respect to Coverage L will be brought against us until the obligation of the insured has been determined by final judgment on the merits, afler an actual frial or by an agreement signed by us; but we will not be lfable for damages that are not payable under the terms of this policy or that are in excess of the applicable Limit of Liability. under SECTION Il - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Damage to Property of Others, exhibit the damaged property if wilhin the insured’s control; and e. the insured must not, except at the insured’s own cosl, voluntarily make payments, assume obligations, or incur expenses. This does not apply to expense for first aid to others at the time of the bodily injury. Bankruptcy of an Insured. Bankruptcy or insolvency of an insured will not relieve us of our obligation under this policy, Coverage M Requirements. We may require the following in regard to any Coverage M claim: a, Payment of Claim ~ Coverage M or Damage to Other Insurance - Coverage L. This insurance is excess over any other valid and collectible insurance except insurance written specifically to cover as excess over the limits of liability that apply in this policy, written proof of claim, under oath if required, as soon as possible from the injured person, or when appropriate, someone acting on behalf of that person; SECTION | AND SECTION II — CONDITIONS during the period this policy is in effect, the broadened coverage will immediately apply to this policy. Policy Period. This policy applies only to loss under Section | or bodily injury or property damage under Section II that occurs during the period this policy is in effect. Waiver or Change of Policy Provisions. A waiver or change of any provision of this policy must be in writing by us to be valid. Our request for an appraisal or examination does not waive any of our rights. Concealment or Fraud. This policy is void as to you and any other insured if you or any other insured under this policy has intentionally concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance relating to this insurance, whether before or afler a loss. Cancellation. a. Liberalization Clause. If we adopt any revision that would broaden coverage under this policy without additional premium, within 60 days prior to or You may cancel this policy at any time by giving us advance written notice of the date cancellation is to take effect. We may waive the requirement a HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Campany, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000033"}, {"d": 55, "p": 105, "t": "of the policy would place the insurer that fhe notice be in writing by confirming the date and time of cancellation to you in writing. in violation of the insurance laws of this state; or We may cancel this policy only for the reasons stated in this condition, We will notify you in writing of the date cancellation takes effect. This cancellation notice may be delivered to you, or mailed to you at your mailing address shown in the Declarations. Proof of mailing will be sufficient proof of notice: (f) We may cancel this policy by notifying you at least 30 days before the date cancellation takes effect. (1) When you have not paid the premium, we may cancel at any time by notifying you at least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect. This condition applies whelher the premium is payable to us or our agent or under any finance or credit plan. (4) When this policy is written for a period longer than one year, we may cancel for any reason at anniversary. We may cancel by notifying you at least 30 days before the date cancellation takes effect. {2} When this policy has been in effect for less than 45 business days and is not a renewal with us, we may cancel for any reason. We may cancel by notifying you at least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect. (3) When this policy has been in effect for 45 business days or more, or at any time if it is a renewal with us, we may cancel for the following reasons: c. When this policy is cancelled, the premium for the period from the date of cancellation to the expiration date will be refunded. The retum premium will be pro rata. d. The retum premium may not be refunded with the notice of cancellation or when this policy is retumed to us, In such cases, we will refund it within a reasonable time after the date cancel- lation takes effect. 6. omissions on the part of the named insured which increase any hazard insured against; Nonrenewal. We may elect not to renew this policy. if we elect not to renew, a written notice will be delivered to you, or mailed to you at your mailing address shown in the Declarations. The notice wil be mailed or delivered at least 30 days before the expiration date of this policy. Proof of mailing will be sufficient proof of notice. 7. a change in the risk which substantially increases any hazard insured against after insurance coverage has Assignment of Policy. Assignment of this policy wil be void and we will not recognize any such assignment, unless we give our written consent. 8. Subrogation and Reimbursement. (a) discovery of fraud or material misrepresentation in the procurement of the insurance or with respect fo any claims submitted thereunder; (b) discovery of willful or reckless acts or (c) conviction of the named insured of a crime having as one of its necessary elements an act increasing any hazard insured against. a, been issued or renewed; Subrogation. (1} Applicable to SECTION I: (d) violation of any local fire, health, safety, building, or construction regulation or ordinance with respect {fo any insured property or the occupancy thereof which substantially increases any hazard insured against; if any insured to or for whom we make payment under this policy has rights to recover damages from another, those rights are transferred to us to the extent of our payment. That insured must do everything necessary to secure our rights and must do nothing after loss to impair them. (e) a determination by the Insurance Commissioner that the continuation x HW-2136 ©, Copyright, Slate Farm Mutual Automobiie insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000034"}, {"d": 55, "p": 106, "t": "11. However before a loss, an insured may waive in writing all rights of recovery against any person. a, Applicable to SECTION I: If any insured has rights to recover all or part of any payment we have made under this policy, those rights are transferred to us. An insured must do nothing after loss to impair them. Subrogation does not apply under Section {I to Medical Payments to Others or Damage to Property of Others. The premium for this policy may vary based upon: Reimbursement. (1) the purchase of other products or services from the State Farm Companies; if we make payment under this policy and any insured to or for whom we make payment recovers or has recovered from another person of organization, then the insured to or for whom we make payment must {2} the purchase of products or services from an organization that has entered into an agreement or contract with the State Farm Companies. The State Farm Companies do not warrant the merchantability, fitness, or quality of any product or service offered or provided by that organi- hold in trust for us the proceeds of any recovery; and (2) reimburse us to the extent of our payment. 9. zation; or Death. If you die: a. an agreement, conceming the insurance provided by this policy, that the State Farm Companies has with an organization of which you are a member, employee, subscriber, licensee, or franchisee. we insure the legal representative of the deceased. This condition applies only with respect to the premises and property of the deceased covered under this policy at the time of death; Your purchase of this policy may allow: insured includes: (1} Unless as otherwise provided by an altemative payment plan in effect with the Stafe Farm Companies with respect to the premium for this policy, the premium is due and payable in full on or before the first day of the policy period shown in the most recently issued Declarations. The renewal premium for this policy will be based upon the rates in effect, the coverages carried, the applicable limits, deductibles, and other elements that affect the premium applicable at the time of renewal, At our request, an in- sured will bring suit or transfer those rights to us and help us enforce them. (1) Premium. (1) you to purchase or obtain certain coverages, coverage options, coverage deductibles, ° coverage limits, or coverage terms on other products from the State Farm Companies, subject to their applicable eligibility rules; or any member of your household who is an insured at the time of your death, but only while a resident of the residence premises; and (2) with respect to your property, the person having proper temporary custody of the property until appointment and qualification of a legal representative. (2) the premium or price for other products or services purchased by you, including noninsurance products or services, to vary. Such other products or services must be provided by the State Farm Companies or by an organization that has entered into an agreement or contract with the State 10. Conformity to State Law. When a policy provision is in conflict with the applicable law of the state in which this policy is issued, the law of the state wil apply. u HW-2436 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Aulomobite Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000035"}, {"d": 55, "p": 107, "t": "of mailing it or delivering it by other means. Proof of transmission will be sufficient proof of notice. Farm Companies. The State Farm Companies do not warrant the merchantability, fitness, or quality of any product or service offered or provided by that organization. 16. Our Rights Regarding Claim Information. a. 12. Right to Inspect, a, We have the right but are not obligated to per- form the following: (1) make inspections and surveys of the insured location al any time; (2} provide you with reports on conditions we find; or {3) recommend changes. ness functions. b. (1) collecting, receiving, or obtaining records, receipts, invoices, medical bills, medical records, wage information, salary information, employment information, data, and any other information; mendations relate only to insurability and the premiums to be charged. Wedo not: (2) using any of the items described in item (3) make safety inspections; (2) Subject to 16.a. above, we will not be restricted in or prohibited from: Any inspections, surveys, reports, or recom- b. We will collect, receive, obtain, use, and retain all the items described in item b.(1} below and use and retain the information described in item b.(3)(b} below, in accordance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations and consistent with the performance of our busi- b.{1} above; or undertake to perform the duty of any person or organization to provide for the health or safety of workers or the public; (3) (a) (b) any other information we have in our possession as a result of our pro- ful; or warrant that conditions comply with laws, regulations, codes, or standards. cessing, handling, or otherwise re- solving claims submitted under this policy. This condition applies to us and to any rating, advisory, rate service, or similar organization that makes insurance inspections, surveys, reports, or recommendations on our behalf. c. 13. Joint and Individual Interests. When there are two or more Named !nsureds, each acts for all to (2) 14; Change of Policy Address. We may change the Named Insured's policy address as shown in the Declarations and in our records to the most recent address provided {o us by: yous or b. the United States Postal Service. We may disclose any of the items in b.(1} above and any of the information described in item b.{3)(b) above: (1) to enable performance of our business functions; cancel or change this policy. a. any of the items in item b.(1) above; or (3) warrant that conditions are safe or health(4) retaining: to meet our reporting obligations to insurance regulators; (3) to meet our reporting obligations to insurance dala consolidators; (4) to meet other obligations required by law; and (5) 15. Electronic Delivery. With your consent, we may electronically deliver any document or notice, including a notice fo renew, nonrenew, or cancel, instead d. as otherwise permitted by law. Our rights under 16.a., 16.b., and 16.c, above will not be impaired by any: 22 HW-2126 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Aulomobile insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000036"}, {"d": 55, "p": 108, "t": "must provide us wilh any requested authorizations related fo the claim. Our rights as set forth under Our Rights Regarding Claim Information of this policy will not be impaired by any: (1} authorization related to any claim submitted under this policy; or (2) act or omission of an insured or a legal representative acting on an insured’s behalf. 17. Duties Regarding Claim Information. An insured or a legal representalive acting on an insured’s behalf a. authorization related to the claim; or b, act or omission of an insured or a legal representative acting on an insured’s behalf. OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS while acting within the scope of the above listed occupations. Each Optional Policy Provision applies only as shown in the Declarations and is subject to all the terms, provi- sions, exclusions, and conditions of this policy. 2, Option Al - Additional Insured. The definition of insured is extended to include the person or organization shown in the Declarations as an Additional Insured or whose name is on file with us, Coverage is with respect to: 4. SECTION | - Coverage A, Coverage B, or Coverage C; or 2. SECTION Il - Coverage L and Coverage M but only with respect to the residence premises. This coverage does not apply to bodily injury to an employee arising out of or in the course of the employee’s employment by the person or organization. However, no coverage is provided: a. for bodily injury or property damage arising out of a business owned or financially controlled by the insured or by a partnership of which the insured is a partner or member, b. for bodily injury or property damage atising out of the rendering of or failure to render professional services of any nature (other than teaching or school administration). This exclusion includes but is not limited to: (1} computer programming, architectural, engineering, or industrial design services; (2) medical, surgical, dental, or other services or treatment conducive to the health of persons or animals; and This option applies only with respect to the location shown in the Declarations. Option BP - Business Property. The COVERAGE B ~ PERSONAL PROPERTY, Special Limits of Liability, item b., for property used or intended for use in a business, including merchandise held as samples or for sale or for delivery after sale, is changed as follows: The $1,500 limit is replaced with the amount shown in the Declarations for this option. (3) c. beauty or barber services or treatment; for bodily injury to a fellow employee of the insured injured in the course of employment, or d. when the insured is a member of the faculty or teaching staff of a school or college: CLUSIONS, item 1.b. is modified as follows: for bodily injury or property damage arising out of the maintenance, use, loading, or unloading of: 4. Section I coverage applies to the business pursuits of an insured who is a: (a) draft or saddle animals, including ve- a. clerical office employee, salesperson, collector, messenger; or {b) b. teacher (except college, university, and profes- boats, air cushions, or personal wa- sional athletic coaches), school principal, or school administrator; powered by an internal combustion Option BU - Business Pursuits. SECTION Il ~ EX- ©, Copyright, Slate (1) hicles for use with them; or aircraft, motor vehicles, recreational motor vehicles or watercralt, airtercraft which use a water jel pump B Farm Mutual Aulomobiie Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000037"}, {"d": 55, "p": 109, "t": "3. engine as the primary source of propuision; owned, operated, or hired by or for the insured or employer of the insured or used by the insured for the purpose of instruction in the use thereof; or 4. Our limits for loss by theft are those shown in the Declarations for this option. These limits apply in lieu of the Coverage B theft limit; and Our limits for loss by any covered peril except those in items 2. and 3. above are those shown in the Declarations for this option. under Coverage M for bodily injury to a student arising out of corporal punishment administered by or at the direction of the insured. Option ID - Increased Dwelling Limit. We will settle josses to damaged building structures covered under COVERAGE A - DWELLING according to the Loss Settlement Provision shown in the Declarations. Option FA - Firearms. Firearms are covered for accidental direct physical loss or damage. if the amount you actually and necessarily spend to repair or replace damaged building structures exceeds the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, we will pay the additional amounts not to exceed: The {imits for this option are shown in the Declarations. The first amount is the limit for any one article; the second amount is the aggregate limit for each loss. 1. The following additional provisions apply: 10% of the Option !D limit of liability to repair or replace building structures covered under COVERAGE A-~ DWELLING, Other Structures. We will not pay for any floss to the property described in this option either consisting of, or directly and immediately caused by, one or more of the following: a. mechanical breakdown, wear and tear, Report Increased Values. You must nolify us within 90 days of the start of construction on any new building structure costing $5,000 or more; or any additions to or remodeling of building structures that increase their values by $5,000 or more. You must pay any additional premium due for the increased value. We will not pay more than the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations if you fail to notify us of the increased value within 90 days. or gradual deterioration; all animals, birds, or insects, including nesting, infestation, gnawing, feeding, breeding, or discharge or release of waste products or secretions by animals, birds, or insects. However, we will pay for losses caused by wild bears or deer; Option 10 ~ Incidental Business. The coverage provided by this option applies only to that incidental business occupancy on file with us. & dampness of atmosphere or extremes of temperatures; inherent defect or faulty manufacture; = a any processof refinishing, renovating, or repairing; rust, fouling, or explosion of firearms; 4. COVERAGE A - DWELLING, Other Structures, item 2.b. is deleted, infidelity of an insured’s employees or persons to whom the insured property may be entrusted or rented; COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY is extended to include equipment, supplies, and fumishings usual and incidental to this business occupancy. This Optional Policy Provision does not include electronic data processing system equipment or the recording or storage media used with that equipment or merchandise held as samples or for sale or for delivery after sale. Our limit for loss by any Coverage B peril except theft is the limit shown in the Declarations for Coverage B, plus the aggregate limit; The Option 10 limits are shown in the Declarations. The first limit applies to property on the residence premises. The second limit applies to property a 4. the Option 1D timit of fiability shown in the Declarations to repair or replace the dwelling; or breakage, manting, scratching, tearing, or denting unless caused by fire, thieves, or accidents to conveyances; or 4 HW.2136 ©, Copyright, Stata Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000038"}, {"d": 55, "p": 110, "t": "(c) while off the residence premises, These limits are in addition to the COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, Special Limits of Liability on property used or intended for use in a business. or (2) Under Section il, the residence premises is not considered business property because an insured occupies a part of it as an incidental business. bodily injury or property damage arising out of business pursuits of any insured, except as provided in item c. below. This are ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits or to business pursuits of an insured that are necessary or incidental to the use of the residence premises as an incidental business, any employee of any insured, or any other person actually or appar- ently acting on behalf of any insured. This exclusion does not apply to the occasional child care services provided by any /nsured, or to the part-time child care services provided by any insured under 19 years of age. This insurance does not apply to: a. any insured: Coverage M does not apply to any person indicated in d.{1) and d.{2) above. exclusion does not apply to activities that 5. any person who makes a claim because of bodily injury to any person in the care of any insured because of child care services provided by or at the direction of: (a) (b) (c) SECTION ff ~ EXCLUSIONS, item 1b. is replaced with the following: b. any other person actually or apparently acting on behalf of any insured, Option JF - Jewelry and Furs. Jewelry, watches, fur garments and garments trimmed with fur, precious and semi-precious stones, gold other than goldware, silver other than silverware, and platinum are covered for accidental direct physical loss or damage. bodily injury to an employee of an insured arising out of the residence premises as an incidental business other than to a residence employee while engaged in the employee's employment by an insured; The limits for this option are shown in the Declarations. The first amount is the limit for any one article; the second amount is the aggregate limit for each loss. All provisions and exclusions of SECTION | ~ LOSSES INSURED, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, Theft apply to Option JF. bodily injury to a student arising out of corporal punishment administered by or at the direction of the insured; liability arising out of any acts, errors, or omissions of an insured, or any other person for whose acts an insured Is liable, resulting from the preparation or approval of data, plans, designs, opinions, reports, programs, specifications, supervisory inspections, or engineering services in the conduct of an insured’s incidental business involving data processing, computer consulting, or computer programming; or The following additional provisions apply: 4. We will not pay for any loss to the property described in this option either consisting of, or directly and immediately caused by, one or more of the following: a. mechanical breakdown, wear and tear, or gradual deterioration; all animals, birds or insects, including nesting, infestation, gnawing, feeding, breeding, or discharge or release of waste products or secretions by animals, birds, or insects. However, we will pay for losses caused by wild bears or deer, any claim made or suil brought against any insured by: (i) any person in the care of any insured because of child care services provided by or at the direction of. inherent vice; or (a) any insured, seizure or destruction under quarantine or customs regulations; (b) any employee of any insured; or % HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile tnsurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000039"}, {"d": 55, "p": 111, "t": "2. (2) the enforcement requires the demolition of portions of the same building structure not damaged by the same foss insured; Our limit for loss by any Coverage B peril except theft is the limit shown in the Declarations for Cov- erage B, plus the aggregate limit; (3) the ordinance or law regulates the construction or repair of the building structure, or establishes zoning or land use requirements at the described premises; and Our limits for loss by theft are those shown in the Declarations for this option. These limits apply in leu of the Coverage B theft limit; and Our limits for loss by any covered peril except those in items 2. and 3. above are those shown in the Declarations for this option. (4) the ordinance or law is in force at the time of the occurrence of the same foss insured, oF Option OL - Building Ordinance or Law. 1. c. Coverage Provided. The total limit of insurance provided by this option will not exceed an amount equal to the Option OL percentage shown in the Declarations of the Coverage A limit shown in the Declarations al the time of the loss, as adjusted by the Inflation Coverage provisions of this policy. This is an additional amount of insurance and applies to building structures on the residence premises. (1) the enforcement is directly caused by the same loss insured, (2) the requirement is in effect at the time the loss insured occurs; and Damaged Portions of Building Structure. When a building structure covered under COVERAGE A~- DWELLING is damaged by a foss insured, we will pay for the increased cost to repair or rebuild the physically damaged portion of the building structure caused by the enforcement of a building, zoning, or land use ordinance or jaw if the enforcement is directly caused by the same Joss insured and the requirement is in effect at the time the loss insured occurs. Undamaged Portions of Damaged Building Structure. When a building structure covered under COVERAGE A - DWELLING is damaged by a foss insured, we will also pay for: a. b. legally required changes to the undamaged portion of the building structure caused by the enforcement of a building, zoning, or land _ use ordinance or law, if: (3) the legally required changes are made to the undamaged portions of specific building structure features, systems, or components that have been physically damaged by the foss insured. We will not pay for legally required changes to specific building structure features, systems, or components that have not been physically damaged by the loss insured. 4. Building Ordinance or Law Coverage Limitations. a. the cost to demolish and clear the site of the undamaged portions of the building structure causedby the enforcement of a building, zoning, or land use ordinance or law if the enforcement is directly caused by the same foss insured and the requirement is in effect at the time the loss insured occurs; and We will not pay for any increased cost of construction: (4) until the building structure is actually repaired or replaced at the same or another premises in the same general vicinity, (2) unless the repairs or replacement are made as soon as reasonably possible after the loss, not fo exceed two years; and loss fo the undamaged portion of the building structure caused by enforcement of any ordinance or law if: (3) due to any original or subsequent construction, addition, modification, renovation, remodel, or repair to a building structure that did not comply wilh a building, zoning, or land use ordinance or law in effect when the (1) the enforcement is directly caused by the construction, addition, modification, renova- tion, remodel, or repair was performed. same loss insured; % HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Fann Mutual Aulomobile insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000040"}, {"d": 55, "p": 112, "t": "b. We will not pay for more than a building structure of the same height, floor area, and style on the same or similar premises as the building structure, subject to the limit provided in paragraph 1. Coverage Provided of this option. We will not pay more under this coverage than the amount you actually spend: (1) for the increased cost to repair or rebuild the building structure at the same or another premises in the same general vicinity if relocation is required by ordinance or Option SG ~ Silverware and Goldware Theft. The COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, Special Limits of Ltability, item i, for theft of silverware and goldware is increased to be the amount shown in the Declarations for this option. law; and (2) to demolish and clear the site of the undamaged portions of the building struc- ture caused by enforcement of building, zoning, or land use ordinance or law. 7 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000041"}, {"d": 55, "p": 113, "t": "State Farm Fire and Casualty Company A Stock Company With Home Offices in Bloomington, illinois PO Box 2356 HOMEOWNERS AVAILABLE COVERAGE NOTICE Bloomington iL. 61702-2356 AqT2 nr SS H.26-2175-FAF3 F HW SEE 001692 320: RENEWAL DECLARATIONS WEST, NEIL S & LACY M 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR LAWTON OK 73505-9537 ST 106-0000 GLE fa] gbeggyagl ages] sts ffgeg dag h leggy fond lft tdaal yey iT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU OCCASIONALLY REVIEW THE COVERAGE S AND LIMITS IN YOUR HOMEOWNERS POLICY TO BE CERTAIN YOUR NEEDS ARE BEING MET. THE FOLLOW ING INFORMATION WILL ASSIST YOU IN THE REVIEW PROCESS, THE COVERAGE LIMITS FOR COVERAGE A- DWELLING, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, COVERAGE L PERSONAL LIABILITY, AND COVERAGE M - MEDICAL PAYMENTS TO OTHERS ARE LISTED ON THE ACCOMPANYING RENEWAL DECLARATIONS. PLEASE REVIEW THESE LIMITS TO DETER MINE IF THEY ARE ADEQUATE IN THE EVENT OF ALOSS. THE FOLLOWING ISA PARTIAL LIST OF THE OPTIONAL COVERAGES YOU HAVE NOT ADDED TO YOUR POLICY. THEY MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU FOR AN ADDITIONAL PREMIUM. ack-Up of Sewer or Drain (far damage caused by water from outside the plumbing system which backs up through sewers ar rains} Business Praperty (for higher limits) Business Pursuits Liability (for teachers, school administrators, sales persons, and clerical employees} Child Care Liability (for those providing child care in their home) Earthquake {for damage to buildings and personal property caused by an earthquake} Firearms {for broadened coverage and higher limits) Cyber Event, Identity Restoration, and Fraud Loss incidental Business Liability (for those with an incidental office, studio, or schoal in the home) Jewelry and Furs (for broadened coverage and higher limits) Loss Assessment {for neighborhaads with Homeowners Associations) Personal Injury {for your liabilityto others caused by certain acts of libel, slander, invasion of privacy, or false arrest) Silverware/Goldware (for broadened coverage and higher limits) Otn922Za 03-31-2017 Nurses’ Professional Liability (far those in the nursing profession) **Continued on Reverse Side*™* Prepared NOV 092022 Agent Telephone NANCY HOLCOMB INS AGCY INC (580) 536-5050 007727 420 | | N GAGB,R3,EH SFF&CC/West_000042"}, {"d": 55, "p": 114, "t": "day care in their home} Adult Day Care Liability (for those providing adult Energy Efficiency Upgrade (for replacing damaged heating unit, air conditioning unit, or water heater with equipment that is more energy efficient} Home Rental {for those who rent out their home for more than 30 nights yearly} Home Systems Protection (for covering the breakdown of permanently installed equipment} Service Line {for the cost of repairing damaged underground utility lines) increased Personal Property (for higher limits above the standard policy limit, which is a percentage o1nSzZ23a 03-31-2017 of your Coverage A-Owelling amount} to This notice contains only a general description of the co verages and is not a contract. All coverages are subject the provisions in the policy itself. Should you have a need for any of these coverages or high er limits, contact your State Farm Agent to discuss details, cost and eligibitity. IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT DAMAGE CAUSED BY FLOODING This policy does not cover damage to your property caused by flooding. You may be eligible for such coverage through the National Flood Insurance Program (\"NFIP\"), if you live in a parlicipating community. For more information, contact your State Farm? agent or visit floodsmarl.gov. SFF&CC/West_000043"}, {"d": 55, "p": 115, "t": "State Farm Fire and Casualty Company A Stock Company With Home Offices in Bloomington, illinois PO Box 2356 Bloomington il. 61702-2356 & StateFarm’ H-26-2175-FAF3 F HW west, NEIL § & Lace” 7 uy; NW BRIARCREEK LAWTON OK RENEWAL DECLARATIONS Dr 73505-9537 AMOUNT DUE: None Payment is dua by TO BE PAID BY MORTGAGEE st 0206-0000 Policy Number, — 36-CR-X405-8 Policy Period: 12 Months Effective Dates: DEC 29 2022 to DEC 29 2023 The policy period begins and ends at 12:01 am standard time at the residence premises. ; ' Policy Home owners Location of Residence Premises 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR LAWTON OK 73505-9537 Your State Farm Agent NANCY HOLCOMB INS AGCY INC 20 NW 67TH ST STEB LAWTON DK 73505-5632 Phone: {580} 536-5050 Construction: Year Built: Masonry Veneer 1997 Roof Material; Composition Shingle Roof Installation Year: 2019 Autamatic Renewal if the POLICY PERIOD is shown as 12 MONTHS, this policy will be renewed automatically subject to the premiums, rules, and forms in effect for each succeeding policy period. {f this policy is terminated, we will give you and the Mortgagee/Lienholder written notice in compliance with the policy provisions or as required by law. IMPORTANT MESSAGES NOTICE: information concerning changes in your policy language is included. Please call your agent with any questions. Caverage A has increased $17,000.00 over last year. Please help us update the data used to defermine your premium. Contact your agent with the year each of your home's utilities (heating/cooling, plumbing, or electrical} and roof were last updated. PREMIUM Annual Premium Your premium has already been adjusted by the following: Home Alert Discount Home/Auto Discount Claim Record Oiscount Loyal Customer $2,722.00 $2,722.00 Total Premium Prepared Ho-2000 NOV09 2022 007728 420 1 N GA,GB,R3,EH Page ; 7 hanks for ling us serve ya... totetOed) lof 4 + OEz016 SFF&CCAWest_000044"}, {"d": 55, "p": 116, "t": "&® StateFarm’ NAMED INSURED WEST, NEIL S & LACY M MORTGAGEE AND ADDITIONAL INTERESTS e RET MORTGAGE LLC —_——i OX apegre SECTION I - PROPERTY COVERAGES AND LIMITS Coverage A Dwelling Other Structures B Personal Property C Loss of Use C 29502-2070 Limit of Liability 309,000 $ $ $ $ Additional Coverages $1,000 Arson Reward Credit Card, Bank Fund Transfer Card, Forgery, and Counterfeit Money Debris Removal Fire Department Service Charge Fuel Oil Release Locks and Remote Devices Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping O1FIGs1A SECTION Hl - ABILITY COVERAGES AND LIMITS 30,900 231,750 92,700 $1,000 Additional 5% available/$1,000 tree debris $500 per occurrence $10,000 $1,000 5% of Coverage A amount/$750 per item Coverage Limit of Liability L Personal Liability (Each Occurrence) Damage to the Property of Others M Medical Payments to Others (Each Person) $ $ $ NOV 69 2022 FLOREN 400,000 4,000 4,000 INFLATION Inflation Coverage Index: 308.7 DEDUCTIBLES Section | Deductible All Losses 1% Deductible Amaunt 3,090 $ LOSS SETTLEMENT PROVISIONS A1 Replacement Cost - Similar Construction B1 Limited Replacement Cost - Coverage B H0-2000 Page 2of 4 SFF&CC/West_000045"}, {"d": 55, "p": 117, "t": "& StateFarm’ 36-CR-X405-8 FORMS, OPTIONS, AND ENDORSEMENTS HW-2136 Homeowners Policy Option ID increase Dwig up to $67,800 Option OL Option JF Ordinance/Law 10%/ $30,900 Jewelry and Furs $1,500 Each HO-2310.1 *Amendatory Endorsement *New Form Altached ST0306-0800 Article/$2,500 Aggregate ADDITIONAL MESSAGES State Farm® works hard to offer you the best combination of price, service, and protection. The amount you pay for homeowners insurance is determined by many factors such as the coverages you have, the type of construction, the likefihood of future claims, and information from consumers reports. Other limits and exclusions may apply - refer to your policy Your policy consists of these Declarations, the Homeowners Policy shown above, and any other forms and endorsements that apply, including those shown above as well as those issued subsequent to the issuance of this policy. This policy is issued by the State Farm Fire and Casuaity Company. Participating Policy You are entitled to participate in a distribution of the earnings of the company as determined by our Board of Directors in accordance with the Company's Articles of Incorporation, as amended. In Witness Whereof, the State Farm Fire and Casualty Company has caused this policyte be signed by its President and Secretary at Bloomington, Illinois. Tepe: OTF 10848 Secreta 09 2022 Prepared NOV HO-2000 por72e 420 Mich BF byprer? President Page dof 4 SFF&CC/West_000046"}, {"d": 55, "p": 118, "t": "& StateFarm’ Your coverage amount... Itis up to you to choose the coverages and limits that meet your needs. We recommend that you purchase a coverage limit at least equal to the estimated replacement cost of your home. Replacement cost estimates are available from building contractors and replacement cost appraisers, or, your agent can provide an Xactware estimate using information you provide about your home, We can accept the type of estimate you choose as long as it provides a reasonable level of detail about your home. State Farm® does not guarantee that any estimate will be the actual future cost to rabulld your home. Higher limits ate available at higher premiums. Lower limits are also avatlable, which If selected may make certain coverages unavailable to you. We encourage you to periodically review your coverages oFiaaA NOV 09 2022 and limits with your agent and to notify us of any changes or additions to your home. HO-2000 Page 4of 4 SFF&CCAWest_000047"}, {"d": 55, "p": 119, "t": "36-CR-X405-8 007730 HO-2310.1 Page 1 of 3 HOMEOWNERS AMENDATORY ENDORSEMENT (Oklahoma) This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: HOMEOWNERS POLICY ESS DEFINITIONS Under the definition of “business”, item d. is replaced by the following: a. b. COVERAGE C~LOSS OF USE; SECTION |~ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, and ¢. Option OL ~ Building Ordinance or Law, only if this option is shown in the Declarations. Business does not include: ST0408-0000 d. the ownership, maintenance, or use of systems and equipment used to generate electrical power, if (4) the power generated is intended primarily for consumption on the residence premises; and (2) any resulting income is incidental, including but not limited to: {a} _ utility bill credits; or (b) incidental income; derived from sending excess power back to the electricity grid; or The definition of “occurrence” is replaced by the following: “occurrence”, when used in Section [1 of this policy, means an accident, including accidental exposure to conditions, which first results in: a. bodily injury, or b. property damage, during the policy period, All bodily injury and property damage resulting from one accident, series of related accidents, or from continuous or repeated exposure to the same general conditions is considered to be one oceurrence. SECTION }- PROPERTY COVERAGES COVERAGE A ~ DWELLING item 3.c. is replaced by the following: ¢. systems and equipment used to generate electrical power, unless: (1) the power generated is intended primarily for consumption on the residence premises, and (2) any resulting income is incidental, including but not limited to: (a) utility bill credits; or (b) incidental income; derived from sending excess power back to the electricity grid. SECTION | - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES The following is added to Volcanic Action: When applicable, the following coverages apply to a loss covered by Volcanic Action: The following is added to Collapse: When applicable, the following coverages apply to a loss covered by Collapse: a, COVERAGE C -LOSS OF USE; b. SECTION |~ADDITIONAL COVERAGES; and ¢. Option OL = Building Ordinance or Law, only if this option is shown in the Declarations. The following is added to Fuel Oil Release: When applicable, the following coverages apply to a loss covered by Fuel Oi! Release: a. COVERAGE C-LOSS OF USE; b. SECTION|-ADDITIONAL COVERAGES; and ¢, Option OL ~ Building Ordinance or Law, only if this option is shown in the Declarations. Any payments made for these coverages are included in, and not in addition to, the $10,000 limit of insurance for Fuel Oil Release. SECTION 1-- CONDITIONS Under Mortgagee Clause, paragraph 0.c. is replaced by the following: c. Ifwecancel this policy, the mortgagee will be notified at least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect. SECTION fl - LIABILITY COVERAGES SECTION Il - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES The following is added to Damage to Property of Others: d. Under SECTION Il - EXCLUSIONS, exclusion 2.c. does not applyto the coverage provided by Damage to Property of Others. SECTION lf - EXCLUSIONS Under SECTION {l ~ EXCLUSIONS, 1\\p. is replaced by the following: 4. Coverage L and Coverage M do not apply to: p. bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of systems and equipment used to generate electrical power, unless: ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 20214 SFF&CCWest_000048"}, {"d": 55, "p": 120, "t": "HO-2310.1 Page 2 of 3 (4) the power generated is intended primarily for consumption on the residence premises; and (2) any resulting income is incidental, including but not limited fo: {a) utility bill credits; or (b) incidental income; derived from sending excess power back to the electricity grid. Under SECTION Il ~ EXCLUSIONS, 2.a. and 2.c. are replaced by the following: 2. Coverage L does not apply to: a. liability: (1} for your share of any loss assessment charged against all members of any type of association of property owners; or We may cancel this policy by providing notice to a named insured shown on the Declarations. The notice will provide the date cancellation is effective. (1) When you have not paid the premium, we may cancel af any time by providing notice at least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect. This condition applies whether the premium is payable fo us or our agent or under any finance or credit plan. When this policy has been in effect for less than 45 business days and is not a renewal with us, we may cancel for anyreason. We may cancel by-providing notice at least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect. this policy has been in effect for 45 busi(3) When ness days or more, or at any fime if it is a renewal with us, we may cancel for the following reasons: {a) discovery of fraud or material misrepresentation in the procurement of the insurance or wilh respect to any claims submitted thereunder; (b) discovery of willful or reckless acts or omissions on the part of the named insured which increase any hazard insured against, (c)_a change in the risk which substantially increases any hazard insured against after insurance coverage has been issued or re- (2) imposed on or assumed by any insured through any unwailten or writlen contract or agreement. This exclusion does not apply to: (a) liability for damages that the insured would have in absence of the contract or agreement, or (b) wilten contracts: (i) that directly relate to the ownership, maintenance, or use of any CG. newed; insured location, or (i) when the liability of others is assumed by you prior to the occurrence: unless excluded elsewhere in the policy, property damage to property rented to, used or occupied by, or in the care, custody, or control of any insured at the time of the occurrence. This exclusion does not apply to property damage caused by: (i) fire; (2) smoke; (3) explosion; (4) abrupt and accidental damage fram water, or (5) household pets, up fo $500 in excess of your security deposit; i - CONDITIONS SECTION AND { SECTION Under Cancellation, 5.b. is replaced by the following: (d) violation of any local fire, health, safety, building, or construction regulation or ordinance with respect to any insured property or the occupancy thereof which substantially increases any hazard insured against, (e) a determination by the Insurance Commissioner that the continuation of the policy would place the insurer in violation of the insurance laws of this state; or (f) (4) conviction of the named insured of a crime having as one of its necessary elements an act increasing any hazard insured against. We may cancel this policy by providing notice at least 30 days before the date cancellation takes effect. When this policy is written for a period longer than one year, we may cancel for any reason at anniversary, We may cancel by providing notice at least 30 days before the date cancellation takes effect. Nonrenewal is replaced by the following: ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Company, 2021 SFF&CCWest_000049"}, {"d": 55, "p": 121, "t": "36-CR-X405-8 007734 HO-2310.4 Page 3 of 3 Nonrenewal. if we decide not fo renew this policy, then, al least 30 days before the end of the current policy period, we will provide a nonrenewal notice lo a named in- Sie ; sured shown on the Declarations. . : ; Joint and Individual Interests is replaced by the following: Joint and Individual Interests. If you consists of more than one person or entity, then each acts for all to change or cancel this policy. repair or replace damaged building sfructures cov- ered under COVERAGE A ~ DWELLING, Other Structures exceeds the limit of liability shown in the Declarations for Other Structures, we will pay the additional amounts not to exceed 10% of the Option ID limit shown in the Declarations. Electronic Delivery is deleted. 3 2 3 be 2. not to exceed the Option ID limit shown in the Declarations. If the amount you actually and necessarily spend to OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS ana : : 1) i ption ID is replaced by the following Dwelling Limit. We will settle - Increased Option to1D damaged building structures covered under losses Report Increased Values, You must notify us within 90 of construction on any new st building days of the start . structure costing $5,000 or more; or any additions to or‘ ‘ a : Temodeling of building structures that increase their COVERAGEA - DWELLING according to the Loss Set- values by $5,000 or more. You must pay any additional Ifthe amount you actually and necessarily spend to repair or teplace the damaged dwelling exceeds the fimit of liability shown in the Declarations for Coverage A~ Dwelling, we will paythe additional amounts ; ; i onsi mac Saye. ou filo nofify us of the increased value tlement Provision shown in the Declarations. 4. due for the increased value. We will not pay premium more than the applicable limit of liability shown in the —_—_Ail other policy provisions apply. HO-2310,4 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutua! Automobile Insurance Company, 2021 SFF&CC/West_000050"}, {"d": 55, "p": 123, "t": "36-CR-X405-8 007732 553-2634.1 PREMIUM DISCOUNT AVAILABLE FOR USE OF IMPACT-RESISTIVE ROOFING PRODUCTS State Farm® offers a premium discount for homes that have qualified impact-resistive roofing materials, ST9606-0000 Underwriters Laboratories (UL} and Factory Mutual (EM) are nationally recognized testing laboratories that develop safety standards and test products to verify they meet specific performance standards. Both UL and FM have developed testing standards that measure the impact resistance of various roofing materials. The roofing products tested by UL and FM are rated from Class { to Class 4, with Class 4 providing the greatest roofing protection. State Farm offers a premium discount when qualified UL certified or FM approved Class 3 or Class 4 roofing materials have been installed on your home. The discount applies to both new and replacement roofs installed since May 1996 with UL certified products, and since July 2005 with FM approved products. Discounts are not available for wood roofs, or roofs (other than qualifying metal roofs) that have been overlaid on to existing roofing. Discounts are also subject to limitations and may not be available on all UL or FM Class 3 and 4 impact-resistant roofing products. Manufacturers continue to bring UL certified and EM approved roofing products to the consumer marketplace. You can visit our web site at http://www .statefarm,.com/insurance/other/roofinfo.asp for a list of qualifying products in your state. If you have any questions about the discounts available for installing an impact-resistive roof or to see if your roof qualifies, please contact your State Farm agent, ‘This discount program does not constitute an endorsement or any warranty of performance on the part of State Farm for any particular roofing product. Please research and determine what roofing material is best suited for your home, location and environmental conditions. 553~2634.5 (C} (42/09) 553-4157 NOTICE TO POLICYHOLDER For a comprehensive description of coverages and forms, please refer to your policy. Policy changes that you requested before the “Date Prepared” on your Renewal Declarations are effective on the renewal date of this policy unless indicated otherwise by a separate endorsement, binder or Amended Declarations Page. endorsements included with your Renewal Declarations are effective on the renewal date of this policy. Any coverage forms or Policy changes that you requested after the “Date Prepared” on your Renewal Declarations will be sent to you as an Amended Declarations Page or as an endorsement to your policy, You will be billed for any resulting premium increase later. if you have acquired any valuable property items, made any improvements to your home, or have questions about your insurance coverage, please contact your State Farm® agent. 553-4157 (C) (CONTINUED) SFF&CC/West_000052"}, {"d": 55, "p": 124, "t": "§53-4156 PREMIUM ADJUSTMENT insurance premiums have been adjusted and continue to reflect the expected cost of claims. Some policyhofders will see their premiums increase while other policyholders may see their premiums decrease or stay the same, The amount your premium the expected claim experience in your area, the coverage you have, and changed, if at all, depends on several factors including any applicable discounts or charges. The enclosed Renewal Oeclarations reflects your new premium. State Farm® works hard to offer yau the best combination of cost, protection, and service. We will continue doing our best fo make the most effective use of your premium dollars and give you superior service when you need it. if you have any questions about your premium, or policy coverages, please contact your State Farm agent. 553-4156 §53-2798.1 IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT YOUR POLICY With our Claim Record Rating Plan, your savings will typically increase the fewer claims you have and the fonger you're insured with State Farm®, We adjust premiums based on the number of claims under the rating plan. Depending on your state, claims under the plan generally include thase resulting in a paid loss and may include weatherrelated claims where permitted. In addition, any claims with your prior insurer resulting in property damage or injury may also influence your premium. Our Loyal Customer Discount provides a premium discount based on the number of years that you have been with us. For more information about whether the Claim Record Rating Plan applies in your state, the claims we consider for the plan, or whether the Loyal Customer Discount is in effect in your state, please contact your State Farm agent. §53.2798.1 SFF&CC/West_000053"}, {"d": 55, "p": 126, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Lacy West 03/20/2026 DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA and LACY WEST, COUNTY et THE et NEIL IN et Plaintiffs, gel Case Number CJ-2025-135 tl Ne Vs. eae” Neel etl Met ee STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. VIDEO DEPOSITION OF Taken on behalf on the 20th in REPORTED of day Lawton, * BY: LACY * MICHELLE the of WEST Defendants March, 2026 Oklahoma * TAMARA * WAGGONER, CSR Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) scx EXHIBIT"}, {"d": 55, "p": 127, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 31 Lacy West 03/20/2026 accident, was about the that for certain. Ms. new property? has A No. Q So would it not made any direct 10 insurance on 11 A That's 12 Q And you your current with anyone that 15 A No. 16 Q So anyone in her office? in her office representations to you about that in policy; is that A That is true. 20 Q Are you aware not 22 Briarcreek? has made the nature of that this lawsuit you have true? 19 sued the about agency Holcomb's Ms. 18 on house at any agency? but the Holcomb SANDERS: Object to the form. You THE WITNESS: Yes. (By Ms. you know why you've only State MR. Farm answer. 24 25 the one 17 or of current your covers no you nature the for talked policy to Holcomb Ms. that your correct. true 14 for house? that Have 23 statements about conversation any say say I can't -- insurance to fair is 13 21 have be you to representations you acquiring about Holcomb with I can't did -- you Have Q but Q Rother) Do Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) can"}, {"d": 55, "p": 128, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Lacy West 03/20/2026 Page 34 Q And you the said you didn't-realize policy from 2019 to policy? changes to identify any changes MR. SANDERS: Object THE WITNESS: Not the to to there were Can you 2023. the form. You can can see -- on The evidence to answer. that I the documentation provided to me personally mostly in regard on on the current Rother) And that is that position that the with 10 State is Farm Q (By Farm Ms. 11 State 12 that you all claim 13 it's not hail damage; correct? 14 MR. SANDERS: Object 15 THE WITNESS: odd that gutters, to 16 it very 17 the 18 metals 13 hail of has -- the taken the is hail they some damage, screens, soft roof. 20 That its own to 21 particularly 22 several, a 23 consider experts 24 definitely 25 maintain admit to the miraculously we had had, I don't know, know of two for sure, what lot say, of to come roof damage. They are do not hail damage have and I there's raises out a -- me after says to the we Farm will to that State damage they but have claim. But house, to dealings Correct. fence, I damage, our form. the few, to the damage on us. on found to no questions, I yes, you -- they on Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) our would still"}, {"d": 55, "p": 129, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Lacy West 03/20/2026 Page 35 roof. to Q (By Ms. Rother) there is State Farm? A State QO And two 10 roofers A Yes. Q And Farm, 13 yes. referring that you've had at in fairness, replace your you roof; Q (By Ms. State 14 was odd that 15 of some damage 16 shingles. 17 identification house? understand that because but not to you had Have to You has they the would the said form. you admitted Sorry. thought to the damage to the any training on the hail damage to roof ever talk the contractors soft metals 19 Q Did you 20 whether it's unusual for 21 evidence of hail damage 22 you ask the contractors 23 occasionally? to the whereas it presence of No. 29 the Object Farm A A are correct? Rother) 18 24 to Correct. SANDERS: ever look motivated MR. 12 referring you're like A you're experts financially 11 they the they're to The shingles? shingles to about show don't, if that happens If you could did No. MR. SANDERS: Form. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) give me"}, {"d": 55, "p": 130, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Lacy West 03/20/2026 Page 41 would have been provided? know we A I Q Yes. A -- Q Uh-huh. A I Q Have 10 A No. 11 Q And 12 about you think 13 responsibility here, 14 policy 15 between 2019 and 16 compare the policies? for produced the particular don't declarations pages years. recall if we you read your you indicated produced anything else. why was Ms. 17 A No. 18 Q Did 19 coverages you were or 2023. call you were Holcomb has some you coverage Did you Ms. do Holcomb talking that was the different anything to and ask her can answer. if different? MR. SANDERS: Form. 21 THE WITNESS: I Q (By Ms. why State Farm paid the 24 2023, if they occurred 25 and You did not. So any questions about claim in 2019 and not in have been Mr. West Rother) 23 not thought the 20 22 policy? when that different insurance it would you? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) the"}, {"d": 55, "p": 131, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Lacy West 03/20/2026 Page 43 hail damage; correct? MR. SANDERS: Form. THE WITNESS: It (By Ms. your request for found that that your Q the was also Rother) But State Farm a roof loss because total shingles weren't my understanding. has damaged by denied they have hail; is understanding? A That is. Q And you 10 responsibility 11 policy should 12 claim in believe that that because for have required Ms. Holcomb has State Farm to ahead. the that believe you some pay the 2023? 13 MR. SANDERS: Form. Go 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. And kind of 16 don't pay 17 article 18 Oklahoman, 19 that this has been trying to, you know, to get 20 State Farm to admit that, yes, we have hail damage 21 and, yes, our roof should be 22 journey we 23 similar issues. 24 The article in particular of the details recall is all over in particular, that many have -- news you discovered days. I read one it was from the know, our long process I think and, these I did it. to attention much the this 15 25 thing truthfully through replaced, people other but that I it does I don't mention Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) that having are read, Daily a --"}, {"d": 55, "p": 132, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page44 Lacy West 03/20/2026 to wind and hail damage is either trying to recoup losses increase profit margins. to routinely new scheme and how State Farm or, you know, Part of certain think the homeowners -- you know, the Q you paying read a newspaper Yes. 11 Q You 12 A I 13 Q And not proven think think it And was this Form. 16 THE WITNESS: Correct. but 19 in 20 things and 21 legal process 22 A Yes. 23 Q 24 similar 25 were process legal the And Rother) being allegations correct? SANDERS: yesterday, information Oklahoman? are those MR, 18 is Daily 15 (By Ms. they that article? the understand facts; Q insured so. you 17 a for. Rother) in -- deny coverage the (By Ms. A and is of they're that scheme percentage homeowners 14 regard with some I asked West Mr. attorney you understand a party is often accused of and then that's what the an that deny it is for; true? Now, you said that other people were having issues -- that you learned that other people having they similar issues. Is that Word for Word Reporting, LLC -- you 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) learned"}, {"d": 55, "p": 133, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Lacy West 03/20/2026 that from A Page 45 the article? It's from the article. one thing, you know, more and click on starts showing you Once -- once you on the Internet, it more of the similar things. Q Right. A So it comes across pretty that are claims are being denied. raises questions of whose 10 just 11 know, 12 an attorney, 13 so many people 14 And for us 15 similar I know, you know, it many me, you not a to people seem coincidental are suffering the same it's that a marked know Do you 17 condition of your 18 A I do not. 19 Q Do you have 20 to read and understand 21 claims, how many 22 roofs? from difference years prior. anything about the 2019 and 2023? in roof claims in comparison State 23 MR. SANDERS: Form. 24 THE WITNESS: No. (By Ms. Rother) Did the to Farm has you go a comparative have or knowledge any that situation. of a handful situation not I'm person, legal doesn't Q Q you it but 16 25 -- And, that I'm yes, mean, the denied being people number frequently, paid and you tried denied to total research Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 55, "p": 134, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 46 Lacy West 03/20/2026 if has than newspaper articles that of dollars that State of Oklahoma on roof denying? they're I Q Have the seen you billions many how paid not. did A report roofs more for paying they're if -- there state the out in MR. SANDERS: Form. THE WITNESS: I Ms. Farm claims? think I've seen one. Have you done any 10 Q (By 11 research with 12 number of claims that 13 roofs it totals, anything 14 A No. 15 Q Do 16 that's where I was going earlier, you 17 about other people having similar issues, 18 know anybody personally 19 having 20 A I don't 21 Q Have neighborhood 22 the you similar I A 23 Rother) Department of Insurance State Farm pays, know like anybody that see the number of to the that? else personally, were would you talking do say and you are issues? think so. you ever talked about your insurance with have not personally. our 24 has. He spoke with 25 know who their policy is next with. anyone in your claim? I know my husband I neighbor. door I want to Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) say don't that"}, {"d": 55, "p": 135, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 47 Lacy West 03/20/2026 Neil maybe said chose not to didn't want it State claim because deal with it insurance premiums would increase, chose to pursue that. Q Is he A I don't Q Are A Yes. Q And not 11 know from 12 interior 13 leaking? 14 A file also a 10 to having that you did have you have any continued the same you know, but do 18 Q do much would be the water leaks, they're you know how it could stain your do not. 21 Q Have you area where the No. In paint over growing. prior I 25 in there A A do leaks? it 20 24 leaks? not documents weren't ceiling? just question. definitely 23 he so good 17 the and very if 22 his a measured where afraid was 16 area was that we And basically roof damage, how he having haven't or roof he But you the If and Farm. know. 15 19 was them made stains fact, so any that we I know to the some place. I to see they the storm. water got into the your roof in ceiling? repairs to are in have opted that I your evidence interior to not stays Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) even intact."}, {"d": 55, "p": 136, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Lacy West 03/20/2026 Page 66 A My maybe his two brother-in-law. One of them. That's all Q So is of Chris A Yes. Q And other one then I brother, experience, those sure, -West? Mr. West testified that Roger West, may have some roofing Yes. Q Have you to either Chris or your roof? ever talked Roger about the condition 11 A Of the current 12 Q Yes. 13 A No. of roof? from mentioning would need to be replaced beyond that -- and that we it 15 point. 16 been 17 individually. 18 husband. 19 Q And Mr. West testified 20 having Chris come and look 21 never transpired, so is 22 understanding? But a conversation 23 A Yes. 24 Q And It -- between would but that at would some not myself and them been, you know, have at that Chris that the he roof consistent did know, you that, Aside 14 in for too? A thought I them think 10 25 of have with my considered but that with replace 2019? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) that your the roof"}, {"d": 55, "p": 138, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, Plaintiffs, ¥. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CASE NO. CJ-2025-135 and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Pursuant Statements, to the Objections Oklahoma to Discovery Defendant's Code, and subject to the Instructions and Definitions, Preliminary and Specific Objections stated below, Plaintiffs Neil and Lacy West (\"Plaintiffs\"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby submit the following responses and objections to Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s (\"Defendant\" or “State Farm\") First set of Requests for Admission to Plaintiffs. The failure of Plaintiffs to object on a particular ground to a specific Request for Admission should in no way be construed to be a waiver of Plaintiffs’ rights to object on additional grounds to supplement their objections and responses at a later time after further investigation. The following answers/responses are based upon facts and information known by Plaintiffs to the best of their recollection. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement, modify"}, {"d": 55, "p": 139, "t": "and/or amend these answers along with the objections set forth herein, in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Plaintiffs assert the Preliminary Statements, Objections to Instructions and Definitions, as well as the general and specific objections set forth below in order to preserve their objections. Without waiving any objections, Plaintiffs' counsel intends to communicate and cooperate in good faith with Defendant's counsel to address any issues or disputes concerning Plaintiffs' answers/responses, and objections. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiffs state that, after a reasonable search. and inquiry, they have made a good faith effort to respond to these discovery requests based upon information presently available. Plaintiffs also reserve the right to amend these answers at any time additional information may become available in the future. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Each of the following answers and responses is made without waiving any objections Plaintiffs may have with respect to the subsequent use of these answers, responses or the documents referred to herein and Plaintiffs specially reserve (a) all questions as to the competency, privilege, relevancy, materiality, and admissibility of said answers, responses, or documents, (b) the right to object to the uses of said answers, responses, or documents, (c) the right to object to the uses of said answers, responses or documents in any lawsuit or proceeding on any or all of the foregoing grounds or on any other proper ground, (d) the right to object on any and all proper grounds, at any time, to other discovery procedures involving or related to said answers, responses or documents, and (e) the right, at any time, upon proper showing, to revise, correct or clarify any of the following answers or responses. 2. Plaintiffs object to any of Defendant's instructions, requests and /or definitions 2"}, {"d": 55, "p": 140, "t": "to the extent that they may misstate or seek to impose obligations or requirements greater than those imposed by the Oklahoma Discovery Code. 3. Plaintiffs object to Defendant’s requests to the extent they seek or call for information which is protected from discovery and privileged by reason of (a) the attorneyclient privilege, (b) the work product doctrine, (c) the trial preparation doctrine, or (d) any other applicable discovery rule or privilege. Further, Plaintiffs do not waive privilege to any privileged document or information, or portion thereof, which may be inadvertently furnished or provided, it being the intent of Plaintiffs not to waive any privilege that might exist. Plaintiffs object to any request by the Defendant which purports to require the creation of documents that do not exist. 4, Any statement that a document or documents will be produced means that such documents will be produced only to the extent that they are not privileged, and if they do, in fact, exist. 5. By responding to the discovery requests of Defendant, Plaintiffs concede neither the relevancy nor the admissibility of any information provided or documents produced in response to such requests. 6. Plaintiffs object to the extent Defendant’s discovery requests are amorphous, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and so costly as to render compliance impractical. Subject to the foregoing objections and conditions and subject to the specific additional objections made with respect to each discovery request, Plaintiffs hereby submit their Responses to the Discovery Requests propounded by Defendant, as follows:"}, {"d": 55, "p": 141, "t": "RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1 Admit that Your House was insured by the Policy, subject to the terms, conditions, and exclusions stated therein. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1 Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2 Admit that State Farm provided You with the Policy at the time of contract and at the time of any renewal(s) of the Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 2 Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.3 = Admit that You had a copy of the Policy in Your possession, custody, or control. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 3 Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4 Admit that the Policy covers hail damage. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4 Plaintiffs object to the extent this admission compels Plaintiffs to draw a legal conclusion. Plaintiffs further object to the Request as vague and/or ambiguous; Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is based on the premise that State Farm predicates coverage on limits, restrictions, definitions, protocols, and other rubrics that lie outside the terms and conditions of the Policy. State Farm relies on a hidden and very narrow definition of what constitutes hail damage that is conveniently absent from the purported replacement cost policy sold and marketed by Nancy Holcomb Ins. Agency, Inc. While coverage should be based on the terms of the written policy, Defendants’ conduct in this case shows it is not. Subject to the foregoing objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5 Admit that the Policy specifies that \"We [State Farm] | have the right but are not obligated to perform the following: make inspections and surveys of the insured location at any time.\""}, {"d": 55, "p": 142, "t": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.5 Plaintiffs object to the Request as it seeks information equally or more accessible to Defendant. Plaintiffs further object to the extent this Request seeks to alter, abridge, amend, or change in any way the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy and Defendants’ obligations in advertising, procuring, selling, and/or renewing the same, Defendant State Farm’s obligations thereunder, Defendants’ underwriting duties/obligations, or the manner in which Defendant State Farm handles and pays claims based thereon. Moreover, Plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon Defendants’ representations and/or omissions of material facts of the Policy, coverage amounts, and any inspections that may take place. Subject to the foregoing objections, admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.6 Admit that under the Policy, State Farm is not obligated to perform an inspection on Your House at the time of contract or renewal of the Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 6 Plaintiffs object to the extent this Request seeks to alter, abridge, amend, or change in any way the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy and Defendants’ obligations in advertising, procuring, selling, and/or renewing the same, Defendant State Farm’s obligations thereunder, Defendants’ underwriting duties/obligations, or the manner in which Defendant State Farm handles and pays claims based thereon. Moreover, Plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon Defendants’ representations and/or omissions of material facts of the Policy, coverage amounts, and any inspections that may take place. Plaintiffs’ object to this Request as premature since the Policy’s terms regarding inspections may potentially conflict with State Farm’s own internal policies, procedures, underwriting guidelines, and/or other documents. Plaintiffs further object to the extent this Request compels them to draw a legal conclusion."}, {"d": 55, "p": 143, "t": "Subject to the foregoing objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 7 Admit that the cover page of the Policy states: \"Please read your policy carefully, especially ‘Losses Not Insured’ and all exclusions.” RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7 Plaintiffs object to the Request as it seeks information equally or more accessible to Defendant. Plaintiffs further object to the extent this Request seeks to alter, abridge, amend, or change in any way the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy and Defendants’ obligations in advertising, procuring, selling, and/or renewing the same, Defendant State Farm’s obligations thereunder, Defendants’ underwriting duties/obligations, or the manner in which Defendant State Farm handles and pays claims based thereon. Moreover, Plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon Defendants’ representations and/or omissions of material facts of the Policy, coverage amounts, losses not insured and all exclusions, which inherently precludes Plaintiffs’ review of the terms and conditions of the Policy. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is based on the premise that State Farm predicates coverage on limits, restrictions, definitions, protocols, and other rubrics that lie outside the terms and conditions of the Policy. State Farm relies on a hidden and very narrow definition of what constitutes hail damage that is conveniently absent from the purported replacement cost policy sold and marketed by Nancy Holcomb Ins. Agency, Inc. Subject to the foregoing objections, admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8 Admit that You read the Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8 Plaintiffs object because they are entitled to rely upon Defendants’ representations of the Policy, coverage amounts and the Policy’s terms therein, which inherently precludes Plaintiffs’ review of the terms and conditions of the Policy. Plaintiffs"}, {"d": 55, "p": 144, "t": "further object to the extent this Request assumes obligations on Plaintiffs that may not exist and/or may not be imposed by law. Subject to the foregoing objections, admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9 Admit that the Policy states the following under the section \"Losses Not Insured\": “wear, tear, marring, scratching, deterioration, inherent vice, latent defect or mechanical breakdown.” RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9 Plaintiffs object to the Request as it seeks information equally or more accessible to. Defendant. Plaintiffs further object to the extent this Request seeks to alter, abridge, amend, or change in any way the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy and Defendants’ obligations in advertising, procuring, selling, and/or renewing the same, Defendant State Farm’s obligations thereunder, Defendants’ underwriting duties/obligations, or the manner in which Defendant State Farm handles and pays claims based thereon. Moreover, Plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon Defendants’ representations and/or omissions of material facts of the Policy, coverage amounts, losses not insured and all exclusions, which inherently precludes Plaintiffs’ review of the terms and conditions of the Policy. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is based on the premise that State Farm predicates coverage on limits, restrictions, definitions, protocols, and other rubrics that lie outside the terms and conditions of the Policy. State Farm relies on a hidden and very narrow definition of what constitutes hail damage that is conveniently absent from the purported replacement cost policy sold and marketed by Nancy Holcomb Ins. Agency, Inc. Subject to the foregoing objections, admitted."}, {"d": 55, "p": 145, "t": "REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.10 Admit that the Policy states the following under the section \"Losses Not Insured\": \"defect, weakness, inadequacy, fault or unsoundness in ... design, specifications, workmanship, construction, grading, compaction.\" RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10 Plaintiffs object to the Request as it seeks information equally or more accessible to Defendant. Plaintiffs further object to the extent this Request seeks to alter, abridge, amend, or change in any way the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy and Defendants’ obligations in advertising, procuring, selling, and/or renewing the same, Defendant State Farm’s obligations thereunder, Defendants’ underwriting duties/obligations, or the manner in which Defendant State Farm handles and pays claims based thereon. Moreover, Plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon Defendants’ representations and/or omissions of material facts of the Policy, coverage amounts, losses not insured and all exclusions, which inherently precludes Plaintiffs’ review of the terms and conditions of the Policy. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is based on the premise that State Farm predicates coverage on limits, restrictions, definitions, protocols, and other rubrics that lie outside the terms and conditions of the Policy. State Farm relies on a hidden and very narrow definition of what constitutes hail damage that is conveniently absent from the purported replacement cost policy sold and, marketed by Nancy Holcomb Ins. Agency, Inc. Subject to the foregoing objections, admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11 = Admit that the deductible amount was $3,090 under the Policy during the policy period December 29, 2022 to December 29, 2023. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 11 Admitted."}, {"d": 55, "p": 146, "t": "REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12 Admit that the Policy states that State Farm \"will pay, subject to the specified policy limits, only that part of the amount of the loss that exceeds the deductible amount.\" RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12 Plaintiffs object to the Request as it seeks information equally or more accessible to Defendant. Plaintiffs further object to the extent this Request seeks to alter, abridge, amend, or change in any way the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy and Defendants’ obligations in advertising, procuring, selling, and/or renewing the same, Defendant State Farm’s obligations thereunder, Defendants’ underwriting duties/obligations, or the manner in which Defendant State Farm handles and pays claims based thereon. Moreover, Plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon Defendants’ representations and/or omissions of material facts of the Policy, coverage amounts and the deductible, which inherently precludes Plaintiffs’ review of the terms and conditions of the Policy. ' Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is based on the premise that State Farm predicates coverage on limits, restrictions, definitions, protocols, and other rubrics that lie outside the terms and conditions of the Policy. State Farm relies on a hidden and very narrow definition of what constitutes hail damage that is conveniently absent from the purported replacement cost policy sold and marketed by Nancy Holcomb Ins. Agency, Inc. State Farm also has a pattern of practice of intentionally manipulating its damage estimates to ensure the damage falls below the Policy deductible on wind and/or hail losses. Subject to the foregoing objections, admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13 Admit that You chose the company that performed the repairs on Your Property for damages related to the date of loss of June 15, 2023. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13 Admitted."}, {"d": 55, "p": 147, "t": "REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14 = Admit that Your Claim with the date of loss of June 15, 2023 was reported on July 28, 2023. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14 Plaintiffs object to the Request as it seeks information equally or more accessible to Defendant. Plaintiffs are without the recollection to admit this Request and therefore deny the same. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15 = Admit that You are not aware of any involvement by Haag Engineering in the handling of your Claim. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15 Plaintiffs object to Request for Admission No. 15 because it seeks a legal conclusion and imposes obligations upon Plaintiffs beyond the requirements of Oklahoma law and Oklahoma’s Discovery Code. Plaintiffs further object because this Request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work-product doctrine. Subject to the foregoing objections, denied. Respectfully submitted, /s John Sanders Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 Whitten Burrage 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage(@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com 10"}, {"d": 55, "p": 148, "t": "jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs ll"}, {"d": 55, "p": 149, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE [hereby certify that on October 17, 2025, the above and foregoing was emailed and/or mailed to: Timila S. Rother Paige A. Masters CROWE & DUNLEVY, PC Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com Attorneys for Defendant Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. /s John Sanders 12"}, {"d": 55, "p": 151, "t": "1004 jnterloi/Extarlor Appraisal Report of: 7 RAY Bilarcreek Delve, Poon Vatloy Sauls, Lawton, Comanche County, Osfalioma 73505 - 1004 APPRAISAL OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT: 7 NW Brjarcroek Dr Lot3, Block 20, Pecan Vallay South, Lawton, Conianche County, OK 73505 Cavdon, OK A 73505 FOR:. Arvast Bank PO Box 799 Lowell, AR 72745 AS OF: 121302025 BY: Torry Peak THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS « For GA: EXHIBIT WEST_000709 CS CamScanner"}, {"d": 55, "p": 152, "t": "Tain, 11230260200 No 8 Waal liven Repedy Adest 7 NW Usinicrook Or Chel Ip lode 73606 Sale OK Coty Comanche Lawion vay . Arveal Bank TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Page Lever of Feansnial cua a sates Surnmiary of Sakenl Feahyes Hate Caters Arto USPAP idedican al Comparable Photas 4-6 Location Map Uxensure \"1 natirtmnnneemninn nan iin enna iS 16 cin \"7 a a \" een ; Compasabl Prates 15 — are : Scanned Doconet Photograph Addenda semaine ay i men wnn Adésional Comparables 18 3 aon as sninntiinmninanescai eneeprenananaicpanuiuepuiesinerosiesncut aa cinvnperienneete: san imposing in vnane sramynsinninininininotnanan . s 4 reo sinensi . : . st 8 a . ppm maw . uni cinmitoereuiummetniswieecote noe 9 Foem TOCP3KS - \"TOTAL\" appeaital softwara by ala mods, be. $-800-ALAANIDE WEST_000710 CS CamScanner"}, {"d": 55, "p": 153, "t": "Ponk Appraisal Service LLC PO, Box 284 Elgin, OK 73538 12/30/2025 Avvesl Bank PO Bos 7199 ‘Lowell, AR 72745 Re:.Property: 7 NW Brlarcreek Or ‘Borrower, Lewin, OK 73505 Neil S Wes! FieNe: 11290250216 tn accordance wilh your request, wa have anpralsad the above teferanced property, The report of that appraisal Is allached. The purpose of this appralsal is 1a estimate the iriarkel value of the property described In this appraleal report, as lnproved, In unencumbered fea ‘sinipta title of awnership. TNs report is based on_a physical analysis of tha slle and Improvements, a locational analysis of tha neighborhood and dity, and an éconosile anialysis of ihe markat for propariias such as the subject. The appraisal was developed and the saporl Was prepared ln accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Tha vatie Conclusions reported ara as of the affective date stated In the body of the report and contingent upon the Cerlification and tmiting conditions attached, ithas been a pleasurg fo assist you, Please do not hesilate fo contact ma or any of my staff if wa can be af additional service to you. Tig, A Pak WEST_000711 cS CamScanner"}, {"d": 55, "p": 154, "t": "SALES PRICE wsSUBJECT INFORMATION SUMMARY OF SALIENT FEATURES # i= Seed Aue 7 NW Bildrcroak Of Lega Destipeen Lo} 3, Block 20, Pacan Valley South, Lawion, Comanche County, Oktahomd 73805 ty Laiton toy Comanche Sai OK Te Coe 73505 Census Trae 0023.05 May Relerence 30020 Sale Price $ Date of Sale Borrower Neit S Wes LenderChent Arvest Bank Size (Square Feel] 2404 Price pet Squye foot ‘ 3a Locator 8;Res: 2 Age ri) Condson cy Tolal Rooms 9 Bedrooms 4 Baths 30 Apgar Terry Peak Date of Appraiied Yabe 4200/2025 cd APPRAISER oe S z e & oo ia a ur wed a Fina Estinaig of Yaboe $ 340,000 Form S80 «TOTALS appvalsal sottware by a ba made, lng, - 1-B00-ALAMOOE WEST_000712 cS CamScanner"}, {"d": 55, "p": 155, "t": "Peak Appralsal Serica, (LG 71230250216 Fie # 11230250216 201 wail; sigperted, apvion of the mukel vaha of the subecl popesty, Tne Hapose of Nb suemhary agpeatsal iaped le to pvovile the Rerdlr/clent WBL ay decide, Sta OK FoCode 73505 ty Lawton Propaty Mauss 7 NW Briarcraek Dy Lowy Comancho Owner of Abie Record = Nell Wost & Lacy Wast Rosgwet Nell S West Lega Oesereées Lot 4, Glock 20, Pecan Valley Soulh, Lawton, Comanche County, Oklahoma 73805 RE Twe$ 3,285 YacYeu 2025 Q2NE9W-26-1-94900-020-0003 Uniform Residential Appraisal Report Assessor’y Parcel # 5 Helghborhood Hane Pecan Valay South Ed Property Rights Appraised D4 fea Sire Transction 3 Assignee type | fPuchase 20020 May Reference Tenant | Mea i ccopnt 3 own masts pdtor bo fe eflectvg date of this Js the subject property currenily olferedfor sale or has a been offered for ade h The twelve a0 yt ana | Yes 2 ie Ola Soces} owner of pnle eco? ithe papery seteribe Oats of Contixct 3 Coexxt Prive $ KM Yes agoasal? ole cova fer Sl reso fe aay oe Kv ve otic purchase Vso, Ela Bib ok aye re cea T As of 42/30/2025 and par Lavon MLS publications. Repart data soecets) used. oSetig pest anda), “(roa . La onmied. . : PO Box 799, Lowell, AR 72745 Adaess peme Foye | Leasehold |. | Other (desu) jon) Other {describe} fied Leneuliod = Arves) Bank : Census Test 0023.01 . IAS 0 Pi pu 0 _ eines charges, cal concessions, if or dovenpaymard assistance, tie, fo be pad by any patty on fan rce LF is Gee any [nancial assisla ue a Ye : bead of Be bonower? Fed W Yes, report the Natal dolar around and describe the hams lo Be paid, of nthe neighborhood are net sppealaal factors. Note: att 3:4 the Faclal compositio :: hegibohaed Charactariatics: : Property Vales i Sybaban DG Rust Biss Land Usa 4:2 One-Unk Housley] i Presaat 91% OreUal KE PRE Ses | j | Over Say | $00) | 1 Unde 25% HOomandSupoy { FSnotage «=X Ewe ase X over 9% fry hs) 24th 1% 10 45° 30 Muth Faerdy | Conmercied Otter 1% 25 S% lew High Ped. | Madeieg Tine inet ane i ]o6mu | Over maha 25 | Stie XX Sable: ey Growth |ipod ww | 495° z Reghbohood Boundvies = Due fo soap, subject property's boundarles ara NW Cache Raad fo the Noah, - 395 to fhe West. 3 442th Street to the East, SW Lee Boulevard fo lhe South, and NW Deyo Mission Road devia of dwaBings of mixed slze, Fa te gbortoed Deserpden Subject focated in Pecan Vatey South sddilton facated win te NYY tagion of Layton, OX and \\s compslaad Lawton Olfers most areca inciydiny Fort Sik Astitary Post, industry, Sows. commercial plated and pastoral, residential, mised slndas with af r aye, quaity, and condition County Area, both tha county $43 and the dominant economic basin for tha greater Comanche employment, shopping. dining, suvetal KAZ school systems, and serves'as credin subjects Market condtons at the srasund ied considered sable. Average damand.obse Martel Conditions finehxing suppod lee the adore Concussion) of ves scope, Steady moeigage Werest tated observed over past pormary <150 days fora property perio im scatened aN competirve ksting gvicoswactoveange by the 6 Of Bis apo sal and i a verd is indicaled | hava Included ihe br 3pprasal iA this ding data Vien B:Psti; Snipe Appears Rectangular Nez 25385 sf MN Omnensars 246x175 1452 175 dé, Makobesy bones the past 4 manths, | have on foes observed evar in interes! months wits a steady reducti Toring Desedption “No Zoning Specie Jong Cassticaiyn No Zoning i | Megat (desert) Zoning Compbaage iE Legal 1 | Legal Nencentonning (Grandiathared Use). 3K No Zovdng DR Yee 5 Ho Mo, desente wits existing d and specihtatovs) the peeserd use? pet plans fs the highest dnd best use of sudject property 38 troroved (or 3¢ propose present see asa single family fesidential dwelling. Its is property subject the for use best and highasl the market atid currant demand, Private : Pulls j-she lryeercements = Type bok Other (deserhe) bi Pubs Other (describe) Wifes x one Asphault Ff 2X YotatRetenilon lagoon Aly Grass FEMA Nap # 400310407 | } LB Ne describe. x Watet KE Mberey SardsySewt |} |an x aig ZoneX ives SC He HMA Mood Fes Spec od Hara rea Xt eee pie ete es oc SRR 5 V¥es WY es, deserts , encroachments, of any adverse site conditlons observed at time of apparent véth no No legal survey provkled al time of j we nd is)? cnn, Ree there any adverse te conditions of external f acters{ta i x FEU Mag ale 02/20/2009 inspection. \"T Entecor Deseriplon< mataralaoondtod biter: tule Unt | One with Accessory tints: SK Gee} Rie eT iene » be 1 Suh Lnbeidat $j Heated £1 Fetishes FA haplarces 3X Religertor SX AunguOeen 5X Disheasher 3py Meoaeases {special eoegy Ulead Kets, tte). 3.0. Bari} “Bedrooms 4 IP, $d Up Saree He appoecth Pad fry pp es es HOWY,Subgect @eakieg bachighish nian te trrovghnd, updated gana’ al & Par eerty a , Demy ited aed ihe cohen es est vad id bet se dons ut et diag : et ea ae Squve feel of Gross Unig wei dbavé Grade COUKitchensremodelad-one to ive years and CHA, trtanar eoryved of wpaled carpe Riau vinyl Plank .4P) foamy deg vera, d ptead ood 6 kiery vordaied tanteat ard wenn gon acy Cesk eck dont ay ng Won ra pla spptancny te cry ant drt ob UAO Version 2011 rend Ms is de Ye | EW Page Fors nseaensingn det dey sche’ vets 650 aby, soueeeass, Od sicura cgay ae popay? Dees Ba oer gesrnty corr oI ear (cStAy, sb, contin st, coshi)? Freddis Mac Forrn 70 Match 2005 Cc 2,484 4 PCa CHA, double paned vinyl windows, fireplace, and ceiling fans. eh EYz esc ine eucvdtionof Ut ptoperly (rcteieg macded agers, dete iayaion, (eno rab0ns, |penoton, ago,Ballvooms-updated timefran Sor sum ig DX X {Ped Nona |_| Ober 9X Dispos. ( pMcronsve | LWasheudeyee 9 Asons ryred Fhaished area above grade condalns: | Cue PK Pabadeek Cover K Pwr Coin t au Constanig§— Cong 3X Corne atin XX Gare PK Faeplacets} 4. 43K Fate Wood [fest Ehetie ‘| Oe 1 f Stars 6 Diop Sua = Concrete/Avg 1 }Wondstoreis}# © [OhewaySudace ead SX FWA |: | RBG |] | Radand [Anwrdits § sates Oivensy Screenvavg Screens [Oamoness if Seflement ElectsAge is) 40 Bah Waksett_ TielAvg ‘Cw Storage "}, {"d": 55, "p": 156, "t": "| Theteare ad Uniform Residential Appraisal Report —gompwale propetes conenily Ofeed fon sale the subject mbphorberd tangnd Thain at) compivable sues fh he subieed pelghborboce atlas the pasl inetve moves8 CPATAILE SIE #4 susacl Tae Aasess 7 NW Brlarcreak De Lowton, OK 73605 _. Prorinky to Speck TE NW Ashbury Way Lawton, OK 73505 ee Sule fake pice Me s hae 609 ETD TONPARASLE SNE ae $420,090 COMUNE aii Shadow Lake Rd Lavdon, OK 73505 0,30 miles SW. wan 196629 422, 80 Baka Source(s} CIYLastonMLS# 169474:D0M 65 [CruLnwtonMLSA 169 Verecabon Sarees) RonilstokcovityracaribyAgant —-[Raatisvakcount sus of Foanchg Arnall ‘| anntith : ennesslons VAO Gonv,D : 8;Res: Fea Simplo : B;Psti; DTLSRanch ; | 03 : YA UE ABNUSTIENTS POTRSCNPTDH Date of Satta Se Res: Feesinpla 425386 sf Res; = [Fao Simplo View Design hit} B.Pshk OThRanch B;Pstd:; — OT H:Ranch Ouatty of Constaxtion aQ3 etual at s10125;c0925 | : Was Abort Grade Room Coot : 03 9° 4°90) 753 Gross thing Arts Basetvant & Finished Ost adhd anl Reons Geiny Grate : funcboral UBly Conforming 24 jonas 8 Eeeigy Elficient kere FS GarageCarport JOP Windows SgaSdw Bed Paich Pata Desk CEROPUP lCP.CPUP 5 Feachg FP,Stonn Celus-Shite |WoodFP/Yes |WoodlFPYes cHA [OP Windows IgaSdw Ke iA Accusted Sale Paces tel AG, oH? Tid mod reseuih We sale oe Daas ion Ge soe | BPs DTtRanch : O3 ' 234os| 9,067 4K. Ost i ; CHA CHA DP Windows 2gasdw | : OP Windows +4000) IgaSdw - OWood/FP/Na CIPCPUP 62%; aril sprkle systm | Kitch Apetanee : f+ X- Ha Ad. 6248/8 § : : tit Hea. 9.1835 . | o Stro/spoklr syst : Kitch Apphance | 22d} are 334.608 GessAg opey AN COMI #1,000 55,968 oP,CIP,UP WoodlFPINo 9608, 8 i Conforming, | : Hy age Q Conforming tees Jeussas fsO3HZ5.c025 | |None Observed |Strg Bidgs Kitch Apptancie [Kitch Appliance | poy Net Aatustme (Total : 3,000] 8 2,728 fh Ost oe me 0128 : a | waler Tea! 9) § 44 : Conforming Heating Cooly & Other Features £4 Kitchen Agptaces 13,0 0 #16608) anys o2a672st 30 C3 Tota | Baas | Bats 2.3tt WR Ost SABER 00M a B;Res, [feeSimple 15506 sf 28 26. | C3 C3 Tou [Bor | tate Ft | Bees. 310 | Condbion crater fn at) $Adpsseed | DESCABTION | #)SAdtment | DESCRIPTION witset025 Lotation Leasehold fee Singte XM _[ ‘[aa nv Pecan Valley Of Lawton, OK 73505 Sala Price Gross Ub, Ants Mal 71230250210 = Sa ay0216 ty X- 43 < BIZ STE GosAG, 196%.§ $4,968 : 964,092 salts, MR expat Myreseatch 1 > did Se dd cet reveal any pro sales oc rnisiers of he abject property tor Wea Duce years prior to the elective de of Bis apprabsal, Data Seatce(s} Comanche County Records ; Myeesemth Q.G¢ | | Gd tol revedt any price sales or vanclets of be tempat gales ov the year patos toa date of sala of Ou comrparabte sale, Buia Seurefs} Comanche County Records. Report Bra resuls of the research and analysis of Die peiag sale o¢ Yanster heloty ott subjecl peaperty aed torpaadie saies 5 Kreporl adctional prior sales epee 3p. fe Date of Prt StieTranater Suaket ; COMPARABLE SIE WT ‘ov/1sr2028 Price of Price Sule/Traaster Data Source(s) Ettecine Date of Data Saercets} Analysis of prior sik Wanster Nstocy of the suet peapety and comparable sales the past 36 months prior lo the etfective date af tis appraisal report, Grantor, Templeton | \\ COMPARABLE SHE #2 : COMPARABLE SALE #3 $0 Comanche County Records. Comanche County Records |Comanche County Records {Comanche ‘County Records 92/30/2025 1243012025 112302025 120025 . to Granlee: T ploton. No apparent prior No apparent priot safes of wansters found for he subject property within Comparable #1 U iened for an urate: f on, 01/1872025 from sales/vansfers of the comparables used within this raporl found within the past 12 months price io hair most recent recorded sale, Sumonaryof Sales Comp aisen Approsth See additional comparables page 4-6, _ indicated Vabe by Sales Comparison Agproxch $$ indicated Vabat by: Sales : 340.0086 - Comparison Approach$ = 340,000 . . = All erophasis poor wpon salet compariven approach tovalen being mortrebsble dus to avga being p dat lacomne p 7 Fy scajocrs accrued depraciatiog, 3 Tis agpeasalls mage 3 completed, POP for punt Using talas gos Musk, . Cost Approach (hdeetloped) 8 : leccene Approach (Ifdeveloped) § anaodty Owner ned, insufficient data foundbo wd ot eco, proach subpets achial aga belng oulsida rang of naw coostudon costa, and deflcuty ls estimating jach i value, tha estinstod markat vaiua apinion of lho subject property “as is\" iu $940,000, 4 subject b cunpleton per glans and specifications on thy buss of a hypathetial conden Gul the frpreverents have been | {subject to the Kitowting reps or oterations ont Ua basis ol a hypotetea concdtion that bie repairs oc aterabong have been compiled, oc‘ é folowing sequied ispecdon based on the evtacidnay asvanpbon thal WM condiion of deficiency goss pol (equines wud OF lepa ° ixtiote >. o Based on s. complete visual Inspection of the Interior and aateriar arent of UM ¢ operty, defined scope of work, statement of assumptions and ining. . condisens, and pals cartheato, Udon,my (our} opinion of the market value, 8 nap of tha real property Unat is the subject of ta report fo ope $ 340.000, asof 12/30/2025 » which is the date ol Inspection and the altective date of hs appvalsal Freddie Mac Foun 70 March 2005 uA Vorsion 972011 Pago 206 Fannla Mae Form {004 March 2005 Fort 1O04UAD + “TOTAL* appraisal softwave by a fa mode, inc, - 1-800-ALAMOOE WEST_000714 cs CamScanner"}, {"d": 55, "p": 157, "t": "Uniform Residential Appraisal Report piee 11930250210 Apetsuat padovined a3 is, Fea senpla, sudace sights only, Subjert'e Ginn wean on and appeased io be in warkdng oxdar Al fend of trapection, NIENOED USER(S}OF THE ADTTUAISAL REPORT: of tid appr asal, andre. ax mt infated user hood Kalad witht Og reppoullp iba taba bonded Uéar of IN Fepeit, The apywaitar hd fol blanthad Any paechaser, borates 00 taker Tha forderic an appeaival for ree ftom an appewsatof that con chanslng W thay reqiese appraltal ant china la wtelgéd ach parked Such prrpota, any fog Appeaisal hte ai rely OF use soukd such party poise, Ary relerene W066 U8 OF VD Angeaeal tepoet by A purch att, borrowes or salt jos thal own purses, Iekifing witvnd Beaton lor he prurposet al a peopenty purchase dudslort ocd Inborded oF duiticntoad by tha appeotees, HO ADTUTIGHAL WIENDFD USERS ARE WENT: FeO 04 Bn agplaisel condlngency kt a PRECHRGS ngenmnand, 16 ol socd patty’ coe Fak seid BY THE APPRAISER, TIE use of Nas ANNRASAL fy Atvone OTHER THAN THE STATED INTERDED USER(S), 1S PAGE barter COMMENT: IITHOLD USE OF THE APPRMEAL REPORT: AS DEFINED IN THIS REPORT FOR THE THE PURPOSE OF THE APTUUSAL 1S TO ALSO PROVIVE AN OPINION OF MANKET VALUE OF THE SUBIECT PROPERTY nes 6 TO ASSIST THE CEHOERMLIENT NOTED LENDCIVCUENT AS NOTED ON TE REPORT AS THE INTENDED USER OF THE REPORT, FUNCTION OF THE APPRAISAL OF WORK, PURPOSE OF THE appraisal, MEROAT AN EVALUATING THE SUBJECT MOPENTY FOR MORTGAGE LENOING PURPOSES. SUBJECT TO THE STATED SCOPE AQU)TIONAL INTENGED USE ARE IDENTIFIED GY THE REPO ING REQUIREMENTS OF 11S APPRAISAL MEPONT FORY, ANG DEFINITION OF MARKET VALLE. HO a APPRAISER, THE USE OF THIS APPRAISAL NY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE STATED USES), 15 PROHINITED SCOPE OF WORK: PUBLICATIONS, THE PROCESS OF PRETARING THE APPRAISAL REPORT INVOLVED THE UTR IZATION OF PUDLIC AHO PRIVATE DATA SOURCES, MUL TILISTING SERVICE or LONAL ANG EXTERIOR OF THE DWELLING |. BM COUNTY ASSESSOR RECORDS, TOGETIG! WITH REAL TOUS, BUALDERS AND OTHEN APPRAISERS FORMATION, BOTH THE INTERIOR : WERE MACE OF THE MEASUREMENTS PHYSICAL APPRAISED, PROPERTY THE GHARAGTERIZE ADEQUATELY TO PHOTGGRAPHS SUFFICIENT F4 WERE VIENTO TARING THIS APPRAISAL Fag EXTERIOR OF THE ‘DWELLING, THESE MEASUMLEWENTS WERE USEO TO CALCULATE THE SQUARE FOQTAGE OF THE DIWELLING_AS USEO VATHIN THE a AEPORT, THE SUBALCT'S NEIGHBORHOOD WAS ALSO INSPECTED TO. ASSIST IN THE DETERUUNATION OF THE SUBJECTS NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS, HAVE BEEN INCLUDED Bad VALUATION OF THE SUOJECT PROPERTY B{CLUDED Tit SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, FIVE OF THE MOST PERTINENT COMPARABLE SALES RECONCILIATION SECTION OF | IN THE SALES FORMATION, BOTH PHYSICAL ANO FINANCIAL, HAS BEEN CONFIUMED [INOUGH THE ABOVE NAMEO SOURCES. SEE THE THIS REPORT CONCERNING THE CREDIGLITY OF BOTH THE COST AND NCOME APPROACHES TO VALUE, THIS APPRAISAL IS NOT A HOME INSPECTION as used 4 ins feport Is only an observation of the subject property and shoud no be Conversions aporairals 60 ni guarantee thal the property is hee trom defects. The tim inspection’ and reports” 0d does nol Ay ottservaAnipect tha onby “obsena3 cooked wit the teem ispacton au ia required by # professional hore napacho pad homa hupatton, The appiarsae Soakouy systema, of ceding sinucture, TNs & re wubjent’s elscirical systaens, phunbing syalems, machacical systems, HVAC systems, foundation system, floor siruchanm/subBioce, of the subject propertyfor mortgaga lervdng purposes tovy, benderteserd Deeds1 OCL69 HAL oat horpe inspections vai a quebted appraisal eslubishes a astinuted mathe! valle opiivon : inspetion ta sabdly Dremselves with the condition of tha proptdty, ONLY PERFORMED A VISUAL OBSEAVATION OF ALL. THIS APPRAISAL §S NOTA HONE INSPECTION AND THE. APPRAISER 1S NOT A HOME INSPECTOR, THIS APPRAISE PROCESS. 2HE APPRAISAL REPORT, CANHOT BE. EASILY VEWARLE UHOBSIRUCTED SURFACES OF THE DYYELLING ANO O10 NOY MOVE PERSONAL PROPERTY 10 THE BY THE APPRAISER AT TUME OF INSPECTION, REUED UPON TO DISCLOSE CONDITIONS ANQIOR OEFECTS W THE PROPERTY NOT ABLE TO BE VIEWED OR ACCESSED COST APPROACH TO VALUE (riot Fequized by Fannie May le information forthe headend to depiale the below cost Bgares and cakeavons,. sont forthe cae of sie value {surnmnary of comparable land sales o otter methods for esfeuating ste vate} DWELLING ; Eftecten date of cond dala FF& oy tate Som tost sence 4 Comments on Cost Aopraach (oss |fring wer cakeations, depiaciaton, ). = =$ Sah 2s : * =$ ___ a Eset. remaining economic fifa= SOF yasrs fRotal Estanata of Cost-Hew les Est. remaining physical Me = 60+ yoars Deprechtion a§ RR@S Guagutupot ; % Site value estimated la be $40,000 7 Las OPIN OF SITE VALUE: FAESTIAAIED | }-REPROOUCTONOA | | REPLACEMENT COST EW 3E§ Sourceof cos data See addenda page ina ilem 15. Ptyskal 55,188) |Fexctoat 3§ lestemal | = *agls' abe ol Ste ngronements =$ BY COST APPROACH 50) Yeus |IMOWATED VALUE BE (stevuted Remarizg Ecenorit Life PDD 26 VR cay) IICOME APPROACH TO VALUE (nol required by Fools Mae} Gross Rent Mubpler z Estrrated Monthy Hartel Rand §. 3 Suiematy of Income Approath Gecaing sion fer mpaatuel tend and GRMY peg : 5 Toba emxnber of wits sealed Ef as Na kcome approach completed dua to rwal subdivision being majorly ownar propertigg in sub ect propatly's immodiata markel area. | [Yes Unthpet) [ [No et Oitarhed 1. | Mtached the divdlogec butler ir conted et he HOA and on subject proptty an atached aheling unt, Provide the fofernag ifewaton fee PDS OMY Legal Hame of Project g ZTPROJECT HFORWATION FOR PDA gpk) Us the developetedider conte arr Hlameones' Asoclan | HOA}? pA Vola saber of phases «$ Tobe ated Value by ncowne Approach at otenital tends conluchve for inconte producing & occupled and InsuNclant data found identi y af Doprechated Cost el Anprotemerts Toda raxnbat of wits sol Toll number of ws Tota purer af vals tor sake etl reed ye canes of xing gl) oa PUD? Data souteels) £1 Yes | [Ro WYes, dale of conversion, ft EYes f | Mo Oala Swen. Fo] Does Bra project conta any mab dein"}, {"d": 55, "p": 158, "t": "sue Hisxoeta_ l Appraisal Report Unitorm Residentia tena ataa sppvalsal of a one-unit property of a one-unll unli. propotty an accessoryi Unt; This vopoit fowiy_ I$ dosignedta Lo Aspdit properly vewth lychvllng & ivi i a planndd Unt davetopment (PUD), This report form Is not designed to report an appraisal of a . Manulachied home or a unit in a condominium of cooperative prolecl, ; , . : . . tun This sppralsat repart ts subjocl fo thé following scope of work, bitended use, Intended user, definition of market valua, statement al assumalions pa Joking condilons, arid cortlfigations. Modifications, additions, of delellons to the intended | * Use, Inlended user, ation of markel value, oF assumpllons and lmiting conitons 37a not perminted, The appralser may gxpand tho scopa of work fo iickide any additonal rossach of analysis necessary based on the complexity of this appia sal i] assigtiment, Modifications of dakiions to the corliicaitons ate also not garritied, However, additonal certificallogs that do \"not constituta maierlal aterations fo is ‘appralsal report, such ag those required by law or those ratsted fo the appraiser's Continuky education or membeistip fis att spptdigal organfration, ate permilted, SCOPE QF WORK: thé scope of work fot its appalsal fs Uatined by Ihe complexityof this. appraisal assignment and tha Foparting requwenvenis of hs sppratsal report fori, tnckdiig the fotfowg definition of market value, stalement of assuniplions and fling conditlans, and covtlticalions, Tho appiaisar must, al 4 minimum: (1) perform a completa visual faspection of tha Intetior and antetlor ardas of the stibjact proparty, (2 inspect the neighborhood, (3) inspect each of the Comparable sales trait al least the steal, (4) tosedich, veilly, and analyzes dala trom rellable public and/or ptivate sources, aod {6} report his or hor ahalysis, opindons, and conclustons th thls appraisal report, INTENDEO.USE: Tha Inlended use of this sppraisal report ts for the fonder/cKent to svatualo the property Ihat Is the INTENOED USER; Tho Intended usor of this appraleal roport fs tho lended/ctent subject of ‘this appiatsal for a mortgage finance transaction. \"DEFINITIONOF MARKET VALUE: = The most probable price which a pfogerty : farkel dinder al conditions requisite to 3 fair sale, tha buyer and seller, should bring in a competiive and open each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuring ‘[ {h piice Is not aflected by undue stinudss, ftnpllclt ta this delintion ts the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing -of ile from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: ({} buyer and sellee are typically (2} both pariles. are well infoimad of Well advised, and each acting In whal ha ot she considers his of het own:motivated: best interest: a Teasonable lime is alowed for exposure Ir the open market, (4) payment is made tn lems of cash. in Ul. §, dotiacs av (3)in terms 4 of Mnancial arrangements comparable thereto; and (5) the price “unaffected by speciat or create -financing or sales conceastons* | ‘Adjustments to the comparables must be mada {necessary for hose costs which are ‘normally paid fepresents the nomial consideration for lb’ property granted by anyone associated with the sale, sold for special or create Minancing of sales concesstons, No adjustments are by of Wadition of law in a markel area; these costs are sellers as a result teadily Wentifiable since the selley pays these costs’ in wieualy al sales transactions, Special gr ceeallve financing adjustments can be made to the comparable Property by comparisons ta financing terms ‘ottered by a tNrd party institutional lender thal. 1s not aeady lavoled in the property or tiansacllon. Any adjustment should nol be cakulaed on a mechanical Hollar for do¥ar cost ol the financing or concession but ihe dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate ‘the markat's feaclion to the financing. of concesslons based Gn the appraiser's, judgment. STATEMENT-OF ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: subject to the and following. assumptions iimiing he appraiser's certification fh this report is conditions: 1, The appraiser wil fiot bo sesponsible for matters of a legal fature that affect efher the property being appraised of ihe tite fo It; except for information that he or she became aware of during the research involved in performing ‘this appraisal. The appraiser assumes that the ta Is good and mavkalable and wil not cander any opinions about the Elle. | 2, Tha appraiser has provided a sketch in this appraisal report to show the approximate dimensi at ihe imp The siatch 1s included onty to assist tne reader in visualizing the property and understanding the appraiser's detenninaton fof ts ‘glia, / ° 3. The appraiser -has examined ihe avaitable flood maps tnat are provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency > (ot other data sources) and has noted ia thls appraisal repo whether any portion of the subject site Is located in an ~ Idemified ‘Speciai Flood Hazard Area. Gecause the appraiser is nol a surveyor, be or she makes no guarantees, express ‘or + Wmpiled, regarding «this determination. . A, The: appraiser will not give testimony ov appear in. court because he of she midde an appraisal of the property in question, Unless speciiic arrangements {9 do so have been mado cbelorehand, or as otherwise required by lew. 5. The appraiser thas noted In this appralsal report any adverse conditions (such: as’ needed sepals, deterioration, the presence of hazardous wastes, foxle subslances, etc.) observed during the inspection of tne subject property or that he of She became aware of during the esearch involved In partorming the appeaisal. Unless otherwise stated ln this appraisal feporl, the appraiser has na knowkdge of any hidden or pparent physical deficlencles or adverse conditions of the property (such as, buf not Imited fo, needed repairs, deterloralion, the presence of hazardous wastes, lade subslances, adverse sriviconmental canditions, etc,) thal wo"}, {"d": 55, "p": 159, "t": "Uniform Residential Appraisal Report APPRAISER’S CERTIFICATION: nis Tas0nst246 The Appraiser certifies and aqrass thal: 44 Uhavo, at a minimum, davelopad and reported thls appraisal [n accordance wilh ths scope of work sooufremenls stated: In sppralsat Unls report. . % 1 podormed & comipteté visual Inspection of tho intorlor and exlorlor areas of tha subject property, 1 feported tho concitlon “ot the Improvements i factual, specie (arms, 1 fdaniiied and tenatted the physical defictencles that could affect the Wvabilly, soundness, of sltuctural lilegily of the property. 2.9. 1 performed this apptalsal ini accerdanca wilt the requirements of the Untorm Standatds of Professional Appraisal Standads oPractice thal were adopted and prontulgated by the Appraisal “phice al tha timo this appraisal toport was piepared. L--4 Board of The Appraisal Foundation ahd that i were U developed my opision of ihe market value of tha real property that Is the subject of tMs report based on the sales approach \" comparison approach to value, | have adequate compatable market dita lo develap a ‘ellable sales comparison’ [: for-this: apptalsal assignment. | furthor ceriify that 1 considered tho cost and Income approaches to vake but did not develop. - {hen Unless otherwiso indicated in thts ‘eport, | -8. 1 researched, veritod, analyzed, and reported oa any current agreement for saka for the subject poperty, any offering for | gale of tha subject property in tia welva months pdor to tha offectiva date of this appraisal, and the -pifor salaz of the -subject property for a rviniewwm of thes years prior to tha ‘eifectve dala of this appraisal, unless othenvise indicated In this report. © 8, LE researched, verified, analyzed, and reported on the peor ‘Sales of te comparable sales for a minimum of one year pifor to lhe date of sata of ths comparable “7, EF selected and used comparable sala, unless otherwise Indicated In this report, sales thal are localionaly, physically, and Auncllonatly the most similar to the subject property. - 8. E have not used. comparable sales that were the resul of combining a land gale with the contract purchase price of a home that - has been bulk or wil be bul on the land, - 9. .E avd reported adjustments lo the -comparabie sales that reflect the muarkel’s sfeaction lo tha differences _ property and the comparable sales. between the subject 10, § verified, from a disinterested source, al Informalian fa ibis teport that was provided by parilas who have a financial Interest ia » the sate or linancing of the subject property. 1. ¢ have knowledge and experfence. In. appraising this typa of property In this market area. 12. 1 am aware of, and have access fo, the necessary and appropriale puble and petvale data sowces, sucti a3 multigle [isting Services, tax assessment records, public land records and other such dala sources for the area in which the propery Is. located, 13. ( oblained the: information, estimates, end opinions funvshed by other patties and expressed In this appraisal repo ve¥abla. sources thal. belave to ba tue and from costect. 14. | have taken [nto consideration the factors. thal have an Impact on value wth. fespect to the sodject neighborhood, sublect property, and the proximay of the subject properly fo adverse Infuences in thé development of my opinion of market value. f ““have noted in thls appraisal report any adverse conditions: (such as, bul not Fmited 0, needed repairs, detaslorallon, Ue : prasence of hazardous wastes, tox substances, adverse enyiconmental conditions, etc.) observed during ihe inspection of the © Subject propeny or thal | became aware of during the reseatch Involved In perlorming thls appraisal. | have tdered these adverse conditions in my analysis of the property valua, and have reported on the effect of the conditions of lhe value and - Markelabiily of the subject property, ».15, — have not Knowingly withheld any significant faformation fom this appraisal report and, lo the best of my knowledge, ‘ glatements and loformation in this appralsal report ate true and cosecl. all 18, { slated in this appralsal report my own personal, unblased, and professional analysis, opinions, and concluslons, which _ are subjéct only lo the assumptions and limiting conditions in this appralsal: report. 17. [| have no present of prospective Interest in the property that Js the subject of this report, and | have na present or prospective pessonal interes of blag with respecl fo the pariiclpanis inthe tansaction, 1 did sol base, elher partially or completely, my analysis and/or opinion of market value in thts appraisal yoport on tha race, color, teligion, sex, age, marital status, handicap, famillal status, .or national origin of sther the prospective owners or occupants of the subject property ar of tha present owners dr occupants af lhe proparties in the viclnity of the subject property of on any other basls prohibited by faw. “18. My employment ark/or Compansation for parforming INs appraisal or any futwe or anticipated appraisals was not conditioned on any agreement of understanding, written oF otherwise, that 1 would report (or present analysis supporting} a predetermined specific value, a predetermined minimum yvalua, a fange of dieclion in value, a value thal favors the cause of . aDY party, or the, attalament of a specllic sosull ot occurrence of a specific subsequent event (such as approval of a pending _ mortgage loan application}, “249. 4 personally preparedaf conclusions and opinions about the real estate that wera set lonh in this appraisal report Wt > telied on significant real property appraisal assistance trom any lndWiduat of dividuals In the performance of Us appraisal \"of the preparation of this appraisal report, | have named such Indivkluai(s} and disclosed the specific tasks performed in this appraisal report, | certify that any Indbidual so pamed Is gualifled fo perform thé tasks. | haye not authorized anyone to make a change to any ttem in this ‘appra"}, {"d": 55, "p": 160, "t": "BS ae Report __ Appraisal ial Uniform Resident _ 11230250216 rw rragozsozso_ 21, The lnderclonl may lactose or dstibuie. this appralsat report to: the -honrowes; another fendar at te borrowar; the mortgagee of Ke successors and assigns; movigay Insurers; government sponsored enterprises, depstmont, secondary smnikel pailicpants; dala collocilon’ or. foparling services; professtonal appraisal organtzations: e athaut having 10 agency, of fnstnimentaiay of the United States: and any slate, tho Distelet of Gokmbla,or other faistictionsi this appraisal abisiv tho appratser's or supervisory. appratser's {it spiteabk) consent, Such consent must be obtained before Ms voile typott niay ba diselosad or -distibuted to any otter pany (including, bul not mite fo, the publte through advertising, puoi’ \" Jolallons, ews, sabos, or olhor media}, 22, | am aware that any disclosure of eisuibutloni of this appfatedl repott by mie or tho lendar/cllent may be subject {0 eat - laws and. ipgutatlons, Farther, | ant also subject to. the piovistons of the Unitoim Standaids of Professional Appralsal Praclee: that pertain to disclosura ‘or distsibullon by nt, ; 23, The betsowar, another leader at the request of tha berawar, iho mortgages of Ns successors and sssipas, inortgage + sures, govommeal: sponsomed. anteypilses, aid other secondary market parilelpants may iely on this appraisal report aa pa P Of. any mortgage finance transaction thal kivolves any one of more ef these parties, _ 24, NH ibls appralsal repot was transmiled as an \"oloctionte tecotd* contaloing my \"electrons signatute* 38 thosa terms ae defined In applicadla federal andor sale laws (excluding auidlo and video fecordings), of @ lacsimtis [ransmisston -ot ‘Us appraisal report. conlainhig a copy or tepresentation of my signature, the appralsal zepod shall he as effective, enforceable aad; paper varslon valid as Wa my appraisal caport wero dattvered cantalning of ils original hand : : writlen signatuie, 25. Any intentional or negligent misrepresentation(s) contained i this appraisal report may tesut In chil Mabeity and/or a ctiminal: penatles Inchediig, but not Amited to, fine of Impdsoament or both under the provdstons of Tilo 18, Untied States” Code, Section 1001, cf seq, or similar state faws. SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: The Supervisory Appraiser certifies and. agrass that 11 diwetly supervised: the appratsey for this appralsal assignment, have. read the appratsal. report, and agsee with the. appraiser's analysis, opinions, statements, cancluslons, and ihe appraiser's certification. 2, a¢éepl full responsibilty for the contonls of this appraisal report inching, but-nok ited: to, the appralse’s analy, opinions, | statements, conchisions, and the appralser’s certikathn, . ; 4 The appraiser Wentifed inthis appraisal report [s either aeub-coniraclor of an employee of ihe supervisory appraiser (or the appralsal firm}, 1s quaktied to paitormn this appraisal, and is acceptable to perform this appraisal under the applicable slate Law, 4. This appraisal report complies with, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appralsal: Practice thal were adopted and Promulgated by the Appraisal Standards feporl: was 5...H1 ths prepared, appraisal fepen was Boatd of The Appraisal Foundation and that were in place at tha time this appraisal Uansmitted as an “electronic mcord\" Conlalning my “eléctionic slqnature’ as those tens are defined i applicable federal and/or slate laws {excluding audio and video recordings), or a facsimile transmission. of tvs appralsal seport containing a copy or sepresehtation of my signature, the appralsal report shal be as effective, enforceable and vakd as i a paper version of INs appraisal feporl wete defveced containing my orignal hand written signature. nn ay Peak Fi » |. Signature, Name TemyPeak AAS tH, | Shgnature C/ “Gorpany Name Peak Appraisal Service LLC a Telephone Number Elgin, OK 73538 (580) 678-4996... “Company Address SUPEAPPRAISER RVIS {ONLYORY IF REQUIRED) Name . PO Box 281 Company Name Company Address Telephone Number Emailaddeess tpask@idsnel Date of Signature and Repo = 04/04/2026. “Effective Dale ofAppraisal = 2/30/2028... | Stata Certification # = (2776CRA. Loe. \"| or State License# . —_ or Oiher (describe) Slate # Email Address Dateaf Signature State Certification # or State License # State a Expiration Date of Certification or License a a, ; oo Sao OK SUBJECT PROPERTY 9273412026 Expiration Date of Cevtiicallon or License AODRESSOF PROPERTY APPRAISED TNW Brarcteek Dy { | Bid not inspect subject property : Lavon, OK 73505 APPRAISED VALUE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. LENGERCLIENT Naine NoAMG CompanyName — Anvaé{ Bank ee, Company Address PO. Box 799, Lowell, AR 72745 Co, bes f } DW inspect exterior of subfect property from street Dateef nspecten 340,000 — coe .. Date of nepecton. COMPARABLE SALES . | { Did not inspect extertor of Comparable sales (rom street |} Did Inspact extadorof comparable sales trom street Email Addeess 2008 ‘Freddie Mac Form 70March _ | | Did inspect intettor and exterior af subject property Date of Inspection «=ss(“(été«tUA erston G/2011 Page Bot Mise form: 1004 March 2005 “Fannle Form TOCHUAD - \"TOTAL! appraisal sotwart by 2a mod, ie, - 1-800-ALAMOOE WEST_000718 CS CamScanner"}, {"d": 55, "p": 161, "t": "_ FEATURE [_ Suneer 7 NW Bilorcreek Dr Lavon, OK 73505 Adhess Proviriy to Sabet 14230250216 Uniform Residential Appraisal Report. COMPARABLE SALE # 4 O NW Millcroek Rd Lawton, OK 73568 Flle# 71230250216 COMPARROLE SALE # § 104 Witson Ln Lavon, OK 73505 : \" COHPARSRLE SALE # & 0.10 miles E Sea hike Sale Pace'Gioss Iv. Arta : Das Souicels} 88] West atod Scurce(s} VALUE ADAISTEHTS wh £691 CR/LawlonMLSW 168486,00M22 i, recotds/Agant | RaallsVokcauntyrecords/Agent® fey SAMustnen | DESCRPEON | 44) SAdininent | DESCRIPTION 5 +() $ Adsiment DESCRIPTION : Aumtth Armtth Concessions Conv,0 Cony0 j Bate of Sake Tine 809/28;c07/25 806/25;.04125 i Location B:Res; BiRes; i Subs o¢ rarely Leasebalgfer Sirgie id Sée Foe Simpla 425355 sf & hae PY design (SHR) éod Guaity ol Consrxton F Actual Age Fy Condition FA Above Cuode [Fea Simpla 20609 sf -ABSPstd. 8/Pstel; 3 fea Os at ‘fessinot 26136 sf BP sth }DTHRaneh — |DTS,Ranch Fes Py Ronen Cod Goss thing Nea 2 AB ah fa. On Ost 10st Heving teeing |eHA Conloining | Canforming Eneigy Lnfcnnd Beans lop windows JDP Windows ae Tota (Barns, | Bus SHR, Conforming CHA |. PochPaOD x jermeruo I Feocieg Pion CelarShetet |WooWFP/Ves {Wood FPINO OP Windows. 3gaddw. | OCR. UP Q|WoodiEP ives | . MY ELS RaAg 7% GressAG. 77K . Sad yo. Osprinkler system) Kitch AppSanca ; _ {Mone Observed Straspnide syst [Kitch Appflance }. tie Adjeshneit Tota) Aagasted Sate Pece of Compaabies ; Ost a Jgaddw Ober Feabees Kachen Apglances 400, 26975 8 | 4 124 42,000 42044el, 2,765.40; CHA Guagelapot, oad oO _ _|o3 - Tat | ema. | a . nam ah bil fasimend & Fuisted fioomgReowGrde Feachorat ity DT{Ranch ; c3 val tis ha Pe)wae i i a ee gaa, Cit K- F WtAG. 63%: SizAdelOrss hs. 67%1S ho. a7 fie bie s Hel Ady al HS: ———ag.ngaiGessag . Repor the resus of the tesearch ad anatysts of Wie prior sale or bansles History of the susjecl procerty2nd compara Sales (report additonal proy gales on $996 3). SALE # §: COMPARABLE SLE # § | COMPARABLE COMPARABLESALE? $ | \" SuaiteT [ i a [Comanche County Records |Comancha County Records: [Comanche County Records ; | _ frasorzezs. 1203002025 Ha302028, i ag hastery Ot ie inter progany and compara ses ee Ho apparent prior sales o¢ transfers (ound far the Subject property vithin amount on | 0171822025 from Fine pai 36 months ‘pilor.ta the affecilve dale ol this appralgal repent. Compatabs #4 uaostered for an undetermined © Templeton. No. apparent prior alestranstesters of the penparables used withia Ihis report found within ihe past 12 moniths |prior to thelr most recent recorded sale, AoaySiSCOCENENS vary bated sate Whe papeaes lie compara Dott hand win antec ap, hte a4 piasd Jot thes aesg wtptr panl h mervdns cePanengHore of Or iocatanifecrtiodary tte vale, oneieeas rat abit. Pisa Valey Su, a sree vated siete Ih foc b fernando ented nha Pecan Vabey Sout of tial temperate Sel: ober to Jeti Baim Minbatd we rs $4, tec Wchan Pu sbpects baabed og cosh ae corti a hte or W195 hits aah aa tht, Pn Sanka, bond ae a Pe ae. cate on Xe ey. a EA sccmstipat der, sol propery nbsesn bt nein, in nao pb A iripecort, Sagact probate parent ular Bcabun prea tg Hippy np ore, ig Wesaes rind ite ued Dish bedrpire ae bsibvoden bived, Bid ducers ie organ ote Fe aby etme fy tte wade, ned, ese ated ab bineidertd Kirwtat be Inland 8 cat Morag, a een, Pecan Vobey Sat, bo 60 9, een ena ha rihaty hei vale, Coesey Yay, bev da lly, dion, eet orb thy beachedDie subjects tevshed rt, a ie iin efor Ne af Bad cra rest. Cicloec opicrates ‘ntied $380 5 aioli wa te tpn ge bs bra ron, bern crf ete past 12 mci enivtedGata telat of Lamon IES pubbcakene i Ihe pet V0 menines wey 4 of the X nai y ake yoke, Svsigerstyte, quadly, condi, and ear orageto nial of the Bbjed, Sing tyne 6 whem df baled etn Se feerpa ing matal area St 8 propery af senda youpe, Comparsbie J dedrocra are! beaches 4 subject Mihi fg 49 On pita and, cond mag Cane I bed ti Pte ei i etn dcr spy beeey] area on tre qeeater axel, Ib GacsnderndWares i oh, aed iorant sirrehatir) Capp epe(rowe ita reg ste wipe Compan 9 ld sain Sor eed a Coun Rare mbps render at ated tdi inp,. og data tad ain bbc eden : Reh, Ooms senso, fs ole being av ud on De beaead and, 4 coccerderid FereY bi baitrcor nasser om , rsd asap page Mache’ fathet alan antde bin ro pert “Or Lane tsa a tor scaed tard fo 9h6 ail, wal, and navel of re suajecd penarty ty racdhcsard PDorwatons Sollechedot tne oF rapactont fa gupend whee? OF noltne sented racart ny Fac Wipes os Ye mdjacte oratod macelabiy wd vita See Asta Payee hin comma r Fieddie Mac Form 70 March 2005 srg Crh Snare ne Sols Campane Apprseh respond baedares, warn dy sanergn, wn voang catchers stowed mh Bs, , “YAD Version 92081 |” Fannie Maa Form 1004 March 2005 Form {004UAD,(AC) = \"TOTAL! apgiaisal sotteare by as mode, ine. « 1-80: ALAMOOE 1) CamScanner"}, {"d": 55, "p": 162, "t": "Supplomental [er Repel ADL Neit § West 7 NW Dancteeh Dr Lend Cleat Arvest Bank . . pat Sue OK Leaty Comanche Lanton oh fiw th, 11230250210 Addendum 73505 Salve Compéiiens Approath Reconeliiation: Roth the ne yhberbool boundastea and vows at keniied wiih tegort ae consaix ed te prof sons open of Be ap raw “, dl based on hah Bot se of of skégle ats doen foc If af deackors constit i pe Subject property's eau stews howater, covenanls 60 & manutd sn aru popertiyth avdganvont he feom 28 fo 1,25 acres, Zong a nok erforcéd rough oa Cy of Levon at time of Inspection: Here ies on platted sos ranging wh ca. pti bv ical Ae sbi bo he suit propor 8 ie of Rap cee ., Subject sucrounsing vrs £0 @ mij fo ihe Fors subi thorcughtvn, NW Ciche Road. bo te nor, Fork Sk Boer Zane fo Whe nevth, aeolher mifol oairaythoreughlare, US Higtaay62, iothenonh, ados pate rehodlla the HE, Gondyens Tio Phunk to Hie SE, and vacanl lal a tho exit, souk, ond wasl with oat compaling shale lenny daoftegs and adcihonsinutd Jaatasions seved Oba ty of tha hudiecd gropesty, No appacdat negates lohuences Mlontted to ths subject property's martel arta at Gna of inspection, inn’ aiatle with dubjacté sree wih fio apparent negative intueees Kieniifed wihin the subjetl property's marbel Le sn bac are cot Sadtings conshdoced DION A ped Neighborhood Despsiption~ Subfecl preyerty i located it the toxbl subahtslon, Heals Vatey Soidh, loeated within thé NY ragion of Littlon, OK anid is otated io he Cacho School OisireL Subjects area routtiy comprised of stoviey | + 2 slocy marcery deahigat inp foot kes 18 £800 ~ 3.500 gross Hing ati, #e0h mized actoal ages ranging Horr 10-90 peare Bf ng O& Nah shrdse nied Fesiteaval, pastoral; ciel soine Holatad conmnerelat vlows, Subgeetd pred had been a viatée adton for the Parl 302 poara, Ezplaymect cattery are consented a shored dkiid Peiial the gagecl property, cen sepa Iseaenet Giurgatble with ta#4 aeevion ood arc Hav ices Should havo @ remaining econends Ma of 304 poass, Modi dwetnyt id der nonin, mvdal ¢ vila wath soma isolated’ ijeilly Hg] conslaced WAnOUs Ongloet of undhierytonindning, Lond 144 wand dutyoct's suvhal wan cotraatt shaes halo’ bhenited ont re oh es RAR, Subbect’s ie seighl Trnutl-int preipevties Mantited both inakte and just opts tha severe octofs thas wocdl alteict stants Incheding chine dahages fo bathe sarvices, einploysrent, shopplag, ing, arid xqvacal K(2 school systems wth | owton Serving 48 Desh Mie county saat and tha major ecaniem#ercounmmstd basin hoc tha geantae ore County was, fori $4 Arttery Posts consideced Ove a0ny fenployetioqconwnte factor fir the gronlot Contanche Coun ices Eriphayment stably Is ronsbdored average vehi ne polental stgmalulny tickers Weaotifed fa subject tsaihot's anyieymeal al tino:po ot Manat, keerVes sudjacts cut oun Wi tonskigied avorage and hates steilat factors and Butages be hatte sarvicas as free competiiyy pure ny _Lomparable Properties ‘ “Comparable#1 Ut: OIE aS Adusted Sales. Price oo ‘ “334608 Comparable #2 Comparable#3 o25 0.20. - Comparable#4 Comparables ff RW Lavtan and Cache area. 342576 364032 f5 = | 342446 0.45 389024 eee ae nee 7 683536 os esses 0 ome 39823 Contin to carn at ald win png Weed Ain Tran, wat at ied yar eg aa ot Seviar scope al tina of Inspecton, the éstimated maital value opinion of the subyect propesty “ae ln\" fs $340,000 (rounded). ‘The adyutted sales brackat fa considered A delenailo valun astenate of $340,006 in “as la” coeyntion of 136 SASF adie wath the Una peice rare prasdnied i tha sales exnpivivon approach art aber sales eocondedl ards cape vitin he Wtjcts ashe en ‘Ueing Lawton MLS puliée $3565 Used a8 considered Ina most recent, comparadin sales foured wethin oe subject's rmeate wd competing market area wid sales used wai: Ya pert rd Amer market ince b foe ‘he subject's lnmedialeoonpating mariel anes for a property df abrvly tenpa. Athough a abe eooorys gibrate? caper voke ognitn ke anocncs hore De safes range for the: subject's knmedate and competing markotl araa for sales recorded aves te paal (2 months hom the effective date cf this appraisal, subject plopacty11 not contidered avecbuil Jor Whe arta wihDe apparent negauve aTects dotecled 30 he subjects Qverad marketadiAty at time of hspiection, Other Sales observadireconded eves Ihe past 12 - 24 montha wiinn ihe subjects market area of simiar scape, Giving condiderston Jo a factors thal Sand bo infizence aed Create valve, 134, the opinion of iho appraiser tha} Ihe estimated marhal valve opinion of the subject property “as 16” ie $340,000, Reconcifation setton an ry better at pear ae ot & of the URAA (continued): Ad ecnpbaais pUced upon sales tot on cls coeny aaa Nie vatoe b ot cael Da setadia dua to aiea being predoriinanty owner occupied and salts whadiound considered ends bss wnedoldvoneiog nad west a pay oe ape. teone appcoach deemed urvekabia and aot developed dus fo the dueling being ounet fed al tneof h ae anh sales sample found af comparable dwelbags salting wihin subject's$ invmediate/onnpaiing mayhel area ovat Ue past 12 marine speciicaly for pantal purposes fy order to extebbNh & mote cresOis gets teal muatipter for a peoperty of this scope. Cost approach deamed unvelable nd nol devaloped dus la tha subjects actual age age being outside 7196 of new construction 0 value only, he sstrated martel abe casts and diticisly in estimating the subject's accrued depreciation at Hn of analysis, Udog sales comparlion approach opinion of the subject propirty “as 14° it $340,000, Addenda: 4, Convantional appraisals do not quarantén that fw proparty fs ieee korn defects. The term \"eigpection” a vad nh oportia oly a obaaraton of 8 subyect ony obsenven and ‘Tha aopeaitar and hae in peckor progeny and sad ol be caved wh tar epactn a4 resend 6 mechankcal aystims, HVAC systems, bundasion aytiem, foo sceical systems, plumbing syslems, te sects vapors\" ane gore rot hy pysterns, of eating shuciure, Thin appralia estates an atvoaied mara vale oon of te subject propery ida"}, {"d": 55, "p": 163, "t": "RRCAA TMs Boones ied Neil S West TNW Bitarcraak Or Lawton LendesOhert_ Arvest Bank P bled to 8 Keni Hep c rem Peoteastinal _ fies, 74230250216 _ _ Supplemental Addandum 3. EXTIMONDINARY ASSUMPTION: Tha Uniera San funds of Sealy AES > ha Site OK Comane Aps Pinch aig on stinninary epee Word a be false, could eles ha appraiser's opevans af conchtont, EE Dpto 73505 apton a8 flows:#0 po 4 La aed a pibrytkin, legal, GF ¢conamic tharstlesics of Ihe y of aboul cotton itt smachel condtions oF kionds, ot boul ha legrty of Geld use nan anaes, micro a sce ope pr 4. EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTION THAT ALL HIFORMATION PRGYIDED BY LARYTON MLS PUBLICATIONS, COMANCHE COUNTY RECORDS, LANTON CITY JOLL, REALIST, DATASCOUT, OKCOUNTYTECONGS, COM, DEO, £18 TiN0 AGENTS JDEHTIFIED WiffiNt THIS REPORY, AHO HE SUBHECT PROPERTY OWNER IN REGARDS TO ROTH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S AND TIIE COMPARABLES USEO PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS, AS WELL AS, SALESAIS1ING INFORMATION WAS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE AT TIME OF INSPEGTION, AM EXTRAGRDAARY ASSUMPTION IS AN ASSUMPTION DIRECTLY RELATED 10A SPECIFIC ASSIONMENT, WHICH, IF FOUND TO GE FALSE, COULO ALTER THE APPRAISERS'S OPSYIONS OF GOFCLUSIONS. 8. With malating market and cursed demand, Ih be appraiser's aligle farrily co Odenilal dating ste for tie folowing tesions: pr profaaslonial opinion ihiat thy highest and beat use for the gubjact property i ds potent use a6 spesian Highest return to the land: Residential dwetys idarnd peadominant wile ye sublect’s kne : orate ty tesaible: Reshtental dvelings are bu non caren a.c oe heed and ho nateat eget Legally permtssibie: He lec} rosing énforcnd, Covenants da exist fey the subject's subdiviaites, Hive Subject pai ania and proce he grist monetary robe J POD anion farictey Phyricaly possible: - Subjects ste is cocaklered heel, has acca.ad fo both pubic and palvate ulithes considered lypicat for the sdieed’s markel aed, and may aecorrenodeie a ratidental ceviling, Accocuing lo the City of lawton, pute saver was pod avakabia to The subjects rural subdtayion ax Uma of ritpecton, According 10 the City of Lawton, aidjact propedy dons not have access to cty sewer with bial taleron lagoon sytlemns considered typical waste rerroval syslems for the subject's jure sbbslerdmackot are, No apparent negative murketabitly ianited widdin subject marke sen pf Kane of nipectior for being connected fo 3 fotal retention fagoon system, fax thomatehs .s Tha appraisal lx axed upon thete ave ne Ndén, unappacerd Gv apparent condone oh property se, swbtod, steuctures, OF oxic maleals, edhich woud sander 2 more of nia valuable, Ko yy it for any buch los Or for any a pedlee oF angina st bo deacovar Ihem, Ad mechanical components te ted lobe opel craton an slain vandrts bx popes ob etiea hp Condalons of he steg, coogeg, reniluion, elecidcal, wed purring me bb Ns undess clharwibe atelad, No poy may be made by Ih appracer 23 bq the adequacy of intlaton, pr ol InsulaGon:; or energy’ etfigency of Ue knprovements of equipment whith Is assumed slandard bor Ihe sub{ecl age and type, t Utena otherwins staied In iN rapoi, he winlenca of hexardoir alviat, whlch ity o mayb be prevent on tha dec property, waa fol obsecved by the The ap ied 1 Hoch) material on o¢ in pe the a ‘Tht appraiter is nol quaifed fo detect such subtiances. Te pretence ol wubslances such js asberios, ates horns if ponentily MEaidoun malerial sey affect Ihe value of tha Sudject property, The value opanion bs predicalnd on the aairmotdanary apt f tn Wiis ald, Wassumed bor any tuck 8), fear foe ary bxpertina oF ¢f cng kremtaciye reculend tg descover euch. ‘The chant s ued bs retain | export deve, 8. No nc i han gang yt ade ingrovet 4B a otal by beers Res nak pone lo parser obs css bene boll cr hidden stracdura, 9 other componenda, | have not critically b thn he are made hoa ac 40 use moor rlese peabody sed eid coraderad Whe fon “The vabis acters conor ere bei 60 uch condtora how read cae ssa fi valje, The land or tha soll of Ihe ated bhing appialtad appears bem, howsvw’, a subsklence In the area la Unkos The appraiser dows not warrsed Boas thie coridiion of cxcustence of froblens adsing from tod condilons, a. Ho aga mrvey was proved kre ot pacton wilh na i d for ingal matter In charactic or notice of matters of mureay, 809 of any sechaectural, Q in ature, No oploion by rendered a8 io the fe, which It presumed (9 be good and ri bk Tee property x tied an bag ee ad ces abise cbarwine tinted Fi paticuae pana othe pent ‘The legal dastripdan It assumed to be coxrect 4a used in tha report as Rarvstied by the hank, pubbcaton rouccas 5 fated within this tépor, hiwhat designee, or &s derived by tho apprakuer, 10, Por tea City of Laston, sibjedt dwaling fs located cxlahte the’ city Srnits. No clirienl pernWvepiipLance paperiiark for bre, subject dweiing prinided of made svalabje to Boe apprainar ax he otective date of Wis appraisal report Na responsibty sssumed by Ws tp i sor for & egal inanet eg Natactar of patary for aviy, 5 bis lhevels a Wetale code,If compl. iatica nolhs Deitel archtachural, suuciy al, mechanical, of gine ereng opeZt ch necessary, Ils bighty reconvnended Ihat aridor cade compt tice be consuted Fun, Lin apachctiy seasead noth pect fa drehng are of salstactory constucton pod meat all localstate code, AN EXTRAOROINAAY ASSUMPTION IS AN ASSUMPTION DIRECTLY RELATED TO ASPECIEIC ASSIGNMENT, WHICH, F FOUND 10 BE FALSE, GOLAD ALTER THE APPRAISERS |OPINIONS OR CONCLUSIONS, Again, f am not 4 code camplance othter, and thacators the vahie eatimale fs subject fo change should some absumpton tegarcing te tec propa panera dee fey el sas ata cde comptance nin Nis bighly recommended thal that the named Bocrowar and/or named { endariC Hint Fated within his report se¢k additional Sacdcedinnpectons #6 hey ing any comphance issive3 with Ow subject property, HL sravotunas staTenENT inspeedion of the subject ceveated ng apparenl structural defects which are considered ft devrarain tu martbity of wadjoct groperty, Fels noted, biaw"}, {"d": 55, "p": 164, "t": "sins. Th2go2co2t6 Supplomental Addendum Gere = [opal Adds ity Lende,Cient Not S Wot 7 NW BlarcrdgkOy Lawion — Arveal Bank. - Sue Ox (einty Comancho - - — as — 7 re 14, SALES COMPANISON APPROACH GRID PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS: Salod and fulng used wih tN tepot pode 75508 re ee bm in exienalng ce wseneed vribin ho Init UA GL vahue opieion for the suddsel property 24 of date of rapaction, ©: dprstents, oF lack thecal, fot property &h tha paat 12-24 monihe using Saios Compavican Anproach Grid dstved ren hiskarieal data foie rth tha subiser's Iremechato And coated mitrkel rad ove! OR DEE et ciate du MLS cubbeaboe local county cocorea/astantoe dat, sod pad anahaly, Furihar srpansion ol tha taaich area andi tena to chaeged bs paranasee OST oa aaa, maret condtons, la fis Inatince, | heve Dated th rehiemanis lot doa characiaascs on patel auayslmedat esrion, Ot Tt Ta ayy Ando experincenan such propirty characletes: The adwnimtalt appled, I any, 24 consMared nominal nd do onl Gao a Maes ara ostinates prosented heroin, Ta dvpand salea search sey Nether br disionce, gtopacty chacecatistcd, of i date Of sole WoUR, in he 4 ovahiadert process aed lad Kr Prous a more Crodbté ehial, , 16, DesignéStyin + Situs wied within this report consider most ry fable In 1) las erin Ol Value Opinion lor lbw sublacl property as of dale of wispectar. Alheugh Compacetin #2 45 considared 1.5 tlry tench dreSing, Irscfclent date lourd wt tiie 6 hsspacton adihin subject's Immadiafaicompeting market dea bo support bry Contnbtory adusinends bebween single lady dimeings of 1.0 and 1.5 story de rigevatyle, Coniibitory acjustmants, or Ihe lack there Of, ke ditfucancedin derigedstyle Gecived rom Halorical data Round within subfect’¢ lrimediatetcompeting market area over ihe pact 12 moniie using Lavon MA publeationt, Comanche Counly Recotts, ahd paired analyst, Yo ospand &sales peach sny Kither in dustacce, properly characteris ics, or in data of wala would, fy he spprmisar‘s opselan, Rader fhe avakiadon proces arid [nf in produce more edi 140 AT. Achat Ags Vartenca - Sales uved wttin 7s repod canakiered cinsast In achua) age and affociivaly beacket othar hey ploperty thearscledstes associated wis the subject property Inching designlsiyie, gross firing dens, cially, andl armor tad, InsuNicierd Information coleeted il bene Aries <Hon is seppartany contibudory edhasienends ket 30 ocklal ge Varianeaof (2 37 peare of age inth the corparabta propartes uted witha it separ welghlad based of thelr aBlacten agwttondiion at bone of most recent sate. To expecd valea search acry Ruther bs chitance, property characteristics, of in date of sale would, In the Bop ate4/'s opicaon, hinder the areiuation process aed fel io produce 8 more credithe reat, {A Roam Cove» Sates Used within bit ieport ; considered most iefabla in ng @ fai martel value opinion bor the subjecd property 44 of date of bispeciion. Conirin.tory sdersionents of $2,000 pet bedroom, $2,000 pethil bathroom, aod $1.000 per hal batvoom darieed ram Nelorigal day houcd win subject's enmediala and competing market area owes Bid pas! 12 months Uthg Lawton MLS publications, Comanche County Recimds, and paired analysts, Ts expand salen 2460ch any fortar in distance, property characterialics, or in dala of wate would, in tw Apptaiaed's hpinion, haved Ihe evaluadan process and far bo produce a mone crecible (aati be, a. Car Storage - Sein ined withda ihis report conaldered mori retable In estimating fair machet vahie opingon for tha subject property ax of date of Inspection, coe Contntadory adjustrsents of $4,600 per eiteched greys bay derived trom Niciorieal Gaia Found water sURecT 8 inenediata aad and competing market ase tver the past 12 or in Ta anpand pales xearch wey hyther in dealanoa, property characterises, and paired analysis. marine sain Lawion MLS pubitabons, Comancha County Records, ; date of cale wold, le the appewsedé opleicn, Dader the evalualon process and Jad ba produce a more creckohe etal, 21, PocehPaletDack -conldet Salesmora used markétatls, witha Wiis report d cvitl rebatie In wstmang pata bly Inautickend intormated kund al ive of 2 tar marhel yale opiion for the subject property as of dala of nipectan, ihapection bo support adivalmants batiesa dice lings telling with an ixkStiona! pak or dack a6 opposed jo dinalings sate with Au auch feapues, Conleibaulory adivabrenis, of the lack there of, for euch feateels) darived from Nislorical deta found within subject's Immediate and competing marke aréa over tha! past 12 morsaa using MLS pubdcationa, County Records, and paved anmyais, To eapand sales search any futher in dulence, property chanicteristics, of in dats of sala Woukd, in the appraiser's cpanwon, bode: Ww exaluelion process and tad la produce amore credible fend, 22. Fenciig PrStorm Colat’s Salts uted within this report considered mot! railable in estenating a tals markal value ofinion for the subject property as of dela of Inapection, Athough posaibly conakder ed i ackelabie, insufficient ink found ai tere of ep jp wopport mipe nt batwonn dyalings s¢fing wih a Slants shellet or storm pallar 83 oppoied ls Gwalings selfing with ia Such feats, Lack of Coniitukiny adjustnents fay tuch INadae derived hom Mitorical data found ‘within subject's Irenediate sad competing markel aces over Be past 12 monihs using MLS pubscatans, County Reconte, aod paired anelyzis. To expend eales search any furthor In distance, property chacaclerwtcs, oF fi dalé of tale would, bs the Bopralser’s cpinion, hinder [he mrakvaton process and £4 18 produce & more credible fesuk, : 98 Inic marhet-vabas opinion for ihe considered mast rekadtyint used within this repolt 23, Other Features [Sieg Gkigia}, Inground Sprinktar Syatam}+ idSains aced troce For Ih jel property as of date of Inspection, Athough passbly combdiced ark iar stabio, isulficient h found ai time of inspection to simppart penion acivtmenis betes drekengs sling with a svg bidg(s} of vashous sire35 opposed fo dwelings saling mids no suc"}, {"d": 55, "p": 165, "t": "71230250216 Market Conditions Addendum tothe Appralsal Report axe. rr2s02s0210 Ya purpose FIs schenctoen is Wo provide Iba ener cherd wh a Siew and atcartée uptergleacing Of Bo motel UeVVis A COMMONS prevail nie Subject elgbeihood, This le a teqaked addenda foe ab appraisal aeports with an elfeetive date on oe ate Ape’ 1, 2000. Propery Address Yononet 7 NVV Brinscraak Or ty Leto NeilS Wost Sale OK bP Galt 79505 Inatrvtlonss Tha appialse anus use te nlormyton raqpied oa HG horn an Bo bays for Nhe cosehralons, and mist pros deppod for hase corehisons, egving houslog bends avd overall muvkel conbons 98 zepoeled ln he Helghbarhogd secton nl the aypeatsal expint lows, The appeateer maant DM in alia [Poreatin bo he alent Wis sealable und sebable and msl prove anshys’s an bndic aid belaie, W any requted dalt i adavalabya o¢ i considered uevedatys, tha apprw'set mutt prada an explanation, 1S pecoréted that nol al data soceces wA ba abe bo peciidle dat lv Woe shad ari beni; 15 evel, bowarer, tha appraiser mest snchyde the data An She analyse. data sources pride Be cee td blonriiion a6 a avetaya sled ofthe masta, lhe appewyte todd espace avaible Fae ad Hendy as an Bveeagy, Sakes and Sskeogs esl a gopertes Poa Comriela wad a subfcl plopaely datartiined by applying tea cries Bat wed ba used by a grospective buyer oF IMs, subject progeny, The appyatces cst gapiata any anonniabes Hi Baa data, such at seaseaal mvhets, raw conshiation, loreclouves, ek, Prise 7-12 Months Adsorption Asia (Tolal Gates Months) Quel Fest f “f Catend~ I Modhy [Pre df Alors ° 7 inet a > Si 6,50. | Beclolny 24S ioat 4 of Comparable Achve Listegs f gE S Stblge: Miphihs of Housing Supply (Total Lintagy ab Staty oe Ovaat Tred % Subs Plot 1-12 Months Median Congatabe eT Days on Markel Fy Medan Cosiparabie List Pace bea Makas Commpacatio Ustngs Days an Markel Medoay Sake Pree at § of List Price Suike-Idevedopes, bubder, elt Jpand fnarcial assistance aie ews i ’ 4 3 EnplalaWs deladte seler concessions bends lov tha past 12 monshs (t.g, sefer coniebuslons hcreaied from 3% ia 5%, Increasing usa of buydanas, closby casts, conda FH fees, optlons, ete), fn iesearthing subject property's marketarea for Uw past 12 month parable sales showed a mixtura of rf Conventional, VA, “and FHA transactions where sellers are paying between 0 - 8% of the buyers dosing costs. -Bloanctng itanicessions of up. F416 6% assoclaled with Conventional, FHA, and VA joan programs considered typical for the subject's immediatelcompeling market area, No G other apparent special financing concessions or significant changes in financing trends observed wilh comparable sales reviewed in sublect ropeity’s immediate market area over the past 12 months. 0 -no compatable dala found No. fi Yes Ey Are tocectostie Sales (HEC sales} a lictorin hema? : the vers in stags wid saks of forcsid picpertzs). Heyes, tnglann (ricladeng months, no significant tends tn reviewing Lawton MLS publications ¢and Comanche County Records, iit sublact’s marke! area over the past 12 gathered ftom the f \"Information Cite Gata succes loy aboveit | cycie in subjact’s immediate marke} area, O- no conipareble data found identified showing an active declination ig Sauces: Lawion MLS pubieations, Camancha County Records, . property owner, Lawton City Hall, OataScout, Reaks|, Okeountyrecords. com, OQ, jisting agents identified within this report, and the subject O-~no comparable data found report form, Uyou used any echoed oman, such as Summarizethe above vdarrnal on #3 suppor for your conchistons i die Herghbachood sectot of fhe appraisal an analysls of pending sales andor taped are withdeeen stg, la formulae your conclusions, povide beh 44 explanationand support for your conciinlens, Pecan Vallay South, sources tayaaled vary limited sates daia in which o sonelusively Int reviewing sales: with subject’s immodiate rural subdivison, Markel search expanded io compari oF sales of simvlar scope for Ihe purpc potentially impacting a dwalfing q Vends identify anym a property of inchude dwellings of similar s00p8. within the competing addition of Pecan Valley to the north in an attempt to provide mote market dala as. 8 rosuil of ewer Interact this scope, Days on market ihvouighoul tne gitd appear to bs stable and can possibly |be inked to ower housing inventories awhal skewed showing slightly greater ia be years prior, Supplyidemand app s tates Intiaty assoclatad with the COVIO-19 pandemic sevatal Sales prices appeared comparison; of sales and competing market area for the purpases i comparable sales than stings within the subjects inmediala arket fox tha subject property appears te be stable and considered typical of olher bie across ihe Sales/llme grid, Allin ail, Use to be somewha dala found compar bie 0'-no competing dwellings of similar scope focated in doth ihe Pecan Vatiey Sovth and Pocan Waey subdivisions, Project Vane: fv 4 ond Un 9 conaomurnamoF coaperstivg projet, caaphe Re ledowing: Tie subject Piet P12 Months rE Subject Peajecl O13 : mi j: Totat # of Comparable Sales (Setiedy arpton ise (Total Sales Norths} | Pre ¢-6 Mlorshs |. Deena Tend ~ 3 Months Coren (2 f beteasoy |: iSote a Total # of Actve Compacabia Ustongs TONDOICG-OP PROJECTS | [Ma Pes Byes. mdeate the rarder of REO Isengs nd rey Re tends Aare aid safes of [Signs or oF tenyh Fy company Advess PO Box 261, Eigh, OK8 PA Copuaylliets = Peak Pata Series tLC A SuteliceaseCatheaton #427 78CRA Supamvigery Appraiser Hams ; Fog Appoaiser Nara fmaiAddess : : | _ foreclosed preperties, fone 3 deehony | . e/a Rate) Honehsof Ued Supply (Joti isting Are foreclasaae Ses [REO sates) a factor inthe preojent? | ; Suit : Company Aaiess ‘Sate fSuals ticeage Certs aon # OK Ipaak@tds.nat Freddie Mac For 71 March 2009 Company bane Ema Aas Page loft Pantie Mae Form IQO4MC March 2009 Form 1O04AG2 «TOTAL! appeatsd software by 2 {3 move, inc. - {-BODALAMONE WEST_000723 cs CamScanner"}, {"d": 55, "p": 166, "t": "fanvad Noll & Woal My Lawton Popa adhe fe Na, 71230260216 PNW Ditorcioek De : : ve OK — Ba Gon 73808 Cemnty Comanche Lender Vic . APPRAISAL AND REPORT IDENTIFICATION This Report fs on of tho following types: pursuant fo the Seops of Woik, at disclosed etsewhere In this report) 3 Appialsal Report (A walteis repost peepaied under Stantecds Auda. 2.2fa) ; Rastieted {A weiter iepoit prepared under Standards fw 2. 2(b} . pursuant bo the Seopa of Work, a$ aiiclosed slewhere br ints repost, * Appraisal Report tasked to ihe stated intended use by te s$pecttied Chon ow ended ise) Comments on Statidards Aulo 2-3 “Lcestty tual 40 the best of amy Arowstedgn and bebet: » The statements of fact contained bn this seport are frog ahd correc! . ~ The repotied anslyses, opinices, avd conclusions are Rented only by (he reported assumptions and imting conditions 4d afd ny pesserat iat, ated nblastd professional analyses, oprdons, and conclusions, + Dniess obbecwlse indicated, have no gcentl of prospective ierest in the property Wit ts Ine subjactof is reptand no. persomal invest wih respect fo Bu partes brrobeed. -+ Dndess olbevwise indicated, [have partormed no seeeites, as a1 aporlsay oft any other capacdy, ceigaccing the property halls ths abject of O15 report veh tha thet yee earied inenecately preceding acceptance ol bis assirinent ; « Thave 90 blas wah roipecl to Boa propedty thal ls the subject of this ceporl or the pavties nvobved wth this assteynent. «+ By engagement In this assignien’ was nol contingent upon developing oc reporing predetermined resus. . a My compensation foe completing Bis asslgenent fs nal ééctingend upon the development ot sepovttig of a peedeletmined value or degction in value [hal favors Oe cause ol ofan the amount ef the walie opinion, the atizinmentof a sUpuated resul, of the occurrence of 2 subsequent even deecily peialed Jo the iniended usa of ts appraisal, + My analyses, opinions, and concisions were developed, sad Bis report has been prepared, in conformity watt the Unitortn Slarwtards of Pro feaslonal Apseatsal Practice that were bn eltect at lhe time this report was prepared, ~ Uniess oltenvise Indicated, Ihave mads a personal inspector of the property that fs the sublect of tus repo. -+ Unless otherwise Indicated, no 0n¢ provided shgniicard real property appraisal assistance bo Ihe personts} skptiny this cectiicatlon Gf there we rnceptons, lhe name ol each Ievsividual pioiging Slgrificand teat property sppradtal assistance Is stated ehsewhers in INis teport), {USPAP definds Exposure Tine as the estimated Sength of Uma thatthe toperty interest hele Reasonable Exposure Time apncalsed would have been offered on the market prior to the hypothetical consumenation of a sale al market value ont he effective date of the apps alsal) G3 months “fay Opinion of Reasonable Exposuve Time for the subject property at the market Value stated In this reports: ilma for subject's Immediatefcompeting maskal araa based on reviewing exp bie conshered a The timeframe as listed above is recent comparable sales and Bsilngs using Lawion MLS publications. Comments on Appraisal and Report identification any slate mandated requirements; Nole any USPAP-related issues sequiring disclosure and Cedrtnion] appease by nl gras Kath pope Wiens dtl, Thy een aganhon’ y god fo arte iwet etyebagraon abnyalapect a meiner ect patio’ aed ren nyachen The agp ose oy \"iret ard rape at Son “epee abn enquew bi peterson srwcayrerntiionr, pputena, HVAC nystam, lourcbation stam, Roce port et “vig por anaes yom Lndrcet nea rape whe, Thin apse Lasley Oe pe nerg SHE, Hn ga wadely Rarmsatias with the soedinin of the propedy, ] Of ALL EASY WOKE PRATER OMY PEAS OAIZED AMSUAL ‘HHS yatta APPHALLAL B KOT A NOI WEPLCTION AXO Th AP? A GER 12 ROT A HOWE F ComoLTIONS ANDO : DASCLOLE 10 UPON RELIED BE CARBHOT REPORT APPRAISAL THE PRCEESS THE OER PAUL HOME HOT 19000 AFLG THE OF SURFACE “aecuatNUCTED : “DECRETS 11 TNE PROPEATYHOP ABLE YO BE VIEHEODR ACCESSED GY THE APPRAISER AT TIE OF BISPEGION, ae sue pagerwest $M pecwitcrnylanca harncie we pare ht wy ah hay ol MCN aretathe ' wists see at 8 tp * assur non it 4 alas weds ch nea nny cay hanit al er engineering pope c fas race rol) owep ince ht ND wh he property ind a Snare uy Ton hame: Terry Peak hagd gory the mbit property's pecltae eatnanaryeraan 9LaPe comphanca conde be wept, 1” ante nang SUPERVISORY of CO-APPRAISER(it applicable}: Sipeue: H. Rane: / Sine Ceribcaon #; Sue Certenion#; 12778CRA or Stale Ucertt 4: anes Exgaton Date of Certlcaton o Ucense ‘| State OK Hepat! 0101/2026 of Soyraandnse Bai of Appraisal: 42/30/2025 Date ive Eiec $243572028 . os oo yaageckon Suect. | | Hose DX ior andBaater [| Beer Oty Dials of specter esate . ee Ae Digay ational clambcaicn et til inves fe eatarntairy, ¥ onde, and mee \" a ub tee of de cannad. Dea. tt ipechiot tuentd ale FOUND TORE FALSE, COULD ALTER THE APPA ERS ppreoHt On, WHOCH, LNT, TOA SPECIE ASSIOM/ Y RELATED ptarae a bangs bala lft ai CONCAZARES, Ago nt col coe Cpfance Mw and Behn hare antennae nenreteon nunnel nitttnt Agnn, Bn Wohty vires ee en Se prety nnd ai Laat elald 42/30/2025 ox Stata Uceass #: Sats; — _ Eaph tlon Data of Signatur: CS Wnipectonod Sebect - _ or Licente: Dati of Certiicaton ; ; | | Hoo | E bderorand Exterior [| dei. Onay Dats of inspection ( appixabh): “Toamh IVE « \"TOTAL! apgvalsal sottrare by 2 a made, ine, - L-400-ALANQDE WEST_000724 CS CamScanner"}, {"d": 55, "p": 168, "t": "_ NewiMessage —S_ Cancel To: Nancy Holcomb Dec 7, 2021 at 1:01PM (CK >> EXHIBIT 4 WEST_000580"}, {"d": 55, "p": 170, "t": "BPODIecE Order #: 45395822 Page tots foms6 OAGKEN PRICE OPINION . ey FreddieMac Freddie Mac Loan ti Property Addenass 7 NW BRIARCTIEEK OF, States County: COMANCHE Asdet lofi Unis: Stty, LAW TOR Property Type: Singa Farty Zip: 73905 OX Servicer Lost A: 3492944403 SubdiTHOn oF pe CAN VALLRY SOUTH Complex Hane: A Riot Location’ OD Uneer 28% Property Vabexi Suppi: O_ Dacliada Marketing time: Comp [2-4 Untt 2% | Tenant 24% Mutt-tamity : % | Vacant o% Commerciat o% [oiner oy One dinit O gasy Zi Over 75% : G statte 1 slow WZ stable in Batance C1 90 days C0 _ under @ sosredays tneraasing . oversupply Oh dwariwdng 2 3 ge a Competitive Active Listings: 4 # 18% Cl Urhan Shortage CO) Vacant 120% | Ownet Occupled C1 Suburbsn 8 ing C1 Tenant Hi owner Occupant teapaction Type: bleorxtorior laspection Access Onrted pereonta 9 of Distrasaed Sales tn He bovhaod: tracttanal CRG ingat Sales: . Active Sold Por Month: ¢ eno $0000 Price Range of Compethive Active Listings ta Neighborhood: ~ 8% C1 shovt Sate | o fight; 459.9008 Behoot Distiiet: | ASHE URNTS. COMPS ANG MLS ACTITY IS SUBECTIS LOCATED N 7 RURAL ADDITON JUST OUTSIDE OF THE LAMONT, KL “CIY WILL HAVE TO BE EXPANOED WH ORDERTO COMPLETE THIS REPORT. ~ LIWUTEO SO MANY VARIANCES Helghberhood Market Condition: PREVIOUS LISTING MORTMATIO Previously Listed Wiha pant s2months; Cl Yes No Origloatbiat Pees” Listed {Oat Last Ust Price: 7-3 VNU OS HOAMAION ft applicabte} of Unite: 4 No, Falr Market Rentat Rata per Month per unit; Hy, of Stories: RentControk Yes ChNo —-. Rent Equity Bosrd Registered: Ove Oxo CIWA : Vetlficatton Source: . lausing ‘Unit Comzents: West_000747 CamScanner"}, {"d": 55, "p": 171, "t": "~ FreddieMac neras page tote BROKER PRICE OPINION SSA Subject Vey Condition: Averoga Tet 3 SITE (S$ CONSIDERED 10 BE NEU LBAL Subject Positive! Negaths Influences: Oves Oto Potential Tike! Leg : 9 it a i ook fos A. Does the subject appeat smucacaly sound? Hrd, is there avideree of severe seiting? Wing, Is thace ewcterce of maior koundaton cracks? ina, Is there aviderte of roting beans? B. ts Ge subject on @ permanend foundation? © Hobieaninny Hazard lesen: ‘| te Wea D. ts the wlechical system Runctoning property? |e: Ave We plumbing. ssi son F. ln the roof free of leaks? Yes : ; ©, Ace the kitchen and ail battvoons Raetionat? sea ng mo, Bo . Yo Yes . Yes 6. 1 te soot ree of erporadyrepainigatching)? it, Aue the HVAC system Iniact and functional? Yes inthe property fred of wood destroying insecta? 1. Has a weod destiayieg insect esi asa eraras: me : Unkanwn Unknown ee See Xo A. is the progeny clear of avidence inckcating incurable ervironanental hazards? B. Is the propecty tree of evidencis indicating lead based para? ves THE SUSJECT PROPERTY15 MASITABLE IN IT'S CURRENT COHOITION NO HEALTH HAZARDS WERE OBSERVED UP INSPECTION Habitabsllyt Hazard Comments: Fale Market Renta) 9008 Rate: Cee [is thera» KOA? Fees:$ Tvs. Per: Nemes . ipa y HOACondorPuOs 7 . Wino... Panding Asetesmants: bathe CendocomplexFHA spproved?, —§ O vas ON 2A Assessmpat Sagio Oste: Assenamisnt End Date: Faoned: Contact Name: HOA fasn lnchida: Iaupactions! Yearly Amount: $3,387.00 Chya Terenlte ool Ove =i lo Whe @i Annual 01 SembAnnusl O Yes Well Sapte Do Yes Imachanical Oye Ade lagal Unite? Ol Yes Biroctural Cys Eavironmental Other Oye Ne No Waste Olepoeal? Water Source zoning G Pustetewr D pute Raskental TaxeaPad: : .. Who @ Keo B ke © Sapite O wer tents) Freddie Mec LI © ~ West_000748 CamScanner"}, {"d": 55, "p": 172, "t": "Pagesolé fom 0 . BROKER PRICE CPINION flnanceable Lite’ tustenl condition? te the Tred OVE § ae Preservation & Matntenance: The LL eee battle POOF § ——-——i her [sie TES slolololololololojalojolo}olelojo}olofelofafela}a}ojaj/ajajajojs}ajalapnjojs TT Vives CC) Ho TOE HOA Fe balttal Yard Ob Preneevrtory Fanner Heath & Safety S oR . ofojalsjojolo}afolalafapa)ajojojoj;olajajasaj;opojo}aya;ala, ms FreddieMac NO INTERIOR OR EXTERIOR REPAIRS WERE OBSERVED ANG TION SUBJECT APPEARED 10 GE iN AVERAGE CONDI Repaly Commanis: TRapect LAciioA ory Dc UA 00 9 TO pba RUM, SOATENL Fa BEIT COO Be Sura in the rege Bk oa Une Tylon. FOC Wercitied repay eercnund Inchede a ker. 7 FendGokine RB ~ West_000749 SJ CamScanner"}, {"d": 55, "p": 173, "t": "sucetett oN panel BROKER PRICE OPINION Freddie Mac COMPARAMLE LISTINGS Sobect 9 NA RAR EEX DEE Adress Lavios bio, of nny ft aps) PSUR OK TEM ~ t Compazable #4 NUPLE LAL CARTON oe ry Seber ww TRIYAD ws LL ad Eye y : tO $a 199080) AG 574 ELAS SAT FECA IN nase AIH Current thet frity Veriticaben Seyree 7 par] Qeew Dwg [ntginab ist Rites 7 PecanesneLar PECAN VALERY SOUTH Subdivision OF Cerngten Hime AIGA oer 7 a Proxtenty 19 Fubfeet Coniparable #5 100 765 TEGO CODE LAUIOIE Sompicadle #2 ETUC GARTHBH. FEE FRLAGN TI VAS PIRS ee Sther Cescrasions Days or Mache} Lecallon Mating sheView Property ype Lot Strewher eres [90 50 avettamty os Square Foolege Year BYR Condaion 4asF 3-2 (x fsa wt $d aerage > is? [gh eg Pps pd 4 Fea St, 89 $8 2. MFietet Mer Prrgic PUM 350 SS [Rs (5 PURRSENER SAtered | 159 ($7 ” cr] _. a Pontvapa vy 657 39 aM. PARSER SV itaed Waste Ditgotat ParkingtGerage Fara Sage Fenty 78 Likal 9 KSeiaded “Staal ParpiaG PUBL Basement Hesting Cookag Water Sogrot $2 iy) TY) oan Were 8 ft 42s Bene Fetd2% ——Sanaaks g Total Roden (Bed F Bath 4. ay erage 0 othe: i] Tone THE he \"S357 ee ~, $259,20020 Subject Price of ed (Adjust y To Sublect Mont Souder cruck Propert SUB FECT 1 QvERALL. FEATURES AND VALUE, serta tor Comparable Moxt simitar Ve Subject: lect “THtA¢ BRIAREREEKOR OA 74905 LAWTON 4 qo aiden of tints Nt 2p to, Pra: Comparable 3 ros Comparanls#2 Comparable Ft X RS, LANTON, a AW NLLCREE CRW HUNENSHRRE CH, 1O HW SANOY TRAALAN, Cx ris LAWTON. 0 73505 pees. EAVZION, OF 23505 ° 3 iaS: sion Subdivi Or Geeppiex Name Sefer ee Sales Poca Let Price Price to Sata Sate Date oo 6 e ¢ $ “@ a Aswoge Aarean a SogeFerty fe 8 8 oH Te 8 Bikes 2400 —ae or is 8 s 3 \"fe 8 s De) z fAdiuaied Price of Subject 156 Fay Sug an se Rn “ig ieeg 7) ro} [80 dows “7. dracoge 3. NEW Lc t. T fi 8 ¢ $ Rican Hast Oven AG PUBUC PUBLICSEVER ye ee 8 $ a [52 Haat PanyAd [$6 PUK. PUSLICSEWER, {50 1G Samet 7... Stone 10000 ie .@ go KOI if aN i$ R09 s $303 20060 [Ehack Property Rost Simikas To Bedjecl MOST SIMLAR TO THE SUBJECT HW OVERJEC FEATURES ANO VALUE {88 so [$2 sO eae Ne ofr + a ya awrn Sate Ur F264.086 08 “FHS [aj te Compacshes Mont Slevlas To dudjed: Fredde Mac MIO - West_000750 cs} CamScanner"}, {"d": 55, "p": 174, "t": "saan NROKER PRICE OPINION Freddie Mac BROKER OPINION OF PRI Broker's Opinion of Peice should leprecent & 40.150 DAYS inarat aipstiaa. ASASPRICE, WITH AEPAIA PRICE: Probable Soles Free Probable Sales Price Recommenied ist Petcn Mark Up Percentage: 2% List Price Mark Up | TYPICAL FOR OUR MARKET DASEU ON COMPS IN THE AREA Percentage Supports DROLER MARKETING RECOMMENDATIONS Property Marketing Stratepy: § %) Avis 1) tender Requited Repairs (1) With Repale Most Likely Financlag: Cl Homesteps financing TI Conventional Cl twa Target Buyers CA Ficst time Buyer G7] Move-up CO Itwestor Ava Cl tah CO G indore CO Retiree other: RURAL ADDITION WITH LIMATED COMPS.TO COMPLETE THIS REPORT, | HAD 70 EXPAND SEVERAL VARIANCES INCLUOING G : ays He OTN BAGK AS 12 MONA ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE ACCORDING 70 WHAT 15 custonany IN OUR MARKET AS FAR G) 12 MONTHS FOR SOME SOLO COMPS, THIS HAS NO , REMAINING STABLE OVER THIS TIME, FFFECT GN VALUE OVE TO PRICES Support Opinion off Price: QUALIFIES FOR ALL TYPES OF FINANCING Support Recommended Marketing Strategy: SUBJECT ALSO CONFORMS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN AGE AND FEATURES Property Similaritiss & Dissimilarittac to Nelghbarheod: By clicking aubmnd, | haceby cortly thal [have porsanady inapacled tho proparty ort (Sate) Hzrosegzs Furthermore, J cectty thal Une report hes beon compioted by ma i Ks entirety and Broker Nome: 3 rene Flite DARIN RAY REMAK Fase teEe emekAdaess: — DARINRAY@HOMESLAWTON.COM inchasos spproptlale photos of tha aublectand comparables, - Harte of Agent Completed BPO: Agent Licence . DARIN RAY Expitstlon Dates ‘West_000751 S CamScanner"}, {"d": 55, "p": 176, "t": "RBZ000i5 StateFarm State Farm Fire and Casualty Company SS Fire Claim File Print & File History Information Route To: | | _ Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C Date of Loss: 06-15-2023 BASIC CLAIM INFORMATION Policy Number; 36-CR-X405-8 Named Insured: WEST, NEILS —eva pono Za | ~—namaeneme FILE HISTORY File History - File Notes Office: WHRUREC Performer: Wicker, Joe 42-19-2024 - 12:05 PM CST File Note: File Note Participant: COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 00 1(Named Insured(s)) Category: Contact - Outbound Call Sub Category: Working vm, RCF CTR Bob requesting claim status, CS explained that the CTR would have to contact the PA to get the claim status info. CTR said he understood and he will f/u with the PA Office: WHRUREC Performer: Burk, Carrie 12-19-2024 - 11:13 AM CST File Note: Contact Participant: Gategory: Contact - Inbound Call COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Sub Category: CS working ACD line. RCF CTR seeking update on claim. CS reviewed update with CTR, however CTR confused by the supplemental. CS provided CO's contact information and transferred to CO to seek clarfiication. CS backing out of claim. NFH EXHIBIT It »» <a Office: WHRUREC Performer: Wicker, Joe 09-17-2024 - 8:22 AM CDT File Note: File Note Participant: COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)} Category: Contact - Outbound Call Sub Category: Page 1 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000069"}, {"d": 55, "p": 177, "t": "RBZO0O0IS Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C FIRE Working new mail received an email from PA requesting that we review their photo, of the roof rain cap stating that this is a items we missed doing our ist inspection. Reviewed the docs and contacted the PA Jose, CS explained that we would need additional photos verifying the location for the rain cap on the roof. PA said he understood and he will submit those docs. NFH closing claim new mail will reopen the clam. 08-15-2024 - 9:32 AM CDT File Note: pending file nate Participant: Category: Pending Performer: Bradley, Yasiin Office: WHRUREC COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Cov A: RCBs paid. Cov B: néa Cov C: nla Sub: n/a Mortgagee (Dollar One Y/N): no Closing claim pending addtional documentation to be reopened. oe 8 © © we we we ® Performer: Bradley, Yasiin 08-15-2024 - 9:31 AM CDT File Note: CTR PHOTOS FOR 2ND INSPECTION COL / Line (Participant): Participant: Sub Category: Category: Claim Note Office: \\WWHRUREC .CTR submitted CX live photos previously submitted showing damage to the shingle CS reviewed photos submitted on 7/15/24 along with CTR EST, photos resembles previous submitted photos for CTR on 3/30/24. Per TM review \"no additional damages to roofing,\" CTR photos does not reflect additional damage done. All items were addressed at initial inspection by adjuster. Additional inspection is not warranted. NI and CTR were informed 2nd inspection or TRR not warranted. Decision remains. CS contacted PA and NI notifying decision remains the same at this time. Claim can be closed pending addtional supporting documentation to be reopened. 07-30-2024 - 11:31 AM CDT Office WWHRUREC Performer: Wicker, Joe File Note: File Note Participant: Category: Contact - Inbound Call COL / Line (Participant}: 35 /004(Named insured(s)) Sub Category: RCF the Agent, NI's called to get the status of the claim, CS explained that we have received the CTR's docs but we have not made it to that mail date yet. Agent said she understood. 07-26-2024 - 8:55 AM CDT Performer: Thomas, Dawn File Note: Claim Note Participant: COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC Category: Claim Note Revd claim - PA has been provided an update Office; WHRUREC COL / Line (Participant): 35 /001(Named Insured(s}) Sub Category: PHone message sent to CO in errir 07-25-2024 - 11:58 AM COT Performer: Berndtson, Erica Office: PROPVPLH File Note: Contact COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s}} Participant: COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC Sub Category: Category: Contact inspection review. PA Kelsey call back number supplement/2nd for timeline requesting voicemail left CS received voicemail from PA Kelsey 386-478-4911. 07-25-2024 - 10:53 AM CDT Office: WHRUREC Performer: Wicker, Joe File Note: File Note Participant: Category: Contact - Outbound Call COL / Line (Participant): 35 /001(Named Insured(s)) Sub Category: Page 2 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need fo Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000070"}, {"d": 55, "p": 178, "t": "FIRE Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C Working new mail tasks Labeled documents in file * Multiple photos of shingle damage to various slopes + Damage to shingles in photos did not appear to be ADPL hail damage + CTR requesting TRR * TRR not considered due to photos submitted does not support ADPL hail damage + No updates to SFE made; SF's decision unchanged * No RCBs remain + Claim closed 03-15-2024 - 4:32 PM CDT Performer: Haun, Kristin File Note: Claim note Participant: TRADEMARK EXTERIORS COL / Line (Participant): RBZO0015 * + Office ;WHRUREC RESTORATION Category: Fire Estimatics, Contact - Outbound Call, Claim Note Sub Category: « * * CS working messages PCT CTR (Bobby) to explain and clarify denied supplements. CTR did not provide any missed/omitted damages that are not on SFE for elevation for roof work. CTR is requesting TRR. Additional staining and measurements on fence are not warranted. SFE allows for damaged areas of fence to be stained. Additional staining of fence is not warranted because the separate areas of fencing did not match pre-loss. Photos of bathroom ceiling do not appear fo be water damage. » LMOVM with call back information. Office: WHRUREC Performer: Ernest, Connie 03-14-2024 - 2:06 PM CDT File Note: Working Phones Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Category: Contact - Inbound Cail COL / Line {Participant}: 35 / 001(Named Insured(s}} Sub Category: CS Working Phones CS RCF CTR Bobby stating that he'd received the email with the SFE and had questions about the non-supported items. + » CS reviewed the file notes and observed that CS Kristin had recently reconciled the supplement request, * CTR asked if CS Kristin can give him a cail to discuss those non-supported items. * CS advised CTR that the CS will reach out to address his questions and concerns. * CTRuls NFQ. + NEFH. 03-14-2024 - 1:12 PM CDT Office: WHRUREC Performer: Haun, Kristin File Note: Claim note Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Fire Estimatics, Contact - Outbound Call, COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Contact - Inbound Cail, Claim Note * + oe ee we + « CS working phones RCF CTR (Bobby) inquiring on status of supplements. Received labeled and reviewed CTRE with signed contract and photos. Reviewed file notes and documents. Advised CTR would be notified of any updates to SFE Supplements ‘TRR and additional elevation work - NOT APPROVED - CTR did not supply any evidence of missed damages * + Additional LF on fence - NOT APPROVED - SFE covers damaged area, fence did not match in stain color prior to storm + Bathroom - NOT APPROVED - photos do not appearto be water stains at ceiling Bedroom - APPROVED - already on SFE, allowed for floor protection, D&R ceiling fan and moving and resetting cantents + Closet - APPROVED - already on SFE, allowed for floor protection and moving and resetting contents * Nothing to warrant an additional inspection at this time Updated SFE to release depreciation per signed contract Payment letter, SOL and customer capy emailed to NI and DF to claim. Paper draft issued. Not eligible for OP Customer copy emailed to CTR and DF to claim PCT NI to advise of decision. LMOVM with call back information NFH 10-19-2023 - 1:06 PM CDT Performer: Balser, Max R Office: WOMOEC Fite Note: CES Review Page 5 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000073"}, {"d": 55, "p": 179, "t": "RBZoOO0I5 Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C FIRE Participant: Category: Management Called Neil West to discuss his response on the CES. COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: We discussed that when the CO and PH inspected the exterior that the CO pointed out hail damaged items like the gutters, window screens, : and the stain on the wood fence. Then the CO inspected the roof. After the roof inspection, the CO showed the PH the photos of spatter on the roof turlle vents, and multiple shingle photos, valleys, ridges, slope overviews, then told the PH does not have any wind or hail damage to the shingles. PH was told by 2 other roofers that he had damage to all the shingles. We discussed that if his roofer has any photos or proposals that he would like us to consider, we would be happy to review, He asked if his chosen roofer wanted to meet us to inspect roof again, would we. | advised that we would consider any review and would be able to reinspect his roof system. He thanked me for the call, and stated it meant alot to him that we would follow up in his concerns, 09-29-2023 - 1:34 AM CDT File Note: Agent contact Participant: Category: Contact Performer: Gooch, Cedric 09-29-2023 - 1:34 AM CDT Performer: Gooch, Cedric Office: WOOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: was drop filed to documents. Email results. and findings CO emailed agent Nancy Holcomb with inspection Fite Note: Settlement Participant: Category: Claim Note Office: WOOKTUL Office: WOOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: CO completed and settied claim onsite. 09-29-2023 - 1:30 AM COT File Note: Inspection file note Participant: Category: Fire Estimatics Performer: Gooch, Cedric COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Page 6 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000074"}, {"d": 55, "p": 180, "t": "RBzZ00015 Glaim Number: 36-53Q1-13C FIRE INSPECTION RESULTS: Met with: Neil West Date/Time: 09/28/23 @ 5pm CTR name, if applicable: Photos taken and labeled by YPS2 Prior Losses: Related Prior, repairs completed Coverage A - Roof scope sheet uploaded. Exterior scope sheets uploaded. CO inspected the property with NI. Inspection completed on dwelling. No hail damage was documented to the shingles on the dwelling roof. Hail damage was documented to gutters, downspouts, window screens, and fence stain.. Discussed and agreed upon scope with NI. Advised that CO would complete the estimate and contact to settle. NI stated he u/s. Dwelling: ROOF: Approx. 4yr old 30yr laminate shingle in avg. condition. There is one layer with felt and starter shingles, with drip edge. Pitch is 10/12. No hail damage documented to the chimney flue cap and metal roof vents. CO documented no hail damage to the shingles on any directional slope. Roof warrants full replacement based on impacts/sq. ELEV: FT: Hail damage to gutters and window screens. RT: Hail damage to gutters. RR: Hail damage to gutters, downspout, and window screen. LT: Hail damage to gutters, downspout, and window screen. Other Structures: Hail damage to fence stain. Interior: CO documented water stain on ceiling in bedroom. Labor minimums: Applied as warranted, removed those that will be completed by a primary repair trade. GCO8P: Not applied to estimate due to lack of complexity or need for coordination of repairs. Repairs can be completed without trade interference. Depreciation: Applied based on approx. age as identified during the inspection or provided by Ni Coverage B - Personal Property: No personal property reported by NI. Coverage C - Additional Living Expense (ALE): None-Home is habitable. Sub/Salvage: Weather related - no sub potential. No salvage value in damaged material/ items Building Code Jurisdictional Table utilized, code reviewed, coverage applies. CO completed SFE and settled claim onsite. 09-23-2023 - 1:01 PM CDT File Note: TM reassignment Performer: Boydston, Kim Office: WOOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Participant: Category: Management Please note scheduled inspection. 09-16-2023 ~- 12:09 AM CDT Performer: Hervey, Brandi File Note: Pending Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Office: WDOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): 35 /001(Named Insured(s)) Page 7 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000075"}, {"d": 55, "p": 181, "t": "RBZO000!5 Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C FIRE Category: Pending Sub Category: Cova: Pending inspection scheduled 9/29/2023 with 12-2PM arrival window Pending SFE Pending CDE Pending settlement call with Nl Pending settlement cal! with AO 8 #© @ 8 © PENDING File Note e Pending close Cov B: + Pending inspection Cov Cc: * No, home is still habitable Sub: * No, loss due to weather event Mortgagee (Dollar One Y/N): N- Rocket Morigage Office: WDOKTUL Performer: Hervey, Brandi 09-16-2023 - 12:07 AM CDT File Note: QFC COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Narned Insured(s)) Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Sub Category: Category: Quality First Contact Fire Property QFC - Wind/Hail Policy Type: Homeowners Prior Related Losses/iSO Details: Possible Related Prior Number of Stories: 1 Roofing/Siding Type: Comp Class IV identified on Policy Screen (Yes/No): No SteepWalkable: Steep Age of Roofing/Siding: 6-7 years AccuWeather Report Detaiis: Hail size 2.25 or greater FOL as provided by contact: Hail caused damage to dwelling Narrative Description of Damage: Damage to roof, interior room, exterior, and soft metals Exterior Damage: Y Interior Damage: Y Mitigation Performed: Building Habitability: Habitable Power Outage: N/A Personal Property Damage: Pending inspection Food Loss: N/A Coverage C - ALE Status, if uninhabitable: N/A Subrogation: No sub for this weather loss Mortgage Company, Dollar One (yes/no): N- Rocket Mortgage Ctr Name (if applicable): Trademark Exteriors Ctr Added to Participants (yes/no): Y Offered SFPSP CSP or RSP: N REIAP utilized? (yes/no): N Explanation of claim handling pracess/next steps: Yes, inspections scheduled 9/29/2023 with 12-2PM arrival window Page 8 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CCMWest_000076"}, {"d": 55, "p": 182, "t": "RBZO0IS Claim Number: 36-5301-13C FIRE 09-12-2023 - 9:35 AM CDT File Note: AVM review Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Claim Note Office: WDOKTUL Performer: Cathell, Stacy COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: EGR has made first contact attempt with 2nd pending. Office: WDOKTUL Performer: Hervey, Brandi 08-24-2023 - 6:58 PM CDT File Note: 2nd Attempt contact Ni COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Sub Category: Category: Contact - Outbound Call Sent ODM. Called NI, Neil West @0014 phone number and Lacy West @0013 phone number. No option to leave VM as @0014 line VM box was full and @0013 phone number was answered by a man who stated it was the wrong number. FC0011519 Contact follow up letter sent via email « 08-06-2023 - 3:26 PM CDT Performer: Hervey, Brandi File Note: Contact NI Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Category: Contact - Qutbound Call Office: WDOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): 35 /001(Named Insured(s)) Sub Category: Sent ODM. Called NI, Neil West @0014 phone number and Lacy West @0013 phone number. Calls were unanswered. Left VM requesting c/b to discuss claim and schedule inspection date. * FC0010918 Contact initial attempt letter sent via email Office: WOOKTUL Performer: Hervey, Brandi 07-28-2023 - 10:34 PM CDT File Note: Pending COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 004(Named Insured(s)) Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Sub Category: Category: Pending PENDING File Note Cov A: * 8 © © © © @ we ew Pending QFC and inspection scheduling Pending confirmation of CTR - Update participants if needed Pending FIOT Pending Accuweather Pending inspection Pending SFE Pending CDE Pending settlement cali with Nj Pending settlement call with AO Pending close Cov B: « Pending inspection Cov C: * No, home is still habitable Sub: » No, loss due to weather event Mortgagee (Dollar One Y/N}: N- Rocket Mortgage File History - File Note System Generated Page 9 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000077"}, {"d": 55, "p": 183, "t": "FIRE Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C RBZO00015 identifying Description: Listed Property Address: 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR, LAWTON, OK, 735059537, USA Description: Indicate if the damage was caused by lightning: No ls the damage to the building's exterior, interior, or both? Exterior Indicate: Has the caller indicated the named insured’s home is uninhabitable or involves a total loss to a detached structure(s), based on the facts of loss or information they provided? If uncertain, ask the caller: No Indicate if Catastrophe Deductible Word Track was read: No Indicate if Temporary Repairs - Fire word track was read: No Indicate if applicable deductible(s) were read: No (Water Shut Off} To protect your property from further damage, turn off the water at the shut-off valve nearest the source of the leak: No (Carpet) We suggest that you or a contractor extract the water from the carpet and remove the water-damaged pad: No (Appliances) If safe to do so, unplug and remove all appliances in affected rooms: No (Protect Furniture) If possible, move furniture and other personal property out of the affected rooms or place aluminum foil under legs of furniture that cannot be removed to prevent stains on the flooring, Pull draperies up and away from wet areas: No Indicate if Temporary Repairs - Water Rernoval & Restoration word track was tead: No Indicate if Temporary Repairs - Hail word track was read: Yes Indicate if Temporary Repairs - Wind was read: No Indicate if Temporary Repairs - Wind & Hail was read: No 07-28-2023 ~ 2:02 PM CDT Performer: System - Claim File System Generated File Note: Preliminary Information . Participant: Office: System COL / Line (Participant): Category: New Ciaim Indicate if damage to any houses, structures, or buildings: Yes Were any of your personal or business items damaged? No Was this incident reported to the police? No 07-28-2023 - 2:02 PM CDT Performer: System - Ciaim File System Generated File Note: Loss Details Participant: Office: System COL / Line (Participant): Category: New Claim Reported by: Contractor Person who reported the claim: Trademark Exteriors Restoration Indicate if warm transferred from agent's office: No Indicate the kind(s) of loss being reported: Hail Indicate, Is this a first-party injury claim? (injury to insured) Is this a first-party property claim? (damage to the insured's owned and insured property) Is this a third-party injury claim? (alleged injury to another person) {s this a third-party property claim? (alleged damage to another person's property): First party property Indicate if a Weather/Catastrophe loss? Yes Indicate if the caller is filing this loss for record only: No Indicate if caller is requesting a Record Only letter to provide to a government agency: No Mark all applicable coverage(s) and deductible(s) read: Loss Location Category: Listed Property 07-28-2023 - 2:02 PM CDT Performer: System - Claim File Office: System System Generated File Note: Policy Details Participant: COL / Line (Participant): Category: New Claim Date: 03-14-2025 Page 18 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000086"}, {"d": 55, "p": 184, "t": "FIRE RBZO0015 Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C Policyholder Address: 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR, LAWTON, OK, 735059537, UNITED STATES Policyholder Type: Individual Product Line: F Policy Number: 36-CR-A405-8 Effective Date: 07/28/2023 Expiration Date: 12/29/2023 State and State Cade: OK; 36 indicate if Excess and Surplus: No Excess and Surplus State: Excess and Surplus Policy: File History - Tasks Office: McLeod-Gleaton, Taylor Performer: 09-17-2024 - 8:22 AM CDT Status: Task: MANAGEMENT CALENDAR COL / Line (Participant): Participant: Sub Category: Category: Calendar Task is set for a manager on the claim. Task is set to display every 180 days until the assignment is closed. WHRUREC Office: WHRUREC Status: Completed Performer: 09-17-2024 - 8:04 AM CDT Task: NEW MAIL Estimate Participant: Category: Wicker, Joe Cleared COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: New Nail Estimate Notifies claim handler that new mail has been received. 09-17-2024 - 7:26 AM CDT Task: Participant: Category: Performer: Office: Wicker, Joe WHRUREC Status: Completed COL / Line (Participant): — Sub Category: File Documeniation NEW MAIL File Documentation New Mail Notifies claim handler that new mail has been received. Performer: 08-15-2024 - 9:36 AM CDT Task: MANAGEMENT CALENDAR Participant: Category: Calendar Thomas, Dawn Performer: 08-15-2024 - 9:35 AM CDT Task: NEW MAIL Estimate Bradley, Yasiin Office: WHRUREC Status: Cleared Office: Status: WHRUREC COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Task is set for a manager on the claim. Task is set to display every 180 days until the assignment is closed. Participant: Category: Completed COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: New Mail Estimate Notifies claim handler that new mail has been received. 08-15-2024 - 9:35 AM CDT Performer: Sracley, Yasiin Office: WHRUREC Page 19 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000087"}, {"d": 55, "p": 186, "t": "StateFarm: Providing insurance and Financial Services Home Office, Bloomington, it August6, 2023 Lacy West State Farm Claims PQ Box 106169 7 NW Briarcreek Dr Atlanta GA 30348-6169 Lawton OK 73505-9537 RE: Claim Number. 36-53Q1-13C Date of Incident: June 15, 2023 Policy Number: 36CRX4058 Dear Lacy West: We have received your reported claim and wish to discuss this matter with you, but we were unable to reach you by telephone. In order to proceed with the handling of this claim, it is necessary to speak with you. Please call us so we can discuss the facts of this claim and schedule an appointment to inspect your property. It is our understanding that your property has suffered damage. If necessary, please use reasonable measures to protect your property from further damage. Keep a record of related expenses as all or some of them may be covered depending on your particular circumstances, If you have spoken with us before receiving this letter, you may disregard this request. We thank you for the opportunity to be of service and look forward.to speaking with you soon. If you have questionsor need assistance, call us at (866) 787-8676 Ext. 15631. Sincerely, Brandi Hervey External Claim Resource - Alacrity (868) 787-8676 Ext. 15631 Fax: (844) 236-3646 State Farm Fire and Casualty Company EXHIBIT WEST, 000066"}, {"d": 55, "p": 188, "t": "Providing Insurence and Financial Services Se State F; af m Home Office, Bloomington, It © August 24, 2023 State Farm Claims Lacy West PO Box 106169 7 NW Briarcreek Dr Atlanta GA 30348-6169 Lawton OK 73505-9537 RE: Claim Number: Date of Incident: 36-53Q1-13C June 15, 2023 Policy Number: 36CRX4058 Dear Lacy West: To assist you with this claim, please call us so we can discuss the details of this matter and schedule an appointment to inspect your property. Our last attempt to reach you was on August 24, 2023. It is our understanding that you have suffered damage to your property. If necessary, please use reasonable measures to protect your property from further damage. Keep a record of — related expenses as all or some of them may be covered depending on your particular circumstances. if you have spoken with us before receiving this letter, you may disregard this request. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and look forward to speaking with you soon. lf you have questions or need assistance, call us at (866) 787-8676 Ext. 15631. Sincerely, Brandi Hervey External Claim Resource - Alacrity (866) 787-8676 Ext. 15631 Fax: (844) 236-3646 statefarmfireclains@statefarm.com For your protection, when emailing Slate Farm, please do not include sensitive personal information such as Social Secunity Number, credit/debit card number (financial account numbed), driver's license number, or health/medical information in an email. Please contact us at (866) 787-8676 Ext. 15631 to discuss sensitive information. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company >> EXHIBIT SFF&CC/West_000636"}, {"d": 55, "p": 190, "t": "Providing insurance end Financial Services Home Office, Bloomington, It September 5, 2023. Lacy West 7 NW Briarcreek Dr State Farm Claims PO Box 106169 Lawton OK 73505-9537 Atanta.GA 30348-6169 RE: ClaimNumber. = 36-53Q1-13C. Date of Incident: Policy Number. Jurie 15, 2023 36CRX4058 Dear Lacy West: To assist you with this claim, please call us so we can discuss the details of this matter and schedule art appointment to inspect your property. Our last attempt to reach you was on September 5, 2023. itis our understanding that you have suffered damage to your property. If necessary, please use reasonable measures to protect your property from further damage. Keep a record of related expenses as all or some of them may be covered depending on your particular circumstances. If you have spoken with us before receiving this letter; you may disregard this request. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and look forward to speaking with you soon. If you have questions or need assistance, call us at (866) 787-8676 Ext. 15631. Sincerely, Brandi Hervey External Claim Resource - Alacrity (866) 787-8876 Ext. 15631 Fax: (844) 236-3648 statefarmfireclains@statefarm.com For your protection, when emailing State Ferm, please do not include sensitive personal information such as Social Security Number, credit/debit card number {financial account number), driver's license number, or héalth/medical information in an email, Please contact us at (866) 787-8676 Ext, 15631 to discuss sensitive information. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company EXHIBIT A WEST_000070"}, {"d": 55, "p": 192, "t": "Uocusign Envelope (U0: 1USSHEZ)-br Oe -BHSZ-BI48-USZFAd/F BAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) )) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) Defendants. ) Case No. CJ-2025-[35 JUDGE SHEPERD ) DECLARATION OF CEDRIC GOOCH I, Cedric Gooch, declare under penalty of perjury as follows: 1. I am over eighteen years of age, reside in Wylie to testify to the matters stated herein. , Texas, and am competent Iam currently employed by Renfroe as an independent adjuster. At the time of the events described in this Declaration, 1 was employed by Eberl and was assigned as an External Claims Resource to assist State Farm Fire and Casualty Company with the investigation and evaluation of property insurance claims, including performing field inspections and preparing estimates. In that role, I was assigned to inspect the property at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, Oklahoma owned by Neil and Lacy West (the “Property”) in connection with their claim for storm damage. On September 28, 2023, I physically inspected the Property, During my inspection, I evaluated whether there was storm damage to the roof and other exterior components. Based on my inspection, | identified conditions consistent with hail damage to portions of the Property, including the gutters, downspouts, window screens, and fence stain. I did not see or feel any hail damage to the roof shingles, chimney flue cap, or metal roof vents. Immediately following my inspection, and while still onsite, I discussed my findings with the insured, Mr. West. As part of that discussion, I showed him photographs from my inspection of the Property, as well as photographs of other roofs J had recently inspected that had hail damage, to explain the differences between the conditions I observed at the Property and the roofs where J found hail damage to exist. Following my inspection, J prepared a written estimate reflecting the damage I observed and the scope of repairs that | determined were appropriate based on my findings. ma? Sed EXHIBIT 15 ™> «"}, {"d": 55, "p": 193, "t": "Docusign Envelope iD. TUS Bt 25-F 56-BisS2-8548-CSZF BAS /FUAS 9, The estimate I prepared included an evaluation of repair costs, depreciation, and application of the policy deductible, and reflected the amount payable based on my inspection at that time. 10. I documented the estimate and related findings in the claim file as 1 normally do. 11, My findings, reflected in the estimate, were based on my inspection of the Property and the information available to me at the time of that inspection. At no point were my findings or estimate influenced by any policy that might trigger team management approval for a full roof replacement; nor, to my knowledge, was any such policy applicable to this claim because AccuWeather—an external vendor that provides hail-history estimates based on the date reported and the loss location—estimated hail over | inch in size for the reported date of loss and team manager approval was not needed fo total a roof where hail was larger than one inch. 12. To the best of my recollection, at the time inspected the Property, I had sufficient authority to total this roof without manager approval (had I thought it was warranted). 13. One sentence in my inspection claim note states, “Roof warrants full replacement based on impacts/sq.” That sentence is a clerical or copy/paste error, should not be there, and does not reflect my findings. As reflected in the same note and on my exterior scope sheet, | found no hail damage to the shingles on any directional slope. I did not estimate for a full roof replacement, and my estimate reflects the scope of repairs 1 determined were appropriate based on my inspection. 14, After completing my inspection and estimate, my involvement in the handling of the claim was limited to what is reflected in the claim file. I state under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma and 12 0.8. § 426 that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: May 25,00 , 2026. Location of Execution: Waterloo, IA Stoned by: (rdvic Coord BIGSOth-"}, {"d": 55, "p": 195, "t": "WEST, NEIL 36-539 1-13C State Farm P.O. Box 106169 Atlanta, GA 30348-6169 Fax: 1-844-236-3646. statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com Structural Damage Claim Policy This estimate is priced based on estimated market pricing for the cost of materials, labor, and other factors at the time of the loss. Adjustments in market pricing and timing of the repairs may impact the final cost of covered repairs, Should you or you select have questions conceming our estimate, please contact us. If your contractor's estimate is the contractor higher than ours, you should contact us prior to beginning repairs. State Farm will work with you and your contractor to determine the actual and necessary cost of covered repairs at the time repairs will be completed, subject to policy: terms, conditions and limits. * We want you to receive quality repair work to restore the damages to your property. » We will provide you with a detailed estimate of the scope of the damage and costs of repairs, Should the contractor you select have questions concerning our estimate, they should contact your claim representative directly. * Depending upon the complexity of your repair, our estimate may or may not include an allowance for general contractor's overhead and profit. If you have questions regarding general contractor's overhead and profit and whether general contractor services are appropriate for your loss, please contact your claim representative before proceeding wilh repairs. + There may be building codes, ordinances, laws, or regulations that affect the repairs of your property. These items may of may not be covered by your policy, Please contact your claim representative if you have any questions regarding coverage which may be available under your policy. + State Farm® cannot authorize any contractor to proceed with work on your property. Repairs should proceed only with your authorization. * State Farm does not guarantee the quality-of the workmanship of any contractor or guarantee that ihe work will be accomplished within any specific time frame. « It is understood that the contractor is hired by you, our insured, and that they work for you - not State Farm, Hyou have any questions or need additional information regarding your claim, please contact your claim representative immediately. m2? EXHIBIT Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM Ie 132214.1 06-18-2009 Page: ! WEST_000087 Ce"}, {"d": 55, "p": 196, "t": "16-530 1-13C Bullding Estimate Summary Guide StateFarm' guide Is based on a sample estimate and Is provided for reference only. This summary Please refer to the estimate for specifics of your clalm. t. Line Hem Total ~ Total vatue of ail line ftams In the piven plus possible State Farm insurance Insured: ms Property: Sim , H08 . 4 vena mith + Main Street 00-0000. O00 Estimat Clan number: — 00-0000-000 j Other $4,000.00 coals and repairs. 2. Ganorat Contractor's Overhaad and Profit ~ General contractor's charge for coordinaling your repairs. — Remodel F = Factored in, } 0 = Do Not Apply - Summary for Dwelling Line Item Total [1] . Matariel Sales Tax j “ due to waar, ep eine and ov all of this obsolescence. A Pa Subtotal amount may be eligible far replacement ¢ General Contractor Overhead [2] @ General Contractor Profit wo ‘ 0: cost benefits. cs Cost Value (Including Gene! Coniracto Overhead and Prot) Replacement Lass Depreciation (Including Taxes) cy Esiimated cost to repair of replace = The decrease in the 4, Depreciation volua of property over a period of ima . ; 10,000% x 1,620.08 Q £3, Replacement Cost Value (RCV) ~ damaged property. , . Minium It to cover a.certaln minimum of hours for drive-lima, set up number tiie and applicable administrative Soe ILAL8F_MAR 13 Restoratlon/Service/ Price List; bor minknums, Labor adustments for |) Polkcy Number: 00-00-0000-0 Anywherg, th 00000-0000 Type of Loss: Deductible: lat 8. Deductible -The Insurer will pay for 7,326.12 losses, up to the policy Emits, in excess (632,50) i otto of your applicable deductibe. &. Net Actual Cash Value Payment (166.50) The repair or replacement cost (ACV) Less Destin (Z] of tha dameged part of the property less depreciation and deductible. 7, Non Recoverabla Depreciation ~ Hon applied to iterns that are nat dligible for replacement cos benefits. 8. Total Maxkvium Additional Amount if O4P on Depreciation Genera! Contractor Incurred ~ Total amount of recoverable deprecialion after actual 168.60 repalt t of rep lacement °of Less General Contractor OSP on Non - recovatable Depreciation Subtotal Total Maximum Addiional Amounts Avaliable if incurred [B] the property. : 9. Total Amount of veri eg acme | Total Amount of Claim Ifincured [5] | - cash value paymant andar t actus Tolal amount of th jad maximum edditonal amount available Clalm Representalve ALL AMOUNTS PAYABLE ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITS OF YOUR POLICY. soozeas Date: 139028.1 01-23-2013 9/28/2023 5:43 PM Page: 2 WEST_000088"}, {"d": 55, "p": 197, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C insured: Properly: = WEST, NEIL 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR Estimate: Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C 3653Q113C LAWTON, OK 73505-9537 Policy Number: 36CRX4058 Home: 580-510-0427 Cellular; 580-695-0014 Type of Loss:. Heil Deductible: Date of Loss; Date inspected: $3,090.00 6/15/2023 9/28/2023 Price List) OKLA28_0{JUN23 Restoration/Service/Remodel Summary for Coverage A - Dwelling - 35 Windstorm and Hail Line Item Total Material Sales Tax 4,686.80 89.09 - Replacement Cost Valuc 4,775.89 Less Depreciation (Including Taxes) Less Deductible (167,39) (3,090.00) Net Actua! Cash Value Payment $918.50 Maximum Additional Amounts Available If Incurred: 767.39 Total Line Item Depreciation (Including Taxes) 767.39 Replacement Cost Benefits Total Maximum Additional Amount Available If Incurred Total Amount of Claim If Incurred . 767.39 $1,685.89 Gooch, Cedric 866-787-8676 ALL AMOUNTS PAYABLE ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITS OF YOUR POLICY. A residential or commercial roofing contractor providing repairs or improvement services to be paid by an insured from the proceeds of a property or casualty insurance palicy shall not, ax an inducement to the sale or provision of goods or services to an insured, e to pay, directly or indirectly, all or part of any applicable insurance deductible or offer to compensate an insured or promise advertis for providing any service to the insured. If a roofing contractor violates the provisions ofthis section, the insurer to whom the insured tendered the claim shall not be obligated to consider the estimate prepared by the roofing contractor, Every roofing contractor shall provide a written notification of the requirements of this section with its initial estimate, The adjuster or insurer shall provide a written notification of the requirements of this section in the initial estimate relating to the claim. Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM Page: 3 WEST_000089"}, {"d": 55, "p": 198, "t": "& StateFarm: . Explanation of Building Repiacement Cost Benefits Homeowner Policy Coyerage A - Dwelling - 35 Windstorm and Hail To: Name: Address: WEST, NEIL 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR City: LAWTON State/Zip: OK, 73505-9537 Insured: WEST, NEIL Date of Loss: 6/15/2023 Claim Number: 3653Q113C Cause of Loss: HAIL Your insurance policy provides replacement cost benefits for some or all of the loss of damage to your dwelling of structures. Replacement cost benefits pays the actual and necessary cost of repair or replacement, without a deduction for depreciation, subject to your policy's limit of lability, To receive replacement cost benefits you must: 4. Complete the actual repair or replacement of the damaged part of the properly within two years of the date of loss; 2. Promptly notify us within 30 days afler the work has bean complated; and 3, Confirm completion of repair or replacement, by submitting invoices, receipls or other documentation to your agent or claim office. Unltd these requirements have been satisfied, our payment(s) to you wal be for the actual cash value of the damaged part of the property, which may inchide a deductlon for depreciation. Without waiving the above requirements, we will consider paying replacement cost benefits prior to actual repair or replacement if we determing repairor replacement costs will be incurred because repairs are substantially under way or you present a signed contract acceptable to us. is for tha actual cash The estimate to repair or replace your damaged property is $4,775.89 . The enclosed claim payment to you of $918.50 value by deducting value of the damaged property at the time of loss, less any deductible that may apply. We determined the actual cash loss. Based on our depreciation from the estimated repair or replacement cost, Our estimate details the depreciation applied to your estimate, the additional amount avaiable to you for replacement cost benefits (recoverable depreciation) is $767.39. if you cannot have the repairs completed for the repair/replacement cost estimated, please contact your claim specialist prior to beginning repairs. Al! policy provisions apply to your claim, Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM FC0006615 10/22/2020 Page: 4 WEST_000090"}, {"d": 55, "p": 199, "t": "State farm 36-§391-13C WEST, NUL Dwelling Exterlor Roof . 46,33: Numberof Squares 4,632.97 Surface Arca 99,08 Total Ridge Length 330,96 Total Perimeter Length 229.79 Total Flip Length UNIT PRICE QUANTITY TAX RCV 0,00 0,00 AGE/LIFE DEPREC, CONDITION DEP % ACV No Accidental Direct Physical Loss observed at timeof inspection. Totals: Roof 0.08 0,00 Gutters 0,00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 0.00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV AGE/LIFE CONDITION DEPREC. DEP % 2,891.35 4/25 yrs (462.62) Avg. 16.00% Oe - up to 5” * {. R&R Gutter - aluminum 275,00 LF ACV 10,28 64.35. 64.35 Totals: Gutters 462,62 2,891.35 2,428.73 2,428.73 Front Elevation 2, R&R Window screen, | - 9 SF 2,00 BA Totals; Front Elevation Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0,00 LF Ceil, Perimeter 0,00 SF Short Wall 0.00 SF Floor 0,00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 SF Ceiling 0,00 SP Walls UNIT PRICE TAX RCV AGE/LIFE DEPREC, CONDITION DEP % ACV | 42,14 3.28. 3,28 87,56 87.56 4/30 yrs (11.68) Avg. 13.33% 41.68 75,88 75,88 Page: 5 WEST_000091"}, {"d": 55, "p": 200, "t": "State Farm 36-539}-f3C WUST, NEIL. Right Klovation 0,00 SE Wolts 0.00 SF Cefling 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0,00 SF. Floor 0.00 SF Long Wall 0,00 SF Short Wall 0,00. LF Floor Perimeter QUANTITY 0.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 0.00 6,00 AGF/LIFE CONDITION DEPREC. ACV 0,00 0.00 DEP% No Accidental Direct Physical Loss observed at time of inspection. Totals: Right Elevation Rear Elevation 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 10,28 4, R&R Window screen, 19 SF 1.00 EA 42.14 Totals: Rear Elevation Left Elevation | 0.00 LF Fioor Perimeter 0,00 LF Ceil, Perimeter TAX RCV AGE/LIFE CONDITION DEPREC. DEP% ACV 2.81 126.17 4/25 yrs (20.19) 105.98 Avg. 16.00% 4/30 yrs Avg. (5.84) 13.33% 37.94 26.03 143.92 * 3. R&R downspout - aluminum - up to 5° 12.00 LF 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00.SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Walls . 1.64 43.78 445 169.95 . 0.00 SP Walls 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0,00 SF Floor 0,00 SF Long Wall 0,00 SF Short Wall 0,00 LF Floor Perimeter 0,00 LF Ceil. Perimeter. QUANTITY UNIT PRICE #5, R&R downspout - aluminum - up to 5\" 12,00 LF | 6. R&R Window screen, 1 - 9 SF 1,00 BA Totals: Left Elevation Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM TAX RCV DEPREC. AGE/LIFE CONDITION . DEP % . ACV - 10,28 2.81 126.17 4/25 yrs Av. 16,00% (20.19) 105.98 42.14 1.64 43.78 430yrs (5.84) 37.94 AAS 169.95 Avg. 13.33% 26.03 . 143,92 Page: 6 WEST_000092"}, {"d": 55, "p": 201, "t": "State Farm 36-53Q1-13C WEST, NEIL Fence 0.00 SF Walls 0,00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0,00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Long Wall 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter QUANTITY TAX RCV 0,38 0.31 241.99 0.85 8.99 536.87 930 778.86 UNIT PRICE 7. Clean the surface nrea 636.00 SF 8, Stain - wood fence/gate 636.00 SF | Totals: Fence Asea Totals: Exterior AGE/LIFE. CONDITION ACV DEPREC. DEP % 241,99 4fi5 yrs Avg, (143.17) 26.67% 393.70 143.17 635.69 2,371.08 SF Walls 319.90 Exterior Perimeter 2,371.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 2,371.08 Exterior Wall Area of Walls 319.90 LF Floor Perimeter 4,632.97 Surface Area 99.08 Total Ridge Length 46.33 Number of Squares 229.79 Total Hip Length 330.96 Total Perimeter Length 85.83 Total: Exterior 669.53 4,097.67 3,428.14 Ioterlor Height: 8° Bedroom 352.00 SF Walls 120.00 SF Ceiling 472,00 SF Walls & Ceiling 120.00 SF Floor 44.00 LF Ccil, Perimeter 44,00 LF Floor Perimeter Opens into Extertor Opens into Extertor Opens ints Exterior 2'6\" X 68\" 2'6\" X 618\" 26\" X 68\" Door Door Door QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AGE/LIFE CONDITION DEPREC. DEP% ACV TAX RCV 0.00 39.38 39.58 0.01 2,09 2.09 CEILING 9. Content Manipulation charge - per hour 39,58 1,00 HR 10, Seal the surface area w/PVA primer - one coal 4,00 SF Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM 0,52 Page: 7 WEST_000093"}, {"d": 55, "p": 202, "t": "State Farm 36-53Q1-13C WIST, NUIL CONTINUED - Bedroom QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 0.85 1649 _ 11, Paint more than the ceiling - ono coal 124.00 SF 0.61 AGE/LIFE DEPREC. CONDITION DEP% StS yrs (25.49) Avg. 33.33% ACY 51.00 WALLS 12, Paint the walls ~ one coat 0,61 352.00 SF FLOOR 2.40 21712 3,26 335.28 © SAS yrs (72.37) Avg. 33,33% 144,75 . No Accidental Direet Physical-Loss observed at time of inspection. Totals: Bedroom Area Totals: Interior 472.00 SF Walls and Ceiling 44,00 LF Floor Perimeter 44.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter 352.00 Interior Wall Area 120.00 SF Ceiling 352,00 SF Walls 135.1) Total Area 46.67 Exterior Perimeter of Walls 120,00 SF Floor 120,00 Floor Area 237A2 97.86 Pn 3.26 Total: Interior Area Totals; Dwelling 135.11 Total Area 366.57. Exterior Perimeter 120.00 Floor Arca of Walls 2,791.08 Exterior Wall Area 46.33 Number of Squares 4,632.97 Surface Area 99.08 Total Ridge Length 89.09 767.39 3,665.56 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0,00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 0.00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY 330.96 Total Perimeter Length 4,432.95 0,00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Short Wall 0,00 SF Wails 0.00 SF Floor 44.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter -352.00 Interior Wall Area 229.79 Total Hip Length Total: Dwelling Debris Removal 2397.42 2,843.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 363.90 LF Floor Perimeter 120,00 SF Ceiling 2,723.08 SF Walls 120.00 SF Floor 97.86 335.28 UNIT PRICE TAX RCY AGE/LIFE DEPREC. CONDITION DEF % ACV 13, Haul debris - per pickup truck load - including dump fees 1.00 BA Totals: Debris Removal Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM 144,12 0.00 144.12 0.60 144.12 444,12 0.00 144,12 Page: 8 WEST_000094"}, {"d": 55, "p": 203, "t": "State Farm 36-53Q1-13C WEST, NEIL Labor Minimunts Apptled RCV AGE/LIFE DEPREC. CONDITION DEP % ACY UNIT PRICE TAX 178.98 0.00 178.98 19,84 0.00 19.84 Totals: Labor Minimums Applied 0,00 198,82 0.00 198.82 Linc Item Totals: 36-53Q1-13C 89.09 4,775.89 767,39 4,008.50 QUANTITY 14. Window labor minimum 1.00 EA 15, General labor - tabor minimum 1.00 BA | Grand Total Areas: 2,723.08 SF Walls 120.00 SF Ceiling | 19.84 | 2,843.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 363.90 LF Floor Perimeter 120.00 SF Floor Date: 178.98 44.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 120,00 Floor Area 2,791.08 Exterior Wall Area. 135.11 Total Area 366.57 Exterior Perimeter of Walls 352.00 Interior Wall Area 4,632.97 Surface Area 99.08 Total Ridge Length 46.33 Number of Squares 229.79 Total Hip Length 330.96 Total Perimeter Length 9/28/2023 5:43 PM Page: 9 WEST_000095"}, {"d": 55, "p": 205, "t": "To: Bobby Odom Sep 26,2023att43PM m@™>> 5 Son 17 EXHIBIT =» WEST_000433 «."}, {"d": 55, "p": 206, "t": "Cancel Oct 4, 2024 at 12:08PM Ok. I'm in Dallas at a barbershop « chorus : competition, soi can't really ‘do muchto help the cause WEST_000540"}, {"d": 55, "p": 207, "t": "-. NewiMessage —Cancel_— To: Bobby Odom WEST_000541"}, {"d": 55, "p": 209, "t": "New iMessage Cancel — To: Bobby Odom Oct 15, 2024 at 3:45PM Oct 22, 2024 at 8:24AM Oct 22, 2024 at 9:34 AM WEST_000543"}, {"d": 55, "p": 210, "t": "New iMessage Cancel — To: Bobby Odom Oct 22, 2024 at 9:34AM WEST_000544"}, {"d": 55, "p": 211, "t": "New iMessage To: Bobby Odom Oct 25, 2024 at 3:32PM ‘the pictures? Irrealy vwant to. : get moving on this. WEST_000545"}, {"d": 55, "p": 213, "t": "B NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOM Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 IN THE DISTRICT COURT LACY WEST, and NEIL OKLAHOMA COUNTY, COMANCHE OF Plaintiffs, No. Case vs. c7-2025-135 FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY STATE INS. and NANCY HOLCOMB COMPANY INC., AGENCY, Defendants. VIDEOTAPED July 14, offices 2026, of National, me, and sworn, produced, at examined Alpha Reporting Suite 405, ELIZABETH above-captioned C. & Tuesday, that Video, taken on at 1911 South in the behalf of RPR, CCR, the day, Missouri, Springfield, HETAGER, cause; on of a.m. 10:21 ODOM, BOBBY MR. OF DEPOSITION Defendants. EXHIBIT 18 Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) before the"}, {"d": 55, "p": 214, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 that's what you were asking. If first time I knocked on his door. No. Sorry. The you were you looked then you you said up there, you got him some photos. And if we made contact that like the exact time with Mr. around, you showed I'm not sure said, When West, there out the contact I made question. previous Page 79 day. Yeah. With insurance. say Okay. as far as with you guys, recall and remember 10 Yeah. I'd 11 made contact 12 recall. 13 Okay. 14 What 15 giving 16 with him. 17 And what did that inspection 18° time you were out at Mr. 19 I got on the roof and 20 Okay. 21 And 22 collaterals, like gutters, 23 pointed out some of 24 Would 25 T I do you believe have I taken I'm things shingles. the other sure. You know, him and -- first day? of some photos the at looked the photos first the of consist and West's? know, you at, looked reviewing then and inspection his him him meeting is not I do part that we to that did. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405, 232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) yeah."}, {"d": 55, "p": 215, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 Q Okay. A I were they When you. tell and try and look can Page 80 uploaded. is when they were uploaded? Yes. Now, mind you, always the these not JobNimbus, on tell can you something that And not are dates the upload same. Because just like with several jobs, like, I've on the roofs, but upload photos. again, you know, been Because, of I did sift to throughout the day, you try know, people who are being serious and who aren't being serious, will. I you can see, five, six, seven, 15, 16, 17, 10 meeting people 11 through, you 12 the ones 13 mean, as 14 four, 15 13, 14, 16 20 people I made contact 17 I have to upload photos 18 you 19 Right. 20 And how things 21 like, Oh, 22 this person's 23 A lot of 24 Mm-hmm. So -- well, not necessarily that. 25 again, you get busy and you forget to upload can lost And there's ten, 11, -- 20 jobs or with -- I'm sorry for. So you can sauce, if you will. lot a 20 19, the in get nine, eight, 18, to do -- see 12, that how -- of And you're just start piling up. I forgot three, two, one, there's you if this. Forgot to upload photos. photos in the same area? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) Just,"}, {"d": 55, "p": 216, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 photos Page 81 -- Okay. know. day, you come, first the of -- at the end ig -- it is a thing. You know, for They're not always looking for They're just wanting the easiest at door first. their first it kind of served anyways. people, some Because guy. best the who showed reason why guy up Okay. You 11 saying this 12 started uploaded 13 that 14 that's correct. 15 Yeah. January 16 Okay. 17 Was when 18 then from there, 19 March 6th of '24. 20 on March 29th of 21 photos 22 The 23 photos you 24 claim out. 25 And were drone they first set of photos, let me make sure back up. January 26. And photos. of a first set there was another set uploaded And then another set of photos And then the -- the drone 31st of 2024. '24. requested photos that were guys needed to said that 2024. of I uploaded that you Scroll 26 say -- twenty- I'm photos very the -- January were the is because the -- up essentially so know, 10 those were August allegedly approve taken and August Word for Word Reporting, LLC the only send this 31st of 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) on 2024?"}, {"d": 55, "p": 217, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 one 2 share. 3 | A Yeah. Sorry about that. 4 |Q That's fine. We'll make copies else has them. So 6 page, it looks like this bottom 7 this is -- 8 Brandon 9 the note? that 10 | A So 11 | Q Because 12 A Yes. 13 | Q Okay. 14 off. 15 and is, yes, him sending then it says @Bobby? So it says Your note add the photos. Do you recall 16 this note -- and sending is send to only this one it up type about what you were talking we can handle the supplement. only type it up and for us to it off for then? 17 So we have two ways 19 We can pay him to 20 send off to the insurance for approval. can type 18 I think it. said 3/6 third a.m., I didn't @Bobby. from to Brandon mean that Does Gold. go 6:01 5/3/24, says it sure if we everybody so make and 5 to have to going just we're this, of copy 1 Page 112 | A 21 Q Okay. 22 | A Or he 23 approval 24 et 25 that. and cetera. it up and then he sends does all the emailing and But, obviously, he gets phone paid Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) more calls, for"}, {"d": 55, "p": 218, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB Page 113 Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 Q Okay. A So the claim still not not having a job out of it, it typed up and sent off you know, didn't that time, even being approved and paid to have I, I just Because myself. too nothing know, be, you And that's when I turned Okay. And when you talking about Yes, ma'am. 11 Okay. And 12 you're basically 13 you type 14 on this? 15 And then 16 I had 17 identified as hail 18 Okay. And so do 19 State Farm yourself 20 Not -- not specifically. 21 Okay. 22 -- I'm sure I've 23 throughout 24 the 25 Okay. -- that is works, how that sending it to Brandon estimate for a full roof replacement anything else I had listed there an the let's that I said, to out reaching recall in March? reached -- Can yeah. damage, you Saying, like -- you know or, dates, Well, just you're it up,\" as far so as identified exact to him. estimate? the just over \"type was. it Until would it think crazy. it say 10 up with know, you at I mean -- to them out still time frame. I do not know the exact through some of go far as But the dates. these Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) as photos"}, {"d": 55, "p": 219, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 the of some or misinterpreted I misread maybe And photos. aerial some was needed, we all much pretty Page 193 information. Okay. my yeah, needed and... from last photos Where -- saying that they any other communication 10 October 1st, 11 requesting 12 Well, 13 So it 14 Mr. West 15 guess, is Jose Parga 16 Bobby, can you please 17 your team can help 18 you didn't. I'm 19 included in this. 20 looks 21 December of 22 you sent the 23 him you thought 24 lawsuit. I don't 25 in do of more photos? appears that throughout like the rest looks here, first following up and saying, confirm this is something I don't -- I'm not a reply that was seeing rest the the of it 20th of the email on asking to follow up. final email on January he should proceed with other requests any 2nd, you? Word for Word Reporting, LLC (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) 232.9673 405, saying emails, an see I the sent 2024, one, well, Or, And West Mr. like are photos of with? not (sic) these up. following were. they here, you sent Parga Jose that email 2024, this from aside aware you are photos, more needed a communication about talking you're when it he that the were those understanding, But then And telling the -- for the photos"}, {"d": 55, "p": 220, "t": "B NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOM Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 A this one, I don't After much back and have agreed to in Not an additional looking for better photos of of the entire house. email at overviews roof, specifically Right. That's the October 1st we just read, right? that communication, of page the Right. from 10 any other communication 11 to provide more 12 Not Yr oO YF aside time. of were asking you off of. you anything to Okay. have Okay. But based 16 to be the last 17 what you're 18 Mm-hmm. 19 Okay. And 20 like Jose 21 of October 22 December. 23 No. 24 10/31 note saying, \"See 25 follow up several times Do aware are they where this at knowledge my to really 15 bottom the photos? I don't 14 the Right. So 13 inspection. reconsider are they However, says, they Farm, State with forth it so Well, think. Page 194 35, go that understood you that, off of thing that they needed? Is that during this time, again, it looks follows up about a week later on the 2024. Then Mr. West follows up in saying? so If about 8th back to your notes on Exhibit six pages in. So after you send photos,\" you appear to of the we go over the course Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) the next"}, {"d": 55, "p": 221, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 couple of months Page 195 -- Mm- hmm. asking for an an update on November \"I have with Coastal.\" You on the 15th of November, and the 17th times, like look it 11 \"They're saying 12 more that 13 What happened? 14 didn't 15 attorney 16 for can it updates three more the 20th of December. And it the 18th November, of on Then done.\" You respond, be over. to get denied. And now recall what wrapping 19 Essentially, in 20 like, the end result? 21 Yeah. Do you remember 22 claim wasn't moving 23 Not entirely. I 24 Okay. 25 -- why? if they said let to his then they took their time of how this claim was up? Like sort 18 Brandon, it approved, get could He good. is not This of anything be to going doesn't you, tells Brandon that not take Do you 17 check there's they think I will for ask appears December, Brandon responds. Brandon 10 And 2024. of anything. heard not asked 12th says, for you like Looks update. -- up? I was trying way and why obviously -- happened what just, this forward? just to, wrapping remember, yeah, do -- do whatever Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) I could"}, {"d": 55, "p": 222, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 to going I'm 16. Exhibit on Exhibit 15 And so you'll see on September 13th, at six -- 16, is from State Farm back to Also includes Mr. West and Mrs. No. Mr. Parga. And says, Jose Dear based Coastal this morning, to send additional comes to the 10 when it 11 If 12 contact 13 Do 14 conversations 15 the 16 you additional any have information in is that questions, Services for review question. use my rain cap on the roof? please below. Mr. with specific any having remember you Claim information cap rain West. our on Parga, email, this And 6:13. conversation that Friday, email have Parga that about PP © Okay. Or, PF I don't really recall. Oo roof? Honestly, Okay. Do you remember 20 the 21 I would a as that will 19 marked sent Exhibit 18 been you Parga Mr. 17 what's hand Page 203 I don't recall. like, where it was located on located where it was we looked at maybe, would that help? at on roof? say on the And is -- 22 Okay. 23 Eagleview 24 Yeah. 25 Okay. photos, back. if Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) like, your"}, {"d": 55, "p": 223, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 A Absolutely. Q Because Yeah. I don't have the which may be took, you Page 204 the easiest to be on that photos drone the -~- I guess, way, to see, So Q I think -- where is that? No. 11, it has your towards the back. just hard to see where it's at on the from the photos that what I'm It's Yeah. Exhibit at look if you Eagleview A looks cap rain the A Eagleview. 10 Q 11 12 A 14 you have? Just the Q And can tell better exact placement on the it in your a hard having 13 you So Okay. 15 circle it on 16 No. 11 at 730, 17 start. 18 A I think that 19 Q So you believe 25 where your Eagleview photo got mixed up photos in there. of the photos you West roof? the not of to the form. no. That was a of the photos and things Object appears that not, is Exhibit were SANDERS: one some maybe be just misupload. 23 24 is that and photos it would So Eagleview. the MR. 21 It see Farm submitted A can to State 20 22 time. if you even is roof Q (By Ms. Finch) far as -- as Okay. far as And the the rest close-ups Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) like as"}, {"d": 55, "p": 224, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 that, how the Wests? So it's -- how are we sure that those Object to the form. I can assume SANDERS: that only thing occurred is the photos that January 26 here, those photos the I went to the 11 these got mixed 12 (By Ms. 13 of 14 Yeah. 15 for the photos 16 And how many 17 The six. But 18 that is from the house. 19 And did you ever have 20 Coastal Claims al photos of 22 house? 23 I have 25 in on be froma that photos is maybe some of like you had would have occurred through my in, and it looked a lot that maybe were uploaded January 26th. other photo after any conversations with about how they to a house of those on photos? every I'm positive damage felt about that wasn't to the form. them about that, submitting the -SANDERS: not kind again, area? assuming I'm I have that uploaded there. Because Finch) houses MR. in has Because, zoomed and map 10 24 from what may up these I pulled how like were accident. by house different of are -- MR. So Page 205 spoken Object with Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) no. right"}, {"d": 55, "p": 226, "t": "Vocusign cnvelope I: MEFUUYTA-Ydd /-YIDL-dUNS-SOSUBEUZh 151 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 STATE FARM FIREAND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC,, ) ) JUDGE SHEPERD Defendants, ) ) DECLARATION OF BRANDON GOLD 1, Brandon Gold, declare under penalty of perjury as follows: 1, ] am over eighteen years of age and am competent to testify to the matters stated here, 2. [ am a licensed public adjuster and, at times, provide adjusting services for clients of Coastal Claims Services, LLC. I also, at tines, compile estimates for Trademark Exteriors—a roofing company located in Oklahoma. Ireside in Holland , Penysylvaniaand have never been to Lawton, Oklahoma. On or around March of 2024, ] compiled an estimate for Trademark Exteriors for the property located at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, OK (“the Property”). I did not inspect the Property at any time, I created the estimate based solely on photos provided to me by Trademark Exteriors, and remote measurement data, including Eagle View. In preparing the estimate, | was asked to prepare an estimate for a full roof replacement in connection with Trademark Exteriors’ request for a second inspection of the Property In preparing the estimate, | was not asked—nor did I—make any determinations regarding any alleged damage to the property or the cause of such alleged damage. 10.1 was not asked to, and did not, make any determination regarding the existetice, scope, or cause of any alleged damage to the Property. 11, From time to time, | refer business to Coastal Claims Services, LLC in exchange for a fee. EXHIBIT AG"}, {"d": 55, "p": 227, "t": "DoOCcUSIgN Efvelope iO) SEFUSYTA-Ybd /-BIUL-sUnd-JOSUBEYZE 151 12, I recall referring the claim of Neil West and Lacy West relating to the Property to Coastal Claims Services, LLC in or around the same time that I prepared the estimate described above, 13, Although my name appcars ona contract between Coastal Claims Services, LLC and Neil West and Lacy West, I did not provide any public adjusting services in connection with their claim, I state under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma and 12 0.5, § 426 that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: May 25:00, 2026, Location of Execution: Gold Claims, LLC's Office DecuStgned hy: brandon, Gold LOSE."}, {"d": 55, "p": 229, "t": "eat Plaintiffs, age JUDGE SHEPERD ntt STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Case No. CJ-2025-135 eet Vv, neattl Ntetl apt NEIL and LACY WEST, eae IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA amet Defendants. I, Derek Franklin, declare under penalty of perjury as follows: 1. Tam over eighteen years of age, reside in Lindsay, Oklahoma, McClain, County, and J am re competent to testify to the matters stated here. fam the owner of Legacy Roofing & Construction, LLC in Lindsay, Oklahoma, I inspected the property located at 7 NW Briarcreck Drive, Lawton, OK (“the Property”) on at Icast one occasion, in or around September of 2023, in connection with Neil West and Lacy West’s claim for alleged storm damage. T do not recall inspecting the Property at any other time. 1 do not have any notes, photographs, or other documentation documenting my inspection, but | recall observing damage to only two slopes of the roof. I believe those slopes were the north slope (above the garaye door) and west slope (above the back porch), I did not do any investigation, or make any determination, regarding the date of loss of any damage I observed to the rvofof the Property. I state under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma and 12 Q.S. § 426 that the foregoing is true and correct. Location of Execution: Lindsay, Oklahoma. Date: May 26, 2026. EXHIBIT O26K91"}, {"d": 55, "p": 231, "t": "From: Kevin. kevin@brown-chaver.com & Subject: Fw: State Farm Claim.pdf Neil Wes/Lawton Date: January 26, 2024 at 12:05PM To: J Whitson jwhitson@brown-ohaver.com Kevin Miller Brown O’Haver Adjusters for the Insured 1901 N, Moore Ave, Ste 12 Moore, OK 73160 405-735-5510 Office 405-735-5513 Fax 405-604-1510 Cell EXHIBIT From: Neil West <neilspencerwest@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 12:18 PM To: Kevin. <kevin@ brown-ohaver.com> Subject: Fw: State Farm Claim.pdf Neil West/Lawton «c Kevin- You and | spoke yesterday. Atlached is the repart made by State Farm, denying roof damage, but cutting a check for the screens, gutters and fence. The “goad guy” contractor {the one | lust) that inspected my roof Ihe second time is Derek Franklin. | asked him to send you the photos he took directly, so be on the lookout for thoss. { also nollced there was damage to the celling on one of the bedrooms and | took pictures of those, which | am attaching to this email, (The 4 pictures are of the same spol, although some were enlarged to see it better} t algo noticed that there is damage to the ceiling in a bedroom closet from another part of the house. | haven 'ttold anyone about this, as | Just discovered it, alhough my wife noticed it a few months ago about the time the storm hit, When | get home from work today | will snap photos of those and send them to you. As per our discussion, after you review the materials please let me know if this is a claim worth pursuing. Cail, text or email if you have eny questions or concerns. Respectfully, Neil West 580.695.0014 call SUB-BrownO’Haver_000004"}, {"d": 55, "p": 232, "t": "From : Kavin, austen@brown-ohaver.com & Subjact : Sales Call Date : November 28, 2023 at 1:25PM To : J Whitson {whitson@brown-ohaver.com Neil West 11/27 friend 6/23/23 580-695-0014 neilspencerwest@sbcglobal.net Lawton Wind/Hail State Farm Mr. West is an attorney in Lawton. He had a wind/hail claim that 2 roofers have looked at and both told hir that the roof was damaged. One said it was a total loss and the other said there was extensive damage but not necessarily a total replacement. State Farm is saying there is no roof damage and only paying him for a repair of the gutters and screens, Would like our help if possible. He sent over the claim documentation from State Farm. Inline image. SUB-BrownO'Haver_000008"}, {"d": 55, "p": 234, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE. 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405), 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. Client: Properly: Neil West 7.NW Briarcreek Drive Lawton, -OK-73505 Operator: BRANDONS Type of Estimate: ‘Date Entered: Hail 3/7/2024 Price List! ‘Labor Efficiency: -OKLA8X: MAR24 Restoration/Service/Remodel ‘Date Assigned: Estimate: © WEST NEIL File Number: . Claim Number: 3653Q113C: IN TTS pur Tee ¥~- PLEASE’ ee ALL PLEASE RREAD ris DOCUMENT. CAREF' ULLY, THOROUGHL YeANDIN ; ‘Trademark Exteriors Restoration standardly uses the primary insurance industry database (Xactimate) for preparation of property loss related.repair estimates. This estimate has been prepared based. on legitimate damage and a reasonable method of repairs, Additionally, this estimate may be subject to futiire revisions and/or ‘additions., Adopted and Required Building Codes: The 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC) has.been adopted and enforced in its entirety by Lawton, OK, unless otherwise specified in local amendments (which are: additions and/or deletions to the already ‘written building codes ~ see attached corresponding éode documentation in the images.section following this-estimate), The 2015 International Code Council (ICC) are the rules that govern this estimate. Important: \"Any person-who yiolates a provision of this code or fails to.comply with any of the requirements thereof or who. erects, constructs, alters or repairs a building or structure in violation of the approved Constriiction documents or directive of the building official, or ofa permit or ceitificate issued under the provisions of this code, shall. be subject to penaltiés as prescribed by law.” (RC.R113.4 Violation Penalties) Overhead and Profit- See Below Disclosures from Xactware for Additional Réference: Overhead and Profit (if applicable) has been added accordingly. For any questions related to the following estimate; please contact us: EXHIBIT SFF&CC/West_000321"}, {"d": 55, "p": 235, "t": "A DEMARK pene wil’ : Exteriors i , Restoration i Trademark 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105. (405).748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com PLEASE: READ THE FOLLOWING DISCLOUSRE FROM XACTWARE CAREFULLY AND THOROUGHLY. “Xactwaire cannot and does not represent of assume the accuracy of, or in uny Way endorse the content provided by its and represent; therefore, that your use of Licensed Product information is only customer's or any other entity. You warrant ‘as.a source of opinion. You agree notto rély thereon without independent verification except at your own risk.\" “Xactware does not. warrant the accuracy of Price Data, Price Data is intended to be a representation of historical information to be used asa baseline or place to begin creation of an estimate. ‘You are responsible to ensure the estimate not limited to actual niaterials, equipment, and labor pricing. You includes priding consistent with components including but acknowledge and understand that Price Data providedas part of the Licensed Product is intended to target the :most representative price of the various price points collected relevant to the specific line item in question. Having this single price per line item, computed from all valid price points researchedin the market, means that some market price. representative data.are higher and some market price data are lower than that which is reported, You agree not to prohibit or preclude: deviatioris from the Price Data where-contractor requitements, market conditions, demand or any other factor warrants of a different line item price in the specific situation. The pricing information shall be compatible with the current the use for informational purposes only. It is your-responsibility versionof the Licensed Product. This pricing informationis provided to ensure the estiniates you write include pricing consistent with components including but not lintited to actual materials, equipment, and labor pricing.” to the mid-pointof the market as possible. As.a result, generally half of the providers “Xactware publishes pricesas close in each market will be priced higher, and half lower than the:cost shown here. Due’to the structure at which different _ es sub-conttactors vs. roofing sales organizations) roofing costs quoted by local providers operate (traditional roofing compani of prices.” can cover avery broad / large:range “The building cost data published by Xactware isnot designed to be inclusive of sales tax, General O&P, or Job-Related O&P within the unit prices, These can be specified and added at print time after all line items have beer listed. However, Xactware has designed flexibility into the system go this is not mandatory. Xactware’s users have the option to add these costs to that are is designed to'provide full detail on all costs their line-items to their line items as they choose. The Xactimate system in gurre dv” (Ref. XactAnalysis License Agreement: 7 _ . - https:/Awww-xactware.com/en-us/solutions/claims-management/xactanalysis/subscription-software-usage-agreement/) WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 2 SFF&CC/West_000322"}, {"d": 55, "p": 236, "t": "amet TRADEMARK 6-6 Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36.NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. WEST NEIL Dwelling Exterior Exterior QTY. DESCRIPTION RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX. O&P. TOTAL L,ise R&R Guiter- aluminum - up to 275.00 LF 0.54 9.89 64,75 586,62 3,519;62 2, R&R Downspout- aluminuin--up 80,00 LF 0:54 9.89 18.84 170.64 1,023.88 3. Gutter splash guard 3.00 EA 0.00 WAT “0.53: 14.78 88.72 4. R&R Wrap wood window frame 2,00-EA 30.40 161.55 3.97 77:58 465.45 88,09 849.62. 5,097.67 ‘to 5\" _ & trim with aluminum sheet - Small Total: Exterior Roof REMOVE REPLACE TAX ‘O&P TOTAL 46:34: SQ 57:37 0.00 0.00: 531.70 3,190.23 46.00 SQ B41 0.00 0,00 215.38 1,292.24 40.84 SQ 0.00: 32.72 15,67 270.40. 1,622.35 Qry. DESCRIPTION: 5, Tear off, haul and dispose of RESET -comp, shingles - Laminated, 6, Remove-Additional charge for ‘steep roof - 10/12°- 12/12 slope 7, Roofing felt 15 Ib. Perth 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “For roof slopes of four units vertical in 12 units horizontal (4:12) or greater, underlayment shall be one tayer applied in the following manner: underlayment shallbe applied shingle fashion, parallel-to and starting fromthe eave:and not interfere with the ability of the shinglesto seal, End laps shallbe 4 inches and shall be lapped 2 inches. Distortions in:the underlayment shall offset by. 6 feet.” (Ref R905,2) shall sbe designed arid Installed in accordarice with this code Additionally, pet the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Roof assemblie and the approved manufacturer 4 § instructions such that the roof assembly shall serve.to protect the building or structure.” (Ref. R903.1, R9O4.1, and R90S.1) The.approved manufacturer is GAF,and their installation instructions state wotk shall be completed as outlined for the work to be professionally installed and wattanted. nui) as Per the approved manufacturer, GAF, \"For hips, the underlayment should be lapped over the hipsat least.4” (102.nm) to 6* (152 be done on a new or complete tear-off installation. Use a 12” (305 ram) to-18\" (457 muni) strip of underlaymentto run along the hip would and overlap the new underlayment on the replacement. pfane at least6\" (152 mm) to 12\" (305 min).” Additionally per the approved manufacturer, GAF, \"For ridges, the underlayment should he lapped over the ridge at least4\" (102 mm)to 6” run (152 mnt) as would be done on a new or complete tear-off. installation. Use a:12” (305 mm) to'18\" (457 mm):strip-of underlaymentto along the ridge and overlap the new underlayment 6” (152. mam) to 12” (305 mnt).\" on the replacement plane at least A copy of the IRC code and the approved manuifacturer’s installation instructions have been attached for reference. 8, Roofing felt - 15 tb.- double 0.34. SQ 0.00: 57.71. 3.96 0.24 23.84 coverage/flow slope WEST NEIL 3/7/2024 Page:3 SFF&CC/West_000323"}, {"d": 55, "p": 237, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Roof QTY ‘DESCRIPTION RESET (REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 2/42. PITCH (DEAD VALLEYS) Per the 2015 International Residential Code.(IRC), \"Asphult shingles shall be used on roof slopes of two units vertical in 12 units horizontal. (1 T-percent slope) or gteater, For roof slopes fot two units vertical in 12 units horidontal (17-percent slope) up to four units vertical In 12 units horizontal (33-percent slope); double underlayment application is required in accordance with Section R905.1.1.” (Ref R905.2.2) Additionally; per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (RC), “Roof assemblies shall he designed and installedin accordance with this code and the approved manufacturer ’ s instructions such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the buildingor structure.” (Ref. R903.1, R904.1, and R905.1) ‘The approved manufacturer is GAE,and theit installation instructions state work shall be completed as outlined for the work to be professionally. installed and warranted, and the approved manufacturet’s installation instructions have been attached for reference. A copy’of the IRC.code 11.47 1.60 6.00 $16.00 SE 9, Ice & water barrier VALLEY LINING ~ NOT 167.44 1,004.61 EAVES in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions before Per the 2015 Interniational Residential Code (IRC), “Valley linings shall be installed applying the shingles. Valley linings of the following types shall be permitted: 1. For open valleys (valley lining exposed) lined with metal, the valley lining shall be not less than 24 inches (610 mum) wide and of any of the metals in Table R905,2:8.2: corrosion-resistant d complying with ASTM D 3909'or ASTM D 6380 Class M, shall be roll roofing, 2. For open valleys, valley lining oftwo plies of mineral-surface not less than 36 inches (914mm) wide. pemitted. The bottorm layer shall be 18 inches (457 mm) and the'top layer 3. For closed valleys (valleys covered. with slilngles), valley lining of one ply of smooth toll roofing complying with ASTM D 6380 and at least 36. ng bitumen . polymer modified inches wide (914 mm) or valley liningas described in {tem 1 or 2 above shall be permitted. Seif-adheri ‘underlaytient complying with ASTM D1970 stall be permitted in leu of the lining material.\" (Ref. 905.2.8.2) per the 2015 Intemational Résidefitial Code (IRC), “Roof assemblies shall be designed and installedIn accordauce with this code Additionally, the building or structure.” (Ref. R903.1, such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect and the approved manufacturer ’ s instructions ; R904.1, and R905.1) The approved manufacturer is GAF, and their installation instructions state work shall be completedas outlined for the work.to be professionally : , 183.80 © -1,102.84 installed and warranted. instructions have been attached for reference. ret’s installation A copy of the IRC code and the approved manufachi 10. Drip edge WEST NEIL 331.00. LF 0.00 omp) 18.72. 3/7/2024 Page:.4 SFF&CC/West_000324"}, {"d": 55, "p": 238, "t": "sel, TRADEM pert : i il Ti * ademark . Exteriors. Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Roof ‘DESCRIPTION QTY. RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL Per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “A drip edge shall be provided at eaves and-rake edges of shingle roofs. Adjacent segments of drip edge shall be overlapped not less than 2 inches (51 mm). Drip edges shall extend riot less thari 4 inch (6.4 rim) below the roof sheathing and extend up back onto the roof deck not fess thian 2:inches (51 mm). Drip edges shall be mechanically fastenedto the roof deck at not more than 12 inches (305 mm).o.c. with fasteners as specified in i Section R905.2.5. Underlayment shall be installed over the drip edge along eaves ‘and under the drip edge along rake edges.” (Ref. R905.2.8.5) Additionally; per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Roof assentblies-shall be designed and installed in-accordance with thiscode. and the approved manufacturer ’ s instructions such that the roof assensbly shall serve.to protect the building.or structure.” (Ref. R903.1, R9O4.1, and R905.1) The approved manufacturer is GAF, and their installation instructions state work shall be completed as outlined for the workto be professionally installed and warranted. Per the approved manufacturer, drip edge must be installed to the rakes and caves of the roofto help prevent water frou getting behind the soffit: edge.or siding. A copy of the IRC code and thé approved manufacturet’s installation instiuctions have been attachedfor réference, 11. Asphalt starter - universal 331.00 LF 0.00. 1.87 8.07 125.42 \"752.46 Starter course Per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “Roof asseniblles shall be designed and installed in accordance with this code and the approved mariufactirer’s instructions such that the roof assembly shall serveto protect the bullding or structure.” (Ref. R903-1, R904.1, and R905.1) ‘The approved manufacturer is GAF, and their installation instructions state work shallbe completedas outlined for.the work to be professionally installed and warranted, , Per the approved manufacturer's installation instructions, asphalt starter strip shingles myst be installed along the rakes and eaves of the roof, A copy of the IRC code and the approved manufacturer’s installation instructions have been attached for reference, 12. Step flashing WEST_NEIL, 16.00 LF 0.00 10,56 1,54 34.10 3/7/2024 204.60 Page: 5 SFF&CC/West_000325"}, {"d": 55, "p": 239, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36.NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Roof ‘DESCRIPTION QTY. RESET ‘REMOVE REPLACE O&P TAX REQUIRED TO BE REPLACEDIF EXISTING & TO BE INSTALLED ALTOGETHER IF NOT EXISTING = BOTH PER TOTAL BUILDING CODE. Per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “Flashings shail be installedin a.manner that prevents moisture from entering the wall and. réof through joints in copings, through moisture permeahle materials and at intersections with parapet walls and other penetrations through the roof plane.” (Ref; R903.2) Additionally; per'the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC),.“Flastiings shallbe installedat wall and roof intersectlons, wherever-there isa change in roof slopeor. direction and around roof openings. A flashing shall be installed to.divert water away-from where the eave ofa'sloped roof intersects'a vertical sidewall. Where flashing is of metal, the metal shall be corrosion resistant with a thickness of not less.than-0.019 inch (0.5 mmm) (No. 26 galvanized sheet),” (Ref. R903.2.1) Furthermore, per the 2015 Intemational Residential: Code (RC), “B ase flashing against a vertical sidewall shallhe continuous or step flashing, and shail be not less than 4-inches (102.nm) In height and 4 inches (102 mm) in width and shall direct water away from the vertical sidewall. be continuous under the. leg of the flashing shall the vertical ‘onto the roof or into the gutter. Where siding is provided on the vertical sidewall, siding, Where anchored masonry veneer is provided oni the vertical sidewall, the hase flashing shall be providedin accordance with this: section and counterflashing shall be provided in accordance with Section R703.7.2.2, Where exterior plaster or adhered masonry veneer is with this section and Section, R703,6.3.” Ref. -R905.2.8.3) provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided in accordance Lastly, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code €RC), “Flashing against a vertical front wall, as wellas soll stack, yent pipe and chimney (Ref. R905.2.8.4) flashing, shall be appliedin. accordance with the asphalt shingle manufacturer s printed instructions.” be replaced as “Any existing flashings, edgings, outlets; in compliance with the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), must These flashings; shall be replaced where rusted, damaged, or deteriorated” (Ref, R908.5) and “Used yents, or similar devices that area part of the assembly materials, equipment and devices shall not be reused unless approved by the huilding official.” (Ref. R104,9.1) Additionally; per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC); “Roof assemblies shall be designed and installed in accordarice with this code such that the roof assembly shall Serve to protect the buildingor structure.” (Ref. R903.1, and the approved manufacturer’ s fristructions R904.1, and R905.1) have béeh attached following this estimate - These installation instructions The approved manufacturer is GAF, and their installation instiuetions professionally installed and warranted... state work shall be completed as outlined for the work to:be A copyof the IRC code and the approved manufacturer’s installation instructions have been attached for reference. 13. Alunilnim sidewall/endwall. 5.00-LF 0.00, 6.66 6.82 0.81 40.93 flashing - mill finish WEST NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 6 SFF&CC/West_000326"}, {"d": 55, "p": 240, "t": "Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE S2nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105. (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Roof. QTY. DESCRIPTION RESET REMOVE REPLACE O&P TAX TOTAL 10 BE REPLACEDIF EXISTING & TO BE INSTALLED ALTOGETHER IF NOT EXISTING - BOTH PER BUILDING CODE REQUIRED the walland. Per the'2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “Flashings shall be installedin a manner. that prevents moisture from entering penetrations. other and walls parapet with intersections at and inaterials permeable ‘roof through joints in copings, through moisture through the reof plane.” (Ref: R903.2) Additionally; per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Flashings shall be installed at wall and root intersections, wherever there is‘a from where the eave of'a sloped A flashing shall be installed to.divert water away. change in reof slopeor direction and around roof openings. l. is of metal,the metal shall be corrosion resistant with a thickrnitss of not less than-0.019 inch (0.5 Where flashing roof intersects’a vertical sidewal nm) (No. 26 galvanized sheet).” (Ref: R903.2.1) Furthermore, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “B ase flashing against avertical sidewall shall be continuousor step flashing the vertical dewall and shall be not less than 4 inches (102. mm) iu height and 4 inches (102 mm) in width and shall direct water away befromcontinuous under the leg of the ashing shall ‘onto the roof or into the gutter, Where siding is provided on the vertical sidewall, the vertical of the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall he providedin accordance with this: siding.Whére anchored ntasonry veneer is provided with Section R703.7.2.2. Where exterior plaster or adhered masonry veneer is g be provided in accordance shall section aud counterflashin with this section and Section R703,6.3.” (Ref. R905.2.8:3) provided on the vertical sidewall, the base Hashing shall be provided in accordance Lastly, pér the 2015 Intemational Residetitial Code (IRC), “Flashing against a vertical front wall, as well as soll stack, vent pipe and chimmey (Ref. R905:2:8.4) flashing, shail be applied In-accordance witb the asphalt shingle manufacturer’ s printed instructions.” with the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), must be replaced as “Any existing flashings, edgings, outlets, These flashings,in compliance (Ref. R908.5) and “Used deteriorated” vents, or sinillar devices that area part of the assembly shiall be replaced where rusted, dainaged,or R104.9.1) (Ref. official.” building the by approved unless reused be not shall devices and niaterials, equipment and installed in accordance with this code Additionally, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC); “Roof assemblies shall be designed and the approved manufacturer ? s instructions such that the roof assembly shall serveto protect the building or structure.” (Ref. R903.1, R904,1, and R905.1) ‘The approved manufacturer is GAP, afd their installation instiuctions have béen attached following this estimate - These installation instructions state work shall be completedas outlined forthe work to be professionally installed and warranted. A copyof the IRC. code and the approved manufacturer’s. installation instructions have been attached for reference. 322:39 238.54 0.00 55.00 SQ shingle fg, - comp. ted 14. Lamina 2,688.42 16,130.51 wiout felt 15; Additional charge for steep roof 10/12'~-12/12 slope 54,28 SQ 0.00. 68.77. 0.00 746.56 4,479.40 16.. Gable cornice return - jarulnated 5.00 EA 0:00. 71,18 1.85 q156 465,31 17; Flashing - pipe jack. 5.00 EA 0.00 48.94 4.31 49.30 298.81 vent - turtle type~ Metal 48. Roof 5.00 EA 0.00. 64.68 5,61 65,80 394,81 §,02 $2.60 $95.63 19, Chinmey flashing - average (32\" x36\") WEST_NEIL 1.00 EA 0,00: 408,01 3/7/2024 Page: 7 SFF&CC/West_000327"}, {"d": 55, "p": 241, "t": "e— FRA DEAMARE ec aT: rk Tradema ; Exteriors . Restoration Reytert 36 NE S2nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. CONTINUED - Roof QTY: DESCRIPTION RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX. O&P TOTAL ~ BOTH PER BUILDING CODE. REQUIRED.TO BE REPLACED.IF EXISTING & TO BE INSTALLED ALTOGETHERIF NOT EXISTING Per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “Flashings shalf be installed in a manner that prevents moisture from entering the wall and. ‘roof through jointsin copings, through fioisture permeable materials and at intersections with parapet walls and other penetrations ‘through the roof plane,” (Ref. R903.2) Additionally, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Flashings shail be instailedat wail and roof intersections, wherever there is a change in roof slopeor direction and around roof openings. A flashing shall be installed to.divert water away. from where the eave ofa sloped sidewall. Where’ flashing is of metal, the metal shall be corrosion resistant with a-thickriess of not less than’0.019 inch (0.5 ‘a verticalcts roof interse mm) (No. 26 galvanized sheet).” (Ref, R903.2.1) Furthermore, pet the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Base flashing against a vertical sidewall shall be continuous or step flashing and shall be not less than 4 inches (102.mmn) in height and 4 inches (102 mm) in width and shall direct water away from the vertical sidewall l,leg of the flashing shall ‘be continuous under the the vertical onto the raof or into the gutter, Where siding is providedon the vertical sidewal be provided in accordance with this. flashing shall the basell, is provided oni the vertical sidewa siding. Where aitchored masonry veneer plaster or adhered masonry veneer is exterior Where R703.7.2.2. Section with accordance in provided be shall section and counterflashing this section and Seotion R703,6.3.” (Ref: R905,2.8.3) with e on the vertical sidewall, the bas¢ flashing shall be provided in accordanc provided soll stack, vent pipe and chimney (IRC), “Flashing against a vertical front wall, as wellas (Ref. Lastly, pér the 2015 Tritemational Resideritial Code ” R905:2.8.4) the asphalt shingle manufacturer” s printed instructions. flashing, shall be applied in accordance with s, with the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), mustbe replaced as “Any existing flashings, edgings, outlets, in compliance These flashing shall he replaced where rusted, damaged,or deteriorated” (Re£ R908-5) and “Used vents, or siullar devices that.are.a part of the assembly approved by. the bullding official.” (Ref. R104.9.1} unless reused be not shall materials, equipment and devices e code. with this Additionally; per the2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Roof assemblies shall be designes and instalied in accordaric and the approved inanufacturer ’ s instructions sitch that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the bulldingor structure.” (Ref, R903.1, The approved manufacturer is GAF, and their iristallation instructions have béeh attached following this estimate - These installation instructions state work shall be completed as outlined for-the work to be professionally installed and warranted. A copy of the IRC code and the approved manufacturer’s installation instructions have'been attached for reference. 20: Conthiuous ridge vent - shingleover style WEST NEIL 75.00-LF 0.00 9,60 16.05 147.22. 3/7/2024 983.27 Page: 8 SFF&CC/West_000328"}, {"d": 55, "p": 242, "t": "TRADEMARK SREDEEESIOETIS Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE.52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Roof. DESCRIPTION QTY RESET ‘REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL Per the 2015 International Residential Code. (IRC), \"Enclosed attics and enclosed rafter spaces formed where. ceflings are applied directly to” the underside of roof rafters shall have cross ventilation: for ‘each separate space by. ‘ventilating openings protected against the entrance of rain or snow, Ventilation openings shall hiave'a least dimension of 1/16 inch (1.6 mm) minimum and. 1/4 inch (6,4 mm) maximum. Ventilation openings having a least dimension larger than 1/4 inéh (6.4 mm) stiall be provided 1with coirosion-resistant wire cloth screening, hardware cloth, or similar material with openings having'a ‘least dimension of 1/16 inch (1.61) minimum and 1/4 inch (6.4 mim) maximum. Openings inroof framing members shall conform to the requirements: of Section R802.7. Required ventilation openings shall open directly to the outside air.” (Ref. R806,1) Additionally; per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), \"Ventilators sliall be installed in accordance with manufacturer's installation Instructions. Installation of ventilators in roof systems shall be.in accordance with the requirements of Section R903: Install of yentilators.in wall systems shall he in accordance with the requirements of Section R703.1.\" (Ref. 806.4). Lastly, per the.2015 Intemational Residential Code GRC), “Roof: assembles shall be. designed and installed in ‘accordance with this code and the approved manufacturer’ s instructions such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the building: or structure.” ‘Ref. R903. I, R904.1, and-R905.1) ‘The approved mariufacturer is GAF, and their installation instructions state work shall be ‘conipleted-as outliried for the workto be professionally. installed and warranted, A copy of the IRC code and the approved manufacturer’s:installation instructions have been attached for reference. 21, Hip / Ridge cap - Standard 330.00 LF 0.00. 5,58 43.60. 377.00 1,262.00 profile - coiriposition shingles Per the official Xactimate line item description for the replacement of the shingles, arid the foomotes of Eagleview and other satellite measurement reports, starter. strip shingles. and hips/ridge cap’ shingles must be estimated and accounted |for accordingly and separately as their own line items. 22.. Roofing - General Laborer - per 5.00 HR 0:06. 56.16 0:00 56.16 336,96 Totals: Roof ASSAS 5,830.14 34,980.80 Total: Exterior 543.54. 6,679.76 40,078.47 hour Labor to hand load materials onto roof Interior Bedroom REMOVE REPLACE TAX. ‘O&P TOTAL 32.00 SF 0.44 1.99 111 15.78 94.65 32.00 SF 0.00 0.79 012 5.08 30.48 32.00 SE 0.00 0.88 ‘0.31 5:10 34.17 26; Paint the celling - one coat: 40,00'SF 0:00: ‘0.60 0.27 4.86. 29.13 21, Paint the walls- one coat 208.00 SF 0.00 0.60 1.42 25.24 151.46 28. Ceiling Ian - Detach& reset. 1.00 EA 0.00 200.41 0.00 40,08 240.49 DESCRIPTION 23. R&R V2\" drywall~ hung; taped, ready for texture: A, Texture drywall ght hand QTY: RESET texture 25, SeaV/prime (1 coat) then paint (1 coat) the surface area WEST. NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 9 SFF&CC/West_000329"}, {"d": 55, "p": 243, "t": "nS TRADEMARK cy markm fae ExteriMyors / Restoration Trade s pean 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Bedroom. DESCRIPTION ‘REMOVE REPLACE TAX ‘O&P TOTAL 1.00-EA 0.00 15.03 0.00 3.00 18.03 30, Contents - move out then reset 1.00-EA 0.00 59.41 0,00- 11.88 71:29 31. Floor protection - plastic and 40.00 SF 0.00. 0.29 0.23 2.36. 14.19 3.46 113.98: 683.89 QTY 29. Heat/AC-register.- Mechanically RESET attaclied - Detach & reset tape - 10 mil. Totals; Bedroom Bathroom DESCRIPTION REMOVE REPLACE TAX. O&P TOTAL 32.00 SF 0.44 41.99 111 15.78 94.65 32.00:SF 0.00 0.79 0,12. 5.08 30.48 QTY 32: R&R V2\" .drywall- hung, taped, RESET ready for texture 33, Texture drywall - light hand textiir'é ; 34.. Seal/prime (1 coat) then paint (1 coat) the surface area 38, Paint the celling - one coat’ 32.00: SF 0,00: 0.88 O31 5.70 34.17 40.00 SF 0.00: 0.60 0.27 4.86: 29.13 36.. Paint the walls + one coat. 208.00 SF 0:00: 0.60 142 15.24 151,46 2.00 EA 0,00 15.03 9.00 6.02 36.08 40.00 SF 0.00. 0.29 0.23 2.36 14.19 3,46 65.04 390.16 ‘37, Heat/AC- register - Mechanically attached - Detach & reset 38. Floor protection ~ plastic and tape~ 10 mil. Totals: Bathroom Closet. REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 32.00 SF 0.44 1,99 141 ‘15.78. 94.65 32.00. SF 0.00 0.79 0.12 5.08 30.48 41, Seal/prime(1 coat) then paint(1 32.00 SF 0.00 0,88 0.31 5.70. 17 42, Paint the cetling - one coat: 39.25 SF 0.00: 0.60 0,26: 4.66 2737 43, Paint the walls - one coat’ 192.00 SF 0.00: 0.60 1.31 23.30 139.81 0.00. 0.00 0:00 11,26. 67.53 0.00: 59.41 0.00 ‘14.88 71,29 DESCRIPTION 39, R&R V2\" drywall - hing, taped, QTY RESET ready for fexture 40. Texture-drywall - ght hand texture coat) the surface. area 44, Detach & Reset Light fixture 1.00: EA 45. Contents~ move. out then reset 1,00-EA WEST_NEIL 56.27 3/7/2024 Page: 10 SFF&CC/West_000330"}, {"d": 55, "p": 244, "t": "ss TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma’ City, OK 73105: (405): 748-4444, info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Closet REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 0,00. 0.29 0.22. 2.26 13.57 Totals: ‘Closet 3.33 79.92 479.37 Total: Interior- 10,25. 258.94 1,553.42 Total: Dwelling ‘553.79 6,938.70 41,631.89 QTY. ‘DESCRIPTION RESET 38.25 SI 46. Floor protection - plastic and ‘fape- 10 mil, Fencing REMOVE. REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 1,452.00 SF 0.00 0.37 O71 107.48 645.53 1,452.00. SE 0,00. 0.85 21.24 281.08 1,506.52 16.00 EA 0.00: 76.49. 1.68 245.10 1,470.62 23:63 603.76 3,622.67 QTY. DESCRIPTION 47. Clean-with pressure/chemical RESET spray 48. Stain - wood fence/gate 49, Weoil fence 5' -.6\" high ~ Detach -& reset - per $' section Totals; Fencing Debris Removal DESCRIPTION ‘50, Dumpster load - Approx. 12 QTY RESET 1.00 FA REMOVE REPLACE ‘TAX O&P TOTAL 429.25 0.00 0.00. 85.86 515.11 0.00 85.86 SiS1L yards, 1-3 tons of debris Totals: Debris Removal Labor Minimums Applied DESCRIPTION QTY. RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 51, Siding labor minimum 1.00 EA: 0.00 62.99 0.00 12.60 95,59 52, Drywall labor minimum 1.00 EA 0.00- 84,42 0.00 16.88 101.30 53. Electrical labor minimum 1.00 EA 0,00 6.20 0.00 1.24 744 54, Heat, vent, & air cond, labor 1.00 EA 0.00: 20629 0.00 41.26 247.55 Totals: Labor Minimums Applied 0:00 198 431.88 Line Item Totals; WEST_NEIL STIL 7,700.40 46,201.55 minim. 1m WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 1] SFF&CC/West_000331"}, {"d": 55, "p": 245, "t": "os. TRADEMARK = Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36'NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. ‘Summary Line Item Total Material Sales Tax 37,923.83 577.42 Subtotal 38,501.25 3,850.15 ‘Overhead 3,850.15 Profit: $46,201.55 Replacement Cost.Value $46,201.55 Net Claiii WEST_ NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 12 SFF&CC/West_000332"}, {"d": 55, "p": 246, "t": "FRADEMARK EAA Trademark Exteriors Restoration . i” ' 36 NE. 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405). 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com Recap of Taxes, Overhead and Profit ‘Overhead (10%) Profit (10%) _MaterialSalesTax Manuf.Home Tax: Storage Rental Tax. Line Items 3,850.15 3,850.15 577.42 0,00. 0.00 Total 9,850,15 3,850:15 577.42 0,00: 6.00 3/7/2024 Page: 13 WEST_NEIL (4.875%) (4.875%) (4.875%) SFF&CC/West_000333"}, {"d": 55, "p": 247, "t": "Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE S2nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105. (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com Recap by Room. Estimate: WEST NEIL. Area: Dwelling Area: Exterior Roof Area Subtotal: Exterior Area: Interior Bedroom 4,159.96 28,695.21 10.97% 715.671%. 32,858.17. 86.63% 566.45. 1.49% Bathrooii 321.66 0.85% Closet 396.12 1.04% Area Subtotal: Interior 1,284.23 3.39% Area Subtotal: Dwelling Fencing 34,139.40 2,995.28 90,02% 790% Debris Removal 429,25. 1.13%. Labor -Mininiwms Applied 359.90: 0.95% Subtotal of Areas 37,923.83 100,00% Total 37,923.83 100.00% WEST NEIL 3/7/2024 Page:14 SFF&CC/West_000334"}, {"d": 55, "p": 248, "t": "ante TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors. Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com Recapby Category O&P Items Total % CLEANING. CONTENT MANIPULATION GENERAL DEMOLITION 537.24 ‘118.82 4,459.38 1.16% 0.26% 9.65% 351.30 6.20 0.76% 0.01% 1,223.84 751.38 2.65%. 0.54%, 256.68 0.56% DRYWALL ELECTRICAL FENCING HEAT, VENT & AIR CONDITIONING LIGHT FIXTURES: _ PAINTING ROOFING 1,788.72 3.87% 24,959.82 54.02% 386.09 0.84% & GUTTER SOFFIT, FASCIA, (3,584.36 1.16% O&P Items Subtotal Material Sales Tax 37,923.83 577.42 82.08%. 1.25% SIDING Overhead . 3,850.15 8.33%. Profit. 3,850.15 8.33% Total. 46,201.55 100.00%. WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 15 SFF&CC/West 000335"}, {"d": 55, "p": 249, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405). 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. MC Lawton, OK © OG Seeateoqene| _ “Search orjumpte ga 1Q Article 6-1 - BUILDING CODE REGULATIONS %* 8&8 Division 6-1-1 - Buliding Code * 88 6-4-4-101 - Adoption of international Building Cade, 2015 edition—incorporation by reference— %® @ Lawnan, Oklahoma «Code of Ordt., + Chapter - BUILDINGS, CONST... 7 Article 6-1 BUILDING CODE RE... _ - Filing of copy with the city clerk. Mort» BB 8 # & & {OUBCC) and The city hereby adapts the International Building Code, 20¢5 edition, as medi ified by the Oklahoma Uniform Building Cade Commission copy of which ore least at 748:20-1-19; to as set forth in Title 748, Chapter 5 of the Oklahonia Administrative Code, more specifi cally Sections 748:20-1-1 js on Ble in the office af the city clerk, Such code shall be In full force and effect within the city to the sama extent as H set forth In full in this section. A Code of Ordinances of violation of any provision of such cade shall constitute a misdemeanogs and shail be punished as provided in Section 1-1. 119 of the theCity of Lawton. {Ocd, 2005-22, Amended, 06/10/2005; 2002-04, Repealed & Replaced, 02/ 42/2002; 97-23, Repealed & Replaced, 05/13/1997) (Ord, 2008-07, Amended, 61/22/2008; Ord. No. 14-05, #1, 3-25-2014; Ord, No. 20:04 § 1, 3-9-2021) State Law reference— Power of city to addpt bullding code, 11 0.5-Sec. 14-107; 74.0.8 See, 324:8, Aa BSB 108.2 Work exempt from permit. Exe(n pti niaialeinnpsdainlasiiplicnsaiiicstedniistaaladiill not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be >» 6-1-4-102 - Amendments te the International Buliding Code, 2015 edition, A, Section 101.) entitled Title’ is hereby amended to read as follows: {04.1 Tile. These regulations shall be known as the Building Code of Lawton, Oxahoma, hereinafter referred to as the “building cade,* B. Section 105.2 entitled “Work exempt from permit\" Is hereby amended to read as follows WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 16 SFF&CC/West_000336"}, {"d": 55, "p": 250, "t": "Trademark Exteriors Restoration TRADEMARK ERE 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. «Go Back. icc About + : Advocacy * Meinbership . : Professional Development ~ _ Products and Services ow : State Acaptions Links to State Adoption View Digdal Codes Agencies Purchase Oklahoma Cades- Oklahoma Unifonns Budding Code Commission ‘The Oklahoma Uniform Bultding Code Commission adopts the fallowing statewide Consttiction hauatiies Beard ininimum codes listed below. “ > > pee 2018 international Building Code ata bes CSOT * - Save Time an 2018 international Existing Building Code 2018 International Fire Code 2048 international Fuel Gas. Code 2018 International Mechanical Code ° 2018 International Plumbing Code Cannabis Facilities WEST_NEIL 2015 international Residential Code State Fire Marshai State Energy Office State lysurance Commissioner Oxlshoma Forestry Snivices, Key Contacts 2009 international Energy Conservation ICC Government Relations Representative Code (Residential) Kelly Sadler 2006 international Energy Conservation Code (Commercial) Senlor Regional Manager E-mail: ksadier@iccsafe.cg 3/7/2024 Page: 17 SFF&CC/West_000337"}, {"d": 55, "p": 251, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405)'748-4444 info@tniexteriors.com. Rok.gov OktskGmws Ofirtal Web Site Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission Bee Commission Meetings & Evanis isdictions Resources (Search St Home Welcometo Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission The mission of the Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission is to establish minimum statewide codes affecting or relating to the built environment for the protection of life and property, to be utilized throughout the state, assuring public health, safety, and welfare. OUBCC Technical Review Committees Gall for Volunteers WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 18 SFF&CC/West_000338"}, {"d": 55, "p": 252, "t": "TRADEMARK TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com A od ok. gay BULLETIN NO, PC 2016-52 TO; ALL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS, RATING AND ADVISORY ORGANIZATIONS RE: LAWS and ORDINANCES, ADDITIONAL COVERAGE; FORTIFIED HOME ™--HIGH WINO AND HAIL PROGRAM : FROM; JOHN 0. DOAK, OKLAHOMA INSURANCE COMMISSIONER DATE: And 25, 2016 ‘The Deparimont Is issuing this Buieti In Pe Tmt fing to a resp complaint of number concerning coverage for tha repair of storm damaged foals. Ls are being fed d by roo) c requke solidly sheathed dacks or docks feathed 4 that pp to the shingles , hha fo SLd. q codes manufacturer's tnstatiation instructions. The sta dand HO-3 form axcines ¢ teduising or. regulating tie repair of i ag for loss caused by ordifiances.ot laws . bul:provides limited \"Additional Coveraga” for lha incfaased costs lnburted due to tha enforcement of any aw which requirés or reguiatas Ihe conslniction, dentolidon, rernodtatieny, tenovallon tone of mepalr of a -slructum damaged by a peril ineured against. We havo ponsidered the facts and ckcumstances surrounding thesa complaints and find as 1; On Judy 15, 201, Oklahom adopted The lntemailonat and thal code ta in affect throughout the State ol Oklahoma. Residential Code (2018) 2. The ntamational Resktantial Code 2015, on amandad and tevised by Iho rules CIRC\"), constitutes the statewide minknum slandards for pasidantat constuclion pursuant to 68 os, 5 7000.23 and OAC 748:20-5-11.3. 3, Chaptor 9 of the IRG, ax adopted provides in ralavant part as fobows\" 4, Certaln property insurance policies purpért to provide ‘addiGunal covatage” fot the increased cost incurred dueto enforcement of any law whith regulates demolition, Page | of? WEST_NEIL 3/1/2024 Page: 19 SFF&CCWest_000339"}, {"d": 55, "p": 253, "t": "TRADEMARK ee Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors;com & od.ok gov remodeling, renovation of repair of a covered building. 6. The onforoament or faiturato sneans execution oft ontore 4 faw does not invatidate the law; it only law Is wanting 6, Conditioning iinswance coverage. on the vageres, inconsistencies and uncertainties of yb, bs ta 4) and faciitaling rapair of ty in i tion of laws ¢. is dito ensure public sataly. Bey 7. Additionally, we find that the sate of “additional insutanes’ lo cover a known nonenistant sk constitutes the sal¢ of Husory and unbaldy: discriminatory covefage, Companies are lasiructed thal for jpurposes 6! poviding “addilional coverages, as an Re to the orefinance of law exclision, you shall consider all building chtles as being stricily enforced. Questions conceming any aspectof this bullatin should be, directed to the Okishomna ‘Insurance Department, Five Cofporate Plaza, 3626 NW, 66\" St, Oklahoma City,OK 73142 Attn: Tyee Laughin, Chief of Operations (often. lavghin@otd. ok.gov) of Gordon C, Amint, General Counsel (ooedott ainini@oid of. gov, AS a separate but telsted malter, Commissioner tf and the fi Doak reminds ing Jouttuts for Businass outehy UBHS) have one Honle™—High Wind andl Hall Program. anew FORTIFIED that the & Home IGHS Is a science-based research Giganization thal promoles effective aclions lo strengthen homes, businesses and comniunities agains! natural disasters, The Commissioner is aging property owners, insurers Brud evaluate the benefits of the Fortified Home. IBHS engineers believe property damage to homes front Fo and EF-4 lemmadoes ean be Vinually eliminated Hihay are bulkor” patrofitted using FORTIFIED standatds, For mora jlaase contact Ms. Tiffany O'Shea, Ditector of Pubse Affairs, \\GHS at loshaagibhs.omp, Office: 819.676. 1047 « Mobile: 542.656.2811 Page dol WEST NEIL 3/712024 Page: 20 SFF&CC/West_000340"}, {"d": 55, "p": 254, "t": "<TADEMRK TRADEMARR 4 Fademark Exteriors Restoration F ; a, Tn to, . net 36 NE on nd Stre Oklahoma City, OK T3105: ‘WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 21 SFF&CC/West_000341"}, {"d": 55, "p": 255, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark. Exteriors Restoration REI 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com ‘& codes, ktsate.org & Sign in Sacand Vorstort: dan 2016 ed gue hes Qa;'@ oa SECTION R103 GENERAL Riot. 4 thie, These provisions shall be known as the Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings of [NAME OF JURISDICTION}, and shalt be cited as such and will be seferrad.to herein as “this code.\" R101.2 Seope. Tha provisions of tha International Residential Code for One+ and Two-lamily Dwellings shall apply fo the construction, afleratian, movement, entargement, replacement, repair, equioment, use and occupancy, location, removal and demolition of detached one--and two-family dwellings and not more than thiee stories above. grade plane in height with a separaté means of egress and their accessory sirtcluras not more-than townhouses ihree stories above grade plane in height, Exceptions: +. LiveAvork units located In. townhouses and complying with tha requirements of Section 419 of the international Buildiig Code shall be pormitted to be constructed in accordance with the International Residential Cade tor One- and Two Family Dwellings, Fire supprassion required by Section 419.5 of the Intemational Building Code where constructed under the international Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall conform to Seclion P2904, 2. Owner-cccupled lodging houses with five or fawer guestrooms shall be permitted to be constructed in accordance with the international Residential Gade for One- and Two-lamily Dwellings where equipped with a fica sprinkler system [n accordance with Section P2904. RtOI.3 intent. The purpose of this code is to establish minimum requirements to saleguard the public safety, health and general wallare thraugh affordability, structural strength, means af egress facilities, stability, sanilalion, light and ventilation, energy consarvation and safely to file and property from fire and other hazards altributed to the bullt anviroriment and to provide Safety to fire lighters and emergency responders during emergency Oparations. WEST_NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 22 SFF&CC/West_000342"}, {"d": 55, "p": 256, "t": "FRADEMARR Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. a codes eésafeorg © hon BS Beg | seaven across international ResWental Code (RC) Pg : BE Ssignin QB : Second Version: Jan 2016 SECTION R102. APPLICABILITY R102.¢ Ganeral. Where there is @ conilict betwean a general requirement aid a specific requirement, the specitic requirement shall be applicable. Where, in any specific case, diferent sections of this Géde apecity different malerials,. methods of construction or othe} requirements, the most restrictive shall govern. Rt02.2 Other laws: The provisions of this code shail not ba deemed to nullily any provisions of focal, stete or federal law. 102.3 Application of reterencos, References to chapter or séction numbars, or te provisions not specifically identitied by number, shall be construed to refer to such chapter, section of provision of this ode. Aii02.4 Referanced cades and standards, The codus'and slandards talerenced In this code shall be considered pat af the requirements ol ihis code to the prescribed extent of each such reference and as further regulatedin Sections R102.4,1 and R102.4.2; Exception: Where enforcament of a code provision woutd violate the conditions of Ihe Jisting of lhe equipment or appliance, the conditionsof the: listing and manufacturer's instuctions shall epply, &3S | f102.4,3 Cantiiets. Where conticts occur between provisions of this code and referenced cades and standards, the provisions of this code shall apply. ‘WEST_NEIL. 3/7/2024 5 &3 Page: 23 SFF&CC/West_000343"}, {"d": 55, "p": 257, "t": "TRADEMARK SREROCEE Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com & codes. kesaleiorg ‘ZS Manu RS hs ches | Search acrogs international Residential Code (JAC) Qi :Fo @® Lsignin H Second Version: Jan 2016 SECTION R104 DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL @& R104,1 General. The building official is hereby avihorizad and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shail have the authority to render interpretations of this coda and:to adopt policies and procedures in order fo clarify the application-of Sts provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall bo in:conformance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shail not have the effect of walving requiremants specilically provided for In this code. Ai04.2 Applications end permits ‘The building official shall recaive applications, raview construction documents and issue permitsfor tha erection and alteration of buildings and structures, inspect the premises for which such permits have bean issued and enforce compliance with the provistoris of this coda, R104.3 Notices and orders. R104.4 Inspections. a The duiiding official shall make tha required inspections, or the building official shall have the authority to accept reports of Inspection by approved agencies orindividyals. Regorls of such inspections shail be in writing and be cortified hy a responsible officer of such approved’ agency or by the responsible individual. The building official ls authorized to engage guch axpert opinion as deemed necessary to raporl upon unusual technical issues that arise, subjectto the approval of the appointing authority, 1045 Identification. The building official shall carry proper identification when Inspecting structuras or premises in the performance of duties under this code. WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 24 SFF&CCWest_000344"}, {"d": 55, "p": 258, "t": "TRADEMARK SETTER Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405).748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com a codes.Iecsafe.org Q)coat ® Ssanm Second Version: Jan 2018 105.4 Validity of permit. The Issuancé of granting of a permit shail not be consinved to be a permit tor, oF an approvalof, any violation of any of the provisions of this cade of of any other ordinarice of the: jurisdiction. Permits presuming to give authority to vidiate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jusisdiction shalt not be vaild. The issuance of a permit based of Construction documents and ‘other data shall not prevent the building official from requiring tho correctian of errorsin the construction documents aad other data, The building ailficial is authorized to pravent occupancy or.use of a structure where in violation of this coda or of any olher ordinances of this jurisdiction, 10 ‘WEST NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 25 SFF&CC/West_000345"}, {"d": 55, "p": 259, "t": "TRADEMARK QCRGRATIR Ieee aE Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405):748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com a codes.kestfe.org = Menu BS pa , | Search acfosa International Residential Code (IAC) |B Ssinin HB Gecond Version: dan 2016 SECTION R1i2 VIOLATIONS A341 Unlswtul acts. it shall be unlawhdl for-any person, firm of corporation to erect, construct, altar, extend, repair, move, remove, demiolish.or occupy any building, struclure ot equipment regulated by this code, or cause same to be done,in conttict with or {n violation of any of the provisions of this code. il WEST_NEIL- 3/7/2024 Page: 26 SFF&CC/West_000346"}, {"d": 55, "p": 260, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration , ESERIES 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405) 74824444 info@tmexteriors.com CHAPTER 9 ROOF ASSEMBLIES @ &: User note: About this chapter: Chapter 9 addresses the dosign and construction of roat assomblles| A roof assembly inchides the roof deck, substrate or thermal | lbarrier, insulation, vapor retarder and root covering} This chapter provides the requirement for wind resistance of roof coverings. The types of roof covering maleriais and installation addressed by Chapter 9 are; asphail-shinglas, clay and concrete tile, metal rool shingles, minerel-surtaced roll rooting, slate and slale-type shingles, wood shakes and shingles, duill-up cools, metal roof panels, modified bitumen roofing, thermosei and tharmaplastio siagie-ply rooling, sprayed polyurethane foams roofing, liquid applied coatings and phetovoltaic shingles. Chapter 9 also provides requirements lor roof drainage, flashing, above-deck thermal insulation, roaftop-mounted photavolinic systems and recovering or replacing an existing roof cavering. 12 WEST_NEIL- 3/7/2024 Page:27 SFF&CC/West_000347"}, {"d": 55, "p": 261, "t": "aaa. TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration — 36 NE 52nd Street _ Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com WW Sy URTCRKATIONAL ie x / Search Codes About premlumACCESS™ = Free Trial = What are Building Codes? SZ Sign in SECTION R903 WEATHER PROTECTION R903, General. Roof decks shall he covered with approved roof coverings secured to the building or structure in accordance with the provistons of this chapter. Roof assemblies shall be. designed and Installed in accordance with this code and the approved manufatturer’s Instructions such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the building or structure, 13 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 28 SFF&CC/West_000348"}, {"d": 55, "p": 262, "t": "Trademark Exteriors Restoration ‘TRADEMARK 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tniexteriors.com INTERNATIONAL cove Search Codes About premiumACCESS™ = Free Trial. = What are Building Codes? COURCIY & Sign In ; SECTION R904 MATERIALS R904.1 Scope. The requirements set forth in this section shalf apply to the Application of roof covering materials specified herein, Roof assemblies shall be applied In. accordance with this chapter and the manufacturer's installation instructions, Installation of roof assemblies shall comply with the applicable provisions of Section R905, 14 WEST NEIL 3/7/2024 Page:29 SFF&CC/West_000349"}, {"d": 55, "p": 263, "t": "FRADEMARR Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE S2nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405):748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com . Rey. 100 EU mee 600 12u Counce Search Codes About premiumACCESS™ _ = Free Trial - «= What are Building Codes? ec. am Sign in SECTION R905 REQUIREMENTS FOR ROOF COVERINGS ES R905.1 Roof covering application. Roof coverings. shall be applied In accordance with the applicable provisions of this ‘section and the manufacturer's installation instructions. Unless otherwise specified in this section, roof coverings shall be installed to resist the component and cladding loads specified in Table R301,2(2), adjusted for height and exposure in accordance with Table R301.2(3). 15: ‘WEST_NEIL- 3/7/2024 Page::30 SFF&CC/West_000350"}, {"d": 55, "p": 264, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark REE ONATENS ; Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (40S) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com ISN INTERNATIONAL CODE : Counce ; Search Codes © About premiuntACCESS™ = Free Trlat_ ; , «= What are Building Codes? ; 2. Sign ta 2904.2 Compatibitity of materlats. Roof assemblies shall be of materials that are compatible with each other and with the building or structure to which the materials are applied: 16 WEST_NEIL ‘3/7/2024 Page: 31 SFF&CC/West_000351"}, {"d": 55, "p": 265, "t": "nett: A . Pts fos] TRADEMARK ° yy mbt Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com RT) NSN BBR rcenarionaL coor courcie Search Codes About premiumACCESS™ = Free Tria} = What dra Building Codes? &, Sige in TABLE R905,1.1{3) UNDERLAYMENT ATTACHMENT ROOF COVERING Asphalt shingles SECTION MAXIMUM ULTIMATE DESIGN WIND SPEED, Vp < 140 MPH R905.2 MAXIMUM ULTIMATE DESIGN WIND SPEED, Vi; 2 140 MPH The underlayment shalt be attached with corfosion-resistant fasteners in a grid pattern of 42 inches between side laps with a 6-inch spacing al the side laps. Underlayment shall be attached using metal or plastic cap nails of cap stapies with a nominal cap diamater of not fess than 1 inch, Matal caps shall have a thickness of not leas lhan 32-gage sheet matal, PowerFastensd sufficlently to hold In driven metal Caps shail have a minimum thickness of 0.010 inch. Minimum thickness place Clay and concrete tile Rg05.3 ‘of the outside edge of plastic cups shall be 0.035 inch. Tha cap nail shank shalt be fot lags than 0.083 inch for ring shank cap nails and 0.091 inch for smooth shank cap nails, Staptes shall be nat lass than21 gaga, Cap.nalf shank and cap staple legs shall have a lerigth sufficient to penetrate through the roof sheathirig or not tess than 5/4 Inch into the root sheathing. av] WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 32 SFF&CC/West_000352"}, {"d": 55, "p": 266, "t": "PRADEMARR Trademark RRR Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405):748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com Sw name INTERKATIONAL COURCIE Search Codes About premiumACCESS™ — Free Trial What are Building Codes? 2 Signin R905,2.2 Slope. Asphalt shingles shall be used only on raof slopes of two units vertical in 12 units horizontal (2:12) or greater. For roaf slopes from two Units Vertical in 12 units horizontal (2:12) up to four units vertical in 12 units horizontal (4:12), double undéstayment application is required in accordance with Section R905.4.1, 18 ‘WEST_NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 33 SFF&CC/West_000353"}, {"d": 55, "p": 267, "t": "rte TRADEMARK ; . bs 2 oe TD y =. Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street . Oklahoma City, OK T3105 (405).748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. INTERNATIONAL Iw CODE mn meme COUNCIL ; SearchCodes About preniiumACCESS™ . = Free Trial. §=—- What are Building Codes? &. Sign tn . 'R905.2.8.2 Valleys. Valley linings shalf-be installed in accordance with the manufacturers instructions before appiying shingles. Valley linings of the follovaing types shall be permitted: 1. For open valleys (valley lining exposed} fined with metal, the valley lining shall be not less than 24 inches (G10 mm) wide.and of any of the corrosion-resistant metals in Table R905,2,8.2. 2. For open valleys, valley lining af two plies of mineral-surfaced rot roofing, complying with. ASTM D 3909 or ASTM D 6380 Class M, shall be permitted. The bottom layer shail be 18 Inches (457 mm) and the top layer not Jess than 36 inchés (914 mm) wide. 3, For dosed valleys (valley covered with shingles), valley Jining of one ply of smooth rail roofing complying with ASTM 0 6380 and not less than 36 inches wide (914 mm) or valley lining as described in Rem 1 or2 shall be permitted, Self-adhering polymer modified bitirmen underlayment complying with ASTM D 1970 shall be permitted in lieu of the lining material. , 19 WEST NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page:34 SFF&CC/West_000354"}, {"d": 55, "p": 268, "t": "TRADEMARE SERRE Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36-NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. AN INTERNATIONAL Search Codes About premiumACCESS™ Free Trial What are Building Codes? 2, Signin R905.2:8.5 Drip edge. A drip edge shalt be provided at eaves and rake edges of shingle roofs, Adjacent segments of drip edge shall be overlapped not less than 2 Inches {51 mm), Drip edges shail extend not less than 44 inch (6.4 mm} below the roof sheathing and extend up back onto the roof deck not less than 2 inches (51 mim). Orip edges shail be mechanically fastened to the roof deck at not more than 12 biches (305 mm).o.c. with fasteners as specified in Section R90S.2.5. Underlayment shall be installed over the drip edge along eaves and under the drip edge along rake edges. 20 WEST_NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page:-35 SFF&CC/West_000355"}, {"d": 55, "p": 269, "t": "aos, TRADEMARK Restoration Exteriors =6Trademark 7 , 36 NE 52nd Street . Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com NAT cone ma aN COUNCHS NSN Search Codes © About prentiumACCESS™ = Freé Trial. «= What are Building Codes? & Signin R908,5-Reinstallation of materials. Existing state, clay or cement tile shail be permitted for reinstallation, except that damaged, cracked or broken slate of tile Shall not be reinstalled. Any existing flashings, édgings, outlets, vents or similar devices that are a part of the assembly shall be replaced where rusted, damaged or deteriorated. Aggregate surfacing materials shalf not be reinstalled, R908.6 Flashings, Hastings shall be reconstructed In accordance with approved manufacturer's installation Instructions, Metal flashing to which bituminous materials are to be adhered shall be primed prior to installation. 21 ‘WEST NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 36 SFF&CC/West_000356"}, {"d": 55, "p": 270, "t": "TRADEMARK CREEKS Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors:com “DIGITAL copes mmm GRAY NNN Search Codes About premiumACCESS What Are Buildin 2015 International Residential Code? Get n Second Printing: Jan 2016 STAR R104.9 Approved materials and equipment. Materials, equipment and devices approved by the building official shall be constructed and installed in accordance with such approval. R104.9.1 Used materials and equipment. Used materials, equipment and devices shall not be reused unless approved by the building official. 22 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 37 SFF&CC/West_000357"}, {"d": 55, "p": 271, "t": "Trademark Exteriors Restoration TRADEMARK eR 36NE Sand Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com aN ER NATION is amen covscr Search.Codes — About premiumACCESS™ = — Free Trial = What are Building Codes? 2, Signin R903.2 Flashing. Alashings shail be installed in. a manner that prevents moisture from entering the wall and roof through joints In copings, through molsture permeable materials and at-intersections with:parapet walls and other penetrations through the roof plane. R903.2,1 Locations, Flashings shail be installed at wall and roof Intersections, wherever there Is a change in roof slope or direction and around foof openings. A flashing shall be installed to divert the water away from where the eave of a sloped roof intersects a verilcal sidewall, Where flashing Is of metal, the inetal shall be corrosion resistant with a thickness of not tess than 0,019 inch (0,5 mm) (No, 26 galvanized sheet). R903.2.2 Crickets and saddles. Acricket or saddle shail be installed on the ridge side of any chimney or penetration more than 30 inches (762 mm) wide as measured perpendicular to the slope: Cricket or saddle coverings shall he sheet metal or of the same material as the roof covering. Exception: Unit skylights installed in accordance with Section R308.6 and flashed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions shall be permitted to be ivstalled without a cricket ar - ] saddie. 23 WEST_NEIL- 3/7/2024 Page: 38 SFF&CC/West_000358"}, {"d": 55, "p": 272, "t": "TRADEMARK rademark Exteriors Restoration — 36NE S2nd'Streét Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com INTERMATIONAL SY cope. wae COUN’ Search Codes : oc iny About premiumACCESS™ . are Building Codes? = Free Trial. «= What &. Signin , R905.2.8.3 Sidewall flashing. Base flashing against a vertical sidewall shail be continuous or step flashing and shalt be-not fess than 4 Inches (102mm) in height and 4 Inches (102 mm) In width and shall direct water away from the vertical sidewall onto the roof or into the gutter. Where siding Is provided pn the vertical sidewall, the vertical leg of the Mashing shall be continuous under the siding, Where anctiored masonry veneer is provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided in accordance with this section and counterfashing shall be-provided in accordance with Section R703,7.2,2, Where exterior plasteror adhered masonry veneer Is provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided in accordance with this section and Section R703.6.3. R905.2.8.4 Other flashing. Flashing against a vertical front wall, as well as sell stack, vent pipe and chimney flashing, shail be applied in accordance with the asphalt shingle manufacturer's printed Instructions. 24 ‘WEST_NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 39 SFF&CC/West_000359"}, {"d": 55, "p": 273, "t": "rl, TRADEMARK een PERRET rodt Saye ay | Trademark Exteriors Restoration : 36 NE 52nd Street , Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmnexteriors.com Iw, 128 Search Codes About premlumACCESS = What Are Buliding Codes? Q #8 Ssinn @ Get more with premiumACCESS 015 International Residential Code sg! # CHAPTER 8 ROOF-GEILING CONSTRUCTION AY START YOUR 14-DAY TRIAL NOW Second Printing: Jan 2016 SECTION R806 ROOF VENTILATION ESI R806.1 Ventilation required. Enclosed attics and enclosed rafter spaces formed where celtings are applied directly to the underside of roof ratters shall have cross ventilation for each separate space by ventilating openings protected against the entrance of rain or snow, Ventilation openings shall have-a least dimensionof '/y Inch (1.6 mm) minimum and '/, inch (6.4 mm) maximum. Ventilation openings having a least dimension larger than '/, inch (6.4 mm) shall be provided with corrosion-resistant. wire cloth screening, hardware cloth or simllat material with openings having a least dimension of '/;4 inch (1.6 mm) minimum and Ny inch (8.4 mm) maximum, Openings in roof framing members-shail conform to the requirements of Section R802,7. Required ventilation openings shalt open. directly to the outside air. 25 WEST_NEIL 3712024 Page: 40 SFF&CC/West_000360"}, {"d": 55, "p": 274, "t": "atmRK TRADEMA watt trad rk Trademark ion s Restorat Exterior Tradema 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. ms Pa Search Codes = Abotll premiumACCESS ai 2015 International Residential Cede C7 GHAPTER @ ROOF-GEILING CONSTAUCTION Second Printing: Jan 2018 = What Are Bullding Codes? Q > signin @ Get more with premlumACCESS START YOUR 14-DAY TRIAL NOW! A806.2 Minimum vent area, The minimum net free ventilating area shall be '/;s9 of the area of the vented space. Exception: The minimum net free-ventilation area, shall be ‘ggg af the vanied space provided one or moreof the following conditions ara met: 1. In Climate Zones 6, 7 and 8, a Class | or if vapor retarder is installed on the warm-in-winter side af the ceiling. >. Not less than 40 percent and not more than50 percent of the required ventilating area is provided by ventilators located in the Upper partion of the attic or rafter space. Upper ventilators shall be located not more than 3 feet (914 mm).below the tidge or highest point of the space, measured vertically, with the balance of the required ventilation provided by eave or cornice vents, Where the location of wall or roof framing members conilicts with the Installation of upper yentilators, Installation more than 3 feet (914 mm) bélow the ridge or highest point of the space shall be permitted. AS06.3 Vent and Insulation clearance, Where eave or cornice vents are installed, insulation shall not block the free flow of air, Not fess than a 1-inch (25 mm) space shall be provided between the Insulation and the roof sheathing and at the location of the vent. AG06.4 Installation and weather pretection, Ventilators shall:be installed in accordance with manutacturer's instructions. Installation of ventilators in roof systems shall be in accordance with the requirements of Section R903. Installation of ventilators in wall systems shail be in accordance with the - ) requirements of Section R703.1. 26 WEST NEIL 3/9/2024 Page: 4] SFF&CC/West_000361"}, {"d": 55, "p": 275, "t": "‘TRADEMARK RIE Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com foley Leaking ea soctanad va barat) Le ly sector Fait mace wwe Conn Hat ater peaks oe peted al aa INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS * INSTRUCCIONES DE INSTALACION.« [ASTRUCTIONS D'INSTALLATION Timpenures: Tingpertinge tia TFiwsenuneuani RP eres TMSERIINE<2 GEWERAL INSTRUCTIONS , SATERAL peau BATATh SHEESS: WWres ¢ odaets, © ge fiesj pacetarrents, ste cement, #2, feet egter 0 the MSOS et Corrent hohe 4 esrete ot Seteaun om GAF coegnet wears Gate heels ot inelaation Faberbcrs for ice ma munuiatistd yy GAP, Piatt: seiie malta sonshacloeet fot bar SOS and inetatadon inttrechoas +ROOF aay BCG sadied nape Ha [Gre Prwodd of OSE ‘drthing eecnenmaned by wai Hots peeved Woe diva Ae Wood teks st ain$* nea} thick ny mere ied Aecng's erty teB om) spac be att seateeed ashes} wits, hehe en i a iooth ean robes ROT Estes Sais eek te epaaten ee eubied deck wnlesd pattorlzed bs yentic:nv Rost eats aed eae Sorlacing statérial anied be dy price fo Sopheatiot ad § * ‘UNOERLATHENT {LEAK WARAIER): logead GAF faak borriar af the aves in locales where feaks eetiy be caved by eat usckieg wp behing 6 dees Gates, - ¥ GHEEALATMENT {Roor DECK pk prorecnion): Underlyjented beneath adigtes has inees banafity, lecdading Beip'ng tg Bievtey ged art sien ae mi ceed code Risk a pyeas hierste enan ie? ar cuss alsa be used Always have a ctegh profees! eis ux an yt rote note eae Withee ea a aN iis eisrag” eotiel: ‘eaten aa a setslaed Catal eereseayee estapmech eh as GAP Suge i eon a + snake, Bre-ceated ate taunt foe , buted, dalcnned, oc sstoanh shack eit hotee {oeraf $0 7/4\" Ef creer} in dasrater Faslenans sed 6 RES AS pasate H eonk £4\" [geen into word pyteigh beater with Sasa te eed ios stlogls,Geurdiheing wil dutnage ihe shagg, Bleed eee ban Bast s dects. Eso rent an cn bx) aa ‘ 0sine tse pes redoing AS) DIS Tine ncaa gers Bt a oe Ys ageay whan espocedfo yoared texgerstored, Shinglesiiptaded wh bad or an ve WA gn i te Fab goa tees # es tet wrt et aaege oye ok On cnet 9 abrqst saFOMA taneet bites, 4 Iba setl-cadant gets daty,iets FeSute 20 teal under these circaancunces results ftom tha ratule of sect-teaias) Shingles, 95d ie nel 2 ranataansing cele. | rie ue ‘pons,Ba danget detore pSatieersans Patiads obs area WE satboerg dust of a0 aa be ay fo be BEST be hind * MARIAN Bets tideEM PICATIONS: for reef Sopes greater then 24” pat font U7SSavwe), stage ragt be haod sealed, dO AOY sashes . Batty eng rave fi ee bien pastin patient faker eae on, ne beck Bee $t a {ich a ating’a. The tiie shigd ace bo preven AMagles fae ekirg PERLE U TAROUGH VENTRATION: Ve Foe cgeats seat He ed & wehoe waiet gioath, 22 root dMrceteres mast have nana vanhinisn to preaaat tabapenant of map stvry dagen xe baked tant sheatany Yen post be teat Ip DREL or dazend-cerenE PHA. HUG, a wel code aresiegs reget esterts. Hote:dren eft feea Gentiatton weaof 44 Focd par 15089 leet{} sq meter mtcighsa ‘pelyasfel cea eet & ioawitd haa Wheat bie ue BeatedSe t a iret bret d ‘a tha nocd sealesced) Ine foacrnant az How, peated oxy be tedated $9, Metis aceTine yy eel iretal surtaces net stats, 460, WA rating bAF Srinngle Match” nox aecenaary petal fer ° esl ADTRAN ‘ hore: kode nae aot Urea fo ra. INSTRUCCIONES DEHERALES + ROZAS DE DATOS GE secunione BE LDS MATERIALES (ISOS): Cosrda eltice Jos productos de AF toes comm bejas, bases ernestta pities, ee,ai fs MSDS mai ese cas hahis $e bas vines 48si ita Ga ho oan are geen OF Cetsote a febsicate a tre aces Ove 0 ne ok eles neds ig (iOrees) de madera férciads1 enadira aginenerats geanbs&a (058 ge ba seat) ma ces rine < fea is bsg mee Ueda fea fucza Ph arEason ng) eye Sierras cop ba Espada mduins Sy 178° (Seu, con uh ExcesOt MAIS sacral $a rasa 689 Waren} ea Gapetioad 34 melee cba Ge haves HeRca7ds 7 una pepatic‘g Tut, NO asepor raee My FREES Oat ES RROD: aris cade a ping tt IO ie tae a tea ca esto wapeke Srl tas, * ek cease hoa pene ait area}: sie Sarena site ie seluaconns ds GAF gai Sos secos en bustres donde ul ilenchemaate ds ayaa deinis de 0b desech ea ss pasar orcs. ' Ba Ate [PRO SCC PARA CURLER TAS te TeCHOS}: La cis dase dabsze Oe as tains Ces ecchos betetcios,‘endo tlapedrd SvAis qua ld tela Reratty nds pot ad eeda alates at Merce Hie oof BE 9 A Que feqara de egurag platecoms deg agen actions ct ba teas asiieess, La pa ar Enh sreceurss fo4 rannas #6 v de censtrnccha para 1A cain tN, Dood vo mates ara 73 Gps base, oté ree rd SC ay sa pester eat\"tno a an Tetbin i poset ty tase fon Pav ie 6 Cae ato de teavel de faut Sas ptt pid pt 3 on prolagianal a4 Sse qua teeise $36 egestas ease toads widen una taps tet coe diva da conned de @ taned: 27 WEST_NEIL 3/72024 Page: 42 SFF&CC/West_000362"}, {"d": 55, "p": 276, "t": "—a Ts. SREREZOUCSCC TIES Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com WAILIHG INSTRUCTIONS / HAND SEALING TASTAUCGIONES DE CLAVADURA 4 SELLADO A MAHO INSTRUCTIONS DE CLOUAGE / SCELLEMENT A LA MAIN ike Bega oot bephe ior is as minted I ot Rituertzis peters + i TeaEybeet parser gin MusT heenaieds rain ae Peay2sfingiet ee wien uh toed t (par ag ba naripater ate trey wy ae crib batt ‘bf rephat plas raiddese Ua 1/3\" (Geet) thes. me nee Gael Cage Lig seciegy of Ube wee Wha aiphetin uedarlreats wad leak ovileee, dlattiog it Une dephak dipecg nd siteeg Cais tela OLSEN clavarye un ngmninal& (42200) de La pat infin de by tak pet yc dg fo recernas, Camuo te mutates. Carvoy £65 debef4t erpltetas, cneear Pata gallo y para asagurt sellady medals, abea A loguel Suggs cab cathe ‘fthesteade wbagegtade tabvatd ta la pata es aeat tlm vis {S30 Abs} 4a Ge rats lady y §° {25 Wen) arrapaog looa de baba, Presione fewteeraeta scbtg el shave ATENUO Aplique wolarcanta vs caps ding ¢ ordtotens de coment asikitigg ax plisticn mados de 1253p) de qipeser, Conteh pases CHAN arepatas de UW aslebeta y parle Bandas ef axtsho eatss capary d4 daca yas bovretasde bagi, 9 gua atid en palate de quien y bs marchas Ges art deiverd Brn Cooks 2 aye GPa0Ga nominde$4 JSdrea (82) da esa bast, esesiin tes partons vfcaptes, corm 28 douga dole pis Hie espns ¥Peay Weavoenatizg Ja cattel ef dysueet acater brani ol ghiae de gout taint exhued eequrte Ge tersesu eo e080 4 Gite i 25 penalty’ Mites Rene os abaa Cenmentd bun bardery Pour aveatersovieg Graddal, é by bardesy fesrsdcgecd dans [ Sippkne ques SEULESIENT ug cout caiatee ince SasGDS Senaed ot plavend piers gag 1S\" (Sm fs ieseie Ceca rents ys gedkenl emntar geler des Suse Be Feo pout Hessitit Vasphade ail agate nts af fee bargeeue R peuiéot snots Fasphati dans CAF onderbayrn a 30-38\" (Hin) Perorrras ere ses PSE HAE Silas iiser tion} ~pf. Weea7 eee iat Hee Be Oi wae et Wee eeine tio eee erm te wim te Gr rm ee nce fat es aeestie Gin dagt Wa BEA ipaayy Moxy $¥4- 64d peee Binet Set yatadwsiet ontiek Ait Sijotaete ela porte ponered STARDARO HAILING PATTERH - tov nals per stony'e ive rebo-teatind ESQUEMA DE CLAVADUAA ESTARDAR - cuatro etreoe por fifa ites PATRON DE GLOUAGE STAHDARO - quatre coos put barceas 39-48 (tin) : 7 SEP a ny: Ngoear 12 Ly ikea e Gey e Rr iw, a See non nT Cn SS ; Et eee: Se eee year 4 yf etkoba igen 62 poe de ening ‘Sed saat chasse om back me apts neoseords BHHANCED HAILING PATTERN «sx nats pt shingle” halt yi eked * required by Some Igeal codes and required fer enthused wind coetrage on éactiin prodotts See Broad warranty fot datads hese WODELO VE CLAVAQURA AUHEHTANO - seis. Carns |get tea” * requeridea por algunos cddigus locales y requicido gare Garantle Henitada Soa pard Sos delalies- cobertira aurtentada contra af viento en derles prokxtos, PATAOH DE CLOUAGE ACCAY - six Clous par bardegu‘ * peguis pas certains codes locaiix puur ate Ceurverture atcius cantee les veais Sur cariaing procaty. Granta Banitte Sas pour des ditails 3. 28 WEST_NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 43 SFF&CC/West_000363"}, {"d": 55, "p": 277, "t": "awe. TRADEMARK SEREERETERTES Trademark Exteriors Restoration —_ — a 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405):748-4444 info@texteriors.com THSTALLING UNOEALAYMENT INSTALANDOLACAPA BASE INSTALLATION DE LA MEMBRANE DE PROTECTION UNOERLATMENT: FOR AGOF stores 2:92 10 LESS THAN 4:42 pat ovedang axpecied, west ora layer of GAR Leak Bastite, Eine Pathing west Application of wave Tasting: Ai eaves and where Soe dans gaa be Wed bare Boge by more than 124° (Gene) dod tbeedd dwtand 2° GotOren) oryordd tha insite wed Bae. Where ica dans oF dedcis dans 174 ot sigected, bubyd 2 pied G1 GHF Root Desa Protection, Apsllcaticg of radurtayment; Compiriety coves tog dach wih twa Gyens of GAF Road Deck Prttectionas shoiva. tse cel snouz mis fa bald oF: dw place ool tovered By beages, CAPA BASE: PARA TECKOS COM PENDIENTES OF LIZ A WENOS DE £12 Aaiicactin dy vinrteaquad gare alecos: fot fos aieces 7 donde st pueds acdarat 4 ceeveea Oé ecteneeatea de hess, via wos caps de Barrecade ftzrscioesGe GAP, Ei vigeteaguas para abetcs no Oba sobersalael horde al cla majade 124° (Gece) 7 eotereteona 24\" (Gt Ge} sre ad de ta See fotation da (a pared, Dovee 29 t2 expeten srtarcareelos Ge belog aonb, instgls 2 plagues Ge Proteotiiada Pulatoonias Gase de Techos, nnAE. Anlsatita fe sank vast: Cabra secular ia chitalerrra Bath to0 de§ C179 SB Prdancen pare Piadafcamag Bata os Tochor ce ‘da.clavos cers sara sesieser la capa basa 43 Bs jugs dusts qua Sueenaneeseas tes MEMBAANE de paoteenion: POUN PERTE OF TOT OF (2A MOINS OF at Agntizailon 2a satin d'avanltalt: Ag riezaa des srart-tedes st see tesdyous 0 ks accusmatations de glsca peatentd woreda’, yoviten witiets et GAF Unck Barvier, La soba dina ted ne Oo FS ‘asters fe ebond i Taras tad. de pli dt Hidpo (Ensen) 42 doa yeterira d phat cogehe co 2ego (Gtdean) as ath Ce 8 ae Be Niches Leenpat vers wantiiges oat mein de in ev srotes route 2 LothesCz CAF Roos Duck Protector. & de pi lesti Paco Hag Ga od vaee dean bxahes GF Reel eck Pratection, tet gpa sphak 5pooen, SEoNe sedfinsomant dy pine) pi wecirtets in pane a scab rdee Ge MINTER puser'd oe ques cel recnaverte 4 balieawd. e * Aieg tha, peat bee eaTGey ~ emetad dig tga oa toa at GAP teed ec’ pradtctivk Axa ad Beir ete Made “dt gehts $8 petal inceidatle ete oe panste dM pldrteesna bats dai ache de EM. Bes boxy be Tacessten, pesthigeg temaan dtd ncedtatt See eitGa ta aiolechon Be aheinge Aeeg park, td GA) feos barrie Gang ot ba OR Beste toehea taldep hye. doom omesone AL tngo de cs sevos, catia iret onsen iegiuerces br oar tapered Ls wi A prope! ven ta rspaucsie radi et hectn B unearned narodeioan! bing soaecsesoeddyigceda peat sa Raga eee “sleeget ene as sate GF oer : . a pane-tata CAFot 2 opting 0 iaecadas gn ended fener tin 16 femjred aes! ieee, $4 kg gn BT Geen) ta ctrneale pr ees Oe es phen ug Bonen (i 4 pan a spn ha Ok Anaticen Meh. La puree peed vata peas by Bers Be proteaton ueta 4, Sane fis acters Capinaiet Fol nt Remy est bbtstoy lemmuonag picaty porte Migat 4. 29 ‘WEST NEIL 3/7/2024 Page:.44 SFF&CC/West_000364"}, {"d": 55, "p": 278, "t": "FRADEMARK _ BRRRRITIGEEE Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405).748-4444 info@tmexteriors:com. UHDERLATM ENT: FOR ROOF ‘ones 1708 MORE Azahcallen ah care Maublegs Al exees And yebuts 208 Paescde by eopected ta oot yas 1 GAP Leak Byline: Ext fastieg att ver 2 (El Gen} deyornd tae inside wed foe. Application of andactaymant: Cover deck wah ace layer CAE rol ach piotertion gubted Werinhles, Ute onty erdagh cans to Bold endectayroant in piace bent coveitd by shéngits, CAPA BASE: PAA TECHOS COM PENQIERTES or $12 O MAS! dolleasiéa ad Horteopat jin dare Es bot Hereg pve sa puna Heat ig precentio de whew andettyy & has ute wd pd de Rate de oe GAP. OL park aint desa 24 (Gideran] nds 984 de Sa Kees interiog de fe pared, Aalkachia ds4 scape baie: Cabra tay gbalatstens Baye connian capa weoe cips base da GAF instalade sin arrages, Ysa sctaments fa eortidad Caves tomo para sostanes te copa bat a0 fe hugat hatte sping ta Raya eedaertg Cont fey hepa, MansnAne GE PACTEC TION: FOR RODE PENTES CE 4:32 00 mus: Applcaion Se pala Carat: soil: Aa svg des ayant tdts at aun excteots ¢4 las acqenatatets kona de ce peuvent sucear,yweatier ubkaer wht oouetd CAF Leak Barlies. Le vada Davsnltont dest g tteadiedt 24pe (Giger) 2-dgih da ba Rad da me Midas, Appecation Puna enemnbirat.a da profeeton: Cowvnlr 3e glatetage avet ane soache db protection satelage ¢ ds tat GAT eratelia sis phscamient, Utseae sullsamanint de clout govt madolives en pease & maadrane de protection josgad on qa’eiie soit cecourtrle Ge bacdtaer. Akog DAM, gud 264-20 FSi esanh sebses an Recipe y Seisa nyt eenked MT SPE trad dee getaten Checiadgoresd dap reste ssiiennes &6 Stem Ops} aradol iy ptge tn ig EA Abtupsdd dhe tio treet pA AL 7AM dee trot bee pal eed 5 soncneraahe tell og ed Aa hogs oa bee sores, eto fa Saaeera te Ragas $9 GAP fetes dl bere ds Betta ts ind Maaske toed vi reid Mages Fa sana trl poktiy & ne “ . mains Aa bong ey avyet-Soth, palapeceok, a pare fade GAP sce “Semict Ga Sars ps tat Saba vatiel taes a Oho nena Ceeekegheinad vation’ expirrars dy G70 (pS) Oa INSTALLING STARTER STRIP SHINGLES Mek mova Mart Ho mag gue 1 Libre) soot oontang A beck sores py deco da Piha aa ben tt pet ries at INSTALACION DE TEJAS DE HILABA IRICIAL INSTALLATION DES BARDEAUX OE BADE DE DEPART S)aRiee CauAsE Use GAF shutar strip shingles along che exes weal tala, Apely a6 Uaeerd, MOTE: GAF sluster stig shingles 354 recommendedal Leite tor bast Pedoieeae ded feasired fer ashanced warranty coperige cn cadiain poducts (gon Einited warranties tet deiats). ile b tina Has mic fe ectama 6 tha Selected stastig Grin sNinges. ect pines rma net a Span ce Ait coy sas apis inebiactigs: HOTA Soon a daja Ot binra boical da GAP ot 8 qa ig oda Bi Tideks of Cierton gristaclos Cre vvaite la qurnstis tentials feed ei Cy i eh a deg dratt ois at incaizes. Applqats tet qa'ivtigd: BEMARQUE: Les barSeaue 64 tasde Ot ns incised peer radice pectcrasce ot toed (aces god eeVt coenttsh46 Gees coe orth bs et dicedGH sor conan: cattaing grecult (y04 a gurnne ele pI EH Saiyre es iostractions # apphcstin’ ded Aardedua de utd dy dtp Fat shared Wied ANS deg ies Had ey DAP shar ainp dhaoges what ip deat aalesd te coment ihnarhes ty wacpertiprnacd wad ain 5p? 814 (ioe) with of yak pls ceed. Ppa iiskea reszarc of yoni 2% Gage ot (AS RECLACIONES, inside coctnanie B58 eh aria da 4 (1 Bde) ap get plaice ntarcg, ‘Pra ae cee Poni tot eb te weg ds Henchiss, nile dea bydesas ha ass da Spas BEF ayec Wester Ge (ohn ba borane 58 eeanbiae oe prdeceri Tat Miata dest emis Sa ceed phantegad siphatd da bya [Toth pit aneita Gal bleeds de weigalea de Ltd a Sc bao incl dg CLF con ceneuandt gelktir 9 tenants bas bs 2 4 raga badd y ee et ( Cee 1 A ~ eit 4/7. 396). whos a me Ria Sore oat dal bord de sere pee & thasiat ¥ feet nc a beody Geta Eumyacci ae bat ds Wosccstrectong ental Grp page beedede a pide fig acetak hap yhte, Lapinias a3 Metal Woaajetrbly webs ent ln sta tig Teasley bid fe saat bY ya Fees) dea ni vipat Be age _ Mret sgrceetadanenng 3/7#9 [BT Ress] tad ABT vad fo pt ae eas Thay Hiebert bes Anno we Hee) ore Cogito nh pinata 3 = Xf G- thu} MEME Da heniesSe wired Sci prs propery Fendt nen Pixs We Bareeag 46+ in C243 LM po tee bea torts facie tol ah da Feat na ten pont borez ost tween. 30 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page:45 SFF&CC/West_000365"}, {"d": 55, "p": 279, "t": "as. FRADEMARK EERIE Trademark Exteriors Restoration tat EAS LAS Aes , , 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405): 748-4444 info@tm exterlors:com. INSTALLING SHINGLES INSTALACION DE TEJAS INSTALLATION DES BARDEAUX FIRST COURS gunge ves hod be 5-59 (Lien) PRIMEAA HILA [a eagerionde ney debe Hi S48 [Gees PALBIER RANG Lesprysissde bartens devrat doe Hevea 5 -Sra} Sart 8 aft tad 38d tay by ede occ Sassy ba exit > eon dod continaa with he thangs Shot in bash ove tas ooaiee Enrylece 7 watinge oq ead petans : RoC Tat EF fons eaves yaa 1 fila inci. Obreurres ef carious trys doen bandeaica wii iirdes Ban st le poet de Mra. tec y coat oa bala 6 rs ——- . : / cee face tnn eric ed apes WAT = A eae ewe toga petra bands dy ais 4 2» 44 oeraal & renan &[s Sar see bek hen ig paren rag ches hat Ceres $ GP fevs (hdd w tutu tons ies na ter ‘pigast Beat fooler wa leredee STCOKD COURSE . . ab tha ils Gai gode. Teas nesiits i 0-59\" [ova) epaace. SEGUNDA HKG” ie Ba eacend 204 pabseqanel courts Baad aith the hops fiers asees eiag bn te sequida Pada y sxhebasies 2 198 ta Bs pith segaiens de los Sbths Beg Eee crea ta en eapanicdade ET (dn) Poatneriy tee bie ease dats be secied ag $line 1S Sp0} las rarenn Abe GzeNNG D etculeemd Teakbes edad cs lenges Adocwpics Cela thls fet pete hes ilbeeny fae uta edga ol fing thee Condes tn aise ingen 2 Potente S{ihaeren}det deren ot neacignade de prreyy te Lectin co fe inet Bicooger d 1m (18395) a Deed Ge premier Bards aides tarde ots, Md 6. 31 WEST_NEIL- 3/7/2024 Page: 46 SFF&CC/West_000366"}, {"d": 55, "p": 280, "t": "TRADEMARK ENEKECTERETES Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. THIRD COURSE TERCERA ARADA TROUSHEME ANG Sie WT ory bee 1d ged od fist shige Faiae W bee)tel Sead Ge bstoasin Se proceed ie Degen 3 Fikert L118}aa betoo pretat Legis ATH COURSE ANG REMADONG Sera & Oat id etal tty & cages wd eek paraded agro ATA HILADA Y RESTAITES , web aries, Tyacg wus Haves 4 tied dprdtd poets ads § bisdin para ceecectr le three paratea ted og Nescd. AGE RANG ET LES AAMGS BESTANTS: Fraces pee Farah Oy Coan A eoneon Revelas 8 asap paver vttdles fatipeaisl ta pedis wee Beaver hs. kv 37° (eFtomd bg ante ea = A Hd sis, Cavite ue wiczin ahiagies, Repeal ste Th Bl ison tinea \\: he fered by Coys Upting he coated ath a Rell wate - Ranesig 7\" e2huem da toda cult 9d Stoke ap 8 privesd bpp Coste Con gt. Bagida i fea ab thy erases a bold bs as Sesedas paataatty (emuncarsty by quar tg hats ort gra ga erg Daconper bd ven (lipo) Obs fin de Hite oe prerrsae bined. Cortiesay poet O08 hardin eta. Ripe ins pad lees Wy tex Ua Hong nang par fe cans rear eh cose Jt Geol riag net it taeda betty - h 32 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page:.47 SFF&CC/West_000367"}, {"d": 55, "p": 281, "t": "‘TRADEMARK SERREZIRIOE Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. INSTALLING ROOF ACCESSORIES ANO DETAMS INSTALACIN DE ACCESOHIOS Y DETALLES GE TECHO INSTALLATION DES PROOLIITS RGOF ACCESSORIES ET DETAILS, VENTILATION Sele GA sentation prodatls Sg epinal yogi ie Sea General battens tad fer “Through Venetation’ warnon. Fatesit kppicatio lndeatians for a selecing etiotiod podeels, yornucidn tattle pectin de vatodacide de GA pais wed Stir vida Gal 62 Lats Cota es evcanss Gates 7 tern “Aledo haemlacds*, Sicalas snstreocanes 4 apticartia ds bys productos de veatderhn select aces Veatacds FERTLATION laatilies bes prodicks Ca vtntiiaine CAE paid ing dorks dt Vt optenae, Vell fag bnieatons Ghobraies dans49 séeties «Adi win de Bitiotant:, Salad et deers Capsaation po is pregats de yevites pile fiends, RODE CAP SHINGLES want GA Sage FP RENES teinaieg ea appleaton bunaties aban oct Ge GAP ridge cap abe wrapperaz Of Bp & gg shea kee sterapes, 24 OY Ms Rian. Poutnn Bed dnay from piedang wil Oaeeed ve oe TOPES OF NOR: as eas de Bog i Yet he CAR aig bs nacho de sgtutcitn gpa Nera Ga enreltar' en eis di lagna ds GAP 0 cor Peebis 4 rohrere y Dade Om eetas e3t5 coenphEaa, 9 OpEauad catia +4 Boren Colggud hy vlan byed oe Ue heacnion de ving Beetennraie SARDEAU GE FAHTAGE Wapiti Serves de htop oh obi et ernie 6 an spect 8 ea erage AF Shee Eaton ce Nis nite Gar Ses Randege a poise Gide vos apAQUAI EE core nak. Powtanner Wnt ghraaacbements Baapoes dis wets shealtant, yan Fiahandae Reub fo tas} ERTEAGUAS DE PARED {ticks op Pescienta bacie 22 Paredy SOUKS. pyeAly bs yaa ge Pesta 4 May 4 Meer Se prdesiaa OF dake gig at yates) ae: y Bakara a ake Sptea es vnetal Chad a plotedaga NCH SO EN gid sates} ning erie sted Spe Raia} tral” AS . ita hopan poses da Ga par si mite {ETT own} becca be pared. Keced 2 4a prwra tats OM § Spa {ibleeal ae ronencal “ae that Dealspar Big RABI een” Tepwy ni dees epcakgnaty wat y tetera (112 pen) sabe obeta ~Saegchton et ned aaa at {F leap ake ts eng ak ast F (Bt en} perry B inowcsietaeti he tt UH Bay wes Placer b piptofemnsa mitasqua d ta pian de vagina weston by Sedagel tebe KP Sion} $ (N27 a) sae be Dad etal Lag pices Sa Drageet be ceviche Tota Pah) 44 Viren ites) | fe 9 Lepced i bord de Rardeant a Fed S107 enn) ar fa bared benders’ math F Geo) py pete a ates Ae ida eked of hateagins pone energy ieee Le tecociesneed {tarda Sod aadsteris Bp Blea} Hodesect 8 Vealand Ga ed Cescr'e gts a Pee Presta 33 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 48 SFF&CC/West_000368"}, {"d": 55, "p": 282, "t": "FRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105, (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors:com. ound ety FLASHING AMO CRICKETS Cat Hh weaned tee Med Get eco pick 3 GAP tout Gack protection, £0 MT 108 BAF eel enh brat oiet GUE food deck poetection and ap tidak of Cusvty al lei $+ {127 an): eshaeg ap Sade of theetey teat yond ude takes (soe te weiss a mites Sel thingen the wnetal anges {22e doaeéry bye9), Tr ope niente shoger,fp and igias aad stip Catkeg, Cee an add tal Se, anu cap ypotenion dy Meaning + rey ot pa dé madari (34 pitied pretuass ster ass ute tn sti es deb cess in ea oncom abe posto ne cg GU et contadees Gi by shortens. at rin 4 $+ USZleaN), et ek eaten 0 Sess ee ea (ow Sorts] ests Oa at ; belngpieg taripacione bd Nei ce meal fava dt). ae envionment art ae ks ‘eats Heat. falas de corbvenad y tases y vateigias Oe SOU DE cate £7008 DANE ised é \" rego eas Cent eat de rie i te ce ei eB PS te a flatelage ds tee CAF fat 5 cAsed de Wa Sramtedy, Saulatnt ds gare lke naa ba gestection Oe piabrings de tot CAL od ca bee coda de ha chord bi tevisnan60 Spa {igiaon} feaheien Gas drt Clee pot Gaminte mnie hid ot ose Seah th ela tot et merbertas sitet scamateg Seacat S9p ban dgace ang Woden Ge medtad vie es Hbapbratons ok decges), Levan as gros don dite 1 bag Carrey ind Indes abpirdy at later Ssh edd. drtaase, Sardonen be tre el Taciters Ht ontedt . | a. es tonion Ahe thandee inate to via by neds dy hose, 60 dd Beebo ae gag ing otelad ede gee a ae gordo aes wa Bagbadl ps yt Laster UR Z0 eat ata OF Fedasa tigre ash phertanale4 Sait pia RR Gio. Suaee saa tig tee Pikempen Nace {da} sien pod Bat ot esd dedey cc Misha partants patter Ue eh esl de iced tapactamest Paeaenoritert 4 pros Cope cg Kottertat taejetat cae peat raectet ccigrotea bree | mache bawen{ et Sarda Sed seg ene Sey Rot Geaarta dad stich ergs ceeeerh Beda tes lag a te ble rd con 2a ita ee Seasir ica bacstace Ab bea s ae tne be aca hs rosette Devitt aa Wy ASTeee) ip rant geek. Liebe de ic desstadrss ca SRE HORA 4 34 55 mah A ; isioe} yeu cobature a (rude sande fy ao see 2) teil Cechats pacAd artes at eat 6 {088 a5 tanked he ec Les Seeradtaed debt talacdlared 4 pea ip etn Un) bat Lax Son ew Gee el id por tsb ag eeserver a Uo Stern war ait a tk herr ad TFS at oar el a i ot jeeeceta bt eve 17 05 8h (a gabe det bh: dare a rien 34 pg (Kvn) var pan fa Pod 9 34 WEST_NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 49 SFF&CC/West_000369"}, {"d": 55, "p": 283, "t": "TRADEMARK SEZ Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE S2nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors. com. VALLEY COMSTAUERON = OPEH Uarmninest OF Gites) wit siewon, plenors re, COppAt Bar Se ceeTesing, oes ea iin malls (24 gangs Baie, loop an Easel pet aise reyes sider parts al Be rl on in Weg isos leading ped barking dH sees sh ba a Sec Ads pine Da art fatchce Be metal Mies Besegshe CONSTRUCLIOR DEL VALLE~ DE CORTE ASIERTO Vie oa anche incians fe 20° (60S) de shennie, scars qoearcade, telve y abe patel ieoridatés due £0 mance (Gahee 2d cand icine), Las vee hae9 $54 edaigan locales 4 coestrpceibe peceden reqotea ek fae Fade pv or movie ne hata ral Sr Maa togBo puctozn H arated Lins 2 iravig det coed piece coisie S22 7 tons HOM DE KOUE ~ HOVE GUYERTE (er de rata Urges Sa pn RRA) te aes pada eg pelted peftoan Sel ob ere bls aA ne se Be pat, (ae Ud a3 sao, O95 saves sha bogiesos Tea a tae essen tdeectbr ok mit gs toga Cos eal eta trey a gaa a ts Be sf ae en pa Wie fas pvcet Cleat ay avers 2 kG pond cae des hel wt dig bendyerands v8 ay easveeed Certhad Sy eth 136 BAS aa Tat De set peace tacleears achin ® iSteun| oh cate brie, Recreedal biga aunthe ad (1S2e0t5 hg 64 atcha Gees ga SA Stegcenn’sby CAE. coeand gastadyres deeieg hg Woy at (Seay ds ro cq. Las fasts 6 led dededdoves dudes lw Aa Bhs HAY en at ctl dH pooch gt Se para BAF Wea pa geen We aging $ Tat tege Sa eae a in Byecd is ttre. Ln Charnes “Gebged tice ds onda ign (ews) Cannas satay Mad, eset ead Lieot a pape bane de DAT gor i regen SUES; seher pons ee teeta 6 GAL, ” Cast reilly retigs a 3 DS Paces ca orien 42 TE (ey ete wens evenet (ad eerie tactscnta fed fedu ne Be as fake. Cacthiy 1g watad de nena characte Serr toro poeta ' On ive pret Tes txctrodoeierts bebereaa get wieiran ta Wola ii2pe) A eater sonia 4 CL x < + / 7] “Oe 7a 4 og ined te Cin a Sip corners o> shayges 6\" es eater Row yeardite sectee dl eure bats4 ota Cigar oe AS\" lag cr sigdtin, peat driga Tacodened dais Fees cenit & Mie. ae Soy tejat 3 por) x Snee aa Omen! fom ‘igen ae) gee (ka toy ever, 8 hes Wa mt are Darpas dvergt piegeny 8 Vay fat Soi i sire fipelpeaerecrenn No Oe Orang, tengo fal etriestis idea] Redera a Wer ne set serveur gs cas ad core siden tence pea sabe bs ics re 9p rAed el pa itd ts $e eat, Gheneachar io hy dana dv 5 Fite Feacckerart Gris Mi dents Seurdanneecyee ta i be Ln Doe} Best @ ten a (or detseiee ger a Docs Bapese Ahr Hage Uae he ba arene es 48th epmmaran dr sotane fb Hen (1 fo) pa a et very et atta pe conto Tyme det eis do ald dus Botan Gt len bade kein Gti gied sAbeadboonens fas be aed 10. 35 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page:50 SFF&CC/West_000370"}, {"d": 55, "p": 284, "t": "TRADEMARK ERRESEET eS Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. VALLEY CONSTRUCTION ~ CLOSED CUT CONSTAUCCIOM OF VALLE CORTE CEARADO CORSTRUCTION DE MOUE FERMEE~ COUPE FERMEE Kec ek a etl farniy grea shaagien sa Fay ee Setece eecirns, ~~. sol a weloy ga. Na, puting 4a a friteead a he Gxtes Baage hg uaa bute oie para ava neal Wh Garter <3 aR, Cacdye bed ra ae RCAF tak bate i eaclored ds GA. He cotrjue weiter doe Oo bed & ctMQrres) oe ba Fine cactrad bg Jettag oe Yes departs cata enta apet arnt FAQ eed: Gt ds i en do ee dred Ge Sansa pis Neeser Scat Wy bes Dee aes ae 3 8 poe peat St 2a) Cop eieat oy Seabed. Fe reient Ay ees ‘eeseeant d ee oven i laa, Set 9c pots Oe ahd 4 Seabee peoaet te hat Set bing. ire Gah pe da tee Ua Pe “ Metts delet ive Sa moe S901 HzO Apganee ty bere de 8 nein Cased 8 peal wee Seales aay ‘: 7 Dorie ond td ep: TASreNs| acy Con TE Deg EE ‘ele sorter Ine. Cig Prat Catsy SAE senteris pret 3B fe thdees} er ca ern Eieed U cia baste de CHF pr 8 iain HELD) pada arenes be racion o4 GA Aisaten $9 bs paconcng $4 pdacteel GAS Ab ene 1B ae Lik Set sopiopicertis Altes say i bijsstetinrbhe Sips teat fare hatg al vale, rsette US eneidtOe jaa tajag 2 12° pack amine flags do apa of eh ghas Sel wae Bate et is Ge eae pl ervee aaa ej feu peg ein Roark “ieee dteete9 ave jars aud hes bonde acd craechert d de toile ttre coupes Gesvpr 24 928 Govgrds oe 299 3 {Benen de Sone du centre ae ert pros coala bey tad yw ed acs gear, ha Plea iad da read, Coggat es entra de ° Phan lanplarcite Cost wna tarsi Sa Cigar au bert egiercart Chaucumabacie * aiourent one 4 CANTER ta NOt pce RAD, cane nt Fas (LE ese ty ete mb ae Sheena ee reg tehad PRUCENER aE ad pices Gan clave coh ele con tio Nertoely EK CAS de Wome, Soca ‘cerns bar deals da rooiet Pisa a Fpadre ae 28) aa | ged ca eng te ale a Carene . WAPOATANE ROTE: Coo HOY isa a \"Cesdciais Volley” {ities instabed paraded 39 Bg roby cand Goat. etch cal end Pking OTA TMPGRTANUE: Be vei wt “YadaGx Cadtorcia” (thas malaga evn povpan 3a Bex Gece de eve), coat pots provera Leracgows LEMAR QUE IMPOR TAMTE: Ke pun atta Ge Re Calter » ards ikzita en paca none a Eg a ena OF Ue csr), ca ped cota det Est. Ln 36 WEST NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 51 SFF&CC/West_000371"}, {"d": 55, "p": 285, "t": "TRADEMARK CRUREUERETEESE NEE Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405):748-4444 info@tmexteriors:com PRECAUTIONARY NOTES - asp sapiek1 thea. psig Heat nat ogi becker of 04 aidan Cunictorsers ol fg hclrcaaty wtacy oofing winced verd, ude ctienyoy zion tepautere emda mu eter nee Exzond Hace uiy bent act rae Meco a Arch Shade hat beset Seve PuNgers, ste Sasi EEG wees arti Tipped Mastees 3 ead aMecti 3 Pegadess of mitnlwed Ba Boveis aa ea ronan nes gnc aeons ees peer aera eccereniied Maney redas bs Ong MISES tox asthe Pyotr ded hota ott peKRe Ss. Foe 5 Sore one eects be ray gi ee eced Dak tery apa i Saat melanie Twat sone a cok bres bones on niga ob teat baat Hees Pussdes Soe carrying ee ad an te ssrarine Gerage, Lary fin dadle acted teeage. agen al) “i NASA {nga Hos SAPORIARE: Rot sh promy e ltwvern ech, bat ye podem, mena Jeeher ip Posten vert RE ROCIO tt a wt bo bert para ad doen oa col sy een pated ay ghd petes 36d poe ah yivaietes sie eos co 8 Sece sy re darted may thos biocy sain ed chs mated Speirs elt eshh peered ba vod & asa Stet ssataeg bt Rb bays, apes 40d sala $aege.os aero aed. ge * aT a Nee faa bg Paty oe ian sels 2) Sete rs ep batons A Re stieges? malt 5ace ris Te Eat os] ne et ar w& bel tetarr al ia grand Hieeset a ta, a ea tS HE eh dertoptee hy waves nats Aaling * le a ote Sta, este ett uy mane Fat exdedeal appar, «381 1 OeHEBII 4 visa ont webs ke el we gat cat, NAS DE PREGAUCHON asteeehcs te Urs» shin. Dette at ceca Sl tid ingens a atti an pate sine Meseh aoe in ibcree steed ia dicate sera o acta, Les cy icis08 gua bt cue tex pennal tones oa/g tart betes tyes Teetiin 4 me patie pone 2 Gols Sarrnanta see, Senge s ettfa week arty APES yo Ber TO, Fut agate oars en A phen or veda ference i 2 fae pretan oo ni Sener eed) detractsy i sah tise $4 pated Condit teens CoHSeema aay at Var pote apes Terawaa re Ere Se oa on Blanes boas 8 bet gab ans Borges Gusset elie, ae Ge cabatety ¢ Mirae High isteneoor na iekojual ney beaad soireesid sone Uuouccsscina) aide et mane Sun Sts ey $9 tlacton ater, chyna eh costs G4 mh. $908 saevk . Ss. el Sot sca} ptr ata DAbdS (apcetesecnt ets mie atedSieaiinde caution Poates DeOe ioeala iin paneby tern Mager uae uu ner Gereeypai taser I NinodegtRensitnes os rset edn mtorr bes vitivatsfe Groton adaiy took HoR tet, RTA re Ghee peo Sees hen oats baen corideas abostns sentra a ighase qua oe Ait Milde wo. Ded sactoaia aegirts Pa BEES ES rik. Badd Sakae Oey Gets. Sek porkectnts teleteh, He Gack oes peatsis. Lespet Ls bad aes ens it ik Ue Sahn cel aves ae eeu . ingen tens Trent tan didinm ered mre ee 2\"ak ces tachee Stet paris Bectebdesdet Her ie i she Hoan ep ucts rua pis mies gods Gatuls hat ors g3$ le aay is corte’ big Sota bes BiCene aA rg speaenes ea a el ec ac ent . Pars eagéeia Mesloy, Baar 43 5-490-7HE- 11h a vhUiee norade 4386 WAI 4 wien pal cat, REMARQUES bE. PRECAUTION ote Sprig feaeuecye fh Sank en rented veetiada~ empaiatcsa suber SCE 434, Bo sracers (area G2 talaries oe VV, CHATS,siaRB ans de tet ae BA J Moemuybes wretententeoe at coatscatrqus Staal Sat pet pre est oe eat. “4 fewer irene pat Pesca Sn Wega pte nd a i hy Si me ee Dees ‘fgets eater rar ey aoe Th d2t tod PAZGEA WAGES Rosen pork aS 3 Tabet ya bed Soap ae Ga corel Hla cea Sale AAS (11T by pukka 3 Wein te + iy acon Rn ba iat & Jed vg bagi eet Sige 8 eraptags os okt ge yt Seco pres 1 caetteg gene wie 4 saan aft = eave Vion Soot xarpa tpoerieee yyperanes 9 setae Bison & Sag Broa ed aerpage MMPORUNT: om bint seeteeneat ein toler pn 6h dnt a etn da nae. MITSTOMDE gs baa espeie dekreod deopeeeit Ef, Cgs ca caged bed a ne eat seepicar kek $a panel, of bate 8 PA hionh revenniesaminnat' erate ers oe ipa beara scrnr oa sate Nee unten oot eo hae dua bs bee einen Nernoweials Leora fet pec fe ea 1p peed them ri wham ashe Semenbre lesa te pig 8 patSoarneneny Pe Wed Contin ekieet $9 ea lesan ‘ epics a bee teoarre i aah rm et even 4 prterinn epee rites eta Case k Poss 44 seuee Meuhtiges, nppelas au 1-000-700-4114 a virrlar ncirs oly Web 23 ray, pi. 108 EH OW oot nearer a tae de Your Cg Crk ‘aa bese Tete 12, 37 WEST NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 42 SFF&CC/West_000372"}, {"d": 55, "p": 286, "t": "POE MARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748:4444 info@tmexteriors:com. 38: WEST NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 53 SFF&CC/West_000373"}, {"d": 55, "p": 287, "t": "‘TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE S2nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405):748-4444 info@tmexteriors:com. 39 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page:54 SFF&CC/West_000374"}, {"d": 55, "p": 288, "t": "TRADEMARK Nee Ste tas Trademark Exteriors Restoration r, 4. y t o ° 7 ws, e . 36 NE 52nd Street _ Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. 40 WEST _NEIE: 3/172024 Page:55 SFF&CC/West_000375"}, {"d": 55, "p": 289, "t": "TRADEMARK ‘SURE Trademark Exteriors Restoration / ; 36 NE S2nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405):748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 4l WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page:56 SFF&CC/West_000376"}, {"d": 55, "p": 290, "t": "TRADEMARK SWERUZIEDS Sa Trademark Exteriors Restoration SWEL USES 36 NE S2nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748:4444 info@tmexteriors.com 42 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 57 SFF&CC/West_000377"}, {"d": 55, "p": 291, "t": "TRADEMARK EERE Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors:com 3 WEST. NEIL 3/7/2024 Page:58 SFF&CC/West_000378"}, {"d": 55, "p": 292, "t": "Ese TAS Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405).748-4444 info@tmexteriors:com Beyer 44 WEST NEIL 3/7/2024 Page:59 SFF&CC/West_000379"}, {"d": 55, "p": 293, "t": "TRADEMARK EACINAIN Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405) 748-4444 info@tniexteriors;com. Soninrien 45 WEST_NEIL- 3/7/2024 Page: 60 SFF&CC/West_000380"}, {"d": 55, "p": 294, "t": "TRASoC.DEMARK SE Se MB LT IS. Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405). 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 46 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 61 SFF&CC/West_000381"}, {"d": 55, "p": 295, "t": "“TRADEMARK COREE Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105. (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. 47 WEST_NEIL. 3/7/2024 ’ Page: 62 SFF&CC/West_000382"}, {"d": 55, "p": 296, "t": "‘TRADEMARK GOVERN Trademark Exteriors Restoration : 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com ihe 48 WEST_NELL. 3/7/2024 Page: 63 SFF&CC/West_000383"}, {"d": 55, "p": 297, "t": "TRADEMARK ROOMS Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. 49 WEST NEIL 3/772024 Page: 64 SFF&CC/West_000384"}, {"d": 55, "p": 298, "t": "TRADEMARKpk Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NB 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 731 05: (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. 50 WEST_NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 65 SFF&CC/West_000385"}, {"d": 55, "p": 299, "t": "TRADEMARK CORIO Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105° (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 51 WEST NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 66 SFF&CC/West_000386"}, {"d": 55, "p": 300, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration CORRECT 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 52 WEST. NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 67 SFF&CC/West_000387"}, {"d": 55, "p": 301, "t": "‘TRADEMARK Th | Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE S2nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405):748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. 53 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 68 SFF&CC/West_000388"}, {"d": 55, "p": 302, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. 54 WEST _NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 69 SFF&CC/West_000389"}, {"d": 55, "p": 303, "t": "TRADEMARK Giieeu ro ereemerrEs Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. WEST_NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 70 SFF&CC/West_000390"}, {"d": 55, "p": 304, "t": "TRADEMARK SRR Trademark Exteriors Restoration ' 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405):748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 56 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 71 SFF&CC/West_000391"}, {"d": 55, "p": 305, "t": "‘TRADEMARK ou TEOEN SEGUE RE tae Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors. com. 57 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 72 SFF&CC/West_000392"}, {"d": 55, "p": 306, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration CEREUS 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405). 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. WEST. NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 73 SFF&CC/West_000393"}, {"d": 55, "p": 307, "t": "TRADEMARK EEEEDISESORU ST Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 59. WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 74 SFF&CC/West_000394"}, {"d": 55, "p": 308, "t": "PRADEMARK Loh Trademark Exteriors Restoration sbai ed CLIN 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors:.com WEST NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 75 SFF&CC/West_000395"}, {"d": 55, "p": 309, "t": "TRADEMARK PRR Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36NE S2nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405):748-4444 info@tmexteriors,com. 61 ‘WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 76 SFF&CC/West_000396"}, {"d": 55, "p": 310, "t": "ern TRADEMARK anal . . . . , » Trademark Exteriors Restoration CORTE . 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405). 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com creas 62 ‘WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 77 SFF&CC/West_000397"}, {"d": 55, "p": 311, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 63 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 78 SFF&CC/West_000398"}, {"d": 55, "p": 312, "t": "TRADEMARK CRASS Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405):748-4444 info@tmexteriors. cori 64 WEST NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 79 SFF&CC/West_000399"}, {"d": 55, "p": 313, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE S2nd Streét Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 65 WEST_NEIL. 3/772024 Page: 80 SFF&CC/West_000400"}, {"d": 55, "p": 314, "t": "TRADEMARK me ASRS SES(8b ff ftEh Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE S2nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. 65 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 81 SFF&CC/West_000401"}, {"d": 55, "p": 315, "t": "TRADEMARK ERMINE SOT ara Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 67 WEST_NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 82 SFF&CC/West_000402"}, {"d": 55, "p": 316, "t": "Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 68 WEST NEIL 3/72024 Page: 83 SFF&CC/West_000403"}, {"d": 55, "p": 318, "t": "Providing Insurance and Financial Services Home Office, Bloomington, iL March 14, 2024 State Farm Claims NeilS West PO Box 106169 30348-6169 GA nta Atla 7 NW Briarcreek Dr Lawton OK RE: 73505-9537 ClaimNumber, 36-59Q1-13C Policy Number: Date of Loss: 36CRX4058 June 15, 2023 Dear Neil S West: Thank you for the opportunity to review your claim. A payment in the amount of $1274.67 will be mailed to you. The terms of your policy require your mortgage company or lienholder be included as a payee. Some mortgage companies or lienholders opt to be removed as a payee. If they are included as a payee, please contact them for instructions on obtaining their endorsement. if you have questions or need assistance, call us at (844) 458-4300 Ext, 66. Sincerely, ™~*s)> EXHIBIT Kristin Haun Claim Specialist 3 _ (844) 458-4300 Ext.66 statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com as Social Security For your protection, when emailing State Farm, please do not include sensitive personal information such in an email, information al healttvmedic or number, license driver's number), account Number, credit/debit card number (financial Please contact us at (844) 458-4300 Ext. 66 to discuss sensitive information. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Take advantage of our self-service options Go to statefarm.com® to easily review claim status, select a repair facility, reserve a rental vehicle, update communication and claim payment preferences, and many other insurance services. WEST_000097"}, {"d": 55, "p": 319, "t": "& Statefarm Summary of Loss Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C Date Created: 3/14/2024 Named Yusured: LACY WEST, NEIL S WEST Coverage A - Dwelling Limit of Lisbitity: $309,000.00 Cost ($) Recoverable Depreciation (S) Now-Recoverable © Amount Over Description Replacement Litt ($) Subtotal ($) Staff Estimate. Totals: 5,283.17 5,283.17 0.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 0,00 000 5,283.17 528317 $ S$ Comments/Supplements Depreciation () S S$ $ Subtotal: $5,283.17 Less Deductible: $3,090.00 Less MISC: $0.00 ‘Total Payables Lets Total Paynsents Made: Net Payment: $2,193.17 $918.50 $1,274.67 Signature and * Your policy may provide for additional payments an a replacement cast basis for the Recoverable Depreciation Usted above for Cov, A and Coy, B for your Building you if handler your claim for specific time limits and additional seitlement provisions, Please contact Personal Property. Ploate referta your polley and any endorsements kava any questions. Previous Payments Bubtotal Date Sep 28,2023 Payee Remarks (8) 916.50 Actual cash value payment for gutters, downspout, window screena, fence stain, and LACY WEST& NEIL S. WEST Interior repairs. . $ Totals; Page | of I 918.50 WEST_000098"}, {"d": 55, "p": 320, "t": "WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C State Farm P.O. Box 106169 Atlanta, GA 30348-6169 Fax: 1-844-236-3646 statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com Structural Damage Claim Policy This estimate is priced based on estimated market pricing for the cost of matcrials, labor, and other factors at the time of the loss. Adjustments in market pricing and timing of the repairs Inay impact the final cost of covered repairs. Should you or the contractor you select have questions concerning our estimate, please contact us. If your contractor's estimate is higher than ours, you should contact us prior to beginning repairs. ‘State Farm will work with you and your contractor to determine the actual and necessary cost of covered repairs at the time repairs will be completed, subject to policy terms, conditions and limits. » We want you to receive quality repair work to restore the damages to your property. « We will provide you with a detailed estimate of the scopeof the damage and costsof repairs. Should the contractor you select have questions concerning our estimate, they should contact your claim representative directly. + Depending upon the complexity of your repair, our estimate may or may not include an allowance for general contractor's overhead and profit. If you have questions regarding general contractor's overhead and profit and whether general contractor services are appropriate for your loss, please contact your elaim representative before proceeding with repairs. * There may be building codes, ordinances, laws, or regulations that affect the repairs of your property, These items may or may not be covered by your policy. Please contact your claim representative if you have any questions regarding coverage which may be available under your policy, + State Farm® cannot authorize any contractor to proceed with work on your property. Repairs should proceed only with your authorization. » State Farin does not guarantee the quality of the workmanship of any contractor or guarantee that the work will be accomplished within any specific time frame. + It is understood that the contractor is hired by you, our insured, and that they work for you - not State Farm. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding your claim, please contact your claim representative immediately. Date: 3/14/2024 1:02 PM 132214,1 06-18-2009 WEST_000099 Page: J"}, {"d": 55, "p": 321, "t": "36-53Q1-13C Building Estimate Summary Guide Statefarny This summary guide is based on a sample estimate and is provided for reference only. Please refer to the estimate for specifics of your claim. 1. ‘Line item Total ~ Total Va, of ail tine State Farm insurance lems ih the estimate’ ‘plus possible a Estimate: 00-0000-000 1 Main Street Claim number! 00-0000-000 Anywhare, iL 00000-0000 Pollcy Number: 00-00-0000-0 Insured: Smith, Joe & Jane Property: Price List’ Type of Loss: Other ILBLEF_MAR 13 vice/ Restoration/Ser Remodel Deductible: $1,000.00 F = Factored In, D = Do Not Apply Profit = General contractor’ 8 charge for coordinating your repairs. 3 Replacement Cost Value (rcyy—Estimated cost to repair. oF replace _ damaged property. Summary for Dwelling Line tem Total [1] Material Sates Tax . 1 The. deciease ih the 10,000% x 1,520.00 Subtota? General Contractor Overhead General Contractor Profit 7,326.12 Replacement Cost Value (Including Gener (832.50) | Less Depreciation (Including Taxes) [4] (166.50) b cpgption including Taxes) [4] Lesson - reopverable Depreciation (Including Taxes) 7] 832.50 312.50 Subtotal” General Contractar O&P on Depreciation Less General Contractor O&P oh Noh - recoverable Depreciation 166.50 Subtotal Tota! Maximum Additional Amounts Available if incurred Total Amount of Claim if Incurred [9] Claim Representative ALL AMOUNTS PAYABLE ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITS OF YOUR POLICY. 439928,1 {002089 Date: 01-23-2013 Page: 2 3/14/2024 1:02 PM WEST_000100"}, {"d": 55, "p": 322, "t": "State Farm 36-53Q1-13C WEST, NEIL Insured: Property: | WEST, NEIL 7NW BRIARCREEK DR Estimate: Claim Number; LAWTON, OK 73505-9537 Home: 580-510-0427 Cellular: 580-695-0014 Type of Loss: Policy Number: Price List! 36-53Q1-13C 3653Q113C 36CRX4058 OKLA28_MAR24 Restoration/Service/Remodel —_ Hail Deductible: $3,090.00 Date of Loss: 6/15/2023 Date Inspected: 9/28/2023 Summary for Coverage A - Dwelling - 35 Windstorm and Hail Line Item Total 5,191.55 Material Sales Tax 91.62 Replacement Cost Value Less Deductible 5,283.17 (3,090.00) Net Payment $2,193.17 HAIL RECONCILIATION UNIT 844-458-4300 x 66 ; ALL AMOUNTS PAYABLE ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITS OF YOUR POLICY. A residential or commercial roofing contractor providing repairs or improvement services to be paid by an insured from the proceeds of a property or casualty insurance policy shall not, as an inducement fo the sale or provision of goods or services to an insured, all or part of any applicable insurance deductible or offer to compensate an insured advertise or promise to pay, directly or indirectly, contractor violates the provisions of this section, the insurer to whom the insured roofing a If insured. for providing any service to the the estimate prepared by the roofing contractor. Every roofing contractor shall consider to obligated be not shall tendered the claim a provide a written notification of the requirements of this section with its initial estimate. The adjuster or insurer shall provide claim. the to written notification of the requirements of this section in the initial estimate relating Date: Page: 3 3/14/2024 1:02 PM WEST_000101"}, {"d": 55, "p": 323, "t": "State Farm 36-53Q)-13C WEST, NEIL Dwelling Exterior Roof 4,632.97 Surface Area 46.33 Number of Squares 330.96 Total Perimeter Length 99.08 Total Ridge Length 229.79 Total Hip Length DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE. TAX RCV 0,00 0,00 No Accidental Direct Physical Loss observed at lime of inspection. Totals: Roof Gutters 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 SF Floor 0,00 SF Short Wall 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 SF Long Walt 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCY * 1, R&R Gutter - aluminum - up to 5° 275.00 LF 10.43 64.75 2,933.00 64.75 2,933.00 Totals: Gutters Front Elevation 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Long Wall 0.00 SF Short Wall. 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00. LF Ceil. Perimeter DESCRIPTION 2. R&R Window screen, | - 9 SF QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 2.00 EA 42.29 3.28 87.86 3.28 87.86 Totals: Front Elevation Right Elevation 0.00 SF Walls Date: 0.00 SF Ceiling 0,00 SF Walls & Ceiling Page: 4 3/14/2024 1:02 PM WEST_000102"}, {"d": 55, "p": 324, "t": "State Farm 36-53Q1-13C WEST, NEIL 0.00 SF Floor 0,00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 0.00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 0.00 0.00 No Accidental Direct Physical Loss observed at time of inspection. Totals: Right Elevation Rear Elevation 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 LF Floor Penmeter 0,00 LF Ceif. Perimeter 0.00: SF Long Wall QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TAX RCV * 3. R&R downspout - aluminum - up to 5\" 12,00 LF 10.43 2,83 127.99 4, R&R Window screen, 1 - 9 SF 1,00 FA 42,29 1.64 43,93 4,47 171,92 Totals: Rear Elevation Left Elevation 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 0.00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV #5 R&R downspout - aluminum - up to 5° 12.00 LF 10.43 2.83 127,99 6. R&R Window screen, ] - 9 SF 100 EA 42.29 1.64 43,93 4,47 171,92 DESCRIPTION Totals: Left Elevation Fence 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 LF Floor Penmeter 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 0.00 SF Long Wall DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 7. Clean the surface area 636.00 SF 0.38 0.31 241.99 Date: Page: 5 3/14/2024 1:02 PM WEST_000103"}, {"d": 55, "p": 325, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C CONTINUED - Fence DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 8, Stain - wood fence/gate 636.00 SF 0.85 9.30 549.90 9.61 791,89 Totals: Fence Area Totals: Exterior 319.90 Exterior Perimeter 2,371.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 2,371.08 Exterior Wall Area of Walls 319,90 LF Floor Perimeter 4,632.97 Surface Area 99.08 Total Ridge Length 229.79 Total Hip Length 2,371.08 SF Walls 330.96 Total Permeter Length 46.33 Number of Squares 86.58 Total: Exterior 4,156.59 Interior Height:8° Bedroom 352,00 SF Walls 120.00 SF Ceiling 472,00 SF Walls & Ceiling 120.00. SF Floor 44.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 44.00 LF Floor Perimeter Door 2' 6\" X68\" Opens into Exterior Door 2'6\" XK 6' 8\" Opens into Exterior Boor 2' 6\" XK 6' 8\" Opeus into Exterior DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE RCV TAX 9, Content Manipulation charge - per hour 1.00 HR REVISED 10. Seal the surface area w/PVA primer - one 4.00 SF 0.52 0.01 2.09 11. Paint more than the ceiling - one coat 124.00 SF 0.60 0.85 75.25 12. Paint the walls - one coat 352,00 SF 0,60 2.40 2133.60 13. Floor protection - plastic and tape - 10 mil 120.00 SF 0.29 0.70 35,50 1.00 EA 200.41 0.00 200.41 coat 14, Detach & Reset Ceiling fan & light Date: Page: 6 3/14/2024 1:02 PM WEST_000104"}, {"d": 55, "p": 326, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C CONTINUED - Bedroom DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCY 15, Detach & Reset Heat/AC register Mechanically attached 1LO0EA 15.03 0.00 15,03 16. Contents - move out then reset LOOBA 39.41 0.00 59.41 2.00 SF 0.52 0.01 1.05 * 18. Paint ceiling 32.00 SF 0.60 0.22 19,42 * 19, Paint walls 96.00 SF 0.60 0.66 58.26 20, Floor protection - plastic and tape - 10 mil 32.00 SF 0.29 0.19 9.47 21. Contents - move out then reset - Small Toon 100EA 44.60 0.00 44,60 5,04 734,09 ***CLOSET*#* 17, Seal the surface area w/PVA primer - onc coat Totals: Bedroom Area Totals: Interior 352.00 SF Walls 120.00 SF Floor’ 120.00 SF Ceiling 135.11 Total Area 120.00 Ffoor Area 46.67 Exterior Perimeter 420.00 Exterior Wall Arca _ of Walls Total: Interior 472.00 SF Walis and Ceiling 44,00 LF Floor Perimeter 44,00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 352.00 Interior Wall Area 5.04 734,09 Area Totals: Dwelling 2,723.08 SF Walls 120.00 SF Floor 120,00 SF Ceiling 135.11 Total Area 2,843.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 363.90 LF Floor Perimeter 120,00 Floor Area 366.57 Exterior Perimeter 44.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 352.00 Interior Wall Area 2,791.08 Exterior Wall Area 4,632.97 Surface Area 99.08 Total Ridge Length of Walls 46.33 Number of Squares 330,96 Total Perimeter Length 229.79 Total Hip Length 91.62 Total: Dwelling 4,890.68 Debris Remoyal 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Floor Date: 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 3/14/2024 1:02 PM Page: 7 WEST_000105"}, {"d": 55, "p": 327, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C 0.00 SF Long Wall DESCRIPTION 22. Haul debris - per pickup trick load including dump fees 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 100EA 147,50 0.00 147.50 0,00 147.50 Totals: Debris Removal Labor Minimums Applied DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 23. Window labor minimum 1.00EA 182.52 0.00 182.52 24, Electrical labor minimum 1.00 EA 62.47 0.00 62.47 Totals: Labor Minimums Applied 0,00 244,99 Line Item Totals: 36-53Q1-13C 91.62 §,283.17 Grand Total Areas: 2,723.08 SF Walls 120.00 SF Ceiling 2,843.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 363.90 LF Floor Perimeter 120.00 SF Floor 44.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter 120.00 Floor Area 2,791.08 Exterior Wall Area 135.11 Total Area 352,00 Interior Wali Area 366.57 Exterior Perimeter of Walls 4,632.97 Surface Area 99.08 Total Ridge Length Date: 46.33 Number of Squares 229.79 Total Hip Length 330.96 Total Perimeter Length 3/14/2024 1:02 PM Page: 8 WEST_000106"}, {"d": 55, "p": 328, "t": "Trade Summary Includes all applicable Tax, General Contractor O&P, and Labor Minimums DESCRIPTION LINE ITEM REPL. COST ACY NON-REC. DEPREC, AMT AVAIL. | 636.00 SF $241,99 $241.99 $241.99 $241.99 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Content Manipulation charge - per hour 1.00 HR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0,00 Contents - move out then reset 1,00 EA $59.41 $59.41 $0.00 $0.00 Contents - move out then reset - Small room 1.00 EA $44.60 $44.60 $0.00 $0.00 $104,01 $104.01 $0,00 $0.00 ; CLEANING CLN QTY Clean the surface area TOTAL CLEANING CON TOTAL CONTENT MANIPULATION TOTAL CONTENT MANIPULATION DMO GENERAL DEMOLITION ZZ Haul debris - per pickup truck load - 1.00 EA including dump fees TOTAL GENERAL DEMOLITION ELE $147.50 $147.50 $0.00 $0.00 $147.50 $147.50 $0.00 $0.00 $62.47 $62.47 $0.00 $0.00 $62.47 $62.47 $0.00 50.00 ELECTRICAL Electrical labor minimum 100 EA TOTAL ELECTRICAL HVC _HEAT, VENT & AIR CONDITIONING Detach & Reset Heat/AC register Mechanically attached | 1.00 EA HEAT, VENT & AIR CONDITIONING LIT LIGHT FIXTURES Detach & Reset Ceiling fan & light $15.03 $15.03 $0.00 $0.00 $15.03 $15.03 50,00 50.00 $200.41 $200.41 $0,00 $0.00. $200.41 $200.41 $0.00 $0.00 a : TOTAL L.00EA TOTAL LIGHT FIXTURES PNT MAX ADDL, oo . PAINTING Stain - wood fence/gate 636,00 SF $549.90 $549,90 $0.00 $0.00 Floor protection - plastic and tape ~ 10 mil 152,00 SF $44,97 $44.97 $0.00 $0.00 Paint ceiling 32,00 SF $19.42 $19.42 $0.00 $0.00 Paint walls 96,00 SF $58.26 $58.26 $0.00 $0.00 Paint - one coat 476.00 SF $288.85 $288.85 $0.00 $0.00 6.00 SF $3.14 $964.54 $3.14 $964.54 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 30.00 Seal w/PVA primer - one coat TOTAL PAINTING SFG SOFFIT, FASCIA, & GUTTER . R&R Gutter - aluminum - up to 5” 275.00 LF $2,933.00 $2,933.00 $0.00 $0.00 R&R downspout - aluminum - up to 5” 24.00 LF $255.98 $255.98 $0.00 $0.00 Note: Slight variarices may be found within report sections due to rounding Date: Page: 9 3/14/2024 1:02 PM WEST_000107"}, {"d": 55, "p": 329, "t": "Trade Summary Includes alt applicable Tax, General Contractor O&P, and Labor Minimums DESCRIPTION SFG LINE ITEM QTY REPL. COST TOTAL ACV NON-REC, DEPREC. MAX ADDL, AMT AVAIL. $3,188.98 $3,188.98 $0.00 $0.00 4.00 EA $175.72 $175.72 $175.72 $175.72 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 LOOEA SOFFIT, FASCIA, & GUTTER TOTAL SOFFIT, FASCIA, & GUTTER WDR__ WINDOW REGLAZING & REPAIR R&R Window screen, 1 - 9 SF TOTAL WINDOW REGLAZING& REPAIR WDW WINDOWS - WOOD $182.52 $182.52 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL WINDOWS - WOOD Window labor minimum $182,52 $182,52 $0.00 $0.00 TOTALS $5,283,17 $5,283.17 $0,00 $0.00 Note: Stight variances may be found within report sections due to rounding Date; 3/14/2024 1:02 PM Page: 10 WEST_000108"}, {"d": 55, "p": 330, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C Recap of Taxes, Overhead and Profit GC Overhead 0%) GC Profit (0%) Material Sales Tax Manuf. Home Tax Storage Rental Tax Line Items 0.00 0.00 91.62 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 91.62 0.00 9,00 . Date: (4.878%) (4.875%) (4.875%) 3/14/2024 1:02 PM Page: 11 WEST_000109"}, {"d": 55, "p": 331, "t": "Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C From: HOME CLMS-FIRECLAIMS (statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com) To: NEILSPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET; odom_bobhy@yahoo.com Co: LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM; nancy.holcomb.gavc@statefarm.com Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 12:42 PM CDT Christy Mebane Claim Specialist- Proximity Stale Farm Fire Claims Work: 844-458-4300 EXT:3099946711 &. tatetarmfireclaims @statefarm. ge ee WEST_000110"}, {"d": 55, "p": 333, "t": "From:\"Christy Mebane\" <christy.mebane.shel@statefarm.com> Sent:Wea,10 Apr-2024 17:41:59 +0000: To:\"DF - FIRE - Drop File Document\" <DF-FIRE-CL@internal.statefarrn.com> Subject:FW: Claim Number: 36-5301-13¢ Attachments:West.pdf vom HONE CIMS-FIRECLAINS ssn i aah apa einen _ secununnatnncinisain Sent: Wednesday, April 10; 2024 12:42 PM To: NEILSPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET;.cdom_babby@yahoo.com Cc: LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM; Nancy Holcomb <nancy.holcomb.gave@statefarm.com> Subject: Claim Number: 36-5301-13C Christy Mebane Claim Specialist- Proximity State Farm Fire Claims Work: 844-458-4300 EXT:3099946711 statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com mo) CK EXHIBIT at SFF&CC/West_000196"}, {"d": 55, "p": 334, "t": "Providing Insurance and Financial Services SS St ‘ate Farm’ Home Office, Bloomington, It April 10, 2024 WEST, NEILS&LACYM 7 NW BRIARCREEKDR LAWTON OK 73505 Feds eGame wera Aoranta,.GAca 30848-6169 Fax 844 236.3646 RE: Glaim Number: 36-5301-13C Dateof Loss: June 15, 2023 Dear Neil & Lacy Thank you forthe opportunity to review your claim-and the information submitted by your roofer. This letter addresses your request for an additional inspection of the roof. Your roofer has: provided additional photos and his estimate for damages. This information has: been-elevated for review by management fora and inspection. A manager has reviewed the file and the new information to make-the decision on the:2\" inspection:and finds the: information and photos provided do not 'demonstrate missed damages’or merit additional inspection. Based on this information we must respectfully decline your request for an additional inspection, Please refer to HW+2136, for the following applicable language: SECTION 1 —-LOSSES NOT INSURED 1, Wewill not pay for any loss:to.the property described in Coverage A that consists of, oris directly and immediately caused by, one or more of the perils listed.in items.a. through m. below, regardless of whether the loss occurs abruptly or gradually; involves isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or external forces, or occurs as a result of any combination of these: g. wear, tear, decay, marring, scratching, deterioration, inherent vice, latent defect, or mechanical breakdown: SECTION f - CONDITIONS 6. Suit Against Us. No action will be brought against us unless:there has been full compliance: with all of SFF&CC/West_000197"}, {"d": 55, "p": 335, "t": "36-53Q1-13C Page 2 April 10, 2024 the policy provisions. Any action by any party must be started within.one year’ after the date of loss-or damage. However, if the cause of loss or damage is: ‘burglary, theft,. larceny, robbery, forgery; fraud, vandalism, malicious mischi ef, confiscation, wrongful conversion, disposal or concealment, the action must be started within two years from the time-the cause.of action accrues. The: Company does not intend, by this letter, to waive any policy defenses in addition to those-stated above, and reserves its right to assert such additional policy defense at any time. If you have any questions regarding your claim of any additional information: you would like us to consider, please contact me. at the number below. Please provide the claim number on any correspondence you send to-us.. Sincerely; Christy Mebane Claims Specialist 3099946711 State Farm Fire.and Casualty Company’ CC: Nancy Holcomb, Agent Take.advantage of our self-service options _ ; . Go to statefarm.com to easily review claim status, update-communication and claim payment preferences, and many other insurance services. SFF&CC/West_000198"}, {"d": 55, "p": 337, "t": "From:\" Office Coastal Claims\" <office@coastalclaims.net> Sent:Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:44:10 +0000 To:\"statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com\" <statefarmfireclaims@ statefarm.com>Ces“ecsves-OK-2024040001 @claimmail.net\" <ccsves-OK-2024040001@claimmail.net> Subject:[EXTERNAL] 3653Q113C Attachments: WEST-LOR_PA.pdf, CCS 2024 W9.pdf April 24, 2024 To whomever it may concern: Please be advised that effective April 16, 2024, Coastal Claims Services, LLCis representing Neil 5. & Lacy M. West for a loss sustained on 6/15/2023, We will be assisting Neil & Lacy in the preparation and negotiationof their claim. Attached you-will find our Letter of Representation, Public Adjuster Contract. and W-9., in respect to this claim we are currently requesting all previous photos of the property, all previous communications, engineering reports, estimates, notes, and payments. We are also requesting all future communications, photos, estimates and reports to be sent to our office along with a certified copy of the policy, if you would like to schedule an:inspection or a recorded statement, please call our office at 386-314-0074, and ask for our scheduling department or via email at scheduling @coastalclaims.net. Fora ny specific questions about the claim please feel free to contact the Pu blic: Adjuster, Brandon Gold, at Office (386) 314-0074, or Cell 215-791-1611. We look forward to working with you towards a settlement for this claim. Best Regards, Griffin Cheeseman Intake Specialist | Coastal Claims ehwicnd 2650 N Dixie. Fwy | New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 Office (386) 314-0074 Direct (863) 835-9202 Fax (386) 961-4344 office@coastalclaims.net www, coastalclaims.net mm? EXHIBIT SFF&CC/West_000655"}, {"d": 55, "p": 339, "t": "From:office@coastalclaims.net Sent:Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:28:50 -0400 To:statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com Ce:ccsvcs-OK-2024040001 @claimmail.net Subject:[EXTERNAL] 36530113C Attachments:3653Q113C_WEST_PRELIMINARY PA ESTIMATE. pdf Please see attached PA preliminary estimate. If you have any questions, please reach out to the PA on file for this claim, JOHN DEKKER @ 267-791-1611 or email john@coastalclaims.net. “This is a PRELIMINARY estimate produced by Coastal Claims Services. This estimate represents our current evaluation of the damages to the insured's property. As we continue to evaluate this claim, there may be additional damages related to this event that have not been scoped at the production of this estimate.” =» EXHIBIT ab =) ce SFF&CC/West_000538"}, {"d": 55, "p": 340, "t": "(Gost cris Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyrna Beach, Fi 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net Insured: West, Neil & Lacy Home: (580) 695-0014 Property: 7 NW Briarcreek Drive E-mail: neilspencerwest@sbcglobal.net Lawton, OK 73505 Claim Rep.: John Dekker Company: Business: Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway Business: E-mail: (267) 261-0085 john@coastalclaims.net New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 Estimator: Eileen Dalton Company: Coastal Claims Services Claim Number: 3653Q113C Date of Loss: Date Inspected: Policy Number: 36CRX4058 6/15/2023 12:00 AM Price List! OKLA8X_APR24 Estimate: Restoration/Service/Remodel WEST Date Received: Date Entered: Type of Loss: Hail 4/25/2024 11:07 AM “This is a PRELIMINARY estimate produced by Coastal Claims Services. This estimate represents our current evaluation of the damages to the insured’s property. As we continue to evaluate this claim, there may be additional damages related to this event that have not been scoped at the production of this estimate.” SFF&CC/West_000539"}, {"d": 55, "p": 341, "t": "Gara Clays: Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, F1 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net WEST SOURCE: EAGLEVIEW Roof DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV = _— DEPREC. ACV 46.34 SQ 57.37 0.00 531.70 3,190.23 (0.00) 3,190.23 46.34 SQ 23.4) 0.00 216,96 1,301.78 (0.00) 1,301.78 4,634.00 SF 0.23 2.26 213.62 1,281.70 (6.95) 1,274.75 Roofing 1. Tear off, haul and dispose of comp. shingles - Laminated 2. Remove Additional charge for steep roof'~ 10/12 - 12/12 slope 3. Renailing of roof sheathing - complete re-nai 4, Saddle or cricket - 26 to 50 SF 1.00 EA 346.29 6.92 70.64 423.85 (21.30) 402.55 46,34 SQ 55.67 SQ 32.72 238.54 17.78 326.32 306.80 2,721.16 1,840.82 16,327.00 (54.70) (1,004.06) 1,786.12 15,322.94 7.61 SQ 68.77 0.00 104.66 628.00 (0.00) 628,00 331,00 LF 330.00 LF 1.87 8.25 8.07 43.60 125.42 553.22 752.46 3,319.32 (24.83) (134.15) 727.63 3,185.17 5.00 EA 90.51 1.85 90.90 545.30 (5.71) 539,59 1.00EA 427.98 5.02 86.60 519.60 (15.43) 504.17 331.00 LF 331.00 LF 3.18 0.72 20.49 5.00 214.62 48.66 1,287.69 291.98 (63.06) (15.39) 1,224.63 276.59 16.00 LF 5.00 LF 9,92 5.38 1,57 0.55 32.06 5.50 192.35 32.95 (4,82) (1.69) 187,53 31.26 $16.00 SF 172.00 LF 344.00 LF 1.63 6.00 0.72 13.08 21.21 5.20 170.84 210.64 50.58 1,025.00 1,263.85 303.46 (40,25) (65.27) (16.00) 984,75 1,198.58 287.46 75.00 LF 10.77 7.11 164,98 989,84 (52.65) 937.19 5.00 EA 75.20 5.84 76.38 458,22 (17.97) 440,25 21. R&R Fumace vent - rain cap and storm collar, 6\" 100 BA 95.10 2,03 19.42 116.55 (6.24) 110.31 22, R&R Flashing - pipe jack - tead 23. Apply mastic around vent pipes to prevent leakage* 5,00 EA L100 EA 88.49 25.99 12.12 0.53 90.92 $7.28 545.49 343.70 (37.30) (1.62) 508.19 342.08 5, Roofing felt - 15 Ib. 6. Laminated - comp. shingle rfg. - w/out felt 7, Additional charge for steep roof - 10/12 12/12 slope 8. Asphalt starter - universal starter course 9, R&R Hip / Ridge cap - Standard profilecomposition shingles 10. R&R Gable comice return - laminated Flashing 14. R&R Chimney flashing - average (32\" x 36\") 12. R&R Drip edge/gutter apron 13. Apply roofing sealanvcement-perLFDrip Edge* 14. Step flashing 15. R&R Flashing - L flashing galvanized 16. Ice & water barrier 17. Valley metal 18. Apply roofing sealant/cement - per LFValley Metai* Ventilation 19. R&R Continuous ridge vent - shingleover style 20. R&R Roof vent - turtle type - Metal Pipe Jacks, Caps, and Collars Miscellaneous Items WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 2 SFF&CC/West_000540"}, {"d": 55, "p": 342, "t": "Gove Gtalws| Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyrna Beach, FI 32168 386-3 14-0074 www.coastalclaims.net CONTINUED - Roof DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV L.00EA 37,55 0.00 752 45.07 (0.00) 45.07 LOOEA 300.00 0.00 0,00 300.00 (0.00) 300.00 5,00 HR 40.48 0.00 40,48 242.88 (0.00) 242,88 Totals; Roof 516.55 6,211.56 37,569.09 1,589.39 35,979.70 Total: SOURCE: EAGLEVIEW §16.55 6,211.56 37,569.09 1,589.39 35,979.70 24, Digital satellite system - Detach & reset ~-~GENERALS-25, Taxes, insurance, permits & fees (Bid Item) 26. Roofing - General Laborer - per hour Labor to hand foad materials onto roof Exterior DESCRIPTION 27. R&R Window screen, 1 - 9 SF 28. R&R Wrap wood window frame & trim with aluminum sheet QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCY DEPREC, ACV 4.00EA 2.00 EA 45.23 303.21 7.14 6.56 37.60 122.60 225.66 735.58 (21.97) (20.18) 203.69 715.40 13.70 160.20 961.24 42.15 919.09 Totals: Exterior Gutters DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV _—DEPREC. ACV 29, R&R Gutter- aluminum - up to 5°* 275.00 LF 10.44 64.75 587.18 3,522,93 (199.24) 3,323.69 30. R&R Downspout - aluminum - up to 96.00 LF 10.44 22.60 204.98 1,229.82 (69.55) 1,160.27 3.00 EA 27.18 0.53 16.42 98.49 (1,64) 96.85 87.88 808.58 4,851.24 270.43 4,580.81 TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV sie 31. R&R Gutter splash guard Totals: Gutters Fencing DESCRIPTION WEST QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 4/25/2024 Page: 3 SFF&CC/West_000541"}, {"d": 55, "p": 343, "t": "(Gooner ctor Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyrna Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net CONTINUED - Fencing DESCRIPTION , QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 1,452.00 SF 1,452.00 SF 16.00 BA 0.37 0.86 76.49 0.71 21.94 1,68 107.58 254.12 245.10 645.53 1,524.78 1,470.62 (2.18) (67,52) (5.18) 643.35 1,457.26 1,465.44 24,33 606.80 3,640.93 74.88 3,566.05 32. Clean with pressure/chemical spray 33. Stain - wood fence/gate 34, Wood fence 5° - 6’ high - Detach & reset - per 8' section Totals: Fencing Main Level I Bedroom a t 2 : 1 f 352.00 SF Walls 120,00 SF Ceiling = 472.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 120,00 SF Floor ™ 13.33 SY Flooring 44.00 LF Floor Perimeter 6 | | l' g\" bem u Height: 3' . . 44.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 4\" td DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV (0,00) 106.94 General: 35, Contents - move out then reset - Large 1.00 EA 89.12 0,00 17,82 106.94 room Ceiling: 36. Ceiling fan - Detach & reset 1.00 EA 200.41 0,00 40.08 240.49 (0.00) 240.49 37. Detach & Reset Heat/AC register - 1.00 EA 15.04 0.00 3.00 18.04 (0.00) 18.04 44,00 LF 0,54 0.11 4.78 28.65 (0,33) 28,32 120.00 SF 0.91 1.52 22.14 132.86 (4.68) 128.18 Walls: 40, Mask and prep for paint - plastic, paper, tape (per LF) 44.00 LF 1.26 0.58 11.20 67.22 (1.78) 65.44 41, R&R 1/2\" drywall - hung, taped, 32.00 SF 2.67 1.12 17.32 103.88 (3.46) 100.42 32.00 LF 107 0,53 45,34 272.11 (1.63) 270.48 32.00 SF 352,00 SE 0.79 0.52 0,12 1,03 5.08 36.80 30,48 220.87 (0.38) G.17) 30.10 217.70 352.00 SF 0.91 4.46 64,96 389.74 (13.73) 376.01 Mechanically attached 38. Mask and prep for paint - tape only (per LF) 39. Paint the ceiling - two coats floated, ready for paint 42, Tape joint for new to existing drywall per LF 43, Texture drywall - light hand texture 44. Seal the walls w/PVA primer - one coat 45. Paint the walls - two coats WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 4 SFF&CC/West_000542"}, {"d": 55, "p": 344, "t": "Gaset Clajgis. Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyrna Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net CONTINUED ~- Bedroom DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. 46. Mask or cover per square foot 120.00 SF 0.45 0.53 47, Final cleaning - constriction - 120,00 SF 0.28 0.00 10.00 ACV 10.90 65.43 (0.00) 65.43 6,72 40.32 (0.00) 40,32 286.14 1,717.03 29.16 1,687.87 Floor: Residential Totals: Bedroom ow sg 5 Bathroom Height: 8' ' ] 208.00 SF Walls 40.00 SF Ceiling pathwonde oe & 248.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 4.44 SY Flooring 40.00 SF Floor 26.00 LF Floor Perimeter | DESCRIPTION 26.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC, ACV 100EA 89.12 0.00 17.82 106.94 (0.00) 106.94 49. Detach & Reset Bathroom ventilation fan 1.00 EA 58.83 0.00 11.76 70.59 (0.00) 70.59 50. Detach & Reset Heat/AC register Mechanically attached 5}, Mask and prep for paint - tape only (per LF) LOOEA 15.04 0.00 3.00 18.04 (0.00) 18.04 26.00 LF 0.54 0.06 2.82 16.92 (0.20) 16.72 40.00 SF 0.91 0.51 738 44.29 (1.56) 42.73 26,00 LF 1.26 0.34 6.62 39.72 (1.05) 38.67 32.00 SF 2.67 1.12 17.32 103.88 (3.46) 100.42 32,00 LP 7.07 0,53 45,34 272.11 (1.63) 270.48 32.00 SF 208.00 SF 0.79 0,52 0,12 0.61 5,08 21.76 30.48 130.53 (0.38) (1.87) 30.10 128.66 208.00 SF 0.91 2.64 38.38 230.30 (8.11) 222.19 General; 48. Contents - move out then reset - Large room Ceiling: 52. Paint the ceiling - hvo coats Wails: 53. Mask and prep for paint - plastic, paper, tape (per LF) 54, R&R 1/2\" drywall - hung, taped, floated, ready for paint 55. Tape joint for new to existing drywall per LF 56. Texture drywall - light hand texture 57. Seal the walls w/PVA primer - one coat 58. Paint the walls - two coats Floor: WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 5 SFF&CC/West_000543"}, {"d": 55, "p": 345, "t": "Geaste Coyne Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coasial Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smymia Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074 wew.coastalclaims.net CONTINUED ~ Bathroom DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV 59. Mask or cover per square foot 40,00 SF 0.45 60, Final cleaning - construction - 40.00 SF 0.28 6.11 DEPREC, ACV 0.18 3.64 0.00 2,24 21.82 (0,00) 21,82 13.44 (0,00) 13.44 183.16 1,099.06 18.26 1,080,80 Residential Totals: Bathroom hk 613\" — 6' con Xe T ; Height: 8' Closet I 192.00 SF Walls 36.00 SF Ceiling o 228.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 36.00 SF Floor % | 4.00 SY Flooring 24.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 24.00 LF Floor Perimeter DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV = DEPREC. ACV 1,00BA 44,59 0.00 8.92 53,51 (0.00) 53.51 62. Detach & Reset Light fixture 63. Mask and prep for paint - tape only (per LF) 1.00EA 24.00 LF 56,27 0.54 0.00 0.06 11.26 2.62 67.53 15,64 (0.00) (0.18) 67.53 15.46 64. Paint the ceiling - two coats 36.00 SF 0.91 0.46 6.66 39,88 (1.40) 38.48 65, Mask and prep for paint - plastic, paper, tape (per LF) 66. R&R 1/2\" drywall - hung, taped, floated, ready for paint 67. Tape joint for new to existing drywall per LF 68. Texture drywall - light hand texture 24.00 LF 1.26 0.32 6.10 36.66 (0.97) 35.69 32.00 SF 2.67 1.12 17,32 103.88 (3.46) 100,42 32.00 LF 7.07 0.53 45.34 272.11 (1.63) 270.48 32.00 SF 0.79 0,12 5.08 30.48 (0.38) 30.10 69. Seal the walls w/PVA primer - one 192.00 SF 0.52 0.56 20.08 120,48 (1.73) 118.75 coat 70. Paint the walls - two coats 192.00 SF 0.91 2.43 35.42 212.57 (7.49) 205.08 36.00 SF 36.00 SF 0.45 0.28 0.16 0,00 3.28 2.02 19.64 12.10 (0,00) (0.00) 19.64 12.10 General: 61. Contents - move out then reset - Smali room Ceiling: Walls: Floor: 71. Mask or cover per square foot 72. Final cleaning - construction Residential WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 6 SFF&CC/West_000544"}, {"d": 55, "p": 346, "t": "Gasser cera Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyrna Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net CONTINUED - Closet DESCRIPTION Totals: QUANTITY UNIT PRICE Closet Total: Main Level TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 5.76 164,10 984.48 17,24 967.24 21,87 633.40 3,800.57 64.66 3,735.91 Debris Removal DESCRIPTION 73. Dumpster load - Approx. 12 yards, 1-3 tons of debris QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC, ACV LOO EA 429.25 0.00 85.86 S151 (0.00) 515.11 0.00 85.86 518.01 0.00 $15.11 Totals: Debris Removal Labor Minimums Applied DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACY 74. Heat, vent, & air cond, labor minimum 100EA 409,32 0.00 21.86 131.18 (0.00) 131.18 75, Electrical labor minimum* 100 EA 6.20 0,00 1.24 744 (0.00) 744 76, Window labor minimum L.00EA 182.99 0.00 36.60 219.59 (0.00) 219,59 0.00 §9.70 358.21 0.00 358.21 664,33 8,566.10 51,696.39 2,04L.51 49,654.88 Totals: Labor Minimums Applied Line Item Totals: WEST Grand Total Areas: 752.00 SF Walls 196.00 SF Ceiling 948.00 SF Walls and Ceiling 196.00 21.78 94.00 LF Floor Perimeter 94,00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 752.00 Interior Wall Area SF Floor 0.00 SF Long Wall 196.00 Floor Area 918.00 Exterior Wall Area SY Flooring 0.00 SF Short Wall 228.67 Total Area 102.00 Exterior Perimeter of Walls WEST 0.00 Surface Area 0.00 Number of Squares 0.00 0.00 Total Ridge Length 0.00 Total Perimeter Length Total Hip Length 4/25/2024 Page: 7 SFF&CC/West_000545"}, {"d": 55, "p": 347, "t": "Gasiat cee Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smymia Beach, F1 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net Summary for Dwelling Line Item Total 42,465.96 Material Sales Tax 664.33 Profit 43,130.29 4,283.05 4,283.05 Replacement Cost Value Less Depreciation $51,696.39 (2,041.51) Actual Cash Value $49,654.88 $49,654.88 Subtotal Overhead Net Claim 2,041.51 Total Recoverable Depreciation $51,696.39 Net Claim if Depreciation is Recovered Eileen Dalton WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 8 SFF&CC/West_000546"}, {"d": 55, "p": 348, "t": "Goan Gains. Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, Fi 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net Recap by Category with Depreciation O&P Items RCV Deprec. ACV CLEANING §92.12 2.18 589.94 CONTENT MANIPULATION 222,83 222,83 GENERAL DEMOLITION 5,844.40 5,844.40 DRYWALL 568.64 ELECTRICAL 16.41 952.23 6.20 ELECTRICAL - SPECIAL SYSTEMS 6.20 37,55 37,55 FENCING 1,223.84 §.18 1,218.66 HEAT, 281.91 6.24 275.67 VENT & AIR CONDITIONING LIGHT FIXTURES 256.68 256.68 PAINTING 2,671.64 115.77 2,555.87 ROOFING 25,426.15 1,583.15 23,843.00 SIDING §36.00 20.18 515.82 SOFFIT, FASCIA, 3,750.17 270.43 3,479.74 WINDOW REGLAZING & REPAIR & GUTTER 164,84 21.97 142.87 WINDOWS - WOOD 182,99 O&P Items Subtotal 42,165.96 2,041.51 40,124.45 Non-O&P Items RCV Deprec. ACV PERMITS AND FEES 300.00 Non-O&P Items Subtotal O&P Items Subtotal Material Sales Tax Overhead Profit 300.00 42,165.96 664.33 4,283.05 4,283.05 0.00 2,041.51 300.00 40,124.45 664.33 4,283.05 4,283.05 Total 51,696.39 2,041.51 49,654.88 182.99 300.00 “The amount claimed in this estimate is based on a preliminary inspection by a public adjuster and/or contractor and/or other experienced person/building estimator. Nevertheless, the estimated amount may change based on material prices, contractor bids, and other costs which are too numerous to mention. The amount claimed may be affected by policy exclusions. Any overlap, upgrade, or mistake which would result in additional costs is unintentional. Estimate includes costs associated with code upgrades, if known. This estimate was not made with a set of plans created by a design professional. Any plans made by a design professional would come at an additional cost and would require approval by the local building inspector. Costs may change based on the building department approvals, and means and methods acceptable to a general contractor. “THIS ESTIMATE IS ONLY AN OPINION WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 9 SFF&CC/West_000547"}, {"d": 55, "p": 349, "t": "Gao Ciatgis: Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyrna Beach, FI 32168 386-3 14-0074 www.coastaiclaims.net 1 WEST 1-EAGLEVIEW ROOF SKETCH 4/25/2024 Page: 10 SFF&CC/West_000548"}, {"d": 55, "p": 350, "t": "Main Level 6! Q—F 6' Oo [—5! gn— 5! Bathroom ~ OO -——— t+#——— ! ]Q' 10' Bedroom Qu ———— ———_ 12! 8\" 12' Qn | -—— 6! Closet Qu-——4+ t— N Tt Main Level WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 11 SFF&CCMWest_000549"}, {"d": 55, "p": 352, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ ) AGENCY, INC., Defendants. Case No. CJ-2025-135 JUDGE SHEPERD ) DECLARATION OF JOHN DEKKER I, John Dekker, declare under penalty of perjury as follows: I. I am over eighteen years of age and am competent to testify to the matters stated here. 2. I am a licensed public adjuster and, at times, provide adjusting services for clients of Coastal Claims Services, LLC. I reside in P, 2c Kary ie Pennsylvania and have never been to Lawton, Oklahoma. I am not licensed as a public adjuster in the State of Oklahoma. I did not provide any public adjusting services in connection with the claim relating to the property located at 7710 SW Crystal Hills Place, Lawton, Oklahoma (the “Property”). I did not inspect the Property at any time. I did not review any photographs of the Property. Although I am listed as the claim representative on an estimate relating to the Property, I did not prepare or assist in preparing any estimate relating to the Property or the claim of Neil West ana Lacy West. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 1746. Executed on May ¢ ] , 2026, at beckeasie PA ;"}, {"d": 55, "p": 354, "t": "@ How Do |? Lookup Search | Jurisdiction scquiren : Oklahoma Search Type : _ Licensee Entity Type requires : Individual - Enter one or more additional fields: Last Name Dekker License Number First Name John NPN Advanced Criteria | agree to the NAIC’s Terms and Conditions EXHIBIT ce am» sad"}, {"d": 55, "p": 355, "t": "fo NATOMAS RAO OF p RTA EE SEES MONTES + AmEOdS Lookup Search O How Dot? > Jueisdiction w.°-: Oklahoma v Search Type *:: Licensee v Entity Type rs Individual Enter one or more additional : fleids: Last Name Dalton| First Name Elfeen License Number NPN Fath vee] mands linc Saowediners.cony is signed ing *"}, {"d": 55, "p": 356, "t": "Sarerale MS OATTTH oe ecbeats tho martes Lookup Search 6 How Do I? | Jurisdiction «22. <. ” Oklahoma license Type - License Effective Date Expiration Date Is Resident? Insurance ProducerConversion 07/30/2004 OFFA 12006 Yes PRATT. PALLIAnS ALEXANOER Insurance Producer. inacthe 10/19/2020 4043142022 No license Number “NPN Name+ Status 63304 9183633 PRATL. YALUARTA, vo Search Type «2. “7 Licensee vo HN035250 19678572 Entity Type « Andividual NO UNES ASSIGNED Alias Names Business Address Business Phone YUKON, OX 73099 {405) 8438430 RO LUNES » ORLANDO, A. {740} 343- ASSIGNED 32808 5199 RICHARDSON, TR 75080 (214) 3602457 1405) $12- 136708 . 7859051 PRATT. WALLA HENRY Adjuster. Inacthve 01/01/2013 1243142012 No NO LINES ASSIGNED 00127949 * 16599022 PRATT. WILLIAM RYAN Insurance Producer. Inacthve 03/27/2012 11/30/2093 Yas \"KO UNES OKLAHOMA ASSIGNED - CIFY,OK 73132-6176 : Enter ane or more additional fields: LOAs Designated = Home State — License = Monager Last Name | Pratd 100149172 16854193 LUmited Lines Producerinactlve 1272772012 02/28/2015 tes ND UNES ASSIGNED TULSA. OK 74172 (405) 2722530 100149172 _ 16854193 insurance * Producer. 12/07/2020 02/28/2023 Yes NO UNES ASSIGNED | TULSA OK 74122 {405} 272250 First Name Wiltam License Number * Inactive NPN 22025 National Assasiation af xs a Absigths reserved, tense Manager"}, {"d": 55, "p": 358, "t": "JOSE PARGA WEST V. STATE FARM and LACY DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA WEST, COUNTY ge NETL THE Stl IN July 27, 2026 1 ett Net get Plaintiff, Case No. CJ-2025-135 gest? Sige Vv. att gett STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., ett Defendants. 10 11 12 RR KK ee ORAL 13 14 RK KKK I KIKI KH AND KE KEKE VIDEOTAPED IKE IKI IKE EEE DEPOSITION IIE EEK IKE KE OF KR HAKEKE KEE KE EE JOSE KKH KEEKEKEKEK PARGA EKER KEK KAR KAKA KS 15 16 17 ANSWERS AND at the DEPOSITION 18. witness 19 above-styled and 20 2026, beginning 21 Haynsworth, 22 State 23 at 24 accordance 25 the agreement Z RE ESQUI DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS A.D., of 2525 a instance of -numbered at Certified Texas, in McKinnon with the JOSE the Defendants, cause 10:12 on offices Suite Oklahoma hereinafter set PARGA, the a.m., Shorthand Street, the OF of Reporter 425, Rules as taken in the of July, 27th before Crowe produced day Charlotte in and Dunlevy, for the located Dallas, Texas, of Procedure Civil a in and forth. EXHIBIT 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com"}, {"d": 55, "p": 359, "t": "JOSE PARGA WEST V. STATE FARM organizations ~- they each someone in-house who did do your own A. estimates. I reviewed physically Q. go into Okay. assignments 10 July 27, 2026 59 they are had the third estimates. them. But I didn't do right. Do you have made within Coastal Claims? I can't answer that. On Q. Okay. So you don't have A. Yeah, I'm 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. -- 14 Q. I believe yeah, claims -- I'm go not I can't -- -- don't know how on that. earlier 16 claim. That the 17 briefly. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. 20 inspecting 21 correct? 22 A. Inspecting physically, no. 23 Q. Okay. told you A. Z recall recall have saying Oklahoma to been that inspect a lot about assigned you didn't -- the West me -- in May of 2026 the West to you that? You told me that the property you -- me might claim their told file how on gonna speak didn't idea -- you 25 you any their -- Lawton, not it myself. 15 You did to who. when we spoke that you I didn't All 11 to -- and which 24 That Xactimate determine or perhaps Correct? A. Do you parties any recall property. -- homes. you Is that hadn't been out Correct? Correct. RE ESQUI ObPOSITION SOLUTIONS 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com"}, {"d": 55, "p": 360, "t": "JOSE PARGA July 27, 2026 72 WEST V. STATE FARM Q. Okay. been July And at this 15th of 2024. to the West claim? A. It's -- on this claim. Q. Okay. the -- is the Page 262. has the What I couldn't And if you estimate. rep -- had you done remember want to that right here listed as Decker. John -- 12 Q. Okay. So you don't know 13 another public adjuster with Coastal 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Okay. 16 Fileen Dalton. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Are 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Do you And say Z I'm not good -- Are names. whether Mr. it has listed as the familiar with Ms. Dalton? done other estimates know anything about Ms. she As far -- I -- I know specifically what certification ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SGLUTIONS as writing -- yeah, is it familiar Decker is Claims? then Had you with done attached at I'm 25 so looking Again, Not -- I've we're A. A. what to 11 24 -- relating turn Decker? certifications? exactly have to just with Mr. 23 re- review 10 you so this would If you want So when claim point estimator for you? Dalton's estimates. I wouldn't be able she she doesn't has or to 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com"}, {"d": 55, "p": 361, "t": "JOSE PARGA July 27, 2026 73 WEST V. STATE FARM have. Q. Okay. training Do you A. As far Q. (BY MS. Dalton A. I'm not Q. Okay. for 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. Okay. whether it no. I wouldn't Okay. Dalton's the able. Do you know whether adjuster? I think you told estimators -- the Coastal Claims I don't Down is Coastal Claims Services. 16 current evaluation 17 property. As we continue 18 there may be 19 have not been 20 Is that 21 A. No. 22 Q. Okay. So 23 Eileen or John Decker 24 there. You didn't the Z ESQUIRE OEFOSITION SOLUTIONS the you're not internal usually public adjusters. -- middle of the produced by at the estimate estimate damages represents our to the insured's to evaluate the [sic] claim, this event related to that at the production of this estimate. -- you into this estimate? something that that I di- the damages you put at This additional something -- a PRELIMINARY of scoped are me earlier know. here This Yeah. be sure. says A. form. training, And estimators 25 the to is a licensed public 11 15 Ms. Object FINCH) sure page, about SANDERS: ag 10 14 anything or experience? MR. Ms. know inserted would or someone that -- have been else would have put in in there. I -- I didn't go into the 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com"}, {"d": 55, "p": 362, "t": "JOSE PARGA WEST V. STATE FARM Xactimate Q. July 27, 2026 74 software and And -- when then type that they're putting is the internal estimator -- that also the who estimate? estimates, are they als- -- think were calling them -- you in. is together these person selects the photos that are attached to the A. You would have to ask them, not me. Q. Okay. You didn't have anything to do with the photos that were attached to this estimate. selecting MR. SANDERS: 10 A. I don't recall. 11 Q. (BY MS. FINCH) 12 A. Selected -- 13 Q. -- selected 14 A. -- it? 15 Q. -- photos? 16 A. Two years 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. -- don't 19 Q. As a general 20 estimate, ai estimate? are 22 23 A. 24 versus 25 Q. ZF You the ago. Object to don't recall I -- whether you -- rule, if recall. they're selecting the MR. SANDERS: Object it's their (BY FINCH) Right. -- the attach the way they handled It's to to form. mine. RE ESQUI DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS photos writing the I handled MS. form. -- they Again, the I answer So ever you the claims I couldn't did to that. select 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com"}, {"d": 55, "p": 363, "t": "JOSE PARGA July 27, 2026 WEST V. STATE FARM A. I don't know. I don't Q. You've got let A. (No verbal Q. So you don't or creating the | Q. Okay. A. -- 10 Q. Okay. 11 report, which 12 this bears 13 William Pratt 14 A. Yes. of my Mr. Yes. 17 Okay. 18 He Okay? recall having any involvement in this estimate that was created for not sure -- I'm involvement. Yeah. And then when we turn on Page William 273 Pratt's to the attached photo -- as you pointed out, name on it. Do you know who do? What works do you know about Mr. Pratt? Or he for Coastal Claims. used if he's a licensed public to. I'm sure. FP No. OD Do you know RP 21 I believe oO Okay. Okay. ~ 20 25 question. is? 16 24 the remember. starts You 23 finish response.) I don't 15 22 me remember. Wests. I -- not to reviewing A. 19 78 I'm not adjuster? he is. sure. IRE ZB ESQUDérosition sovuTions 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com"}, {"d": 55, "p": 364, "t": "JOSE PARGA WEST V. STATE FARM July 27, 2026 79 Q. And so you said your understanding, based on the fact that his name is on this -- Pratt would have put together this photo A. Or some involvement. he put it he had is that Mr. packet? I wouldn't say that could have been the sure, what is you did -- Q. Okay. A, -- but -- could have Could have been something. I'm Q. Okay. And your testimony, though, any involvement log-in. been -- not capacity. 10 11 have 12 report. MR. SANDERS: 13 14 A. In my 16 A. -- 17 Q. (BY MS. 18 involvement 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. Can your reviewing this photo Object to the -- SANDERS: testimony, FINCH) in preparing -- testimony or -- MR. 15 22 in preparing not -- form. I said I don't Okay. You recall. don't recall having any or reviewing this photo report. something like where you Yeah. is there -- say in -- 23 Q. Why don't 24 A. -- as 25 Q. -- we take a -- -- break. @ ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS 800.211, DEPO (3876) EsquireSolutions.com"}, {"d": 55, "p": 365, "t": "JOSE PARGA WEST V. STATE FARM A. now Yeah. 11:48 now this MR. SANDERS: We need THE VIDEOGRAPHER: All a.m. We are off (Off the record THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 11:49 a.m. We're Q. (BY MS. FINCH) recollection 10 July 27, 2026 80 photo of back from on off right. 11:48 Is that -- The time All the a.m. is to 11:49 a.m.) The time is have any right. record. So you don't the the record. Okay. selecting report. the to go photographs that went into already told me -- 11 A. That -- 12 Q. -- correct? 13 A. That is correct. 14 Q. Okay. I believe 15 haven't been to Lawton, Oklahoma. But just 16 You did not take these photos that are in 17 Is that correct? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. Okay. And -- you were submitting this 20 estimate and Farm, -- 21 were relying 22 rather you that the State MR. 23 so photo on Farm when report come SANDERS: A. Repeat that 25 Q. (BY MS. FINCH) E ESQUIR OFPOSITION SOLUTIONS you've to State in determining 24 Z that one out -- and Object more time, Yeah. In or to be the clear. photo what you report. what in recommending reinspect? to the form. please. -- in attaching this and 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com"}, {"d": 55, "p": 366, "t": "JOSE PARGA July 27, 2026 WEST V. STATE FARM Q. Okay. how do you 85 So these -- how do you how -- how that confirm, you know, -- for these types of photo A. It transferred over to me. Q. Okay. A. So how these photos were collected essentially out of my control. was Okay. 10 A. I do not. 11 Q. Okay. of the West And 15 know 16 Google 17 nature. 18 looks 19 the -- that these -- for this -- photos Of were know who took these know if all of these Object to the form. I couldn't do you photos? photos SANDERS: the photos, I'm -- I did look at the West property on Google Maps Earth and to confirm that they were similar in Saying like hey, it looks like guarantee. the home. Right? geography of the home. There's a roof -- right? -- that has similar pitches. 20 Things of nature. 21 Q. {BY MS. FINCH) Can you see -- when you're Earth, can see 22 on Google 23 on the 25 can Z that you some There's I -- It the 24 are all that I reports? So do you MR. A. collect submitting home? 13 14 do you you're guess Q. 12 photos a fence. the looking of, like, soft metals look blurry. I mean -- depending on what the roof? A. Sometimes and can't. accounts Sometimes IRE ESQUokPositiow soLuTIONS can -- just it 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com"}, {"d": 55, "p": 367, "t": "JOSE PARGA WEST V. STATE FARM photograph or the there's clouds. there's just, -- July 27, 2026 86 captured image Sometimes there's you know, dirt percent -- there's a hundred percent. a hundred Q. Okay. A. -- Q. So you're photographs are of MS. looks home. Q. (BY MS. FINCH) 12 understand that you didn't 13 have any idea 14 Page, you know, 276 15 to these photos where 16 A. 276, Yes. 17 Q. Have you 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. Object a hundred And confirm -- all of these form. no. -- and again, I this But do you ~~ just, for example -- to next prepare -- so when we turn -- to the percent, Okay. there's that West SANDERS: Again, confirm the 11 Sometimes to to To confirm shadows. no way able A. Sometimes on an image. not 10 like. report. do you see on the middle it has a date and a time? prepared one of these photo Do you know where that date that the date that it's upload I I'm not familiar with, it was 2024. an update line reports 18 21 from? 22 Like is A. That, -- 23 this -- it seems like 24 they could have had 25 software. Z So I couldn't, IRE ESQUDEPOSITION SOLUTIONS you and time comes or taken? as far as I mean -- I'm assuming since then. Updated their know -- -- at 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com"}, {"d": 55, "p": 368, "t": "JOSE PARGA WEST V. STATE FARM current July 27, 2026 139 laborer would be. Right? So everybody understand that pricing, scope of work, items listed per -- certain policies are required. any disputes. Right? are Right? If there's a little bit alleged do with who damages are, the coverage along with things that nature. of Q. to (BY MS. the -- just carrier is, what the scope of work, and then any any codes that are required. So But as far as identifying -- you would have to rely on Right? If you didn't do a physical Just very similar to State in this case -- because you were the 11 to do that. 12 inspection. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And 15 a physical inspection 16 Trademark Exteriors -- Whoever is. I'm not sure it's But whoever's -- the photos are. uploaded. damage so back to the very back two pages 22 MR. SANDERS: Which 23 THE WITNESS: 14. 24 MS. FINCH: 21 312, 25 so to -- Q. to (BY MS. -- FINCH) @ ESQUIRE OEPosiTiON SOLUTIONS you contractor's go flip And the the Farm's relying we 20 Q. it -- if 19 -- Okay. ~- 18 line FINCH) the A. and So it has 10 17 helping practice. didn't do Bobby Odom on photos. -- Exhibit photos or Right? they No. 14 and of it. So 313 one are we on now? I'm just gonna pick we and 14. And another -- 300.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com"}, {"d": 55, "p": 370, "t": "From:\"Jose Parga\" <jparga@coastalclaims.net> Sent:Mon, 15 Jul 2024 22:27:39 -0500 To:\"HOME CLMS-FIRECLAIMS\" <statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com>; ccsvcs-OK2024040001 @claimmail.net; \"Chris McCombs\" <chrismccombs@coastalclaims.net> Subject:[EXTERNAL] 3653Q113C . . Attachments:3653Q113C_WEST_PRELIMINARY_PA_ESTIMATE.pdf, Nei|_West_Photo_Report_companycam_report.pdf Hello Statefarm, Attached is our’estimate along with our photo report to evidence our request for are inspection. Please contact te directly to set-up a re inspection 682-716-9565. Thank you, Pred Jose J. Parga Public Adjuster. Coastal Claims Fohwinas 2650 N Dixie Fwy |. New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 Office (886) 314-0074 Fax. (386) 961-4344 jparga@coastalclaims.net www.coastalclaims.net: EXHIBIT —30CK SFF&CC/West_000261"}, {"d": 55, "p": 371, "t": "Gora Clajms Coastal Claims Services, Inc: Coastal Claims Services 2650N Dixie Freeway oo. ‘New Smyma Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074 ‘www, coastalclaims:net. Insured: Property: West, Neil & Lacy Home: (580) 695-0014 7 NW Briarcreck Drive E-inail: Hieilspencerwest@sbeglobal.net Lawton, OK. 73505 Claim Rep.: John Dekker Business: ‘Company: Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway E-mail: Business: (267) 261-0085 john@ocastalolaims.net New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 Estimator: ‘Company: Claim Number: Daté of Loss: Eileen Dalton: Coastal Claims Setvices 3653Q113C Policy Number: 36CRX4058 6/15/2023 12:00 AM Price List: Date Received: Date Entered: Date Inspected: Type of Loss: Hail 4/25/2024 11:07 AM OKLASX_APR24 Restoration/Service/Remodel. Estimate: WEST “This is aPRELIMINARY estimate producedby Coastal Claims Services: This estimate:represents our current evaluation of the dantagesto the insured's property.As we continue to evaluate this claim, there may-be additional damages related to this event that have not been scoped at the productionof this estimate.” SFF&CC/West_000262"}, {"d": 55, "p": 372, "t": "Casta Claims Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650'N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, F1 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net. WEST. SOURCE: EAGLEVIEW Roof: DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACY Roofing 1. Tear off, haul and dispose of conip. 46.345Q 57.37 0.00 531.70 3,190.23 (0.00) 3,190.23 shingles - Laminated 2, Remove Additional charge for steep 46.3480 234). 0.00 216.96 1,301.78 (0.00) 1301.78 4,634.00 SF 0:23 2.26 “213.62 1,281.70 (6.95) 1,274.75 A, Saddle ot cricket - 26 to 50.SF 5, Roofing felt - 151b. LQOEA 46.34 SQ 346.29 32.72 6,92 17.78 70.64. 306.80 423,85 1,840.82. (21.30) (54.70) 402.55 1,786.12 6, Laminated - comp, shingle-rfg. - w/out felt , 55.67 SQ 238.54 326.32 2,721.16 16,327.00 = (1,004.06) , —.15,322.94 7. Additional charge for steeproof-10/12- 7.61 SQ 68.77 0,00 104,66 628,00 (0.00) 628.00 8. Asphalt starter - universal starter course. 9. R&R Hip? Ridge cap - Standard profile- 331.00 LF 330,00 LF 1:87 8.25: 8.07 43.60 125.42 553.22 752,46. 3,319:32 (24.83) (134.15) 127.63 3,185.17 5.00 EA 90:51. 1.85. 90:90 $45.30 (5:71) 539.59 1.00-BA: 427.98 5.02 86,60 519.60. (15,43) 504.17 331.00. LF 318: 20.49. 214.62 1,287.69 (63.06). ‘1,224.63 13. Apply roofing sealant/cement~per LFDrip Edge* 331.00 LF 0.72 5.00 48.66 291.98 (15.39). 276.59 14. Step Nashing, 16.00. LF 9.92 157 32.06 192.35 (4.82) 187.53 roof - 10/12 - 12/12 slope. 3, Re-nailing of roof sheathing -‘complete Te-nail 12/12 slope composition shingles 10. R&R Gable cornice return - laminated Flashing AL. R&R Chimney flashing - average (32\" x 36\") 12, R&R Drip edge/putter apron 15, R&R Flashing -L flashing - $,00'LF 5,38. 0.55 5.50 galvanized 16, Ice & water barrier 17. Valley metal 18, Apply roofing'sealant/cemient™~ per LF- 32.95, ae (1.69) 31.26 516.00 SF 172,00 LF 344.00 LF 1.63 6.00: 0.72, 13.08 21.21. 5,20. 170.84 210.64. 50,58 ‘1,025.00 ‘1,263.85 303.46: (40:25) (65.27) (16.00): 984.75 1,198.58 287,46 19, R&R Continuous ridge vent ~ shingle- 75.00 LF 10.77 I71L 164.98 989.84 (52.65) 937.19 over style ‘20. R&R Roof vent- turtle type - Metal 5.00 BA: 75,20. 5.84 76.38 458.22 797 440.25 ‘Pipe Jacks, Caps, and Collars 21. R&R Furnace vent - rain cap'and storm 1.00 EA 95.10. 2.03 ‘19:42 116.55. (6.24) 110.31 22. R&R Flashing - pipe jack - lead 5,00 EA 88.49. 12.12 90.92 545,49. (37.30) $08.19 23.. 11.00.EA 25:99 0:53. 57:28 343,70 (1.62) 342.08 Valley Metal* ‘Ventilation. collar, 6” Apply-mastic around vent pipesto prevent leakage* . _ ‘Miscellaneous Items WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 2 SFF&CC/West_000263"}, {"d": 55, "p": 373, "t": "asia Claims Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650'N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, Fl 32168 386-31 4-0074 www.coastalclaims:net. ‘CONTINUED - Roof DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 24. Digital satellite system ~ Detach &. TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 1.00 EA 37.55. 0,00 752 45.07 (0.00) 45.07 1.00 EA 300.00 0.00 0.00 300-00 (0.00) 300,00 5.00;HR. AOA: 0.00 40,48 242.88 (0.00) 242.88 Totals; Roof 516.55. 6,211.56. 37,569.09 1,589.39 35,979.70 Total: SOURCE; EAGLEVIEW 516.55 6,211.56 37,569.09 1,589.39 35,979.70 TAX: 714 O&P 37.60 RCV 225.66 DEPREC. (21.97) ACV 203.69 6.56 122.60 735.58 (20.18) 715,40 13.70 160.20: 961.24 4245 919.09 TAX O&P RCV DEPREC, ACV reset ~GENERALS— 25, Taxes, insurance, permits & fees (Bid Item) 26. Roofing - General Laborer - per hour Labor to hand load materials onto roof Exterior. DESCRIPTION: 27. R&R Window screen, | - 9 SF QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 4.00 BA 45.23 ‘'28.. R&R Wrap wood window frame &. 2.00 EA 303,21 trim with aluminum sheet ‘Totals: Exterior Gutters DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE. 29. R&R Gutter aluminum - up to.5\"* 30. R&R Downspout - aluminum - up te 5pm 31. R&R Gutter splash’ guard 275,00 LF 96.00 LF 10.44. (0.44 64:75 22.60 $87.18 204.98 3,522.93 1,229.82 (199.24). (69:55) 3,323.69 1,160.27 3.00. EA 27.18. 0.53 16.42 98.49 (1.64). 96.85 ‘87.88 808.58 = 4,851.24 27043. 4,580.81 TAX O&P _—DEPREC. ACV Totals: Gutters Fencing DESCRIPTION WEST QUANTITY UNIT PRICE RCV 4/25/2024 Page:3 SFF&CC/West_000264"}, {"d": 55, "p": 374, "t": "Gosia Clajms Coastal Claims Services, Inc: Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, F1 32168 986-314:0074 www.coastalclaims.net. CONTINUED - Fencing DESCRIPTION’ 32. Clean withipressute/chemical spray QUANTITY UNIT PRICE: ‘1,452.00 SE 0.37 TAX 0.71 O&P 107.58 33. Stain- wood.fénce/gate. 1,452.00 SF 0.86. 21.94 16,00 EA 16:49 1.68 433 34, Wood fence 5' -6' high - Detach & RCV 645.53, DEPREC. (2:18) ACV 643.35 “954.12 1,524.78: (67.52) 1,457.26 245,10 —-1,470,62 (5.18). 1,465.44 606.80. 3,640,93 7488 3,566.05 yeset - per 8 section Totals: Fencing. ‘Main Level I Bedroom Height: 8' | 352.00 SF Walls 120.00 SF Ceiling ~| S 472.00. SE Walls & Ceiling 120,00 SE Floor 13.33: S¥ Flooring 44,00 LF Floor Perimeter 1 | <n peor 3\" et Lier et DESCRIPTION 44.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV. 17.82 106.94 (0.00) 106.94 General; 35. Contents - move out then réset - Large LOO EA 89.12 0.00 36. Ceiling fan - Detach& reset 1,00 EA 200.41 0.00 40.08 240.49 (0,00) 240,49 37., Detach & Reset Heat/AC register - LOO EA 15.04, 0.00 3.00 18.04 (0.00) 18.04 44,00.LF 0.54. OE 4.78 28.65 (0:33) 28,32 120.00 SF’ 0.91. £52: 22.44. 132:86 (4.68) ‘128.18 44.00 LF 1.26 0.58 ‘1.20 67.22. (1.78). 65.44 2.67 Ly 17,32 103.88 (3.46) 100.42 — 7 0.53 45.34 272,11. (L:63y 270.48 Toon Ceiling: . Mechanically attaclied 38. Mask and prep for paint - tape only (per LF) 39: Paintthe ceiling- two coats _ i Walls: 40. Mask and prep for paint - plastic, paper, tape(perLF) 41, R&R 1/2” drywall - hurig, taped, 32.00 SF floated, ready for paint a 42. Tape joint for new to-existing drywall- 32.00.LF 7.07. - per LF 43, Texture-drywall ~ bight hand texture 32.00 SF 0.79 0,12. 5.08 30.48 (0.38) 30.10 44. Seal the walls w/PVA primer - one 352.00 SF 0.52 1.93 36.80 220.87 B.17) 217.70 352.00 SF 0.91. 4.46 64.96 389-74 (13.73) 376.01 coat 45:. Paint the walls - two.coats WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 4 SFF&CC/West_000265"}, {"d": 55, "p": 375, "t": "Coastal Claym. Claims Coastal Claims Services, Inc: Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, F1 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims:net. CONTINUED - Bedroom DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV -DEPREC. ACV 46. Mask or cover per square-foot _ 120.00 SF 0.45. 0.53 10.90 65.43 (0:00). 65.43 47. Final cleaning - construction - 420,00 SF 0:28. 0,00 6:72 40,32 (0,00), 40.32 10.00 286.14 1,717.03 2916- 1,687.87 Floor: Residential. Totals: Bedroom rs! gr 5 - Bathroom i wveoone & 7 Ret Height: 8’ 208.00 SF Walls 40,00 SF Ceiling 248.00 SF Walls &-Ceiling 40.00 SF Floor 4.44: SY Flooring 26.00. LF Floor Perimeter 26.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter ‘DESCRIPTION ‘Generak: 48; Contents - mové-out then teset - Large room QUANTITY: UNIT PRICE: TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 1.00 EA 89:12 0:00 17.82 106,94, (0.00): 106.94 {00 BA 38.83 9.00 11,76 70.59 (0.00), 10.59 18.04 Ceiling: 49. Detach & Reset Bathroom ventilation. fan ‘50. Detach & Reset Heat/AC register Mechanically attached “SL. Mask and prep’ for paint - tape only 1.00: EA: 15.04 0.00. 3.00 18.04 (0.00) 26.00.LF 0.54 0.06 2.82 16.92 (0.20) 16.72 52. Paintthe ceiling - two ‘coats 40.00 SF 0.91 0.51. 738 44.29 (1.56) 42.73 53. Mask and prepfor paint - plastic, 26.00 LF 1,26 0.34 6.62 39.72 (1.05) 38.67 54, R&R 1/2\" drywall - hung, taped, floated, ready for paint — 32,00 SF 2.67 — iP _ 17,32 103.88 oe (3.46) - 100.42 55. Tape joint for new to existing drywall- 32.00LF 7.07 0:53 45.34 IRA (1-63) 270.48 (erLFy . , “Walls: paper, tape (per LE) ‘pec LF 56. Texture drywall - light hand texture 32.00 SF 0.79. 0.12 5.08 30.48 (0:38) 30.10 57. Seal the walls w/PVA primer - one 208.00 SF 0.52. 0.61. 21.76 130;53 (1.87) 128.66 208,00 SF’ 0.91. 2.64 38.38 230.30 (8.11) 222.19 ‘coat 58.. Pairit the walls - two coats Floors WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 5 SFF&CC/West_000266"}, {"d": 55, "p": 376, "t": "Gosia Claims Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074 ~www.coastalclaims.net. CONTINUED - Bathroom DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX. O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 59, Mask or cover per. square foot 40.00 SF 0:45. 0.18 3.64 21.82 (0.00) 21.82 60. Final cleaning - construction - 40.00 SF 0.28: 0.00 2.24 13.44 (0:00): 13.44 6.11 183.16 1,099.06 18.26 1,080.80 Residential Totals: Bathroom — “6h Qu— T a — Closet Height: 8° 6' ' 192.00 SF Walls 36.00 SF Ceiling com o 228.00. SF Walls & Ceiling. “36.00. SF Floor | 24.00 LF Geil. Perimeter me DESCRIPTION 4.00 S¥ Flooring QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 24.00 LF Floor Perimeter TAX. O&P RCV DEPREC: ACV General: 61. Contents - move out then reset~ Small 1.00 EA: 44,59 0.00 B92 53:51 (0:00) 53,51 62:- Detach & Reset Light fixture 1.00 EA 56.27 0.00. 11.26 67.53 (0.00). 67.53 63. Mask and prep for paiiit - tape only 24,00 LF 0.54 0.06 2.62 15.64 (0:18). 15.46 36.00 SF 0.91 0.46 6.66 39,88 (1.40) 38.48 room Ceiling: ‘(per LE) 64. Paint the ceiling’- bwo coats ‘Walls: 65. Mask and prep for paint - plastic, 24.00.LF 1.26’ 0.32 6.10 36.66 (0.97). 35,69 ‘paper, tape (pet LF) 66.. R&R. 1/2\" drywall - hung, taped, floated, ready for paint: 32.00 SF 2.67 7.12 17:32 103.88 (3.46) 100.42 67. Tape.joint for new to existing drywall - 32.00 LF 7.07 0.53 45.34 272.11 (1,63) 270,48 32.00 SF 192.00 SF 0.79. 0.52 0.12 0.56 5.08 20.08 30.48 120.48, (0.38) (1.73) 30.10 118.75 192.00 SF 0.91 2.43 35.42 212.57 (7.49) 205.08 36,00 SF 36.00 SF 0.45 0.28 0.16 0.00 3,28 2.02 19.64 12.10 (0:00), (0.00). 19.64 12.16 perLF 68. Texture drywall - light hand texture 69. Seal the walls w/PVA primer - one coat , 70... Paint the walls - two coats Floor: TL. Mask Or cover per square foot 72. Final cleaning -. constructionResidential WEST = 4/2572024 Page: 6 SFF&CC/West_000267"}, {"d": 55, "p": 377, "t": "Gaver Clays Coastal Claims Services, Inc. Coastal Claims Services 2650'N Dixie Freeway ‘New Smyma Beach, Fi 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims net. CONTINUED - Closet TAX 5.76 O&P 164.10 RCV 984,48 DEPREC, ACV 1724 967.24 21,87 633.40 3,800.57 6466 3,735.91 UNIT PRICE QUANTITY DESCRIPTION’ Totals; Closet Total: Main Level Debris Removal DESCRIPTION: 73. Dumnpster load - Approx. 12 yards, 1-3: ‘tons of debris QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P. RCV: DEPREC, ACV. 1.00 EA 429.25. 0.00: 85,86 SISAL (0.00) 515.0 0.0 $5.86 515.11 0.00 515.11 Totals: Debris Removal ‘Labor Minimums Applied DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE. TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 74., Heat, vent, & ait cond. labor minimus 95, Electrical labor minimum* 1.00 EA. LQOEA 109.32 6.20- 0.00 0.00 21,86 124 13LAB 7.44 (0.00), (0.00), 131.18 7.44 76, Window labor tiniimm 1.00 EA 182.99 0.00 36.60 219.59 (0.00) 219.59 6.00 59.70 359.21. 0.00 359.21 664.33 8,566.10 51,696.39 204151 49,654.88 Tofals: Labor Mininiums Applied Line Iteni Totals: WEST’ Grand Total Areas: 752.00 SF Walls 196.00 SF Ceiling 196.00 SF Floor 21.78. SY Flooring 94.00 LI Floor Perimeter 0.00° 94:00 0.00 SE Long Wall SF Short Wall 196.00 Floor Area. 228.67 Total Area 918.00 Exterior Wall Area 102.00 Exterior Perimeter of 948.00 SF Walls and Ceiling LF Ceil. Perimeter 752.00 Interior Wall Area Walls WEST 0.00 Surface Area 0.00. Number of Squares 0.00 0.00 Total Ridge Length 0.00 Total Perimeter Length Total Hip Length 4/25/2024 Page: 7 SFF&CC/West_000268"}, {"d": 55, "p": 378, "t": "Gener Clams Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650'N Dixie Freeway New Smyrna Beach, Fi 32168 386-314-0074 swww.coastalclaims net. Summary for Dwelling Line Item Total 42,465.96 Material Sales Tax 664,33 ‘Subtotal 43,130.29 Overhead 4,283.05 Profit 4;283.05 Replacement Cost Value $51,696,39 Less Depreciation (2,041.51) Actual Cash Value $49,654.88 Net Claim $49,654.88 2,041.51 Total Recoverable Depreciation $51,696.39 . Net Claim if Depreciation is Recovered. Eileen Dalton WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 8 SFF&CC/West_000269"}, {"d": 55, "p": 379, "t": "Goastat Clans Coastal Claims Services, Inc. Coastal Claims Services 2650'N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, Fl 32168 ; 386-314-0074 www.coastaiclaims:net. Recap by Category with Depreciation O&P Items RCV Deprec. ACV CLEANING 592.12 218 589.94 16:41 CONTENT MANIPULATION 222,83 222,83 GENERAL DEMOLITION DRYWALL ELECTRICAL 5,844.40 968.64 6.20 5,844.40 952.23 6.20 ELECTRICAL - SPECIAL SYSTEMS FENCING 37,55 1;223,84 5.18 37.55 1,218,66 HEAT,, VENT &-AIR CONDITIONING 281.91 6.24 275.67 LIGHT FIXTURES: ‘156.68 PAINTING 2,671.64 315.77 2;555,87 ROOFING SIDING 25,42615 536.00 1,583.15 20.18 73:843:00 515.82 SOFFIT, FASCIA, & GUTTER ‘WINDOW REGLAZING.& REPAIR: 3,750.17 164.84 270.43 21:97 3,479.74 142.87 WINDOWS - WOOD . O&P Itenis Subtotal Non-O&P Items. | 182.99 356.68 . - 182,99 42,165.96 7,041.51 40,124;45 RCV. Deprec, ACV 300,00 PERMITS AND FEES 300.00: Non-O&P Items Subtotal 300.00 0.00 300.00 O&P Items Subtotal 42,165.96 2,041.51 40,124,45 Material Sales Tax. Overhead. 664.33 4,283,05 Profit 4,283.05 Total $1,696.39 (664,33 4,283.05 4,283.05 | 2,041.51 49,654,88 \"The amountclaimed in this estimate is based on a preliminary inspection by a public adjuster and/or contractor and/or other experienced person/building estimator. Nevertheless, ihe estimated amount may change based on material prices, contractor Any bids, and other costs whichare too mmerousto mention. The amount claimed maybe affected by policy.exclusions. overlap, upgrade, or mistake. which would result in additional costsis unintentional. Estimate includes costs assaciated with Any plans made by a code upgrades, if known, This estimate was not made witha set of plans created by a design professional. design professional would come at-an additional cost and would require approval by the local building inspector. Costs may change based on the building department opprovals,.and means and methads acceptableto a general contractor.“THIS ESTIMATES ONLY AN OPINION WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 9 SFF&CC/West_000270"}, {"d": 55, "p": 380, "t": "Garai Claims Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650.N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, F132168 386-314-0074 www,coastalclaims.net 1 WEST 1-BAGLEVIEW ROOF SKETCH 4/25/2024 Page: 10 SFF&CC/West_000271"}, {"d": 55, "p": 381, "t": "Main Level -———_——_ 10' 10\" Bedroom 5! Qn —— Bathroom — 5' oO g' gr [— Q\" | 128\" 12\" t#——— Oo ppaS Closet. -—— 6' 6' 8\" —_—— k#-—— 6' Qn —— IN Main Level WEST 4725/2024 ‘Page: 11 SFF&CCMWest_000272"}, {"d": 55, "p": 382, "t": "Will Pratt Coastal Claims Services 6/6/2024 | 154 Photos (Coastal Claims Neil West Photo Report Cover Pege tal Neil $.& Loey M. West - Nei! Wes! Photo Report SFF&CC/West_000273"}, {"d": 55, "p": 383, "t": "Neil Vest Phato Repent 6/6/2024 Section 1 Section 4 avai NaS. & LacyM. West SFF&CC/West_000274"}, {"d": 55, "p": 384, "t": "6/6/2024 Neil West Photo Report Project: Neil S. & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:21pm Creator: Coastol Claims Services Project: Nell S. & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:22pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:22pm Creator; Coastal Claims Services Project: Neil S. & Lacy M, Wast Date: 3/6/2024, 2:22pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services Section} 3/41 Neil $. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000275"}, {"d": 55, "p": 385, "t": "6/6/2024 Neil West Photo Report Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:23pm Creotor: Coastal Cloims Services Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date; 3/6/2024, 2:23pm Creator: Caasta! Claims Services Project: Neil $.& Lacy M. West Bote: 3/6/2024, 2:24pm Cravior: Coastal Claims Services Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 2:24pm Creator; Coastal Cloims Services Section 4 A/a Neil S, & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000276"}, {"d": 55, "p": 386, "t": "6/6/2026 Naif West Photo Repart Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. Wast Dote: 3/6/2024, 2:24pm Crestor Coastol Claims Services 10 Project: Neil S. G Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:24pm Creator: Coastol Claims Services \"1 Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 2:25pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 12 Project: Neil S. & Locy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 2:25pm Creater: Coastal Claims Services Section 4 5/4} Nell S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000277"}, {"d": 55, "p": 387, "t": "6/6/2026 Nel! West Photo Report Bb Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:26pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 4 Projact: Neil S. & Locy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:26prn Creator: Coaastot Claims Services 15 Project: Neil $. & Locy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:27pm Creator: Coastal Cicims Services 16 Praject: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date. 3/6/2024, 2:27pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services Section i G/al Neil S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000278"}, {"d": 55, "p": 388, "t": "6/6/2026 Nei! Wes: Photo eeport v7 Project: Neil S, & Lacy M, West Dote: 3/6/2024, 2:28pm Crestor: Coastal Claims Services 18 Proje t: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:40pm Creatcr: Coastal Cloims Services 19 Project: Neil $. & Locy M. West Bote: 3/6/2024, 24pm Creaier: Coastel Claims Services 20 Praject: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:4ipm Creator; Coostal Cloims Services Section 1 The Nei S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000279"}, {"d": 55, "p": 389, "t": "6/2024 Neil West Photo Report ai Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:42pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 22 Projeck Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:42pm Creator: Coastol Cloims Services oo co. ee eR OO Dathd aeae eeos :ie 4 pron Project: Neil $. & Locy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 2:42pm Creator: Coastal C aims Services 24 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date 3/6/2024, 2:43pm Creator: Coastal Ciairns Services Section | B/4i Nell S. & cocy M. West SFF&CC/West_000280"}, {"d": 55, "p": 390, "t": "Ne 6/6/2026 West Photo Report Saas 25 ¥, ais Ae ae ay x ahs Project: Ne. $. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:43pm Creaior: Coastal Claims Services 26 Projcct: NeilS. & Lacy M. West vote: 3/6/2024, 2:43pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 27 Project: Neil $. & vocy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:43pm Creator: Coastal Ciaims Services 2B Project: Nei. $. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 2:43pm Crestor: Coasto! Claims Services Section 974i Neil S. & Locy M. Wes: SFF&CC/West_000281"}, {"d": 55, "p": 391, "t": "6/6/2024 Nei West Phote Report 29 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:43pm Crestor: Coastol Cialins Services 30 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West DOote: 3/6/2024, 2:44pm Creotor: Caastol Cloims Services 3) Project: Neil 8. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:47pm Creator: Coastol Claims Services 32 Praject: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:48pm Creater: Coastol Cloims Services Section i 10/ 4} Neil S. & Locy M, West SFF&CC/West_000282"}, {"d": 55, "p": 392, "t": "6/6/2024 Neil West Photo Report 33 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:48pm Creator: Coasto! Claims Services 34 Projact: Neil S. & Locy M, West Bote: 3/6/2024, 2:49pm Creator: Coastol Claims Services 35 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:49pm Crestor: Coastal Claims Services 36 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:49pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services Section 1 asa Neil S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000283"}, {"d": 55, "p": 393, "t": "6/6/2024 Neil Wes! Photo Repast 37 Project: Nei! $, & Lacy M. West Oate: 3/6/2024, 2:49pm Creoter: Coastal Claims Services 38 Project: Nell S$, & Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:01pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 39 Project: Nail S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:0ipm Creator: Coastal Clalms Services 40 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, :0ipm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services Section 1 12 fai Neil S. & Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000284"}, {"d": 55, "p": 394, "t": "G/6/2024 Neil West Photo Report 4 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:0iprn Creoiar: Coastal Claims Services 42 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:02pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services 43 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 02pm Creotar, Coastal Clalms Services 44 Project: Neil S. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:02pm Creator: Coastol Claims Services Section | Ws a Neil S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000285"}, {"d": 55, "p": 395, "t": "6/6/2022 Nei! West Photo Report Project; Neil $, & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:02pm Creotor; Coastal Claims Services 46 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:03am Crecter: Coastal Claims Services 47 e Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:03pm Creatae: Coastal Claims Services 4B Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Cote: 3/6/2024, 3:03pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services Section 1 Nei! S.& Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000286"}, {"d": 55, "p": 396, "t": "6/6/2022 Neil West Photo Report 49 Project: Neil S, & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:03pm Creoter: Coastal Claims Services 50 Project: Neil S, & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:03pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 51 Project: Neil S$. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 1:04pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 52 Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:04pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services Section | 18 / as Neti $.& Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000287"}, {"d": 55, "p": 397, "t": "Noil Wes: PE ita Report 64G/ HIE a 53 cee = . _ ., md 4 Ae gs rechert pee _ Rar? . SOR Project: Ne S$. & Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:05pm Crestor: Coostal Claims Services 54 Project: NeilS. & Lacy M. West Date 3/6/2024, 3:05pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 55 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024. 3:05pm Creator, Coastal Cloims Services 56 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:09pm Creator Coostel Claims Services Section 1 1/4 Nei! $. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000288"}, {"d": 55, "p": 398, "t": "Neil West Photo Report 6/6/2024 57 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:09pm Creator: Coastel C aims Services 58 Project: Ne S.& Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:09p.a1 Creator: Coastal Claims Services 59 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:09pm Crestor: Coostal Claims Services 60 eject: Nell $. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:09pm Creator: Coostol Claims Services Section 1 7/7 Al Ne §. & racy M. West SFF&CC/West_000289"}, {"d": 55, "p": 399, "t": "6/6/2026 Nei! West Photo Report 6 Project: Nei: $, & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:09pm Creotor: Coastal Claims Services 62 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 63 Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:12pm Creoter: Coastel Cloims Services 64 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:12pm Crector: Coastal Cloims Services Secticn 1 18/4 Neil S$. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000290"}, {"d": 55, "p": 400, "t": "Ne 6/6/2026 West Photo Report 65 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 33pm : Creator: Coastal Ciaims Services Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:14pm Creator Coosto! Cloims Services 67 68 =. Proje ck Neil S. & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:14pm Crestor: Coastal Claims Services Project: Ne S$. & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:44pm Creator: Coustal Claims Services Section | 19/4 Ne’ &. & Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000291"}, {"d": 55, "p": 401, "t": "6/6/2022 Neil West Phote Report 69 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 34pm Creator: Coasto! Claims Services Project: Neil S. & Locy M. West vate: 3/6/2024, 3:14pm Creator: Coastol Claims Services 1 Project: Neil $. & Locy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:14pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 72 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:15pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services Section 4 20/41 Neil S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000292"}, {"d": 55, "p": 402, "t": "6/6/2022 Ne}! West Photo Report 3 Project: Nell 5. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:15pm Creotor: Coastel Claims Services 74 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:15pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services 75 Project: Neil 5. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:15pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services 76 Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:i6pm Creatar: Coastal Claims Services Section 1 ais Nell S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000293"}, {"d": 55, "p": 403, "t": "6/6/2024 Neil West Photo Report Project: NeilS. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:16prn Crestor: Coastal Claims Services B Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 36pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services 79 Project: Nail S. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:16pm Creator: Coastal Cleims Services BO Proleci: Neil S.& Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:16pm Creator: Coustol Claims Services Section 7 22/4i Ne S.& wacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000294"}, {"d": 55, "p": 404, "t": "Me OM/2026 West Photo Report a1 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:16pm Creatcr: Coastal Claims Services 82 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M, West Vote: 3/6/2024, 2:16pm Creator Coastel Cioims Services 83 Proje cl Ne $. & Locy M West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:17pm Creoter: Coosto! Claims Services 84 ‘iject: Neil S. & Lacy M. West ate: 3/6/2024, 3:17pm Creator: Coastal Cioims Services Section | 23 / ai Nei 8. & acy M. West SFF&CC/West_000295"}, {"d": 55, "p": 405, "t": "Ne Wesl Photo Repos! 6/6/2088 85 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 37pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 86 Project: Neil S. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:17pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 87 Project: Neil S. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3.17pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 8B Project: Neil $. & Lacy M West Dete: 9/6/2024, 3:17pm Creator: Coastel Cloims Services Section i 24/4) Neil S. & Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000296"}, {"d": 55, "p": 406, "t": "6/6/2024 Neil West Phota Report 89 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:17pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 90 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:17pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services 91 Project: Nei! $. & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:18pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 92 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Cate: 3/6/2024, 3:18pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services Section 3 25/ at Nell S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000297"}, {"d": 55, "p": 407, "t": "6/6/2024 Nei! West Photo Report 93 Project: Neil S. & Lecy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 38pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 94 Project: Ne. S. & L icy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3-18,:m Creator: Coastal Cloims Services 95 Project: Neil S. & Locy M. Wesi Date: 3/6/2024, 3:18pm Creator: Coastal Cl.ims Services 96 Projact: Nc. S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:18pm Creator Coustal Cloims Services Suction * 26/4) Ne. S.& Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West 000298"}, {"d": 55, "p": 408, "t": "Ne\" West Phate eeporl 6/6/2024 Project; Neil $. @ Lacy M. West Dale: 3/6/2024, 3:18pm Crestor: Coastal Claims Services 98 Project: Ne $.& Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:20pm Creator: Coastol Claims Services 99 Project: Neil S. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:21pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 100 Project: Ne S.& Lacy M. West Dele: 3/6/2024, 3:22pm Crect +: Coasta: Clcims Services Section 1 arial Ne §&.& cacy M. Wesi SFF&CC/West_000299"}, {"d": 55, "p": 409, "t": "Ne 6/6/2026 West Photo Report 101 Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West vate: 3/6/2026, 3:22pm Creater: Coastel Claims Services 102 Project: Nei $. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:22pm Crestor: Coastal Claims Services 103 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:22pm Crevicr: Coastol Claims Services 104 Project: Neil $.& Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:23pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services Section | 28/ 4h NollS. & cacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000300"}, {"d": 55, "p": 410, "t": "6/6/2026 Ne? West Photo Report 105 Project: Nei S. & Lucy M. West Date 3/6/2024, 3:23pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 106 Project: Ne S.& Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:25pm Creator: Coastal Clcims Services 107 Project: Neil S. & Locy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:25pm Creator: Coastol Cloims Services 108 Project: Ne $. & cacy M, West Octe: 3/6/2024, 3:26pm Creator: Caaste Section 1 29/81 Claims Services Neil S. & Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000301"}, {"d": 55, "p": 411, "t": "Nell West Photo Report 6/6/2026 109 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:26pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 110 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:26pm Creator: Coastel Claims Services ii Project: Neil S. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:26pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services v2 Project: Neil $. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:26pm Creator: Coastal Ciaitns Services Section 1 30/ 4t Neil $. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000302"}, {"d": 55, "p": 412, "t": "6/6/2024 Neil West Phote Report 113 Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:26pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 114 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:26pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 15 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:26pm Creotor: Coastal Claims Services 116 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 26pm Crester: Coastal Claims Services Sectien i Neil S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000303"}, {"d": 55, "p": 413, "t": "6/6/2024 Neil West Phote Repart 17 Project: Neil S, & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:27pm Creator; Coostal Claims Services 118 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:27pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services 119 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:28pm Creator: Coastol Claims Services 120 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:28pm Creator: Caostal Cloims Services Section 4 327 Al Neil S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000304"}, {"d": 55, "p": 414, "t": "6/6/2024 Neil West Photo Report 121 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:28pm Creator. Coastal Claims Services Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:33pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services 123 Project: Nel) S.& Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:33pm Creator: Caastal Claims Services 124 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:33pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services Section 1 33/4) Neil S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000305"}, {"d": 55, "p": 415, "t": "6/6/2024 Nell West Phote Report 125 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:33pm Creotor: Coastal Claims Services 126 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Oste: 3/6/2024, 3:33pm Creator: Coastai Cloims Services 127 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:33pm Creator: Caastol Cloims Services 128 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M, West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:33pm Creator: Coastal Cleims Services Secttcn 1 34/41 Neil S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000306"}, {"d": 55, "p": 416, "t": "6/6/2024 Nei! West Photo Report 129 Project: Neil S, & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:34pm Creator: Coastel Claims Services 10 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Ooie: 3/6/2024, 3:34pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services 131 Project: Nell S$. & Lacy M, West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:35pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 432 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:35pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services Section t 35/44 Neil S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000307"}, {"d": 55, "p": 417, "t": "6/6/2024 Neil West Photo Report 133 Project: Neil $. & Lacy M, West Date: 3/67/2024, 3:36pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 134 Project: Neil §. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:38pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 435 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:38pm Creator: Coastal Clalms Services 136 Project: Nell S, & Lacy M. West Date; 3/6/2024, 3:38pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services Section | 36/41 Neil $. & Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000308"}, {"d": 55, "p": 418, "t": "6/6/2026 Neil West Photo Report 137 Project: Ne S$. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:38pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 138 Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Doter 3/6/2024, 3:38om Creator: Coastal C sims Services 139 Project: Nell S, & Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:38pm Crecor: Coostol Claims Services 140 Project: Date: Neil S. & Lacy M. West 3/6/2024, 2:38pm Creator: Coostol Cioims Services vection i oF / a4 Ne $.& Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000309"}, {"d": 55, "p": 419, "t": "Ne 6/6/2026 West Photo Report 141 Project: Neil S.& Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:39pm Crestor: Coaste) Claims Services 142 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Bote: 3/6/2024, 3:39pm Creotor: Coastal Cloims Services 143 Project: Neil S$. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:39pm Crevtor: Coastal Claims Services 144 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Dote 9/6/2024, 3.39pm Crestatr: Coastol Cloins Servces Section 7 38/ At Neil S. & Locy M. West SFF&CC/West 000310"}, {"d": 55, "p": 420, "t": "6/6/2024 Neil West Photo Repart 145 Project: Nail S. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:40pm Creator: Coasto' Claims Services 146 Projact: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Dete 3/6/2024, 3:40pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:40pm Crestor: Coastal Claims Services 148 Project: Ne S.& Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:40pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services Section | 39/4) Neil S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_00031 1"}, {"d": 55, "p": 421, "t": "€ 0/2024 Neil West Phole Report 149 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 6/6/2024, 1:22pm Creotor: Coastal Claims Services 150 ‘vrojact: Neil S. & Lacy M, West Date: 6/6/2024, 1:22pm Creator: Coastal Cioims Services 151 Project: Neil $, & Lacy M. West Dole: 6/6/2024, 1:22pm Creotor: Coastal Claims Services 152 Project Ne S$. & Lacy M, West Date: 6/6/2024, 22pm Creator: Coast., Cloims Services Section 1 40 / 41 Neil S. & Locy M. West SFF&CC/West_000312"}, {"d": 55, "p": 422, "t": "Nail West Shota Report 6/6/2024 183 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 6/6/2024, ¢22pm Creaicr, Coastal Claims Services 154 Praject: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 6/6/2024, 4:22pm Creator: Caastal Claims Services Section j aida Neil S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000313"}, {"d": 55, "p": 424, "t": "From:\"José Parga\" <jparga@coastalclaims.net> Sent:Fri, 13 Sep. 2024 06:13:54 -0500 To:\"HOME CLMS-FIRECLAIMS\" <statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com> Ce:neilspencerwest@sbcglobal.net; ccsvcs-OK-2024040001 @claimmail.net Subject:[EXTERNAL] 3653Q113C Attachments:West_Executed_SPOL.pdf, 36530113C_WEST_PRELIMINARY_PA_ESTIMATE.pdf Hello StateFarm, We did have a conversation with your desk adjuster who refused to fulfill her duties and provide: a clear reasoning of the denial of coverage based on the-policy. She stated that she did not believe that'the photos presented were storm related damages which is a false and misleading statement which appears to be an attempt to breach the contract between StateFarm and the — insured, We did provide her with the Date of Loss report which shows there-was hail and wind. reported. in the area along with clear photos of the damage:to roof components. She still refused to fulfill her duties to-act in good faith to provide a’ written response. rin SFF&CC/West_000240"}, {"d": 55, "p": 426, "t": "Ql Pi Bsrereek Drive, Lawton, 7 NW Briarcreek, Lawton, OK 73505, USA Weather Events (dune 15, 2023) j Neleontogis| Nad Sue 0 MPH iy Uaioe 1a AY 73 MPH SFF&CC/West_000242"}, {"d": 55, "p": 427, "t": "We are demanding that we speak to management to avoid escalating further as this does not satisfy the minimum standard outlined by the Department of Insurance. We have again attached the Sworn Proof of Loss for the insured which has been notarized along with the estimate that reflects the full indemnity of the insured . If no factual response is provided within a reasonable time the insured along with their StateFarm agent will have to entertain filing a complaint with the Department of Insurance Insurance Okla. Stat. tit, 36§1250.6(C) and Okla. Admin Code §365:15-3-5(c) Please give us a call directly 682-716-9565. Thank you, Jose J. Parga SFF&CC/West_000243"}, {"d": 55, "p": 429, "t": "From:\"HOME CLMS-FIRECLAIMS\" <statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com>. Sent:Tue, 17'Sep 2024 13:16:51 +0000 To:\"jparga@coastalclaims.net\" <jparga@coastalclaims.net>; \"NEILSPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBALNET\" <NEILSPENCERWEST @SBCGLOBAL.NET>; \"LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM\" <LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM> Ce:\"DF - FIRE - Drop File Document\" <DF-FIRE-CL @internal.statefarm.com> Subject:36-5301-13C Dear Jose. Parga, Based on our conversation this:morning, Coastal Claim Services will have to send additional information over for review, when comes to the sain, cap that is in question. if you have any additional questions my'contact information is listed below. Joe Wicker (hiefhim/his) Claim Specialist — Hail Reconciliation Unit: ATL Park:Center 3 Desk#: 469-442-1670 HRU #: 844-458-4300 Ext. 66 Statefarmfi ireclaims@Statefarm. com ée Statefarm | {OC deed EXHIBIT SFF&CC/West_000186"}, {"d": 55, "p": 431, "t": "* Re: Neil S. & Lacy M. West — 7 NW Briarcreek Drive From: Bobby Odom (odom_bobby@yahoo.com} To: _ neilspencerwest@sbeglobal.net Date: (fhureday, January 2, 2028 9t 01:21 PM CST Yas | think we should proceed forward on that. My apologies m Yah ai iP’ Ae i OrfFriday, December 20, 2024) 3:29 PM, Neil West <neiispencerwest@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Jose, BobbyWhere are we on this? if they're not moving on it and we’ve done everything we can, then it’s time to consider filing a lawsuit for bad faith. | have my own lawyer in mind. Please advise with an update. Respectfully, Neil i Mail for | On(Tuesday, October 8, i Bobby, iP: 2024, 9:57 PM, Jose Parga <jparga@coastaiclaims.net> wrote: Can you please confim if this is something your team can help with? Thank you, | O€ Tus, Oct 1, 2024 yt 9:41 PM Jose Parga <jparga@coastalclaims.net> wrote: | | Bobby, | After much back and forth with StateFarm they have agreed to reconsider an additional inspection. However, they | are looking for better photos of the roof, specifically overviews of the entire house and close ups of the rain caps i showing damages, Our position is that with them not including the rain caps, although all photos show that there is damage present to i them, it would be deemed a breach of contract as the policy covers for ADPL. Please coordinate with the insured to stop by the property and obtain those photos so we can submit them. We are . looking for about 60- 70 photos of the damages to the roof. The more the merrier, especially on the components, Thank you [ j bane | | | Jose J. Parga jo! i} Public Adjuster _ EXHIBIT WEST_000144"}, {"d": 55, "p": 433, "t": "Note update | Note ~~. update? Note — update? Note | have not heard anything - | will check with Coastal Note update? Note EXHIBIT ~. see photos 34 BobbyOdom_000009"}, {"d": 55, "p": 434, "t": "yaoi 1Ss there anything we can do? Maybe get more-e supporting photos of the damage? Like to the vents or around the house on other... Note 5 | don't think there's enough grounds for them, which | wish they had advised me of as well - | had explained their original intentions on text Note an a why what happened? This is not good he said if they didn’t think they could get it approved to let his attorney take over then they took their time for it to get denied?... . Note They're saying there's not going to be anything more that can be done update BobbyOdom_000010"}, {"d": 55, "p": 436, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vv. ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) . Case No. CJ-2025-135 JUDGE SHEPERD ) ) Defendants,,. ) DECLARATION OF ANDREW D. HAROLD, MS., S.B. P.E. I, Andrew D. Harold, M.S., S.E., P.E., declare under penalty of perjury as follows: 1. I am over eighteen years of age and competent to testify to the matters stated in this Declaration. I am a professional engineer employed by Nelson Forensics, LLC. I hold a Master of Science degree and am a licensed professional engineer and structural engineer. I serve as Senior Vice President of Nelson Forensics, LLC, and I have education, training, and experience relevant to the evaluation of wind and hail damage to composition-shingle roofing systems. I have personally evaluated many asphalt shingle roofing systems for potential wind or hail damage. Commonly used as roofing systems for single-family residences, asphalt shingle roofing is also commonly used for commercial and multi-family residential structures. Nelson Forensics, LLC was retained by counsel for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company in connection with the claims asserted by Neil West and Lacy West concerning the property located at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 (the “Property”). On June 24, 2026, with Nelson representative Dylan Huegel, J physically evaluated the exterior of the Property, including the roof covering, roof slopes, roof penetrations, vents, flashing, soft metals, and other relevant exterior components. >> BS Sed EXHIBIT 3S"}, {"d": 55, "p": 437, "t": "At the time of Nelson's site visit, the roof had not been replaced after the reported June 15, 2023 loss, During the site visit, Nelson conducted a visual evaluation of the site and the Property’s roof, exterior, and relevant interior areas, and photographically documented conditions as they pertain to the scope of Nelson’s investigation. Destructive testing was outside the scope of Nelson’s investigation and was not performed, As related to the scope of Nelson's investigation, { observed the following: Burnish marks measuring not more than 1/4\" across at a portion of the light-gauge metal surfaces. Circular tearing at a portion of the window screens, along with circular indentations at a portion of the screen frames. Small, circular indentations at a portion of the light-gauge metals (e.g., low profile roof vents, gutters, downspouts) that are consistent with hail impact. Separations in deteriorated and deformed siding at the chimney Weathered sealant repairs were evident at the base of the enclosure. enclosure. General granule loss at the roof shingles throughout, which is minor in nature and is consistent with age and long-term exposure to the elements rather than hail impact. Linear, semi-circular, and irregularly-shaped areas of granule loss at the roof shingles, concentrated at the hips/ridges, valleys, and cricket. The areas were not of the circular size, shape, or random distribution that is characteristic of hail impact. Rather, the areas are consistent with foot traffic or maintenance-related activities. Annular (ring-shaped) areas of granule loss at the hips and ridges, characteristic of bird droppings rather than hail impact. Moisture staining at the master closet ceiling. The master closet was located toward the southeast comer of the structure. Openings in the roof covering above were not evident, and moisture staining was not present at the underside of the roof framing cas oo nor at the attic insulation above. Moisture staining at the northeast bedroom ceiling, located below the base of a valley at the roof above."}, {"d": 55, "p": 438, "t": "10, I did not observe evidence of hail impact at the roof shingles which would warrant repair or replacement, nor did I observe storm-created openings (e.g., as from hail or wind-borne debris impact or wind uplift) in the building envelope (i.e., roof, exterior) which would allow water intrusion to the interior. il. I observed conditions consistent with age and general weathering with long-term weather exposure, along with foot traffic and/or maintenance-related activities, and deferred or inadequate maintenance (e.g., the chimney enclosure). 12. The conditions I observed did not exhibit the physical characteristics I would expect from hail impacts of sufficient severity to damage asphalt composition shingles. Hail impact at asphalt composition shingles tends to manifest as circular areas of granule loss with more graduated than well-defined edges, which are of a size that is characteristic of hail impact and with other on-site indicators (e.g., burnish marks, indentations at light-gauge metals), and which are distributed throughout the roof in a random, “peppering\" type pattern rather than concentrated at certain areas of the roof (e.g., valleys, hips/ridges). Depending on the severity of the impact, fracturing of the shingles may be present at the concentrated areas of granule loss. No such conditions were observed at the Property. 13. I observed hail-related indications on certain metal or exterior components, but the presence of hail indications on those components does not establish hail-caused damage to the roof shingles. 14. I did not observe the deformed flue gas vent cap on the roof of the Property corresponding to that in photographs submitted by Coastal Claims [SFF&CC/West_00243]. Further, the shingle roofing in this photograph appears to be accented with a rust/brown coloration that differs from the gray coloration of the shingles at the Property. The photograph in SFF&CC/West_00243 appears to be a cropped version of that in WEST_000155. 15. I also did not observe the apparent half-round fracture at the ridge shingle in WEST_000154. A ridge vent was present at the garage only. Again in WEST_ 000154, the coloration of the shingles in the photograph does not match that at the Property. Based on my education, training, experience, physical evaluation, and review of the available materials, I conclude that the roof shingles did not sustain hail-caused damage from the reported June 15, 2023 event. Replacement of the shingle roofing due to hail impact damage is therefore neither warranted nor necessary."}, {"d": 55, "p": 439, "t": "17, I further conclude that the conditions observed on the roof do not require full roof replacement under generally accepted engineering principles. 18. Before forming these opinions, I reviewed materials made available for this matter, including file materials provided by counsel, photographs of the Property, additional photographs concerning the reported interior leaking, Nelson Forensics’ photographic documentation which we collected on site, and weather information concerning the reported June 15, 2023 date of loss. 19. | My opinions are stated to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty and are based on the information presently available to me. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma and 12 O.S. § 426 that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 2 (ec. Location of Execution: “Ply TX Andrew D. Harold, M.S., S.E., P.E. Senior Vice President Nelson Forensics, LLC Oklahoma Certificate. of Authorization 7534 ae AN *s, ’ ii, (ERS WAG _ SUSAN KAY PIERCE Notary 10 #134545820— My Commission Expires September 8, 2027 Notary Public, State of Texas Commission Expires: Se ten ber 8, 2027"}, {"d": 55, "p": 441, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-01295-PRW Documenti2 Filed 09/16/25 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA JONATHAN POE and JULIE POR, Plaintiffs, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. C1V-24-1295-PRW ORDER Before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7), filed by Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company; the Response (Dkt. 10), filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan and Julie Pope; and State Farm’s Reply (Dkt. 11). Having considered the pleadings and applicable legal authorities, the Court GRANTS the Motion (Dkt. 7). Background This is an action for breach of contract and violation of the duty of good faith, According to the Complaint (Dkt. 1), the Poes’ home was insured by State Farm when it incurred hail damage on or about April 19, 2023. The Poes reported a claim in the summer of 2024, State Farm investigated it on August 28, 2024, and authorized payment for spot repaits on September 18, 2024.' On December 10, 2024, the Poes brought this action against State Farm seeking damages for breach of contract and violation of the duty of I Pifs.’ Resp. (Dkt. 10), at 2. «<r EXHIBIT"}, {"d": 55, "p": 442, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-01295-PRW Documenti2 Filed 09/16/25 Page 2 of 6 good faith and fair dealing and punitive damages,? State Farm now moves to dismiss as time-barred the Poes’ breach of contract and tort claims. Standard of Review Inreviewing a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must satisfy itself that the pleaded facts state a claim that is plausible.’ In addition to the complaint, courts may consider “the attached exhibits and documents incorporated into the complaint by reference,” “A statute of limitations defense may be appropriately resolved ona Rule 12 motion when the dates given in the complaint make clear that the right sued upon has been extinguished.”* Analysis I, The breach of contracts claims are time-barred. State Farm argues that the insurance policy bars the Poes from bringing an action to recover for damages which occurred before December 10, 2023, a year from the date they brought the present action. In the insurance policy at issue, there is a “Suit Against Us” provision that provides the following: Suit Against Us. No action will be brought against us unless there has been full compliance with all of the policy provisions. Any action by any party must be started within one year after the date of loss or damage. However, if the cause of loss or damage is burglary, theft, larceny, robbery, forgery, 2 Compl. (Dkt. 1), at 2-5. 3 Bell Atl. Corp. vy. Twombly, 550 U.S, 544, 555 (2007). 4 Commonwealth Prop. Advocs., LLC v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 680 F.3d 1194, 1201 (10th Cir. 2011). 5 Sierra Club v. OMahoma Gas & Elec, Co., 816 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up and citation omitted)."}, {"d": 55, "p": 443, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-01295-PRW Documenti2 Filed 09/16/25 Page 3 of 6 fraud, vandalism, malicious mischief, confiscation, wrongful conversion, disposal or concealment, the action must be started within two years from the time the cause of action accrues, Oklahoma law requires property-insurance policies to provide at least a one-year limitations period for bringing “an action,” with the clock starting on “the date of occurrence of the event resulting in loss.”® Here, the policy imposes just such a deadline.’ Thus, under its plain language, any claims for damages resulting from events before December 10, 2023, are time barred. The Poes do not argue that any of the provisions of the policy are ambiguous. Instead, with respect to their contract claims, they seek certification of a question to the Oklahoma Supreme Court to determine whether State Farm’s Suit Against Us provision can bar their claims. The Poes argue that past rulings of courts in this district shouldn’t control this case because their claims were submitted in a timely manner to State Farm, but the subsequent suit for breach of contract was filed after the timely claim was denied. Plaintiffs point to 36 0.8. § 1250.5(7), which the Oklahoma Legislature amended, effective May 16, 2022, to add the following language: .., Any policy that specifies a time limit covering damage to a roof due to wind or hail must allow the filing of claims after the first anniversary but no 6 OKLA. STAT. tit, 36, § 3617; see also Clipperton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 151 F, App'x 652, 655 (0th Cir, 2005). 7 Mot. Dismiss (Dkt. 7), at 2. 8 Unlike in Root v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 23-870-PRW, 2024 WL 5239456, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Dec, 27, 2024) and Marhsall v, State Farm Fire & Cas. Co,, No. 24-780JD, 2025 WL817606, at *1 (W.D. Ola. Mar. 13, 2025), the Poes filed their insurance claim afier the Suit Against Us limitation period had run, but still within the two-year statutory limit for filing an insurance claim under 36 O.S. § 1250.5(7)."}, {"d": 55, "p": 444, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-01295-PRW Documenti2 Filed 09/16/25 Page 4 of 6 later than twenty-four (24) months after the date of the loss, if the damage is not evident without inspection{.]? The Poes do not marshal an argument that 36 O.S, § 1250.5(7) operates to extend the time in which insureds can bring breach of contract claims against insurers, but instead argue that not allowing them to do so would be “at odds” with both public policy and the legislative intent of the amendment. !° Certification is appropriate where the question “(1) may be determinative of the case at hand and (2) is sufficiently novel that [the Court] feel[s] uncomfortable attempting to decide it without further guidance.”!! However, when the Court instead “see[s] a reasonably clear and principled course, [it] will seek to follow it [itself].”!? Here, the Court has no discomfort in applying the plain meaning of the law. There is no argument that there is an ambiguity in the statute, and the Court cannot detect one on its own. To the extent that application of 36 O.S. § 1250.5(7) creates troublesome policy results, that is for the people of Oklahoma to resolve through their legislators. The most “principled course””’ wl}; is for this Court “to say what the law is[,]” not what it ought to be. 4 9 OKLA, STAT. tit, 36, § 1250.5(7); 2022 Okla, Sess, Law Serv, Ch. 266 (H.B. 3495) (West). 0 Pfs.’ Resp, (Dkt. 10), at 7. '! Pino y, United States, 507 F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). 2 Id. 3 Id. '4 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803)."}, {"d": 55, "p": 445, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-01295-PRW Document12 Filed 09/16/25 Page 5 of 6 Accordingly, under the well-pleaded facts in the Complaint, the policy language controls. Any breach of contract claim relating to damages occurring before December 10, 2023, is time-barred. Il, The claims in tort are time-barred. The Poes argue that 12 O.S, § 95(A)(3) governs the statute of limitations for their bad faith claims, which would allow them two years from the date of the loss to bring this action. State Farm counters that 36 O.S. § 3617 governs. The Court agrees with State Farm. While the Poes were able to produce caselaw that demonstrate instances where Oklahoma courts have found that statutory limitation periods overrode contractual limitation provisions, their cases did not deal specifically with the plain language of 36 OS. § 3617: No policy delivered or issued for delivery in Oklahoma and covering a subject of insurance resident, located, or to be performed in Oklahoma, shall contain any condition, stipulation or agreement... limiting the time within which an action may be brought to a period of less than two (2) years from the time the cause of action accrues in connection with all insurances other than property and marine and transportation insurances; in property and marine and transportation policies such time shall not be limited to less than one (1) year from the date of occurrence of the event resulting in the loss. The Poes do not explain why the plain language of this provision does not apply to their case, It is true that a reading of 12 O.S, § 95(A)(3), which states that civil actions other than for the recovery of real property must be brought “[w]ithin two (2) years” if it is “an action for injury to the rights of another, not arising in contract, and not hereinafter enumerated[,]” superficially supports the Poes’ position. However, “the specific governs"}, {"d": 55, "p": 446, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-01295-PRW Documenti2 Filed 09/16/25 Page 6 of 6 the general.”!5 12 0.S. § 95 governs limitations on civil actions generally, while 36 0.5. § 3617 governs insurance policy restrictions. If the Court were to follow the Poes’ lead, the excerpted portion of 36 0.8. § 3617 above would be rendered superfluous. The best construction of 36 O.S, § 3617 leads to the conclusion that the insurance policy’s Suit Against Us provision is both valid and bars the Poes’ bad faith claims. Conclusion Aceotdingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion (Dkt. 7) and DISMISSES the Poes’ breach of contract and bad faith claims to the extent that they seek to recover for damages which occurred before December 10, 2023. An order entering final judgment will follow. IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of September 2025. PATRICKR, WYRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. 1S McKenzie v. U.S, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Dist. Dir., 761 F.3d 1149, 1156 (10th Cir, 2014) (citing RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. 645 (2012))."}, {"d": 56, "p": 1, "t": "FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT STATE OF OF COMANCHE COUNTY OKLAHOMA DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA August 28, 2026 4:09 PM NEIL and LACY WEST, ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2025-135 ) Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) Defendants. AMENDED NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION Please notice that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230 of the Oklahoma Discovery Code, the Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company will take the deposition upon oral examination of Derek Franklin, on Thursday, September 10, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, Braniff Building, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102, and/or via virtual means before an officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the State of Oklahoma. The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic and videographic means. A subpoena will be issued to Mr. Franklin for his attendance. The subpoena is attached as Exhibit 1. Dated this 28th day of August, 2026. ATE TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com"}, {"d": 56, "p": 2, "t": "ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by US. Mail, postage prepaid, this 28th day of August, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders 21 NW 44th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 9015739 AYE"}, {"d": 56, "p": 4, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY _ ) COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB _ ) INS. AGENCY, INC., ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) Defendants. AMENDED DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO: Derek Franklin Legacy Roofing & Construction, LLC 12094 State Highway 76 Lindsay, Oklahoma 73052 GREETINGS - You are hereby commanded to appear at the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, Braniff Building, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 and/or by virtual means on Thursday, September 10, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. to testify as a witness in a deposition noticed by Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, in the above-captioned case. The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic and videographic means. All parties are invited to attend and cross-examine. Hereof fail not under penalty of law. Issued this 28th day of August, 2026. Are TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com 9015740"}, {"d": 56, "p": 5, "t": "ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 57, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL & LACY WEST, Pints DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA September 3, 2026 5:33 PM ) ) ) v. ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY ) COMPANY; & NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC,, ) ) ) ) NAT ACRES ORT Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) Defendants. DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S AUGUST 20, 2026 ORDER AS TO RE-DESIGNATION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION"}, {"d": 57, "p": 2, "t": "Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) respectfully seeks a 30day extension of the September 21, 2026 deadline set by the Court’s August 20, 2026 Order (the “Order,” Ex. 1) to (1) review and re-designate as “Confidential” documents, or portions of documents, that State Farm has determined in good faith fall within one of the three categories defined in Paragraph 3 of the Protective Order and (2) identify the applicable category from Paragraph 3 of the Protective Order for each such document, implementing the Court’s guidance and direction from the Order. State Farm is reviewing and making determinations about the universe of documents subject to the Court’s Order, but the volume of materials, the resources required to complete the review, and the press of other case-related tasks in this case and others Plaintiffs’ counsel has brought against State Farm make unattainable. full compliance with the September 21, 2026 deadline As the attached declaration of Alicia Champagne, Senior Review Manager at Consilio LLC, demonstrates, compliance with this Order requires (1) assembling a team of reviewers and developing review protocol that aligns with the Court’s Order; (2) training that team on State Farm’s best effort to implement the Court’s Order; (3) an estimated 1,598 hours of managed first-level review; (4) quality control review of the first-level review to ensure compliance; (5) potential discussions and consultations between State Farm and State Farm’s counsel regarding complex documents; and (6) coordination between the first-level reviewers, the quality control reviewers, and State Farm to ensure consistent and proper application of this Court’s Order. Champagne Decl., at { 7, Ex. 2. Additionally, State Farm is concurrently responding to at least 10 other discovery orders in cases Plaintiffs’ counsel has brought against State Farm, which involve ongoing review of well over a million more documents (on top of the hundreds of thousands of documents already reviewed and produced) and over 100 attorneys"}, {"d": 57, "p": 3, "t": "involved in the process, id. at § 4, which has limited State Farm’s resources for this project, though it is devoting substantial resources in an effort to comply. This requested extension does not prejudice Plaintiffs because it in no way impedes their ability to prosecute this case. The Court has already ruled on Plaintiffs’ confidentiality challenges as to specific documents, and Plaintiffs gratuitously filed all of the de-designated documents in the public record as attachments to a brief about consolidating depositions, the day after this Court entered its Order. If they desire to use other documents that are presently designated “Confidential” for some public purpose, they may confer with State Farm, who can assess and provide its position quickly as to any specific document. If State Farm advises that confidentiality will be maintained, Plaintiffs can follow the sealing procedure set forth in the Protective Order, as this Court’s August 20 Order contemplates. Thus, the additional time State Farm has requested to properly complete this ordered re-review neither slows down the case nor prejudices Plaintiffs, While State Farm intends to comply with the Order on a rolling basis, a 30-day extension is necessary to allow State Farm a reasonable opportunity to fully comply with the Court’s Order. Counsel for State Farm has conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs in good faith regarding the relief requested in this motion, and counsel for Plaintiffs stated that Plaintiffs oppose this motion. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual and Procedural Background. The factual background for this dispute over the scope of damage to Plaintiffs’ roof appears in earlier briefing, and State Farm does not repeat it here. In discovery, State Farm immediately produced all claim specific documents, including Plaintiffs’ Policy and relevant Claim File, as well as the applicable underwriting data on the house. It also produced additional information upon entry of the Protective Order, including underwriting"}, {"d": 57, "p": 4, "t": "guidelines in effect when the Policy issued, training materials, and performance evaluations for the claim handlers involved in Plaintiffs’ claim. Moreover, in compliance wih the Court’s April 22, 2026 Order on Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel, State Farm has produced approximately 800,000 documents, including, inter alia, (a) voluminous claims training materials; (b) agency training materials; (c) information regarding the Fire Model Enhancement (“FME”) and other “wind/hail initiatives,” including, as described by Plaintiffs, purported tracking of roof replacements, indemnity savings, and payment volumes and similarly-described initiatives; (d) documents and communications relating to managerial approval requirements for full roof replacements covering a period of six years; (e) documents previously produced or ordered in six unrelated lawsuits; and (f) emails or other correspondence to or from Nicole Manduca, Sharon Arnold, Tom Moss, and Susan Maynard about the FME and various metrics relating to roof replacements. A portion of these materials are reproductions from cases subject to protective orders and confidentiality agreements. On August 20, 2026, the Court entered the Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate Documents Produced, in which Plaintiffs had sought an order setting aside the Protective Order and had specifically challenged the confidentiality of 54 documents. The Court did not set aside the Protective Order, but determined that some of the challenged documents did not contain protected information as outlined in the Protective Order. Order, at 8. The Court further ordered that: Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, State Farm shall review its production and re-designate as “Confidential” only those documents, or portions of documents, that it has determined in good faith fail within one of the three categories defined in Paragraph 3 of the Protective Order. For each document or reasonably defined category of documents it redesignates, State Farm shall identify the applicable Paragraph 3 category."}, {"d": 57, "p": 5, "t": "Regarding documents subject to other courts’ orders, the Court found that “State Farm shall separately identify any documents it contends remain confidential solely by reason of a protective order or settlement agreement entered in other litigation.” Jd. at 9. Due to the time and costs involved in complying with the Court’s Order, State Farm requests an extension of time to comply. B. State Farm’s Re-Review of Documents, As set forth in the attached declaration of Alicia Champagne, State Farm must manually re-review at least approximately 55,913 documents to comply with the Court’s Order. Champagne Decl., at { 6, Ex. 2. Given the time required for State Farm to assemble the review team, train the team on updated review protocols, perform the review, and ensure quality control of the revyiew— while simultaneously undertaking numerous additional review workflows in other cases involving Plaintiffs’ counsel—State Farm cannot properly complete the ordered re-review in 30 days. Il, ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES A. Legal Standard. Oklahoma district courts possess broad authority to manage their dockets and pretrial proceedings. See Marshall v. Allstate Ins. Co., 1990 OK CIV APP 100, 4 9, 805 P.2d 689, 691, Consistent with that authority, Oklahoma law expressly authorizes the Court to extend deadlines established by court order and modify scheduling orders. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2006(B), when an act is required to be done within a specified time by order of the Court, “the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion . . . [wJith or without motion or notice order the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order.” Also consistent with that authority, a scheduling order may be modified upon written motion, for good cause shown, and by order of the Court before the scheduled dates, See"}, {"d": 57, "p": 6, "t": "Okla. Dist. Ct. R. 5(C). The governing “cause” requirement is satisfied where the moving party demonstrates that the deadline cannot reasonably be met despite diligent efforts. In applying that standard, Oklahoma courts may look to federal decisions interpreting analogous scheduling rules. Under the Tenth Circuit’s formulation, good cause requires a showing that deadlines cannot be met despite the movant’s diligent efforts. Gorsuch, Ltd. B.C. v. Wells Fargo Nat’! Bank Ass'n, 77) F.3d 1230, 1240 (10th Cir. 2014); see also Mengert v. United States, 120 F.4th 696, 717 (10th Cir. 2024). Courts also recognize that scheduling orders can materially affect the outcome of litigation and should not be applied with undue inflexibility. Reunion Inv. Ltd, LLC v. Hartford Cas. Ins, Co., No. 14-CV-0237-CVE-TLW, 2014 WL 6606634, at *4 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 19, 2014). Thus, when developments outside a party’s control materially impede the parties’ ability to complete discovery and prepare the case within the existing schedule, modification is appropriate to ensure the case proceeds on a full and fair record. This Court also has authority to revise the Order because it is a pretrial discovery order, not a final adjudication of any claim, defense, or issue of liability. It is therefore interlocutory and remains “subject to revision at any time before the final judgment. . . is filed with the court clerk.” 12 0.8. § 994. Likewise, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has recognized that “[a] trial court’s discretion to modify one of its interlocutory orders anterior to judgment is within the court’s complete control.” Andrew v. Depani-Sparkes, 2017 OK 42, 4 17, 396 P.3d 210, 218 (quoting LCR, Inc. v. Linwood Props., 1996 OK 73, 4 22, 918 P.2d 1388, 1393). ' Oklahoma courts can look to federal authority when interpreting analogous procedural rules. See State ex rel. Protective Health Servs. v. Billings Fairchild Ctr. Inc., 2007 OK CIV APP 24, ¢ 18, 158 P.3d 484, 489 (“The Oklahoma Discovery Code closely tracks the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”); see also Marshall y, Allstate Ins. Co., 1990 OK CIV APP 100, 49, 805 P.2d 689, 691 (ooking to federal authority when interpreting Oklahoma procedural rules modeled after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure)."}, {"d": 57, "p": 7, "t": "B. There Is Good Cause For the Requested Extension. As evidenced by the attached declaration of Alica Champagne, good cause exists for an extension of the Order’s 30-day deadline. Complying with the Order will require an estimated 1,598 hours of managed first-level review, in addition to hours dedicated to training the review team, quality contro] reviews, coordination among those involved to ensure compliance, and production. Champagne Decl., at 47, Ex. 2. State Farm cannot complete this voluminous and time-consuming review before September 21, 2026, especially considering the additional production obligations and deadlines State Farm is facing in this and other cases, including other cases Plaintiffs’ counsel has brought against State Farm. As noted in the Champagne Declaration, State Farm’s vendor is hosting over a million documents that still require review for potential production in various Oklahoma cases involving State Farm—on top of hundreds of thousands of documents State Farm has already reviewed and produced in those cases—-and has engaged a review team of over 100 attorneys to assist with such reviews. Champagne Decl., at J 4, Ex. 2. These ongoing obligations strain State Farm and its vendor’s resources such that State Farm needs additional time to complete the confidentiality re-review. The requested 30-day extension is limited in duration and will not prejudice Plaintiffs, as the presence or absence of confidentiality designations does not have any direct impact on the advancement of the case. As set forth in the Court’s Protective Order, confidentiality designations do not in any way impede Plaintiffs’ use of confidential documents in this litigation. Protective Order, § 5. Moreover, as the Court recognized in its Order, confidentiality designations are independent of the Court’s sealing determinations. Order, at 9, Ex. 1. Thus, Plaintiffs remain free to use State Farm confidential materials in accord with the Protective Order in this matter while the re-review is ongoing. Further, as noted above, Plaintiffs may follow the procedures set forth in"}, {"d": 57, "p": 8, "t": "the Protective Order if they desire to use other documents that are presently designated confidential. Good cause therefore exists for a 30-day extension of the Order’s September 21, 2026 deadline. C. The Court’s Order Should be Stayed Pending Resolution of This Motion. State Farm respectfully requests that the Court stay the portion of its August 20, 2026 Order setting State Farm’s re-designation deadline pending resolution of this Motion. This Court may issue “for good cause shown ... any order which justice requires to protect a party or person” from “oppression or undue delay, burden or expense,” including “that the discovery not be had” or “that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions[.]” 12 0.8. § 3226(C)(1). Here, complying with the Court’s Order by the 30-day deadline is not only unduly burdensome; it is unattainable for the reasons set forth above. Thus, there is good cause to stay the Court’s Order until this Motion for extension is resolved. Ill. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court extend by 30 days the deadline for State Farm to comply with the Court’s August 20, 2026 Order. Respectfully submitted, Cuige 0. Motu) TIMILA S¥VROTHER, OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com"}, {"d": 57, "p": 9, "t": "amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY AND NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this 3rd day of September, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Dhow 0.4 octuss"}, {"d": 57, "p": 11, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL & LACY WEST, ) Plaintiffs. ) ) y. STATE OF Comanche Gaui oMA Case No. CJ-2025-135 Office of the Core Clerk ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY, _ ) & NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE _ ) AGENCY, INC ) Defendants. By AUG 20 2026 ; Depuly ——— ) COURT ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ VARIOUS MOTIONS FILED ON JULY 7\", 2026 th NOW on this AD day of August, 2026 the Court, after hearing argument from counsel and reviewing all of the relevant pleadings GRANTS IN PART the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike State Farm’s blanket Confidentiality Assertion; GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion to DeDesignate Documents Produced and DENIES the Motion to Lift the Protective Order, subject to the conditions set forth below. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On May 21, 2026, the Court entered the Protective Order governing the treatment of confidential material produced in discovery in this action. 2. The Protective Order permits a party to designate material “Confidential” only “after a bona fide determination made in good faith that the material is in fact trade secret or other confidential information as defined in paragraph 3.” 3. Paragraph 3 of the Protective Order limits “Confidential” information to three enumerated categories: (a) “trade secret,” which “shall have the same meaning as in 78 O.S. §86(4)”; (b) “confidential research, development or commercial information,” meaning “information that is maintained in secrecy from third parties and which a party in good faith believes would result in substantial competitive harm if publicly disclosed”; and (c) I"}, {"d": 57, "p": 12, "t": "“personal confidential information,” meaning “a person’s social security number, medical records, bank records, personnel records and tax information.” Paragraph 3(a)(ti) of the Protective Order expressly provides that “trade secret’ shall explicitly not include any aspects of the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim as first-party insureds, including but not limited to attempts to lower indemnity payments on Plaintiffs’ claim, including the total roof replacement requested, and anything regarding denying or partially denying Plaintiffs’ claim.” Paragraph 4 of the Protective Order establishes the procedure for challenging a designation and allocates the burden of proof. It provides that a designation shall not “create a presumption the document is, in fact, confidential or a trade secret entitled to protection,” and that “[t}the burden of establishing that a document or testimony contains trade secret or personal confidential information and is entitled to the protection of this Protective Order shall remain on the party making the designation.” In response to the Court’s order granting Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, State Farm produced a large volume of documents. Plaintiffs represent that the production exceeds 800,000 pages and that State Farm designated every page “Confidential.” State Farm represents that it produced “nearly 800,000 documents (millions of pages),” that it “has not designated all documents confidential,” and that over 600,000 of the produced documents were reproduced from other litigation in which they are subject to confidentiality provisions of settlement agreements and/or protective orders entered by other courts. State Farm contends that not all documents turned over in discovery were labeled “confidential”,"}, {"d": 57, "p": 13, "t": "Plaintiffs objected to State Farm’s designations, and State Farm declined to withdraw them. The parties disagree as to whether or not the “challenge” procedure outlined in re ateron ed paragraph 4 of the Protective Order has been complied with. Regardless, the parties have failed to resolve the dispute informally. The documents Plaintiffs specifically identify as improperly designated concern State Farm’s internal “FME” and “Wind/Hail” initiatives, tracking of roof replacements and indemnity savings, and managerial-approval requirements for full roof replacements. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. Governing standard and allocation of the burden 9. A protective order in Oklahoma issues under 12 O.S. §3226(C)(1), which authorizes the Court, “for good cause shown,” to enter an order protecting a party “from annoyance, harassment, embarrassment, oppression or undue delay, burden or expense,” including an order “that a trade secret or other confidential research, development or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way.” (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 3226) 10. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that §3226(C) shifts the burden of showing ‘good cause’ to the party who opposes discovery. (YWCA of Oklahoma City v. Melson, 1997 OK 81, 944 P.2d 304) The burden of showing good cause “is statutorily placed on the party objecting to discovery and is part of that party’s motion for a protective order.” (Crest Infiniti, WU, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, 174 P.3d 996) The Protective Order codifies this same allocation: designation creates no presumption of confidentiality, and"}, {"d": 57, "p": 14, "t": "the burden of establishing that material is entitled to protection “shall remain on the party making the designation.” . A party does not carry that burden with conclusory or blanket assertions. In (Crest Infiniti, HW, LP y. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, 174 P.3d 996), the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that “blanket statements” were insufficient and that the party seeking protection “must show more than these blanket statements to satisfy their burden for a protective order.” (Crest Infiniti, 11, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, 174 P.3d 996) B. Blanket designations. 12. Plaintiffs have raised the issue as to State Farm’s blanket confidentiality designations. Under both Oklahoma law and Paragraph 4 of the Protective Order, the burden now rests on State Farm to justify, on a document or category basis, the confidentiality of the material it has designated. A designation applied uniformly to every page of the production, without regard to content, does not satisfy that burden. C. Trade secret and confidential commercial information 13, The Protective Order adopts the statutory definition of “trade secret” in 78 O.S, §86(4): information that “derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use,” and “is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” (Okla, Stat, Ann, tit, 78, § 86 ) Under Oklahoma law, protectable trade secrets and confidential information “must be the particular secrets of the [proprietor] as distinguished from the general secrets of the"}, {"d": 57, "p": 15, "t": "trade,” must possess “a substantial element of secrecy,” and must “contain elements which are unique and, not generally known or used in the trade.” (Cent. Plastics Co, v. Goodson, 1975 OK 71, 537 P.2d 330) “Matters of public knowledge in an industry cannot be appropriated by one as [its] secret.” (Cent. Plastics Co. vy. Goodson, 1975 OK 71, 537 P.2d 330) Applying §86(4), the Tenth Circuit has confirmed that the proponent must show the information is not readily ascertainable and provide evidence that it “conferred some type of competitive advantage or economic value”; generalized and conclusory evidence will not suffice. (Double Eagle Alloys, Inc, v. Hooper, 134 F.4th 1078 (10th Cir. 2025)) To restrict disclosure of trade secret or “other confidential research, development, or commercial information,” the proponent “must ‘first establish that the information sought is a trade secret [or other confidential research, development, or commercial information]’ and then ’demonstrate that its disclosure might be harmful,” by “a particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.” (Video Gaming Techs., Inc. v. Castle Hill Studios LLC, No. 17-CV-454-GKF-JFJ, 2019 WL 2514705 (N.D. Okla. June 18, 2019) An insurer’s internal claims-handling policies, procedures, and business strategies are not automatically protectable. Internal corporate documents do not automatically merit protective orders, and a protective order does not exist to prevent “negative publicity” or reputational injury; such material qualifies as confidential commercial information only when the proponent couples it with a particularized showing of competitive harm. (Video Gaming Techs., Inc, v. Castle Hill Studios LLC, No. 17-CV-454-GKF-JFJ, 2019 WL 2514705 (N.D. Okla. June 18, 2019))"}, {"d": 57, "p": 16, "t": "17. Independent of these authorities, Paragraph 3(a)(ii) of the Protective Order removes from the “trade secret” category any aspects of the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim as first-party insureds, including attempts to lower indemnity payments on Plaintiffs’ claim, the total roof replacement requested, and anything regarding denying or partially denying Plaintiffs’ claim. Documents falling within Paragraph 3(a)(ii) are, by the terms the parties agreed to, not trade secrets and may not be designated Confidential on that basis. D. Confidentiality of discovery is distinct from sealing of court records. 18. The Court agrees with State Farm that the standard governing confidentiality designations of discovery material differs from the standard governing the sealing of records filed with the Court. Under Oklahoma law, “discovery documents produced in private litigation are not public records and would not, under the Open Records Act, otherwise be available for public inspection and copying, unless the documents are filed of record or admitted into evidence.” (Good v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2023 OK CIV APP 28, 536 P.3d 961) 19, When material is filed with the Court, however, it becomes subject to the presumption of public access, and sealing is governed by the Oklahoma Open Records Act. (Mitchell y, Mitchell, 2021 Ok CIV APP 17, 491 P.3d 759) Court records are public unless a statute requires confidentiality, and the Court “may seal a record or portion of a record only if a compelling privacy interest exists which outweighs the public’s interest in the record.” A sealing order must be public and must (1) make findings of fact, (2) state conclusions of law specific enough to reveal the legal basis for sealing, (3) use “the least restrictive means for achieving confidentiality,” and (4) be “narrowly tailored so that only the portions of the record subject to confidentiality are sealed and the remainder of the record 6"}, {"d": 57, "p": 17, "t": "is kept open.” (Okla, Stat. Ann, tit. 51, § 244.30.) Any order removing material from the public record must also contain a statement that removal “is necessary in the interests of justice” and a “specific identification of the material” withheld. (Okla, Stat. Ann. tit. 51, § 24A.29 ) Strict compliance with these requirements is mandatory in all cases.” (Good vy. Farmers Ins. Co., 2023 OK CIV APP 28, §36 P.3d 961) The “interests of Jjustice” finding is “a very high standard for good reason and is required in every case,” and speculative harm will not support closure. (Good v. Farmers Ins, Co,, 2023 OK CIV APP 28, 536 P.3d 961; Nichols vy. Jackson, 2001 OK CR 35, 38 P.3d 228) 20. This distinction cuts both ways. It defeats Plaintiffs’ contention that the presumption of public access to court records, standing alone, requires the wholesale de-designation of unfiled discovery. It equally defeats State Farm’s suggestion that the good-faith designation standard excuses it from justifying challenged designations: the challenge procedure in Paragraph 4 and 12 O.S. §3226(C), not the sealing statutes, supply the standard, and under that standard the burden of justification remains on State Farm. (YWCA of Oklahoma City v. Melson, 1997 OK 81, 944 P.2d 304) IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that State Farm’s blanket designation of its entire production as “Confidential” is STRICKEN. A uniform, undifferentiated designation applied to every page of the production does not reflect the “bona fide determination made in good faith” that Paragraph 1 of the Protective Order requires, and it does not satisfy State Farm’s burden under 12 0.8, §3226(C) and Paragraph 4 of the Protective Order. (YWCA of Oklahoma City v. Melson, 1997 OK 81, 944 P.2d 304: State ex rel. Oklahoma State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision y. Rivero, 2021 OK 31, 489 P.3d 36."}, {"d": 57, "p": 18, "t": "Further, the Court finds that Exhibit numbers:.2-7, 9, 11, 12, 14-16, 24, 26-38, 40-42 and 44- 45 identified in Plaintiff's Reply, filed on August 6\", 2026 shall be de-designated and removed from the protective order as the exhibits identified above do not contain any protected information as outlined in the protective order. Further, the exhibits listed above shall be treated like normal documents exchanged in the course of discovery. Re-designation on a particularized basis. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, State Farm shall review its production and re-designate as “Confidential” only those documents, or portions of documents, that it has determined in good faith fall within one of the three categories defined in Paragraph 3 of the Protective Order, For each document or reasonably defined category of documents it re-designates, State Farm shall identify the applicable Paragraph 3 category. Any document not re-designated within that period shall no longer be subject to the Protective Order and is DE-DESIGNATED, consistent with Paragraph 4 of the Protective Order. First-party claim-handling materials, Consistent with Paragraph 3(a)(ii) of the Protective Order, any document concerning the handling of Plaintiffs’ own claim as first-party insureds — including attempts to lower indemnity payments on Plaintiffs’ claim, the total roof replacement requested, and the denial or partial denial of Plaintiffs’ claim — may not be designated “Confidential” as a “trade secret” and is DE-DESIGNATED to the extent so designated on that basis. Burden on any maintained designation. For any designation State Farm maintains and Plaintiffs continue to challenge, State Farm bears the burden of establishing, by a particular and specific demonstration of fact, that the material falls within a Paragraph 3 category and that its disclosure would cause a cognizable competitive or other legally protectable harm. 8"}, {"d": 57, "p": 19, "t": "Documents subject to other courts’ orders, In its re-designation, State Farm shall separately identify any documents it contends remain confidential solely by reason of a protective order or settlement agreement entered in other litigation. The de-designation directed by this Order does not, of its own force, disturb a confidentiality obligation independently imposed by another court; any dispute regarding such documents shall be addressed under the Paragraph 4 procedure with reference to the terms and jurisdiction of the order said to govern them. Meet and confer/further challenges. The parties SHALL MEET AND CONFER IN PERSON AND IN GOOD FAITH regarding any designations that remain in dispute following State Farm’s re-designation, in accordance with Paragraph 4 of the Protective Order. Any designation the parties cannot resolve shall be submitted to the Court for determination, at which time the burden of justifying the designation shall rest on State Farm. The Court further admonishes the parties that future discovery disputes could result in attorney fees, sanctions or the appointment of a discovery master. The Protective Order remains in effect, Plaintiffs’ request to lift or dissolve the Protective Order in its entirety is DENIED. The Protective Order was entered on the parties’ agreement and provides an orderly mechanism, in Paragraph 4, for resolving the very dispute presented here; the appropriate remedy for over-designation is application of that mechanism and the de-designation directed above, not wholesale dissolution. Except as modified by this Order, the Protective Order remains in full force and effect. Sealing of court records. Plaintiffs’ request for a prospective order prohibiting all future under-seal filings absent a particularized showing of harm is DENIED. Nothing in this Order relieves any party of the obligation to satisfy 51 O.S. §§24A.29 and 244.30 before any material is filed under seal or removed from the public record. Any request to seal a filed record shall be 9"}, {"d": 57, "p": 20, "t": "made by motion, shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis under the compelling-privacyinterest standard, and shall be granted only upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, leastrestrictive-means, and narrow-tailoring requirements those statutes impose. (Good v. Farmers Ins, Co., 2023 OK CIV APP 28, 536 P.3d 961) th ITISSO ORDERED this JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT LO _ day of August, 2026. COURT *CLERK TO MAIL A COPY OF THIS ORDER TO ALL PARTIES AND FILE A CERTIFICATE OF MAILING* Eden cae Hey |, ROBERH: (Gees ibaCourt Clerk in and for Comanghe CountMy OKlahomeRereby certify that the foregoltigi is aie/48 Ge tg plete copy of the sa ners ie L48appeers of record in the cad 10 a,"}, {"d": 57, "p": 22, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAMCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; and NANCY HOLDOMB AGENCY, INC., Defendants. INS. Case No, CJ-2025-135 ) ) ) DECLARATION OF ALICIA S. CHAMPAGNE 1, Alicia S. Champagne, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the following is true and correct: I. Yam over the age of 21 years, of sound mind, legally capable of making this Declaration, and have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Declaration. 2. T am employed as a Senior Review Manager at Consilio LLC. Consilio is a legal services and technology provider. I have held several positions at Consilio and its acquired companies, including reviewer, quality management professional, review associate, and review manager. I have personal knowledge regarding the costs associated with reviewing State Farm data as well as experience preparing cost estimates for State Farm’s various managed review projects. From my work for State Farm, I am familiar with the resources and costs associated with reviewing documents produced in the above-referenced case for confidentiality. 3. State Farm engaged Consilio to assist with hosting, processing, reviewing, and producing documents in the above-referenced matter (the “West Engagement”). 4, State Farm has also engaged Consilio to assist with hosting, processing, reviewing, Page 1 of 3"}, {"d": 57, "p": 23, "t": "and producing documents in response fo court orders in other active Oklahoma cases against State Farm (together with the West Engagement, the “State Farm Engagements”). Consilio is currently hosting well over a million documents State Farm has indicated require review for potential production in the State Farm Engagements (on top of the hundreds of thousands of documents Consilio has already reviewed on behalf of State Farm in those cases). These reviews have, collectively, involved over 100 attorneys. 5. I am aware that, on August 20, 2026, the Court issued an order (the “Order”) in the above-captioned lawsuit requiring State Farm to review its production and redesignate as “Confidential” documents, or portions of documents, that it has determined in good faith fall with on one of three categories defined in Paragraph 3 of the Protective Order in the above-referenced case. 6. Taking into account documents that are subject to confidentiality provisions contained in settlement agreements and/or protective orders entered by other courts, as referenced in Paragraph 6 of the Court’s Order, I have determined that at least 55,913 documents require a rereview to comply with the Court’s Order. 7. reasonable Based on my experience supervising reviews of State Farm documents, a review rate for an individual reviewer conducting this type of confidentiality assessinent is approximately 35 documents per hour, This estimate takes into account the Court’s additional requirement that State Farm identify the applicable category in the Protective Order that applies to each re-designated document. Applying that review rate to the 55,913 documents identified above, State Farm would require approximately 1,598 reviewer hours to complete the re-review, This estimate assumes uninterrupted review time, and it does not account for secondlevel or quality-control review, escalation of close or disputed confidentiality determinations, Page 2 of 3"}, {"d": 57, "p": 24, "t": "consultations with counsel regarding designation decisions, coordination among reviewers to ensure consistent application of the Court’s Order, or other administrative tasks typically required to complete a review of this size and complexity, Accordingly, the actual time required to complete the review would likely exceed the estimate set forth above. I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. * September, 3rd 2026 Morrisville, North Carotina e Alicia S. Champagne rw (Date and Place) (Signature) Page 3 of 3 i"}, {"d": 58, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK September 10, 2026 9:04 AM Case Number CJ-2025-135 Smaate” Plaintiffs, easel NEIL & LACY WEST, Sattar” DISTRICT COURT Case No, CJ-2025-135 Defendants. Senet apie Neve Nese” STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Senet merit Natt? ve STATE FARM’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER CONSOLIDATING THE DEPOSITIONS OF WENSLEY HERBERT, THOMAS MOSS, KATHY RESS, AND SCOTT WELSH AND RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ COUNTER MOTION FOR RULE 4 ORDER THAT THIS CASE IS NOT TO BE CONSOLIDATED WITH ANY OTHER CASE"}, {"d": 58, "p": 2, "t": "State Farm’s motion to consolidate the depositions of Wensley Herbert, Thomas Moss (a retired employee), ' Kathy Ress, and Scott Welsh (the “Motion”) was a narrow request for a limitation on duplicative discovery. In contrast, Plaintiffs’ Response and Counter Motion to State Farm’s Motion (the “Response”), is an off point, non-responsive, and gratuitous attempt to rehash allegations of purported corporate misconduct and to seek affirmative relief (a bar on any future consolidation) that neither the law nor the facts support. As set forth further below, State Farm respectfully requests that this Court deny Plaintiffs’ Counter Motion and limit the scope and duration of the depositions State Farm previously sought to consolidate Despite Plaintiffs’ decision to write a response brief about it, State Farm did not even ask to consolidate this case with Hursh or any other case for all purposes. Rather, State Farm’s Motion asked this Court for one narrow form of relief: an order consolidating the depositions of Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, Ms. Ress, and Mr. Welsh (the “State Farm Deponents”) with their alreadyordered depositions in Hursh v, State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CJ-2025-2626 (Okla. Cty.) (“Hursh’) because, as the Plaintiffs here and in Hursh have repeatedly argued, the testimony they seek from the State Farm Deponents is non-claim-specific knowledge about the Fire Model Enhancement initiative (“FME”). While all the State Farm Deponents, except Mr. Moss (see footnote 1), have since been deposed in Hursh, rendering consolidation moot, the crux of the issue remains the same: it would be duplicative for the State Farm Deponents to sit for full depositions again because Plaintiffs’ counsel in this case—who is also plaintiffs’ counsel in Hursh—seek to depose these witnesses for the same reasons on the same non-claim specific facts. Had Plaintiffs ' As outlined in State Farm’s related Motion for a Protective Order and to Quash and/or Stay Plaintiffs’ Deposition Notice of Kathy Ress, Wensley Herbert, Thomas Moss, and Scott Welsh, Plaintiffs’ deposition notice as to Mr. Moss is invalid because it improperly requires State Farm to produce a retired employee for deposition. See June 11, 2026, West Mot. to for Protective Order and to Quash and/or Stay. Rather, a subpoena is required and has not been served or even revisited by Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Mr. Moss is excluded from the discussion in this Motion. I"}, {"d": 58, "p": 3, "t": "agreed to State Farm’s proposed consolidation, they would have had a single, efficient examination of the State Farm Deponents on the FME instead of the fragmented session now at issue—a result of their own uncompromising approach to these depositions.’ Plaintiffs do not meaningfully oppose the relief State Farm requests or the general principle of limiting discovery for the purpose of judicial economy and to avoid unnecessary burden on litigants and their employees. Moreover, instead of addressing the authorities and issues State Farm raises, Plaintiffs’ Response repeatedly miscasts the Motion as a bid to consolidate this entire case with Hursh, and additional cases Plaintiffs’ counsel has brought against State Farm.’ Plaintiffs also rehash previous consolidation disputes and reiterate their mischaracterization of State Farm’s FME initiative as a scheme to deny or underpay claims.’ Tellingly, Plaintiffs do not cite a single ? As the Court may recall, State Farm filed its consolidation motion on August 10 and flagged it at the conclusion of other hearings on August 13, 2026. At that time, the Court indicated that it would be unable to hear this Motion until mid-September due to its pending three-week jury term, and that the parties should attempt to resolve it. Accordingly, State Farm offered to add an additional hour of testimony to each deponent’s time in Hursh and present the witnesses in West at the same time as Hursh, but Plaintiffs refused that offered compromise and made no alternative one. See email, Ex. | hereto. Instead, the depositions occurred in Hursh—with no consolidation agreement from Plaintiffs—on August 26, 27 and 28. Thus, far from the delay Plaintiffs argued at the hearing, accepting State Farm’s offer would have resulted in the quicker completion of these depositions in this case. Now, with the Hursh depositions completed in August, the Court’s order that the depositions occur in this case by September 14 (State Farm is producing the deponents on September 15, 16 and 17 by agreement so they can occur successively in Bloomington), and the Court’s indication that it could not consider any expedited requests until after jury term, the Court may not hear State Farm’s modified request to limit the depositions in lieu of complete consolidation in time to prevent full depositions of these witnesses again. Nonetheless, State Farm submits this reply/response to show the burden counsel’s unwillingness to compromise on these issues has created, as well as to respond to their cross-motion. 3 See, e.g., Response at 6, 8. * Plaintiffs filed this Response a week early and the day after the Court’s Order partially granting Plaintiffs’ motion challenging the confidentiality designations of some documents State Farm had produced. The Court’s order de-designated certain documents, and Plaintiffs gratuitously attached nearly all of the de-designated documents to this response, purportedly to support their scheme allegations. However, given that those allegations have nothing to do with the merits of whether the same deponents should be deposed multiple times on the same alleged scheme, the goal instead appears to have been to publish the exhibits of public record. Indeed, it is the exhibits to this Response that the media is widely using to report on the documents. (State Farm secret documents 2"}, {"d": 58, "p": 4, "t": "case holding that consolidating or limiting depositions of common, non-claim-specific witnesses who would provide repetitive testimony, such as the State Farm Deponents, is improper, Nor do they cite any case suggesting that a court lacks broad discretion to limit discovery as needed, As Plaintiffs are aware, the State Farm Deponents do not have personal knowledge of the handling of the insurance claim at issue in this case. The only reason Plaintiffs’ counsel seeks their testimony here, which was the same reason Plaintiffs’ counsel sought their testimony in Hursh, is to inquire as to the State Farm Deponents’ knowledge of the FME. Indeed, Ms. Manduca, whom Plaintiffs’ counsel has already deposed, is the person with the most specific knowledge on the FME topics pursued by Plaintiffs. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs’ counsel already—and extensively—covered the FME with the State Farm Deponents in Hursh, and those depositions revealed that these deponents, particularly Ms. Ress, have very limited knowledge of the FME. This lack of FME knowledge is particularly salient given this Court ordered the depositions because Plaintiffs had argued these deponents were knowledgeable about the FME. See June 24, 2026 West Order, revealed after judge lifts protective order | KFOR.com Oklahoma City). But Plaintiffs’ focus on the scheme allegations actually reinforces, rather than undermines, the need for the limited relief State Farm seeks here. These witnesses have no case specific information yet Plaintiffs’ counsel is seeking to subject them to multiple depositions on the same subject matter, serving only to disrupt their work and personal lives rather than conferring any benefit to the individual plaintiffs. 3"}, {"d": 58, "p": 5, "t": "_ The LL; lings _cth = . Chae pP Bink CCK aft2.. Neewnig. agentnd” y Bad. din. Albers have Shoum thes 980 oncom : A depaent= hem Kooi, WIHMET ofc Fme: = (et r pete arlow vu. Store Form ( Pagans 1S egieaa be So Ore clepolin ups im ony Corporate. ly her ete claimr ad attr Moties WW Qauwth deyos ot nod: enpropec, ‘ ZB? f Resi , Herbert, MoS ao Dell, Wotreed oP Sle Foms Thenefre., Hee tet anme Civ 25-44 -B) 80 ORDERED. ae biden - AA coca, bircovey <7, Lag GRANT SHEPERD tool’ ho D J mt app DISTRICT JUDGE ae Aonied. As such, there is no legitimate reason for Plaintiffs to depose the State Farm Deponents for countless hours on the same subject matter. The need to restrict duplicative testimony is particularly necessary to protect Ms. Ress, who testified during her six-and-a-half-hour deposition in Hursh that she was not involved in the FME. See Ex. 2, relevant excerpts of Deposition of Kathy Ress, Hursh v. State Farm, No. CJ2025-2626 (“Ress Dep.”) at pp. 339; 346:3-4. Ms. Ress thus has no relevant testimony that others cannot better address. See June 11, 2026 MTQ. Without any authority or reason whatsoever, Plaintiffs also use their Response to file a Counter Motion requesting that the Court remove this “case[] from any future consolidation order.”® Response at 6. Certainly, there is no authority supporting that kind of pre-emptive order. A court, whether through consolidation under 12 O.S. § 2018(C) or another method, “shall limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed if it determines that” it is “unreasonably ‘ Plaintiffs also stated they will file the same motion in Hush. 4 Response at 6."}, {"d": 58, "p": 6, "t": "cumulative or duplicative,” 9d 6% “can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive,” or is not “relevant to any party’s claim or defense, reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” 12 0.8. § 3226(A)(1), (B)(2)(c) (emphasis added), Accordingly, State Farm asks that the Court: (1) deny Plaintiffs’ Counter Motion; and (2) strictly limit the duration and scope of the depositions of Mr. Herbert, Mr. Welsh and Ms. Ress in this case to two hours and only on topics their counsel did not address in their Hursh depositions. A. Plaintiffs’ Response Seeks to Foreclose Relief State Farm Did Not Request and Does Not Meaningfully Address State Farm’s Motion. As an initial matter, Plaintiffs responded to a motion State Farm did not file. Plaintiffs reframe the Motion as a request to consolidate this entire case with Hursh (and other cases Plaintiffs’ counsel has brought against State Farm). For example, Plaintiffs ask, “Why does State Farm now seek . , . consolidation of two cases proceeding against two different agent defendants across two different counties?” consolidation. Response at 6. But State Farm did not request the described Rather, State Farm asked for an order consolidating the depositions of the State Farm Deponents in this case with their depositions in Hursh.® Plaintiffs do not meaningfully respond to the request in State Farm’s Motion. They fail to cite any authority holding that consolidation of depositions is improper. And rather than address the relief sought (i.e., the consolidation of the State Farm Deponents’ depositions), Plaintiffs use their Response to rehash stale consolidation disputes and unsupported allegations about a purported plan to deny or underpay claims. Plaintiffs also fail to cite, distinguish, or even acknowledge the authority on which the Motion relies, all of which clearly supports a court’s * Plaintiffs appear to be at least somewhat aware of the true relief sought in the Motion, given they inconsistently identify it in their Response. Motion’s request is puzzling at best. However, Plaintiffs’ erratic identification of the"}, {"d": 58, "p": 7, "t": "authority to consolidate cases, in whole or in part. See Mot. at 4-7 (collecting authorities). To the contrary, Plaintiffs’ “response” offers 285 pages of non-responsive material. B. Plaintiffs’ Counter Motion for an Order Barring Consolidation of This Case with Any Other Case Should Be Denied As Contrary to Law. Plaintiffs’ Counter Motion lacks any merit. Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order removing this case “from any future consolidation order”-—not just as to the depositions of the State Farm Deponents, but as to any consolidation, for any purpose, in any future proceeding. Response at 6. Paradoxically, in the same breath, Plaintiffs claim State Farm’s Motion for this Court to decide whether to allow consolidation of a deposition the Coutt itself ordered, “attempts to rob this Court and Judge Palumbo [in Hursh] of the ability to control their own dockets and orders[.]” Jd. Counter Motion. To the contrary, that is precisely what Plaintiffs are attempting to do with their They are trying to stifle any court that may deem some form of consolidation with this case proper. Oklahoma County Rule 9, which Plaintiffs cite (see, e.g., Response at 9, 17), specifically states that the authority to make consolidation decisions under that Rule resides with the judge assigned to the lowest-numbered case. Oklahoma County R. 9. Plaintiffs’ request iS an attempt to usurp the power the judge presiding over that case would have to do so. Plaintiffs cite no statute, rule, or case supporting relief of such overreach and breadth. To the contrary, as outlined in detail in the Motion, the law clearly supports a court’s “broad discretion” to consolidate. Kent v. City of Oklahoma City, 2020 OK CIV APP 21, § 34, 467 P.3d 726, 734; 12 O.S. § 2018(C) (“[W]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it... may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.”); HernandezBlanco v. Grant, No. CIV-26-278-R, 2026 WL 543769, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 26, 2026) (noting courts have “broad discretion to decide whether consolidation ... would be desirable”) (quoting"}, {"d": 58, "p": 8, "t": "9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2383 (3d ed. 2008)).’ This is true even if the cases to be consolidated, in whole or in part, are from different counties, despite Plaintiffs’ unsupported contention that such consolidation is “unprecedented.” Response at 6. Courts in Oklahoma have, in fact, consolidated cases from different counties. See, e.g., Phillips v. Nat'l Oilwell Varco, LP, 2024 OK CIV APP 4, §§ 3, 26-27 (consolidating cases from Oklahoma County and Canadian County). But that is not even the request State Farm is making and there is no basis for this anticipatory motion. Plaintiffs also attempt to argue for an order barring any future consolidation with this case by stating that “(t]he cases where the plaintiffs are represented by the undersigned attorneys are facially inappropriate for consolidation across different counties” because they have different facts, involve different agencies, are in different stages of litigation, and consolidation could cause confusion. Response at 8. As an initial matter, this argument misses the point because State Fatm’s Motion only sought consolidation of depositions in this case and in Hursh, not the type of global consolidation Plaintiffs describe in their Motion. See Section A. Regardless, Plaintiffs fail to acknowledge that—despite the case-specific factual differences among the cases involving their counsel——the discovery they are seeking regarding the FME (and other corporate policies and practices on which they seek to examine the same witnesses) are identical across the cases. So, while State Farm maintains that discovery across these cases should be case- and fact-specific, Plaintiffs have argued them as “pattern and practice” cases involving identical discovery. ’ Because “[t]he Oklahoma Discovery Code mirrors the Federal rules,” Meritor, Inc. v. State ex rel. Ba. of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 2019 OK CIV APP 64, 451 P.3d 914, 922 n.15, Oklahoma courts often look to “discovery procedures in the federal rules when construing similar language in the Oklahoma Discovery Code.” Crest Infiniti, IL LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, 4 2, 174 P.3d 996, 999. See also A-Plus Janitorial & Carpet Cleaning v. Employers' Workers' Comp. Ass’n, 1997 OK 37, 936 P.2d 916, 928 (“The terms of 12 0.S.1991 § 2018(C) and (D) are identical to Federal Rule 42, Fed. R. Civ. P. [the consolidation-relevant statutes]”). 7"}, {"d": 58, "p": 9, "t": "Plaintiffs argument is also inconsistent with the nine pending federal court cases in which courts have granted State Farm’s motions for protective orders consolidating the depositions of Nicole Manduca, who, like the State Farm Deponents, was not involved in individual plaintiffs’ insurance claims but whom counsel (again, the same counsel here as in all of these federal cases) alleged was a participant in the FME initiative and the same supposed “scheme” alleged in this action. Mot. at 6-7. The Court allowed consolidation in these nine cases, despite their factual differences, because “common topics . . . were likely to be explored” in all of Ms. Manduca’s depositions (i.e., the FME). See, e.g., Newell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:25-cv-005620R (W.D. Okla.) (Dkt. No. 54 at 2). Further, all cases “contain similar—if not identical—allegations related to State Farm’s alleged company-wide scheme to reduce wind and hail payments,” the same scheme alleged here. /d. As such, whatever differences may exist between this case and others Plaintiffs’ counsel has filed with similar allegations, those differences do not support a blanket bar on consolidation, especially as to depositions where the same testimony is being sought on the same topics.® The Jaw is clear that courts have discretion to consolidate cases, either in whole or in part. Plaintiffs have not offered any authority that supports their request to remove this case from any other consolidation order. For these reasons, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Counter Motion. C. Because Plaintiffs Seek the Same FME Testimony from the State Farm Deponents in This Case as in Hursh, It Should Limit the Scope and Duration of Ms. Ress’s, Mr. Herbert’s and Mr. Welsh’s Depositions. * As to Plaintiffs’ contention that there might be some potential for confusion if this case were consolidated with any others in which Plaintiffs’ counsel here also represents the plaintiffs there, they entirely ignore the reasons State Farm outlines in the Motion as to why there is little risk of confusion. See Mot. at 12. Put simply, there is little risk of confusion if Plaintiffs’ counsel continues to bring substantially the same case against State Farm, with substantially the same allegations, and to seek substantially the same testimony from witnesses."}, {"d": 58, "p": 10, "t": "As the Motion discusses at length, this Court has authority to limit the frequency and extent of duplicative discovery. See 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(2)(c)(1) (“{T]he court shall limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed if it determines that . . . the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.”); see also Mot. at 4-6 (collecting authorities). Courts routinely limit depositions of witnesses whose knowledge does not vary across overlapping matters. See, e.g., Motion at 10-13; MeSharry v. UnumProvident Corp., No. 00-00804 SOM/BMK, 2002 WL 32080544, at *2-3 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 9, 2002) (ordering a single, consolidated deposition rather than subjecting a witness to repeat examination “concerning the same subject”); Hicks v. Grove, No. ELH-12-1422, 2014 WL 768685, at *2 (D. Md. Feb. 25, 2014) (limiting duplicative depositions “to save the parties and the witnesses the time and expense of conducting separate depositions, and to avoid establishing the same background facts twice”). While the relief State Farm requested in the Motion (i.e., consolidation of the State Farm Deponents’ depositions in this case with their depositions in Hursh) is no longer available because the State Farm Deponents have already been deposed in Hursh, the underlying issue raised in the Motion remains the same given that Plaintiffs’ counsel seeks to depose the State on an identical topic: the FME. Farm Deponents If anything, the concerns about duplication the Motion raises are no longer prospective but concrete. Plaintiffs have not identified any topic relevant to their claim that their counsel could not have explored in the Hush depositions (or had not already explored in the Manduca deposition), nor can they. Indeed, Plaintiffs have consistently maintained that the State Farm Deponents’ relevance is their knowledge of the FME. See Motion at 3 (Plaintiffs conceded the State Farm Deponents do not have a connection to the claim at issue) (citing June 26, 2026 West Pls.’ Resp. to State Farm’s Mot. to Quash). Under these circumstances, permitting Plaintiffs to retake hours of largely duplicative testimony in this case—rather than a targeted, 9"}, {"d": 58, "p": 11, "t": "limited session addressing anything genuinely new—would be unreasonably cumulative and disproportionate to the needs of the case. 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(2)(c)(I). Accordingly, the Court should limit the testimony of Mr. Herbert, Mr. Welsh and Ms. Ress to two hours and only to issues not already addressed by the same Plaintiffs’ counsel in their Hursh depositions. The need to limit the deposition of Ms. Ress is particularly acute given her testimony in Hursh revealed that she has virtually no knowledge about the FME — the topic on which Plaintiffs insisted her deposition. Indeed, Ms. Ress’s first deposition should not have lasted even 6 hours, let alone the 12 total Plaintiffs now pursue. During her Hursh deposition, Plaintiffs’ counsel questioned her repeatedly about the FME and she explicitly testified that she “was not involved in the FME work[.]” Nonetheless, counsel continued to press asking, “Speaking of the FME, ... who came up with this concept at State Farm[?]” Again, Ms. Ress testified “I don’t have personal knowledge of that, . . . of how it started when you talk about the brainchild of FME.” Ex. 2, Ress Dep. at p. 282:1-9. When asked to confirm that she was “not a member of the fire model enhancement team,” Ms. Ress testified, “That is correct. | was not a member nor a sponsor of that work.” Ex, 2, Ress Dep. at p. 339:7-11. Counsel’s conduct in questioning Ms. Ress further underscores the need to limit the depositions. Plaintiffs’ counsel was increasingly hostile and condescending to Ms. Ress, and, at times, threatened to have her sanctioned when he did not like her answer. For example: ¢ Counsel pressed Ms. Ress to answer an unsupported hypothetical, then threatened to certify the question and seek sanctions when she explained she lacked context. After he continued pressing her to “get one more try,” she testified: “1 feel like you're being very oppressive with me and I’m not understanding what you’re trying to get me to say.” Ex. 2, Ress Dep. at p. 158:13-161:1. * Counsel misrepresented to Ms. Ress that the Court ordered her deposition based on her knowledge of the claim at issue. Ex. 2, Ress Dep. at p. 60:18-24. ¢ Counsel repeatedly spoke to Ms. Ress in a condescending manner, at one point demanding a “true or false” answer and remarking, “I’m going to give you a little 10"}, {"d": 58, "p": 12, "t": "-- you remember when we were kids we had true or false tests?” Ex. 2 Ress Dep. at p. 61:5-13, ¢ Ms. Ress testified that “[t]here was only one time . . . I received adequate time [to review an exhibit], and that was at the beginning of the deposition, but throughout [ was urged not to look at it.” Ex. 2, Ress Dep. at p. 340:17-341:1. Thus, not only is another full deposition of each witness duplicative, a limitation of the deposition is necessary to prevent the ongoing lack of civility of the questioning.” Accordingly, State Farm requests that the Court order that any further deposition of Ms. Ress, Mr. Herbert and Mr. Welsh be limited to two hours and solely confined to questions not already explored by Plaintiffs’ counsel in their depositions in Hursh. CONCLUSION State Farm respectfully requests that the Court: (1) deny Plaintiffs’ Counter Motion, (2) strictly limit the duration and scope of any further deposition of Ms. Ress, Mr. Herbert and Mr. Welsh in this case to two hours and to topics not addressed in their Pfu n\\ epositions. 7 ~~ Respec ully-subi itted, | | : ALU) ~ “PIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY AND NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC. ° This conduct at Ms. Ress’s deposition in particular was like that of Ms. Manduca’s deposition and the reason that State July 27, 2026, Farm has pending its Motion for Entry of a Deposition Protocol, filed I]"}, {"d": 58, "p": 13, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this 10th day of September, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson Blake Sonne BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 WHITTEN BURRAGE 7 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 oT Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 | aNN oma 12 | NLC Rother"}, {"d": 58, "p": 15, "t": "Timila S. Rother Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com> Friday, August 14, 2026 11:22 PM Timila S. Rother Reggie N. Whitten; Michael Burrage; Blake Sonne; Brad Burgess; Colby Stephenson; From: Sent: To: Ce: Ryan Deligans; Lance Leffel; Paige Masters; Amanda Finch Subject: Re: West v, State Farm - Pending Deposition Scheduling Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Completed |ALERT: Email contains attachments from external sender. Be cautious. Ms. Rother, As we have told you, Judge Palumbo did not order any consolidation of the depositions she set by court order and object to any such consolidation. The depositions are not proper to consolidate across different counties and there is no such court order to do so. Best, Hannah Whitten On Aug 14, 2026, at 5:01 PM, Timila S. Rother <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com> wrote: Counsel, in discussing our Motion to Consolidate the Depositions at the end of the hearings yesterday, the Court suggested that we try and work something out on the depositions that overlap with Hursh. Therefore, for Wensley Herbert, Scott Welsh and Kathy Ress, we would propose the addition of one hour of deposition time to the six hours allotted by rule to be used to inquire about anything specific to West, to occur on the date currently scheduled for those depositions in Hursh - Aug 27 (Herbert), Aug 28 (Welsh) and Aug 29 (Ress). As! noted, that should allow for their depositions to occur in West faster than we would be able to get them scheduled otherwise. And, we are certainly willing to work on such a plan as to Mr. Moss as well but as he is not an employee and a subpoena is necessary, we can address that at a later time as | understand that remains pending in Hursh as well. Thanks Timila"}, {"d": 58, "p": 16, "t": "Timila S. Rother Shareholder/Director Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Ste. 100 Okiahome City, OK 73102 direct line:405.235.7757 mobile: 405.642.0845 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com y-card bio website This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or other privileges or protections. if you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you,"}, {"d": 58, "p": 18, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY and LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, Ve Case STATE MARK FARM D. FIRE AND CASUALTY WELTY; and MARK D. INSURANCE AGENCY, No.: CJ-2025-2626 COMPANY; WELTY INC., NAEGELI DEPOSITION & TRIAL (800) 528 - 3335 NAEGELIUSA.COM VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KATHY RESS COURT REPORTING LEGAL VIDEQGRAPHY TAKEN ON REMOTE DEPOSITIONS FRIDAY, TRIAL PRESENTATION AUGUST 28, 2026 9:18 A.M, LEGAL TRANSCRIPTION COPYING AND SCANNING 201 BROADWAY . LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS NORMAL, NAEGEL] | (800) 528-3335 Powerful 7 a ILLINOIS LITIGATION & SUPPORT. . DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM 61761"}, {"d": 58, "p": 19, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August 28, 2026 APPEARANCES Appearing on behalf Billy Lacy R. and RYAN Durbin Larimore 920 Harvey Oklahoma (405) 10 the Plaintiffs, Hursh: DELIGANS, N. of ESQUIRE Bialick Avenue City, Oklahoma 73102 235-9584 rdeligans@dlb.net 1i 12 -and- 13 14 BLAKE SONNE, 15 REGGIE WHITTEN, ESQUIRE 16 HANNAH WHITTEN, ESQUIRE 17 MICHAEL BURRAGE, 18 Whitten Burrage 19 512 N. Broadway Avenue, Suite 20 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 21 (405) 22 bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com 23 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com 24 hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com 25 mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com ESQUIRE ESQUIRE (via Zoom) 300 516-7800 NAEGEL] | (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION &TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 58, "p": 20, "t": "KATHY RESS August 28, 2026 100762 APPEARANCES Appearing on behalf State Farm Fire LANCE LEFFEL, and of the (CONTINUED) Defendants, Casualty Co, et al.: ESQUIRE GableGotwals 499 W. Sheridan Avenue, Suite Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 10 2200 235-5500 lieffel@gablelaw.com 11 12 -and- 13 14 ERICA 15 Redgrave 16 230 17 Chicago, 18 (312) 19 ezolner@redgravellip.com B. W. ZOLNER, ESQUIRE LLP Monroe Street, Illinois Suite 210 60606 800-1968 20 21 22 23 24 25 NAEGELI|! (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 58, "p": 21, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August 28, APPEARANCES Appearing on State Farm Fire TIFFANY L. Alston & Bird 1201 W. Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30309 (404) 10 behalf of and POWERS, the 2026 (CONTINUED) Defendants, Casualty Co, et al.: (via Zoom) ESQUIRE LLP 881-4249 tiffany.powers@alston.com 11 12 Also Present: 13 Mark Romano, 14 Walter Haskins, Expert 15 Autumn Hobbs, Assistant, 16 Jess Bryan, Expert Naegeli Witness Witness Whitten (via Zoom) Law Firm Technician 17 18 19 20 ai 22 23 24 25 NAEGEL] | (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 58, "p": 22, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August 28, BXAMINATION 2026 INDEX PAGE EAAMINATION BY MR. DELIGANS 11 EXAMINATION BY MR. LEFFEL 337 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. DELIGANS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NAEGELI (800) DEPOSITION & TRIAL NAEGELIUSA.COM 528-3335 344"}, {"d": 58, "p": 23, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August 28, EXHIBIT 2026 INDEX EXHIBIT PAGE IM TEXT 208 SUB PROTOCAL 219 EMAIL WH TRENDS 211 10 SF POWERPOINT 223 12 HOSIERGAR 341 13 SUB PROTOTAL282 231 10 15 SEO CLAIM 95 Li 16 EMAIL Q3 105 12 18 FWH PLAYBOOK DRAFT 352 13 19 HERBERT EMAIL 139 14 22 OVP SUMMARY 239 15 24 AWC ROADMAP 235 16 31 HAUS EMAIL 285 17 32 MAC 306 18 35 REP ROOF REPAIR 299 19 36 MAC PRESENTATION 325 20 39 WATKINS V SF 73 21 40 HAAG MORATIRUM 73 22 41 HAAG EMAILS 276 23 42 COMP ROOFS 277 24 43 COMP SHINGLES 279 25 58 FME WATER WIND HAIL NAEGEL] | (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM 318"}, {"d": 58, "p": 24, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August EXHIBIT 28, INDEX 2026 (CONTINUED) EXHIBIT PAGE 61 PP WIND 62 USB EXHIBIT 65 CERT POLICY 78 SEO 86 HAIL DATA 136 PLACEHOLDER 185 266 POINTS 218 EMAIL HOLLOWAY 168 88 EXEC SUMMARY 168 10 89 QUAL FOCUS 2019 11 90 HAIL DAMAGE ARTICLE 12 91 ROOF PROTOCOL ocred 13 95 HANDWRITTEN DECK 243 ocred NOTE 15 CERTIFIED QUESTIONS 18 PAGE 145, LINES 6-9 19 PAGE 159, LINES 13-21 20 PAGE 255, LINES 4-10 17 al 22 23 24 25 NAEGEL] | (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL 194 166 14 16 188 | NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 58, "p": 25, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 ND going on WD operations what's going me of August see I want to these Hursh folks. I want I'm going to that claim file. them. what's been going on A. Well, I had a in shouldn't reason to go be going in the see what's to see go look into claim and True? claim file file. And generally I didn't -- there wasn't an escalated complaint to I wasn't involved in that, didn't at time oversee over 12 you 13 a 14 never me. the their 11 -- was a vice president mean to condescending. I say there don't wasn't ordered happened you complaint to give deposition. Correct. 16 Q. Your lawyers 17 having to give a 18 before in your life, 19 A. No. 20 Q. Am 21 A. You 22 Q. Okay. And this is escalated, 24 your your to you, That's correct? fought deposition. to keep That's you from never happened correct? correct? are professional MR. When escalated before, I be an A. 23 the claims. Q. judge or 15 25 59 saying, with I 2026 from on unless 10 with 28, correct. so the when you most escalation you've Isn't true? career. LEFFEL: Objection, say it that hasn't form. NAEGELI || (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM been had in"}, {"d": 58, "p": 26, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August that's that BY a 60 You can MR. DELIGANS: On a claim, this is good objection, by the way. I'1l sustain MR. LEFFEL: ahead. your insureds, -- Thanks. DELIGANS: Q. On the most career, to a claim from claim have oath testimony L1 isn't that to our Court and Same objection. You can 14 THE DEPONENT: 17 BY I wasn't MR. that this in your chair and give jury in Oklahoma; under- true? 13 involved had in LEFFEL: 16 you've sit MR. me. of to 12 15 one escalated 10 in go -- any my of ahead. This teams, the claim to claim my did not come to knowledge, were not handling. DELIGANS: 18 Q. This claim, the 19 Oklahoma said that you have 20 testify on in this 21 this the most 22 in your 23 in a chair and give 24 jury. True or false? 25 2026 one. MR. is go 28, is claim, a judge in knowledge that you can claim. I'm you simply, escalated a professional MR. Hursh LEFFEL: career, sworn asking claim for has you testimony ever gotten to have to sit to our Court and Form, NAEGEL] | (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 58, "p": 27, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August knowledge BY MR. ahead. THE DEPONENT: of this I 61 2026 don't have any personal claim. DELIGANS: Q. I question. little or Go 28, True -- false having didn't ask or that. false. Answer my I'm going to give you a we were kids we had true this you remember tests? True or false, in the chair and to sit when this chair Court, ordering you to 12 most escalated claim that 13 of? True or false. 14 MR. LEFFEL: 15 Go ahead. 16 THE DEPONENT: 18 BY DELIGANS: that Oklahoma 11 I have finding the and time you actually deposition, first and judge your 17 claim a 10 MR. Okay? be in you've ever Objection, It been is Supreme today is been a part that is form. true, the -- 19 Q. All right. 20 A. -- deposed on 21 Q. All right. Now, based on your training, 22 background, experience when you were a 23 handler, 24 faith? 25 A. and a specific what was your working So from a good faith claim. definition perspective, NAEGEL] | (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM claims of good it's the"}, {"d": 58, "p": 28, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August Q. Because wouldn't BY MR. that 28, would be 158 egregious bad faith, it? MR. LEFFEL: Go ahead. Objection, form. DELIGANS: Q. Wouldn't A. I disagree that and what say, which -- it? and with how what you're I disagree Q. I'm 11 A. Because you haven't Ma'am, it's my not you're characterizing trying to get me with. 10 12 2026 trying -showed me the deposition. I don't document. 13 Q. 14 to. 15 kinds 16 around, 17 questions. I can of impeach things. but 18 you And so with I documents. know this is I can first I provide I'm going to ask my question one I'm going to move to sanction State 20 Farm and you for not answering 21 going to do that with Judge 22 to an answer to my question. So going to ask it objection, and let anybody 24 him make 25 of the an table I'm tell go- testimony, time, 23 all provide more get do your 19 then have you not my question, Palumbo, to one answer and I'm and I'm more time, let this side it, on okay? NAEGELI|! (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION &TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM going to"}, {"d": 58, "p": 29, "t": "KATHY RESS August 28, 2026 153 100762 and the MR. LEFFEL: So MR. DELIGANS: MR. LEFFEL: I object to the soliloquy even know what -I don't that means. with your intimidate do anyone. was I'm to just saying trying what y'all Judge Palumbo will be attached as Exhibit going to ask more time, know, I want you 11 24, of witness conduct. 12 BY MR. DELIGANS: 15 not what which because I'm witness her transcript, 14 this provide the Q. intimidate DELIGANS: 10 13 to statements. MR. didn't -- so I have it. I want to look into the camera and I want to know, 16 Farm in fact behind the scenes in executive 17 meetings is analyzing the 18 the of 218 million dollars of employing 19 outcome-based claims handling, should our people 20 the State of Oklahoma hold a1 for that kind of MR. LEFFEL: 22 23 question. to 300 impact conduct? one on And tune I'm said to the State Farm Yes no. Objection or to if to State summary company Go ahead. 25 THE DEPONENT: I don't have in accountable the form of context of Foundation. 24 to NAEGELI |! (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM the"}, {"d": 58, "p": 30, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 what August you're referencing. 28, 2026 You mentioned specific information. You're document there. not this quality experience errors, and I am claim has we're uphold with going to our MR. question. 10 I move to sanction 11 sanction 12 question. with her 16 BY MR. did is right and if that my we make put the -- policyholder. that certify didn't the question. to move witness for refusing to answer my Objection to the saying it's inconsistent on her personal knowledge. question whether it was you if it it and get one you're like pre- provide, experience a directly I based commentary. DELIGANS: 17 Q. That wasn't 18 consistent or inconsistent. 19 happened. Do you want to 20 try? I don't even know, Or my I asked answer more not. A, 21 in everything right, to -- Farm our All sharing orally. LEFFEL: 15 to -- Farm MR. witness it in some State as The make I move you a and State DELIGANS: my 14 involved commitment answer 13 showing handling, been 160 22 supposing something with 23 providing a document or 24 perspective of 25 you're very being what information background, without and to the feel you're trying to do, I oppressive with me and I'm NAEGELI | (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM not like —"}, {"d": 58, "p": 31, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August 2026 what you're trying Q. I'm not trying to the truth. All I'm not trying, I'm trying WW © here. OFF: BD understanding but with 161 get I have is to get me to you to say anything say. a little pencil being aggressive nobody's over you. HO 10 28, to understand. This is a cross-examination of a witness that the Oklahoma Supreme Court had to order come here. I'm to get answers to my questions, and you're refusing to answer sanctions under the to them. me And so there are case, Hicks versus Epworth and I'm going State Farm an 12 versus 13 the Court 14 them against 15 answer my question. It's 16 admit the obvious. Everybody HCA can 17 employ, you and And so just if 18 question, I'm 19 off I can move 20 again or do you so MR. 21 22 commentary. 23 to 24 attempting 25 personal the trying I you're be that seeking your failure question. knows. refusing to answer that get you one more time to on. you want me to it want Do to me move Once again, object to the threats, that this the question ask on? LEFFEL: answer I object DEPOSITION & TRIAL to the and we object witness is not based on knowledge. NAEGELI to Just giving characterization to to for easy Villa, Shin (800) 528-3335 NAEGELIUSA.COM her"}, {"d": 58, "p": 32, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August MR. I would notice DELIGANS: 28, 2026 I'm not making threats, and I'm putting everyone on never make of the authority as could be Hicks sanction threats. under 162 required and of what the under the Shin cases. on MR. LEFFEL: MR. DELIGANS: So everybody of it, because we have out-of-state know about notice I under -- here is on -- lawyers in here. I know you 10 letting everybody know of what the 11 be. And just letting this witness -- 12 her another chance. If she's -- that's the best 13 she's going to just tell me that's the best I'm 14 going to do, Ryan. MR. LEFFEL: We respectfully disagree with characterization of the to answer I'm 15 16 your 17 witness and do, her effort 18 You can 19 THE DEPONENT: 20 question, 21 BY MR. 22 go it, but I'm consequences can I'm forthrightness giving of this questions. ahead. Could you restate the please? DELIGANS: Q. Yes. If in fact Farm provided in executive State Farm's 23 State 24 specifically state 25 outcome-based claims internal handling documents summaries implementation and indicators NAEGEL] | (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL at | NAEGELIUSA.COM of of"}, {"d": 58, "p": 33, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 So on the record DD WD where it says it Fe we don't waste your Ww fine. to set that aside. A. All of these? Q. The ones we policy A. 12 specifically. 13 Q. 15 was all right? Okay, just went tell me who the Accenture, and I forgot? did with okay? think we the point discussed the point of that with the FME? A. I don't know specifically who the was because the most -- point of contact with involved in the work. Who the -- who was Accenture, A. to I don't your know of can dealing -- was you on we So was I who -- through jury it Q. 22 policy, and when 18 with the time, Court Accenture I wasn't 21 in going And 17 20 anywhere I'm Okay. point with our I don't 16 19 show you 11 with to Now, contact 14 lawyers yes. 10 281 your conditions, Oo wo challenge 2026 SNH That's 28, ~] Q. August Accenture was contact involved knowledge? who was directly involved Accenture. Q. Okay. You had direct involvement with 23 them, because we've seen the emails that have 24 back and with you and someone named Patrick, 25 and others. forth NAEGEL] | (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM gone"}, {"d": 58, "p": 34, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 RO Related specific W pe A. work if came vice 28, 2026 this set of I was not involved you're referencing. to because that's Q. mm OF -- August what Speaking of the Q. -- to go after of operations, it. Whose Go ahead. 12 THE DEPONENT: that, Objection, was it of -- of 14 talk brainchild of FME. 15 BY how you're a this? form. have of to clearly I don't knowledge MR. -- you're brainchild 13 about who I mean, -- 11 -- FME. don't LEFFEL: -~- whose the I MR. FME Farm A. what the State concept 10 in at this with which who with involved work, FME, up president 282 personal started when you DELIGANS: 16 Q. 17 whether you 18 ever on notice 19 this was 20 Scott's al the Okay. Do you -- do you know of personal knowledge or not, were or hear from every anyone that Nicole's idea or idea? Who as you the FME? have concept of 22 A. general 23 concept is 24 we were having 25 in that, My I don't by was the is states. -- know. don't -- it came is it Who was | NAEGELIUSA.COM you or up -- trends NAEGEL] | (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION &TRIAL -- idea reinspection specific I Tom's understand knowledge pre-dated in this -- any with that that involved"}, {"d": 58, "p": 35, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 HO answered WY it ~~ Q. Hursh be August 28, 2026 ask question 339 Okay. And -- probably already answered, to say you had involvement no involvement you accurate a no that you but would in the claim? A. I've had Q. Did I understand your testimony you were not a member of the fire correct. I was not a course of your told us your areas of about work you in the Hursh oO that oe ~JI claim, enhancement 10 A. 11 sponsor 12 Q. 13 deposition, 14 focus were, 15 were 16 That is that work. of During the given what you've were you not involved in? A. Most of the questions not work -- about work you Okay. were 18 involved 19 Q. 20 during a1 A. I Q. Were 25 asked questions today member nor I was not directly review a number of documents of deposition in in. Did the course was your handed a lot of seen never A, you before Yes, I shown today? documents documents that today, documents I you had today? received had NAEGEL] | (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL a I received yes. 23 24 model team? 17 22 correctly | NAEGELIUSA.COM not seen --"}, {"d": 58, "p": 36, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August 28, 2026 340 before. Q. Were seen because State Farm? A. -- my was they they There name documents weren't were at in the documents that I may wasn't area of focus. Q. Were you shown haven't 12 you on the 13 author of? 14 A. 15 most 16 recollection. 17 Q. of the My work. have seen At not only did but that you were -- there documents I was you had never 19 as, show me 20 X, did 21 not you were shown seen before and the they not the I I believe of, to -- that -- author and asked questions document where you feel you were given adequate review the document 22 answer the questions? 23 A. 24 adequate 25 deposition, There was only one time time, and that was in but throughout understand I the I was -- NAEGEL] | (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL it says time it and I received not | NAEGELIUSA.COM my such beginning urged not were documents could it have this you I not in so My but that anywhere like at Farm, meeting today -- 18 a have I received documents there When State times attended and distribution, Yes, seen. role involved you role never not only your I've them. 11 to wouldn't documents on 10 you related wasn't my that of to the look to"}, {"d": 58, "p": 37, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 at August 28, 2026 Exhibit 12 341 it. (WHEREUPON, was marked ask you for identification.) BY MR. LEFFEL: Q. Okay. I want to just about document you were shown, and I'll give you because I'm such a good boy, but it's Exhibit Do you remember reviewing Exhibit 12 today? A. Yeah, we talked about -- a 12 10 Exhibit 11 Q. Is Exhibit a one my copy 12. portion of 12. a 12 you having a conversation 13 up. What is Exhibit 14 A. It -- 15 conversation that 16 Q. it 17 instant 18 A. 19 absolute 20 Q. Is conversation -- with let -- well, -- a very who were me back 12? Exhibit 12 I had is with a transcript a brief Nicole Manduca. of we what refer to as messaging? Yeah, -- it 21 about 22 Can 23 conversation, 24 conversation? 25 A. you -- an informal instant message, yes. Well, this was there's been a lot of document in this deposition can tell us, as So you what's the this a is context discussion and a participant of this conversation that NAEGELI|| (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM I others. to shared that"}, {"d": 58, "p": 38, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August earlier in -- responsible in my for 28, 2026 responses 342 today that various executive this I reached out and in I was -- she was a mentee of mine, have her work prepared to present And it comes my mentoring relationship her where and -- and skills, and giving 10 to 11 had be in case from I was develop front her of an opportunity 12 Q. And the way 13 conversation, are there 14 where Manduca is she 16 Q. But generally it -- or who's document, 18 speaker 19 message? 20 A. Yeah, 21 Nicole Manduca and 22 Q. Okay. On uses some casual to 25 discussed see in it -- instant here and the her to would Executive. helping grow communication an opportunity team that my recollection. she document certain -- are -- to throughout the does to it writing hasn't reports there identify my the lines question. course who of the the the instant chat very clear. It's between one the it's an to responds 17 24 frankly -- Nicole. speaking? Yeah, that a that A. 23 in before, 15 is her her to asking specifically executive that Ms. was organizing meetings, she I I. of or like you would that has been proceedings is language message, in comments other NAEGEL] | (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION &TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM lines the expect line"}, {"d": 58, "p": 39, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 BY in out MR. a August Q. Okay. A. But So 346 I'm -- not directly substantive nature, Q. Who Right. her to A. lead My executive reached the who 10 A. And ll recollection 12 Q. Okay. And -- 13 A. It it's the came Wendy Mazza. managers I was a conversation claim 15 them reporting to Q. right. All You that -- that there. to I 14 think pile 19 Q. Yes. 21 A Did 22 Q. I 23 A Okay. 24 Q. All 25 document norms on Now, this In you -- in of FME, to reach FME from Jones, but with Wendy at State projects the my Mazza. Farm that other than pull up Exhibit 16 over here? While you're looking for that, ma'am 20 you did, say 16? ma'tam. I just right. earlier -- you. it. A. Greg worked have 18 creation out is were And? -- in FME? - recollection sponsors involved design, Q. 17 2026 DELIGANS: to 16 28, found We've today. it at talked It's your the bottom. about this testimony NAEGEL] | (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION &TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM to our"}, {"d": 59, "p": 1, "t": "FILED DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA September 14, 2026 4:44 PM IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, = “OOPRECaseMORALES, COURT CLERK Number CJ-2025-135 ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND DEPOSITION PROTOCOL GOVERNING COUNSEL’S CONDUCT AT DEPOSITIONS"}, {"d": 59, "p": 2, "t": "Plaintiffs’ Response to State Farm’s Motion for Deposition Protocol cites no case, statute, rule, or any other authority barring the Court from entering State Farm’s proposed Deposition Protocol as written. In fact, Plaintiffs do not even address the Protocol’s provisions. Nor do they seriously argue that Mr. Whitten’s behavior at Ms. Manduca’s deposition was appropriate. Instead, Plaintiffs hang their hat on a baseless contention that counsel’s conduct was justified because Ms. Manduca was a “hostile and unresponsive witness.” (See Pls.’ Resp. at 1.) But neither the Local Rules nor the OBA’s Standards of Professionalism excuse violations based on a witness’s alleged unresponsiveness, though the record does not bear out the contention in any event. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s recent inappropriate behavior at Ms. Ress’s deposition—including repeatedly threatening, interrupting, and belittling the witness—further solidifies that Plaintiffs’ counsel do not believe the civility rules apply to them, and confirms why this Protocol is necessary. I. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR COUNSEL’S MISCONDUCT. As an initial matter, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s misconduct at Ms. Manduca’s deposition cannot be justified. In its Protocol Motion, State Farm identified numerous examples of that misconduct, quoting directly from the deposition transcript. No “context” permits such behavior. Neither Local Rule 28 nor the Standards of Professionalism allow a questioning attorney to interrupt, shout at, or threaten a witness, accuse a witness of lying for disagreeing with counsel’s theory of the case, or prevent a witness from providing context for her answers. The transcript, submitted with State Farm’s Protocol Motion, speaks for itself. And, Plaintiffs’ failure to address the specific misconduct quoted in State Farm’s motion is telling. Having no argument that Mr. Whitten’s behavior was proper, Plaintiffs copy and paste from their Motion for Sanctions to suggest that his conduct was justified because Ms. Manduca was “unresponsive.” But, as State Farm explained in its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ procedurally improper Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiffs have not identified—and cannot identify—-a single question that 1"}, {"d": 59, "p": 3, "t": "Ms. Manduca failed to answer.' (See Opp. at 10-12.) The same is true here: Plaintiffs’ three purported examples of Ms. Manduca’s “unresponsive[ness]” omit context showing that she properly answered each question. (See id.) In any event, Plaintiffs’ continued insistence that their counsel’s misconduct was somehow “justified” only underscores the necessity of a Protocol to prevent further disputes over counsel’s misconduct in any additional depositions in this matter. Ii. STATE FARM IS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE A BAR COMPLAINT OR MOVE FOR SANCTIONS BEFORE REQUESTING A PROTOCOL. Plaintiffs’ “legal” argument—that State Farm cannot ask the Court to enter a Deposition Protocol unless it first files a bar complaint or moves for sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel (see Pls.’ Resp. at 9-12)—is baseless. Plaintiffs cite no authority requiring State Farm to pursue either course before seeking a protocol to govern depositions. Nor is there any authority preventing a party from alerting the Court about deposition misconduct before seeking sanctions.” There is no authority because that is not the law. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3226(C), the Court, upon good cause shown, “may enter any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, harassment, embarrassment, oppression or undue delay, burden, or expense,” including an order specifying “that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and ' As set forth in State Farm’s Opposition, counsel’s questions regarding inapplicable, hypothetical legal scenarios are improper, and Ms. Manduca was not required to answer such questions. (See Opp. at 8-10); see also Miller y. Vill. of Pinckney, No. A 07-CV-10928-DT, 2008 WL 4190619, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 9, 2008) (denying “Plaintiff’s request to have Defendant appear at another deposition” where the Defendant purportedly failed to answer incomplete hypotheticals, reasoning that “[q]uestions based upon facts not established or an incomplete statement of the facts are not proper”); Howira v. New York City Health and Hosp. Corp., 249 A.D. 3d 506, 507 (N.Y. App. Div. 2026) (denying motion for sanctions for refusal to answer questions invoking “hypothetical scenarios not before the deponents”). ? Ironically, in the very brief in which Plaintiffs insist on such a prerequisite, they accuse State Farm’s counsel of misconduct in other depositions (although neither they nor any other plaintiff has moved for sanctions or filed any bar complaint against State Farm’s counsel). (See Pls.’ Resp. at 12~14.) If, as Plaintiffs insist, a party cannot allege attorney misconduct before filing a bar complaint or motion for sanctions, their Response should be stricken for that very reason. In all events, they have no examples of even remotely parallel conduct."}, {"d": 59, "p": 4, "t": "conditions.” 12 O.S. § 3226(C) (emphasis added); see also 12 O.S. § 3226.1. If Plaintiffs’ flawed argument was correct, no court could enter an order protecting a defendant’s trade secrets until the plaintiff affirmatively disclosed the critical information to a competitor or enter any order protecting a third-party’s personal identifying information until after the information was already disseminated. A motion for sanctions, like a bar complaint, is a separate post hoc procedure for addressing misconduct: it does not prevent the Court from adopting well-settled procedures to avoid the harm before it occurs. That is why courts across the country, applying the analogous Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,’ have entered similar deposition protocols. (See Protocol Motion at 11-12.) Despite Plaintiffs’ overwrought rhetoric, there is nothing “self-serving” or “weaponized” about the proposed Protocol. (See Pls.’ Resp. at 12.) State Farm seeks a protective order and deposition protocol—rather than sanctions or a bar complaint—to lower the already heated temperature created by Ms. Manduca’s deposition, and to avoid further disputes and discourteous and abusive treatment of witnesses caused by counsel’s conduct. Like protocols entered by courts across the country, the Protocol simply requires counsel to comply with existing law governing witness questioning, deposition instructions, and the use of exhibits. Plaintiffs’ apparent belief that those requirements somehow advantage State Farm only confirms why the Protocol is necessary: to prevent the same issues from recurring at each subsequent deposition in this case.’ 3 Because “(t]he Oklahoma Discovery Code mirrors the Federal rules,” Meritor, Inc. vy, State ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma, 2019 OK CIV APP 64, { 20 n.15, 451 P.3d 914, 922 9.15, Oklahoma courts often look to “discovery procedures in the federal rules when construing similar language in the Oklahoma Discovery Code,” Crest infiniti, IL, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, 4 2, 174 P.3d 996, 999, 4 State Farm does not object to Plaintiffs’ request that depositions of State Farm witnesses “occur in the presence of [the Court]” (see Mot. at 12); but such an “alternative” proposal does not address one of the primary issues here—Plaintiffs’ counsel’s improper refusal to provide copies of exhibits to the deponent and to State Farm’s counsel. (See Protocol Motion at 17-20.) Thus, State Farm respectfully submits that entry of the Protocol is necessary regardless of a deposition’s location. 3"}, {"d": 59, "p": 5, "t": "IU. PLAINTIFFS’ UNSUPPORTED ACCUSATIONS OF MISCONDUCT AT OTHER DEPOSITIONS AND CONTINUED TRANSGRESSIONS FURTHER SUPPORT ENTRY OF A DEPOSITION PROTOCOL. Plaintiffs argue that any protocol would be “pointless” because State Farm’s counsel purportedly committed “blatant violations” of the Protocol in other depositions. makes no sense. That argument The proposed Protocol would bind all counsel, including State Farm’s. If Plaintiffs believe State Farm violated the Local Rules or the Bar’s Standards of Professionalism in other depositions or in other cases, they should have (1) objected to the purportedly improper questions at those depositions; and (2) raised those issues in the proper course. That they failed to do so until their own counsel was accused of misconduct is telling as are the de minimis examples provided. But in any event, Plaintiffs’ accusations only reinforce the need for a Protocol. If further disputes over counsel’s conduct at depositions are likely, the Court should enter clear rules governing all counsel—rules State Farm’s counsel is prepared to follow.> Moreover, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s continued intimidation and overly aggressive tactics during recent depositions demonstrate that they are unfazed by State Farm’s request for a Protocol and further underscores the need for one to be entered in this matter. For example, at the recent deposition of Ms. Ress on August 28th, Mr. Deligans repeatedly threatened Ms. Ress that he would > For example, Plaintiffs accuse State Farm’s counsel of “improper deposition conduct” in the Lorraine Hall case because counsel, “after being charged with bullying,” asked the deponent whether she believed she was being “bullied.” (See Pls.’ Resp. at 12-13.) Plaintiffs, however, omit that the deponent could not identify a single example of the supposed “bullying” by State Farm’s counsel. (See, e.g., id. at Ex. 3, Tr. at 214:8-18 (“Q. Are you alleging that I asked you the same question multiple times? A. Yes. Q. Which question did I ask you multiple times? A. 1 can’t pinpoint that.”).) In addition, Plaintiffs accuse State Farm’s counsel of pursuing “intrusive lines of questioning” at Mr. West’s deposition (see Pls.’ Resp. at 13) but they omit that counsel legitimately asked a question about Plaintiffs’ finances without objection from Plaintiffs’ own counsel. (See id. at Ex. 4, Ty, at 209:25~210:14.) And although Plaintiffs now claim counsel “interrupted” Mr. West, they identify only two examples, neither of which drew an objection at the time. (See id. at 60:12-13; 61:9-11.) Finally, Plaintiffs accuse State Farm’s counsel of “harassing, shouting, and interrupting” in the Weichbrodt case but provide no evidence supporting their accusations. Instead, they represent that the deposition transcript is “not available” such that they “cannot provide specific deposition transcript citations at this time.” (See Pls.’ Resp. at 13 n.4.) 4"}, {"d": 59, "p": 6, "t": "move for sanctions and call Judge Palumbo to join the proceeding when he didn’t get the answer he wanted. (See Ex. 1, Ress Dep. at p. 145, 158-164, 255-256.) Mr. Deligans also repeatedly interrupted and cut off Ms. Ress’s testimony before she had completed her answer, asserting that he could do so before she even finished speaking because Ms. Ress’s answers were “not responsive.” (Id. at p. 122, 233-234, 251-252, 293.) And Mr. Deligans improperly pressed Ms. Ress to answer an unsupported hypothetical, then threatened to certify the question and seek — sanctions when she explained she lacked any context to answer. After he continued to harangue her to “give it one more try,” she testified: “I feel like you’re being very oppressive with me and I’m not understanding what you’re trying to get me to say.” (/d at p. 158:13-161:1.) Instead of moving on, Mr. Deligans’ humiliation of Ms. Ress only intensified when he decided to write his question on a legal pad with a “check-the-box” of one box for yes, and one box for no, and attempted to force Ms. Ress to hold up the piece of paper for the camera and a future jury, even after she declined to do so. (Ud. at 161:2-168:9.) Additional examples of Plaintiffs’ inappropriate behavior that this Court should consider is excerpted in Exhibit 1. These examples only underscore that Plaintiffs’ counsel continued misbehavior supports that the Court grant the Protocol Motion and enter the proposed Protocol. 0.) s8: ROTHER,O A #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunievy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com"}, {"d": 59, "p": 7, "t": "ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY AND NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by US. Mail, postage prepaid, this 14th day of September, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John 8. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505"}, {"d": 59, "p": 9, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE BILLY and COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, Vv. STATE MARK D. Case No.: FARM FIRE AND WELTY; CASUALTY and MARK INSURANCE AGENCY, D. CJ-2025-2626 COMPANY; WELTY INC., (800) 528 - 3335 NAEGELIUSA.COM VIDEOTAPED a” ationwidle) DEPOSITION OF KATHY RESS COURT REPORTING LEGAL VIDEOGRAPHY TAKEN ON REMOTE DEPOSITIONS FRIDAY, TRIAL PRESENTATION AUGUST 28, 2026 9:18 A.M. LEGAL TRANSCRIPTION COPYING AND SCANNING 201 BROADWAY LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS NORMAL, NAEGEL] | (8909) 528-3335 LITIGATION #7 SUPPORT | aati ILLINOIS DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM > 61761"}, {"d": 59, "p": 10, "t": "KATHY RESS August 28, 2026 100762 APPBRARANCES Appearing on Billy Lacy R. and RYAN Durbin Larimore 920 Harvey N. (405) of the Plaintiffs, Hursh: DELIGANS, Oklahoma 10 behalf ESQUIRE Bialick Avenue City, Oklahoma 73102 235-9584 rdeligans@dlb.net ii 12 -and- 13 14 BLAKE SONNE, 15 REGGIE WHITTEN, ESQUIRE 16 HANNAH WHITTEN, ESQUIRE 17 MICHAEL BURRAGE, 18 Whitten Burrage 19 512 N. Broadway Avenue, Suite 20 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 al (405) 22 bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com 23 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com 24 hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com 25 mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com ESQUIRE ESQUIRE (via Zoom) 300 516-7800 NAEGEL] | (890) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 59, "p": 11, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August 28, APPEARANCES Appearing on behalf State Farm Fire LANCE LEFFEL, of and the 2026 (CONTINUED) Defendants, Casualty Co, et al.: ESQUIRE GableGotwals 499 W. Sheridan Avenue, Suite City, Oklahoma 73102 Oklahoma (405) 10 2200 235-5500 lieffelegablelaw.com 11 12 -and- 13 14 ERICA 15 Redgrave 16 230 17 Chicago, 18 (312) 19 ezolner@redgravelip.com B. W. ZOLNER, ESQUIRE LLP Monroe Street, Illinois Suite 210 60606 800-1968 20 21 22 23 24 25 er (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 59, "p": 12, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August 28, APPEARANCES Appearing State Farm TIFFANY L. Alston 1201 & behalf Fire and POWERS, Bird of (CONTINUED) the Defendants, Casualty Co, et al.: (via Zoom) ESQUIRE LLP W. Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30309 (404) 10 on 2026 881-4249 tiffany.powers@alston.com il 12 Also Present: 13 Mark Romano, 14 Walter Haskins, Expert 15 Autumn Hobbs, Assistant, 16 Jess Bryan, Expert Naegeli Witness Witness Whitten (via Zoom) Law Firm Technician 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 LI | (800) 528-3335 NAEGE DEPOSITION &TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 59, "p": 13, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August 28, EXAMINATION 2026 INDEX PAGE EXAMINATION BY MR. DELIGANS 11 EXAMINATION BY MR. LEFFEL 337 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. DELIGANS © 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NAEGEL] | (8909) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM 344"}, {"d": 59, "p": 14, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August 28, EXHIBIT 2026 INDEX EXHIBIT PAGE 4 IM TEXT 208 5 §UB PROTOCAL 219 7 EMAIL 211 10 SF POWERPOINT 223 12 HOSIERGAR 341 13 SUB PROTOTAL282 231 10 15 SEO CLAIM 95 11 16 EMAIL 105 12 18 FWH PLAYBOOK DRAFT 352 13 19 HERBERT 139 14 22 OVP SUMMARY 239 15 24 AWC ROADMAP 235 16 31 HAUS EMAIL 285 17 32 MAC 306 18 35 REP ROOF REPAIR 299 19 36 MAC 325 20 39 WATKINS 21 40 HAAG MORATIRUM 73 22 Al HAAG EMAILS 276 23 42 COMP ROOFS 277 24 43 COMP SHINGLES 279 25 58 FME WATER WIND HAIL 318 WH TRENDS Q3 EMAIL PRESENTATION V SF 73 NAEGEL]| (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION &TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 59, "p": 15, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August EXHIBIT 28, INDEX 2026 (CONTINUED) EXHIBIT PAGE 61 PP 62 USB EXHIBIT 65 CERT POLICY 78 SEO DATA 86 WIND 136 HAIL PLACEHOLDER 185 266 POINTS 218 EMAIL HOLLOWAY 168 88 EXEC SUMMARY 168 10 89 QUAL FOCUS 2019 11 90 HAIL DAMAGE ARTICLE 12 91 ROOF PROTOCOL 13 95 HANDWRITTEN CERTIFIED QUESTIONS 18 PAGE 145, LINES 6-9 19 PAGE 159, LINES 13-21 20 PAGE 255, LINES 4-10 DECK 243 ocred ocred 15 17 21 22 23 24 25 NAEGEL] | (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION &oTRIAL 194 166 NOTE 14 16 188 | NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 59, "p": 16, "t": "August reduced to 2.5 to Oo a improved 122 is an quality -- A. I dontt know it an indicator improved quality. those is indicator one of Oklahoma brain was working slow, I guess. wasn't question. here it's an indicator that there It improved says quality, correct. indicator It's 11 Q. Ma'am, cut you that off, an but the document, I -- said 13 MS. ZOLLNER: 14 MR. DELIGANS: responsive, He 17 MR. LEFFEL: 18 MR. DELIGANS: 19 MS. ZOLNER: Yeah. 20 MR. DELIGANS: -~-- We're of -- that -- don't mean to he wouldn't. I wouldn't if you're okay? something 22 That I I said Was question. Southeast and said 16 21 my of It's my times of Q. A. 15 2026 ratio 10 12 28, 1 wm ~! KATHY RESS 100762 funny? Why don't No, we I'm going finish What is funny then? giggling down at the take my to -- -- my Is something end of the weren't 23 MS. POWERS: Oh, no, we 24 MS. ZOLNER: No, we weren't 25 MS. POWERS: We weren't funny? table. -- giggling. NAEGELI || (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION | NAEGELIUSA.COM & TRIAL a break. giggling."}, {"d": 59, "p": 17, "t": "KATHY RESS August 28, 145 2026 100762 A. -- knowledge provides what Okay. Are you more time, and question for Judge Palumbo. Do you in before June Exhibit you the agree 19 where forwarded it of 10 MR. LEFFEL: 11 Go ahead. 12 THE DEPONENT: the -- based 14 to send it on, and 15 Wensley in the group 16 BY certify the is put under it says \"Fire Weather on to Wensley the I Objection your Ress\" Herbert on I to form. forwarded the document qualified individuals who were relied on that to with it or my recollection forward it to is I summary. DELIGANS: So did you agree 18 A. I would -- I would no concerns 19 had 20 personal 22 question 23 BY MR. with knowledge 21 that ask what Mr. to to going Q. 25 going I'm 17 24 I'm '21? 13 MR. then with 23rd on personal finished? one name my is. Q. you that the and MR. DELIGANS: for Judge -- document. That's my at this time. going to certify to the recollection I'm not? my Palumbo. DELIGANS: Q. Okay. So when you go you had concerns with but no in won't document agree NAEGELI | (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM that"}, {"d": 59, "p": 18, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August Q. Because wouldn't BY MR. that 28, would be 158 egregious bad faith, it? MR. LEFFEL: Go ahead. Objection, form. DELIGANS: Q. Wouldn't A. I that and what say, which I disagree 10 Q. I'm not 11 A. Because you haven't Ma'am, it's my 12 2026 it? disagree -- and with how you're what you're characterizing trying to get me have to with. trying -showed me the deposition. I don't document. 13 Q. 14 to. I can 15 kinds 16 around, 17 questions. of impeach things. but you And 18 with I documents. know this is I can your first I'm going to ask my question one I'm going to move to sanction State so 20 Farm and you for not answering 21 going to do that with Judge 22 to an answer to question. So I'm going to ask it an objection, and let anybody him make 25 of the then I provide time, 24 table go- testimony, more 23 ail provide 19 get do tell my you not my question, Palumbo, to one answer & TRIAL I'm and I'm more time, let this side it, on okay? NAEGEL]I | (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION and | NAEGELIUSA.COM going"}, {"d": 59, "p": 19, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 and August the MR. LEFFEL: MR. DELIGANS: MR. LEFFEL: 28, So I 2026 159 object to the soliloquy even know what -I don't that means. with your intimidate do DELIGANS: anyone. was saying to what y'all Judge Palumbo will be attached as Exhibit going to ask more time, to know, I want you 11 24, of witness conduct. 12 BY MR. DELIGANS: 15 just trying what which because witness her transcript, 14 this provide the Q. intimidate I'm not I'm 10 13 to statements. MR. didn't -- so I have it. I want look into the camera and I want to know, 16 Farm in fact behind the scenes in executive 17 meetings is analyzing the 18 the of 218 million dollars of employing 19 outcome-based handling, should our people 20 the State of Oklahoma a1 for that kind of MR. LEFFEL: 22 23 question. to 300 claims impact hold conduct? one on And tune I'm said to the State Farm Yes no. or Objection to if to State summary company Go ahead. 25 THE DEPONENT: I don't the have in accountable form of context of Foundation. 24 to NAEGELI|! (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM the"}, {"d": 59, "p": 20, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 what August you're referencing. 2026 You mentioned specific information. You're document there. not this quality experience errors, and I claim has we're uphold am with going to our commitment MR. DELIGANS: I 10 I to sanction State 11 sanction witness 12 question. as MR. LEFFEL: 14 The witness 15 with her 16 BY MR. did a to move -- sharing -- in a directly everything that my Farm is if we make right and put the our -- policyholder. right, to that didn't certify the question. Farm orally. I move to for refusing to answer my to the saying it's inconsistent on her personal knowledge. question whether it was you if it it and get one you're like pre- based commentary. DELIGANS: 17 Q. That wasn't 18 consistent or inconsistent. 19 happened. Do you want to 20 try? don't even know, 21 in some Objection provide, experience it All question. you and make my 13 involved State answer move showing handling, been 160 28, Or my I asked answer more not. A. I 22 supposing something with 23 providing a document or 24 perspective of 25 you're very being what information background, without and to the feel you're trying to do, I oppressive with me and I'm NAEGELI|| (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM not like"}, {"d": 59, "p": 21, "t": "KATHY RESS August 28, 161 2026 100762 understanding what you're trying Q. I'm not trying to the truth. All I'm not trying, I'm trying but here. with 10 I have to get me to get you to say anything is little pencil being aggressive a nobody's say. over you. to understand. cross-examination of a Supreme Court had to order to get answers to my questions, to answer so there are case, Hicks versus Epworth and I'm going State Farm And 12 versus HCA 13 the Court 14 them against 15 answer my question. 16 admit the obvious. can 17 employ, you And so and a the Oklahoma here. I'm and you're refusing sanctions under the to if question, I'm just 19 off I can move 20 again or do you MR. 21 22 commentary. 23 to 24 attempting 25 personal I It's come trying to for easy be your that seeking failure question. knows. giving you one more time to you want me to it want Do me to move to answer ask that get on? LEFFEL: Once again, object to the threats, that this the to Just refusing on. answer Villa, Shin you're characterization to an Everybody 18 the that is them. Li so witness This question I object to the and we object witness is not based on knowledge. NAEGEL] | (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM her"}, {"d": 59, "p": 22, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August MR. I would DELIGANS: 28, 2026 I'm not making threats, and I'm putting everyone on never make of the authority as sanction could be Hicks and MR. LEFFEL: I under -- MR. DELIGANS: So everybody of it, we have notice threats. 162 under required of what the under the Shin cases. on notice because in 10 letting everybody 11 be. And 12 her another 13 she's going to 14 going to do, Ryan. MR. LEFFEL: We respectfully characterization of the to answer your 17 witness and know know I'm consequences can witness -- chance. If she's -- that's the best just tell me that's the best I'm disagree with do, her effort DEPONENT: 22 but this THE MR. it, letting 19 BY about just can 21 know the You question, -- what 18 20 you on of I'm 15 I is out-of-state lawyers 16 here. here go I'm forthrightness giving of this questions. ahead. Could you restate the please? DELIGANS: Q. Yes. If in fact Farm provided in executive 23 State 24 specifically state 25 outcome-based claims State internal Farm's handling documents at summaries implementation and indicators NAEGEL]I | (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM of of"}, {"d": 59, "p": 23, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 28, -- 218 million would be wrong and State accountable for that kind of NHN 2-point dollars, W] of be held Pe savings August that the commitment to 2026 policyholders, MR. LEFFEL: Go ahead. THE DEPONENT: 163 to 300 yes million Farm should conduct given or no. form and have the context made Objection, foundation. what you're I don't referencing again, because you If if, right, and personal you're 10 hypothesis. 11 knowledge I don't know what 12 It's an area of expertise. 13 BY not MR. -- my to my DELIGANS: Q. Is that 15 A. I'm trying 16 Q Is that your 17 A. -- based on what I understand 18 personal knowledge of what you're 19 Q. Is 20 A. Would you like 21 hypothesis and not sharing 22 understand it to 23 personal 24 Q. all a referencing. 14 25 of your that answer? to your give answer the question -- answer? it and my without a saying. answer? to the restate the it document proper so context I based on knowledge? You through -- you have all kinds this that you answered of hypothesis questions NAEGEL]| (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM for, my"}, {"d": 59, "p": 24, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 dwelling don't Fe wo no through Ww all August on it. have to have answer I'm not asked the question. You Your going not telling you not to answer, going to move not to. And so I and State Farm. all I do, and arrest you, am That's I all don't can't -- do to to. to but And so you question, I 13 I'll just let the 14 to on the robe. I'm 15 step into the shoes of put see. don't 12 So 16 you're sanction do. you I'm going to That's I'm not a policeman, anything like that, want answer the again, or do It's fine, if Judge deal with not going you not? to the that's I all how you feel. it. I'm not going to pretend the question want me to ask Because I'm ready to this -- move on. MR. LEFFEL: Again, 19 MR. DELIGANS: And I'm not a dissertation 20 Lance, I'm 21 I'm trying 22 don't 23 to not not argue move being to have to have an argument. on record, the and trying to -- here. You know me, I'm just trying forward. MR. 24 trying ever to Court. 18 25 keep right? 11 17 So choose choosing if 164 you aren't can 2026 papers. I lawyers can't 10 these 28, LEFFEL: respectful in I understand saying I disagree that. with NAEGEL | | (890) 528-3335 DEPOSITION &TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM I'm that just I"}, {"d": 59, "p": 25, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August characterization. you she's let's do This unable move to answer MR. DELIGANS: I'm going you to This Ryan. il questions. We're 12 responses to your 13 you, so make I'm basically question. telling And so we go, I know how to this as an exhibit to is going to put an area here. up for our Court and jury. And I'm going this LEFFEL: 10 a deposition not under required answers to to object, 3230 by oral give you written or to create exhibits for I'm not -- if you want but we're not I'm -- I'm using an hold it up for Court -- 14 MR. DELIGANS: 15 MR. LEFFEL: you can MR. DELIGANS: question 17 ask -it, I'm not to -- ask an oral going to -- exhibit. I want 19 20 jury. 21 a demonstrative 22 witness. I -- MS. 23 25 is the Here to and hold MR. 24 witness 165 on. deposition, TI want 18. 2026 this. your 16 28, just taking MR. you I have to a demonstrative exhibit ZOLNER: that I our exhibit -- to use with a copy so I want didn't get That's fine. a picture. DELIGANS: NAEGEL|| (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM and I have this I'm"}, {"d": 59, "p": 26, "t": "KATHY RESS August 28, 166 2026 100762 MS. any ZOLNER: I assumed you wouldn't have was marked for that up for the question. And would you point objections. MR. DELIGANS: (WHEREUPON, I don't. Exhibit 95 identification.) BY MR. DELIGANS: Q. camera 10 Would so the you jury please hold can see my you please zoom in on that, the correct answer on that MR. LEFFEL: answer oral Li 12 here to 13 create exhibits. not -- Are you 15 MR. LEFFEL: is not MR. 17 18 a witness not -- are you to give written written DELIGANS: Are you to -- -- questions. instructing the instructing that under this oral answer? LEFFEL: I'm answer any questions 21 examination under 22 obligation to 23 create an exhibit 24 not proper MR. here on she 25 We're not deposition 20 the going MR. 19 can to -- Counsel. we're We're DELIGANS: to document? questions, MR. this Would Objection, 14 16 sir. point use oral Section to -- I'm 3230, things she has no an exhibit or object. That's for you, of a deposition. DELIGANS: and on but I'd I disagree. Unless NAEGELI|' (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM to you're"}, {"d": 59, "p": 27, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August instructing her LEFFEL: questions if she document. We're not to answer MR. DELIGANS: for our MR. LEFFEL: MR. DELIGANS: going again 10 her hold 11 top of 12 BY MR. it up 14 videographer 15 my -- She answer wants. not We're going by not to your going circle written I all oral to create things. We're Here, hold already held it up. I'm -- I'm going to have again because I can't stand over you please hold that up so our it, and I'm going jury, a questions. you. Would got it please. She's the can zoom in on to ask question. MR. 16 17 captured 18 BY MR. LEFFEL: The videographer has already that up for me so that I Farm -- are you on it? Yes, sir. internally is it. DELIGANS: Q. Please, the question. 19 21 Ma'am, 22 THE BY answer can 167 DELIGANS: Q. ask 2026 her. 13 23 to MR. up 20 not 28, MR. hold Okay. if State VIDEOGRAPHER: DELIGANS: 24 Q. 25 engaging Matam, in if State analyzing the Farm economic impact NAEGEL] | (890) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM of can"}, {"d": 59, "p": 28, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August 28, 2026 1 | outcome-based claims handling, 21 held accountable? State Farm, be 3 MR. LEFFEL: 4 Go ahead, you can 5 THE DEPONENT: I 6 | is engaging in what you this would 8 | handle our claims. 9 | our our commitment. 10 11] 12 MR. Exhibit | was sent 14 not Actually to her. There (WHEREUPON, no. form. don't believe here, nor with responsible Let me -~ need 86 first you go, 86. 86 was You this in the to let Exhibit State me Farm my way we uphold hand because marked you this for | identification.) 15 MR. SONNE: 16 MR. DELIGANS: 17 (WHEREUPON, 18 | identification.) 19 | BY MR. 20 21| or being answer. were I to consistent DELIGANS: they, Yes describe be We 88. 13 should Objection 7 | career -- 168 88, one, 88? yeah. Exhibit 88 was marked 86, ma'am, for DELIGANS: Q. says: 22 | of want the Do you see Kathy and team, deck we'll be working you see that? ZOLNER: I'm 23 Do 24 MS. on Exhibit here's the most through sorry. where recent this Are you 25 | 88? NAEGEL] | (890) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM it copy morning? on 86 or"}, {"d": 59, "p": 29, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August or claim BY MR. Go ahead. THE DEPONENT: handling 28, It 2026 233 would accuracy overall. reduce coverage. help in -- improve had -- in 2020 DELIGANS: Q. It A. Because at that time particular, not only the unprecedented catastrophe we were -- the that Covid had been activity, related would but to 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. So 12 we had the 13 handling we entered management we resources we had that depleted. -~- wanted review in to make sure that for the claim I that is nothing accuracy. 14 MR. DELIGANS: I'm going to Okay. 15 I asked. 16 on out under 32, I think it's 17 enlarge the time of the deposition 18 documents move to -- strike, 27(A), providing unresponsive 19 MS. ZOLNER: Counsel 20 MR. DELIGANS: And I 21 -- we can get -- 22 done, but I'm getting 23 getting reading 24 the with 25 maybe that I -- I'm maybe it going both & TRIAL to reading if we need to think I can still get answers and I'm hours prep on so or 30 lawyers. was eight, of And I'll whatever, NAEGEL | | (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION here -- after different from answers. nonresponsive documents nine was mean, and for and depo in | NAEGELIUSA.COM get -- but"}, {"d": 59, "p": 30, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August 2026 234 I would just ask if you would answer my I don't have to ask it three times. That way we I have no objection to a get question so can done. MR. proper LEFFEL: question-~-and-answer, reviewing at a to read the document documents, but with you're and you should And the statute, time for the be respect to asking her to look giving her a chance it. 10 that the 11 the record 12 document. that 13 MR. 14 nonresponsive 15 times allows answers you 3230(A) (3) deposition the DELIGANS: before 16 17 28, that get an includes time on to at the witness Does it you contemplates also have look include to ask three answer? MR. LEFFEL: Which MR. DELIGANS: Okay. for but is a matter of opinion, Well, think the going to ask to today if I'm not Counsel. 18 19 record speaks 20 enlarge the time of the deposition 21 quite done, and you can consider it. 22 BY DELIGANS: right. So back my 23 MR. itself, Q. All Covid implications 24 the 25 hundred times today, which without I'm to I question without you've said about all this severity of NAEGELI|| (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA,.COM a"}, {"d": 59, "p": 31, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 Q. you August 28, will you Conversely, believe that 2026 251 tell outcome-based our claims jury that handling is appropriate? A. We Q. Okay. answer my were looking at the Can can -- I -- outcomes to will please you question? MR. LEFFEL: She's trying 10 MR. DELIGANS: But it's L1 nonresponsive 12 MR. to interrupt 13 haven't heard LEFFEL: all -- of her MR. DELIGANS: 15 MR. LEFFEL: 16 MR. DELIGANS: 17 MR. LEFFEL: 18 MR. DELIGANS: 19 MR. LEFFEL: 20 MR. DELIGANS: when so let going to be her -- 14 21 to, 1 finish improve we look at the answer I -- her. -- have. to I say that. can already let her answer it. When my question calls has her own style yes or So -- -- claims for a tell. MR. LEFFEL: Okay. 23 MR. DELIGANS: -- okay? I'm asking her a very not going 25 question. there. I'm She --- -- a no, not not -- I'm -- 22 24 You specific NAEGEL] | (89°) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM a"}, {"d": 59, "p": 32, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 BY MR. the August 28, 2026 is, will 252 DELIGANS: Q. My vice president belief that question of operations, outcome-based appropriate? Yes MR. or claims tell our jury, that it's your handling is comment Okay. You made a was trying to answer was interrupted. I understand there. The question before she that may not always like the way the answer but she gets a chance to take her attempt answer, and if you you 10 starts, 11 make 12 question the want you can. 13 So please go ahead. 14 THE DEPONENT: When 15 determination of 16 the customer experience. 17 We look at claim 18 outcome of a 19 through lower accuracy, so ask -- when -- the handling, we look look and priced operating And 20 We your to I outcome-based lower our workforce. do we provide to our customer when you talk we're looking about outcome-based at the whole to our customers. handling, 22 value proposition we can offer 23 it's not to what you're referencing. is -- Out 25 on how do we -- outcomes improve the expenses. claim 24 at at how product to another 21 specific as no. LEFFEL: witness you our how customer outcome is experiences, NAEGELI | (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL of | NAEGELIUSA.COM the So based"}, {"d": 59, "p": 33, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 answer to it between me and BY DELIGANS: 28, 2026 it's just and you and she asking, and then to letting you vl simply back fea) I'm at outcome-based claims acceptable the vice president Look in camera State 10 My review question to Farm? is, the you we handling is tell forth I. document will the and and can come and looking our jury appropriate that and of operations and tell at them yes or no. A. 11 We project, right, on on how and service to an outcome around faster service 12 we can improve the overall 13 our customers. So if 14 better service to our customers, 15 our customers, as well as 16 product, and there is some 17 a to -- 18 ‘operating chance to model 19 read that's providing lower to cost I haven't had this. This is about an I'm going to certify the that I can get an -- vision. MR. DELIGANS: for Judge Palumbo so 21 answer. All right, let's -- 22 MR. LEFFEL: 23 MR. DELIGANS: 24 MR. LEPFEL: you a reference, question Before projections product 20 25 back you, Q. it. 255 going wl > MR. because August certify it. Were you finished -- go -- -- with Did NAEGELI you your answer yet? have more to (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM add?"}, {"d": 59, "p": 34, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August 28, THE DEPONENT: the whispering over 2026 256 I -- I'm getting there, sorry, is -- it's just -- a little distractive. please MR. LEFFEL: If complete your answer. THE DEPONENT: handling is you're -- not you're pre-determined 10 resolve an 11 for 13 a term of art 14 dealt with 15 and I both 16 your right. Judge question 19 answer 21 document 22 of the 24 25 if same an we way that don't have individual a or claim. | I'm certifying the claims question handling insurance industry many times with many carriers, and know it, does everybody sitting so for Judge and we're so going Palumbo to so that we the jury, okay? Now, I want you to review to review. asked record while she if MR. LEFFEL: you want does that. Now, we her DELIGANS: that certify our you've -- the -- the MR. -- complete outcome-based Outcome-based in to term in handle that 23 needed because DELIGANS: And for 20 to Palumbo. 17 used individual 12 The stating, way MR. 18 being you -- if can you to get an rest of that Let's go off you fine. NAEGEL] | (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL I've that -That's is | NAEGELIUSA.COM want her to"}, {"d": 59, "p": 35, "t": "KATHY RESS 100762 August A. The difference resources related field resources the Significantly, to and -- that we had had so the point to was impacting the rise in agency complaints. Q. Okay. I'm 11 please 12 can read answer my the experience -- communication experience going to the my overall contracted -- contributing to move simple ask that court and to the your question the question, question, and of the I'm to depletion in overall going back the and experience, 10 is 293 Covid customer nonresponsive 2026 was the was 28, I answer asked. reporter to you tell me iff you was read back.) okay? 13 (WHEREUPON, the record 14 MR. LEFFEL: Objection, 15 THE DEPONENT: form. I was sharing the -- what to my personal knowledge. 16 the contributing factors 17 What else contribute to the right of 18 complaints. 19 BY I didn't ask you what contributed complaints. My MR. could DELIGANS: Q. 20 the Okay. ai to rise 22 simple. 23 there 24 companies 25 decades of This were isn't any have and the first catastrophes, been decades dealing and question was very first year time or that insurance with catastrophes decades, correct? NAEGELI|\\ (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM for"}, {"d": 60, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY FILED STATE OF OKLAHOMA DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA NEIL & LACY WEST, Plaintiffs, ) September 21, 2026 12:49 PM ) ) ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 ) v. ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; & NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) NOTICE OF DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S WITHDRAWAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S AUGUST 20, 2026 ORDER AS TO RE-DESIGNATION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company hereby withdraws its Motion for Extension of Time to Comply With the Court’s August 20, 2026 Order as to Re-Designation of Documents and Request for Expedited Consideration filed September 3, 2026 without waiver of any rights or need to renew the motion if any issues arise. ectfully stibmitted, | TIMILA S\\ROTHER, OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com"}, {"d": 60, "p": 2, "t": "ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY AND NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this 21st day of September, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 f | :"}, {"d": 61, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY FILED DISTRICT COURT capt! COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA September 22, 2026 4:30 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK ape NEIL and LACY WEST, nap Case Number CJ-2025-135 “ape Plaintiffs, Case No. CJ-2025-135 maine” Judge Sheperd Defendants. Nema eae STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., mena” Sat ena VS. DEFENDANTS STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY AND NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE ANGENCY, INC.’S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF TRIAL VENUE OR LATER TRIAL SETTING AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Plaintiff Neil West is currently running for election to the office of District Judge in Comanche County, and he recently became one of two candidates to advance to the general election. The election is set to take place on November 3, 2026. If the jury trial in this case is set on November 2, 2026, as Plaintiffs’ counsel has reported in their briefs, that would be the very same time pre-trial publicity about this case, actively assisted by Plaintiffs’ counsel, is at its height, and jurors are going to the polls to vote for or against Mr. West. If the trial 1s to proceed on or near this date, then Defendants State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. (“Defendants”) respectfully request that this Court change the place of trial to another county where an impartial trial may be had pursuant to 12 O.S. § 140. Alternatively, Defendants request that the trial be set on a later jury trial docket, after sufficient time has passed for the prejudice from Mr. West’s campaign to subside, and after the outcome of the election is known so the Court can evaluate any need for a change of venue or recusal that may be created if Mr. West"}, {"d": 61, "p": 2, "t": "wins the election thus making him a Comanche County District Judge, on the bench with Your Honor: ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY Neil West, a Plaintiff in this lawsuit (with his wife), is currently running for the office of District Judge in Comanche County.’ On June 18, 2026, he became one of two candidates to qualify for the general election in November.’ Mr. West has been actively campaigning for this office in recent weeks, going “to countless neighborhoods” to “talk to the voters — as many as [he] can,” to “highlight [his] diverse legal career and civic involvement, showing [his] character, and how that bodes well for [him] if [he] were elected judge.” See Ex. 1 (Swanson, Eric, “Galbraith, West advance to November runoff,” The Lawton Constitution, June 18, 2026, available at https://www.swoknews.com/news/galbraith-west-advance-to-november-runoff/article_987807d5 -65de-594b-b17e-c8c3ff5aa217.html); see also Ex. 2 (https://www.facebook.com/West4Judge/) (noting that he is “knocking doors almost every night, plus weekends, taking the opportunity to introduce myself and meet the voters’”’). The general election is set to take place on November 3, 2026. This case is set for pretrial on October 22, 2026, and Plaintiffs have taken the position that the case will therefore begin on the November 2, 2026 jury docket—the day before the election. See e.g., Plaintiffs’ August 21, ' The Scheduling Order says only that the trial date will be set at the Pretrial Conference. To Defendants’ knowledge, no trial date has been set by the Court but given the position of Plaintiffs’ counsel and given that November 2 is the first jury term after the pretrial conference, Defendants are filing this Motion out of an abundance of caution. ? More specifically, Mr. West is running for Judicial District 5, Office 1, which covers Comanche, Cotton, Jefferson, and Stephens counties. See Ex. 1, Swanson, Eric, “Galbraith, West advance to November runoff,’ The Lawton Constitution, June 18, 2026, available at https://www.swoknews.com/news/galbraith-west-advance-to-november-runoff/article_987807d5 -65de-594b-b17e-c8c3ffSaa217.html. 3 See https://results.okelections.gov/OKER/?elecDate=20260616."}, {"d": 61, "p": 3, "t": "2026 Response in Opposition to State Farm’s Motion to Consolidate Depositions, p. 5. If Plaintiffs are correct on this timeline though there is no order from the Court’, the trial would occur at the very same time Mr. West is sending mailers to potential jurors’ homes; canvassing potential jurors’ neighborhoods and knocking on their doors; shaking potential jurors’ hands; talking to potential jurors about the justice system; and otherwise actively campaigning to everyone in the jury pool. Likewise, if the case is set for trial on November 2 in Comanche County, then the trial would occur at the very same time potential jurors are likely to be going online and googling or otherwise seeking out information about Mr. West and his character for purposes of selecting their preferred candidate. And if the case is set for trial on November 2 in Comanche County, then jurors might literally be voting for Mr. West to serve as their district judge on the very same day they are asked to neutrally evaluate his case against Defendants. This alone would be problematic enough. But there has also been substantial pretrial publicity about this case, in part in connection with Mr. West’s campaign. See, e.g., Ex. 3 (https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/state/2026/08/17/lawyers-in-oklahoma-state-farm- lawsuits-speak-on-hundreds-of-cases/91337076007/) (Plaintiffs’ counsel giving lengthy and * The status of discovery and necessary pretrial filings make that timeline seem unrealistic. For example: 1) Plaintiffs have still not responded to State Farm’s or the Holcomb Agency’s Summary Judgment Motions to which Defendants will need to reply and be heard; 2) Plaintiffs have not supplemented their discovery responses to State Farm’s interrogatories and document requests aimed at expert discovery, and thus State Farm cannot complete its own expert work, including preparing rebuttal experts and filing Daubert challenges (which deadlines, under the Scheduling Order, will not be set until the October 22 pretrial); and 3) on September 17, 2026, Plaintiffs served an additional eleven document requests (for a total of 70 requests) including discovery aimed at State Farm’s board of directors, their compensation and communications about claim handling, in addition to “all communications ... on any communication application or platform between [all] State Farm employees” about “wind and hail claim handling ...,” among many other irrelevant and vastly disproportionate requests. State Farm’s responses to the eleven new discovery requests are not due until October 20 and motion practice relating thereto is a certainty if it is pursued by Plaintiffs."}, {"d": 61, "p": 4, "t": "detailed interviews about the case, in which they discuss both Mr. West’s campaign and his case against State Farm). Mr. West’s counsel has not been shy about talking to the press about his case against State Farm—at length, and in highly inflammatory terms—and articles discussing Mr. West’s judicial campaign and his lawsuit against State Farm together are readily available. See id. Indeed, anyone who types “Neil West” and “Comanche County” into Google in an effort to research their judicial candidates will find a litany of articles about this lawsuit on just the second page of the search results. See Ex. 4. And this is only likely to increase between now and the election/trial. Finally, although the outcome of the election will not be known until November 3, should Mr. West win his election, he would then be the elected representative of the jurors, preparing to serve them as their district judge. Likewise, Mr. West would be set to be Your Honor’s newest colleague, which may present considerations by Your Honor for recusal as well. Defendants respectfully submit that such circumstances—all culminating in the middle of an ongoing jury trial—would be intolerable to justice. Comanche County is not a large county. It is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to find jurors who have not been exposed to Mr. West’s campaign. And for the few who were not aware of it before they became potential jurors, they will learn of it as part of voir dire as Defendants would be forced to bring these facts to jurors’ attention to evaluate their fairness, which would itself risk tainting the jury. 12 O.S. § 140 permits—indeed, requires—the Court to move the trial to a new venue in such circumstances. Section 140 provides: In all cases in which it is made to appear to the court that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county where the suit is pending, the court may, on application of either party, change the place of trial to some county where such objections do not exist. Id."}, {"d": 61, "p": 5, "t": "Defendants respectfully request that, if the trial is to go forward on November 2 (or any jury docket in the weeks after the election), it should be moved to a county outside the judicial district where Mr. West is campaigning for district judge. In the event the Court declines to change the trial venue, then at a minimum, the trial should not take place at the very same time that the campaign is ongoing, and jurors are going to the polls to vote for Mr. West, or have just done so. Defendants respectfully request that the trial be set on a later jury docket, to allow any prejudice to Defendants from Mr. West’s campaign to dissipate, and to give the parties an opportunity to ascertain the outcome of the election and evaluate any potential venue or recusal issues. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the trial for this matter be moved to a county outside the judicial district where Plaintiff Neil West is campaigning for office. Alternatively, Defendants request that the trial be set on a docket after November 2026. Respectfully Submitted, Aula Kihae TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 61, "p": 6, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by USS. Mail, postage prepaid, this 22nd day of September, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders 21 NW 44th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 R. Ryan Deligans §=DURBIN, LARIMORE & BIALICK 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Dat Rabe"}, {"d": 61, "p": 8, "t": "9/14/26, 11:13 AM Galbraith, West advance to November runoff | News | swoknews.com https:/Avww.swoknews.com/news/galbraith-west-advance-to-november-runoffarticle_987807d5-65de-594b-b1 7e-c8c3ff5aa217.html Galbraith, West advance to November runoff By Eric Swanson eric.swanson@swoknews.com Jun 18, 2026 Special District Judge Christine Galbraith and attorney Neil West were the top vote-getters in Tuesday’s primary election for a new judge for District 5, Office 1, but neither of them finished with a majority of the vote. West A public defender, West finished first in a four-person race with 40.15% of the vote, according to unofficial results from the Oklahoma State Election Board. Galbraith, who has served as a special judge in Comanche County since 2023, came in second with 27.72%. Attorney Steven Crow was in third place with 20.96% of the vote, and attorney Tommy Sims came in fourth with 11.17%. West and Galbraith will advance to the general election in November. The winner will replace former District Judge Galbraith Emmit Tayloe, who has retired. The District 5, Office 1, seat helps lead courthouses and adjudicates cases in Comanche, Cotton, Jefferson and Stephens counties. Crow, Sims and West all ran for the district judge, Office 3, slot in 2022, according to NonDoc. West advanced to the runoff but lost to Judge Jay Walker. Christine Galbraith A Lawton resident, Galbraith earned her juris doctor degree from the Oklahoma City University School of Law and her bachelor’s degree from James Madison University, according to her campaign website. Her resume includes stints in private practice and as an assistant district attorney in Comanche County. Galbraith’s career also included providing pro bono and contract services for Legal Aid Services of Oklahoma, and she served as court-appointed counsel in municipal cases, according to her campaign website. She has served as a special judge for Comanche County since she was appointed to the position in 2023. “Her work on the bench has given her firsthand experience with the daily realities of courtroom administration, thoughtful decision — making and the responsibility judges owe to the people and communities they serve,” according to her campaign website. Neil West EXHIBIT 1 https:/Awww.swoknews.com/news/galbraith-west-advance-to-november-runoff/article_987807d5-65de-594b-b17e-c8c3ff5aa217.html 1/2"}, {"d": 61, "p": 9, "t": "9/14/26, 11:13 AM Galbraith, West advance to November runoff | News | swoknews.com A graduate of the Oklahoma City University School of Law, West worked in retail during his college years, according to NonDoc. After he earned his degree, West worked as Lawton’s assistant city attorney and city prosecutor. West and his family have called Lawton home for more than 28 years, he said in a Feb. 20 post on his campaign Facebook page. “Over the course of my legal career, I have had the privilege of serving our community in a variety of professional roles - as municipal prosecutor, assistant district attorney, Mental Health Court coordinator, public defender and private attorney,” he said. As he prepares for the runoff vote, West will continue talking to voters about how his experience as an attorney and a community volunteer would translate to the bench, he said in an email to a Constitution reporter. “My strategy all along has been a grassroots approach to talk to the voters — as many as I can — and highlight my diverse legal career and civic involvement, showing my character, and how that bodes well for me if I were elected judge,” he said. “I went to countless neighborhoods in 75 days, and I still couldn’t reach everyone. There’s plenty of work to be done talking to the voters.” Eric Swanson has more than 20 years’ experience covering local government and criminal justice in Oklahoma, Kansas and North Dakota. He can be reached at eric. swanson@swoknews.com. Eric Swanson has more than 20 years’ experience covering local government and criminal justice in Oklahoma, Kansas and North Dakota. He can be reached at eric. swanson@swoknews.com. Eric Swanson https:/Awww.swoknews.com/news/galbraith-west-advance-to-november-runoff/article_987807d5-65de-594b-b17e-c8c3ff5aa217.html 2/2"}, {"d": 61, "p": 11, "t": "Neil West for District Judge is wiih Fatima Rivera. September $ at 9:23PM 3 One of the best parts of the campaign trail is running into good friends along the way! After a great day in Duncan, this was the perfect way to wrap things up. wv + Neil West for District Judge 0 des September 3 at 9.01PM We are excited te be back out in the community again! Northwest Lawton, it has been great getting to meet you this week - full of great questions and conversations. Help us spread the message: share the post tell your neighbors, post a yard sign. Hx Ca doa 60 Most relevant Daniela Cross. °- Are you actually knocking on people's doors or just walking in the middle of a random street fora photo op? ft GY Repy Be Nei West for District Judge Daniels Cross Yes, fam <0. # sono knocking doors almost every night, plus weekends, taling the opportunity to introduce myself and meet the voters, | was headed back to the <ar when my wile snapped this photo. dG @ Reply Qe Gary Sammons Jr. QO beac He knocked on my door Thursday evening and visited EXHIBIT 2"}, {"d": 61, "p": 13, "t": "9/14/26, 11:28 AM Lawyers in Oklahoma State Farm lawsuits speak on hundreds of cases THE OKLAHOMAN #= STATE Inside the secret documents found by attorneys in cases against State Farm, Allstate J.C. Hallman Oklahoma Watch Aug. 17, 2026, 11:09 a.m. CT In 1997, Allstate Insurance Company launched a test program in Albuquerque, N.M., titled the Claim Core Process Redesign, to modify its process for assessing wind- and hail-related roof damage claims. In May that year, initial test results suggested wild success: claim payout costs had dropped by 50% or more, yielding greater savings for the company than originally predicted. A subsequent report comparing data from before, during, and after the test confirmed sharp reductions in costs and even more dramatic gains in the number of policyholders whose claims were closed without any payment at all. Before the test, Allstate paid out on 75.9% of wind claims and 82.8% of hail claims. After the test, they paid out on 29.2% of wind claims and 11.1% of hail claims. In other words, a whole lot more policyholders were having their claims denied entirely. The initial reports on the Albuquerque test expressed giddy corporate excitement with big-font claims of “Awesome!” and “Wow!” next to profit data graphs, even as one document took quiet note of policyholders who had been denied. “Initial customer feedback on the process has been positive, although there are some disappointed customers who expected full roof replacements,” EXHIBIT 3 https:/Avwww.oklahoman.com/story/news/state/2026/08/17/lawyers-in-oklahoma-state-farm-lawsuits-speak-on-hundreds-of-cases/91337076007/ 1/13"}, {"d": 61, "p": 14, "t": "9/14/26, 11:28 AM Lawyers in Oklahoma State Farm lawsuits speak on hundreds of cases the report read. Details of the Albuquerque test came to light in the motions in a 2023 roof-claim lawsuit in Oklahoma, a case that aligns perfectly with the saga of roof claims that began to draw public attention when Oklahoma Watch broke the story of Hursh v. State Farm in December. On May 21, 2022, a storm hit the Rogers County home of Laurie Edin and Thomas Utzig. An Allstate adjuster approved a replacement only to be overruled by remote Allstate managers. An independent adjuster estimated damages at $21,000; Edin and Utzig retained two Oklahoma City law firms: Whitten Burrage and The Marr Law Firm. More: AG Drummond sets sights on Allstate with new fraud lawsuit In the past year, for the sheer volume of cases they handle, Reggie and Hannah Whitten of Whitten Burrage and Jeff Marr of The Marr Law Firm have become synonymous with the ongoing roof-claim saga. The number of cases changes daily, but as the saga unfolded and as Attorney General Gentner Drummond intervened on behalf of the state and filed lawsuits against both State Farm and Allstate, Whitten Burrage has accumulated more than 1,000 cases across Oklahoma, and The Marr Law Firm counts approximately 200 cases. In the latest development, as the battle over discovery orders heats up in cases litigated across the state, Whitten Burrage and The Marr Law Firm have been hired to represent Oklahoma on the AG’s State Farm and Allstate cases, respectively. After months of refusing to speak publicly about cases that have burst into national news and been featured in political debates and campaigns, the plaintiffs’ lawyers are now speaking openly about their lives and work. For the first time, they are revealing what is contained in secret documents that, like the Epstein Files, reveal the scope and nature of the scheme that has left Oklahoma homeowners demanding answers. https:/Avwww.oklahoman.com/story/news/state/2026/08/17/lawyers-in-oklahoma-state-farm-lawsuits-speak-on-hundreds-of-cases/91337076007/ 2/13"}, {"d": 61, "p": 15, "t": "9/14/26, 11:28 AM Lawyers in Oklahoma State Farm lawsuits speak on hundreds of cases Treated like the enemy Reggie Whitten hailed from Seminole, attended OU Law, and cut his teeth as an insurance litigator by assisting on cases for a prominent insurance defense trial lawyer while he was still in law school. Whitten went on to defend insurance companies for two decades, traveling the state to offer courses on how they could avoid bad-faith claims. Things were different in those days, Whitten said. He recalled that he would turn over claim files to plaintiffs even without a subpoena, and he said that most of his corporate clients felt empathy with policyholders and sought ways to pay out on complex, catastrophic claims. “The business was different back then,” Whitten said. “The world has changed a lot.” He noticed a shift around 1990, not a jump from black to white but a gradual drift toward greed. His staff picked up on it first: his insurance company clients were finagling a 20% reduction in his fees. The big change came in 2020. More: Oklahoma investigates homeowners insurance market “T was used to seeing one thing from State Farm; this was different,” Whitten said. Rather than a single case, he began to notice a cluster of complaints from insureds regarding wind and hail roof claims. Roofers were joking online that anyone insured by State Farm was likely to be denied. It was new, Whitten said, and, ironically, it was a little like hailstorms in that something that had formerly hit only occasionally now seemed to be happening every day. “You didn’t have to be a genius to see the change, the sheer numbers of it,” Whitten said. https:/Avwww.oklahoman.com/story/news/state/2026/08/17/lawyers-in-oklahoma-state-farm-lawsuits-speak-on-hundreds-of-cases/91337076007/ 3/13"}, {"d": 61, "p": 16, "t": "9/14/26, 11:28 AM Lawyers in Oklahoma State Farm lawsuits speak on hundreds of cases It would take a years-long legal battle to begin to work out what happened, and for years after that, Whitten Burrage lawyers would be prevented by protective orders from publicly discussing what they had learned. Now they are winning the right to speak. Whitten’s daughter, Hannah Whitten, who joined her father’s firm in 2022, made no effort to disguise the fact that she finds State Farm’s behavior reprehensible. “There was a scheme,” Hannah Whitten said. “That’s a fact, not an opinion. It’s documented.” Previous reporting has been limited to noting that State Farm launched a wind and hail initiative in 2020 as a test program in Dallas and quickly expanded it to many other states. Hannah Whitten offered further detail from secret documents: 2020 marked the launch of a remote evaluation process for claims. That is, claims were evaluated by people out of state who never saw the roof on which they passed judgment. Put otherwise, Hannah Whitten said, State Farm told their local, front-line claim adjusters that they no longer had the authority to award total roof replacements for wind and hail damage. “The most sinister tactic State Farm developed was robbing adjusters of settlement authority and only reviewing adjusters who were approving claims,” Hannah Whitten said. “The only time a manager is reviewing your work is if you are granting too many roofs.” Furthermore, the documents revealed a metric. If, as an adjuster, you approved too many roofs, you would be forced to sit down with your manager to discuss your future with the company, Hannah Whitten said. More: Does hail damage ranking alone explain Oklahoma's high premiums? https:/Avwww.oklahoman.com/story/news/state/2026/08/17/lawyers-in-oklahoma-state-farm-lawsuits-speak-on-hundreds-of-cases/91337076007/ 4/13"}, {"d": 61, "p": 17, "t": "9/14/26, 11:28 AM Lawyers in Oklahoma State Farm lawsuits speak on hundreds of cases Beyond the logistics of the scheme, the Whitten Burrage lawyers had begun to learn just how much money State Farm had made from the wind-and-hail initiative. “They tracked it,” Reggie Whitten said, describing what he’d seen in the secret documents. “Charts, graphs, bells and whistles. They achieved their goal in a pilot program in Dallas County, Texas.” The documents showed that in the first year, 2020, State Farm counted more than $1 billion in corporate savings at the expense of policyholders, Reggie Whitten said. How much State Farm has made in the years since has not yet been calculated. Oklahoma Watch reported that the first 125 cases Whitten Burrage took on were settled in 2024. Of those, the settlement amount of just one case was known: $3 million. “It’s a drop in the bucket,” Hannah Whitten said. That hail damage is not hail damage In May 2025, Senators Josh Hawley, R-MO, and Andy Kim, D-NJ, hosted a hearing on insurance claims practices featuring extensive testimony from policyholders and whistleblower adjustors from State Farm and Allstate. Allstate adjuster Nick Schroeder described what would happen when he submitted legitimate roof claims to remote managers. “If there is something they disagree with, they would say to remove it,” Schroeder said. “It’s, you know, “That hail damage isn’t hail damage, take it off.” For Jeff Marr of The Marr Law Firm, that kind of thing struck a familiar tone. He was quick to point out that what State Farm had been accused of doing in Oklahoma was not new and was directly linked to advice the insurance industry had received from several colossal consulting firms. More: Oklahoma family lives in shed as insurance suit reveals alleged fraud https:/Awww.oklahoman.com/story/news/state/2026/08/17/lawyers-in-oklahoma-state-farm-lawsuits-speak-on-hundreds-of-cases/91337076007/ 5/13"}, {"d": 61, "p": 18, "t": "9/14/26, 11:28 AM Lawyers in Oklahoma State Farm lawsuits speak on hundreds of cases “There is not really anything that one of them is doing that the other is not,” Marr said. “If it’s State Farm in the lead, or Allstate, they switch off. They are visited by the same people, whether it’s McKinsey or Accenture; they make the rounds.” Marr learned to decode the cryptic system of euphemisms and acronyms that the industry used to veil its schemes, he said. It arguably began, Marr said, when McKinsey and Company, a global management consulting firm that has been associated with the savings and loan scandal, Enron, and the opioid epidemic, was asked to advise Allstate on its claim-handling practices, according to a 2007 affidavit of Allstate Assistant Vice-President Christine Sullivan. For several months in late 1993, Sullivan said, McKinsey prepared a “factgathering” report totaling 12,929 pages, based on data from Tucson, Arizona; Miami, Florida; Troy, Michigan; and Oklahoma City. Several years later, Allstate tested what it called the process, the Claim Core Process Redesign, in Albuquerque, N.M. “The process is the scheme,” Marr said. Opportunity dollars Materials embedded in court documents reveal that McKinsey had identified “opportunity dollars,” that is, areas of claim handling where profits could be increased. A presentation delivered at an April 18, 1997, Allstate brand meeting cited the evaluation of roof damage in wind and hail claims as their largest area of opportunity. Marr offered translation of various examples of what he called “McKinsey-speak.” When reports cited “insufficient coverage analysis,” it meant that Allstate should have looked harder for ways to deny coverage,” Marr said. https:/Awww.oklahoman.com/story/news/state/2026/08/17/lawyers-in-oklahoma-state-farm-lawsuits-speak-on-hundreds-of-cases/91337076007/ 6/13"}, {"d": 61, "p": 19, "t": "9/14/26, 11:28 AM Lawyers in Oklahoma State Farm lawsuits speak on hundreds of cases “Improper scoping of damages” meant the company looked too hard for things to pay out on, Marr said. “Poor identification of subrogation opportunity,” Marr said, was another way of saying reimbursement, and meant that companies should seek others to pay them back when they were found to have owed a claim. Now-unveiled documents revealed that one of the largest challenges of the so-called process was ensuring that Allstate employees adhered to its measures. “Tt is critical that performance management measures be focused and have the teeth to drive behavior,” one document said. “Strictly following the process is essential to capturing the economic opportunity,” said another. Marr said he identified two aspects of the scheme that he found particularly galling. First, another consulting company, Haag Engineering, a century-old technical consulting firm, was called upon to devise an alternate definition of hail. Applying Haag’s materials, Allstate blasted out head-scratching bits of double-speak to its employees. “It’s better to know what is not hail damage than to know what is,” one document said. Allstate employees attended seminars to absorb Haag Engineering reports explaining that smeared granules and impact marks spread across a roof were not hail damage, while pits and soft spots, like a bruise on an apple, were hail damage. “They called these training sessions recalibration,” Marr said. “I called it hail reeducation camp.” Second, as lawsuits began to question the hail standards, yet another consulting giant, Accenture, advised claiming that the hail standards they prescribed were https:/Awww.oklahoman.com/story/news/state/2026/08/17/lawyers-in-oklahoma-state-farm-lawsuits-speak-on-hundreds-of-cases/91337076007/ 7/13"}, {"d": 61, "p": 20, "t": "9/14/26, 11:28 AM Lawyers in Oklahoma State Farm lawsuits speak on hundreds of cases consistent with nationwide industry standards, Marr said. After years of legal squabbling over these standards, a State Farm case revealed that the standards had appeared out of thin air. “State Farm states that based on a diligent investigation to date it has not identified any responsive documents related to Accenture’s work for State Farm,” a court document read. In other words, they made it up. “It’s the damnedest thing I ever saw,” Marr said. State Farm and Allstate did not respond to requests for on-the-record interviews. 27,764 denials “State Farm has internally implemented hidden, secretive, restrictive definitions of hail damage, specifically,” Hannah Whitten said. “What Haag Engineering was saying in 2006 is exactly what adjusters are telling roofers today, in 2026.” The 2020 launch of the State Farm wind and hail initiative in Dallas and the 1997 Allstate Albuquerque test of the Claim Core Process Redesign appear to be examples of history not repeating but rhyming, as Mark Twain once wrote. Of many facts that Reggie and Hannah Whitten were now willing to address openly, one stuck out to them as particularly egregious. State Farm Senior Leader and Director of Property and Casualty Operations Nicole Manduca, described in open court as the ringleader of the wind and hail initiative, had announced a goal of 50% reduction in payouts. On social media, Manduca subsequently boasted of success. A 50% reduction represented billions of dollars, Reggie Whitten said. More: Oklahoma sues State Farm over alleged scheme to limit payouts https:/Awww.oklahoman.com/story/news/state/2026/08/17/lawyers-in-oklahoma-state-farm-lawsuits-speak-on-hundreds-of-cases/91337076007/ 8/13"}, {"d": 61, "p": 21, "t": "9/14/26, 11:28 AM Lawyers in Oklahoma State Farm lawsuits speak on hundreds of cases For Hannah Whitten, what was egregious about Manduca’s goal was that arbitrary profit targets were applied to claims that resulted from random weather catastrophes. “You have no idea which policyholders are going to file a claim next year,” Hannah Whitten said. “What size will the claims be? How old is their roof? Is it Class 4 shingles, or Class 3? Is it repair or replace? You never know.” The corporate attitude, she said, was clearly aimed at secretly reducing coverage. The Whittens did not yet know how much money the wind-and-hail initiative netted in total, but they did know how much State Farm thought it was saving. A document to which they had gained access revealed that the insurance giant believed it was saving $15,000 per denied policyholder. In Oklahoma alone, between 2019 and 2024, 27,764 policyholders were entirely denied on claims of wind and hail damage, according to a State Farm petition in the Hursh case. An unknown portion of an additional 91,588 claims were partially denied. In addition, the Whittens learned that leadership changes at State Farm had not slowed the scheme’s growth. Rather, Hannah Whitten said, they had doubled down. “Executives didn’t just rubber stamp the scheme,” Hannah Whitten said. “They were sitting in meetings, developing it. The executives are part and parcel of the scheme.” For Reggie Whitten, a two-fold goal of the quest to expose the secret documents could be expressed by a phrase with chilling associations: follow the money. As to the money, Reggie Whitten was hesitant to hazard a premature guess at a total figure for what he characterized as State Farm’s ill-gotten gains, because although many documents have become available and can be described, some have been hidden deep inside document dumps of hundreds of thousands of pages. https:/Awww.oklahoman.com/story/news/state/2026/08/17/lawyers-in-oklahoma-state-farm-lawsuits-speak-on-hundreds-of-cases/91337076007/ 9/13"}, {"d": 61, "p": 22, "t": "9/14/26, 11:28 AM Lawyers in Oklahoma State Farm lawsuits speak on hundreds of cases “We'll be able to do that when we get through all of the documents we already have,” Reggie Whitten said. As to where the trail of money led, Reggie Whitten was more forceful. He said that documents now in their possession revealed that the planning and execution of the scheme permeated the company, and implicated the man who, in 2024, was promoted from CFO to CEO, becoming just the sixth chief executive in State Farm’s 104-year history. “The involvement in the scheme goes all the way to the top,” Reggie Whitten said. “At trial, we will prove that State scheme.” Farm CEO Jon Farney is intimately involved in the Judge sets trial date The Oklahoma roof claim saga and the battle over secret documents are reaching a fever pitch. On August 4, an impatient Oklahoma District Court Judge Amy Palumbo, who has presided over the symbolic Hursh matter for a year, made it clear that State Farm is tap dancing on her last nerve. In an hour-long hearing in which she complained of having to babysit the insurance giant, she offered a heated characterization of the company’s legal strategy. “It’s kick the can down the road, we'll just blow deadlines because that is what works for us,” Palumbo told State Farm’s local attorneys. “I say that based on what State Farm has sent you in here with.” Palumbo set a Dec. 7 trial date for the Hursh case and announced that a third deposition of Nicole Manduca, first deposed by Nick Marr, son of Jeff Marr, and subsequently deposed by Reggie Whitten, will be conducted in Palumbo’s own courtroom to ensure decorum and that discovery orders are followed. https:/Awww.oklahoman.com/story/news/state/2026/08/17/lawyers-in-oklahoma-state-farm-lawsuits-speak-on-hundreds-of-cases/91337076007/ 10/13"}, {"d": 61, "p": 23, "t": "9/14/26, 11:28 AM Lawyers in Oklahoma State Farm lawsuits speak on hundreds of cases On Thursday, Comanche County District Court Judge Grant Shepherd heard arguments in a case that, after the cases of retired U.S. Administrative Law Judge James R. Linehan and former Oklahoma Supreme Court Chief Justice Joseph M. Watt, might provide the third instance of an Oklahoma judge battling State Farm over a bad faith claim. On July 15, 2023, the Lawton home of Neil and Lacy West was pelted with two-inch hail, causing $50,000 in damage, court documents said. State Farm offered approximately $5,000 in compensation; the Wests lawyered up. Neil West, a public defender and 30-year Lawton resident, is running to become a District Court Judge in Comanche County, where his bad faith case is being heard. On June 16, West received 40.2% of the primary vote in a four-candidate field, advancing to the August 25 runoff against Comanche County Special Judge Christine Galbraith, who received 27.7% of the primary vote. On Thursday, strained by a year of repetitive legal actions across the state, the nerves of attorneys in the West case grew frayed as Judge Shepherd heard arguments on motions to de-designate 800,000-pages of State Farm documents and depose State Farm CEO Jon Farney. In a July 7 motion, Hannah Whitten argued that State Farm, after being compelled to supply 800,000 pages of materials, had designated all of the documents confidential in violation of Oklahoma law. “Such an abuse of the judicial system cannot stand,” Whitten wrote. In a July 27 response, State Farm attorney Timila Rother offered spirited disagreement. “Plaintiffs’ Motion unreasonably mischaracterizes and disregards Oklahoma law,” Rother wrote. https:/Awww.oklahoman.com/story/news/state/2026/08/17/lawyers-in-oklahoma-state-farm-lawsuits-speak-on-hundreds-of-cases/91337076007/ 11/13"}, {"d": 61, "p": 24, "t": "9/14/26, 11:28 AM Lawyers in Oklahoma State Farm lawsuits speak on hundreds of cases On Thursday, lawyers sparred over who should be tasked with determining which, if any, of the 800,000 documents should be made public. State Farm attorney Paige Masters distinguished discovery orders from public documents. “Discovery is not a court record,” Masters said. Oklahoma City attorney Ryan Deligans, arguing alongside the Whitten Burrage attorneys, lost patience with State Farm’s repeated insistence that they were simply attempting to comply with court orders. “Ultimately, you have a company here who likes to lie,” Deligans said. “They are the guiltiest-looking innocent company I’ve ever seen.” Rother argued that CEO Farney was not sufficiently familiar with the wind and hail initiative to warrant a deposition. “He probably did hear about the [initiative], but that’s not to say he had day-to-day knowledge of it,” Rother said. Hannah Whitten pushed back by citing documents still under seal. Judge Shepherd cleared the room of reporters, but Whitten’s voice was audible through the closed courtroom door: documents showed that Farney, as CFO, had attended weekly morning meetings of a Fixed Profit Task Force where tactics to reduce claim payouts were discussed alongside figures on the number of cases denied without payment, the same data points that appeared in reports on the 1997 test of Allstate’s claim processing redesign. After two-and-a-half hours of argument, Judge Shepherd announced that he would issue written rulings. The order approving Farney’s deposition came within 24 hours; a decision on de-designating the 800,000 documents is expected this week. https:/Awww.oklahoman.com/story/news/state/2026/08/17/lawyers-in-oklahoma-state-farm-lawsuits-speak-on-hundreds-of-cases/91337076007/ 12/13"}, {"d": 61, "p": 25, "t": "9/14/26, 11:28 AM Lawyers in Oklahoma State Farm lawsuits speak on hundreds of cases Many links in this story point to images showing portions of records obtained by Oklahoma Watch. The complete documents from which those images were taken are linked below.Neil and Lacy West v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency Inc. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO (4) STRIKE DEFENDANT STATE FARM’S BLANKET CONFIDENTIALITY ASSERTION, (2) DE-DESIGNATE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED, AND/OR (3) TO LIFT THE PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR GOOD CAUSE BASED ON STATE FARM’S FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN GOOD FAITH AS REQUIRED Laurie Wedin and Thomas R. Utzig v. Allstate Vehicle & Property Insurance Company and Shoemake Agency, LLCPLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT ALLSTATE TRANSCRIPT OF:Senate Hearing on Insurance Claims Practices Following Recent Natural Disasters Oklahoma Watch, at oklahomawatch.org, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that covers public-policy issues facing the state. https:/Awww.oklahoman.com/story/news/state/2026/08/17/lawyers-in-oklahoma-state-farm-lawsuits-speak-on-hundreds-of-cases/91337076007/ 13/13"}, {"d": 61, "p": 27, "t": "9/14/26, 11:33 AM Neil West and Comanche County - Google Search <> NeilWestandComancheCou AlMode All Images News X Videos 8 Forums HQ Shopping fey OE More - Toolsv Facebook - Neil West for District Judge 980+ followers Neil West for District Judge (@West4Judge) lam running for District Judge in District 5, Office 1 (Comanche/Stephens/Cotton/Jefferson). | have 28 years of experience practicing criminal and civil ... Read more Ballotpedia https://ballotpedia.org » Neil West_(Oklahoma_Sth_Judi... Neil West (Oklahoma 5th Judicial District Court Office 1, ... 2 days ago — Do you know who's on your ballot this fall? Millions don't. We're racing to change that before Election Day. Click here to donate today. Neil... Read more Missing: Geraanehe | Show results with: Comanche , Comanche Times https://www.comancheok.net > articles » view > west-run.., West running for district judge Jun 2, 2022 — District 5 includes Stephens, Comanche, Cotton and Jefferson counties West, of Lawton, has several years of courtroom and other law-related ... Read more ayy Walters Herald bttps://waltersherald.com » 2026/06/04 > west-announc... West Announces Candidacy For District Judge Jun 4, 2026 — Attorney Neil West has announced his candidacy for District Judge in Judicial District 5, which includes Comanche, Stephens, Cotton, ... Read more KSWO 7News https://www.kswo.com > 2026/08/14 > comanche-count... Comanche County judge hears motions in State Farm lawsuit Aug 14, 2026 — Attorneys for Neil and Lacy West present motions to unseal State Farm documents in roof claim lawsuit. EXHIBIT 4 https://www.google.com/search?q=Neil+West+and+Comanche+County&sca_esv=39e5c4a/d77ff80d&biw=1912&bih=948&sxsrf=APpeQnvNLpIHC2js.... 1/3"}, {"d": 61, "p": 28, "t": "9/14/26, 11:33 AM Neil West and Comanche County - Google Search The Lawton Constitution https: //www.swoknews.com > news > west-announces-c... West announces candidacy for District Judge | News Feb 22, 2026 — LAWTON, OK — Attorney Neil West has announced his candidacy for District Judge in Judicial District 5, which includes Comanche, Stephens, ... B NonDoc Media https://nondoc.com > 2026/06/13 » cheat-sheet-familiar... Cheat sheet: Familiar faces, special judge seek district ... Jun 13, 2026 — Four candidates are looking to become a southwest Oklahoma district judge seat in the election set for Tuesday, June 16, 2026. Southwest Ledger oe https://www.southwestledger.news > news > galbraith-we... Galbraith, West advance to November runoff Jun 30, 2026 — LAWTON - Special District Judge Christine Galbraith and attorney Neil West were the top vote-getters in last Tuesday's primary election for ... (8) News 9 htips://www.news9.com > News > Business Oklahoma State Farm Lawsuit Heads To Comanche... Aug 13, 2026 — A judge is expected to consider requests for State Farm documents and a deposition of CEO Jon Farney as homeowners challenge the insurer's ... Read more KOKH https://okcfox.com >» news > local » new-court-filing-re... Filings cite State Farm touting $1.4B savings as Oklahoma... Aug 24, 2026 — New court filings in a case against State Farm are providing a fresh look at how State Farm handled claims.Neil and Lacy West are just one ... People also search for Neil West District Judge Q Christine Galbraith Lawton OK Q Steven W Crow Q Neil West Attorney Lawton, OK Q Go........ 123 45 67 8 gle 9 10 > Next https://(www.google.com/search?q=Neil+West+and+Comanche+County&sca_esv=39e5c4a/d77ff80d&biw=1912&bih=948&sxsrf=APpeQnvNLpIHC2js.... 2/3"}, {"d": 61, "p": 29, "t": "9/14/26, 11:33 AM Neil West and Comanche County - Google Search ® Comanche County, Oklahoma - Based on your past activity - Update location Help Sendfeedback Privacy Terms https://(www.google.com/search?q=Neil+West+and+Comanche+County&sca_esv=39e5c4a/d77ff80d&biw=1912&bih=948&sxsrf=APpeQnvNLpIHC2js... 3/3"}, {"d": 61, "p": 30, "t": "Neil West and Comanche County - Google Search <> NeilWestandComancheCou AlMode All Images News X 8&8 Videos #2 Forums <=, Oklahoma Watch * —_-https://oklahomawatch.org » 2026/08/17 > the-secret-d... Q fy Shopping More ~ eee eee eee 9/14/26, 11:34 AM Toals + The Secret Documents: Attorneys Unveil Insurance Scheme Aug 17, 2026 — Details of the Albuquerque test came to light in the motions in a 2023 roof-claim lawsuit in Oklahoma, a case that aligns perfectly with the ... Read more YouTube - KSWO7News 60+ views - 4 weeks ago Comanche County judge hears motions in State Farm lawsuit Attorneys for Neil and Lacy West present motions to unseal State Farm documents in roof claim lawsuit For more Local News from KSWO: ... © Yelp https://www.yelp.com > ... > Lawyers NEIL S WEST ATTORNEY AT LAW NEIL S WEST ATTORNEY AT LAW in Lawton, reviews by real people. Yelp is a fun and easy way to find, recommend and talk about what's great and not so great in ... Missing: Gemanefe | Show results with: Comanche a Marlow Review httos://www.marlowreview.com > articles > view) distric... District 5 Race: Judicial Candidates share their qualifications Nov 1, 2022 — Stephens County Associate District Judge G. Brent Russell is hoping voters will consider him for the office of District Judge for Judicial .... Read more &) KSWO 7News . https://www.kswo.com > 2022/10/31 » election-district-... ELECTION: District Judge candidate profiles Oct 31, 2022 — 7News continues our pre-election coverage with profiles from District Judge candidates who returned our emails and/or phone calls. https://(www.google.com/search?q=Neil+West+and+Comanche+County&sca_esv=39e5c4a7d7 7ff80d&sxsrf=APpeQntxy7 T9inV9HBDPYNPxc5HpiVGt... 1/3"}, {"d": 61, "p": 31, "t": "9/14/26, 11:34 AM Neil West and Comanche County - Google Search & KSWO : httos://www.kswo.com: Feb 3, 2025 Verbal dispute erupts at Comanche County Commissioner ... Verbal dispute erupts at Comanche County Commissioner Meeting. Updated: Feb. 3, 2025 at 8:52 AM PST. Share. Add Us On GoogleAdd as a preferred source on ... Lawyers.com https://www.lawyers.com >... > Oklahoma > Lawton Neil Spencer West - Lawton, OK Attorney Neil Spencer West is a lawyer serving Lawton in Family Law cases. View attorney's profile for reviews, office locations, and contact information. ae %. oklahoma.gov https://oklahoma.gov> ...» About» NCT Coverage Map Jackson - Oklahoma.gov Jun 19, 2026 — Main Office Contact Non-Capital Trial 111 N Peters Ave, Suite 500. Norman, OK 73069. Tel: 405-801-2655. Fax: 405-801-2661. Division Chief Read more Missing: Gerranee | Show results with: Comanche KSWO httos://www.kswo.com - Dec 31, 2024 Top 7 7News stories of the year: Comanche County Detention ... Updated: 3 hours ago. Attorneys for Neil and Lacy West present motions to unseal State Farm documents in roof claim lawsuit. é Martindale-Hubbell https://www.martindale.com > Oklahoma» Lawton Neil S. West - Lawton, OK Office Information Neil S. West has a law office located in Lawton, OK. Martindale-Hubbell provides the office's address, phone number, website, and hours. People also search for Neil West District Judge Q Christine Galbraith Lawton OK Q Steven W Crow Q Neil West Attorney Lawton, OK Q https://(www.google.com/search?q=Neil+West+and+Comanche+County&sca_esv=39e5c4a7d7 7/ff80d&sxsrf=APpeQntxy7 T9inV9HBDPYNPxc5HpiVGt... 2/3"}, {"d": 61, "p": 32, "t": "9/14/26, 11:34 AM Neil West and Comanche County - Google Search <Go....... gle > Previous 123 45 67 8 9 10 Next ® Comanche County, Oklahoma - Based on your past activity - Update location Help Sendfeedback Privacy Terms https://(www.google.com/search?q=Neil+West+and+Comanche+County&sca_esv=39e5c4a7d7 7ff80d&sxsrf=APpeQntxy7 T9inV9HBDPYNPxc5HpiVGt... 3/3"}, {"d": 62, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) Plaintiffs, v. DISrRICt COURT ) COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA ) ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2025-135 ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ AGENCY, INC., ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) MOTION TO ASSOCIATE COUNSEL Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, through its counsel Timila S. Rother, Paige A. Masters, and Amanda M. Finch, Crowe Dunlevy, hereby moves the Court for an order permitting Diane Lee McGimsey to practice in the above-styled and numbered cause pursuant to the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association, 5 0.8. Ch. 1, App. 1, Art. IL. This motion is supported by the attached “Signed Application” (Exhibit A), “Certificate of Good Standing” (Exhibit B), and the “Certificate of Compliance” from the Oklahoma Bar Association (Exhibit C). ertfully submitted, ILA $. ROTHER, OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 62, "p": 2, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this 23rd day of September, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 R. Ryan Deligans DURBIN, LARIMORE & BIALICK 920 Nort iV City, omna73 102 y Wd"}, {"d": 62, "p": 3, "t": "APPLICATION OUT OF STATE ATTORNEY REGISTRATION Diane Lee First Name Middie Name McGimsey , Applicant, respectfully represents: Last Name 1. Applicant is an attorney at law and a member of the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Applicant's mailing address is 1888 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles Los Angeles City (310) County 712-6600 Telephone , (310) (Firm) Mailing Address CA 90067 State 712-6644 Zip Code , (310) Telephone (Applicant's Direct Dial) 712-8800 Fax (Applicant) mecgimseyd@sullcrom.com E-mail Address (Applicant) 2. Applicant is admitted to practice and is a member in good standing (certificates of good standing attached) of the bar(s) of the highest state court(s) of the following state(s): State Date of Admission California December 2004 3. Applicant is admitted to practice before the following United States District Courts, United States Circuit Courts of Appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States, and/or other tribunals on the dates indicated for each, and is presently a member in good standing of the bars of said courts: Tribunal Date of Admission See Attachment 1 EXHIBIT A"}, {"d": 62, "p": 4, "t": "4. Have you ever been suspended or disbarred in any court except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. court, jurisdiction, date): 5. Are you currently subject to any pending disciplinary proceedings by any organization with authority to discipline attorneys at law except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. court, discipline authority, date, status): _No 6. Have you ever received public discipline including, but not limited to, suspension or disbarment, by any organization with authority to discipline attorneys at law except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. court, discipline authority, type of discipline, date, status):__No 7. Have you ever had any certificate or privilege to appear and practice before any regulatory or administrative body suspended or revoked except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. administrative body, date, status of suspension or reinstatement): No 8. Applicant seeks admission to practice in the State of Oklahoma in the following matter (give particulars; e.g. caption of case, court or agency, type of matter, party to be represented): Note - A separate application is to be submitted for each matter in which the applicant seeks admission! Neil & Lacy West v. State Farm Fire & Casualty, & Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc., Case No. CJ-2025-135"}, {"d": 62, "p": 5, "t": "9. The Oklahoma Bar Association member who is counsel of record for Applicant in this matter is: Timila S. Rother 14310 First Name Middle Name Last Name 0.B.A. Number 324 North Robinson Avenue, Ste 100 OklahomaCity Mailing Address City 405) 235-7700 (YS) 10. 73102 State , 405) (249) 239-6651 Telephone Number OK Zip Code ; timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com Fax Number E-mail Address The following accurately represents the names of each party in this matter and the names and addresses of each counsel of record who appear for that party: Party Name Counsel Name Address of Counsel Neil & Lacy West Ryan Deligans Dubrin, Larimore & Bialick, 920 N. Harvey, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Colby Stephenson 21 NW 44th St, Suite 207, Lawton, OK 73505 Reggie Whitten, 512 N Broadway Avenue, Ste 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 State Farm; Nancy Holcomb Amanda Finch Ins Agency Inc OK 73102 Crowe & Dunlevy, PC, 324 N. Robinson Ave, Ste 100, Oklahoma City, Lance Leffel BOI Park Plaza, 499 W Sheridan Ave, Ste 2200, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Page Masters 324 N Robinson Ave Ste 100, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 11. Applicant certifies that he/she shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and disciplinary boards of this state with respect to the governing the conduct of attorneys to the same laws of this state extent as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association. 12. Applicant understands and shall comply with the standards of professional conduct required of members of the Oklahoma Bar Association. 13. Applicant has disclosed in writing to the client that the Applicant is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction and the client has consented to such representation."}, {"d": 62, "p": 6, "t": "L Vine Vee MOOS peasy under penalty of perjury that the assertions \" , do hereby swear/affirm application are true: | am the Applicant in the above réferenced matter; | have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge except as to those matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to those matters | believe them to be true. | further certify that | am subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts and disciplinary boards of this state with respect to the law of this state governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association; | understand and shall comply with the standards of professional conduct required by members of the Oklahoma Bar Association; and that | am subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Bar Association with respect to any of my actions occurring in the course of such appearance. DATED this \\‘e_ dayof Seg Swe Applicant Mail with check or money order (payable to the OBA) to: Out-of-State Attorney Registration Oklahoma Bar Association P.O. Box 53036 Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3036 Form 200B , Zee"}, {"d": 62, "p": 7, "t": "Attachment 1 Court and Bar Admissions Title of Court Date Admitted Registration Number Supreme Court of the United States October 9, 2012 United States Court of Appeals for the July 31, 2012 Second Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the October 30, 2006 Sixth Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the May 7, 2007 Ninth Circuit United States District Court for the January 7, 2004 Southern District of California United States District Court for the January 10, 2005 Eastern District of California United States District Court for the January 12, 2005 Central District of California United States District Court for the Northern District of California January 27, 2005"}, {"d": 62, "p": 8, "t": "THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA CERTIFICATE OF STANDING ISSUE DATE: 9/16/2026 LICENSEE NAME: Diane Lee McGimsey _ LICENSEE BAR NUMBER: 234953 LICENSEE STATUS: Active : To Whom it May Concern: This certificate of standing certifies the t record above iis a true and correct copy. of Diane Lee rw - McGimsey’ s current standing with the State Bar of California as of the iissue date. No’ recommendation for discipline for professional: or other. misconduct has ever been made by the Board of Trustees ora . Disciplinary Board B to the Supreme Court C of the State’ of California. Carolina Almarante-Terrero Custodian d. of Recor . EXHIBIT B NOTE: Only ACTIVE licensees of the State Bar of California are entitled tto» practice law in California (See Sections 6006 and 6125, et seq., Business and Professions Code.)"}, {"d": 62, "p": 9, "t": "Certificate of Compliance Oklahoma Bar Association 1901 North Lincoln Boulevard Post Office Box 33036 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152-3036 The Oklahoma Bar Association, in response to the application of out-ofstate attorney, submits the following certificate pursuant to 5 O.S. Ch.1 App.1, Art. Il 1. Applicant has submitted a signed application of out-of-state attorneys, certificate(s) of good standing, and the non-refundable application fee pursuant to the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association, 5 O.S. Ch. 1, App. 1, Art. Il. Date of Application: September 21, 2026 Application Number: 2026-594 Applying Attorney: Diane Lee McGimsey Sullivan & Cromwell LLP 1888 Centruy Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 The Application was: GRANTED Dated this 22°¢ day of September, 2026. Es Gina Hendryx, General Counsel Oklahoma Bar Association Form 400C EXHIBIT C"}, {"d": 63, "p": 1, "t": "FILED DISTRICT COURT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK seco Kr Case Number CJ-2025-135 ene Plaintiffs, Nee gee nee NEIL and LACY WEST, Defendants. Ne er Nee Nee eee STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Case No. CJ-2025-135 Nee Nene Vv. DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RULING, WITHOUT HEARING, ON PLAINTIFFS’ PENDING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AND FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING THE RESUMED DEPOSITION OF NICOLE MANDUCA, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR AN EMERGENCY HEARING"}, {"d": 63, "p": 2, "t": "Plaintiffs’ motion for an expedited ruling on their pending discovery sanctions motion or, alternatively, an emergency hearing (the “Emergency Motion”) is not well taken. At the September 24 hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel prioritized a premature motion on consolidation issues over their pending discovery sanctions motion (“Motion for Sanctions”) they now seek to expedite, and rebuffed counsel for State Farm’s effort to blend that Motion with the Deposition Protocol Motion. In an about-face, Plaintiffs now claim that their Motion for Sanctions requires a ruling on an expedited basis. Plaintiffs rely on hypothetical scheduling constraints that assume a favorable decision on their pending Motion for Sanctions but, at the same time, ignore that any such constraints are largely the product of their own choices including a) delaying pursuit of that motion originally, b) pursuing the wrong motion, and c) deciding not to have it heard when offered. Under these circumstances, Plaintiffs have not shown that emergency relief is proper. Moreover, although Plaintiffs repeatedly represent in their Emergency Motion that briefing on their Motion for Sanctions is complete and that nothing further remains for the Court’s consideration, the Emergency Motion nevertheless advances substantive arguments replying to State Farm’s opposition to their sanctions motion—thus improperly supplementing, as well as changing or at least expanding arguments, in the closed briefing, without leave. The Court should strike or disregard these new and untimely arguments on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions. Indeed, the posture of the Motion leads to the conclusion that what is being decided is whether the Motion for Sanctions should be decided on an emergency basis, not the Motion for Expedited Ruling on that motion. In the event the Court intends to decide the Sanctions Motion on the briefs, to which State Farm has objected, State Farm refers the Court to its Response to the original motion and flags the following points: e First, this Motion for Sanctions is procedurally improper to achieve what Plaintiffs seek under the rules because a sanefion of additional deposition time for purported non-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 3, "t": "responsiveness to questions requires both a motion fo compel that identifies specific questions that were not answered and a corresponding order on that motion that has not been complied with, neither of which exists. Further, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any extraordinary circumstances warranting a sanction under the Court’s inherent authority. e Second, in their new arguments in the Emergency Motion, Plaintiffs focus almost exclusively on Ms. Manduca’s “I don’t know” and “I don’t recall” answers but Ms. Manduca was appearing as an individual witness, not a corporate representative. Thus, there was no obligation to try and educate herself to answer every question asked, and the questions Plaintiffs generally cite are ones to which her answers of not knowing or recalling were responsive, truthful, and entirely reasonable, particularly to questions about circumstances from five years ago. ¢ Third, the answers Plaintiffs believe are non-responsive came in response to argumentative and testifying questions of counsel and long and confusing hypotheticals that the 10\" Circuit, in a case involving Plaintiffs’ counsel, has previously found not to be evidence. See Roesler v. TIG Ins, Co., 251 Fed. App’x 489, 496 & n.9 (10th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) below, and Exhibit 1 hereto. Thus, there is no basis for the substantive relief requested. State Farm respectfully requests that the Court deny the Emergency Motion and the Motion for Sanctions to the extent the Court elects to decide that underlying motion as well. BACKGROUND On June 23, 2026, Plaintiffs deposed Nicole Manduca, a Director in State Farm’s Property & Casualty department, for the entire six hours allowed under the Oklahoma rules. As apparent from the transcript and briefed in State Farm’s Motion for Entry of a Protective Order and Deposition Protocol Governing Counsel’s Conduct at Deposition (the “Deposition Protocol Motion”), Plaintiffs’ counsel was contentious and demeaning toward Ms. Manduca from the beginning—with long speeches about his knowledge and history with State Farm and confusing hypotheticals designed to require the witness to agree to his legal conclusions—and refused to provide Ms. Manduca with copies of exhibits used in the deposition, Further, at the deposition, Plaintiffs’ counsel repeatedly threatened to file a motion for sanctions when Ms. Manduca’s answers did not comport with Plaintiffs’ counsel’s theory of the case. (See, e.g., Deposition"}, {"d": 63, "p": 4, "t": "Protocol Motion at 14; id., Ex. 2 (June 23, 2026 N. Manduca Dep. Tr.) at 108: 1-6; 109: 14-15; 112: 21-23; 288: 16-19.) The Court reporter provided the parties the final transcript for Ms. Manduca’s deposition on July 7, 2026. (See Exhibit 2.) Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Sanctions three weeks afterwards on July 28, 2026, seeking additional deposition time to depose Ms. Manduca. They did so only after State Farm filed the Motion for Deposition Protocol. The Court set a hearing on September 24, 2026, to hear six motions. At the hearing, the Court asked counsel for Plaintiffs more than once which of the motions they would like to argue, and Plaintiffs’ counsel declined to argue their Motion for Sanctions, even after counsel for Defendants offered to address it. (See Exhibit 3 (Sept. 24, 2026 Hearing Transcript, pp. 99-102).) In doing so, Plaintiffs’ counsel took the position that the Deposition Protocol Motion was distinct from the Motion for Sanctions (Ex. 3, Hearing Tr., pp. 99-102), but they now have filed a Motion to Reconsider the Deposition Protocol claiming that the Court should not have granted the Deposition Protocol Motion because it is too intertwined with their Motion for Sanctions. (See, e.g., Motion to Reconsider Deposition Protocol filed September 25, 2026, pp. 1-2.) The Court granted State Farm’s Deposition Protocol Motion and, at Plaintiffs’ counsel’s own choosing, did not hear Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions, “reserv[ing] [it] for later date.” (See Transcript, Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 4 (Sept. 24, 2026 Court Order).) After Plaintiffs filed this Emergency Motion on September 25, 2026, the Court set the deadline for State Farm to respond to the Motion by October 2, 2026, and informed the parties’ counsel that it will rule without a hearing on the Emergency Motion by October 9, 2026. | A. ARGUMENT Plaintiffs Have Not Demonstrated Any Need For Emergency Relief Plaintiffs’ claimed emergency cannot be reconciled with the procedural history of this 4"}, {"d": 63, "p": 5, "t": "dispute. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions was already before the Court at the September 24 hearing, but Plaintiffs elected not to prioritize that motion. Plaintiffs now claim emergency circumstances require an expedited decision on the motion based on facts and alleged timing issues fhat existed at the September 24 hearing. Given that Plaintiffs abandoned the opportunity to prioritize a ruling on their Motion for Sanctions on September 24, and no facts have materially changed since then, Plaintiffs have not shown that their Motion for Sanctions is urgent. Plaintiffs should not obtain extraordinary relief based on circumstances that existed before—and were fully known to them at—the September 24 hearing. Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion points to an upcoming November 9 trial date in an attempt to justify an expedited ruling, (See Mot. at 3-4.) But, the Emergency Motion does not cite any evidence of actual prejudice to any party that would require emergency intervention. Instead, the Motion relies on hypothetical prejudice over the “compressed schedule” that an additional deposition of Ms. Manduca’s deposition could require, which presupposes a ruling in Plaintiffs’ favor on their Motion for Sanctions—a motion that this Court has not yet heard or ruled on. Further, this is a delay of their own making. Counsel threatened Ms. Manduca with sanctions repeatedly in the deposition on the theory she was non-responsive, then waited over a month after the deposition, and three weeks after the final transcript was available, to file their procedurally incorrect and factually flawed Motion for Sanctions: Q. I'm going to ask for a sanction. I’m going to go back and we’re going to file a brief. I’m going to ask for a sanction that you’re -- that the Court instruct the jury that you have now -- you have to admit bad faith because you will not respond"}, {"d": 63, "p": 6, "t": "to these questions. (See Deposition Protocol Motion, Ex. 2 (June 23, 2026 N. Manduca Dep. Tr.) at 108:1-6.) MR. WHITTEN: I object to responsiveness. We will ask for sanctions. (id. at 109:14-15.) Q. You have been totally and completely nonresponsive. That’s why we’re going to move for sanctions against you. Very rare, almost nonexistent, that I have to do that. (Id. at 288:16—19.) Plaintiffs’ delay in filing their motion is contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion that they “moved promptly.” (Mot. at 4.) Finally, the fact that briefing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions is closed does not warrant an expedited decision without oral argument. Rule 4(h) permits a ruling on the papers but not on an expedited basis, and Plaintiffs have not provided any compelling reason for the Court to prioritize Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions over other matters pending before it—including multiple pending motions of Defendants, particularly given Plaintiffs’ own delay in pursuing it. See 12 O.S. Ch. 2, App., Rule 4(h). B. The Court Should Strike Or Disregard Plaintiffs’ Untimely and New Arguments. a. Reply The Court Should Strike Plaintiffs’ Improper Reply Arguments. Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion is also improper because it attempts to inject new, untimely, and reply-like arguments that respond to State Farm’s arguments in opposition to their Motion for Sanctions. These arguments contradict Plaintiffs’ own representation that a decision on the papers"}, {"d": 63, "p": 7, "t": "for their Motion for Sanctions is warranted because briefing on that motion is allegedly “complete.” (See Mot. at 5.) For example, the Motion notes that “State Farm’s principal answer to Plaintiffs’ pending motion is that sanctions under § 3237(B) require violation of a prior order compelling answers,” and argues “[t]hat argument does not reach the relief requested here... .” Jd. at 8 (citing Defendants’ response brief at 5~8). The Motion also provides substantive discussions of authority under 12 0.8. §§ 3230(A)(3), 3226(C) and 3230(E)(2) and 3237 and Barnett v. Simmons, 2008 OK 100, 197 P.3d 12. Id. Because Plaintiffs did not seek leave to supplement or submit a reply in support of their Motion for Sanctions, the Court should strike these untimely merits arguments in their Emergency Motion. b. Plaintiffs’ New Arguments Do Not Show That Ms. Manduca Gave Evasive or Incomplete Answers Under 12 O.S, §3237(A). In response to State Farm’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions—particularly with respect to Plaintiffs’ failure to point to a predicate order under 12 O.S. §3237(B) (authorizing sanctions from a party’s “FAJLURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER”)—Plaintiffs now appear to narrow the original relief they sought to just a request for relief under §3237(A) (by motion for an order compelling discovery for an “evasive or incomplete answer’), which they characterize as “not a sanction.” (Mot. at 8.) Besides changing their position and asking for an expedited decision, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that this relief is warranted here. First, Plaintiffs have not identified specific questions that allegedly required further answers and that would support the relief they seek under § 3237(A). Instead, Plaintiffs continue to rely largely on generalized complaints regarding the frequency of answers such as “I don’t know” and “I don’t recall.” Plaintiffs have not shown—and cannot show—that Ms. Manduca’s answers such as “I don’t know” or “I don’t recall” are evasive or incomplete. Ms. Manduca was"}, {"d": 63, "p": 8, "t": "an individual, non-corporate representative testifying in her personal capacity, and thus had no obligation to be prepared to provide binding testimony on behalf of State Farm.! Plaintiffs’ questions, however, assumed that she possessed deep corporate knowledge about State Farm’s policies, strategies, corporate documents, personnel, and conversations between personnel that Ms. Manduca truthfully testified to not knowing anything about. (See Deposition Protocol Motion, Ex. 2 (June 23, 2026 N. Manduca Dep. Tr.), passim.) For example, many of Plaintiffs’ questions to which Ms. Manduca had no knowledge or recollection related to specific documents she testified to never having seen or received, while others asked about emails or communications from over five years ago: Q.... Do you recall telling her that? A. If there’s a document that you’d like me to review, I’m happy to look at it. Q. I’m testing your memory first. A. I’m happy to -Q. Do you recall telling Wendy Mazza that? A. I don’t recall. Q. Fair enough. We will show you. Plaintiffs’ counsel proceeded to produce an instant message transcript between Ms, Manduca and Ms. Mazza from six years ago——September 28, 2020. (See Deposition Protocol Motion, Ex. 2 (June 23, 2026 N. Manduca Dep. Tr.) at 256:1-18). Ms. Manduca’s responses were clearly ' If Plaintiffs’ counsel wanted a witness to testify as State Farm, they could have issued a corporate representative notice. In fact, counsel for Plaintiffs told counsel for State Farm more than once that they intended to issue such a notice. It appears that they ran out of time and this is an effort to make Ms. Manduca into a corporate representative by asking the Court, effectively, to issue an order premised on the notion that she was required to know the answers to their questions, That is not the law, and they have cited nothing for that premise. 8"}, {"d": 63, "p": 9, "t": "reasonable under the circumstances. See, e.g, Elan Microelectronics Corp. vy. Pixcir Microelectronics Co., No. 2:10-cv-00014-GMN-PAL, Dealer Computer Servs., Inc. v. Curry, No. 12 Civ. 3457(IMF)(JLC), 2013 WL 499520, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb, 7, 2013) (‘A deposition is not a quiz, nor is it the most practical way to obtain [all types of] information.”); 2013 WL 4101811, at *8 (D. Nev. Aug. 13, 2013) (finding that even a corporate representative deposition “4s not a memory contest”). Second, as set forth in detail in State Farm’s Deposition Protocol Motion, Plaintiffs’ questions to Ms, Manduca were exceptionally argumentative, misleading and confusing, in an effort to create false evidence. This same type of questioning by counsel for Plaintiffs herein was specifically rejected by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals as not being evidence on which a Court should rely, noting questions that are eerily similar to those being dealt with by State Farm witnesses almost 20 years later. See Roesler v. TIG Ins. Co., 251 Fed. App’x 489, 496 & n.9 (10th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (the Court “need not endorse inferences premised on deliberate confusion, inaccurate hypothetical questions, or misstatements of earlier testimony to induce misleading testimony from a later witness.”). Indeed, despite their effort to disguise it, Plaintiffs’ underlying complaint is really that Ms. Manduca did not supply answers supporting Plaintiffs’ theory of the case. For example, Plaintiffs complain that Ms. Manduca “supplied innocent explanations for four of Plaintiffs’ central exhibits” on her redirect testimony. Emergency Motion at 7. This assertion reveals Plaintiffs’ dissatisfaction with any response from Ms. Manduca that does not comport with their bad-faith theory. That is not a basis for additional deposition time of a witness who testified truthfully under oath. Under these circumstances, Ms. Manduca’s responses were entirely reasonable, and Plaintiffs’ complaints are baseless. c. Plaintiffs’ New Arguments Do Not Show That a Sanction Under the Court’s Inherent Authority is Warranted."}, {"d": 63, "p": 10, "t": "While Plaintiffs allege now that the relief they seek is “not a sanction,” at the same time, they also invoke the Court’s inherent authority to issue a sanction for abuse of the discovery process. (/d.) For all the reasons above, Plaintiffs have not shown any abusive litigation practice, bad-faith conduct, abuse of the judicial process or any other extraordinary circumstance warranting the Court’s exercise of its inherent authority to grant the specific relief Plaintiffs request. Plaintiff cannot cite any violation by State Farm of any relevant Court order. Plaintiff cannot even argue that Ms. Manduca failed to show up at her deposition or was unprepared to respond to questions in her personal capacity. At most, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions is an attempt to further burden Ms. Manduca and State Farm in an effort to obtain different answers. But, as decided by the Tenth Circuit, that type of confusing hypothetical and questions built on misinterpretation of documents is not evidence at all and Ms. Manduca should not be subjected to it again. In sum, if the Court elects to consider Plaintiffs’ reply-like arguments in connection with Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions, those arguments have not established any basis for additional deposition time under either the Discovery Code or the Court’s inherent authority. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth herein, State Farm thus respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion. Rg on ( a ee, ~ ; submi ted, [LLC 4 TIMILA NaSTER OBA #14f10 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 10 ( AN. “. ~~"}, {"d": 63, "p": 11, "t": "Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the 2nd day of October, 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM Hannah Whitten 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 John S. Sanders Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE R. Ryan Deligans 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 DURBIN, LARIMORE & BIALICK Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 ~920 North-Harve OklahQnfa City, =) {1 ASD a"}, {"d": 63, "p": 12, "t": "FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 12, 2007 TENTH Elisabeth A. Shumaker CIRCUIT Clerk of Court PAUL ROESLER; PAUL ROESLER, CRNA, INC., No. 05-7055 Plaintiffs - Appellees, E. D. Okla. V. TIG INSURANCE (D.C. No. 02-CV-576-W) COMPANY, Defendant - Appellant. ORDER AND JUDGMENT’ Before HARTZ, EBEL, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges. Paul Roesler, a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (doing business as Paul Roesler CRNA, Inc.), purchased professional liability insurance through TIG Insurance Company in May 2002. In August 2002, Roesler was sued for his involvement in the June 1998 cesarian section birth of a severely brain-damaged infant. Roesler notified TIG of the suit on August 19, 2002.. On September 27, 2002, TIG informed Roesler it had rescinded his policy based on his failure to ‘This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th wR. 32.1."}, {"d": 63, "p": 13, "t": "include information of the surgical incident in his insurance application. On October 17, 2002, Roesler filed suit for breach of contract and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. A jury found in favor of Roesler and awarded him $60,072 for TIG’s breach of the insurance contract and $2.31 million in compensatory damages for TIG’s bad faith. In addition, the jury awarded Roesler $2.3 million in punitive damages. TIG appeals claiming, inter alia, the district court erred in denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law and its motion for a new trial. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we conclude the trial court failed to correctly instruct the jury. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. I. BACKGROUND Roesler is a certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) employee of Paul Roesler, CRNA Inc. and the sole He and his company held a professional liability insurance policy with St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company from 1989 to 2002. coverage. In 2002, St. Paul ceased offering CRNA professional liability Roesler applied to TIG for a liability insurance policy which provided retroactive coverage for claims from 1989 forward. Roesler considered retroactivity critical because approximately twenty percent of his work involved the delivery of babies and malpractice liability continues until the child turns nineteen."}, {"d": 63, "p": 14, "t": "On June 22, 1998, Roesler administered anesthesia during the emergency cesarean section birth of fourteen-year-old Amanda Burton’s daughter, Tala. The baby was born with signs of severe hypoxia, a lack of oxygen in utero which may result in brain damage, and scored a bare minimum on the Apgar tests.' Roesler testified it was a night he was “never going to forget.” (R. Vol. IV at 1045a.) He described the child’s condition as “the worst one that I had seen... where the baby was still alive.” (/d. at 1053a.) He was aware at that time there was a problem with the baby and the outcome could be bad. He was correct; Tala had profound, permanent neurological damage. Two days after the Burton birth, the hospital asked Roesler to write a narrative of the events. Although Roesler had been verbally consulted post- surgery on prior occasions, this was his first request for a written narrative. Roesler knew there was a controversy as to whether the other members of the team had timely responded and whether Dr. Claypool, the leading physician, had advised the team it must come to the hospital immediately. Roesler wrote a narrative addressing those points. In August 2001, the Burtons filed suit against Dr. Claypool and the hospital, but did not name Roesler as a defendant. Roesler testified that shortly ' Apgar score is “an index used to evaluate the condition of a newborn infant based on a rating of 0, 1, or 2 for each of the five characteristics of color, heart rate, response to stimulation of the sole of the foot, muscle tone, and respiration with 10 being a perfect score.” Dictionary (10th ed. 1998). 3- Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate"}, {"d": 63, "p": 15, "t": "before the August suit was filed, he spoke with Claypool about its likelihood. He stated Claypool told him the Burtons would probably sue the doctor and the hospital, but not Roesler. Several days later, Roesler read in the newspaper the suit had been filed, but other than the names of the parties, no details were provided. In September 2001, Roesler met with the hospital’s attorney, Leah Kinsey, to discuss his knowledge of the relevant events. Roesler testified he did not receive a copy of the complaint, nor did he seek to obtain one. Prior to receiving TIG coverage in May 2002, Roesler was asked to fill out an application and a supplementary application, also known as 2 “no-known-loss letter.” The application form, completed in March 2002, contained question #9 which asked: “Are you aware of any facts or circumstances (including a request for records) that might give rise to a claim against you?” (R. Vol. VI at 1722a.) Roesier checked “no.” The no-known-loss letter, completed in May 2002,’ contained the following language: Except that which is described below, I the undersigned have no: * At the time Roesler filled out the application, the underwriters were working on revisions to question 9. Later applications phrased the question, (now #2), “Are you aware of any facts or circumstances (including a request for records from a patient or their family, an Attorney or Risk Manager) that might give rise to a claim against you?” (R. Vol. VI at 1734a.) > At trial, the testimony indicated Roesler may have misplaced the original supplemental application form, requested another and later sent it to TIG. -4-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 16, "t": "[Bullet Point 2] knowledge of information relating to the providing or withholding of professional services which might result in a claim, and/or [Bullet Point 6] knowledge or information relating to the providing or withholding of past professional services that resulted in... a patient’s death or neurological injury. (id. at 1719a.) Roesler signed the supplemental application without mentioning the Burton birth or lawsuit in the “Exceptions” section. TIG issued the requested policy on May 22, 2002. The policy contained a “prior knowledge exclusion” barring coverage for claims arising from professional services that “could reasonably have been expected to result ina Claim, Incident or Suit, as of the date the Insured applied for this policy.” (/d. at 1838a.) Because he received a retroactive policy from TIG dating back to 1989, Roesler did not purchase “tail” coverage (permanent coverage for the periods he was insured by St, Paul) from St. Paul. (/d. at 1721a.) Less than three months after Roesler secured his policy, on August 12, 2002, the Burtons filed suit against Roesler. In this second suit, the Burtons claimed “Amanda Burton was not taken to the operating room until after 2 att. due to the late arrival of the ‘delivery team,’ including Paul Roesler, CRNA.” (Id, at 1771a.) On Monday, August 19, 2002, Roesler telephoned TIG to report the lawsuit.* He spoke with claims adjuster, Jennifer Williams.’ Williams’ * TIG has two departments with separate duties regarding TIG’s insurance policies. The underwriting department drafts and approves applications after an 5."}, {"d": 63, "p": 17, "t": "contemporaneous notes reflect that Roesler told her about the events of June 28, 1998, and insisted the call that night was not a “stat” request. (/d. at 182la.) The notes also indicate Roesler told her he wrote a detailed report of the events of that night “because it seemed like a situation where there could potentially be a lawsuit.” (/d.) The notes mark this statement with quotations and an asterisk. Williams stated she did so because it “raised a red flag.” (R. Vol. If] at 800a.) Williams testified she asked Roesler when he first learned the baby was brain damaged and noted Roesler responded, “about six months ago when [the] doc[tor] & hospfital] were sued.” (R. Vol. VI at 18214.) Williams then spoke with Leah Kinsey, the attorney representing the hospital in the Burton lawsuit. Her notes of this conversation state Kinsey had spoken with Roesler “on several occasions as his dep[osition] has been requested” and “additionally [Kinsey] had contact [with] him during [the] peer review process.” (/d. at 1823a.) During this investigation, Williams recognized Roesler’s evaluation of risk. The claims department deals with the insured under the policy. Thus, the decision to defend and pay claims, disclaim an insured’s claim or provide a defense under a reservation of rights is made within the claims department. The decision to rescind a policy is within the jurisdiction of the underwriting department. The TIG witnesses in the claims department were Jennifer William, her supervisor, Eugenia Mulhern, and Mulhern’s supervisor, Lauree Barreca. The underwriters were Jeff McDonald and Mark Brostowitz. Although the decision to rescind Roesier’s policy was made by the underwriters, it was based on discussions between the two departments. * Williams spoke with Roesler twice between August 19 and August 30, 2002, when she left town to participate in an unrelated mediation. -6-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 18, "t": "retroactive policy had been written recently, in May 2002, and he had not reported the incident to his former insurer. Williams spoke with her supervisor, Eugenia Mulhern, because she was concerned Roesler’s claim may not be covered under the “prior knowledge exclusion” of the policy. Mulhern advised Williams to contact Donald Dorfman, an insurance attorney in California, to ask him to examine the file for potential policy coverage issues. On August 23, 2002, Dorfman e-mailed Williams a preliminary coverage opinion. Based on Roesler’s statements to Williams, Dorfman suggested the “prior knowledge” exclusion may apply and that there may be grounds for rescission based upon material nondisclosure. Dorfman also stated, “TIG will want to be confident that it has done what it reasonably can do to corroborate the facts as reflected in the interview notes before disclaiming and perhaps rescinding the policy.” (Id.) These preliminary comments were provided to Jeff McDonald of the underwriting division. McDonald asked Lauree Barreca to contact attorney Savannah Sellman for an opinion on whether rescission would be appropriate. During Williams’ next conversation with Roesler she informed him there may be some question regarding his coverage due to possible misrepresentations about his knowledge of a potential lawsuit. Roesler replied that he did not mention the incident on his application because he did not believe he would be sued. Suit had already been filed against the doctor and the hospital and he was not a named party. Williams left town after this conversation on another matter ~7-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 19, "t": "and Mulhern took the lead on the Roesler claim. On September 3, 2002, Mulhern spoke with Roesler about his apparent expectation of the lawsuit against him. He explained the allegations in the suit were groundless and again explained that once the first lawsuit was filed without naming him, he assumed he would not be sued. Muthern’s notes also indicate Roesler told her he learned of Tala Burton’s brain damage “when the suit was filed.” (R. Vol. VI at 1952a.) Mulhern then telephoned Dorfman and relayed the substance of her conversation with Roesler. They determined Dorfman would draft questions for Roesler while Mulhern would investigate the first lawsuit’s allegations and early discovery. The next day, Mulhern spoke with Kinsey. Kinsey explained the basis of the original lawsuit and told Mulhern there was no issue with the administration of anesthesia. response. Rather, the claim involved the timing of the operating room crew’s After her conversation with Kinsey, Mulhern retained attorney Steve Peterson to represent Roesler. At approximately the same time, TIG received a letter from Roesler faxed to Williams and Mulhern. The letter stated: When I filled out the application for coverage, I did have knowledge of the suit by Amanda Burton against the hospital and the obstetrician; but I did not know, nor should I have known, that I might be a party to that suit. The allegations made by the plaintiff had nothing to do with my performance and J could not reasonably foresee that I might be named as a party to the suit some six months later."}, {"d": 63, "p": 20, "t": "(Id. at 1730a.) However, approximately one hour later, TIG received a copy of the original lawsuit which did contain an allegation implicating Roesler. Paragraph 6 of the Complaint alleged, inter alia: The nurses providing the intrapartum nursing care and nursing obstetrical anesthesia care breached their duties with respect to Amanda Burton’s intrapartum labor and delivery nursing care and obstetrical anesthesia. (id. at 1768a.) At trial, Roesler conceded the discrepancies between these two documents could raise a legitimate question regarding his veracity. On September 5, Mulhern requested Dorfman write a formal coverage opinion. He sent his opinion on September 12, 2002, stating Roesler’s explanation of why he did not expect a lawsuit raised a “credible factual basis for the insured to avoid the prior knowledge exclusion based on an objectively reasonable belief that no potential claim was presented.” (/d. at 1749a.) Dorfman offered to address the issue of rescission separately if TIG wished, but at that point recommended TIG defend with a reservation of rights under the policy while investigation continued. TIG received Sellman’s formal opinion the next day. Even though Sellman had not reviewed Dorfman’s letter, she agreed Roesler’s explanation for his answers regarding his knowledge of a potential lawsuit was “plausible” and did not suggest the prior knowledge exclusion be invoked (7d. at 1757a.) Nonetheless, she concluded Roesler’s answer to bullet point 6 was cause for"}, {"d": 63, "p": 21, "t": "rescission. She opined TIG had a legitimate dispute as to coverage because it could reasonably believe he intentionally misrepresented his “knowledge or information relating to the providing or withholding of past professional services that resulted in a patient’s neurological injury.” Because Roesler knew of Tala Burton’s brain injury and subsequent lawsuit at the time he answered the question, Sellman advised TIG that it could reasonably believe Roesler intended to deceive the insurance company under Oklahoma law. Had TIG known of the Burton incident, it could have independently evaluated the possibility of a claim before issuing coverage and, at the least, carved out an exception to the claim. Based on Roesler’s misrepresentation by failing to provide the Burton information in response to bullet point 6, Sellman recommended TIG rescind the policy. She concluded, at a minimum, TIG had a “legitimate dispute as to coverage.” (Id. at 1757a.) Sellman also recommended TIG continue defending Roesler for 30 days so he could make alternative arrangements for his defense. At this point, TIG had three options. It could (1) disallow Roesler’s claim, (2) continue defending under a reservation of rights and later rescind if warranted, or (3) rescind. On September 27, with no further investigation, TIG sent Roesler a rescission letter drafted by Sellman. The letter identified Roesler’s answer to Bullet Point 6 as the basis for the rescission but also referenced potential difficulties with Question # 9 and Bullet Point 2, After acknowledging Roesler’s explanation for his answers to Question # 9 and Bullet Point 2, the letter -10-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 22, "t": "continued as follows: However, you learned that Tala Burton suffered brain damage and was mentally retarded at the time you learned of the suit against the hospital and Dr. Claypool, no later than “early 2002,” and before you completed the supplemental declaration to your application for insurance on May 3, 2002. You failed to reveal Tala Burton’s neurological injuries in response to the question whether you had knowledge of information relating to professional services that resulted in a patient’s neurological injury. This question on the application was not based on whether you subjectively believed a claim would be asserted, only whether you knew of any neurological injuries to a patient. The omission of this information is a material misrepresentation under Oklahoma law. See Wagnon v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 146 F.3d 764, 768 (10th Cir. 1998) (applying Oklahoma law) (“a misrepresentation will be considered material if a reasonable insurance company, in determining its course of action, would attach importance to the fact misrepresented.”) If TIG had known of the incident involving Ms. Burton, TIG could have conducted its own evaluation and investigation of whether a claim was likely to be asserted against you before issuing the Policy; at the very least, TIG could have carved out an exception from coverage for the Burton claim. (id. at 1707-08a). Roesler received the letter while at work on October 1, 2002. On October 14, 2002, Roesler received approval from an insurer in the secondary market ° for a non-retroactive policy at a premium approximately $6,000 more per year than TIG’s policy.’ ® An insurer in the “secondary” or “non-admitted” market accepts applicants who do not meet normal underwriting guidelines. These insurers do not need to meet the stringent rate requirements of admitted insurers regulated by state departments of insurance. ” Throughout the trial, TIG officials conceded they knew the effect of rescission would be to void all coverage for Roesler back to 1989. They also knew securing new insurance would be more difficult because the application for -|]-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 23, "t": "Roesler filed suit against TIG on October 17, 2002, for breach of contract and bad faith seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Shortly thereafter, the Burton’s voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit against Roesler. On January 4, 2003, after the dismissal of the Burton suit, TIG mistakenly sent Roesler a Reservation of Rights letter informing him TIG would conduct his defense subject to its continuing investigation of possible misrepresentation. On August 1, 2003, Brostowitz sent Roesler a letter informing him his policy had been formally reinstated and no premium was requested. Burton claim was excluded from the new policy. However, the Brostowitz testified this was a business decision intended to limit damages in the event Roesler’s suit was successful. Less than six months after TIG reinstated Roesler’s policy, TIG decided to cease offering professional liability insurance to CRNAs, Therefore, it notified Roesler and its other customers that it would not be renewing their policies. However, it did offer “tail” coverage for its customers at a cost of approximately $4,000. Roesler declined this offer because he “didn’t want to do business with a company that treated [him] like that.” (R. Vol. IV at 1040a.) Asa result, Roesler remained uninsured for events occurring between 1989 and October 1, 2002. Roesier’s claims were presented to a jury in April 2004. At the close of Roesler’s evidence, TIG moved for judgment as a matter of law. The trial court every insurer asked whether the applicant ever had a policy rescinded. -]2-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 24, "t": "denied the motion. TIG renewed its motion at the close of all evidence and also moved for a new trial. These motions were also denied. Roesler $60,072 for TIG’s breach of contract. The jury awarded For TIG’s bad faith, the jury awarded Roesler $2.31 million in compensatory damages and $2.3 million in punitive damages. This timely appeal followed. II. DISCUSSION TIG claims it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Roesler’s bad faith claim because it had a reasonable, good faith basis to believe there was a legitimate dispute as to whether Roesler made a material misrepresentation on his insurance application with TIG. In the alternative, TIG maintains it is entitled to a new trial because the trial court erroneously instructed the jurors that it must find TIG acted in bad faith if it found Roesler had not intended to deceive TIG in his application. Finally, TIG claims it is entitled to a remittitur or a new trial because the award of over $2 million for emotional distress is clearly excessive.’ A. Judgment as a Matter of Law TIG maintains the court erred in denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law on Roesler’s bad faith claim. “A judgment as a matter of law is warranted only if the evidence points but one way and is susceptible to no * “Because this is a diversity action, we apply the substantive law of the forum state....” Advantage Homebuilding, LLC. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 470 F.3d 1003, 1007 (10th Cir. 2006) (citation and quotations omitted). In this case, we apply Oklahoma law. .13-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 25, "t": "reasonable inferences which may support the opposing party’s position.” Herrera v. Lufkin Indus., Inc., 474 F.3d 675, 685 (10th Cir. 2007) (citation and quotations omitted). We review the district court’s decision de novo, considering the entire record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. “The question is not whether there is literally no evidence supporting the nonmoving party but whether there is evidence upon which a jury could properly find for that party. For a jury to properly find for a party, the party must present more than a scintilla of evidence supporting its claim.” Id. TIG asserts the evidence was insufficient to support the bad faith and punitive damages awards. Roesler argues there was abundant evidence TIG manufactured the alleged legitimate dispute in bad faith. Unfortunately, before we can discuss the issues and evidence, we must take a moment to debunk many of Roesler’s arguments which are unsupported by law or fact. We are mindful we must allow all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. However, we need not endorse inferences premised on deliberate confusion, inaccurate hypothetical questions, or misstatements of earlier testimony to induce misleading testimony from a later witness.” Therefore, we must separate concocted or * For example, Sellman was one of the last witnesses to testify. During cross-examination, plaintiff’s counsel asked, “Did you know that the claims people in this case have all testified they made the decision to rescind this man’s insurance policy before they hired either you or Mr. Dorfman; did you know that?” (Vol. V at 1459a.) This question misrepresented the previous testimony. In fact, the uncontested testimony established rescission was an option being considered but no final decision had been made until after TIG received Sellman’s -[4-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 26, "t": "irrelevant “evidence” from evidence actually presented to the jury. 1. Sham or Irrelevant Evidence a) Lawyer-Shopping Roesiler argues evidence of bad faith can be inferred from TIG’s “lawyershopping” based on Jeff McDonald’s request that Barrecca hire Sellman shortly after Dorfman rendered his informal opinion. Roesler alleges it established an inference TIG went to Sellman because it did not like Dorfman’s advice. There is no evidence supporting such an inference. Uncontested evidence established Dorfman was retained to opine solely on the policy coverage issue, not rescission. to Williams on August 23, 2002.'° the same day. His informal opinion arrived via e-mail Williams forwarded the e-mail to McDonald Dorfman’s informal opinion, rendered before knowledge of Roesler’s explanation, stated he believed the Burton suit was excluded from opinion. Moreover, the evidence consistently revealed TI1G’s claims department employees provided input but the underwriters made the decision to rescind Roesler’s policy after Sellman provided her legal opinion. ' Every witness with knowledge of the matter so testified. In addition, Dorfman’s final opinion, sent on September 12, 2002, specifically recognized he had not been retained to opine on rescission. Indeed, even though he recommended more investigation before refusing to cover the claim, he further stated: “There are also grounds to consider a policy rescission based on the same failure to disclose this C section delivery as a potential claim at the time of application for coverage. We can address this separately should you wish to assess this further.” (R. Vol. VI at 1750a.) The fact that Dorfman commented on rescission does not lead to an inference he was retained to provide an opinion on the matter. -[5-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 27, "t": "coverage under the prior knowledge exclusion, and separately, there may be grounds for rescission of the policy based upon material nondisclosure.” (R. Vol. VI at 1800a.) He recommended further investigation. Uncontradicted testimony further established it was at this point TIG hired Sellman to address the rescission issue. Thus, at the time TIG hired Sellman, Dorfman was recommending coverage be denied. It was only after Sellman was retained that Dorfman learned of Roesler’s September 4, 2002, explanation. While Dorfman changed his opinion regarding the prior knowledge exclusion, there is no evidence TIG contacted Sellman to report Dorfman’s final conclusions or gave any other direction to Seliman’s formal opinion, sent the day after Dorfman’s. Indeed, Sellman agreed Roesler offered a “plausible” position as to his prior knowledge of a lawsuit against him. However, Sellman concluded Roesler’s admission he knew of Burton’s injuries before he completed his application was sufficient evidence of misrepresentation as to Bullet Point 6. (R. Vol. VI at 1757a.) The timing and substance of the two legal opinions provide no basis for Roesler’s insinuation TIG went “lawyer-shopping” in bad faith or that the two legal opinions were contradictory. b) Knowledge of Brain Injury Roesler also argues TIG’s bad faith is demonstrated by its failure to resolve whether Roesler knew Tala Burton suffered brain injuries prior to completing his application for insurance. The evidence allows no question of fact on this issue. -16-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 28, "t": "Williams’ notes specifically state Roesler told her he learned of Tala Burton’s injuries when he heard about the lawsuit against the doctor and the hospital. Mulhern’s notes do not contradict this statement, but merely state Roesler told her he learned of the injuries at “the time of the lawsuit.”\"' denied this knowledge. In fact, Roesler never When asked at trial why he answered Bullet Point 6 in the negative, Roesler did not say he did not know about Tala Burton’s injuries. Rather, he explained he believed the question asked whether his administration of anesthesia caused Tala Burton’s brain damage and, because he did not believe it did, he did not mention the incident. Given the uncontested evidence, all reasonable inferences necessarily lead to the conclusion Roesler learned about Tala Burton’s neurological injuries, at the latest, in August 2001. Therefore, there can be no inference TIG acted in bad faith by declining to further investigate this issue. c) Post-Litigation Conduct Roesler argues TIG’s post-litigation conduct — the post-rescission Reservation of Rights letter, reinstatement of the policy and the offer of a tail policy — is evidence of bad faith. He asserts this evidence was appropriately '! Plaintiff’s counsel deftly managed to confuse Mulhern during crossexamination by insisting her failure to note which specific lawsuit Roesler was referring to during their conversation (the one against the hospital or the later suit against Roesler) raised a question of fact as to when Roesler knew of Burton’s injuries. However, Mulhern consistently testified Roesler told her he knew of Burton’s injuries at the time of the lawsuit against the doctor and the hospital. -l7-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 29, "t": "considered by the jury “in determining the reasonableness of TIG’s initial decision to rescind the policy in light of its attempt after litigation to somehow ‘cure’ its conduct.” (Appellee’s Br. at 44.) These post-litigation activities have no relevance to TIG’s alleged bad faith. Hale v. A.G. Ins. Co., 138 P.3d 567, 571-72 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006) (“[T]he analysis in bad faith cases indicates the cutoff for relevant evidence is the date of payment or denial of the claim.”). The duty of good faith and fair dealing exists during the time the claim is being reviewed. Once a lawsuit is filed, to hold an insurer’s acceptable litigation tactics as evidence of bad faith would be to deny the insurer a complete defense. See Timberlake Const. Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 71 F.3d 335, 340 (10th Cir. 1995) (“[sJuch evidence should rarely, if ever, be allowed to serve as proof of bad faith.”). “[A]llowing litigation conduct to serve as evidence of bad faith would undermine an insurer’s right to contest questionable claims and to defend itself against such claims resulting in a chilling effect on insurers, which could unfairly penalize them by inhibiting their lawyers from zealously and effectively representing their clients within the bounds permitted by law.” Sims v. Travelers Ins. Co., 16 P.3d 468, 471 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000). Even if the post-litigation events are considered, there is no inference of bad faith. TIG readily admitted the decision to reinstate Roesler’s policy was intended to mitigate damages and, as such, is not evidence of prior bad faith. ~18- As"}, {"d": 63, "p": 30, "t": "to the January 2003, reservation of rights letter, Barreca testified she sent the letter by mistake. Even so, at the time the letter was sent, the underlying suit had already been resolved and nothing could be gained by this mistake. d) Attorney Opinion Letters Finally, Roesler repeatedly insinuated at trial that TIG’s failure to provide him the letters from Dorfman and Sellman with the letter of the rescission is evidence of bad faith. For example, in the examination of Jeff McDonald, the following colloquy occurred: Q. Are you proud that your company has taken the position that they’re proud of how they treated [Roesler] because they treated him in good faith? A. I, I’m aware that we don’t feel we’ve acted in bad faith here. Q. Well, if your company is satisfied they’ve treated him fairly, don’t you think one of the things they should do is be proud to show Mr. Roesler those two legal opinions from the beginning? TIG Counsel: Objection, your honor, argumentative and object under Timberlake. Court: A. Q. Overruled, — I just, I don’t know that we were ever asked to do that. Well, does this man, who is not a lawyer, does he have to ask you specific little questions after you’ve denied his claim and say, Guys, did you up in Chicago hire a couple of lawyers that told you that you could, you could rescind this policy; does he have to ask that before you'll give it to him? TIG Counsel: Objection, relevance your Honor. -19-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 31, "t": "Court: Overruled. (Vol. III at 662-663a). and Barrecca. The same type of questioning continued with Williams Roesler also testified TIG never told him before the lawsuit it was relying on opinions from lawyers to rescind the policy. In closing, plaintiff’s counsel told the jury that good faith required TIG “to tell [Roesler] everything.” (R. Vol. V at 1545a.) TIG maintains its failure to provide Roesler its lawyers’ opinions at the time of rescission is irrelevant to bad faith. Moreover, it contends the trial court’s admission of counsel’s insinuations through this line of questioning is an abuse of discretion, or in the alternative, plain error. In response, Roesler asserts that “simply because there is not a law holding it is bad faith for an insurer not to inform an insured about evidence it obtains from a lawyer, this does not mean it is not unreasonable in one case or another to fail to do so.” (Appeilee’s Br. at 64.) Roesler’s response ignores basic concepts of attorney-client privilege. The attorney-client privilege is codified at Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2502. It protects communications between an attorney and the client “who consults an attorney with a view towards obtaining legal services or is rendered professional legal services by an attorney.” 7d. at § 2502 (A)(2). The client retains the “privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client.” Jd. at § 2502 B; see also, Scott v. -20-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 32, "t": "Peterson, 126 P.3d 1232, 1235 n.3 (Okla. 2005). As a general matter, “the client has a reasonable expectation that ... disclosure of such information may be judicially compelled only in accordance with recognized exceptions to the attorney-client and work product privileges.” Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, Ch. 1, App. 3-A (Rules of Prof’! Conduct (Scope)). Consequently, TIG had no duty to expressly waive its privilege. An insurance company, just as any other individual or entity, has the right to seek confidential legal advice.'? See Sims v. Travelers Ins. Co., 16 P.3d at 471 (documents relating to communications between the insurer and its attorneys were subject to attorney-client privilege); see also Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Burke, 63 P.3d 282, 285-86 (Ariz. 2003); Boone v. Vanliner Ins. Co., 744 N.E.2d 154, 155 n.2 (Ohio 2000); Dion v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. 288, 294 (D. Mont. 1998). It is only when such advice becomes at issue in a legal proceeding that the client may be required to disclose the advice of counsel under a theory of implied waiver. Roesler does not claim there was any implied waiver of attorney- client privilege at the time TIG rescinded his policy. The letters from Dorfman and Sellman were privileged communications given in response to TIG’s request for professional advice. Roesler fails to identify any case law where a party, including an insurance company, acted 2 «A ‘client’ is a person, public officer, or corporation, association, or other organization or entity, either public or private... .” Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2502 2.A. «2 |-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 33, "t": "unreasonably or in bad faith by failing to voluntarily sacrifice its attorney-client privilege prior to litigation. might be necessary. Oklahoma law certainly does not imply such action He makes no attempt to explain why it was unreasonable for TIG to maintain its attorney-client privilege nor does he claim TIG did not fully comply with Oklahoma law regarding notice to him of its decision.’? Thus, the district court erred in allowing Roesler to argue TIG’s retention of its attorney- client privilege was evidence of bad faith.\" 2. Legitimate Dispute/Inadequate Investigation Having addressed the “facts” we will not consider in support of the jury’s finding of TIG’s bad faith, we turn to TIG’s contention the district court '? Oklahoma’s Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 36 § 1250.7, provides a casualty insurer’s notification of a claim denial must include “reference to [the specific] policy provision, condition, or exclusion” that is the basis for denial. The Act does not afford a private right of action for a violation of its provisions. Lewis v. Aetna Health Care, Inc., 78 F. Supp.2d 1202, 1206 (N.D. Okla. 1999). However, “the Insurance Code in general, and the Act in particular, reflect a clear State policy of regulating insurance in part by prohibiting the bad faith failure by insurers to pay promptly the rightful claims of insureds.” Jd. '* TIG complains that Roesler spent a substantial amount of time at trial focusing on Question # 9 and confused the jury by implying TIG decided to rescind based on Roesler’s response to Question # 9 and Bullet Point 2 as well as Bullet Point 6. The bulk of the language in the rescission letter suggests Roesler’s answer to Bullet Point 6 is the reason for rescission. However, the rescission letter is unclear whether Roesler’s answers to all these provisions influenced TIG’s decision. Therefore, Roesler did not unfairly explore TIG’s reference in the letter to Question # 9 and Bullet Point 2. On remand, TIG can present evidence clarifying its position and the jury can reach its own conclusions, -22-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 34, "t": "erroneously denied its motion for judgment as a matter of law. TIG claims the uncontroverted evidence established its good faith belief of a legitimate coverage dispute. Roesler argues the failure to conduct an adequate investigation negates ‘the legitimacy of the coverage dispute. a) Applicable Law Under Oklahoma law, “an insurer has an implied duty to deal fairly and act in good faith with its insured.” 904 (Okla. 1977). Christian v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 577 P.2d 899, Ifan insurer fails to fulfill this duty, the insured can bring a bad faith action in tort. fd. Insurers are statutorily barred from declining coverage on the basis of their insured’s misrepresentations and omissions except in limited circumstances. Those circumstances are set out in Okla. Stat. tit. 36, § 3609, which provides in part: All statements and descriptions in any application for an insurance policy or in negotiations therefor, by or in behalf of the insured, shall be deemed to be representations and not warranties. Misrepresentations, omissions, concealment of facts, and incorrect statements shall not prevent a recovery under the policy unless: 1. Fraudulent; or 2. Material either to the acceptance of the risk, or to the hazard assumed by the insurer; or 3. The insurer in good faith would either not have issued the policy, or would not have issued a policy in as large an amount, or would not have provided coverage with respect to the hazard resulting in the loss, if the true facts had been made known to the insurer as required either by the application for the policy or otherwise. Okla. Stat. tit. 36, § 3609(A). -23-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 35, "t": "Oklahoma defines insurance misrepresentation as follows: A ‘misrepresentation’ in insurance is a statement as a fact of something which is untrue, and which the insured states with the knowledge that it is untrue and with an intent to deceive, or which he states positively as true without knowing it to be true, and which has a tendency to mislead, where such fact in either case is material to the risk. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Tolliver, 127 P.3d 611, 613 (Okla. 2005). An “omission” is “an intentional omission to disclose a fact or condition which is material to the acceptance of the risk or the hazard assumed.” Jd. at 613-14. An “incorrect statement” is “a statement of fact which is untrue and known to be untrue, or so carelessly made that an intent to deceive may be inferred.” Id. at 614. TIG maintains it reasonably believed Roesler intended to deceive the company when he did not disclose the Burton case in response to the question regarding neurological injuries to a patient in Bullet Point 6. Therefore, TIG maintains it had a legitimate dispute as to coverage vitiating a bad faith claim. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has recognized “[llegitimate disagreements can arise concerning the amount of coverage, cause of loss, and breach of policy conditions, and the tort of bad faith does not prevent the insurer from resisting payment or resorting to a judicial forum to resolve a legitimate dispute.” Brown v. Patel, 157 P.3d 117, 126 (Okla. 2007); see also Christian, 577 P.2d at 905; Timberlake Constr. Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 71 F.3d 335, 343 (10th Cir. 1995) (applying Oklahoma law). In such cases, “[rJesort to a judicial forum is not -24."}, {"d": 63, "p": 36, "t": "per se bad faith or unfair dealing on the part of the insurer regardless of the outcome of the suit.” Christian, 577 P.2d at 905. “The decisive question is whether the insurer had a good faith belief, at the time its performance was requested, that it had justifiable reason for withholding payment under the policy.” Buzzard v. Farmers Ins. Co., 824 P.2d 1105, 1109 (Okla. 1991) (quotation omitted). Evidence leading to different inferences requires the jury to resolve the reasonableness of insurer’s conduct, “by a consideration of the circumstances in each case.” 1093 (Okla. 2005). Badillo v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 121 P.3d 1080, At a minimum, an insurer’s culpability must be “more than simple negligence, but less than the reckless conduct necessary to sanction a punitive damage award....” Id. at 1094. The existence of a legitimate dispute does not, by itself, resolve a bad faith claim. Rather, “it shifts the burden to the insured to present additional evidence of bad faith.” Sims v. Great Am. Life Ins. Co., 469 F.3d 870, 891 (10th Cir. 2006) (applying Oklahoma law). “Most commonly, the insured asserts an insurer's failure to conduct an investigation reasonably appropriate under the circumstances.” Id. This is exactly what Roesler claims here. To defeat TIG’s affirmative defense, he must demonstrate “(1)} the manner of [TIG’s] investigation hints at a sham defense or otherwise suggests that material facts were overlooked, or (2) [TIG] intentionally disregarded undisputed facts supporting the insured’s claim.” Id.; see also Oulds v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 1431, 1442 -25-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 37, "t": "(10th Cir, 1993) (applying Oklahoma law). b) Parties’ Contentions TIG contends an evaluation of the evidence necessarily leads to the conclusion it had a good faith belief Roesler made a material misrepresentation when answering Bullet Point 6. The undisputed evidence revealed Roesler knew of Tala Burton’s severe neurological injury prior to completing TIG’s application. Therefore, he knew he had professionally participated in a procedure which resulted in severe neurological damage prior to his negative response to Bullet Point 6 in the supplemental application. TIG witnesses testified the only reasonable response would have been to report the Burton incident because every CRNA knows his professional services are provided as part of a team, not as an individual. Therefore, Bullet Point 6 referred to Roesler’s professional services as part of a surgical team where the procedure resulted in neurological injury. In addition, Roesler had stated in writing the Complaint against the hospital did not contain allegations against him, but when TIG received a copy of the Complaint a short time later, it specifically referred to the nurse anesthetist. TIG contends no additional investigation was necessary because it would not change these facts. TIG claims it further demonstrated good faith by contacting attorneys to seck legal input on the issues. “[R]eliance on the advice of counsel can be a defense to a bad faith suit, [but] the reliance on counsel's advice must be reasonable.” Barnes v. Okla, Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 1) P.3d 162, 174 (Okla. -26-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 38, "t": "2000). “The advice of counsel is but one factor to be considered in deciding whether the carrier’s reason for denying a claim was arguably reasonable.” Id. “The ultimate question is whether sufficient evidence was presented to show insurer's purported reliance on its attorney's advice was unreasonable.” Jd. TIG claims the uncontested evidence demonstrated it consulted two attorneys on independent questions of coverage. They followed the advice of both by accepting Roesler’s explanation to his answers to question # 9 and Bullet Point 2. TIG further asserts, given the facts it knew at the time, it was not unreasonable to proceed on Sellman’s opinion that Roesler’s answer to Bullet Point 6 indicated an intent to deceive which legally justified the decision to rescind the policy. TIG maintains there was no evidence it intentionally overlooked evidence in Roesler’s favor or that counsel’s advice was unreasonable. Roesler contends TIG failed to properly investigate because it never asked him why he answered Bullet Point 6 in the negative. Roesler testified he understood the question to be limited to whether his past professional services caused death or neurological damage, not whether he was part of a team where such a result occurred. According to Roesler, because there was no evidence Burton’s injuries were caused by his administration of anesthesia, his answer to Bullet Point 6 was not a misrepresentation nor was his interpretation of the question unreasonable. Roesler points to TIG’s modified application which was in use after he -27-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 39, "t": "completed his application, but prior to the rescission, as evidence that TIG knew there could be more than one understanding of Bullet Point 6. The new application asked whether the applicant has “attended any cases where a medical error was made by you or another practitioner, which resulted in an incident report or investigation, that you have not yet reported to your insurance carrier.” (Question 10, Application dated May, 10, 2002, Vol. VI at 1740a) (emphasis added). He contends this modified language demonstrates TIG knew Bullet Point 6 should have been more specific if it wanted to discover facts regarding cases in which he “attended,” or results involving “another practitioner.” In essence, Roesler claims TIG’s failure to ask him a simple question creates a question of fact as to whether TIG inadequately investigated his claim and, in turn, whether it unreasonably relied on Sellman’s advice because it did not provide her with all relevant facts. c) Adequate Investigation of Intent The intent underlying the validity of the claim can be determined only after an insurer conducts “an investigation reasonably appropriate under the circumstances.” Buzzard, 824 P.2d at 1109. “When a bad faith claim is premised on inadequate investigation, the insured must make a showing that material facts were overlooked or that a more thorough investigation would have produced relevant information.” Timberlake, 71 F.3d at 345. Several Oklahoma cases have addressed the adequacy of an investigation into the insured’s knowledge or -28-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 40, "t": "motivation in completing an application or claim. In Brunson v. Mid-Western Life Insurance Company, the insurer refused to make medical payments alleging Brunson made false representations in his insurance application. 547 P.2d 970, 972, 973 (Okla. 1976). While filling out the health insurance application with the insurance agent, Mr. and Mrs. Brunson were asked “whether Brunson or any family member ever had or been told that they had any disease of kidney, bladder, prostate or female organs, or were now pregnant.” Jd at 970. Mrs. Brunson and the agent laughed at the question regarding Mr. Brunson’s possible disease of female organs or pregnancy and the agent answered the question in the negative. Later, the insurer discovered Mr. Brunson had been treated for prostatitis over eight years previously but had not had trouble with this condition since. At trial, Mr. Brunson testified he understood that the medical questions asked subsequent to a question dealing with ailments and treatments within past five years limited later questions to the same time period. Brunson further testified the agent did not question him concerning his prostate and he understood the question to deal with female organs and pregnancies. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s conclusion that Brunson had not intended to deceive the insurer and laid the fault at the feet of the agent. Jd. at 973. While this case did not address bad faith or reasonable investigation, the court clearly considered the insured’s explanation of his subjective motivations when -29-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 41, "t": "answering the questions to be of substantial weight. In Hall v. Globe Life and Accident Insurance Company, Mrs. Hall applied for a life insurance policy for her husband, naming herself as beneficiary. P.2d 1263, 1264-65 (Okla. Civ. App. 1998). 968 She checked “no” to the question whether Mr. Hall had been treated for cirrhosis within the preceding twelve months but told the agent that Mr. Hall had chronic hepatitis. Upon Mr. Hall’s death about ten months later, the death certificate identified the cause of death as “hepatorenal syndrome, primary biliary cirrhosis.” Id. at 1265. Globe Life also received a report from Mercy Hospital, signed by Mr. Hall’s treating physician, which had a hand-written note “cirrhosis non A or B.” Based on this information, Globe denied payment due to Mrs. Hall’s alleged misrepresentation in the application. Mrs. Hall filed a claim for bad faith, arguing her statement in the application “was a representation based upon the knowledge of the applicant, not a warranty that the insured does not, in fact, have the specified illnesses.” Id. at 1265. The court concluded the jury could find Globe Life’s investigation improperly focused on determining whether Mr. Hall in fact had cirrhosis more than twelve months prior to the application and did not investigate the “critical fact” - Mrs. Hall’s knowledge of Mr. Hall’s illness. Id. at 1265-66. concluded the evidence created a jury question. The court Jd. at 1266. In Crews v. Shelter General Insurance Company, the insurer made the -30-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 42, "t": "decision to void Mr. Crews’ home insurance policy because he allegedly misrepresented his criminal history when he denied a prior felony conviction. 393 F.Supp.2d at 1170 (W.D. Okla. 2005). After Crews’s home was destroyed by fire, he told the adjuster he had been convicted of a felony. In determining whether to void the policy, the insurer relied “exclusively on the insurance application, Mr. Crews’s answer to {the] criminal history question during the taking of the recorded statement, and the court documents indicating that Mr. Crews had, in fact, been convicted of a felony in 1979.” Id, at 1173. No one asked Crews to explain the apparent inconsistency prior to rescinding his policy. Id. at 1174. When finally asked, Crews contended his answer in the insurance application was due to his honest belief his felony conviction resulted ina deferred sentence, as opposed to a suspended sentence. He further testified he never saw the Judgment and Sentence that indicated he received a suspended sentence, but learned of his mistake only after the insurer's rescission of his policy. The district court refused to grant summary judgment in favor of the insurer because the insurer “failed to investigate the possibility that Mr. Crews may have misrepresented his criminal history without any intent to deceive.” at 1178. Specifically, the district court stated: The [insurer’s] employees who examined whether (and eventually decided that) [the] policy should be voided . .. testified that they made no effort to determine whether Mr. Crews misrepresented 3}. Id."}, {"d": 63, "p": 43, "t": "himself with an intent to deceive, which they could have accomplished by simply asking Mr. Crews about the apparent inconsistency between the insurance application and his recorded statement. Instead, they focused their attention on the mere fact that a misrepresentation was made, and then made the assumption that the misrepresentation was made willfully and intentionally based on Mr. Crews’s acknowledgment of his criminal history during the recorded statement. Plaintiffs argue that [the insurer] essentially ignored the intent to deceive requirement in contravention of Oklahoma law and to their detriment. They further argue that had [the insurer] investigated Mr. Crews’s state of mind, they would have been alerted to the obvious fact that Mr. Crews did not willfully misrepresent himself, Id. at 1178-79. Most recently, in Sims v. Great American Life Insurance Company, the district court reviewed the adequacy of an investigation into the insured’s cause of death. 469 F.3d at 892-893. There, the insurer was not required to directly ask Mrs. Sims why she did not believe her husband’s death in a single car crash was a suicide. Instead, the insurer was entitled to rely on Mrs. Sims’s sworn (but recanted) statement to the police regarding her husband’s mental state that night and the fact every official report listed suicide as the cause of death. “The conclusions-in these reports were not made at the behest of Great American -- the medical examiner and investigating officer had no connection with Great American.” Id. at 892. The insurer was aware of the family’s rejection of suicide, the lack of depression in Mr. Sims’s medical history and the fact he was intoxicated when he left in the car. Although the insurer could have further investigated by asking Mrs. Sims about the obvious inconsistency between her -32-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 44, "t": "sworn police statement and her later statements, her response “would not have changed the underlying facts upon which Great American was entitled to rely: the missing persons report, the death certificate, the medical examiner's report, and the accident report.” Id. at 893. As aresult, we determined the district court improperly submitted the issue of bad faith to the jury. Id. Applying the reasoning of these cases to the facts before us, we conclude the district court did not err in denying TIG a directed verdict. As in Hall, Roesler presented sufficient evidence to conclude TIG may have failed to investigate a critical fact. As in Crews, Roesler’s understanding of the question may have been clarified had TIG only asked him. Although the insurer in Sims was not investigating an insured’s intent to deceive where the motivation of the insured is the ultimate question, at the very least TIG would have had to show some independent documentation from several sources verifying the facts it relied upon. This it cannot do. Thus, the district court correctly presented the jury with the questions regarding the reasonableness of TIG’s investigation and, in turn, whether a legitimate dispute existed.\" 'S A breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing “may be shown without proving conduct on the part of an insurer that was intended to harm, injure or deceive its insured.” Badillo, 121 P.3d at 1093 n.6. In contrast, punitive damages are available only when a jury finds by clear and convincing evidence the insurer acted in reckless disregard of its duty or intentionally and with malice. /d. at 1105-06; Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1. Thus, a finding of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing does not necessarily imply punitive damages are appropriate. /d. TIG does not separately seek a directed verdict on the submission of punitive damages to the jury. -33- Therefore, we need not address"}, {"d": 63, "p": 45, "t": "B, Jury Instructions TIG claims two jury instructions incorrectly stated the law of Oklahoma. We review challenges to jury instructions de novo. Garrison y. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., 287 F.3d 955, 964 (10th Cir. 2002). We consider the jury instructions “as a whole to determine whether they cover the issues presented by the evidence and accurately state the [applicable] law.” United States y. Schuler, 458 F.3d 1148, 1155-56 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). “The appellate court must consider all that the jury heard and, from the standpoint of the jury, decide not whether the charge was faultless in every particular but whether the jury was misled in any way and whether it had an understanding of the issues and its duty to determine these issues.” White v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 915 F.2d 1414, 1420 (10th Cir. 1990) (quotation omitted). TIG maintains Instruction 23 improperly required the jury to find if TIG’s coverage position was wrong, TIG must have acted in bad faith. It further contends Instruction 24, while stating the correct law in the first sentence, contains the same flaw as Instruction 23 in the second sentence. TIG contends these flaws were prejudicial to its case warranting a new trial. Roesler maintains a new trial is not necessary because (1) TIG did not raise these objections at trial, (2) TIG invited the error by submitting a proposed instruction with the same flaw, the heightened standard necessary for punitive damages as applied to the facts of this case. ~34."}, {"d": 63, "p": 46, "t": "and (3) the error did not prejudice TIG when viewed in light of the entire record.’® We disagree with Roesler. Instruction 23 stated in relevant part: [I]f you find plaintiffs ... did not make a material misrepresentation in the policy application with an intent to deceive, defendant, TIG Insurance Company, was not justified under the law in rescinding the policy it issued to plaintiffs and the rescission breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. (R. Vol. I at 229a.) Instruction 24 provided: An insurer does not breach the duty of good faith to pay a claim by litigating a dispute with its insured if there is a legitimate dispute as to coverage or the amount of the claim and the insurer’s position is reasonable and legitimate. An insurer may legitimately and in good faith dispute a claim based on a material misrepresentation in the insured’s application for insurance so long as the misrepresentations were made with an intent to deceive by the insured in applying for the policy. (id. at 230a.) Oklahoma law does not require the insurer’s position in a dispute to be correct to avoid liability. Even if the jury finds for the plaintiff on the dispute and renders a verdict for breach of an insurance contract, this does not mean the insurer acted in bad faith. Bailey v. Farmers Ins. Co., 137 P.3d 1260, 1264 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006) (“Insurers are free to make legitimate business decisions (and mistakes) regarding payment, as long as they act reasonably and deal fairly with '© Roesler half-heartedly argues the instructions were correct when taken as a whole, but does not point to any instruction that cures the misstatement of law found in both Instruction 23 and 24. No instruction informed the jury it could find TIG had a legitimate dispute as to coverage even if Roesler did not have an intent to deceive when completing the application. -35-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 47, "t": "their insureds.”); see also Hays v. Jackson Nat’l. Life Ins. Co., 105 F.3d 583, 584 (10th Cir. 1997) (Breach of contract claim wrongly dismissed because a genuine issue of material fact existed with respect to insurer’s intent when making representation.); Oulds, 6 F.3d at 1442-45 (Rejecting insurer’s rescission position but affirming summary judgment on bad faith claim because “the denial of a claim based upon a legitimate dispute does not imply bad faith.”); City Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins., 804 P.2d 463, 469 (Okla. Civ. App. 1990) (Insurer’s good faith belief of material misrepresentations of fact, if accepted by the jury, is sufficient to avoid liability even if the jury returned a verdict against Insurer for breach of contract.). However, dismissal of insured’s bad faith claim affirmed.) Although TIG did not object to Instructions 23 and 24 at its first opportunity, it did raise specific objections to both instructions to the trial court. As to Instruction 23, TIG objected “because even if we improperly rescinded the policy, that [does not] automatically mean that it was in bad faith... .[U]nder Oklahoma law ... there is a two-step process; there’s a breach and then there’s bad faith.” (R. Vol. V at 1508a.) TIG proposed the instruction read “if you find plaintiffs ... did not make a material misrepresentation in the policy application with an intent to deceive, Defendant, TIG Insurance Company, was not justified under the law in rescinding the policy” and removing the remainder of the language. The district court overruled the objection. -36- TIG then proposed the"}, {"d": 63, "p": 48, "t": "following language be added to Instruction 24: An insurer may legitimately and in good faith dispute a claim based on material misrepresentations in the insured’s application for insurance so long as there is evidence, which if believed would support a finding that the misrepresentations were made with an intent to deceive by the insured in applying for the policy. (Id. at 1509a, addition in bold.)'’ Consequently, there is no question TIG clearly made the specific objections it now argues on appeal. Moreover, contrary to Roesler’s assertion, the proposed Instructions 23 and 24, together, do not make the same mistake found in the instructions as given. Had the district court accepted the proposed instructions, Instruction 23 would preclude a finding of bad faith triggered solely by a finding Roesler did not have an intent to deceive. Proposed Instruction 24 would have explained the circumstances allowing the insurer’s actions even if there was no intent to deceive. While not a model of clarity, the proposed instructions did not invite error. Roesler further claims the jury instructions, even if erroneous, did not prejudice TIG. “Faulty jury instructions require reversal when (1) we have a substantial doubt whether the instructions, considered as a whole, properly guided the jury in its deliberations; and (2) when a deficient jury instruction is '7 TIG also asked for an instruction on bad faith investigation which stated: “In order to recover for bad faith for failure to investigate a claim plaintiff must show that a more thorough investigation would have uncovered additional facts, which would have resulted in a favorable determination for the insured.” (R. Vol. V at 1509-10a) (citing Timberlake and Fulz). The court “overruled” the request. -37-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 49, "t": "prejudicial.” McInnis v. Fairfield Communities Inc., 458 F.3d 1129, 1141 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Townsend v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 294 F.3d 1232, 1242 (10th Cir. 2002)). “Thus, where a jury instruction is erroneous, we reverse if the jury might have based its verdict on the erroneously given instruction.” Coleman v. B-G Maint. Mgmt. of Colo., Inc., 108 F.3d 1199, 1201 (10th Cir. 1997). Roesier contends the central issue was the reasonableness of TIG’s investigation, not TIG’s reasonable belief based on the investigation it made. He argues that, even if the correct instruction had been given, the outcome would be the same. According to Roesier, because the punitive damages award establishes the jury found the investigation unreasonable, it thereby rendered TIG’s beliefs regarding Roesler’s intent without justification. Consequently, the jury would still find TIG acted in bad faith because it failed to determine Roesler’s subjective intent via a reasonable investigation. We cannot agree. Instructions 23 and 24 denied TIG the full benefit of the legitimate dispute defense under Oklahoma law. TIG presented evidence from which a jury could find TIG reasonably believed it need not further investigate Roesler’s subjective intent because any reasonable CRNA would have reported the Burton incident in response to Bullet Point 6. In addition, it sought independent legal advice. We are not persuaded that the jury necessarily found reckless bad faith based solely on TIG’s failure to investigate Roesler’s subjective intent. Under the erroneous instructions, the jury just as easily could have found -38-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 50, "t": "bad faith because it determined Roesler had not intended to deceive TIG. Moreover, punitive damages could have been based on the unsupported allegations of lawyer-shopping, the insinuation Roesler did not know of the neurological damage prior to his application, the improper argument of bad faith stemming from failing to waive attorney-client privilege or post-litigation conduct. We conclude the erroneous instructions were prejudicial; we vacate the verdict and remand for a new trial.\"® III. CONCLUSION The district court did not err in denying TIG’s motion for a directed verdict. However, the court erroneously instructed the jury that a finding of bad faith was warranted based solely on a finding that Roesler did not intend to deceive the insurer when completing his application. The error in instruction prejudiced TIG and, consequently, we must remand for a new trial. AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part and REMAND We therefore, for a new trial in accord '§ TIG also claims the amount of $2 million dollars as compensatory damages for pain and suffering is excessive. It points to the uncontested facts that Roesler sought no medical treatment, was out of work for only two weeks and presented no evidence the rescission had affected his earning or reputation. TIG argues the damages are far above any awarded under comparable circumstances. See Wulf v. City of Witchita, 883 F.2d 842, 875 (10th Cir. 1989) (“[A] review of awards granted in other comparable cases, indicates that the award should have been no greater than $50,000.”). Because we remand for a new trial, we need not decide this issue. However, we caution Roesler that the judgments he cites in his brief to support the award were based on substantially more egregious injuries. Such cases are irrelevant to whether an award is excessive in this case. ~39-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 51, "t": "with this Order and Judgement. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Terrence L. O’Brien Circuit Judge -40-"}, {"d": 63, "p": 52, "t": "From: Jennifer Douglas <jdouglas@naegeliusa.com> sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 6:28 PM To: Lance Leffel <LLEFFEL@GABLELAW.COM> Subject: TRANSCRIPT AND READ AND SIGN FOR THE DEPOSITION OF NICOLE MANDUCA TAKEN ON JUNE 23, 2026 // NDT #98120 External email — beware of links and attachments At the deposition of Nicole Manduca, you requested an E-Tran only with a read and sign. For the read and sign of Nicole Manduca, you will find a Condensed Transcript for reading in the links below. | have also attached the Correction and Declaration pages for signing. Thank you. COURTREPORTING «© SY. SARRS LEGALVIDEOGRAPHY <: Aigites 2 TRIAL PRESENTATION : VIDEQCONFERENCING ©a LEGAL TRANSCRIPTION | COPYING AND SCANNING. 2 i LGN spe S73 Sy Nie LN . ie alis P \\ AN fe rou am =\" NAEGELI DEPOSITION TRIAL ~ WEST VS STATE FA NICOLE MANDUCA JUNE 23, 2026 98120 The following links will take you to our encrypted, secure repository. to save (or select all) and then click Download. Download Your Transcript(s): NICOLE MANDUCA 06-23-2026 TRANSCRIPT Download Your Exhibit(s): | . a3 : 2 3 MI LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS CASE/IN RE: ASSIGNMENT(S}: ASSIGNMENT DATE(S}: NDT ASSIGNMENT #: Sr Once there, select the checkboxes for the documents you wish"}, {"d": 63, "p": 53, "t": "NICOLE MANDUCA 06-23-2026 EXHIBITS PLEASE NOTE: Standard orders always include a flash drive containing all digital files. This e-mail is sent for expediency, to provide you with your order as soon as itis completed. The hard copy will be shipped immediately, unless otherwise stipulated. The digital files will arrive on a USB as part of your hard copy transcript. @ Jennifer Douglas | Transcript Executive NAEGELI Deposition and Trial jdouglas@naegeliusa.com | NaegeliUJSA.com NATIONAL (800) 528-3335 m@ Celebrating 45 Years of Excellence! COURT REPORTING LEGAL VIDEOGRAPHY REMOTE DEPOSITIONS LEGAL INTERPRETERS LEGAL TRANSCRIPTION COPYING & SCANNING TRIAL PRESENTATION : NAEGELI “ NaegellUSAcom {800)§28-3335 Schedule@NaegellUSA.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient or believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by email reply or telephone. Any disclosure, copying, further distribution or any action taken in reliance upon this transmission without the express permission of the sender is strictly prohibited."}, {"d": 63, "p": 54, "t": "Hearing 9/24/2026 1 IN NEIL WEST THE 1 DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA and LACY COUNTY WEST, Plaintiffs, VS. 6 No. CJ-2025-135 STATE FPARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. 10 11 12 13 HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' 14 AND 15 BEFORE THE HONORABLE SEPTEMBER 24, 2026, BEGINNING IN LAWTON, OKLAHOMA 16 ON DEFENDANTS! 17 COUNTER MOTIONS MOTIONS GRANT SHEPERD AT 3:03 P.M, 18 19 20 21 22 EXHIBIT 23 24 25 REPORTED BY: D. Luke Epps, CSR, RPR, CRR prorevaierscom"}, {"d": 63, "p": 55, "t": "Hearing 9/24/2026 1 APPEARANCES 2 On behalf 3 Hannah Whitten John Sanders 4 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway 5 Oklahoma 6 hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com j}sanders@whittenburragelaw.com (405) of the City, 2 PLAINTIFFS: Avenue, Oklahoma Suite 300 73102 516-7800 7 8 Brad Burgess Colby Stephenson BURGESS ) & HIGHTOWER 21 NW 44th Street, Suite Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 201 10 (580) 11 brad@burgess-hightower.com colby@burgess-hightower.com 355-8920 12 13 14 On behalf of the 15 Timila A. Rother Paige A. Masters DEFENDANTS: 16 CROWE 17 Braniff Building 324 North Robinson DUNLEVY Oklahoma 18 (405) City, Avenue, Oklahoma Suite 100 73102 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com 19 paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 800.376.1006 proreporters.com"}, {"d": 63, "p": 56, "t": "Hearing 9/24/2026 1 Now, 2 it's fair, 3 Ms. Manduca's you have think their 4 5 I for testimony -- COURT: any other MS. WHITTEN: just reading 7 actually 8 even gotten 9 for sanctions. 10 have motion THE 6 we into 99 combined, sanctions Before we I do, from any of and, the that, Judge, I was response. for our Okay. Well, then, I ROTHER: she was talking about to address the authority off on so I was going 13 sanctions, so I 14 THE COURT: Okay. 15 MS. ROTHER: Let me else this one. anything can hold 16 have 17 protocol 18 mean, we've 19 lines, if 20 do improve it, 21 that done, they 22 issues, and, again, 23 but whole -- the giggling 24 there, I am told that -- 25 happened exactly at that itself, on if they have invited them to there's but did we're the motion sanctions issue, for that. Let's hold off on just make sure I don't On the suggested confer, something they that. discovery edits, I to make red think that they have happy, you know, to not raised any specific -- hate to do thing, I was not I don't know what point, but after -- have I I haven't briefing 12 but into MS. -- think to the didn't the as I response? 11 to get and have to I PROFESSIONAL can this, on a REPORTERS pond"}, {"d": 63, "p": 57, "t": "Hearing 9/24/2026 1 break, Mr. 2 ladies,\" so, again, 3 witness, but to So just last thing Whitten said 4 Whitten Ms. said 100 something demeaning to not the just \"little to the counsel. on the authority. I didn't -- we and then she 5 First, 6 any cases 7 that we did cite a Western 8 case, which she tried 9 another form of improper 10 dealing with, and 1i protocol, and I 12 want in these multidistrict 13 of but that doesn't 14 like this one, and they cited not a single case 15 where the Court rejected the entry of Thank 16 you, Your Honor. in those cases, Oklahoma, so to 17 THE COURT: 18 MS. WHITTEN: going to get cite acknowledged District of Oklahoma distinguish, but it's question that the Court Court did enter dispute that usually the don't didn't Thank you. Yes. was a discovery you litigation foreclose just them kinds in one. would cases Response? dust very briefly. 19 I'm not 20 just think that 21 I do think what's interesting is that 22 records front of you, and I'm grateful that a3 have just Ress because there several 24 speaking objections made in these depositions, 25 for record, would like to you in more the than into that's I the not “little relevant point ladies.\" here for today. do have you are PROFESSIONAL I to we and, Wensley REPORTERS brorepathenieon"}, {"d": 63, "p": 58, "t": "101 9/24/2026 Hearing page deposition, You can and forth Herbert's 2 Ms. 3 record, 4 These 5 objections, and this 6 deposition protocol prevents, and 7 speaking to, Judge. That's 8 speaking to here 9 objections 10 that 11 against 12 and Mr. and Rother go back not an objection is this and Sonne objections. speaking are is exactly is 16 consequences the form, that go has prepared day we 17 sanctions. 18 is 19 there's So Farm State directly to. parties the all can the end of Oklahoma law sets a deposition all abide by, and including protocol deposition the say I would are there those, follow don't we if I'm to that can we what depositions at that exactly I'm these I think protocol what of both 15 that's three to bind that their all protocol acknowledge what speaking the 14 are are objection 13 merits These there throughout wants form. the to the on that not are where see 261. 1 that said I clarity, and just for no Oklahoma state court authority 20 deposition protocol. I do not believe the 21 District on this court, and, 22 furthermore, of that case are completely 23 distinguishable in this unsupported, 24 25 hag been is controlling the facts from what's happened THE COURT: Thank you, the most contentious and Ms. for Western case. Whitten. litigious PROFESSIONAL a This case REPORTERS 800.376.1006 proreporters.com"}, {"d": 63, "p": 59, "t": "Hearing 9/24/2026 on the rails adopt the protective order for deposition made changes to it. It will Court's Exhibit Number 2 get to 3 going 4 protocol. I have 5 be attached to 6 1. So with regard 7 motions, we've 8 resolved, so 9 do you 10 counter-motion keep want the this got as to remainder of these 20 to get about that's to hear the motion I would counter-motion to MS. WHITTEN: to 1? Honor. but whatever address that 18 19 on any 20 and move of 21 for WHITTEN: 14 you there, COURT: the sanctions with be sanctions the or -- the appreciate consolidate. Let's do And to extent -- you want, Your Honor. I'm happy the that. so it's up to you, Your I've kind of been holding anyways, so let's counter-motion the those would greatly not Okay. THE on left I'm consolidate? not COURT: 16 minutes all THE know, the think to so order 13 15 a few I MS. taking beneficial, us ever 12 is and I've 11 think can we anything I so with, dealt 1 to 102 go off ahead to consolidate. I MS. WHITTEN: Thank you, Your Honor. important here, Your Honor, is that you control your docket, but so does 22 think what's 23 have the 24 Judge Palumbo, and you guys's orders are different 25 because that's your inherent ability and authority ability to PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS proreporters.com"}, {"d": 63, "p": 60, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA nn ; i). est Plaintiff, Case No, Ferm Be Attornefor y Plaintiff VS. tite SEP 25 2098 ex ok , Defendant. Cc 0-28 ae -[3S ’ | Attomey for Defendant COURT ORDER pate: F-2.4-24 ~ Pottin, copper La. ewan Varin afte. cotewiny the Motives d- hepainy ergy Caomd , binds 1) tin ar Polos ' (Lenenset Moki. tr 1) i teoveng Samotion) date, Past. LC | f loin sefef! leaker 2) tations, The Cars iS + Endeen hg eseryach fin 4b rove Subthantie Con be. Platilt? Pobinfe Co mock Pss Lbileinale” aa, = - Enact tone Py eut- H comb te be deposed OUT [O-7-2026. Then epee , GRANT SHEPERD DISTRICT JUDGE * ole . | Whole.’"}, {"d": 63, "p": 61, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA lJes é st ee Plaintiff, Attorney for Plaintiff VS. Case No. Defendaht, C =) 2 Ay ia / 5S Attorney for Defendant COURT ORDER DATE: _ LZ 4 2026, © 3 TT Vorbitn 4 Stee Ferm LL. Obsmobbe a Reserved os oo” 0: cov fo Stmedtons Pagrtied Deere Corkaut [eke Oaks. 4) A” Masia Pe Eabny f Caleb Dicks it Oey [en Goxten icy Comal’ Coubet © Qepasiis: ~ Gentes = See Aihubmest- (Cou ¥2) 5) A” Mim to Cimblidee2X Now Most a~ tr H bet oss lLesy db Welsle, to) Ti’ Cou Metin to SO ORDERED. WV rn So —f- 7fej ali - Paste. Co ta) m solichate wk y | at 1 L& Necesfor4{ an Coout! and. DISTRICT JUDGE ree +O depodthon late Hach ade an, by 2f4"}, {"d": 64, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA mgt! FILED DISTRICT COURT agit! NEIL AND LACY WEST, COUNTY mage October 8, 2026 4:57 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK agit Plaintiffs, COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Case Number CJ-2025-135 Case No. CJ-2025-135 Defendants. Senet Senet” Nm Nena STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., aa engi! one V. DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO (1) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE ENTRY OF A DEPOSITION PROTOCOL AND (2) PLAINTIFES’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING THE SEPTEMBER 24, 2026 PROTECTIVE ORDER AND DEPOSITION PROTOCOL"}, {"d": 64, "p": 2, "t": "Plaintiffs first refused to confer about the content of a Deposition Protocol, then opposed it in briefing without any offered suggestions except that it should not be had at all, did the same thing at oral argument and now, having lost, ask that the Court in one brief to withdraw the protocol because not permitted by law and then in a second brief a few days later, to enter their protocol instead, and on an emergency basis. They make this ask all the while complaining about State Farm’s failure to produce 800,000 documents in approximately 45 days with a motion for extension pending, while ignoring that it took them over 100 days to produce just 700 pages of specific to Plaintiffs’ claim and their house when they did not bother to ask for an extension at all. This also comes when there are only a few depositions remaining — the four-hour deposition of Jon Farney and experts. It also comes on the heels of (finally) the depositions of those actually involved in the handling of this claim where counsel for Plaintiffs continued their sarcastic treatment of witnesses while insisting that State Farm’s counsel was violating the Deposition Protocol when they dared to say anything other than form in response to continued badgering of the witness. For these general reasons and more stated below, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm’’) respectfully opposes Plaintiffs’ demands that the Court reconsider its June 25, 2026 Order entering a protocol (the “Deposition Protocol”) governing the conduct of lawyers at depositions in this matter and enter a self-serving “Alternative Protocol” that would implicitly condone their counsel’s misconduct at Ms. Manduca’s deposition and improperly immunize them from the statutory protocol for terminating harassing depositions. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider the Entry of a Deposition Protocol (the “Motion”) and Supplemental Brief Regarding the September 24, 2026 Protective Order and Deposition Protocol (the “Supplemental Brief’), in"}, {"d": 64, "p": 3, "t": "addition to being contradictory, provide no legal basis for the Court to reconsider or amend the Deposition Protocol, which the Court entered following extensive briefing and argument. Plaintiffs’ sole remaining objections to the Deposition Protocol are premised on their misreading of paragraphs B(4) and C(6), which they mischaracterize as allowing “a deposition to be suspended on demand.” (See Supp. Br. at 2.) But that concern is entirely eliminated by the Court’s addition to the Protocol in paragraph C(6) that the parties are to “get the Court’s permission prior to terminating the depo[sition] on these grounds.” (Court’s Ex. 1 to September 25, 2026 Order) Neither do those provisions replace the established process under 12 O.S. § 3230(E)(2) for motions to terminate or limit a deposition. Rather, they provide only an evidentiary presumption— which Plaintiffs would have ample opportunity to rebut—that their counsel’s violations of the Local Rules and the OBA’s Standards of Professionalism show that a deposition is being conducted in bad faith. State Farm does not anticipate suspending any deposition without following the Court’s Order and following the established process set forth in 12 O.S. § 3230(E)(2). Nonetheless, Plaintiffs’ insistence on deleting the Deposition Protocol’s sole enforcement mechanism to curb their counsel’s misbehavior is telling—and further emphasizes the need for such provisions here. Nor is there any rationale to enter Plaintiffs’ self-serving, belatedly proposed Amended Protective Order and Deposition Protocol (see Supp. Br. at Ex. A, herein, “Alternative Protocol”). Rather than simply “amend” the existing Deposition Protocol, Plaintiffs’ Alternative would deliberately vitiate its provisions and create an opposite presumption that their counsel’s violations of the Local Rules and the OBA’s Standards of Professionalism are, by themselves, insufficient to support termination of a deposition under Section 3230(E)(2). In effect, Plaintiffs ask this Court to retroactively condone the very lawyer misconduct, in Ms. Manduca’s deposition, that led to State Farm’s request for the Deposition Protocol. Regardless, Plaintiffs’ Alternative Protocol—tike their"}, {"d": 64, "p": 4, "t": "Motion to Reconsider—is effectively moot: at most, it would apply to one fact deposition and experts, the number of which remains unknown because Plaintiffs have continued to refuse to supplement their discovery responses to provide the required information that would permit State Farm to complete its own expert work. Plaintiffs’ unapologetic request for a do-over should be denied. BACKGROUND On June 23, 2026, Plaintiffs deposed Nicole Manduca, a Director in State Farm’s Property & Casualty department who was not involved in the handling or supervision of Plaintiffs’ insurance claim—but whom Plaintiffs contend was an “architect” of a supposed “scheme” by State Farm to lower indemnity payments by, inter alia, misattributing roof damage from storms to non-covered “wear and tear.” (See Jan. 30, 2026, Pls.’ Opp. to State Farm’s Mot. for Prot. Order at 1-2.) Counsel for Plaintiffs repeatedly violated established law and disregarded norms of the baseline expectations for professional conduct at Ms. Manduca’s deposition. This is detailed in State Farm’s July 27, 2026 Motion for Entry of a Protective Order and Deposition Protocol (“Protocol Motion”) and in the deposition transcript and is not repeated here. On July 27, State Farm filed its Protocol Motion, requesting that the Court enter a Deposition Protocol governing all counsel’s conduct at future depositions. Plaintiffs responded to the Protocol Motion on August 11, asserting variously that it was “childish” and “desperate” and— despite specific and repeated examples of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s misconduct that State Farm cited in its Motion—contending that it contained unidentified “false and misleading” 95 46 “accusations” about Mr. Whitten’s behavior. (See Pls.’ Opp. to Protocol Mot. at 1.) Plaintiffs cited no case, statute, rule, or other authority preventing or even disfavoring such protocol (because there is none) and instead resorted to finger-pointing—primarily arguing that Ms. Manduca (a State Farm employee who had given a deposition only two times before June 23) was so “hostile” and “‘sophisticated” a deponent 3"}, {"d": 64, "p": 5, "t": "that Mr. Whitten (a lawyer with over 46 years’ experience) was apparently forced to resort to shouting, interrupting, and making false representations of the law. (See id. at 5—9.)' On September 24, following extensive briefing which involved no alternative protocol by Plaintiffs or redlining of that provided by State Farm, the Court held a hearing on the Protocol Motion. At that hearing, the Court asked Plaintiffs’ counsel more than once whether they would also like to argue their July 28 Motion for Discovery Sanctions Against State Farm for Obstructive Deposition Conduct (“Motion for Sanctions”), but Plaintiffs’ counsel declined to argue their Motion for Sanctions even after State Farm’s counsel offered to address it. (See Exhibit 1, Sept. 24, 2026 Hearing Transcript pp. 99-102.) In doing so, Plaintiffs’ counsel took the position that the Protocol Motion was separate and distinct from their Motion for Sanctions. (See id.) The Court, noting that “[t]his has been the most contentious and litigious case I’ve ever dealt with,” and that “anything we can get to keep us on the rails is beneficial,” indicated its intent to enter the Deposition Protocol. (/d. at 101-102.) On September 25, the Court granted State Farm’s Protocol Motion and entered State Farm’s proposed Protocol with two minor edits. The Court clarified that under paragraph (C)(6), which provides that violations of paragraphs (C)(1) through (C)(5) of the Protocol “will be prima facie evidence that the deposition at issue is being conducted in bad faith or in such manner as to unreasonably annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent and/or the opposing party pursuant to 12 O.S. § 12-3230(E)(2),” that the parties are required “to get Court permission prior to terminating” a deposition on those grounds. (See Sept. 25, 2025 Protocol Order, at 3.) In addition, the Court ' Even now, Plaintiffs refuse to take responsibility for their counsel’s conduct—arguing that there is a “factual question” as to “whether the examination broke down because counsel was abusive or because the witness would not answer.” (See Mot. at 2.) But neither the Local Rules nor the OBA’s Standards of Professionalism excuse violations based on a witness’s alleged unresponsiveness, and the record does not bear out Plaintiffs’ contentions in any event. 4"}, {"d": 64, "p": 6, "t": "clarified the Protocol as to the review of deposition exhibits on the record, adding that “[i]f time is used during deposition unreasonably then the Court will provide additional depo[sition] time.” (Id. at § (D)(5).) The Court otherwise entered State Farm’s Protocol as proposed. Less than 24 hours after the Court entered the Protocol, Plaintiffs filed their Motion seeking reconsideration. For the first time, Plaintiffs argue that the Court did not have authority under Oklahoma law to enter any deposition protocol (see Mot. at 1); that the OBA’s Standards of Professionalism “forbade [their] use” in a deposition protocol (see id.); that State Farm failed to satisfy its conference requirements before filing the Protocol Motion (see id. at 7-8); and that— directly contrary to their own counsel’s decision not to argue their Motion for Sanctions at the July 24 hearing— the Court should not rule on State Farm’s Protocol Motion until it rules on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions (see id. at 1-2). Plaintiffs also argue that the Court should manually supervise each of the upcoming depositions rather than entering a Protocol. (/d. at 2.) Plaintiffs do not explain why their new legal arguments were apparently unavailable when they first filed their Opposition to State Farm’s Protocol Motion or why they failed to raise them earlier. (See generally id.) Nor do they explain why the Court should not decide the Protocol Motion until it decides their Motion for Sanctions when their counsel specifically declined to argue that motion a day earlier. (See generally id.) Five days later, Plaintiffs filed their Supplemental Brief. While the brief purports to “supplement” their Motion to Reconsider, it largely contradicts the arguments raised in their Motion. For example, in direct opposition to their assertion five days earlier that the Court lacked authority under Oklahoma law to enter a deposition protocol, Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief asks the Court to enter what Plaintiffs term an “Alternative Protocol” containing many of the same provisions as the Deposition Protocol. And in contradiction to their prior argument that the drafters"}, {"d": 64, "p": 7, "t": "of the OBA’s Standards of Professionalism “forbade their use” in deposition protocols, their own Alternative Protocol seeks to incorporate the same standards. Moreover, in opposition to their contention that State Farm’s attempts to meet and confer regarding the Protocol Motion were inadequate, Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief seeks entry of an Alternative Protocol without any attempt to confer with State Farm. Plaintiffs do not explain this about-face or seek to withdraw their Motion to Reconsider. Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief simply demands the Court enter their Alternative Protocol, or, “in the alternative,” strike the evidentiary presumptions in paragraphs B(4) and C(6) of the Deposition Protocol and personally monitor the depositions of State Farm’s witnesses in person or by videoconference. (See Supp. Br. at 10.) ARGUMENT The Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider for at least three reasons. First, Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief effectively withdraws their Motion’s belated legal contentions that the Court lacks authority to enter a deposition protocol, which are incorrect in any event. Second, Plaintiffs’ mischaracterization of paragraphs B(4) and C(6) as allowing State Farm to “suspend| |” a deposition “on demand” is both wrong as evidenced by the Court’s own added limitation to the provision and it is in all events not a reason to eliminate the sole provisions in the Protocol that provide any incentive to Plaintiffs’ counsel to curb their deposition misconduct. Third, there is no need for Plaintiffs’ self-serving Alternative Protocol, which contrary to Plaintiffs’ representations would deliberately undermine the Court’s Deposition Counsels’ misbehavior at Ms. Manduca’s deposition. Protocol and retroactively condone"}, {"d": 64, "p": 8, "t": "I PLAINTIFFS HAVE DISCLAIMED AND WITHDRAWN THEIR LEGAL OBJECTIONS, WHICH ARE INCORRECT IN ANY EVENT. BELATED, As an initial matter, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider because Plaintiffs themselves disclaim and withdraw the belated legal arguments they raise against the Protocol. Regardless, there is no merit to those arguments.” A. The Court Has Ample Authority to Enter a Deposition Protocol Under Sections 3226(C) and 3226.1. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3226(C) and 12 O.S. § 3226.1, the Court, upon good cause shown, “may enter any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, harassment, embarrassment, oppression or undue delay, burden, or expense,” including an order specifying “that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions.” 12 O.S. § 3226(C) (emphasis added); see also 12 O.S. § 3226.1. Courts across the country have used similar authority to enter deposition protocols analogous to the Deposition Protocol. See, e.g., In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/ Personal Injury Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 4:22-md-03047-YGR (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2024) (see Protocol Mot. at Ex. 3) (entering deposition protocol that, inter alia, provides that “[c]ounsel are expected to adhere to the Northern District of California Guidelines for Professional Conduct” and establishing rules for the use of hard copy and electronic exhibits); In re Uber Technologies, Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litig., MDL No. 3084 CRB (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2024) (Protocol Mot. at Ex. 4) (entering deposition protocol that requires, inter alia, counsel using exhibits “should have at least five (5) copies” of such exhibits to distribute to the witness, opposing counsel, and the court reporter, and incorporating the “Guidelines for ? In addition to these now withdrawn legal arguments, Plaintiffs contend that the Court should not decide State Farm’s Protocol Motion until and unless it decides Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions. (See Mot. at 9.) But Plaintiffs specifically declined to argue their Motion for Sanctions at the July 24 hearing, thus waiving any argument that such motions are connected or should be heard and decided together. (See Ex. 1, Hrg. Tr. at pp. 99-102.) Even so, because the Court has already entered the Deposition Protocol, any argument that it should refrain from doing so is moot. 7"}, {"d": 64, "p": 9, "t": "Professional Conduct, including those related to Discovery and Depositions, of the United States District Court, for the Northern District of California’); United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Chesapeake Energy Corpo., No. CIV-09-1114-D, 2012 WL 3067438, at *1 (W.D. Okla. July 27, 2012) (establishing a deposition protocol after counsel’s allegedly improper behavior where opposing counsel requested such protocol “to prevent such conduct in future depositions.”). Plaintiffs assert, in their Motion to Reconsider, that Oklahoma law “do[es] not support the [Protocol Order].” (Mot. at 3). But in their Supplemental Brief, Plaintiffs apparently withdraw such contention, claiming that they “do not ask the Court to revisit” entry of the Protocol other than as to “two paragraphs—(B)(4) and (C)(6).” (See Supp. Br. at 1.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs request in their Supplemental Brief that the Court use the same authority to “enter the Alternative Protocol attached as ExhibitA in place of the September 24, 2026 Protocol.” (See id. at 10.) Plaintiffs cannot simultaneously assert that § 3226 does not allow entry of a deposition protocol and demand the Court enter an Alternative Protocol which simply has provisions Plaintiffs like better. Even assuming, counterfactually, that Plaintiffs continue to argue the Court’s purported lack of authority in the alternative, their Motion provides no support for this contention. Section 3226 explicitly allows the Court to enter “any” order regulating the discovery process. 12 O.S. § 3226; see also 12 O.S. § 3226.1 (providing that “a protective order may also be authorized on matters relating to a deposition”). This includes, but is not limited to, an order “that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions” or that “the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery.” See 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(1)(b), (c). Plaintiffs do not explain why, if the Court has the authority to prevent a deposition altogether, or require that Plaintiffs take a deposition by written questions, it does not have the authority to govern counsel’s conduct at such deposition. Nor can they: numerous courts"}, {"d": 64, "p": 10, "t": "have entered similar protocols that indeed, contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, “regulat[e] an examining lawyer’s tone or phrasing” and incorporate “professionalism standards as enforceable terms of a court order.” (Cf Mot. at 4.) For example, courts in the Northern District of California have entered deposition protocols requiring counsel to adhere to the Northern District’s “Guidelines for Professional Conduct,” which include edicts that counsel “should at all times be civil, courteous, and accurate in communicating with opponents or adversaries, whether in writing or orally;” that counsel’s “conduct in dealings with nonparty witnesses should exhibit the highest standards of civility and be designed to leave the witness with an appropriately good impression of the legal profession and the judicial system,” and that “[a] lawyer should always deal with parties, counsel, witnesses, jurors or prospective jurors, court personal, and the judge with courtesy and civility.” See Social Media Adolescent Addiction/ Personal Injury Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 4:22-md-03047-YGR (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2024) (see Protocol Mot. at Ex. 3); Jn re Uber Technologies, Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litig., MDL No. 3084 CRB (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2024) (Protocol Mot. at Ex. 4); see also Guidelines for Professional Conduct, Northern District of California.’ Plaintiffs do not even mention, let alone attempt to distinguish, this authority.* 3 Available at https://northerndistrictpracticeprogram.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Guidelines -For-Professional-Conduct-_-United-States-District-Court-Northern-District-of-California.pdf (last accessed Oct. 5, 2026). * Plaintiffs mischaracterize and cherry-pick only a handful of the cases State Farm cited in its Protocol Motion, asserting that “[t]he decisions State Farm leans on do not support the order it seeks.” (See Mot. at 3.) But these arguments amount to nothing more than assertions that the orders entered in Damaj v. Farmers Ins Co., 164 F.R.D. 559 (N.D. Okla. 1995); Hall v. Clifton Precision, 150 F.R.D. 535 (E.D. Pa. 1993); and United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., No. CIV-09-1114-D, 2012 WL 3067438 (W.D. Okla. July 27, 2012) do not contain exactly the same provisions as the Protocol here—not that the Court lacks authority to enter protocols governing an examining attorney’s deposition conduct. (See Mot. at 3-4.) 9"}, {"d": 64, "p": 11, "t": "B. The OBA’s Standards of Professionalism May Be Incorporated in the Protocol. There is also no merit to Plaintiffs’ argument that “[t]he Standards of Professionalism cannot be made enforceable by Court Order.” (See Mot. at 6-7.) As noted, Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief now requests that the Court enter an Alternative Protocol that requires counsel “to adhere to the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Standards of Professionalism” as well as the Local Rules—thus effectively withdrawing their contention that no such requirement is permitted. (See Supp. Br. at Ex. A, Alternative Proposal {| D(1), (2).) Regardless, Plaintiffs misconstrue the Standards when they assert that the OBA “forbids [their] use” in such protocols. While the OBA cautions that the Standards of Professionalism “are not intended to be used as a basis for discipline by the Court on the Judiciary or the Professional Responsibility Tribunal,” there is no such cautionary language regarding their use in a deposition protocol. That is, the OBA’s Standards specifically caution as to their application to proceedings in the “Court on the Judiciary,” and the “Professional Responsibility Tribunal,” not district courts. Further, the Standards state that they are not “for establishing standards of conduct in an action against a lawyer” (emphasis added). This case in which the protocol is requested is not “an action against a lawyer.” Further, the Protocol incorporates these “aspirational” standards not because violation of them will result in “lawyer discipline,” (see Mot. at 6), but because they are well-established and consensus standards that Oklahoma lawyers should seek to emulate, and because Plaintiffs’ counsel’s conduct has demonstrated they are necessary requirements to protect State Farm’s witnesses from “annoyance, harassment, embarrassment, [and] oppression. .. .” 12 O.S. § 3226(C). Nothing within the Standards prevents parties and courts from using them as a model for deposition conduct, but Plaintiffs’ counsel’s refusal to agree to comply with these guidelines is telling. ° > Notably, the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct provide, inter alia, that “[i]n the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly .. . make a false statement of material fact or 10"}, {"d": 64, "p": 12, "t": "C. Unlike Plaintiffs, State Farm Satisfied the Meet-and-Confer Requirement. Finally, Plaintiffs’ assertion that State Farm “did not satisfy the conference requirement” necessary to obtain a protective order (see Mot. at 7-8) is both legally and factual wrong and even more remarkable since counsel didn’t even ask counsel for State Farm to confer before filing this Motion. Section 3226(C) requires a good faith attempt to meet and confer—it does not mandate that such meet-and-confer take place before a motion for protective order is filed. See 12 O.S. § 3226(C) (providing for a motion with a certification “that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer, either in person or by telephone, with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action.”) (emphasis added). Prior to filing its Protocol Motion, counsel for State Farm attempted to confer in good faith with Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the proposed Deposition Protocol. State Farm’s counsel provided a copy of the Protocol to Plaintiffs’ counsel on Friday, July 24, noted that due to the time-sensitive nature of this Motion, State Farm was intending to file the Motion on Monday, July 27, and requested that Plaintiffs’ counsel meet and confer telephonically on Friday. Plaintiffs’ counsel, however, refused to make themselves available to meet or confer regarding the Protocol until Wednesday, July 29.° Because more law to a third person.” See Okla. Rules of Prof. Conduct 4.1(a). The Protocol accordingly requires that counsel “may not misrepresent to a deponent that any rules, law, or any other authority prevent the deponent from clarifying an answer to a pending or prior question,” “misrepresent to a deponent that any rules, law, or any other authority prevent the deponent from asking for clarification of a pending question,” or misrepresent “to the deponent that any rules, law, or other authority require the deponent to answer a question in a particular way or to only use certain words when answering the question.” (See Deposition Protocol 4] C(1), C(4), C(5).) These are not simply “aspirational” standards under the OBA’s Standards of Professionalism, but rules of professional conduct whose violation can subject a lawyer to discipline. See Okla. Rules of Prof. Conduct § 1.5 (adopting the Rules of Professional Conduct as “the standard of professional conduct of all lawyers,” and providing that “[a]ny lawyer violating these Rules of Professional Conduct shall be subject to discipline, as herein provided”). ° Despite representing that they were unavailable to meet and confer between Friday, July 27 and Wednesday, July 29, Plaintiffs’ counsel apparently had sufficient time to draft and file an eight1"}, {"d": 64, "p": 13, "t": "executive depositions were ordered by the Court on July 27, State Farm advised counsel it was proceeding with the filing of the Motion it remained willing to confer to reach agreement on an appropriate protocol. They made plain that no protocol was acceptable. In contrast, before filing their Supplemental Brief, which contains a request for the Court to enter an “Alternative” deposition protocol, Plaintiffs’ counsel did not even attempt to communicate with or meet-and-confer with State Farm’s counsel. State Farm thus understands that Plaintiffs are withdrawing any remaining argument that State Farm was required to perform any additional tasks before filing its Protocol Motion. Regardless, State Farm satisfied the conference requirement—and Plaintiffs’ counsel’s apparently strategic refusal to confer cannot prevent State Farm from obtaining relief from the Court on its motion. IL. PARAGRAPHS B(4) AND C(6) PROPERLY CREATE AN EVIDENTIARY PRESUMPTION TO ENFORCE THE PROTOCOL’S STANDARDS. Plaintiffs’ remaining objections to the Protocol center on paragraphs B(4) and C(6), which merely provide that violations of the Protocol will be prima facie evidence that a deposition is being conducted in bad faith under 12 O.S. § 3230(E)(2).’ Plaintiffs mischaracterize these provisions as allowing “any remaining deposition [to] be halted on an assertion of discourtesy.” page Motion for Discovery Sanctions (along with over 150 pages of exhibits) against State Farm on July 28. 7 Plaintiffs also, in their Motion, take issue with the requirement that—if and only if they refuse to provide hard copies of exhibits to State Farm and the witness at a deposition, they identify such documents at least 24 hours before the deposition (to provide Defendants’ counsel sufficient time to obtain and prepare their own copies). (See Mot. at 5, citing Deposition Protocol § D(3).) Plaintiffs mischaracterize that provision as “requir [ing] Plaintiffs to identify by Bates number, or produce an electronic copy of, every voluminous document counsel intends to use, at least twentyfour hours before the deposition, on pain of preclusion.” (See Mot. at 5.) In fact, the provision only applies to electronic documents that counsel chooses not to provide to opposing counsel or the deponent in hard copy at the deposition. (See Deposition Protocol {| D(2), D(3), D(4).) Such provision is necessary to prevent the very sort of gamesmanship that occurred at Ms. Manduca’s deposition, where Plaintiffs’ counsel excerpted portions of electronic documents as exhibits and refused to provide complete copies to State Farm’s counsel or the deponent. 12"}, {"d": 64, "p": 14, "t": "(See Mot. at 4; see also Supp. Br. at 34 (arguing that the provisions allow “suspension on demand” for “subjective standards’”).) But paragraphs B(4) and C(6) do not substantively alter the existing law regarding the termination and suspension of depositions—rather, they create a rebuttable evidentiary presumption that is necessary to ensure counsel’s compliance with the applicable standards of civility and decorum. This Court remedied any purported concern here by adding to the Protocol that the depositions could not be suspended on this ground without permission of the Court. See Court Exhibit | to September 25 Order. That has resolved all complaints the Plaintiffs can have. Further, 12 O.S. § 3230(E)(2) already provides what Plaintiffs deride as “suspension on demand” pursuant to “subjective standards.” Under that Section, “[a]t any time during the taking of a deposition, on motion of a party or of the deponent and upon a showing that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass or oppress the deponent or party, the court in which the action is pending . . . may order the officer conducting the examination to cease taking the deposition, or may limit the scope and manner of the taking of the deposition.” The statute does not define “bad faith,” nor what it means to “unreasonably annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent.” Moreover, “[u]pon demand of the objecting party or deponent, the taking of the deposition shall be suspended for the time necessary to make a motion for the order provided for in this section.” /d. Thus, under the applicable statutory framework, a party is entitled to suspend a deposition upon motion alleging “bad faith” or “harassment,” and the court is required to evaluate the conduct of opposing counsel to determine whether it violates these undefined “subjective standards.” In addition to the safeguards the Court imposed by requiring consultation with the Court, the statute also already provides important safeguards to prevent frivolous motions to terminate a 13"}, {"d": 64, "p": 15, "t": "deposition. For example, a motion to terminate must be made while the deposition is pending— the deposition cannot be unilaterally halted under Section 3230(E)(2) simply because a party intends to file a motion at some unidentified future time. See, e.g., Pipeline Prods., Inc. v. Madison Companies, LLC., No. 15-4890-KHV, 2018 WL 3416295, at *2—3 (D. Kan. June 13, 2018) (finding that attorney’s action in unilaterally terminating a deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(3)* was improper because “counsel had an obligation” to make a motion under the rule “before he unilaterally terminated the deposition.”).’ And the statute makes clear that a party can be assessed costs and attorneys’ fees if such motion is frivolously filed to “frustrate[] the fair examination of the deponent.” See 12 O.S. § 32330(E)(1). Further, courts considering a motion to suspend a deposition for bad faith already consider the “subjective” 99 66 “tone and degree” of counsel’s questioning (see Supp. Br. at 4) in determining bad faith. Courts have found a deposition to be harassing and in bad faith where examining counsel asked irrelevant questions!” and where counsel “baldly sought to use the guise of a [corporate] deposition to try to force a non-designated expert to embrace the trial opinions expressed by the 8 Section 3230(E)(2) is substantively identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(3). As such, because “[t]he Oklahoma Discovery Code mirrors the Federal rules,” Meritor, Inc. v. State ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 2019 OK CIV APP 64, 451 P.3d 914, 922 n.15, Oklahoma courts often look to “discovery procedures in the federal rules when construing similar language in the Oklahoma Discovery Code,” Crest Infiniti, IT, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, 2, 174 P.3d 996, 999, ? See also In re Omeprazole Patent Litig., 227 F.R.D. 227, 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (“It is not the prerogative of counsel, but of the court, to rule on objections... . [If the plaintiff’s attorney believed that the examination was being conducted in bad faith ... or that the deponents were being needlessly annoyed, embarrassed, or oppressed, he should have halted the examination and applied immediately to the ex parte judge for a ruling on the questions, or for a protective order, pursuant to Rule 30(d).”) 0 See, e.g., Pipeline Prods., Inc., 2018 WL 3416295, at *2 (finding deposition questions improper where plaintiffs “focused nearly exclusively on the assets of defendants” which were not at issue). 14"}, {"d": 64, "p": 16, "t": "parties’ own designated experts.”!! Further, where a party alleged that the opposing attorney conducted himself in a “rude, harassing, unprofessional [and] abusive manner,” including by “vell[ing] at the witness,” the court “reviewed the video tape of the deposition in its entirety” to evaluate such allegations.'? Regardless whether the Protocol is in place, State Farm has the right to move for termination of a deposition under § 3230(E)(2) if Plaintiffs’ counsel’s tone and manner of questioning is in bad faith or to harass, and regardless whether the Protocol controls the court could consider Plaintiffs’ counsel “tone” when evaluating such motion. In sum, Plaintiffs’ primary concerns as to paragraphs B(4) and C(6) are in fact with § 3230(E)(2), not with the evidentiary presumptions of those paragraphs. Those presumptions reduce the likelihood of additional disputes because they make clear what sort of misbehavior will qualify as evidence of bad faith and harassing conduct under § 3230(E)(2). Plaintiffs also seem to suggest, wrongly, that once such prima facie evidentiary presumption has been presented Plaintiffs will be unable to rebut it. (See, e.g., Mot. at 4 (arguing that “any remaining deposition can be halted on an assertion of discourtesy”).) That is not the law, nor is it part of the Deposition Protocol. The Court, pursuant to § 3230(E)(2), will be the final arbiter of whether deposition conduct violates the Protocol or is sufficient to terminate a deposition under Section 3230(E)(2).!° Plaintiffs’ parade of horribles as to paragraphs B(4) and C(6) are red ' See U.S. ex rel. Tiesinga v. Dianon Sys., Inc., 240 F.R.D. 40, 43 (D. Conn. 2006). '2 See Fondren v. Republic Am. Life Ins. Co., 190 F.R.D. 597, 600-01 (N.D. Okla. 1999). '3 Ty their Supplemental Brief, Plaintiffs also erroneously suggest that State Farm will “apply Paragraph B(4)” to regulate “ordinary statements examining counsel make when a witness does not answer.” (See Supp. Br. at 6-7.) Plaintiffs’ counsel appears to be under the misconception that because the law allows a party to move for sanctions, it also necessarily allows counsel to threaten a deponent with sanctions (or threaten that counsel will request relief from the Court) whenever the deponent fails to agree with counsel’s theory of the case. (See id.) But “/t/hreatening sanctions casually or as a matter of course has no place among officers of the court—again, except in the most egregious cases and then, only as a last resort.” Harrison Prosthetic Cradle Inc. v. Roe Dental Lab., Inc., 608 F. Supp. 3d 541, 551 (N.D. Ohio 2022) (emphasis added); see also Rush v. 15"}, {"d": 64, "p": 17, "t": "herrings: nothing about those paragraphs creates new law or allows State Farm to file frivolous motions to delay depositions. There is no reason to amend the Protocol to eliminate those provisions—especially when Plaintiffs have announced their intent to treat the OBA’s Standards of Professionalism as merely “aspirational.” Til. PLAINTIFFS’ SELF-SERVING “ALTERNATIVE PROTOCOL” _ IS UNNECESSARY, DELIBERATELY UNDERMINES THE COURT’S DEPOSITION PROTOCOL, AND IS EFFECTIVELY MOOT. Finally, there is no reason whatsoever to amend the Protocol at the eleventh hour and enter Plaintiffs’ belated Alternative Protocol. For one, most of the added provisions in the Alternative Protocol serve no purpose other than to restate existing law that will govern the remaining depositions in this case regardless. But Plaintiffs have chosen to surreptitiously insert several selfserving provisions that directly undermine the Protocol’s aims and seek to condone the very bad behavior that forced State Farm to seek entry of the Deposition Protocol. For example, Plaintiffs’ Alternative Protocol inserts paragraph C(8), which provides that “no attorney or party shall direct the videographer as to the method of operating the recording equipment” and “[n]o person other than the court reporter and the designated videographer shall record a deposition by any means.” (See Supp. Br. at Ex. A, Alternative Proposal § C(8).) This appears to be in response to State Farm’s request, at a recent deposition that a second videographer attend to record the entirety of the room and Plaintiffs’ counsel’s demeanor during the deposition. This sort of requirement—which deliberately is structured to prevent State Farm from obtaining evidence of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s misconduct during further depositions—is not supported by the Rules, and in fact encourages the same sort of misconduct and incivility Plaintiffs’ counsel McDonald's Corp., 966 F.2d 1104, 1123 (7th Cir. 1992) (“It is our view that sanctions, or even the threat of sanctions, should not be used as a means of bullying a weaker opponent.”). Such behavior is not “ordinary,” nor is it proper to use the availability of a sanctions remedy as a means to coerce a deponent into changing her testimony. 16"}, {"d": 64, "p": 18, "t": "exhibited in Ms. Manduca’s deposition, when counsel was well aware that his threatening facial expressions and gestures would not be recorded by the single videographer. Plaintiffs do not, and cannot, support use of such a provision so obviously intended to hide counsel’s misconduct from the Court and the public. What is worse, Plaintiffs’ Alternative Protocol not only eliminates the evidentiary presumptions, it implements an opposite presumption—adding that “[a] departure from the Standards of Professionalism, the Local Rules, or Paragraphs D(1)-(4) or E(1)-(9) of this Order is not, by itself, evidence that a deposition is being conducted in bad faith or in such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent or a party, and its not, by itself, a basis for suspending or terminating a deposition.” (See Supp. Br. at Ex. A, Alternative Protocol ¥ D(5).) Plaintiffs’ Alternative Protocol likewise authorizes counsel to threaten a deponent with sanctions simply for not agreeing with counsel’s theory of the case—providing that “[a] statement by counsel on the record that counsel intends to seek relief the Oklahoma Discovery Code authorizes— including a motion to compel an answer, a request for additional time under 12 O.S. § 3230(A)(3), a request that a deposition proceed in the presence of the Court, or a motion for sanctions—is not a threatening statement . . . and 1s not, by itself, a basis for a motion under 12 O.S. § 3230(E)(2).” (Id. at | D(6). Tellingly, that quote omits the word “sanctions” which was repeatedly used at the deposition to intimidate the witness. Further, Plaintiffs cite no law supporting these extraordinary provisions, which would completely prevent State Farm from seeking relief under Section 3230(E)(2) even if Plaintiffs’ counsel shouts at a deponent and threatens that counsel will seek sanctions unless the deponent changes their answer to agree with counsel’s theory of the case. This is not an Alternative Protocol that “carries forward the Court’s provisions” from the existing 17"}, {"d": 64, "p": 19, "t": "Protocol (see Supp. Br. at 1)—1t is a self-serving attempt to condone and immunize their counsel’s bad behavior from all consequence. These and other self-serving provisions also suggest that Plaintiffs’ primary motivation is not the current case in which one four-hour deposition along with expert depositions are remaining, but other cases and the press. Indeed, Plaintiffs admit they are “[c]ritically” concerned about “what an order entered here will be used for elsewhere,” (see Mot. at 2), ie., that their counsel’s misconduct might be cited by State Farm in other proceedings.'* But what happens in those other proceedings, and what consequences counsel’s own misconduct has as to those proceedings, should not and cannot be a reason to remove the only provisions in the Protocol that provide an incentive for Plaintiffs’ counsel to remain civil in depositions of State Farm witnesses. Finally, and in any event, the Alternative Protocol, like Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider, is effectively moot. The Court has set a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for October 12, 2026. By that date, the only remaining depositions to be taken in this case are those of State Farm’s CEO, John Farney, and experts. In the hope that this is not signaling some intended misconduct in the deposition of Mr. Farney, this limited number of depositions just does not warrant a change in the Protocol which this Court has already considered and ordered. But assuming there is no additional motion practice arising from those depositions, Plaintiffs’ imagined specter of “more motions” and endless “satellite litigation” regarding depositions (see Mot. at 8) will be proven false, and the Court should thus deny Plaintiffs’ request for an unworkable and self-serving Alternative Protocol. '4 Here again the double standard is remarkable. As soon as this Court de-designated documents that Plaintiffs’ counsel claim evidence a scheme (they do not), counsel fabricated a way to get them in the public record immediately by attaching them to a response brief to which the documents were immaterial and which counsel for Plaintiffs filed, completely out of character, a week early. State Farm has attempted no such exhibition of this Motion. 18"}, {"d": 64, "p": 20, "t": "CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider the Court’s Deposition Protocol should be denied. The Court should likewise reject Plaintiffs’ belated and improper attempt to implement a self-serving Alternative Protocol or edit the existing Protocol to retroactively condone Mr. Whitten’s misconduct at Ms. Manduca’s deposition. Tule ited, MILA S. sae We #14310 wens MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by US. Mail, postage prepaid, this 8th day of October 2026, to: Reggie N. Whitten Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 R. Ryan Deligans DURBIN, LARIMORE & BIALICK 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 pula 19 Kathe"}, {"d": 65, "p": 1, "t": "Hearing 1 9/24/2026 IN THE DISTRICT 1 COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF COUNTY pistent LEDCOURT OKLAHOMA COMANCHE COU INTY, OKLAHOMA October 8, 2 26 4:57 PM 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEIL WEST and LACY WEST, COURT CLERK aoe caseNabe ES,CJ-2025-135 Plaintiffs, No. CJ-2025-135 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. 9 10 11 12 13 HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' 14 AND DEFENDANTS' 15 BEFORE THE HONORABLE 16 ON SEPTEMBER 24, 17 2026, IN LAWTON, MOTIONS COUNTER MOTIONS GRANT SHEPERD BEGINNING AT 3:03 P.M. OKLAHOMA 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 REPORTED BY: D. Luke Epps, CSR, RPR, PROFESSIONAL CRR REPORTERS 800.376.1006 EXHIBIT 1 proreporters.com"}, {"d": 65, "p": 2, "t": "Hearing 9/24/2026 99 Word Index 1 Now, 2 it's fair, 3 Ms. Manduca's you have I just reading from 9 for sanctions. 10 13 Sanctions, -- WHITTEN: gotten into combined, sanctions Before we any of do, and, the I was I haven't motion response. the briefing for our Okay. Well, then, I the going to address the authority hold off on THE COURT: Okay. 15 MS. ROTHER: Let me else this one. 16 have 17 protocol 18 mean, we've 19 lines, if 20 do improve 21 that on 22 issues, and, again, 23 but whole -- the 24 there, am told 25 happened exactly at if they have invited them to there's done, the Judge, about can but but I did we're they for that. Let's hold off on that. just make sure I don't On the discovery suggested they edits, I to make red think that they have you know, to not raised any specific -- I hate to do thing, I was not I don't know what point, but after -- have to giggling that that issue, happy, have I sanctions confer, something it, —_ — that, talking itself, to into was anything think response? 14 to get she I I abs ROTHER: so and as MS. -- was testimony MS. even I for other 8 so motion any actually 12 have COURT: 7 didn't we THE 6 11 think their 4 5 I -- PROFESSIONAL can this, ona REPORTERS 800.576.1006 proreporters.com"}, {"d": 65, "p": 3, "t": "Hearing 9/24/2026 100 Word Index 1 break, Mr. Whitten said something to the \"little — ates . 2 ladies,\" 3 witness, \\ . . so, again, but to counsel. So just last thing Whitten said 4 Ms. demeaning . not just the authority. I didn't -- we and then she acknowledged 6 any cases 7 that we did cite a 8 case, which she tried 9 another form of improper 10 dealing with, and 11 protocol, and I 12 want in these multidistrict 13 of cases, but that doesn't 14 like this one, and they cited not 15 where the Court rejected the 16 you, Your Honor. those Oklahoma, Western 17 THE COURT: 18 MS. WHITTEN: 19 I'm not 20 just think that 21 I think what's 22 records 23 have 24 25 do going District but that Court did enter dispute that usually Court a in cases case entry of Thank you. Response? the very \"little relevant is briefly. ladies.\" here that you grateful today. do have Ress because there speaking objections made in these depositions, for record, would like to you point are PROFESSIONAL I for just I I'm one. and the would kinds you, than was discovery you them a Just interesting the just single Yes. not it's litigation foreclose into cite Oklahoma question that's front of distinguish, Thank get didn't of more in to to the don't Phrases on First, so Entities the Exhibits 5 in to that we several to and, Wensley REPORTERS 800.576.1006 proreporters.com"}, {"d": 65, "p": 4, "t": "Hearing 9/24/2026 101 Word Index 1 Herbert's deposition, 2 Ms. and 3 record, 4 These 5 objections, 6 deposition 7 speaking to, 8 speaking to 9 objections 10 that 11 against 12 and Rother and are are Mr. this and can and forth back not an objection objections. this is exactly see to the These are what their that's what Judge. That's exactly what I'm the are speaking all three of these depositions to the form, that go has prepared day we that State Farm to bind both parties I think at the end of that Oklahoma law sets a can all abide by, and don't follow 15 protocol 16 consequences if 17 sanctions. So 18 is 19 there's that we we I unsupported, I'm there protocol acknowledge — that objection 14 the merits and is —_ form. prevents, here where on protocol not 13 You go throughout wants 261. Sonne is speaking page would say directly to. the the can all deposition there those, are including deposition and just for no Oklahoma state court authority for 20 deposition protocol. I do not believe the Western 21 District on this court, and, 22 furthermore, 23 distinguishable 24 25 is controlling THE has been the the facts of clarity, that I protocol said that case are completely this from what's happened in COURT: Thank you, Whitten. most contentious a and Ms. litigious PROFESSIONAL case. This case REPORTERS 800.576.1006 proreporters.com aubits"}, {"d": 65, "p": 5, "t": "Hearing 9/24/2026 102 Word Index 1 I've ever dealt with, and so I think anything we can — ales 2 get 3 going 4 protocol. 5 be attached to 6 1. So regard 7 motions, we've 8 resolved, so 9 do 10 counter-motion 11 MS. 12 to keep to you us on the adopt the protective order for deposition made it. I with want taking the have to order as Court's Exhibit to remainder of these 20 to get think to hear all the not MS. WHITTEN: to 17 Honor. but whatever address that 18 19 on any of 20 and move 21 that's I you there, COURT: the sanctions with for the It — Exhibit — will Number those would be sanctions would greatly to consolidate. not Okay. THE on left I'm the or -- the consolidate? counter-motion 14 minutes motion WHITTEN: COURT: 16 the about THE know, so changes 13 15 beneficial, few I to is a this got rails appreciate Let's do And to extent -- you want, Your Honor. I'm happy Your the that. so it's up to you, I've kind of been anyways, so holding let's counter-motion go off ahead to consolidate. MS. WHITTEN: Thank you, Your Honor. I important here, Your Honor, is that you control your docket, but so does 22 think what's 23 have the 24 Judge Palumbo, and you guys's orders are different 25 because that's your inherent ability and authority ability to PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 800.576.1006 proreporters.com"}, {"d": 65, "p": 6, "t": "Hearing 9/24/2026 117 Word IN 1 THE 3 OF STATE 2 NEIL 4 WEST and LACY OF COURT DISTRICT Phrases Exhibits WEST, Plaintiffs, vs. 6 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., 8 Dates Entities OKLAHOMA 5 7 — COUNTY COMANCHE No. CJ-2025-135 Defendants. 9 10 11 CERTIFICATE OF THE COURT REPORTER 12 13 14 15 I, D. Luke Epps, Certified Shorthand Reporter within and for the State of Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the foregoing transcript in the above-styled 16 17 18 19 case is a true, correct, and complete transcript of my shorthand notes of the proceedings in said cause. I further certify that I am neither related to nor attorney for any interested party nor interested in the event of said action. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this 28th day of September, 2026. 20 21 22 D. Index fuke Epps, C3®% RPR, CRR 23 24 25 PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 800.576.1006 proreporters.com"}, {"d": 66, "p": 1, "t": "y t n u o c n a m r o c oF r a ve co r s IANGNMANY, me o FILB® IN DBTRICT COURT Rony BILLY & LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CJ-2025-2626 STATE FARM FIRE AND Honorable Amy Palumbo CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(2), 51 O.S. §§ 24A.29 and 24A.30, Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh, respectfully submit their Unopposed Application for Leave to file an unredacted copy of Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendant State Farm's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Confidentiality Assertions and De-Designate Documents, under seal. In support of this Application, Plaintiffs state: 1. Plaintiffs seek to file their Reply and confidential exhibits thereto under seal. Plaintiffs’ Reply relies upon and references several exhibits that are currently deemed confidential. 2. Plaintiffs’ request leave to file under seal an unredacted copy of their Reply with confidential Exhibits in support thereof. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh, respectfully request the Court enter an order granting Plaintiffs’ permission to file under seal an unredacted copy of Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendant State Farm's Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike"}, {"d": 66, "p": 2, "t": "Confidentiality Assertions and De-Designate Documents, in support of their Motion. A proposed order will be submitted herewith. Respectfully submitted, ReggieN. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE $12 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK Telephone: Facsimile: 73102 405.516.7800 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS | |"}, {"d": 66, "p": 3, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that on August 25, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was delivered, via hand-delivery to all counsel of record for Defendants. Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) cmcneer@gablelaw.com Lance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) gfitz@gabielaw.com Hannah Whitten Pete"}, {"d": 66, "p": 4, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY BILLY & LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CJ-2025-2626 STATE FARM FIRE AND Honorable Amy Palumbo CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL This matter having come on for consideration this ss day - of August, 2026, upon Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh, Unopposed Application for Leave to File Under Seal and the Court having reviewed said Application, finds that good cause exists therefore. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(2), 51 O.S. §§ 24A.29 and 24A.30, the Court hereby determines that it is necessary in the interests of justice to permit the filing of the requested materials under seal to prevent the materials from being public record. Plaintiffs shall be and hereby are granted leave to file an unredacted copy of Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendant State Farm's Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Confidentiality Assertions and De-Designate Documents, thereto under seal, and they shall remain confidential until further order of the Court. Plaintiffs are ordered to place the protected material in a sealed manila envelope clearly marked with the caption and case number and clearly marked with the word” CONFIDENTIAL” and stating the date the Order was entered and the name of the Judge entering the Order. A redacted version of the same filing may be filed publicly in this matter."}, {"d": 66, "p": 5, "t": "IT IS SO ORDERED! JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVED AS TO FORM: Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 Whitten Burrage 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK Telephone: Facsimile: 73102 405.516.7800 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com"}, {"d": 67, "p": 1, "t": "LINER FILED IN DiSTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY AUG 25 2006 RICK BILLY & LACY HURSH, a WankeN 5 COURT CLERK Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CJ-2025-2626 STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, MARK D. WELTY, and MARK WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., D. Defendants. DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND DEPOSITION PROTOCOL GOVERNING COUNSEL’S CONDUCT AT DEPOSITIONS Carrie B. McNeer, OBA No. 22235 Nathan A. Miramontes, OBA No. 36212 GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (Fax) cmcneer@gablelaw.com nmiramontes@gablelaw.com -and- Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (Fax) lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber ablelaw.com Attorneys for Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company"}, {"d": 67, "p": 2, "t": "Plaintiffs’ Response to State Farm’s Motion for Deposition Protocol is devoid of substance. Plaintiffs cite no case, statute, rule, or other authority barring the Court from entering State Farm’s proposed Deposition Protocol as written. They do not address the Protocol’s provisions at all. Nor do they seriously argue that Mr. Whitten’s behavior at Ms. Manduca’s deposition in West was appropriate; instead, they contend counsel’s conduct was justified because Ms. Manduca was a “hostile and unresponsive witness.” (See Pls.’ Resp. at |.) But neither the Local Rules nor the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Standards of Professionalism excuse violations based on a witness’s alleged unresponsiveness. Plaintiffs’ continued, misguided effort to justify their counsel’s misconduct only confirms why the Protocol is necessary. IL THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR COUNSEL’S MISCONDUCT. As an initial matter, there is no justification for Plaintiffs’ counsel’s misconduct at Ms. Manduca’s deposition. In its Protocol Motion, State Farm identified numerous examples of that misconduct—quoting directly from the deposition transcript. No “context” permits such behavior; and neither Local Rule 28 nor the Standards of Professionalism allow a questioning attorney to interrupt or shout at a witness, threaten a witness, accuse a witness of lying for disagreeing with counsel’s theory of the case, and prevent a witness from providing context for her answers. The deposition transcript, which State Farm submitted with its Protocol Motion, speaks for itself. Plaintiffs’ failure to address the specific misconduct State Farm quoted in its motion is telling. (And, to the extent Plaintiffs believe the quoted excerpts do not accurately depict counsel’s demeanor, they are free to submit video excerpts to the Court). Having no argument that Mr. Whitten’s deposition behavior was proper, Plaintiffs suggest that his conduct was justified because Ms. Manduca was “unresponsive.” But Plaintiffs have not identified—and cannot identify—a single question that Ms. Manduca failed to answer. Plaintiffs’ three purported examples of Ms. Manduca’s “unresponsive[ness]}” omit context showing that she 1 4908-7551-0730, v. 2"}, {"d": 67, "p": 3, "t": "properly answered each question.! In any event, Plaintiffs’ continued insistence that their counsel’s misconduct was somehow “justified” only underscores the necessity of a Protocol to prevent further disputes over counsel’s conduct in any additional depositions in this matter. II. STATE FARM IS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE A BAR COMPLAINT OR MOVE FOR SANCTIONS BEFORE REQUESTING A PROTOCOL. Plaintiffs’ “legal” argument—that State Farm cannot ask the Court to enter a Deposition Protocol unless it first files a bar complaint or moves for sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel (see Pls.’ Resp. at 10-13)—is baseless. Plaintiffs cite no authority requiring State Farm to pursue either course before seeking a protocol to govern depositions. Nor is there any authority preventing a party from alerting the Court about deposition misconduct before seeking sanctions.” ' Plaintiffs provide only three examples of questions Ms. Manduca purportedly failed to answer— none of which is accurate. First, Plaintiffs incorrectly assert that Ms. Manduca failed to answer whether “State Farm cannot lower claims before they happen.” (Pls.’ Resp. at 6, citing N. Manduca Dep. Tr. at 106:18-25.) Such question is an improper hypothetical question to a lay witness, and no answer was required. Regardless, Plaintiffs omit that upon follow-up questioning, Ms. Manduca confirmed that “{State Farm] cannot operate in that manner.” (See Protocol Motion at Ex. 2, N. Manduca Dep. Tr. at 108:1-109:3.) Second, Plaintiffs point to a question from counsel regarding whether Ms. Manduca wrote explanatory information in an email. (See Pls.’ Resp. at 6-7, citing Dep. Tr. at 275:12-15.) To be sure, the email (which Plaintiffs’ counsel used as an exhibit) speaks for itself, and a question about what is or is not written in the email is completely unnecessary. But again, Ms. Manduca answered the question—in the very next follow-up question, in which Plaintiffs’ counsel asked Ms. Manduca to confirm that “[t]he context is not written on the page.” Ms. Manduca responded, “It’s not written on the page that our claim volume was down and the severity of that claim volume was lower.” (See Protocol Motion at Ex. 2, N. Manduca Dep. Tr. at 275:16-23.) Third, Plaintiffs point to an example of one (of many questions) at the deposition in which Plaintiffs’ counsel insisted, wrongly, that Ms. Manduca was required to answer a compound, vague, and confusing question with a “yes or no” answer. (See Pls.’ Resp. at 7, citing Dep. Tr. at 327:13-16.) Tellingly, Plaintiffs omit the full question—which is compound, vague, and confusing—but in any event, any cognizable question was already asked and answered. Moreover, counsel’s prior question demanded that Ms. Manduca confirm whether the email in question “doesn’t say anything about claim volume went down,” and Ms. Manduca answered, “It does not state that there.” (Protocol Motion at Ex. 2, N. Manduca Dep. Tr. at 326:17-24.) ? Tronically, in the very brief in which Plaintiffs insist on such a prerequisite, they accuse State Farm’s counsel of misconduct in other depositions (although neither they nor any other plaintiff has moved for sanctions or filed any bar complaint against State Farm’s counsel for such alleged misconduct). (See Pls.’ Resp. at 13-15.) If, as Plaintiffs insist, a party cannot allege attorney 2 4908-7551-0730, v. 2"}, {"d": 67, "p": 4, "t": "At base, Plaintiffs contend that because other options are available to State Farm to address counsel’s misconduct, State Farm cannot request a deposition protocol. That is not the law. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3226(C), the Court, upon good cause shown, “may enter any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, harassment, embarrassment, oppression or undue delay, burden, or expense,” including an order specifying “that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions.” also 12 O.S. § 3226.1. 12 0.S. § 3226(C) (emphasis added); see There is no requirement that a protective order must first be justified by a violation of the Code: indeed, if that were the case, no court could enter an order protecting a defendant’s trade secrets until the plaintiff affirmatively disclosed the critical information to a competitor; or an order protecting a third-party’s personal identifying information until a party disseminated it to reporters. A motion for sanctions, like a bar complaint, is a separate post hoc procedure for addressing misconduct—it does not prevent the Court from adopting well-settled procedures to avoid such harm before it occurs. That is why courts across the country, applying the analogous Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,’ have entered similar deposition protocols—especially in high-profile cases like this one. (See Protocol Motion at | 1-12.) Despite Plaintiffs’ overwrought rhetoric, there is nothing “self-serving” or “prejudicial” about the proposed Protocol. deposition (See Pls.’ Resp. at 2.) State Farm seeks a protective order and protocol—rather than sanctions or a bar complaint—to misconduct before filing a bar complaint or motion Response for that very reason. lower the already heated for sanctions, the Court should strike the 3 Because “[t]he Oklahoma Discovery Code mirrors the Federal rules,” Meritor Inc. v. State ex rel. Bad. of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma, 2019 OK CIV APP 64, § 20 n.15, 451 P.3d 914, 922 n.15, Oklahoma courts often look to “discovery procedures in the federal rules when construing similar language in the Oklahoma Discovery Code,” Crest Infiniti, II. LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, § 2, 174 P.3d 996, 999. 4908-7551-0730, v. 2"}, {"d": 67, "p": 5, "t": "temperature Ms. Manduca’s deposition created and avoid further disputes over counsel’s conduct. Like protocols that courts across the country have entered, the proposed Protocol simply requires counsel to comply with existing law governing witness questioning, deposition instructions, and the use of exhibits. Plaintiffs’ apparent belief that those requirements somehow advantage State Farm only confirms why the Protocol is necessary.‘ III. PLAINTIFFS’ UNSUPPORTED ACCUSATIONS OF MISCONDUCT AT OTHER DEPOSITIONS FURTHER SUPPORT ENTRY OF A DEPOSITION PROTOCOL. Plaintiffs also argue that any protocol! would be “pointless” because State Farm’s counsel purportedly committed “blatant violations” of the Protocol in other depositions in other cases. That argument makes no sense. The proposed Protocol would bind aff counsel, including State Farm’s. If Plaintiffs believe State Farm’s counsel violated the Local Rules or the Bar’s Standards of Professionalism in other cases, they should have (1) objected to the purportedly improper questions at those depositions; and (2) raised those issues in the proper course. That they failed to do so until their own counsel was accused of misconduct is telling. In any event, Plaintiffs’ accusations only reinforce the need for a Protocol here: if further disputes over counsel’s conduct at depositions are likely, the Court should enter clear rules governing all counsel—rules State Farm’s counsel is prepared to follow. Moreover, a closer look at the conduct Plaintiffs contend “blatantly violates” the Protocol reveals their attempt to manufacture an excuse for Mr. Whitten’s behavior: ¢ Plaintiffs accuse State Farm’s counsel of “inappropriate and harassing deposition conduct” in 4 State Farm does not object to Plaintiffs’ request that depositions of State Farm witnesses “occur in the presence of [the Court]” (see Mot. at 12); but such “alternative” proposal does not address one of the primary issues here—Plaintiffs’ counsel’s improper refusal to provide copies of exhibits to the deponent and to State Farm’s counsel. (See Protocol Motion at 17-20.) Thus, State Farm respectfully submits that entry of the Protocol is necessary regardless of a deposition’s location. 4 4908-755 1-0730, v. 2"}, {"d": 67, "p": 6, "t": "the Lorraine Hall case because counsel, “after being charged with bullying,” asked the deponent whether she believed she was being “bullied.” however, (See Pls.’ Resp. at 14.) Plaintiffs, omit that the deponent could not identify a single example of the supposed “bullying” by State Farm’s counsel. (See, e.g., id. at Ex. 3, Tr. at 214:8-18 (“Q. Are you alleging that I asked you the same question multiple times? A. Yes. ask you multiple times? Q. Which question did I A. I can’t pinpoint that.”).) Nor do Plaintiffs do so here—as in the deposition, they make baseless accusations that do not comport with the record. ¢ Plaintiffs accuse State Farm’s counsel of pursuing “intrusive lines of questioning” at the plaintiff's deposition in West (see Pls.’ Resp. at 13) but they omit that counsel legitimately asked a question—without objection from Plaintiffs’ counsel—about whether Plaintiffs spent thousands of dollars on a Caribbean cruise while allegedly struggling with debt. (See id. at Ex. 4, Tr. at 209:25—-210:14.) e Finally, Plaintiffs accuse State Farm’s counsel of “rude and intentional interruption” of the plaintiff in the Slater-Martin case. (See Pls.’ Resp. at 13). But the transcript shows that State Farm’s counsel merely stated “okay” while the plaintiff was speaking—at which point plaintiff’s counsel launched into a diatribe about “interrupting.” (See id. at Ex. 5, Tr. at 106:18— 25.) This brief “interruption” pales in comparison to Mr. Whitten’s intentional and repeated conduct. In any event, a simple comparison of these “blatant violations” with Mr. Whitten’s conduct only underscores the unprecedented nature of Plaintiffs’ counsel behavior—and the necessity of clear tules to govern the behavior of counsel at any further depositions in this matter. State Farm thus respectfully requests that the Court grant the Protocol Motion and enter the proposed Protocol. 4908-7551-0730, v. 2"}, {"d": 67, "p": 7, "t": "e= Carrie B. McNeer, OBA No. 22235 Nathan A. Miramontes, OBA No. 36212 GABLEGOTWALS 1ION. Elgin Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (Fax) cmcneer@gablelaw.com nmiramontes@gablelaw.com -andLance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (Fax) lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com Attorneys for Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 4908-7551-0730, v. 2"}, {"d": 67, "p": 8, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING Ido hereby certify that on August 25, 2026, a true, correct and exact copy of the above and foregoing document was served via email and by placing same in the United States mail, with proper postage thereon duly prepaid, to those parties as listed below: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage R. Ryan Deligans, Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rdeligans@dlb.net WHITTEN BURRAGE Patrick F. Collogan, OBA No. 30529 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com Durbin, Larimore & Bialick BIBY LAW FIRM 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 pat@bibylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs a David R. Herber 4908-755 1-0730, v. 2 Ne"}, {"d": 68, "p": 1, "t": "FILED IN DISTRICT COURT TEMAS ON AIONA COUNTY IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTYWAUG BILLY & LACY HURSH, 2 6 2026 3 _cotRY CES re Plaintiffs, vy. Case No. CJ-2025-2626 STATE FARM FIRE AND Honorable Amy Palumbo CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO (1) STRIKE DEFENDANT STATE FARM’S BLANKET CONFIDENTIALITY ASSERTION, (2) AND DE-DESIGNATE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED FOR GOOD CAUSE BASED ON STATE FARM’S FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN GOOD FAITH AS REQUIRED"}, {"d": 68, "p": 2, "t": "State Farm’s lengthy Response contains no evidence. Not one affidavit. Not one declaration. Not one explanation of how disclosure of any particular document would competitively harm State Farm or any authority to justify a blanket assertion of confidentiality. State Farm concedes—as it must—that “the burden of proof remains on the designating party” and that its designations are merely “provisional.” (Resp. at 8). State Farm has simply failed to carry its burden under the Protective Order and stood by its overreaching blanket designation of confidentiality. Even worse, State Farm’s central argument—that Plaintiffs should have proceeded under Paragraph 4 of the Protective Order—is refuted by Paragraph 4 itself, which places the burden of motion practice on State Farm and prescribes the consequence of its inaction: the documents “shall no longer be subject to this Protective Order.” (Ex. 1, Protective Order, ] 4). I. PARAGRAPH 4 PLACES THE BURDEN ON STATE FARM, WHICH NEVER MOVED OR COMPLIED. State Farm insists the “proper remedy” was the challenge procedure in Paragraph 4. (Resp. at 14, 17-18). Plaintiffs agree. That procedure requires written notice of disagreement, a written response within twenty days, and an attempt at informal resolution. It then provides: If the Parties are unable to reach an agreement, the producing party shall have thirty (30) days to submit a motion for relief from the Court. If the producing party fails to timely file said motion for relief within the time prescribed, the document shall no longer be subject to this Protective Order. (Ex. I, | 4 (emphasis added)). On June 6, 2026, undersigned counsel gave written notice that “State Farm’s blanket delineation of all documents produced ... as being *confidential’ [is] a direct violation of the Protective Order and Oklahoma law,” and asked State Farm to “advise . . . if State Farm has any intent on providing a narrowed and specific confidentiality delineation as opposed to the blanket statement provided when the documents were produced,” requesting an answer by June 9, 2026. (Ex. 2, Email Chain Between Counsel in West v. SF. at 5). State Farm never agreed to remove any"}, {"d": 68, "p": 3, "t": "designation, and on June 9, 2026 counsel confirmed the impasse in writing. (Ex. 2 at 1-3). After State Farm’s counsel sent this email in another matter, it was discussed in great length at two hearings in front of this Court, giving State Farm’s counsel ample time to correct this issue. At the July 28, 2026 hearing, counsel for Plaintiffs informed this Court that “we have a pending motion to de-designate in Lawton, and the same thing is done here. They have designated every document as confidential and we’re getting document dumps.” Ex. 3, 7/28/2026 Trns. at 10:21-24. At the August 4, 2026 hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel told this Court: We have filed a Motion to De-Designate in this case. We're filing it today, I believe, with numerous other documents, but the point is, is with respect to the document dump the initial question from the Court was did they do a document dump in West. The answer is yes. Did they do a document dump in Hursh, the answer is yes. Did they do a blanket confidential in West on 687,000 documents? Yes. Are they designated in every document in the Hursh production? Yes. Ex. 4, 8/4/2026 Trns. at 24:24-25:8. State Farm’s Response confirms that a subsequent meet and confer would do nothing but delay a hearing because State Farm is not going to change its position: State Farm “stands by its designations,” and claims that “looking for the handful of documents that might not be confidential, would have delayed production by months.” (Resp. at 2, n.2). Paragraph 4 then gave State Farm—not Plaintiffs—thirty days to “submit a motion for relief from the Court.” (Ex. 1, PO, § 4). It filed none, then or since. The consequence is automatic: the challenged documents “shall no longer be subject to this Protective Order.” Jd. Plaintiffs’ challenge is on the blanket nature of the confidentiality provisions to the entire document production. State Farm’s failure also disposes any waiver or reliance argument. State Farm contends that a party who consents to a protective order and later seeks its modification “bears a particularly heavy burden.” (Resp. at 14). The parties contracted around that rule in this very Protective Order, which provides: “a party’s agreement to this Protective Order does not prejudice the party’s right to move the Court to lift the Protective Order for good cause.” (Ex. 1, PO, § 4). Nor can State Farm claim justified reliance on an order it did not follow."}, {"d": 68, "p": 4, "t": "II. STATE FARM SUBMITTED NO EVIDENCE AND DEFENDED NO DOCUMENT AS REQUIRED, STANDING BY ITS BLANKET DESIGNATION. State Farm’s Response rests entirely on argument of counsel. It offers no affidavit, no description of the secrecy measures attached to any category of document, no evidence of independent economic value, and no showing of the “substantial competitive harm” its own definition requires. (Ex. 1, PO, {| 3(6)). The law demands more: “broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning,” do not suffice. Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986); see also Cook, Inc. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 206 F.R.D. 244, 248 (S.D. Ind. 2001). The omission is most glaring as to the exhibits referenced in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dedesignate'. Plaintiffs did precisely what State Farm’s own authority requires: they “indicate[d] precisely which documents [they] believed to be not confidential,” at which point “the movant would have the burden of proof in justifying the protective order with respect to those documents.” Cipollone, 785 F.2d at 1121 (quoted at Resp. at 8, 17-18). State Farm defends not one of them. It never explains what formula, method, or process any contains, or how an email boasting of billions in indemnity decreases (See Pls’ Mot. to De-Designate at Ex. 3), or calculation showing the indemnity decrease every time a repair versus replacement decision is made, or the that declining to pay one percent of claims yields “5k claims at $15,769 avg severity or $78.8 million” (Pls’ Mot. to De-Designate at Ex. 7), derives independent economic value from secrecy. See 78 O.S. § 86(4). That relevance and confidentiality are different questions (see Resp. at 11-12) is true and beside the point. Plaintiffs contend these documents are not trade secrets, not confidential research or development, not ' These are not the only documents in this case subject to the Motion to De-designate. Plaintiffs specifically incorporate the following exhibits which pertain to State Farm’s bad faith tactics to intentionally reduce first-party claim payments, and cannot be considered confidential or trade secrets. See e.g. HUR00063569-73; HUR00034836; HUR00044257, HUR00068381, HUR00069466, HUR00037462, HUR00125604, HUR00053719, HUR00008080, HUR00078333, HUR00027781, HUR00061156, HUR00125604. Plaintiffs request an Order from this Court explicitly de-designating these documents, as well as the 20 exhibits to Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-designate, and will present these 12 exhibits at the September 1, 2026 hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-designate and Strike."}, {"d": 68, "p": 5, "t": "commercial information maintained in secrecy, and not personal confidential information. State Farm’s silence concedes the point. I. THE PROTECTIVE ORDER DOES CONFIDENTIALITY DETERMINATION, NOT ALLOW FOR A_ BLANKET State Farm argues that the good-faith standard “does not require a producing party to make a particularized showing . . . as to each individual document.” (Resp. at 8). Paragraph 1 says otherwise: “Each document or portion of a document the party in good faith believes to contain confidential information shall be marked ‘Confidential.’” (Ex.1, PO, J 1 (emphasis added)). State Farm’s contrary position conflates the showing required to enter a blanket, umbrella order with compliance under an order that by its terms requires more. Paragraph 2 confirms the parties’ intent: State Farm may not designate even one deposition transcript in its entirety “without first obtaining an order from this Court.” (Ex. 1, PO, 2). State Farm cannot need leave of Court to designate a single transcript yet be free to designate hundreds of thousands of pages of documents unilaterally. It is gamesmanship and a direct violation of the Protective Order. State Farm also rewrites the carve-out exception in the Protective Order. Paragraph 3(a)(ii) excludes from trade secret protection “any aspects of the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim as first-party insureds, including but not limited to attempts to lower indemnity payments on Plaintiffs’ claim.” State Farm reads this to reach only the Wests’ individual claim file. (Resp. at 9). But the enterprise-wide FME Wind/Hail tactics were the mechanism through which State Farm handled the Wests’ claim, which resulted in a denial of'a Full Roof Replacement — the very “opportunity” State Farm recognized, internally documents, and carried out to the tune of billions of indemnity reductions. Documents directing managers to review roof replacement recommendations in order to “reduce coverage,” and tracking the resulting savings, are “aspects of the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim” in the most literal sense. State Farm’s fallback—that these materials are independently protectable as “confidential research, development or commercial information”—still requires proof the information is “maintained in"}, {"d": 68, "p": 6, "t": "secrecy” and “would result in substantial competitive harm if publicly disclosed.” (Ex. 1, PO, J 3(b)). State Farm offered none because it has no such basis. IV. PARAGRAPH 6 MAKES EVERY DESIGNATION A SEALING QUESTION. State Farm’s lead argument is that Plaintiffs confuse discovery confidentiality with the sealing of court records. (Resp. at 4-7). State Farm again is wrong. The Protective Order joins those questions via Paragraph 6, which provides that materials designated “Confidential” “shall, when filed with the Court, be submitted in a sealed envelope,” and Paragraph 13 subjects “the outcome of any “Confidential’ designations made in this Proceeding” to “judicial review and determination by the Court pursuant to 51 Okla. Stat. §§ 244.29-24A.30.” (Ex. 1,996, 13). Furthermore, because Plaintiffs are relying on these documents in pleadings, these exhibits are being improperly sealed from the public, so there is no conflation of sealing records with discovery confidentiality. As Judge Heaton has noted, “[t]he considerations change significantly once documents are used in litigation of the case. Court proceedings are public proceedings and there is a ‘strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records.’” Coker v. Hartford Life Group Ins. Co., et al, CIV-06-0911-HE, 02/21/2007 Order, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “5”)(footnotes and internal citations omitted). Because it designated its entire production as confidential, Paragraph 6 converts every evidentiary filing in this case into a sealed court record, and Paragraph 13 makes §§ 24A.29 and 24A.30 the governing measure. See Shadid v. Hammond, 2013 OK 103, {J 2-3 (Taylor, J., concurring). CONCLUSION State Farm bears the burden. It submitted no evidence, defended no document, and never filed the motion for relief Paragraph 4 required. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court (1) strike State Farm’s blanket confidentiality assertion; (2) de-designate the documents produced in response to the Court’s Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, and at a minimum Exhibits 2 through 7 as well as the Exhibits included in previous filings with the Court in opposition to the Motion to Quash Executive"}, {"d": 68, "p": 7, "t": "Depositions; and (3) prohibit any future filing under seal absent a specific order of this Court supported by a particularized showing of harm. Respgttfully submitted, As Reggie N: Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS"}, {"d": 68, "p": 8, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the August 26\" day of August, 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) cmceneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com -and- Lance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS LECEC Hannah Whitten"}, {"d": 68, "p": 9, "t": "FILED IN DISTRICT COURT OMLANONA COUNTY IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY DEC 1 12025 STATE OF OKLAHOMA . 159, OO BILL and LACY HURSH, aS a Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; CASE NO. CJ-2025-2626 Hon. Amy Palumbo MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. PROTECTIVE ORDER All Parties to this litigation, defined as Plaintiffs Bill and Lacy Hursh (“Pla intiffs”), Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”), Defendant Mark D. Welty (“Welty”), and Defendant Mark D. Welty Insurance Agency, Inc., (“Welty Agency”) acknowledge that certain documents produced in this actio n may contain trade secret or other confi dential information as defined in paragraph 3 of this Protective Order. The Parties, by and through their attomeys of record, therefore agree and it is here by ordered as follows: 1, Any party may designate as “Confidentia l” any documents or any portion of a document produced by it in this litigation . The party making the designation of confi dential material represents that it has done so after a bona fide determination made in good faith that the material is in fact trade secret or other confi dential information as defined in paragraph 3. Each document or portion of a document the party in good faith believes to contain confidenti al"}, {"d": 68, "p": 10, "t": "information shall be marked “Confidential.” The Party shall take care that its designation does not obscure or render illegible the information on the docum ent so designated. 2. matter Any party may designate as “Confidential” a porti on of a deposition taken in this by stating on the record that the party is designating a portion of the deposition “Confidential” or by advising the court reporter and counsel for all other Parties, in writing, within thirty (30) days of receiving the deposition transcript of the page(s) and lines of the deposition that the party deems “Confidential.” Nothing within this Protective Order shall allow a party to designate an entire deposition transcript as “Confident ial” without first obtaining an order from this Court allowing such designation. 3. As used in this Protective Order, “Confidential” informatio n shall only apply to the following materials: a. “Trade secret” shall have the same meaning as in 78 O.S. §86(4) . i. “Trade secret\" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process, that: a. derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and b. is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstan ces to maintain its secrecy. it. “Trade secret” shall explicitly not include any aspects of the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim as first-party insureds, including but not limited to attempts to lower indemnity payments on Plaintiffs’ claim, including the total roof"}, {"d": 68, "p": 11, "t": "replacement requested, and anything regar ding denying or partially denying Plaintiffs’ claim, b. “Confidential research, development or commerci al information” shall refer to information that is maintained in secrecy from third Parties and which a party in good faith believes would result in substantial competitive harm if publicly disclosed, c. “Personal confidential information” shall include a person’s social security number, medical records, bank records, personnel records and tax information. 4, Any party may challenge any other party’s designatio n of a docu ment or portion of a document as “Confidential.” A party shall not be oblig ed to challenge the propriety of a “Confidential” designation at the time made, and failur e to do so shall not preciude a subsequent challenge thereto. In the event that any party to this litiga tion takes issue at any stage of these proceedings with such designation, such party shall provi de to the producing party written notice of its disagreement with the designation. The producing party shall respond, in writing, within twenty (20) days, by stating whether it agrees or disagrees that designation should be removed. The Parties shall attempt to dispose of such dispute in good faith on an informal basis. If the Parties are unable to reach an agreement, the producing party shall have thirty (30) days to submit a motion for relief from the Court. If the producing party fails to timely file said motion for relief within the time prescribed, the document shall no longer be subje ct to this Protective Order. The fact a document has been designated as “Confidential” shall not creat e a presumption the document is, in fact, confidential or a trade secret entitled to protection by this Prote ctive Order. The burden of establishing that a document or testimony contains trade secret or personal confidential information and is entitled to the protection of this Protective Order shall remain on the party"}, {"d": 68, "p": 12, "t": "making the designation. Further, a party’s agreement to this Protective Order does not prejudice the party’s right to move the Court to lift the Protective Order for good cause. 5. Documents and/or deposition transcripts desig nated as “Confidential” shall not disseminated publicly, and may be disclosed only to the following persons, unless prior writte n consent to further disclosure has been obtai ned from counsel for the designating party or permission for such disclosure has been given by the Court: a. The Court pursuant to the terms of this Protective Order; b. The attorneys working on this action on behalf of any party, including inside, outside and consulting counsel, their legal associates, paralegals, and employees working under the supervision of such counsel; Any director, officer or employee of a party who is requir ed by such party to work directly on this litigation, with disclosure only to the extent necessary to perform such work; Any person not employed by a party who is expressly retained or sought to be retained by any attorney described in paragraph 5(b) to assist in the prosecution or defense of this action, including outside experts and their emplo yees; Any actual or potential deposition or trial witnesses in this action; £ Any mediator mutually agreed upon by the Parties in this action; and &.- Any other Court or Judiciary with jurisdiction over this action. The persons described in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) shall have access to “Confidential” material only after they have been made aware of the terms of this Protective Order and have manifested their assent to be bound thereby."}, {"d": 68, "p": 13, "t": "6. It shall not be deemed a violation of this Protective Order for counsel to disseminate documents designated as “Confidential” at deposition or as part of their filings with the Court. If any “Confidential” material is used in any depos ition, filing or court proceeding during the cours e of this litigation, it shall not lose its “Confidential” status through such use. This notwithstanding, any materials specifically designated as “Conf idential” under this Protective Order shall, when filed with the Court, be submitted in asealed envel ope or other container, and shall be prominen tly labeled on the first page: “Contains Confidential Information - Subject to Court Order.” 7. This Protective Order is not intended to preclude use or disclosure of any document, deposition transcript or information whic h is in the public domain, which has been provided to a party, his/her/its attorneys or experts, by a source independent of the designating party or his/her/its attorney. 8. Any of the undersigned may request the Court to modi fy or otherwise grant relief from any provision of this Protective Order. Nothing in this Protective Order shall operate as an admission by any party that any particular document is, or is not, admissible in evidence at the trial of this action. 9. Nothing in this Protective Order shall be construed as a waiver of any rights by any party with respect to matters not specifically provided for herein. 10. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this Protective Order and decide any issues relating to or arising from it. If the terms of this Protective Order are violated, the Court may grant such relief to the producing party as is just and necessar y, including but not limited to sanctions."}, {"d": 68, "p": 14, "t": "11. The terms and conditions of this Protective Order shail remain in full force and effect and shall survive the final resolution of this litigation unless the Protective Order is terminated or modified in writing by the Parties or by further order of the 12, All requests made by a party for a document to be filed Court. “under seai” in accordance with this Protective Order shall be made by motion and conform to the requirements set forth in 12 0.8. § 3226(C)(2). 13. The outcome of any “Confidential” designations made in this Proceeding will be subject to judicial review and determination by the Court pursuant to 50 Okla. Stat. §§ 24A.29- 24A.30 and 12 Okla, Stat. § 3226(C)(2). IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 26!\" day of November, 2025. AMY. PALUSS THE HONORABLE AMY PALUMBO JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVED AS TO FORM: Duppie whiten Réggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 Whitten Burrage 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102"}, {"d": 68, "p": 15, "t": "Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburraze@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com idenne@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ashlyn M. Smith GABLE GOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lieffel@gablelaw.com asmith@gablelaw.com Carrie B. McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLE GOTW ALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 cmceneer@gablelaw.com efitz@gablelaw.com Attorneys for Defendant State Farm, Defendant Mark D. Welty, and Defendant Mark D. Welty Insurance Agency, Inc."}, {"d": 68, "p": 16, "t": "Thursday, August 6, 2026 at 9:19:31 AM Central Daylight Time Subject: RE: State Farm - WEST and Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 at 11:52:59 AM Centrai Daylight Time From: Timila S. Rother To: Blake Sonne, Paige Masters, Amanda cc: Reggie N. Whitten, Michael Burrage, Hannah Whitten, John Sanders, Jake Denne, Karen Stratton, Kayli Price, Autumn Attachments: Finch, Lance Leffel, Carrie McNeer, Grant Fitz Hobbs, james warner, Brad Beskin, Lauren Guhl image019.png, image020.jpg, image021 jpg, image022.jpg, image023.png, image024.jpg, image025.jpg, image026.png, image027.jpg, image028.jpg, image029.jpg, image030.jpg, image031.png, image032.jpg, image033.jpg, image034.png, image035.jpg, image036.jpg, image037.png, image038. jpg Blake, In response to your email below, we respond in the order the issues were raised by you. West 1. As to the categorizing of production, we do not agree with your interpretation of 12 O.S. 3234 and we take issue with your characterization of the information as a data dump. You asked for a massive number of documents, many documents would be responsive across multiple requests and State Farm had to formulate searches as best it could to identify documents across multiple requests. There is no meaningful way to categorize these documents among each request with accuracy. I am conferring with State Farm as to whether there is any way to provide information based upon the way the documents were searched or reviewed, as compromise, and will let you know what I learn. But, what you are asking otherwise is not reasonable because of the number of requests and the way they are written. We are happy to explain this to Judge Sheperd. 2. As to Request No. 44, despite your belief that this is easy and requires only a push of a button, the responsive documents involve numerous production volumes from more than ten separate workspaces. State Farm is working on it among other discovery orders and we will send it as soon as it is ready and in accordance with the Court’s Order. 3. As to your notion that State Farm is intentionally withholding documents responsive to the requests, if you are talking about RFP 44, I have explained it, we are working on it, and the Judge has given us until June 15. So, I am not sure why you think there is a reason to request sanctions for withholding documents. We specifically disagree. Beyond Request No. 44, we anticipate another significant production on Monday which will get us close to complete, except for documents that have been flagged for a second review as potentially EXHIBIT 2 1 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 17, "t": "privileged which will then result in additional productions if documents are identified as in fact not privileged. As to Ms. Manduca, most all communications involving her for the time period ordered in West were in our June | production set. As to Ms. Manduca then, you already have that responsive information without regard to RFP 44. There may be a few additional documents regarding Ms. Manduca in the set to be produced on Monday but you will have them all well before the deposition. We reiterate our position, then, that we object to and will not agree to produce her a second time in West. 4. As to the other depositions, I believe that I made it known in the telephonic status call with Judge Sheperd that we intended to object to those depositions when explaining why the urgency you were conveying was negated but your second motion to compel as well as our intended objections to those depositions. If I did not or if it got buried in the other discussion, then I will confirm here that we intend to file Motions to Quash those depositions this week. I appreciate the courtesy of the recognition of my conflict on the 12\" for Mr. Moss, but also, as a reminder, Mr. Moss is no longer a State Farm employee. Thus, we cannot require him to appear on noticed dates. I think this was discussed and accounted for in earlier cases in which you have tried to force his appearance. Thus, he will need to be treated differently regardless. As to your further threat of sanctions based on our refusal to agree to produce these individual voluntarily, our position will be as stated in our Motion, but your allegations are rejected. 5. We do not agree to withdraw our confidentiality designations. Federal Cases 1. We are working on the production already ordered by Judge Russell in Porter and Barlow, and will have some documents to you in the next few days. As to the more “institutional” type documents, those are being gathered and prepared by State Farm but, as is evident from the above, we are juggling discovery orders in other cases as well. 2. But, as noted, we need to confer about the three or so categories on which Judge Russel has directed we attempt to narrow discovery. Right now the Motion to Compel is denied, subject to further conference. I know we have all had limited availability to have that conference and it is harder because Lance has been in non-stop depos in other cases. I can confer at 1:00 tomorrow or Thursday morning from 10:00 to 1:00, before I have to leave for the wedding. But, it occurs to me that simply talking about these requests is not going to move the needle much. It seems one or both of us need to formulate a written offer of 2 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 18, "t": "sorts and then meet to discuss it. I am open to the rest of the groups thoughts on that. It would seem that it would bring order to the discussion. 3. As to Ms. Manduca’s deposition in the federal cases, I think the primary gating issue there, in addition to West scheduling, is the fact that we do not have rulings from Judge Dishman as to Wilder and Hall. Certainly we need to have all of that resolved to present her one time for that group of cases. However, I am happy to confer about dates when we confer about documents. 4. Regardless of the document conference, in each of these cases, by Thursday we need to present a new agreed set of deadlines to the Court. Your recent motions have requested 120 days. Is that what you want to do on these as well? Of note, I cannot speak for Cisneros as that is not my case. And, it occurs to me that I would rather stagger Porter and Barlow so they are not on the same trajectory. So, could we do 90 and 120 or do we need to do 120 and 150? Thanks Timila O C ROWE _ DUNLEVY tonites. rother Shareholder/Director 405.235.7757 LexMund! Member Chanter ' ey e e@ USA Prue oe ‘Timils Rother This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or other privileges or protections. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you. From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2026 8:44 AM To: Timila S. Rother <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com>; Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>; Amanda Finch <amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com> Cc: Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; james warner <jwarner@nixlaw.com>; Brad Beskin <bbeskin @whittenburragelaw.com>; Lauren Guhl <Iguh|@whittenburragelaw.com> Subject: Re: State Farm - WEST and Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca 3 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 19, "t": "JALERT: Email contains attachments from external sender. Be cautious. | Counsel for State Farm, This email is being sent in conjunction with 12 Okla. Stat. 3237 and the Oklahoma Discovery Code regarding the recent document production in West v. State Farm as well as addressing several issues in the federal court cases as following up to my email below on May 28, 2026. West v. State Farm: First, we received two links of documents in apparent response to the Court’s ruling on our Motion to Compel. As State Farm is well aware, Oklahoma law does not allow a document dump to comply with discovery obligations. Oklahoma law provides that “a party shall produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business gr shall organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request.” 12 O.S. 3234 (B)(2)(e). The document production was obviously not produced as they were kept in the usual course of business. However, State Farm failed to organize and label the documents to correspond the categories in the document requests. Unless we missed something, we have not received any index, label, or other delineation from State Farm as to the documents being produced to specific requests. This email provides notice of potential sanctions and to request that State Farm immediately comply with its discovery obligations and to correct this abusive process in violation of the Court’s order. Second, Request #44 specifically requested documents that were produced in several previous cases: Nida v. State Farm, CJ-2020-4453 (Oklahoma County); Hosier v. State Farm, CJ-2021-1741 (Oklahoma County); Kyger v. State Farm, CJ-2022-3990 (Oklahoma County); McDow v. State Farm, CJ-2022-1857 (Oklahoma County); Barnett v. State Farm, CJ-2020-141 (Grady County); McNeil v. State Farm, CJ-2021-926 (Cleveland County). To date, we have not received the bates stamped documents produced in each of those cases as ordered by Judge Sheperd. As you know, these same documents were ordered to be produced by Judge Palumbo back in December 2025. Please advise when we can expect those bate stamped documents from the previous cases under RFP #44. Again, this email is to provide notice to State Farm of our intent to seek discovery sanctions for the delay in such production, especially since these documents have already been organized, labeled, bate stamped, and previously produced. Third, this email serves as notice under Section 3237 of our intent to seek discovery sanctions for intentionally withholding documents responsive to our discovery requests. Hopefully, the production under RFP #44 will cure some of the apparent lack of production of documents we know exist under our work product protections that were produced in prior litigation and were directly responsive to the West order on the motion to compel. Fourth, in West, we noticed depositions of 4 State Farm executives: *® Thomas Moss on June 12, 2026 © * Kathy Ress on June 15, 2026 Scott Welsh on June 16, 2026 * Wensley Herbert on June 17, 2026 1 indicated in my email below we would agree to move Moss’ depo based on Timila’s scheduling conflict. | further requested that State Farm inform us if they intend to object to such notices and to meet and confer on deposition dates. We have received no response. Now that we have documents produced, we have identified literally thousands of documents, emails, memos, etc. that involve all four of these executives, among many others. They were intimately involved in the implementation and success of the FME Wind/Hail. Examples are too numerous to list. Please advise by end of business on Tuesday, June 9, 2026 if State Farm will be cooperating on scheduling these depositions. (We assume that is the case based on the failure to respond to 4 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 20, "t": "my email below but that email was sent before we had the document production at issue). If not, we intend to file motions to compel and seek sanctions under Section 3237 against State Farm for the lack of any good faith basis to object to these depositions considering the documents that we intend to show the Court in our motion. We plan on a special hearing setting to outline to Judge Sheperd the full extent of their involvement with an extensive array of documents showcasing their direct involvement that simply makes any attempt to thwart these discovery depositions as an abusive discovery practice and in bad faith. We stand willing to work with you on scheduling, but we would ask for a response so we can take appropriate action if State Farm continues to object despite what is undeniable in the document production. Fifth, we believe State Farm’s blanket delineation of all documents produced in West as being “confidential” as a direct violation of the Protective Order and Oklahoma law. Please advise if State Farm has any intent on providing a narrowed and specific confidentiality delineation as opposed to the blanket statement provided when the documents were produced. Please let us know by end of business, June 9, 2026. FEDERAL CASES: With respect to the federal cases, we have received no response as to the dates for the document production ordered by Judge Russell in Barlow, Cisneros, and Porter despite our previous requests for a timeline and a status on such production. Can you please provide a status as to the document production? We would prefer to get answers from State Farm without filing a motion with the Court to enforce the motion to compel. And similar to above, we expect full compliance with FRCP 34(b) with respect to the organization, labeling, and coordination of documents produced to the specific request. Please advise. Further, as I mentioned below, there are numerous topics in our motion to compel that were neither denied or granted but required further meet and confer between counsel to determine what documents SF would be willing to produce and if we can reach an agreement. Again, based on document we have now seen, we are in a better position to engage in this discussion. I had previously requested times a conference to discuss. Can you please discuss and send us some times this week that work for all counsel? With respect to Manduca’s consolidated deposition in federal court, again we need to confer on potential dates and parameters of this depo that is being consolidated among numerous federal court cases. We need to address this in our meet and confer on the federal documents as well. We look forward to your response. Thank you. Bake SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL VE WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work-product. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. 5 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 21, "t": "From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Date: Thursday, May 28, 2026 at 12:55 PM To: \"Timila S. Rother\" <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com>, Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>, Amanda Finch <amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>, Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com> Cc: \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, james warner <jwarner@nixlaw.com> Subject: Re: State Farm - WEST and Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca Counsel, Please find attached the Amended Notice for Nicole Manduca in West v. State Farm for June 9, 2026. Iam cc’ing Lance and his firm as we have discussed at length coordinating the West deposition with the consolidated federal deposition. We put placeholders on location but assume as previously scheduled that Scottsdale, AZ is the preferred location. Please confirm. As noted in our response and motion to enforce filed today in West (attached) we request a second day of deposition in West for Manduca in consideration of State Farm’s position it cannot comply with the June 1 deadline for production of documents. Your email below states there will be some lengthy production despite the motion filed, so please advise on that issue as well. We had previously discussed the deposition of Manduca in the federal cases and we discussed this at length at the hearing before Judge Heaton in several of his cases with Crowe. It is clear that Judge Heaton and the other federal judges want us to confer and reach agreements on the scope, timing, and use/sharing of documents in the consolidated deposition. Judge Heaton specifically struck all deadlines in his cases until we can reach those agreements and take Manduca’s deposition with State Farm’s documents. We stand ready to discuss and confer so please advise on timing now that Lance is back from vacation. Do you want to reach on agreement on June 10\" or another day for those depos? This of course assumes we will have the documents as ordered to be produced or otherwise we will request additional deposition time once all of the document production is complete like we did in the attached West motion. Other arrangements could possibly be made, but not with State Farm’s continued efforts to not agree to any scheduling extensions in any of the federal court cases. We are hopeful that will change after Judge Heaton’s hearing and subsequent orders, but please advise. In Barlow, Porter, and Cisneros, we have been ordered to meet and confer on numerous topics that Judge Russell deferred ruling on. Again, please advise as to proposed times for those discussions. Finally, we will have the same issue with the other executives ordered to be deposed in Faust and Hursh and now West. Timila, we have requested you advise if State Farm will produce those executives per our notices. If we do not get an answer by Monday, June 1, we will go ahead and get our motion to compel on file with the court to be heard before those noticed dates in my email dated May 14, 2026: (Timila, I see that we have June 12\" and you advised you are at a wedding so we can if we have to file our motion move that date to the following week like the others), ¢ Thomas Moss on June 12, 2026 6 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 22, "t": "* Kathy Ress on June 15, 2026 © Scott Welsh on June 16, 2026 * Wensley Herbert on June 17, 2026 We look forward to hearing back on these issues and time to discuss via meet and confer. Thank you. Biake SONNE ATTORNEY, Or COUNSEL VWVITS WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work-product. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: \"Timila S. Rother\" <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2026 at 11:46 AM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>, Amanda Finch <amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com>, Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Lance Cc: \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, james warner <jwarner@nixlaw.com> Subject: RE: State Farm - WEST and Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca Blake, I think we have two different email strings going under the title of “Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca” one of which is more focused on West and does not include Lance and team and one of which is more global and does. To keep our last exchanges about West in one place, I am adding to an earlier response but as it covers some issues that touch on Lance’s cases, I am adding he and Carrie McNeer to the string. With that modest effort at organization, I write to note that I have conferred with State Farm about the status of document collection and production in West and handful of other pending issues, and report the following: 1. We anticipate having document production ready in several of the ordered categories 7 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 23, "t": "of production by June 1. It will be a lot of documents but it will not be all of them. Even with the advance work going on as a result of other discovery orders, the process it enormous and time consuming. In particular, given the passage of time between productions, and different date ranges on production orders for many of the requests, we cannot just reuse prior production as you all suggest as the reason this should not take very long. We must still search for, collect and review a large volume of documents to be in compliance with the Judge’s Order in West. . Of note, while Judge Sheperd has ruled on the Protective Order issue and a form that complies with his order has been submitted, it has not been signed and entered by the Court as far as we can tell. I do not see it on the docket and have not received it by mail, Thus, we need to have that in place before we can produce documents, including the documents that we had agreed to produce in our original responses upon entry of a PO. . Our plan is to file a Motion with the Court for additional time to complete production pursuant to the Court’s Order. Besides just the enormity of the task, at a minimum given that the Court’s Order was signed on April 24 he intended to give us 5 weeks to complete the production but, as you know, neither we nor you received the order until May 4. Thus, our time to collect and produce was shortened by 10 days. I do not think we can complete full production in that period either but it would get us closer. I gather from your email that you object to additional time, but please confirm so we can state your position in our Motion. . On West scheduling issues more broadly, I was a business day early on deadlines for dispositive motions and preliminary witness and exhibit lists; they are due over the weekend and so May 26. As noted, we would prefer to move just those dates by agreement because I know your witness and exhibit list filings will include the caveats about the documents and then you will decline to respond to our MSJ due the status of depositions and document production (whether we have substantial compliance by that date or not). Further, you have indicated an intention to depose claim personnel but have not done so. I am fine keeping the pretrial date as is though the Judge may have a set window he needs between MSJ and pretrial. If you object, that is fine. We will proceed accordingly. . Our document production cannot be completed before the dates you propose below for Ms. Manduca’s deposition. You have said more than once in the past when pursuing her deposition that you did not need the documents to depose her but recently have pivoted to a demand for complete document production before dates you propose for her deposition. We will object to presenting her more than once in West and so let us know if you want to look for a date a little further out or whether you want to proceed with an earlier date knowing document production will likely be ongoing. I am not presuming what the Court’s ruling will be on our extension motion and State Farm is moving expeditiously to comply; I am simply stating that I understand it is not 8 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 24, "t": "possible to complete all aspects of the production by June 1 or the mid-June dates requested for depositions. I have also noted an immovable conflict for June 11 and 12. 6. As you plan to combine Ms. Manduca’s deposition into one trip for West and the consolidated federal cases, that raises another issue. While Judge Russell has ordered that consolidation in all cases where the issue is ripe before him, and hopefully Judge Heaton will rule on or shortly after the May 26 hearing, we a) still do not have rulings from Judge Dishman as to Wilder and Hall and b) you have served new notices in Newell and White. Thus, we will likewise need to have some guidance from the Court in those cases before the deposition of Ms. Manduca in the federal cases as, absent a contrary order from the Court, we object to producing Ms. Manduca more than once in the federal cases. 7. As to document production in Porter and Barlow (and likely Cisneros though not my case) I do not have a timeline yet as we have been focused on West, but it will not be by June 1. Further, given the discovery conference process (on which we are awaiting Lance’s return) that will not be wrapped up by June 1. I believe the Court has asked for a new scheduling order by June 11. 8. We do not agree to produce Ms. Manduca’s deposition transcript or exhibits from other cases. There are separate confidentiality issues in those cases applicable to parts of the testimony and exhibits and your demand does not account for that. Further, as you note, the underlying information will be coming in separate document production in West and so what you are requesting is cumulative as you have the source information and thus there is no need to open the problems with transcript confidentiality designations and like issues. 9. We do not agree to produce what you group as “Accenture and industry standard document requests.” I know there are a lot of moving parts and I am certain we are going to need to confer about several of them in West and otherwise. For the federal cases, that will have to occur in person. Hopefully we can set something up right after Lance returns though we have the hearing in the Judge Heaton cases on Tuesday. Perhaps we will have some additional guidance on some of the federal cases at that hearing. But, if you can let us know your position on the West Tuesday deadlines and on our anticipated motion for extension of time to comply with the Court’s discovery order sooner rather than later that will help us advise the court accordingly. Thanks Timila 9 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 25, "t": "‘O) Cc R oO WwW E Timila S. Rother Shareholder/Director 405.235.7757 DUNLEVY yor, LexMundi Member aa s usa Ox250 Tanita Rother go oe This message may be protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or other privileges or protections. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you. From: Timila S. Rother Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 8:48 AM To: 'Blake Sonne’ <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>; Amanda Finch <amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com> Cc: Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten @whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne @whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; james warner <jwarner@nixlaw.com> Subject: RE: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca Blake, I will, as noted, respond in more detail to the production and deposition issues, but respond quickly here to note that you overstated my question/request. My focus was on the Motion for Summary Judgment (and other) deadlines for Friday as, regardless of the timeline for depositions and production, I anticipate you all will not respond in 18 days because of ongoing discovery - even ifthe depositions were all agreed they would not be completed before your response is due and you have advised of an intended second motion to compel. To be transparent, I also advised that I do not believe the document production can be completed by June 1. I was not asking to extend the scheduling order, but rather anticipating that you would based on the discovery you are pursuing. I disagree with your premise that this is inconsistent with our prior objections as those are the federal court cases where the discovery was not timely pursued at all (the most recent cases) and/or was being asked to be halted in an effort to apply the Judge Palumbo orders to those cases. Indeed, in the early stages of those disputes we were noting that we would agree to a reasonable extension 30-60 days or the like, but not 120 and not on the premise that the Judge Palumbo orders were operative in the federal cases. Regardless, we will proceed with summary judgment motions on Friday and object to any requested extensions to respond given the below, noting to the Judge our effort to avoid that situation being created at all. If there is an agreement to be reached there, let me know. 10 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 26, "t": "Perhaps we can discuss after a more full report on the status of the efforts to comply with the Judge’s Order. We have outstanding requests to you from a week ago about dates for the contractor depositions (see attached). Unless you have dates in the works, we will go ahead and notice them and then work with you to move them as needed. One of them is the public adjuster who is, I think, in Florida, and so that one will require more work to coordinate so we will likely just proceed with that subpoena and notice to get the ball moving. I anticipate we can take his deposition virtually. Thanks Timila 0) Cc R oO WwW E Timila S. Rother Shareholder/Director DUNLEVY 405.235.7757 LexMundi Member ’ Chanter g tumniom aS oe My usa J @Pxn2e 4 Timila Rother This message may be protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or other privileges or protections. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you. From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 2:43 PM To: Timila S. Rother <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com>; Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>; Amanda Finch <amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com> Cc: Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; james warner <jwarner@nixlaw.com> Subject: Re: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca JALERT: Email contains attachments from external sender. Be cautious. | Timila, Thank you for your email. We do not agree to any extension of the deadlines in the West case. As you know, discovery is open through the pre-trial conference on July 23, 2026. We have sought extensions on 11 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 27, "t": "numerous occasions in other federal cases because State Farm has refused in every case to produce documents related to the FME Wind/Hail team and its implementation in Oklahoma. You have indicated an objection in every case so your request to seek an extension of deadlines now that the documents have been ordered to be produced in yet another case is not received well and is extremely inconsistent. We also object to what appears to be your statement that State Farm will not comply with the Court’s deadline of document production by June 15‘. As you know, many of these documents (related to the last round of cases) were ordered to be produced by Judge Palumbo by December 24, 2025, with the remaining documents to be produced in late February I believe. If you file any motion for summary judgment, we will certainly file a response with use of these documents ordered to be produced by the Court by June 15, We look forward to hearing from you by Wednesday on the Manduca depo and the other executives to be deposed in June. As we stated very clearly, if you re-assert your objection to those other noticed depos, we will file a motion to compel and get the issue before the Court as soon as possible so please advise. We will likewise provide some dates for the depositions of the adjusters and TM we want to depose. you. Thank BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, Or CouNsEL WVI3 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N, Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw,com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work-product. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: \"Timila S. Rother\" <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com> Date: Sunday, May 17, 2026 at 12:50 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>, Amanda Finch <amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com> Ce: \"Reggie N. Whitten” <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten @whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs @whittenburragelaw.com>, james warner <jwarner@nixlaw.com> Subject: RE: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca Blake, Iam catching up on email after being out-of-state and in all day meetings since Thursday. I 12 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 28, "t": "have a call scheduled with State Farm on Tuesday to discuss the issues that are raised in your series of emails and I will send a quick separate response to the email that includes Lance on the issues as to deposition scheduling for Ms. Manduca and document production on Porter, Barlow and Cisneros. As to West document production and timing, as noted I will respond more fully when I get an update from State Farm, but a couple of things. As you know, we did not receive this order until 10 days after it was entered. I am not sure if we could meet June 1 no matter what but certainly that is harder if we lost 10 days of the period allowed by the Court. I know this overlaps with other production and I know it is in the works but I am going to have to get more information. As you know, State Farm is juggling production orders in several cases. But that brings me to a scheduling question. Our first round of filings, dispositive motions and preliminary witness and exhibit lists are due on May 22. In the last several cases we have filed MSJs and you all have responded with requests to extend the response date based on discovery issues. The pretrial conference date is mid-July with a lot of other deadlines due mid-June. Do you all anticipate asking to extend the scheduling order in this case as well and/or to ask for an extension to respond to our MSI if we file it on May 22? If so, I think it makes since to do that sooner rather than later to avoid what we both have due on Friday. IF not, we can proceed with our Motion for Summary Judgment. I just wanted to get that out there before the week gets away. And certainly in the interest of candor, I anticipate State Farm may need more time to complete the ordered document production, even if it can begin production on June 1. Hopefully I will have more clarity on that by Wednesday but I am not sure how we meet a July pretrial conference either way. Thanks Timila Cc pela R (@) W E ent o DUNLEVY Timila S. Rother Shareholder/Director 495.235.7757 LexMundl Member Chambers nersiceraa } S.in USA 2 20250\" Trnile Rother This message may be protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or other privileges or protections. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you. 13 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 29, "t": "From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2026 3:49 PM To: Timila S. Rother <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com>; Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>; Amanda Finch <amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com> Cc: Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs @whittenburragelaw.com>; james warner <jwarner@nixlaw.com> Subject: FW: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca JALERT: Email contains attachments from external sender. Be cautious. | Timila, With respect to my email below and the West case...we will be filing our motion to compel on the second set of discovery as mentioned. We have previously discussed requests to produce the industry standards/Accenture, claim files, and the Manduca depo in a conversation and phone call. I do not recall discussing the other depos other than Taylor as well. However, I just wanted to again request production of these requested depositions and exhibits in our second requests without court intervention. Based on our conversations about Manduca and Taylor, I do not believe State Farm will produce these documents, depositions, or claim files, but please advise if you have any indication of a change in position. We plan to file Monday and of course stand willing to discuss at any time prior to any hearing on the motion. Thanks and hope you guys have a great weekend. Bake SONNE ATTORNEY, Or CouNSEL WIS WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work-product. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Date: Thursday, May 14, 2026 at 10:19 PM To: \"Timila S. Rother” <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com> Cc: \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, james warner <jwarner@nixlaw.com>, Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>, Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs 14 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 30, "t": "<ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com> Subject: Re: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca Lance and Timila, Hope all is well. We needed to follow up from our phone call last week regarding Nicole Manduca’s deposition after we had a chance to review Judge Sheperd’s ruling on the motion to compel and protective order. In addition to the documents ordered by Judge Sheperd, we now have documents ordered to be produced by Judge Russell in Cisneros, Porter, and Barlow. So, a few topics that include both firms so thought it would be better to include on this email chain: 1 - The West Production and interrogatories must be produced and answered by June 1°‘ and we presume State Farm will produce the documents ordered by Judge Russell on or before June 1 as well. Please advise as to date of interrogatory responses and document production in the Cisneros, Porter, and Barlow cases. 2 - In addition, Judge Russell ordered us to meet and confer on numerous requests that were not granted outright. We propose some time next Tuesday or Wednesday to see if we can agree on narrowing the requests and focusing on documents in line with Judge Russell’s other rulings. 3 - Judge Sheperd followed Judge Palumbo’s ruling in ordering all documents produced in the key cases from our last bucket of cases, in addition to many other documents, which include documents that were the exhibits to Manduca’s deposition in April 2024. As such and considering all the Court’s rulings denying motions to quash and outlining the relevance of her deposition and the FME team, please advise if you will finally produce that deposition and exhibits as requested in our second set of requests. Otherwise, we will file our motion with Judge Sheperd and seek fees for having to do so based on these rulings we do not see any good faith basis considering the exhibits have been ordered produced and her motion to quash denied. 4 — we have previously conferred on the Accenture and industry standard document requests. Considering the Court’s rulings, will you agree to produce these documents? If not, we will go ahead and file our motions to compel in Hursh, West, and the federal court cases in which we have made those requests related to Accenture, benchmarks, and industry standards. Please advise. 5 - With respect to scheduling Manduca, we propose two days in Scottsdale on back-to-back days for the Sheperd depo and the second day for the consolidated federal court depo. We propose looking at June 10-12 and/or June 15-19. This will allow time to review the document production for the depositions. 6 — I will be issuing notices in the West case for depositions of State Farm executives Wesley Herbert, Tom Moss, Wendy Mazza, and__as previously ordered in Hursh. If you would like to discuss consolidation of those depos in the federal court cases, please advise. If you object to those depositions considering all of these rulings, we will move for an expedited hearing with Judge Sheperd to get rulings before the noticed dates in mid-June, We will notice for end of the week June 17-19 and/or June 22-24. Please advise so we can get these issues before Judge Sheperd prior to those dates. Please review and let us know. Thank you. BLake SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL \\ VWVITS WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell 15 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 31, "t": "bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www. whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work-product. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. , From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Date: Monday, May 4, 2026 at 1:07 PM To: \"Timila S. Rother\" <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com> Cc: \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, James warner <jwarner@nixlaw.com>, Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>, Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com> Subject: Re: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca Here is the order in West on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. Thanks! BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF CouNSEL WTS WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www. whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work-product. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: \"Timila S. Rother\" <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com> Date: Monday, May 4, 2026 at 12:28 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com> Cc: \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, james warner <jwarner@nixlaw.com>, Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>, Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com> Hobbs Subject: RE: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca 16 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 32, "t": "Thanks Blake. I sent an invite for 1:00. Just a couple of quick responsive notes to make our call efficient: 1. You are basing your argument on an offered compromise of a discovery dispute that was conditioned on you all agreeing to certain terms too. You did not agree to those terms but instead offered different ones which are not acceptable to State Farm. Further, you declined to make West part of that agreement anyway. 2. Thus, it is not appropriate to argue that we now must agree to production demands arising from an offered discovery compromise that a) you were never willing to make applicable to West, b) was conditioned on terms to which you have not agreed and c) is much narrower than what you are presently demanding. 3. Ido not see a request for transcripts in the West requests or in your motion to compel. If I am overlooking it please let me know. If the provision of transcripts was requested/ordered we would have included in our Motion to Quash that you did not need another deposition of Ms. Manduca. 4. Protective orders and confidentiality agreements prevent this production as demanded anyway. 5. In short, I respectfully disagree that you can move to compel a request you have not made based on a compromise offer applicable to different cases which you did not accept especially when the information is governed by confidentiality provisions in different cases. As to the deposition, we are certainly willing to produce Ms. Manduca on the Court’s ordered timeline but none of what you are now demanding was requested or ordered in advance of the deposition and you are the ones that chose the timeline. If you want to defer the deposition while you seek additional discovery then I appreciate you letting us know that for sure on the 1:00 pm call because we have folks incurring travel expense and juggling schedules today. We do have the continuing issue of the necessary entry of a protective order which I know the court intended to get to us before the 8th but I also understand Judge Shepperd was starting jury term and so he may have just not had the bandwidth to get to it. I know we all can relate. Talk to you shortly. Timila O Cc ROWE DUNLEVY _ ainisas. Rother Shareholder/Director 495.235.7757 LexMundi Member 17 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 33, "t": "Wary Chambers a a + F225% Timita Rother This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or other privileges or protections. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you. From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 11:23 AM To: Timila S. Rother <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com> Cc: Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage @whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; james warner <jwarner@nixlaw.com>; Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>; Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs @whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com> Subject: Re: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca JALERT: Email contains attachments from external sender._Be cautious. ] Timila, I can do the call at lpm so Reggie will miss it. As mentioned, I sent the email last Tuesday and received no response. We have made both formal and informal requests for Manduca’s deposition transcripts. Judge Sheperd overruled SF’s motion to quash finding her testimony obviously relevant to the Scheme allegations and the FME team. Since that ruling, you have offered to produce these deposition transcripts and exhibits as part of a proposed consolidation of Manduca being deposed in federal court cases following Judge Dishman’s ruling in Wiesman, again denying a motion to quash Manduca’s deposition. So, there is no good faith basis for refusing to produce the transcript with exhibits. Certainly, it cannot be relevance considering Judge Sheperd and Judge Dishman’s rulings. Nor can there be any prejudice as it would take a simple email. As you know, prior deposition transcripts of witnesses are often requested and produced both formally and informally. Here, Manduca’s April 2024 deposition transcript of which our firm was involved in is undeniably relevant to her testimony regarding the Scheme. A protective order will be in place and you can designate it confidential and then make that argument to the Court. Again, no prejudice. 1 The refusal to produce the transcript and exhibits is self-serving, especially now that SF has offered to produce it in federal court cases based on our request to do so. Reggie and I spoke to our local counsel there this morning and it may be difficult to get heard on this or have a ruling on our short motion before Thursday, but we intend to file our motion as stated and seek relief from the Court before taking Manduca’s deposition. This most likely means we are having to continue the deposition but will wait until our 1pm phone call to determine if SF has changed its position. Thank you. Bake SONNE ATTORNEY, OF CouNsEeL 18 of 31 1"}, {"d": 68, "p": 34, "t": "VWV/I3 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www. whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work-product. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: \"Timila S. Rother\" <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com> Date: Monday, May 4, 2026 at 9:57 AM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com> Cc: \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, james warner <jwarner@nixlaw.com>, Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>, Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs @whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com> Subject: RE: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca Blake, I can do 2:00 but we are juggling here and so earlier would be a bit better. Any chance you all could do earlier, maybe noon? BUT, in case it makes a difference to next streps, I wanted to give you a heads up on our position in advance in my role as lead counsel in West. We are happy to discuss but do not see a good path to compromise if the demand is the production of the two mentioned Manduca depositions and exhibits before the Thursday deposition, for the reasons stated below: 1. You have not requested those deposition transcripts in discovery and thus they are not subject to a current motion to compel Nor would an emergency motion to compel them be appropriate under the discovery code since you have made no request for them pursuant to 3234, 2. You chose to notice the deposition before document production knowing that you do not have and have not requested the transcripts and would not have other documents given pending motions. Indeed, you have done that consistently across cases and have said in past hearings that you do not need documents to take the deposition. You also then chose to press, at the hearing before Judge Shepperd, that the deposition occur within 30 days when you had not requested and did not have the transcripts and knew that other documents would not likely be produced that quickly given that the court 19 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 35, "t": "has taken your motion to compel under advisement and it will take time to produce documents, if ordered. 3. In all events, these depositions and their exhibits are subject to protective orders in other cases, including one in the Carson case in which your firm was never of record and has no good faith basis to obtain that deposition or its exhibits. As to the prior deposition in Nida/Kyger, those documents and confidentiality designations are protected by the confidentiality agreement in the Release as well as the Protective Orders under which the documents were produced. 4. Finally, if your intention is to depose Ms. Manduca yourselves to learn about FME then you do not need the other depositions to do that. If you had those depositions, that would substantially reduce the argument that you need to take this one at all. 5. I know there is a more global discussion about what to do in the federal court cases but I believe you all have chosen to carve this deposition in West out of that discussion. The compromise efforts there are therefore not applicable given that you are not applying them to this deposition. Thus, there is no reasonable basis for your demand for these transcripts or a threatened emergency motion. As to the broader effort to reach agreement on a path forward on the federal cases where Ms. Manduca’s deposition is noticed, we will respond separately on that issue. We have imminent travel plans and the witness holding dates. Can you tell me now whether you plan to proceed with the deposition on Thursday given the above as we have team members traveling starting today? Also, we are still waiting on the Court to enter a Protective Order but are hopeful that is coming. IF not, we may have to reach out to the Court about that gating issue. Thanks Timila O Cc R (@) W E DUNLEVY LaxMundi Member Timila S. Rother Shareholder/Director 405.235.7757 Chambers YY AMD % a. USA ée Pre ‘Tina Rother This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or other privileges or protections. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you. 20 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 36, "t": "From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 9:17 AM To: Timila S. Rother <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com> Cc: Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage @whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; james warner <jwarner@nixlaw.com>; Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>; Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com> Subject: Re: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca JALERT: Email contains attachments from external sender. Be cautious. | Reggie has a call at Ipm...can you all do a call at 2pm? Bake SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL WIS WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work-product. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: \"Timila S. Rother\" <timila rother@crowedunlevy.com> Date: Monday, May 4, 2026 at 8:04 AM To: Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Cc: \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten @whittenburragelaw.com>, james warner <jwarner@nixlaw.com>, Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>, Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com> Subject: RE: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca Does 1:00 pm work? 21 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 37, "t": "Timila S. Rother Shareholder/Director 405: 2: 7 O CROWE DUNLEVY LexMundi Member 1 ote ) Sin “%,,.% Toni Rehr This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or other privileges or protections. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you. From: Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com> Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2026 5:42 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Cc: Timila S. Rother <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; james warner <jwarner@nixlaw.com>; Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>; Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com> Subject: Re: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca JALERT: Email contains attachments from external sender. Be cautious. | | texted Reggie that afternoon is open for me. Not sure of Timila’s availability. Sent from my iPhone On May 3, 2026, at 4:53 PM, Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragetaw.com> wrote: External email — beware of links and attachments Lance and Timila, Hope you all are having a good weekend. No one has responded to our email last Tuesday and we are getting close to our deposition date on Thursday in Scottdale. Just talked to Reggie and we are available tomorrow afternoon for a phone call to discuss. We prefer to work this out on production of Manduca’s deposition transcripts without court intervention, but we will file our emergency motion in the morning and then happy to discuss in the afternoon. Please advise. Thanks! 22 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 38, "t": "BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, Or CouNSEL <imaGE001.spG> 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www. whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work-product. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 at 12:58 PM To: \"Timila S. Rother\" <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, \"james warner (jwarner@nixlaw.com)\" <jwarner@nixlaw.com> Cc: Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>, Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com> Subject: Re: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca Timila and Lance, This email follows our phone conversation with Lance on Friday and then receipt of Timila’s email the same day. We do not agree with State Farm’s desire to consolidate discovery when it suits State Farm (preventing its executives from depositions), but then argues over and over again to prevent documents produced in one case involving the FME Wind/Hail Initiative from being produced and utilized in all such cases as well as deposition transcripts that are clearly relevant based on both state and federal court rulings. In our view, it is inconsistent and self- serving. We will take Manduca’s deposition on May 74 in Scottsdale, AZ in the West case per Judge Sheperd’s Order. We will provide the location in Scottdale. To address one glaring inconsistency in your email below, we request that Manduca’s depositions (the Nida deposition taken in April 2024 of which WB was a representative party & the recent deposition taken of Manduca in a non-WB case) be produced by end of business Wednesday, April 27, 2026. There is simply no good faith basis to withhold these deposition transcripts and exhibits considering Judge Sheperd’s comments that Manduca’s testimony is “obviously relevant.” And, a protective order will be in place and SF can designate them as confidential as is its right subject to our challenge via motions with the Court. Indeed, you state you are willing to produce her depositions on some cases but not others? Again, State Farm is taking an 23 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 39, "t": "inconsistent and self-serving position with zero good faith basis to do so. If State Farm does not produce such depositions, we will file a motion for emergency order to compel the transcripts and exhibits in order to allow for a more thorough and productive deposition of Manduca in the West case. Please advise. With respect to your other comments, we do not agree to any consolidation per your terms, which excludes the Stafford case (in which notice of deposition was issued prior to the discovery cut off), refuses to allow production and use of SF documents in all such cases, fails to consolidate SF executive depositions in all cases, and fails to allow for additional testimony once the documents are produced to Whitten Burrage currently at issue on appeal in Hursh and Faust. Not one Court has quashed one of these depositions and not one Court has denied our motion to compel documents. Yet, State Farm seeks consolidation only after Judge Dishman’s order to protect the very executives who implemented the entire FME Wind/Hail. We are not agreeable to such self-serving terms. Thank you. BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, Or CouNsEL <imaGe002.sPG> 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www, whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attomey-client privilege and/or may be attorney work-product. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: \"Timila S. Rother\" <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com> Date: Friday, April 24, 2026 at 2:05 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, \"james warner (jwarner@nixlaw.com)\" <jwarner@nixlaw.com> Cc: Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>, Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca Blake, I believe you are talking to Lance today about the Wiesman depo and related consolidation issues as to Nicole Manduca’s deposition. As we have discussed, State Farm remains willing to confer to try to reach an agreement on the most efficient way to move forward with Ms. Manduca’s deposition to mitigate the 24 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 40, "t": "unnecessary and growing burden on Ms. Manduca, the court, and all the parties resulting from the duplicative deposition notices of Ms. Manduca across multiple cases. As a preliminary matter, before addressing the components of your counterproposal regarding consolidation, we want to address scheduling of Ms. Manduca’s deposition in both West and Wiesman. While State Farm would prefer that you consider folding the West deposition into a consolidated deposition of Ms. Manduca, my understanding is that you want to proceed with the West deposition on or before May 8, per Judge Shepherd’s order. Accordingly, absent agreement with the parties to include the West deposition in the proposed consolidation, State Farm will present Ms. Manduca for her deposition during the week of May 4. Due to travel schedules, we would appreciate if the West deposition could be scheduled for earlier in the week, either on Wednesday, May 6 or Thursday, May 7. We further understand that scheduling for the Wiesman deposition will turn on either the parties’ agreement regarding consolidation, or, alternatively, any applicable court order. Therefore, absent an agreement by the parties or court order, we are currently not planning to go forward with the Wiesman deposition during the week of May 4. In your response to State Farm’s consolidation proposal, you asked why State Farm is limiting its efforts to consolidate Ms. Manduca’s deposition to cases where Whitten Burrage represents the plaintiff(s). State Farm is not singling out Whitten Burrage. Rather, State Farm is seeking consolidation of Ms. Manduca’s deposition in all cases where her deposition has been noticed—which at present happens to be cases in which your firm represents the plaintiff(s). Nor is State Farm’s position regarding consolidation of Ms. Manduca’s deposition contrary to what it has said in other cases. While State Farm maintains that the claimspecific issues in each case are unique to each plaintiff, to the extent you are deposing Ms. Manduca—who has no knowledge regarding any of the claims at issue and could only testify as to her personal knowledge of State Farm’s corporate guidelines and practices—it makes the most sense to take one deposition and have it apply across the cases. With that said, below is State Farm’s response to your counter-proposal regarding consolidation of Ms. Manduca’s deposition across the federal cases: ° State Farm will agree that transcripts from Ms. Manduca’s depositions may be used in any of the cases where the parties agree to consolidate Ms. Manduca’s deposition, except in Stafford v. State Farm where discovery has closed, provided that: (1) a protective order is entered in each of the respective cases that adequately covers Ms. Manduca’s deposition testimony and exhibits; and (2) use of the transcripts is limited to the cases where we agree to consolidate Ms. Manduca’s deposition. 25 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 41, "t": ". State Farm will agree to produce a copy of Ms. Manduca’s April 2024 fact witness deposition taken in Nida v. State Farm, with exhibits, in each of the cases where the parties agree to consolidate Ms. Manduca’s deposition, except in Stafford v. State Farm where discovery has closed, provided that: (1) a protective order is entered in each of the respective cases that adequately covers Ms. Manduca’s deposition testimony and exhibits which limits their use to the case in which they were produced; and (2) use of the transcripts is limited to the cases where we agree to consolidate Ms. Manduca’s deposition, each of which will have their own protective order and separately marked production. . State Farm does not agree to produce the exhibits to Jason Taylor’s corporate representative deposition in Nida, which was noticed for topics related to State Farm’s use of Haag Educational Services. Those topics are not relevant to Ms. Manduca’s deposition and Mr. Marr’s questioning and use of documents beyond the scope of the noticed topics was improper. Therefore, we do not agree to produce exhibits generated under those circumstances. ° With respect to your suggestion that “Plaintiff will be able to schedule additional depositions following production of any documents related to the FME Wind Hail Initiative as ordered by any Court,” we will not agree if you intend to include Ms. Manduca in this group of persons who can be produced after such production., if it occurs. Repeated depositions of Ms. Manduca would defeat the purpose of State Farm’s consolidation proposal. Moreover, it is our understanding—based on comments you made at the 1/29/2026 Wong-Faust hearing (“[W]’eve seen the documents. I can take her deposition right now.”)— that you do not require additional documents before deposing Ms. Manduca. However, to the extent you believe Plaintiffs may require additional documents before deposing Ms. Manduca, Plaintiffs should postpone Ms. Manduca’s deposition until any remaining disputes regarding discovery of those documents are resolved. To the extent Plaintiffs elect to proceed with Ms. Manduca’s deposition before the document discovery issues have been resolved, State Farm will oppose any attempts to re-depose Ms. Manduca in any of the cases where the parties agree to consolidate Ms. Manduca’s deposition. . With respect to your proposal that “[n]o agreement will impact any state court cases or rulings or be used in any effort of consolidation in any state court cases,” please clarify what limitations you are proposing and, specifically, whether you intend to limit State Farm’s ability to argue for additional or further consolidation in the parallel state cases. While we need to better understand the proposal before we can more meaningful respond, we will want to preserve our argument in existing and future cases that the deposition of Ms. Manduca in Wiesman, via the proposed consolidation being discussed or otherwise, and/or West is sufficient for any deposition allowed in those cases as well. 26 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 42, "t": ". Upon entry of the aforementioned protective order, State Farm will agree to put up Ms. Manduca for a single, two-day deposition to satisfy the deposition notices in the cases where the parties agree to consolidate Ms. Manduca’s deposition, without further time restriction for any topic or case, but with the understanding that State Farm objects to using this time to repeatedly ask the same questions under the guise of needing the time for case specific issues. . Finally, with respect to your suggestion that the parties agree to “the same process for other State Farm executives,” State Farm is amenable to an agreement to also consolidate the deposition of currently-employed “StateFarm executives,” but on different terms, as follows: (1) State Farm does not concede the discoverability of any testimony and reserves the right to move to quash any deposition plaintiffs notice on any and all grounds, including that the deposition is cumulative; (2) to the extent State Farm puts up any other currently-employed “State Farm executive” for a consolidated deposition, State Farm will not agree in advance to two days of testimony for each such witness, but rather, agrees to confer in good faith regarding the amount of testimony permitted, not to exceed two days. Hopefully we can reach an agreement on these terms. Thanks Timila Timila S. Rother Shareholder/Director 405.235.7757 This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or other privileges or protections. f If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you. From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2026 1:38 PM To: Timila S. Rother <timila rother@crowedunlevy.com>; Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten @whittenburragelaw.com>; james warner (jwarner@nixlaw.com) <jwarner@nixlaw.com> Cc: Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>; Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Subject: Re: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca 27 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 43, "t": "JALERT: Email contains attachments from external sender._Be cautious. | Timila and Lance, We are in receipt of your letter regarding multiple deposition notices for Nicole Manduca. As you know, Manduca was deposed a couple weeks ago in another State Farm case in which Whitten Burrage was not counsel of record. The first question raised by your email is why the Whitten Burrage cases? State Farm does not appear to be filing any such motions in any other State Farm cases. In addition, State Farm implemented Art of the Conversation in its Hail Playbook knowing it would have a major increase in upset policyholders, so it is hard to see how State Farm did not see this coming as far as increased litigation over Wind/Hail claims. Second, State Farm’s position is now directly opposite to that which it has asserted in numerous court hearings and pleadings that each case is unique and only over a $20,000 roof. But now, after several adverse rulings from both state and federal courts, State Farm is requesting consolidation of Manduca’s deposition across several federal court cases involving our firm. We do not believe State Farm’s position is viable especially considering its well-known position. In Wilder, Timila filed a motion to quash asserting that we met in person and conferred on the issue of Manduca’s deposition and consolidating it with other cases. We have no record of any such personal meet and confer regarding this issue after Judge Dishman ruled in Wiesman. We will file our response today objecting to the requested relief but stating we are agreeable to discussing with both of you in more detail to see if we can agree to some stipulations regarding Manduca’s depositions as well as other State Farm executives that will likewise be noticed as they are in the Hursh case. From Timila’s letter, it appears you are requesting a one-day deposition of Manduca in 10 different cases followed by a second day of 30 minutes each per each of the 10 cases. We are not agreeable to that proposal. But, in an effort to reach a workable solution, we propose the following on depositions for Manduca in the Judge Dishman and/or other federal cases: 1. All Manduca deposition transcripts will be available for use in any Whitten Burrage State Farm case; 2. State Farm will produce a copy of Manduca’s deposition in April 2024 with exhibits, as recently ordered to be produced by Judge Virgin in Cleveland County, and which is the subject of discovery requests in WB multiple cases. It is hard to see any good faith basis for objecting to such production considering Judge Dishman’s ruling and SF’s request to streamline her depos in this round of cases. Such deposition and exhibits will be available for the Manduca depositions being contemplated herein. 3. State Farm will produce the exhibits to Jason Taylor’s corp. rep. deposition in Nida v. State Farm. As you know, the entire transcript is public record and on oscn.net. 4. Plaintiff will be able to schedule additional depositions following production of any documents related to the FME Wind Hail Initiative as ordered by any Court (and currently the subject of the writ after being ordered to be produced by Judge Palumbo in 5. Hursh). The parties will work together to identify those depositions in good faith. No agreement will impact any state court cases or rulings or be used in any effort of 28 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 44, "t": "consolidation in any state court cases. 6. If these conditions are met, we can agree to a 2-day deposition of Manduca for the current 10 federal court cases to allow time as in our discretion to ask questions across multiple cases. There will be no time limit restriction for any topic or case as suggested in your letter whatsoever and will be at our discretion. 7. We agree to same process for other State Farm executives including Tom Moss, Wensley Herbert, Kathy Ress, and Scott Welsh. This would address you concerns raised in your motion for protective order and letter as well with respect to the executives whom Manduca reported to or worked with on the FME. Please let us know your thoughts. you. We are willing to discuss and reach some agreement. Thank Bake SONNE ATTORNEY, OF CounsEL <imaGE005.sPG> 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work-product. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: \"Timila S. Rother\" <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com> Date: Thursday, April 16, 2026 at 3:41 PM To: \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, \"james warner (jwarner@nixlaw.com)\" <jwarner@nixlaw.com> Cc: Lance Leffel <Jleffel@gablelaw.com>, Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>, Carrie McNeer <cmcneer @gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca Counsel As you know, there is a deposition noticed for Ms. Manduca in the Cook case on Monday, followed quickly by notices in Dressel and Johnson. We need to file a motions in each of those cases consistent with the letter I attached to this email and which I am attaching again hereto. Can we agree on our proposal? If not, please let me know as soon as possible so that we can inform the court appropriately in our Motion, the first one of which we need to file tomorrow. 29 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 45, "t": "Thank you, Timila Timila S, Rother Shareholder/Director 405.235.7757 This message may be protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or other privileges or protections. if you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you. From: Timita S. Rother Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 4:11 PM To: Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; james warner (iwarner@nixlaw.com) <jwarner@nixlaw.com> Cc: Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; Paige Masters <paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com>; Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Subject: State Farm - Federal Cases with Deposition Notices for Nicole Manduca Counsel Please see attached correspondence on behalf of State Farm, including cases managed by both Lance and me. Thanks Timila Timila S. Rother Shareholder/Director Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Ste. 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 direct line:405.235.7757 mobile: 405.642.0845 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com vecard bio website This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or other privileges or protections. believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you. If you ' 30 of 31"}, {"d": 68, "p": 47, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT STATE BILLY & LACY OF OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY OKLAHOMA HURSH, Plaintiffs, vs. CASE NO. CJ-2025-2626 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK INC., D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendants. 10 11 12 i TRANSCRIPT OF 13 a PLAINTIFFS' HAD 15 OF 16 THE ad MOTION ON JULY, THE TO ENFORCE AND NOTICE OF PROCEEDINGS 28TH DAY BEFORE 2026, HONORABLE 17 a AUTHORITY SUPPLEMENTAL 14 i AMY PALUMBO ee 18 19 ATTORNEY'S 20 COPY 21 22 Reported by: 23 Tara 24 25 Nixon, 321 Park Oklahoma Oklahoma RPR, CRR, CRC Avenue County Courthouse City, Oklahoma 73102 DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA - OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT"}, {"d": 68, "p": 48, "t": "10 to produce ordinary have documents course to give relate to of us dump. hundreds of gave everything. that ways; in business how they come, of what sort request, document do two some what you either You you idea otherwise, fire out of them, and Well, do it's just thousands when of a or called say, a to us, yeah, really dump, you documents documents there's document the and we no way that's to the problem. 10 So, in 11 counsel and 12 appropriate. 13 were 14 weren't doing 15 motion to 16 production 17 violates 18 have to 19 every document is confidential 20 faith. a pending the West said, going to case this we is immediately not They stuck to stay with their okay, their notified this guns is not saying they confidentiality, they anything else. We de-designate every document from that violates the and it because the it protective show a good 21 So, we have 22 Lawton, and the 23 designated 24 getting document 25 Lawton has DISTRICT COURT every 10 same order. faith as law and when you say that's not in good to done here. confidential The production different Bates stamps OKLAHOMA - do OFFICIAL that de-designate dumps. OF pending you motion is a When basis, thing document have in we you in They have and we're got in different TRANSCRIPT"}, {"d": 68, "p": 49, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT STATE BILLY & LACY OF OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY OKLAHOMA HURSH, Plaintiffs, vs. CASE NO. CJ-2025-2626 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. 10 11 kK 12 TRANSCRIPT OF 13 ORDER PLAINTIFFS' 14 MOTION RE: TO COURT'S EXTEND ek ek we Ok CONTINUATION MOTION TO SCHEDULING 15 16 OF 17 THE RENDERING ENFORCE ORDER 4TH THE ON HAD AND BEFORE HONORABLE AMY PALUMBO we kw ke FINAL FARM'S PROCEEDINGS DAY 2026, wk STATE DEADLINES AUGUST, 18 AND OF ke 19 ATTORNEY'S 20 COPY 21 22 Reported by: 23 24 25 Tara Nixon, 321 Park Avenue Oklahoma County Oklahoma City, DISTRICT RPR, CRR, CRC Courthouse Oklahoma COURT OF 73102 OKLAHOMA - OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT EXHIBIT"}, {"d": 68, "p": 50, "t": "24 June 23rd, were here We have Accenture on July 7th , second motion to compel, we've seen documents have a the no document Your record. we These it's now regarding We granted our August ath, Accenture. to present are some of the confidential in the Hursh H. WHITTEN: 10 Exhibit 1 for 11 random We This the is record. this as of documents production. supplemental And part you had and asked for have also a sample. 12 THE COURT: 13 MS. H. Yes, 15 MR. 16 confidential. 17 also believe, 18 doing white in SONNE: Now, We COURT: What 20 MR. SONNE: A know we don't 22 just a 23 redaction, which we 24 Court. have filed 25 this COURT this is a pages blank numerous on our if is white 21 case. blank of page those analysis, designated pages. that We they're redacting. THE blanket These have based box did. West. 19 We I WHITTEN: produced DISTRICT Court wanted MS. been the documents. dump. Honor, designated 14 the this page. that? box redaction, page is So have we redacted white which means or it's if box are going to supplement a Motion to De-Designate We're filing it today, OF OKLAHOMA - OFFICIAL I for believe, TRANSCRIPT the in with"}, {"d": 68, "p": 51, "t": "25 numerous other documents, respect to document dump from Court was they the West. the The dump in answer Hursh, blanket is the Are Hursh production? So they 10 Motion to 11 aware that 12 and 13 things, 14 “document 15 Farm, it's answer in is initial question document dump they on do a Did every document in before the Court. We a but the Court have needs the production that's coming to us in links various if there was a dictionary dump\" we have a prime respect to the know, 18 right to 19 ordered 20 Court 21 depositions 22 within 23 understand they filed a Writ, 24 denied 23rd and now it's they're take COURT: DISTRICT COURT be happening, and various definition from depositions, Your so people. of State have the order, saying these to be agreed of the February OF OKLAHOMA upon and 5th but take the was we ath, individuals OFFICIAL the place And Writ been as Order. August the - the already February, mind, have have in my We Honor, They out, In we hard. and days THE to example Court, are June fighting these the pointed the fact. you by doa documents? is with in document they 687,000 with Yes. not a is in 17 25 is, this that's 30 a point yes. West De-Designate, so And the Did designated that's the do yes. confidential Yes. 16 did but who TRANSCRIPT are"}, {"d": 68, "p": 52, "t": "Case 5:06-cv-00911-HE Document 22 Filed 02/21/07 Page 1of9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA TAMARA K. COKER, ) Plaintiff, vs. NO. CIV-06-0911-HE HARTFORD LIFE GROUP INSURANCE COMPANY, ETAL., —) Defendants. ORDER The court previously denied the joint motion of the parties for a protective order governing the production of confidential documents in this case, concluding that the proposed order’s definition of “confidential information” was so broad and indeterminate that it was inconsistent with the public nature of judicial proceedings [Doc. #17]. The parties have now moved again for entry of a protective order [Doc. #21]. The revised proposed order, though somewhat different from the first, continues to be subject to some or all of the same problems as the original order. As a result, the court concludes it is appropriate to set out more fully the court’s concems and expectations with respect to the protective or confidentiality order proposed here.' The protective order proposed by the parties would designate as “Confidential 'The court does not suggest, by this second rejection of a proposed agreed protective order, any criticism of the parties or counsel. The issues discussed here, relating to the form of agreed orders for confidentiality of discovery materials, are arising with increasing frequency in cases of all sorts in this court. The court concludes a fuller discussion of such issues is appropriate. EXHIBIT )"}, {"d": 68, "p": 53, "t": "Case 5:06-cv-00911-HE Document 22 Filed 02/21/07 Page 2 of 9 Information” various categories of documents or information. Some are unremarkable, such as information constituting “trade secrets or other confidential research, development or commercial information” and “medical records.” Other categories are considerably broader, including “personnel information,” “personal documents of the parties or their employees,” and, most broadly of all, “electronic data.” The definition of “Confidential Information” is said to “include” these categories, but is presumably not limited to them. The proposed order includes provisions that Confidential Information produced shall be kept confidential and used only for purposes of the present litigation. Dissemination of the information is limited to the parties, their counsel and related support staff,” the court and its personnel and, subject to certain limitations, expert and other witnesses. Disputes as to whether particular information is confidential (if not resolved by a “meet and confer” process) are to be presented “to the court in camera.” Most important for present purposes are provisions which require the filing under seal of (1) all pleadings, briefs and other documents filed with the Court which have been designated confidential and (2) all such documents which “contain” information designated as confidential. The proposed order also provides for the destruction or return of Confidential Information at the conclusion of the case, with the protective order to continue in force thereafter. The authority of the district court to enter protective orders providing for the ?The agreement actually limits dissemination to “outside” counsel. Since the document would permit access to confidential information by the parties, it is unclear why “in house” counsel should be (implicitly) excluded, if that is in fact the intention of the parties. 2"}, {"d": 68, "p": 54, "t": "Case 5:06-cv-00911-HE Document 22 Filed 02/21/07 Page 3of9 confidentiality of discovery materials is clear. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) provides: Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, accompanied by a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending or alternatively, on matters relating to a deposition, the court in the district where the deposition is to be taken may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: (1) that the disclosure or discovery not be had; (2) that the disclosure or discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place; (3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery; (4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the disclosure or discovery be limited to certain matters; (5) that discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the court; (6) that a deposition, after being sealed, be opened only by order of the court; (7) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a designated way; and (8) that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court. If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order that any party or other person provide or permit discovery. The provisions of Rule 37(a)(4) apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion. The scope of the rule extends not only to the protection of information specifically referenced"}, {"d": 68, "p": 55, "t": "Case 5:06-cv-00911-HE Document 22 Filed 02/21/07 Page 4 of 9 in the rule, such as “trade secret or other confidential research, development or commercial information,” but also to other matters broadly implicating privacy interests. Seattle Times Co. v, Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (“Although the Rule contains no specific reference to privacy or to other rights or interests that may be implicated, such matters are implicit in the broad purpose and language of the Rule.”). Subject to certain broad principles and considerations and the finding of “good cause” required by Rule 26, the nature and scope of such orders are largely within the discretion of the trial court. Estate of Trentadue ex rel. Aguilar v. United States, 397 F.3d 840, 865 (10th Cir. 2005) (“District courts have discretion to issue protective orders consistent with the limitations set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c).”); Thomas v. Int’l Bus. Mach,, 48 F.3d 478, 482 (10th Cir. 1995) (“...the decision to grant a protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) is vested in the district court’s discretion...”). The federal cases are conflicting in their application of Rule 26 to agreed protective orders (sometimes referred to as “blanket protective orders”) and the use of such orders has generated considerable debate. Some cases generally conclude that, given the nature of public court proceedings, both court filings and pretrial discovery should presumptively be made public, with relatively stringent standards for any exceptions from that view. See Citizens First Nat’! Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 1999) and authorities cited therein; Eichenwald, Bryan v, 191 F.R.D. 650 (D.Kan. 2000). Other cases give greater weight to the property or privacy interests of the parties, particularly where pretrial discovery alone is involved, and give greater deference to the parties’ agreement as"}, {"d": 68, "p": 56, "t": "Case 5:06-cv-00911-HE to confidentiality. Document 22 Filed 02/21/07 Page 5 of 9 See Alexan In re Grantder & Co. Litig., 820F.2d 352 (11th Cir. 1987). Striking the appropriate balance between the various interests involved is difficult. While the public interest in knowing about the activities which transpire in the courts, and in knowing the basis for decisions made there, is great, litigants also have legitimate and substantial property and privacy interests which may, in a proper case, outweigh the public interest in full disclosure. Advances in technology, including the use of electronic case filing, electronic access to court records, and use of the internet to access and disseminate information, raise the stakes for everyone. The court concludes that, in evaluating the propriety of a proposed protective order requiring confidential treatment of information, the use to be made of the confidential information is critical. If the agreement purports only to control the pretrial exchange of discovery materials between the parties and does not address their use in the case via some public filing, there is considerably less reason for the court to second guess the determination of the parties that designated information should be kept confidential. In the unusual case, that designation of confidential materials could conceivably extend to all discovery in the case. See United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford Ins. Co., 905 F.2d 1424 (10th Cir. 1990).* As *This discussion relates only to consideration of agreed protective orders. ‘In United Nuclear Corp., the district court had entered a stipulated protective order, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), declaring all discovery materials to be confidential and prohibiting their use or disclosure other than in connection with the case. The Court of Appeals did not address the merits of the order, but appears to have viewed the order as unremarkable, noting that “These stipulated ‘blanket’ protective orders are becoming standard practice in complex cases.” Id. at 1427."}, {"d": 68, "p": 57, "t": "Case 5:06-cv-00911-HE Document 22 Filed 02/21/07 Page 6 of 9 the Supreme Court has recognized, pretrial discovery, in and of itself, is not a public component of a civil trial.’ Where only the pretrial exchange of discovery materials is involved,° the agreement of the parties as to the confidentiality of the documents or other materials may be sufficient, by itself, to establish “good cause” for issuance of the protective order. The considerations change significantly once documents are used in litigation of the case. Court proceedings are public proceedings and there is a “strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records.” Boatwright Mann v, , No. 05-1559, F.3d__, 2007 WL 476268, at *6 (10th Cir. Feb. 15, 2007). Any effort to seal materials filed or otherwise used in deciding the case should be permitted only if the property or privacy interests involved outweigh the substantial interest of the public in knowing what goes on in their courts.’ That determination cannot be left to the agreement of the parties, as they “are not the only people who have a legitimate interest in the record compiled in a legal proceeding.” 5Seattle Times Co., 467 U.S. at 33 (Moreover, pretrial depositions and interrogatories are not public components of a civil trial. Such proceedings were not open to the public at common law...”). ‘The propriety of a particular protective order may be affected by the nature of the case. A commercial dispute involving trade secrets or other proprietary business information may involve different considerations than privacy interests implicated in a Title VII employment case or, as here, the materials applicable to a dispute over insurance coverage and the duty of good faith. \"The public interest is particularly strong where the discovery materials involved are submitted in support of a motion dispositive of the case or a substantial issue in it. The public interest is less compelling as to non-dispositive motions. See Foltz v, State Farm Mut. Auto Ins, Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 2003); Bridgest Chicago Tribune Co,one/Fire v. stone Inc, 263 F.3d 1304, 1312-13 (11th Cir. 2001)."}, {"d": 68, "p": 58, "t": "os Case 5:06-cv-00911-HE Document 22 Filed 02/21/07 Page 7 of 9 Citizens First Nat’], Bank of Princeton, 178 F.3d at 944. The judge is the representative of the public in this regard, must make the necessary weighing of interests even in the face of a contrary agreement of the parties, and must determine whether good cause exists to seal the public record. Jd, at 945. Further, in light of the substantial public interest in openness, any sealing or redaction of information from the public file should be kept to a minimum. In most circumstances,* that means the inclusion of confidential information in a pleading or brief should not result in the entire pleading or brief being sealed, but rather should result only in the redaction of the confidential information from the pleading or brief, which would otherwise be filed normally.’ The protective order proposed here by the parties does more than regulate the pretrial exchange of discovery materials. As noted above, it also would require that pleadings and briefs filed in the case be sealed if they are designated as confidential or if they contain Confidential Information. That fact, coupled with the extraordinarily broad definition of Confidential Information proposed by the parties (such as “electronic data,” “proprietary information,” and “personal documents” of the parties) could result in significant portions \"There may be circumstances where the references to confidential information are so extensive, or the redaction process otherwise so burdensome, that redaction is impractical. Atsome point, the processes for accommodating the competing interests involved can get so burdensome that they implicate the public interest in the “inexpensive determination of every action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 1. °As suggested by Local Rule 5.3, relating to the redaction of personal data identifiers, a Protective order could and ordinarily should provide for the public filing of the pleading or document with confidential information redacted and for the filing under seal ofan unredacted copy. 7"}, {"d": 68, "p": 59, "t": "Case 5:06-cv-00911-HE Document 22 Filed 02/21/07 Page 8 of 9 of the record in this case being sealed where no showing of “good cause,” within the meaning of Rule 26(c), either has been, or perhaps could be, made. As a result, the proposed order is unacceptable . As before, the parties may move for entry of a revised order more consistent with the standards articulated above. In the circumstances of this case, the proposed order might approach the standards set out above in various ways. One approach would be to narrowly and specifically define those categories of information intended to be kept confidential, coupled with such information (via affidavit or otherwise) as will show the confidential nature of the particular categories of documents, if it is not otherwise obvious, and establish a basis for a “good cause” determination under Rule 26. An alternative approach would be to limit the order purely to the exchange of discovery materials, in which case a broader or more general description of confidential information would be acceptable, and, when particular confidential materials are sought to be used in the case (i.e. filed), seek leave at that time to file a redacted pleading or brief or to file it under seal, with the appropriate showing.” In any event, a proposed protective order should not purport to control the treatment of confidential information at trial (which would be handled by appropriate request to the court at that time) or to prescribe a particular process, other than a motion filed with \"Regardless of what may have been provided for in a blanket protective order entered (usually) at the outset of the case, a party may always seek a specific protective order later if matters not within the scope of the blanket order require confidential treatment or if some other issue as to the application of the blanket order arises."}, {"d": 68, "p": 60, "t": "Case 5:06-cv-00911-HE Document 22 Filed 02/21/07 Page 9 of 9 the court, for the court's resolution of disputes that may arise under the protective order.'! Accordingly, the parties’ joint motion for entry of protective order [Doc. #21] is DENIED. An order complying with the above guidelines may be resubmitted. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 44% day of February, 2007. JQE , HEATON TED $TATES DISTRICT JUDGE \"The order tendered here states that any dispute will be “present[ed] to the court in camera.” That may contemplate something different than filing a motion to resolve the dispute. The court recognizes that redaction or sealing of all or part of the motion may be necessary to maintain the confidentiality of the information pending a determination by the court. 9"}, {"d": 69, "p": 1, "t": "TRAINING FILED IN DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY sri pisreicrSTATEcourr or oxLAHOMA COUNTY RICKAUG WARRE 31 208 OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, COURT CLEREY ) 128 ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. CJ-2025-2626 ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; ) MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY ) INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) STATE FARM’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S DISCOVERY ORDERS AND FOR OTHER RELIEF Carrie B. McNeer, OBA No. 22235 Nathan A. Miramontes, OBA No. 36212 GABLEGOTWALS LION. Elgin Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (Fax) cmcneer@gablelaw.com nmiramontes@gablelaw.com -and- Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (Fax) lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com Attorneys for Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company '"}, {"d": 69, "p": 2, "t": "Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (‘‘State Farm’’) respectfully seeks a 180- day extension of two deadlines: (1) the September 3, 2026 deadline set by the Court’s August 4, 2026 Order (Ex. 1) to respond to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories Nos. 3, 22, and 23; and (2) the September 1, 2026 deadline set by the Court’s April 1, 2026 Scheduling Order (Ex. 2) to respond to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production (“RFP”) Nos. 58 and 59 (Interrogatories Nos. 3, 22, and 23, and RFP Nos. 58 and 59 are collectively referred to as the “Claim File Requests”),' which collectively require State Farm to review approximately 143,830 voluminous non-party claim files to identify those that fall within highly specific criteria. As explained below, State Farm has begun collecting, analyzing, and reviewing the universe of claim files required for full compliance with the Court’s Orders, but the extraordinary volume of materials it must collect, process, and review to identify the responsive claim files makes full compliance by September | and 3, 2026 not only impracticable but nearly impossible despite those efforts. As the attached declarations demonstrate, responding to just four of the Claim File Requests (Interrogatories Nos. 3, 22, and 23, and RFP No. 58) will require, collectively, at least approximately 178,475 hours of managed review—an undertaking that would take a team of 100 attorneys approximately 179 business days to complete. An 180-day extension to respond to these interrogatories is thus necessary to allow State Farm a reasonable opportunity to complete the required discovery in a careful and orderly manner. ' On or about July 28, 2026, the parties held an in-chambers conference with the Court, during which it was decided that the pretrial conference would be rescheduled to November 19, 2026. Since that in-chambers conference, the parties also agreed to reset all deadlines, including discovery deadlines, to a date closer to the anticipated November 19, 2026 pretrial conference. As of the filing of this Motion, however, the Court has not entered an order rescheduling the pretrial conference, and the parties are still conferring regarding other scheduling deadlines. Accordingly, out of an abundance of caution, and to the extent the September | , 2026 date remains on the Court’s docket as the pretrial-conference date, State Farm requests an extension related to the Claim File Requests as set forth herein. 4934-2669-5115, v. 4"}, {"d": 69, "p": 3, "t": "State Farm does not file this Motion to delay discovery but, rather, to further explain the complexity of responding to Plaintiffs’ Claim File Requests and how that impacts the timing of its responses. Specifically, as set forth in the attached declaration of Jay Thorpe, Technology Analyst in P&C Claims Enterprise Technology at State Farm (Ex. 3),? determining which claims involve “damage to the insured’s soft metals” but insufficient damage to other parts of the roof to either exceed the deductible or warrant a total roof replacement, as Interrogatories Nos. 22 and 23 seek, requires a manual review of the claim file history information reports of collectively 115,464 claims because State Farm does not track such information in a way that allows it to automatically “filter” or search for files that satisfy these criteria. Further, although State Farm has been diligently working on responding to Interrogatory No. 3, it must still review approximately 800 claim files to determine if each of those claims involved a total roof payment after litigation commenced, as Interrogatory No. 3 requests. First-level review of these 800 claim files alone will take State Farm approximately 496 hours to complete. Moreover, it will take an estimated 106,391 hours of managed review and $7,631,899 in fees/costs to perform a first-level review of the 27,566 claim files potentially responsive to RFP No. 58 alone. This estimate excludes the additional time required to respond to RFP No. 59, which necessarily involves separate review of the policies and underwriting information associated with claims State Farm identifies as responsive to RFP No. 58. Thus, in addition to seeking an extension of time to respond to the Claim File Requests, State Farm respectfully urges this Court to also consider granting additional relief by permitting reasonable, less burdensome, and more proportionate alternatives for compliance with the Court’s 2 “The testimony of witnesses is taken in three modes: First. By affidavits. Second. By deposition. Third. By oral examination.” 12 0.8. § 421. Moreover, “[a]n affidavit may be used to verify a pleading, . . . to obtain a provisional remedy, an examination of a witness, a stay of proceedings, or upon a motion or in any other case permitted by law.” Jd. § 431. 4934-2669-5115, v. 4"}, {"d": 69, "p": 4, "t": "Orders on the Claim File Requests, which will allow State Farm to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests in a more expeditious manner. As set forth below, the Court could (1) permit State Farm to provide broader, over-inclusive responses to Interrogatories Nos. 22 and 23, in lieu of the more granular information requested; (2) permit State Farm to provide responsive information based on a statistically valid sample of claim files; (3) narrow the Claim File Requests by the Hursh and Wong-Faust plaintiffs’ dates of loss and/or geography, i-e., limiting all requests to Tulsa County, Oklahoma; (4) order phased production and review before requiring any broader claim-file review; and/or (5) if broader discovery is ordered, require an appropriate cost-sharing arrangement. Each alternative would advance discovery in a more efficient and proportional manner while preserving Plaintiffs’ ability to obtain information they claim is retevant to their claims. L BACKGROUND A. Factual and Procedural Background. The present matter arises from a contractual dispute over the scope of covered damage that Plaintiffs’ house allegedly sustained after weather events on October 4, 2023 and May 21, 2024. Plaintiffs assert claims against State Farm for breach of contract and bad faith; against agent Mark D. Welty and Mark D. Welty Insurance Agency for negligent Defendants for constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation. procurement; and Pet. {J 40, 45-79. against all Plaintiffs contend State Farm should have paid approximately $22,000 for alleged roof damage. Plaintiffs also allege that State Farm engaged in a “scheme” to lower indemnity payments by, inter alia, misattributing roof damage from storms to non-covered “wear and tear.” See generally id. Based on those allegations, Plaintiffs filed two motions to compel, both of which the Court granted, resulting in expansive discovery far beyond the individual claim at issue. 4934-2669-5115, v. 4"}, {"d": 69, "p": 5, "t": "On October 8, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their first motion to compel discovery, seeking an order compelling numerous interrogatory responses and categories of documents—including responses to Interrogatories Nos. 3, 22, and 23 at issue here. After motion practice and oral argument, on November 25, 2025, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion and ordered State Farm to produce broad categories of information and documents Plaintiffs claimed were relevant to the purported “scheme,” including, inter alia, claims training materials since 2015; information from 2019 onward regarding the FME and wind/hail initiatives, including purported tracking of roof replacements, indemnity savings, and payment volumes; six years of documents and communications relating to managerial approval requirements for full roof replacements; documents about alleged efforts to reduce indemnity payments for wind/hail claims; information about other claim files in Oklahoma from the past five years; and all documents previously produced or ordered in six unrelated lawsuits. State Farm moved to reconsider that order on December 23, 2025, but the Court denied that motion on February 5, 2026. State Farm then filed an Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction and Petition for Writ of Prohibition (“Application”) with the Supreme Court, which was denied on June 23, 2026. While that Application was pending, the Court entered its April 1, 2026 Scheduling Order, requiring the parties to “complete/answer discovery before pretrial...” and setting the pretrial conference for September |, 2026. Ex. 2. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a second motion to compel on May 18, 2026, seeking additional interrogatory responses and documents concerning: industry standards and benchmarks regarding wind/hail claims; transcripts of and exhibits used in the depositions of State Farm personnel witnesses in other cases; and claim files and underwriting files of Tulsa County insureds dating back to January |, 2021. RFP Nos. 58 and 59 were subject to the 4934-2669-5115, v. 4"}, {"d": 69, "p": 6, "t": "second motion to compel. State Farm responded on June 6, 2026, Plaintiffs replied on July 2, 2026, and the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion by minute order after oral argument on July 7, 2026. On July 2, 2026, State Farm filed a motion to extend the Scheduling Order deadlines, which the Court denied via a docket entry on August 4, 2026. Also, on August 4, 2026, the Court set September 3, 2026 as the deadline to complete production related to Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel in this case. Subsequently, however, on or about July 28, 2026, the parties held an in chambers conference with the Court, where it was decided that the pretrial conference would be rescheduled to November 19, 2026. While the parties are working to reach agreed deadlines based on the Court’s trial and pretrial setting, as of the filing of this Motion, the Court has not entered an order rescheduling the pretrial conference or its related deadlines. At issue in this Motion is State Farm’s request for an extension of time related to the Claim File Requests—Interrogatories Nos. 3, 22, and 23, and RFP Nos. 58 and 59—each of which involves the claims of other insureds: e Interrogatory No. 3: Identify all Wind/Hail Claims and corresponding civil cases in Oklahoma since January |, 2019 wherein a Total or Full Roof Replacement was denied prior to a lawsuit being filed, but was subsequently approved and/or paid to an insured after the insured filed a civil lawsuit against State Farm. e Interrogatory No. 22: Identify the total number of homeowners’ wind/hail claims from 2019-present in Oklahoma in which State Farm found damage to the insured roof’s soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to exceed the policy’s deductible. e Interrogatory No. 23: Identify the total number of homeowners’ wind/hail claims from 2019-present in Oklahoma in which State Farm found damage to the insured roof’s soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to warrant a Full or Total Roof Replacement. e RFP No. 58: Produce a copy of every claim file where a homeowner made a claim for wind and hail damage to their roof in Tulsa County since January |, 2021 to the present. 4934-2669-5115, v. 4"}, {"d": 69, "p": 7, "t": "« RFP No. 59: For every homeowner claim file produced by State Farm in response to Request for Production No. 58, include any roof cover section or roof rating in the underwriting file for each home. Due to the time and costs involved in complying with these requests, in addition to the extension of time requested herein, State Farm respectfully asks this Court to also consider granting additional relief by permitting reasonable, less burdensome, and more proportionate alternatives for compliance with the Court’s Orders on the Claim File Requests, which will allow State Farm to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests in a more expeditious manner. B. State Farm’s Collection, Processing, and Production of Documents. As State Farm has explained in previous filings, in responding to the Court’s discovery orders, it has collected a massive volume of potentially responsive documents—more than 1.8 million documents and 518.89 GB of data—and has since made 8 voluminous productions of documents.? Due to this volume, State Farm engaged a third-party vendor, Consifio, to host, process, and assist with the review and production of State Farm’s collections. To date, State Farm has incurred total costs of more than $1 million for Consilio’s hosting, processing, first-level review, and production identical discovery. of documents in this case and Wong-Faust,’ in which the Court ordered State Farm’s outside counsel has also dedicated more than 15 attorneys to 3 Included in the productions to date are: Plaintiffs’ policy and relevant Claims Files; three years of financial and annual statements; underwriting guidelines in effect when the Policy issued; applicable claim-handling guidelines in place at the time of the alleged loss; Wind and Hail Guidelines from 2020 and 2021; performance evaluations for the claim handlers involved in Plaintiffs’ claims; Fire Model Enhancement related documents; communications related to Sharon Arnold, Tom Moss, Susan Maynard, and Nicole Manduca; Haag-related training documents; Quality Plans and related communications; Operation Guides; Standard Claim Processes and Jurisdictional Resources; training materials, including training transcripts for relevant claim handlers; and re-productions from other lawsuits. 4 Wong-Faust v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CJ-2025-1675 (Okla. Cty.). 6 4934-2669-5115, v. 4"}, {"d": 69, "p": 8, "t": "second-level review and quality control, which is expected to cost more than $1 million on top of the first-level review costs. Cc. Burden Associated with the Claim File Requests. State Farm has also identified approximately 140,000 total claim files that are potentially responsive to Plaintiffs’ collective Claim File Requests and is actively collecting and delivering these claim files to Consilio.5 These approximately 140,000 total claim files are the outer limit of claim files that may collectively and potentially be responsive to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories Nos. 3, 22, and 23 and RFP No. 58—which have some overlapping files within their requests (but due to different time ranges contain many unique claims). As of August 17, 2026, Consilio received approximately 65,000 claim files from State Farm. See Ex. 4-Champagne Decl. at | 4. Consilio has estimated that the total one-time processing cost for 140,000 claim files will be approximately $420,000, with a total monthly hosting cost of approximately $33,600.’ Jd. at 5. In addition to processing and hosting costs, State Farm expects to spend significant time and incur substantial expense manually reviewing claim files to assess their responsiveness to the highly specific criteria set forth in Interrogatories Nos. 3, 22, 23 and RFP No. 58. As Jay Thorpe, 5 This is the approximate collective total of all unique insurance wind/hail claims submitted to State Farm in Oklahoma with a date of loss between January 1, 2019, and November 30, 2025— which may be responsive to Interrogatories Nos. 3, 22, and 23—plus additional unique wind/hail claims submitted to State Farm in Oklahoma with a date of loss between January 1, 2021, and July 6, 2026—1the outer universe of claims files potentially responsive to RFP No. 58. § Asan update, as of the filing of this Motion, State Farm has now delivered more than 117,000 claim files to Consilio. 7 Consilio has observed that each claim file can be estimated at about 40 MB in size. Ex. 4 at 45. Using that estimate, a total volume of 140,000 claim files is estimated at 5,600 GB in size (140,000 X 40 MB or .04 GB). Jd. Processing costs run at about $75 per GB of data, and hosting costs per month run at about $6 per GB of data. Jd. With those unit costs, the total one-time processing cost for 140,000 claim files is an estimated $420,000 ($75 x 5,600 GB), and the total monthly hosting cost for 140,000 claim files is an estimated at $33,600 ($6 x 5,600 GB). 7 4934-2669-5115, v. 4"}, {"d": 69, "p": 9, "t": "State Farm Technology Analyst in P&C Claims Enterprise Technology, attests in the attached declaration (Ex. 3), State Farm conducted an electronic search of ECS—State Farm’s internal platform for managing claims and claims information—to identify the number of wind/hail claims submitted to State Farm in the state of Oklahoma with a date of loss (“DOL”) between January 1, 2019 and November 30, 2025.8 wind/hail claims with Oklahoma. a DOL This query revealed a total of 117,019 unique property insurance between January 1, 2019 and November 30, 2025 in the state of Ex. 3—Thorpe Decl. at J 5. Among the universe of 117,019 potentially responsive wind/hail claims submitted in Oklahoma within the specified timeframe, State Farm cannot further filter the 117,019 claim files to identify wind/hail claims where “State Farm found damage to the insured roof’s soft metals . . . but found the roof material itself... did not suffer enough damage to exceed the policy’s deductible” as specified in Interrogatory No. 22. Jd. at 76. While State Farm can filter the 117,019 claims to the 26,089 claims in which there was no payment; i.e. $0.00 payment, and that were “Closed Without Payment,” there is no way to further identify which of these claims meet the additional criteria set forth in Interrogatory No. 22 without manual review of each of the 26,089 claims. Id. State Farm also cannot further filter the data to identify wind/hail claims responsive to Interrogatory No. 23—claims where “State Farm found damage to the insured roof’s soft metals. . . but found the roof material itself... did not suffer enough damage to warrant a Full or Total 8 The Court’s order compelling State Farm’s responses to Interrogatories Nos. 3, 22, and 23, which sought information “from January 1, 2019 through present” was entered November 25, 2025. Accordingly, State Farm used November 30, 2025, the end of that month, as the end date for searches related to Interrogatories Nos. 3, 22, and 23. Electronic searches of ECS, and the resulting reports, are not static. Accordingly, depending on when a search is conducted, the date range for the search, and the status of the various claims contained within ECS at the time of the search, the results of an ECS search may differ. See Ex. 3—-Thorpe Decl. at FN 1. 8 4934-2669-5115, v. 4"}, {"d": 69, "p": 10, "t": "Roof Replacement.” Jd. at ]7. While State Farm can filter the 117,019 claims to the 89,375 claims where a payment was made, further review is necessary to determine which of those 89,375 claims did not involve a full or total roof replacement and meet the criteria set forth in Interrogatory No. 23.9 Id. Regarding Interrogatory No. 3, State Farm has been diligently working to complete its response, but a substantial manual review remains necessary. Specifically, State Farm must still review approximately 800 claim files to determine whether each claim involved a total roof payment made after litigation commenced in order to provide a complete and accurate response to Interrogatory No. 3. With respect to RFP No. 58, State Farm conducted an electronic search of ECS for wind/hail claims submitted to State Farm in Oklahoma with a DOL between January 1, 2021 and July 6, 2026.'° Ex. 3-Thorpe Decl. at ¢8.'! This query revealed a total of 121,258 unique property insurance wind/hail claims with a DOL between January 1, 2021 and July 6, 2026 in the state of Oklahoma. Id. Oklahoma, State Farm was able to filter this query to claims submitted in Tulsa County, which between January identified 27,566 wind/hail 1, 2021, and July 6, 2026. claims Jd in Tulsa County, Oklahoma with a DOL State Farm cannot, however, further filter or ° This excludes claims where damage was found but the amount of damages did not meet the deductible, which State Farm assumes Plaintiffs did not intend to include in Interrogatory No. 23 because such an interpretation would render Interrogatory No. 22 cumulative and duplicative. '0 Previously, in June 2026, with respect to Plaintiffs’ RFP No. 58, State Farm conducted an electronic search of ECS that included the number of wind/hail claims submitted to State Farm in Tulsa County, Oklahoma with a date of loss (“DOL”) between January 1, 2021 and May f, 2025. As noted in FN 1, electronic searches of ECS, and the resulting reports, are not static. Depending on when a search is conducted, the date range for the search, and the status of the various claims contained within ECS at the time of the search, the results of an ECS search may differ. '! The report used the following parameters: fire line of business for Tulsa County, Oklahoma concerning wind and hail cause of loss. 4934-2669-5115, v. 4"}, {"d": 69, "p": 11, "t": "structure a query to identify which of the 27,566 wind/hail claims in Tulsa County involved a claim of damage specifically to the roof, as opposed to other parts of the property. As such, determining which of these 27,566 claims meet the specific criteria of Plaintiffs’ RFP No. 58 would require a manual claim-by-claim review of each of the 27,566 unique claims. The volume Id./? of materials associated with an individual claim depends on a variety of factors, including the severity of the damages alleged, the number of experts and other vendors involved, and whether the claim is in active litigation, among others. and/or other materials are not uniform in size or content. The claim file documents Accordingly, the materials associated with an individual claim may vary from less than a hundred pages to thousands of pages when provided to counsel’s office for review in PDF format.” Taking into consideration the variety of factors that can impact the volume of materials associated with an individual claim, Consilio has provided State Farm with a good faith estimate of the anticipated time and costs of conducting a review of claim files for responsiveness to Interrogatories Nos. 3, 22, and 23, on a per 100 claim file basis. Consilio estimates that it would require approximately 62 managed review hours and cost $3,037 to review the claim file history information report contained in 100 claim files—each claim file history information report being approximately 70 pages—to determine whether the claim is responsive to Interrogatories Nos. 3, 2 To respond to RFP No. 59, which seeks “for every homeowner claim file produced by State Farm in response to Request for Production No. 58... any roof cover section or roof rating in the underwriting file for each home,” State Farm must then conduct a further search and manual review of underwriting information for policies in the universe of 27,566 potentially responsive claims. Id. at | 11. Notably, State Farm must first identify the claims responsive to RFP No. 58 before it may address RFP. No. 59. As such, while responding to RFP No. 59 will certainly require even more time and costs, the related time and costs cannot fairly or reasonably be estimated until the review of files for RFP No. 58 is completed. '3 For example, the claim files for the Plaintiffs’ two claims at issue here are approximately 204 pages and 453 pages. Ex.3—-Thorpe Decl. at { 10. 10 4934-2669-5115, v. 4"}, {"d": 69, "p": 12, "t": "22, and 23. Ex. 4-Champagne Decl. at { 7. secondary review. This estimate excludes the additional costs for a A secondary review may be necessary to address any questions that remain unanswered after the first-level review. This secondary review phase would involve targeted review of additional claim file documents. At this stage, it is unclear whether the claim file history information reports alone will provide sufficient information to answer all questions. Id. at { 7. Consilio has also provided State Farm with a good faith estimate of the anticipated time and costs of conducting a first-level review of the claim files for responsiveness and production in response to RFP No. 58. Consilio estimates that it would require 386 managed review hours and cost $27,686 to conduct a first-level review of 100 claim files of roughly 144 documents each for responsiveness, redaction of personally identifiable information from the responsive files, and identification of documents for potential privilege as needed. Ex. 4-Champagne Decl. at 96. This first-level review, review estimate excludes additional costs for second-level quality control second-level privilege review, and preparation of the privilege log. Jd. Applying Consilio’s per-100-claim review estimates to the claim files that require manual review confirms the extraordinary burden the Claim File Requests impose and demonstrates why State Farm cannot reasonably complete its response by September | or 3, 2026. Specifically, performing the first-level review required to respond to Interrogatories Nos. 3, 22, and 23 and RFP No. 58 will involve a total of approximately 178,475 hours of managed review and collectively cost an estimated $11,162,638 (excluding processing and monthly hosting costs), as follows: ¢ ¢ 496 hours of managed review and $24,296 in fees/costs to review the claim file history information reports related to the 800 claims potentially responsive to Interrogatory No. 3. 16,175 hours of managed review and $792,124 in fees/costs to review the claim file history reports related to the 26,089 claims potentially responsive to Interrogatory No. 22. e 55,413 hours of managed review and $2,714,319 history information reports related to the Interrogatory No. 23. ll 4934-2669-5115, v. 4 in fees/costs to review the claim file 89,375 claims potentially responsive to"}, {"d": 69, "p": 13, "t": "e $106,391 hours of managed review and $7,631,899 in fees/costs to review the claim files of the 27,566 claims potentially responsive to RFP No. 58. These estimates exclude the additional time required to respond to RFP No. 59, which will require a separate review of the policies and underwriting information associated with claims responsive to RFP No. 58 after State Farm identifies those claims. These estimates also exclude the additional costs for a secondary review of claim file information related to Interrogatories Nos. 3, 22, and 23, as well as the additional costs related to the second-level quality review, second-level privilege review, and preparation of the privilege log related to the production of claim files responsive to RFP No. 58. Ex. 4-Champagne Decl. at ff 6, 7. Il. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES A. Legal Standard. Oklahoma district courts possess broad authority to manage their dockets and pretrial proceedings. See Marshall v. Allstate Ins. Co., 1990 OK CIV APP 100, { 9, 805 P.2d 689, 691. Consistent with that authority, Oklahoma law expressly authorizes the Court to extend deadlines established by court order and modify scheduling orders. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2006(B), when an act is required to be done within a specified time by order of the Court, “the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion . . . [w]ith or without motion or notice order the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order[.]” Also consistent with that authority, a court may enter an order modifying a scheduling order upon written motion and for good cause shown before the scheduled dates. See Okla. Dist. Ct. R. 5(C). The moving party satisfies the governing “cause” requirement by demonstrating that it cannot reasonably meet the deadiine despite diligent efforts. In applying that standard, Oklahoma courts may look to federal decisions interpreting analogous scheduling rules.'* '4 Oklahoma courts can look to federal authority when interpreting analogous procedural rules. 12 4934-2669-5115, v. 4"}, {"d": 69, "p": 14, "t": "Under the Tenth Circuit’s formulation, good cause requires a showing that deadlines cannot be met despite the movant’s diligent efforts. Gorsuch, Ltd., B.C. v. Wells Fargo Nat’l Bank Ass'n, 771 F.3d 1230, 1240 (10th Cir. 2014); see also Mengert v. United States, 120 F.4th 696, 717 (10th Cir. 2024). Courts also recognize that scheduling orders can materially affect the outcome of litigation and should not be applied with undue inflexibility. Reunion Inv. Ltd., LLC v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., No. 14-CV-0237-CVE-TLW, 2014 WL 6606634, at *4 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 19, 2014). Thus, when developments outside a party’s control materially impede the parties’ ability to complete discovery and prepare the case within the existing schedule, modification is appropriate to ensure the case proceeds on a full and fair record. This Court also has authority to revise the April 1, 2026 Scheduling Order and August 4, 2026 Order because they are pretrial discovery orders, not final adjudications of any claim, defense, or issue of liability. They are therefore interlocutory and remain “subject to revision at any time before the final judgment . . . is filed with the court clerk.” Oklahoma 12 O.S. § 994. Likewise, the Supreme Court has recognized that “[a] trial court’s discretion to modify one of its interlocutory orders anterior to judgment is within the court’s complete control.” Andrew v. Depani-Sparkes, 2017 OK 42, { 17, 396 P.3d 210, 218 (quoting LCR, Inc. v. Linwood Props., 1996 OK 73, 4 22, 918 P.2d 1388, 1393). B. There Is Good Cause For the Requested Extension. As the Thorpe and Champagne Declarations demonstrate, and as set forth in Section I-C, supra, good cause exists for an extension of the deadlines for State Farm to respond to See State ex rel. Protective Health Servs. v. Billings Fairchild Ctr., Inc.,2007 OK CIV APP 24, 7 18, 158 P.3d 484, 489 (“The Oklahoma Discovery Code closely tracks the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”); see also Marshall, 1990 OK CIV APP 100, 4 9, 805 P.2d 689, 691 (looking to federal authority when interpreting Oklahoma procedural rules modeled after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). 13 4934-2669-5115, v. 4"}, {"d": 69, "p": 15, "t": "Interrogatories Nos. 3, 22, and 23, and RFP Nos. 58 and 59. Responding to these requests— excluding the additional time and expense associated with responding to RFP No. 59—will require at least a total of approximately 178,475 hours of managed review. It is unfeasible and impracticable to require State Farm to complete those 178,475 hours of managed review before September | or 3, 2026. To put it in perspective, even with a review team of 100 attorneys working ten-hour days, it would take nearly 179 business days to complete a first-level review of the claim files. It would also be disproportionately costly for State Farm to endeavor to complete this work by September | or 3, 2026. The estimated costs/fees associated with the review are approximately $11,616,238 which includes review fees and costs, the one-time $420,000 processing cost, and just one month of $33,600 monthly hosting costs. Finding more resources to try to complete production by September | or 3 will substantially increase the burden and costs to State Farm within a highly compressed period of time. This is all also in addition to the over $1 million State Farm has already incurred to date to host, process, review, and produce documents in this case involving $22,000 in contractual damages. Plaintiffs would have to recover 50 times their contract damages to equal the amount State Farm has already spent on document discovery in this case. Finally, the need for an extension underscores why additional reliefis necessary. Based on the current estimates, a team of 100 attorneys working ten-hour days would still need nearly 179 business days to complete only the first-level managed review—before accounting for RFP No. 59, and any second-level quality control or privilege review. Thus, if the Claim File Requests remain unchanged, the requested extension wil! necessarily extend beyond the current trial setting of December 7, 2026. That result does not reflect delay by State Farm; it reflects the practical impossibility of responding to the Claim File Requests within the current deadlines and scheduling 14 4934-2669-5115, v. 4"}, {"d": 69, "p": 16, "t": "orders. For that reason, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court either extend the existing deadlines to allow a realistic period for compliance or enter one of the less burdensome alternatives proposed below so that discovery can proceed in a manner that is proportional to the needs of the case and does not require full-scale review of over 140,000 unrelated claim files before trial. Notably, the requested claim files—which involve other insureds, properties, policies, weather events, and alleged damages—have no connection to the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim or the facts of this case.!° While Plaintiffs allege that these claim files are relevant to State Farm’s “pattern and practice of bad faith,”'¢ Plaintiffs do not need a large volume of claim files to question State Farm’s witnesses about any purported bad faith in corporate practices, policies, or procedures. Regardless, State Farm will continue producing claim files on a rolling basis during the extension period. Moreover, if any adjustment to subsequent deadlines ultimately becomes necessary, the Court has the authority to make any such changes. Good cause therefore exists for an [80-day extension to the September | and/or 3 production deadlines. Cc. Reasonable and Less Burdensome Alternatives Remain. Although State Farm seeks additional time through this Motion and is committed to responding to Plaintiffs’ Claim File Requests in good faith as the Court ordered, it alternatively requests that the Court consider less burdensome and more reasonable methods of compliance that could facilitate production and reduce unnecessary costs for all parties. At the hearing on 'S See, e.g., State Farm’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel filed Oct. 23, 2025 at 18 and State Farm’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel filed June 5, 2026 at 18 (explaining that the requested claim files involve different weather events, insurance policies and coverages, properties, and claims handlers who were not involved in Plaintiffs’ insurance claim). '© Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel filed May 18, 2026 at 16; see also Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel filed Oct. 8, 2025 at 16. 15 4934-2669-5115, v. 4"}, {"d": 69, "p": 17, "t": "Plaintiffs’ second motion to compel, State Farm offered several such alternatives, see Ex. 5, July 7, 2026, Hearing Tr. at 29:14-31:18, but expands on those proposed alternatives here. Given the extraordinary burden, expense, and time required to complete the full claim-file review, State Farm requests that the Court order a narrowed and/or phased production that is proportional to the needs of this case. Any of the following alternatives described below would provide Plaintiffs with meaningful discovery directed to the claims most likely to bear on their allegations, while avoiding the disproportionate burden of requiring State Farm to review tens of thousands of claim files before any responsive interrogatory answers can be provided or production can occur. e Allow Broader Responses to the Interrogatories The Court could permit State Farm to provide broader, over-inclusive responses to Interrogatories Nos. 22 and 23 in lieu of providing the specific information requested by Plaintiffs, as follows: o Interrogatory No. 22: Allow State Farm to answer a modified version of Interrogatory No. 22, in which State Farm answers by identifying all Oklahoma Wind/Hail claims during the responsive timeframe where the damages were below the deductible, regardless of whether alleged damages were to the roof or the “roof’s soft metals.” This answer will be over-inclusive but will require significantly fewer resources than responding to Interrogatory No. 22 as worded. o Interrogatory No. 23: As with Interrogatory No. 22, consider whether State Farm should answer by identifying all Oklahoma Wind/Hail claims from the responsive timeframe where State Farm paid some amount for covered damages but not for a total roof replacement, regardless of whether alleged damages were to the roof or the “roof’s soft metals” and regardless of the reason a total roof replacement was not paid. This answer will be over-inclusive but will require significantly fewer resources than responding to Interrogatory No. 23 as worded. Each proposed broader response would still provide Plaintiffs with information of the nature they seek in their requests and would indeed provide more information because the responses would be over-inclusive. This proposal reflects a reasonable, good-faith compromise: State Farm would 16 4934-2669-5115, v. 4"}, {"d": 69, "p": 18, "t": "provide meaningful claim information without the disproportionate burden of the claim-by-claim review required by the interrogatories as written. Accepting this approach would avoid unnecessary burden and expense and allow discovery to move forward efficiently. « Statistical sample. The Court could permit State Farm to conduct its review and provide responsive information based on a statistically valid sample of potentially responsive claim files, such as 50 to 100 claim files responsive to each request. A sampling approach would allow Plaintiffs to test their theories using representative claim information without imposing the substantial burden and expense associated with reviewing the full universe of potentially responsive claims. e Narrowed geographic limit and date of loss. The Court could narrow Interrogatories Nos. 3, 22, and 23 to claims made in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and narrow all the Claim File Requests to claims with the same dates of Joss as Plaintiffs’ claims— October 4, 2023 for the Hursh Plaintiffs and May 25, 2025 for the Wong-Faust Plaintiffs. That limitation would focus production on the claims most closely tied to Plaintiffs’ allegations: claims involving the same county and the same weather events that allegedly caused Plaintiffs’ damages. This narrower pool would give Plaintiffs discovery concerning State Farm’s handling of other claims arising from the same alleged events, while substantially reducing the number of claim files requiring review. e Phased production and review. Additionally, the Court could order a phased review beginning with claim files that fall within State Farm’s proposed narrowed date-of-loss and/or geographic limitations. would review that defined first-phase population, identify the claim State Farm files responsive to the interrogatories, and produce non-privileged, responsive information and documents responsive to 17 4934-2669-5115, v. 4"}, {"d": 69, "p": 19, "t": "RFP No. 58. After that first phase is complete, Plaintiffs should be required to demonstrate why any additional claim-file review is necessary and proportional before State Farm is required to incur further burden and expense. This approach would preserve Plaintiffs’ ability to seek additional discovery if the first-phase production supports it, while preventing an immediate, across-the-board review that is disproportionate to the needs of the case. e Cost sharing. If the Court concludes that broader claim-file discovery as requested in the Claim File Requests is warranted, the Court should, at a minimum, arrangement. require an appropriate cost-sharing Plaintiffs are the parties seeking this expansive discovery, and they maintain that it is important to their claims despite State Farm’s repeated objections and the substantial burden State Farm’s supporting declarations establish. To date, Plaintiffs have offered no analysis addressing the $22,000 in controversy or the importance or benefit of the requested discovery to resolving the issues in this case.'’7 The burden and cost to State Farm are neither sustainable nor fair, and are tantamount to a sanction against State Farm simply by virtue of being a party to litigation. Requiring Plaintiffs to bear an equal and fair share of the significant fees and costs associated with that review would appropriately align the burden of discovery with the party demanding it, discourage unnecessarily expansive claim-file review, and help ensure that any production ordered remains proportional to the needs of the case. '7 The amount alleged in the complaint or petition reflects the value the Plaintiffs have chosen to place at issue. Absent evidence showing that the actual value of the claims is materially different, the pleaded amount provides the most objective measure for evaluating proportionality. The “amount in controversy” requirement in diversity jurisdiction cases is instructive. As the Supreme Court established in St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938), “the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls ... if the claim is apparently made in good faith.” 18 4934-2669-5115, v. 4"}, {"d": 69, "p": 20, "t": "Streamlining discovery in a reasonable manner as proposed can facilitate discovery by providing Plaintiffs with information they seek more promptly and saving both parties time and resources by avoiding cumulative discovery. State Farm respectfully maintains that these and other alternatives can significantly assist it in complying with the Court’s discovery orders and ultimately be beneficial to both parties. D. The Court’s Order Should be Stayed Pending Resolution of This Motion. State Farm respectfully requests that the Court stay the portion of its August 4, 2026 order setting State Farm’s document production deadline pending resolution of this Motion. This Court may issue “for good cause shown ... any order which justice requires to protect a party or person” from “oppression or undue delay, burden or expense,” including “that the discovery not be had” or “that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions[.]” 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(1). Here, complying with the Court’s order will impose tremendous and undue burden on State Farm, for the reasons set forth above. Such burden cannot be undone by a post hoc ruling once State Farm has incurred the associated expenses. Thus, there is good cause to stay the Court’s Orders with respect to both discovery motions until this Motion is resolved. I. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court grant the relief requested in this Motion. Specifically, State Farm requests that the Court: (a) extend by 180 days the deadline for State Farm to respond to Interrogatories Nos. 3, 22 and 23, and Requests for Production Nos. 58 and 59; and/or, alternatively, (b) enter an order narrowing the burden and scope of the Claim File Requests by (1) permitting State Farm to provide broader, over-inclusive responses to Interrogatories Nos. 22 and 23, and/or (2) permitting State Farm to provide responsive information and documents based on a statistical sample, or alternatively, (3) limiting the scope of 4934-2669-5115, v. 4"}, {"d": 69, "p": 21, "t": "all of the subject requests to claims involving Plaintiffs’ dates of loss and/or claims in Tulsa County, Oklahoma (the “Phase | Production”); and (c) enter an order for a phased production requiring that, upon State Farm’s completion of the Phase 1 Production, Plaintiffs would thereafter bear the burden to demonstrate why any additional claim-file review is necessary and proportional to the needs of the case; and/or (d) enter an order requiring Plaintiffs to share equally in the fees and costs incurred by State Farm to respond to the Claim File Requests. State Farm additionally requests that the Court stay enforcement of the portion of the Court’s August 4, 2026 order setting State Farm’s production deadline pending resolution of this Motion. Carrie B. McNeer, OBA No. 22235 Nathan A. Miramontes, OBA No. 36212 GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (Fax) cmcneer@gablelaw.com nmiramontes@gablelaw.com -andLance E. Leffel, OBA No. 1951] David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (Fax) lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com Attorneys for Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 20 4934-2669-5115, v. 4 |"}, {"d": 69, "p": 22, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I do hereby certify that on August 31, 2026, a true, correct and exact copy of the above and foregoing document was served by placing same in the United States mail, with proper postage thereon duly prepaid, to those parties as listed below: Reggie N. Whitten R. Ryan Deligans, Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne Durbin, Larimore & Bialick 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rdeligans@dlb.net WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Patrick F. Collogan, OBA No. 30529 BIBY LAW FIRM 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs pat@bibylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs BA David R. Herber 21 4934-2669-5115, v. 4 MIE"}, {"d": 69, "p": 24, "t": "FILED IN DISTRICT COUR OKLAHOMA COUNTY T AUG 04 2026 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA --VS. Case Mork Welt @ Respondent(s) 4 Date: No. CJ-d0a5 ~ 16A6 UR way Lane Leffel, Davie Henpep 4 Gove Facm Welty Aden v Attorney(s) for Petitioner Petitioner(s) a WARREN Clave Jance ,Honioh (ApRitee Cuae-Delaars Billy a Lacy Hives f RICK Attorney(s) for Reép6adehy COURT MINUTE 4 ~q~ PON Judge Am ( Hearing On: Plantes’ (hot to Engoree G Sate Faem'6 “Mabon e Ruling By Court: Coungel fo wore Ut clates for leu, Wilhesses Ly be Wensiew IS ser Gor Argust 78, Leased . Teovategll WAG. ACTAMElet tentatively for Auugnsr 27 of B. The Corpirare “reprsentabres are Those. depositions between On dew igen 4, depos T4109 ot ee Cop. 1-3 “he will producto \"Nile Mhanguca and MC. Siewact, in Jwsgg plaw fare the ie pucS tant Same Wut faom well AI Mand ual ar Sep. ArHE 83 i Palvebo S ; e on deame } bua L we Yo Cow Wen herd Ove, Zoom, hy Play rey 7 Favst Moher | Compe, Stake Gorm 1s Odered Ye Compete AN PRavetion and pede 6 pewiieays (0 bu Seprember 9, AAS. Ducsvant yo Pre deposikoms Fauna Qlace before Sept umbec 3, 20061 State Facin 19 Ordeud f ger C1) Complete pmavchm On August 1h, ABE oe (Q) Allow Planetes te use He padyctin in weer v. SF 7 C)+0R5-135, UNbl Phase 4niS Same. doUameots /padvction if POdyced Case. Plamhite 5 Couce in"}, {"d": 69, "p": 26, "t": "ere Tes ve N THE DisTRIcT FBR Oh GRISF CRY RRAE AYE STATE OF OKLAHOMA . H ( OKLAHOMA intiff(s), « , APR COUNTY 4 1 2026675\" No.: A C) ~ 20 a G = 4. 6 AL District Judge Amy Palumbo Defendant(s). ( RICK WARREN AGREED-SCHEDULING ORDER THIS ORDER is entered this day of a pcr ( 20.2 @ . Counsel discussed discovery needed, case complexity, and their caseload in arriving at the following; therefore, PARTIES ARE HEREBY ORDERED to fully comply with: 1. Joinder of Additional Parties & Amendment to Pleadings: File only with leave of Court or written consent of opposing parties. (12 O.S. § 2015). 2. Discovery. Complete/answer before Pretrial unless otherwise agreed and approved by the Court. 3. Witness & Exhibit List. Exchange preliminary witness/exhibit lists no later than 60 days prior to Pretrial; Exchange final witness/exhibit lists no later than 30 days prior to Pretrial. Additional witnesses/exhibits shall be stricken by the Court, absent extraordinary circumstances. Exchange exhibits, including demonstrative exhibits, 10 days prior to trial. Failure to comply with this paragraph will result in exclusion of witnesses/exhibits at trial. 4. All Motions, Including Dispositive Motions: File 60 days prior to Pretrial; Must be set and heard before Pretrial. 5. Motions in Limine: Deadlines and hearing set by the Court. 6. Trial Depositions: Provide Designation of Deposition Testimony to opposing parties no later than 40 days before trial. Serve objections no later than 30 days before trial. Heard/decided no later than 20 days before trial. (Local Rule 18). 7. Expert Testimony. include objections to expert witnesses in the Pretrial Conference Order. The Court will set a briefing schedule and Daubert hearing date at Pretrial. 8, Mediation: Complete before Pretrial Conference, unless otherwise approved by the Court. , | 9. Pretrial Conference. Date and time: _Szetembe— L at 102 P beo'clock am/pm. Deliver the Agreed Pretrial Conference Order to the Court by noon one (1) week prior to Pretrial Conference. Do not file individual or unsigned original with Court Clerk. 10. Trial: (check one) Jury K] or Non-Jury [ ] Estimated time for trial: wi dudysnyenecia lf not already paid, party requesting jury trial shall pay jury fee (28 O.S. § 152.1.) Trial Date: Set at Pretrial Conference. 12, Requested Jury instructions: File complete set with verdict forms by noon one (1) week prior to first day of trial; Email your 14 point, double-spaced, MS Word set to Court's bailiff, unless otherwise directed by Court. 13. Trial Brief/Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. At Court's request. 14, Medical Examination: (Name) Party/Counsel Parties/Counsel within 10 days following exam or by requesting medical examination Complete no later than provide copy of report to IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: Failure to comply with the requirements set forth in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, & 7 waives the legal issue or objection. This schedule may be modified only upon written motion in compliance with Local Rule 20, for good cause shown and by Order of this Court prior to the dates scheduled. Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions pursuant to Rule 5(J) of the Rules of the District Courts. FAILURE TO APPEAR AT PRETRIAL CONFERENCE MAY RESULT IN THE ENTRY OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT OR DISMISSAL ORDER, AT THE COURT'S DISCRET! IT FURTHER NOTICE TO THE PARTIES. hun OWbi Hen (oa) ISTRICT JUDGE AMY PALUMBO bey) AM Hannah Whiten 2Q6\\_, 405-5167 7800, Signature of Attorney for Plaintiff(s) Printed Name / OBA # / Telephorfe Number / Ema SI Printed Name / OBA # / Telephone Number / Email if Attorney for Defendant(s) Lance E. Laff | 098 1981) 40S, 35-5582 : Acopy of this Order was delivered to counsel of record/pro se party on the ses KNG*s OLRM va e day of Chinivsepher T 20. Compe | ODA aw . te cate, Uuly 2025 Form) es SSetL g.eh.9"}, {"d": 69, "p": 28, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, COUNTY ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vv. ) Case No. CJ-2025-2626 ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) DECLARATION OF JAY THORPE I, Jay Thorpe, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the following is true and correct: 1. T am over the age of 21 years, of sound mind, legally capable of making this Declaration, and have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Declaration. 2. I am a Technology Analyst in P&C Mutual Automobile Farm Insurance Fire and Casualty Company Company Claims Enterprise Technology at State Farm (“State Farm (“State Farm”). Mutual”), the parent company In my role, I have access for State to and am knowledgeable about the regular practices and procedures of State Farm as to the storage and retrieval of claim data. 3. It is my understanding that State Farm received the following discovery requests (collectively the “Requests”) in the above-mentioned case Hursh v. State Farm, and in the case Wong-Faust v. State Farm, Dist. Ct. Okla. Cnty. Case No. CJ-2025-1675. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Identify the total number of homeowners wind/hail claims from 2019-present in Oklahoma in which State Farm found damage the insured roof's soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to exceed the policy's deductible. Page 1 of 4"}, {"d": 69, "p": 29, "t": "INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Identify the total number of homeowners' wind/hail claims from 2019-present in Oklahoma in which State Farm found damage the insured roof's soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to warrant a Full or Total Roof Replacement. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Produce a copy of every claim file where a homeowner made a claim for wind and hail damage to their roof in Tulsa County since January 1, 2021 to the present. [You may redact the identities and residential addresses of policyholders.] 4. Materials relating to claims are kept on the State Farm Enterprise Claim System (“ECS”). To retrieve information from the ECS, certain queries need to be developed based on fields within ECS. 5. Relevant to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory Nos. 22 and 23, an electronic search of ECS was conducted that included the number of wind/hail claims submitted to State Farm in the state of Oklahoma with a date of loss (‘DOL’) between January |, 2019 and November 30, 2025. report included the following parameters: concerning wind and hail cause of loss. insurance wind/hail claims with fire line of business for the state The of Oklahoma This query revealed a total of 117,019 unique property a DOL between January 1, 2019 and November 30, 2025 in the state of Oklahoma.! 6. A query, however, cannot be structured to search among these 117,019 claims to identify the claims wherein “State Farm found damage to the insured’s roof’s soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did | Previously, in December 2025, with respect to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory Nos. 3, 22, and 23, State Farm conducted an electronic search of ECS that included the number of wind/hail claims submitted to State Farm in Oklahoma with a date of loss (“DOL”) between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2024. Electronic searches of ECS, and the resulting reports, are not static. Accordingly, depending on when a search is conducted, the date range for the search, and the status of the various claims contained within ECS at the time of the search, the results of an ECS search may differ. Page 2 of 4"}, {"d": 69, "p": 30, "t": "not suffer enough damage to exceed the policy’s deductible,” as sought by Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 22. While State Farm can filter the 117,019 claims to the 26,089 claims in which there was no payment; i.e. $0.00 payment, and that were “Closed Without Payment,” there is no way to further identify which of these claims meet the additional criteria set forth in Interrogatory No. 22 without manual review of each of 26,089 claims. 7. Likewise, State Farm cannot further filter the data to identify wind/hail claims responsive to Interrogatory No. 23—claims where “State Farm found damage to the insured roof’s soft metals (vent gap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to warrant a Full or Total Roof Replacement,”—as requested by Interrogatory No. 23. While State Farm can filter the 117,019 claims to the 89,375 claims where a payment was made, further review is necessary to determine which of those 89,375 claims did not involve a full or total roof replacement and meet the criteria set forth in Interrogatory No. 232 8. Relevant to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production (“RFP”) No. 58, State Farm conducted an electronic search of ECS to identify the number of wind/hail claims submitted to State Farm in Oklahoma with a date of loss (“DOL”) between January The report used the following parameters: fire line of business |, 2021 and July 6, 2026. for the state of Oklahoma concerning wind and hail cause of loss. This query revealed a total of 121,258 unique property insurance wind/hail claims with a DOL between January 1, 2021 and July 6, 2026 in Oklahoma. While State Farm can filter the 121,258 claims to the 27,566 wind/hail claims in Tulsa County, Oklahoma with a DOL between January |, 2021, and July 6, 2026, State Farm cannot further filter 2 This excludes claims where damage was found but the amount of damages did not meet the deductible. Page 3 of 4"}, {"d": 69, "p": 31, "t": "or structure a query to identify which of the 27,566 wind/hail claims in Tulsa County involved a claim of damage specifically to the roof, as opposed to other parts of the property. Accordingly, determining which of these 27,566 claims meet the specific criteria of Plaintiffs’ RFP No. 58 would require an intensive manual, claim-by-claim review of each of the 27,566 unique claims. 9. The volume of materials associated with an individual claim depends on a variety of factors, including the severity of the damages alleged, the number of experts and other vendors involved, and whether the claim is in active litigation, among others. and/or other materials are not uniform in size or content. The claim file documents Accordingly, the materials associated with an individuat claim may vary from less than a hundred pages to thousands of pages when provided to counsel’s office for review in PDF format. For example, the claim files for the Plaintiffs’ two claims at issue here are approximately 204 pages and 453 pages. 8/27/2026 Bloomington, IL a —_— (Date and Place) (Signattire) Page 4 of 4 De."}, {"d": 69, "p": 33, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, COUNTY ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) Case No. CJ-2025-2626 ) ) Defendants. } DECLARATION OF ALICIA CHAMPAGNE I, Alicia Champagne, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the following is true and correct: I. I am over the age of 21 years, of sound mind, legally capable of making this Declaration, and have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Declaration. 2. [am employed as a Senior Review Manager at Consilio LLC. Consilio is a legal services and technology provider. I have held several positions at Consilio and its acquired companies, including reviewer, quality management manager. I have personal knowledge regarding the costs associated with reviewing State Farm data as well as experience preparing cost estimates professional, review associate, and review for State Farm’s various managed review projects. 3. State Farm engaged Consilio to assist with hosting, processing, reviewing, and producing documents in response to the Court’s Orders in Hursh v. State Farm, Case No. CJ-20252626, and Wong-Faust v. State Farm, Case No. CJ-2025-1675, in the District Court of Oklahoma County State of Oklahoma (collectively the “Hursh Engagement”). Page 1 of 3"}, {"d": 69, "p": 34, "t": "4. In connection with the Hursh Engagement, Consilio is receiving claim files that State Farm indicated it collected in response to certain discovery requests in Hursh and WongFaust. As on August 17, 2026, Consilio had already received approximately 65,000 claim files from State Farm. Consiltio expects to receive, in total, approximately 140,000 claim files that State Farm has collected as part of the Hursh Engagement. 5. The cost to process and host about 140,000 claim files can be estimated as follows. First, Consilio has observed that each claim file can be estimated at about 40 MB in size. Using that estimate, a total volume of 140,000 claim files can be estimated at 5,600 GB in size (140,000 X 40 MB or .04 GB). Processing costs run at about $75 per GB of data, and hosting costs per month run at about $6 per GB of data. With those unit costs, the total one-time processing cost for 140,000 claim files can be estimated at $420,000 ($75 x 5,6000 GB), and the total monthly hosting cost for 140,000 claim files can be estimated at $33,600 ($6 x 5,6000 GB). 6. Although no formal first-level review estimate has been prepared—one is currently in progress—I am able to provide the Court with a good-faith estimate of the anticipated time and costs of conducting a first-level review based on my experience with document reviews in insurance litigation matters involving State Farm documents, including claim files. | estimate that it would require approximately 386 managed review hours and cost approximately $27,686 to (1) conduct a first-level review of 100 claim files of roughly 144 documents each for responsiveness; (2) redact personally identifiable information from the responsive files; and (3) identify potentially privileged information for second-level privilege review. This first-level review estimate excludes additional costs for second-level quality control review, second-level preparation of the privilege log. Page 2 of 3 privilege review, and"}, {"d": 69, "p": 35, "t": "7. Further, based on my experience, | estimate that conducting a first-level review of the claim file history information report contained in 100 claim files—with each claim file history information report being approximately 70 pages—would require approximately 62 managed- review hours and cost at least $3,027. That review would be necessary to determine which claims are responsive to any of the following questions: (1) did State Farm find damage to the roof’s soft metals, such as vent caps or guttering; (2) did State Farm find that the roof material itself, such as asphalt shingles or shake, suffered damage; (3) did State Farm find that the damage to the roof did not exceed the policy deductible; (4) did State Farm find that full or total roof replacement was not warranted; (5) was a lawsuit filed against State Farm related to the claim, and, if so, (a) what date was it filed, (b) did State Farm approve or pay for a total roof replacement after the lawsuit was filed, and (c) if so, what date was the total roof replacement paid or approved. excludes the additional costs for a secondary review. This estimate A secondary review may be necessary to address any questions that remain unanswered after the first-level review. This secondary review phase would involve targeted review of additional claim file documents. whether the claim file history information At this stage, it is unclear reports alone will provide sufficient information to answer all questions. I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. SIGNED this 27th day of August, 2026 in Morrisville, North Carolina. Leia sch Alicia S. Champagne Page 3 of 3"}, {"d": 69, "p": 37, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT STATE MOONG SIAN WONG-FAUST, STEPHEN FAUST, OF OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY OKLAHOMA ) ) and ) ) ) Plaintiff, vs. ) CASE NO. CJ-2025-1675 ) STATE FARM FIRE and CASUALTY) COMPANY, GRANT GINGERICH ) INSURANCE AGENCY, INC, ) ) ) Defendants. Ce ee ee ee ee ee eee ee ee 10 11 12 13 14 BILLY and LACY HURSH, vs. STATE FARM FIRE and CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, MARK D. WELTY AND MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., CASE NO. CJ-2025-2626 15 Defendants. 16 17 SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 19 MOTION HEARING 20 TRANSCRIPT 18 21 HAD 22 23 7TH BEFORE THE * Reported By: ON OF HONORABLE 24 25 DAY OF Cynthia DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA PROCEEDINGS THE JULY, AMY * PALUMBO, * Kay Jones, COURT - 2026 * DISTRICT * RMR OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT JUDGE ee"}, {"d": 69, "p": 38, "t": "APPEARANCES FOR PLAINTIFFS: MR. REGGIE WHITTEN MR. SONNE BLAKE MS. HANNAH WHITTEN MR. MIKE BURRAGE WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma FOR 10 11 THE 73102 DEFENDANTS: MR. LANCE LEFFEL MR. DAVID HERBER GABLEGOTWALLS 12 BOK Park Plaza 499 West Sheridan Suite 2200 13 Oklahoma City, Avenue Oklahoma 73102 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT"}, {"d": 69, "p": 39, "t": "29 let's see this house privacy if we is can't located. concern. And in this that just hundreds I ahold of mean, that's They've not we supposed when proportionality, limit get it are appears case. put to me You know, because someone sues of that they admit come out cases them and -- figure that's out -- their claims to considering be that we've should and that not be alleges that at standard in one pursuing and kind of requests 10 should that be the penalty is 11 against you, you're going to have 12 already lost, Your Honor, if every time you go to court 13 there's no respect to these claim files if -- be with 15 should 16 and 17 extent that 18 million different 19 still it's outright denied, addressing these produce 20 the Court ways relevant One of the the in was filed You've there are a burdensome seen that done they play, and information. ways that I with you before. have relevant -- in federal it's as few as even like figure out when we can't DISTRICT the less make this We to this to shared files. but -- 22 sometimes Rogs, in to statistically federal information -- that, a In if entertaining using claim lawsuit -- is by 25 millions. issues is happen, to that cases 24 a regarding 21 23 should of limit. So 14 one because spend a that these just single found faith they're every that's issue. the bad where COURT - court OFFICIAL sample. where I have 50 to a get to the TRANSCRIPT in my And I've had hundred trial this"}, {"d": 69, "p": 40, "t": "30 stage how do something you reasonably what plaintiff I'm to files -- and going and, gentlemen, below -- partial that want do, is -- 10 you there their you say well, know, 45 was a -- Those are So it requires each of these 13 try to rebut whatever the -- 14 is, because that's only 15 because 16 just 19 relevant 20 for years 21 want to 23 around 24 that 25 of see the time. storms. the do That a claim reasonably, down the road for would DISTRICT the you can I said the as well, so I'm future. make this possibly statistically dates. They're a asking files. limit. file a parts to in geographic home. trial it limit 20,000 a get burdensome. yields during can that could files would you way ways some Different context. context issues Hurshes' you're that these every that for fighting could is a statistic problems which You the You point without claim presents sample. than You into less less was right. dig or loss all to proportioned data the ladies were have 18 something files, claim decisions 12 are 20,000 happened. those What that the really if 17 these these made the I'm what what of of if know -- 22 into to What kind percent statistics 11 that got or you and we've whatever in. to decision deductible whatever interested 5 information useful. Typically and marshall within 10 the You or could 20-mile You know, of town the same. be narrowing -- that would COURT - OFFICIAL storm's say radius coming There's TRANSCRIPT I it at pockets down. So"}, {"d": 69, "p": 41, "t": "31 there's a lot of different We could do ways do that. sharing on this so that the this relevant to your case, cost isn't all -- if you should it be the plight of that you lose just by virtue So there are lot of ways Oklahoma but there point they are think to a a is defendant, of we defendant being could consider. At what has something become disproportionate. take issue when we say this tell you that every 11 that we can quantify 12 sort of soft damages 13 I And I Court one leave the 15 before but I think 16 you we have 17 public a single 18 the Supreme You 19 20 people of 21 is one case 22 one claim. 23 I'm saying. going that I'll in are we understand 14 know, because it -- ended I tell been so what these pursuing I paper much entire to the representing the collective agency Oklahoma Insurance. one family and their there's two claims at issue not a 24 THE COURT: Uh-huh. 25 MR. LEFFEL: The public DISTRICT COURT - is OFFICIAL raised the respect Maybe number other lot, about wasn't between a talk that Oklahoma. a but this fortunately, And with that fully just issue. the know us. they're in I That's know final up there's case. Court are with time. to And 22,000. don't litigation. that that is to in with things understand. want in why deal some 10 I a burden but the ruling by intervention. interest It's a subset. insurance. but party TRANSCRIPT of you here, the This It's over get what okay."}, {"d": 70, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY FILED BILLY & LACY HURSH, DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA Plain tiffs, COUNTY, OKLAHOMA September 3, 2026 2:26 PM RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK y. Case Number CJ-2025-2626 Case No. CJ-2025-2626 STATE FARM FIRE AND Honorable Amy Palumbo CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. NOTICE OF HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to (1) Strike Defendant State Farm’s Blanket Confidentiality Assertion, (2) and De-Designate Documents Produced for Good Cause Based on State Farm’s Failure to Engage in Good Faith as Required filed on August 4, 2026 has been set for hearing on the 28th day of September, 2026, at 9:00 A.M. before the Honorable Judge Amy Palumbo at the Oklahoma County Courthouse, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Respectfully submitted, Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: Facsimile: 405.516.7800 405.516.7859 mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com"}, {"d": 70, "p": 2, "t": "hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders(@whittenburragelaw.com jidenne@whittenburragelaw.com & Patrick F. Collogan, OBA #30529 Biby Law Firm 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 918-574-8458 888-572-8263 (fax) at@bibylaw.com & R. Ryan Deligans, Durbin, Larimore & Bialick 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rdeligans@dlb.net ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS"}, {"d": 70, "p": 3, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 3\" day of September 2026, the above and foregoing was emailed and/or mailed, by certified mail, return receipt requested to: Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz Nathan A. Miramontes Lisa T. Silvestri, GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) cmcneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com nmiramontes@gablelaw.com -and- Lance E. Leffel David R. Herber GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com ( 405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Hannah Whitten"}, {"d": 71, "p": 1, "t": "wane FILED IN DiSTRICT COURT OXLAMOMA COUNTY | * NTYGEP -8 2026 — 1N THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COU STATE OF OKLAHOMA RICK Wi BILLY & LACY HURSH, 109 COURT CL’ Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CJ-2025-2626 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Honorable Amy Palumbo Defendants. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT NTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE COMPANY’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAI DE-DESIGNATE DOCUMENTS CONFIDENTIALITY ASSERTIONS AND"}, {"d": 71, "p": 2, "t": "COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, by and through counsel of Whitten Burrage, hereby submits the following Response to State Farm’s Motion to Strike Confidentiality Assertions and Dedesignate Documents (“Motion”). State Farm’s Motion is moot. On September 1, 2026, the parties appeared before this Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Confidentiality Assertions and De-designate Documents and State Farm’s Motion to Quash Jon Farney’s deposition. This Court graciously took us after an all-day jury trial and noted at the offset of the hearing that both parties had violated procedural rules, noting that Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-designate was over the page limit by four (4) pages and noting that State Farm’s footnotes were extremely long and took up nearly half a page on certain pages. Thereafter, this Court stepped off the bench after advising the parties to discuss how they wished to proceed. The parties discussed together that each were willing to waive objections pursuant to these procedural defects and proceed on the merits. Once this Court stepped back on the bench, Mr. Leffel stated on the record (there is not a record yet but happy to supplement the official record when it becomes available) that the parties were willing to move forward on the merits. This Court then took up State Farm’s Motion to Quash and denied it, ruling that Mr. Farney could be deposed for four hours, with the ability for Plaintiffs to ask for more time if warranted. See Ex. 1, Minute Order. Because it was already almost five PM at that time, this Court noted the need to reset Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-designate. The parties worked together and have reset this Motion for September 28, 2026 at 9 am. See Ex. 2, Notice of Hearing. For the record, the four (4) additional pages was a mistake. Plaintiffs’ counsel included screenshots of certain important sections in the documents seeking to be de-designated and in the hopes of providing clarity to the lengthy exhibits, accidently created a formatting error wherein"}, {"d": 71, "p": 3, "t": "when our trusted paralegal re-formatted, she nor us caught that it pushed the brief four pages over the limit. The allegation that the brief was not 12 point font was false, the brief was properly 12 point font. Plaintiffs’ counsel apologizes for this error and it will not occur again. CONCLUSION State Farm’s Motion is moot and should be denied. State Farm’s counsel} agreed to proceed on the merits, and as such, its request to strike should not be considered. Respectfully submitted, Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah E. Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com ~and~ R. Ryan Deligans, OBA #19793 Andrew M. Gunn, OBA #19470 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102-2610 Telephone: (405)235-9584 Facsimile: (405)235-0551 rdeligan@dlb.net agunn@dlb.net ~and~ R. Ryan Deligans, OBA #19793 Andrew M. Gunn, OBA #19470 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102-2610"}, {"d": 71, "p": 4, "t": "Telephone: (405)235-9584 Facsimile: (405)235-0551 rdeligan@dlb.net agunn@dlb.net Attorneys for Plaintiff"}, {"d": 71, "p": 5, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by email and/or regular mail this 8th day of September, 2026, upon: Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) cmeneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com -andLance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Hannah Whitten"}, {"d": 71, "p": 6, "t": "ina 8 eTO5 9176600 | — | IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA Cale Sie, fears Mcrae) forOutroy, ADIN DisTHigmecuiten, ‘Attorney(s) Petitioner Tehn Hours IVigy Yorm , a M\\dhion 40 SEP 0 2 2026 _soOURT ERK Quach_Jm Eaten, \"The Me Judge Hearing On: \\thte Porm's Palunba Am Jam by Guach Formen A, trvatien Vrate Pacts Moho ox Peg Urder is denred. Me ne He, Farnen Hex} 9 days. Kune \\dker HW fe Olakr Fave The dePositinn th Moe Parkes Gnd A \\ours TS OUNTY Resp MINUTE q-\\- 29KG, CO deposition He thn limexed +o reese Aare Needed . EXHIBIT Cowrsel cor Plaankites ns (lia Me Cre, nos, HREBUIN DISTRICTc 14 Respo: ca Ruling By Court: B2626 IWA4- Cdr T alX COURT Date: Case No. 2026 : --VSs. \\tate | Crmsel @ State Farm SF Lyric © LePe/ 0"}, {"d": 71, "p": 7, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED DISTRICT COURT BILLY & LACY HURSH, OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Plaintiffs, September 3, 2026 2:26 PM RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK v. Case Number CJ-2025-2626 Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. NOTICE OF HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to (1) Stnke Defendant State Farm’s Blanket Confidentiality Assertion, (2) and De-Designate Documents Produced for Good Cause Based on State Farm’s Failure to Engage in Good Faith as Required filed on August 4, 2026 has been set for hearing on the 28th day of September, 2026, at 9:00 A.M. before the Honorable Judge Amy Palumbo at the Oklahoma County Courthouse, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Respectfully submitted, Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Faesimile: 405.516.7859 owhitten@:whittenburragelaw.com mburragea@'whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com EXHIBIT"}, {"d": 71, "p": 8, "t": "hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@zwhittenburragclaw.com jdenne@whitlenburragelaw.com & Patrick F. Collogan, OBA #30529 Biby Law Firm 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 918-574-8458 888-572-8263 (fax) pat@bibylaw.com & R. Ryan Deligans, Durbin, Larimore & Bialick 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rdeligans@dlb.net ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS"}, {"d": 71, "p": 9, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 34 day of September 2026, the above and foregoing was emailed and/or mailed, by certified mail, return receipt requested to: Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz Nathan A. Miramontes Lisa T. Silvestri, GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) cmeneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com nmiramontes@gablelaw.com -andLance E. Leffel David R. Herber GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Hannah Whitten"}, {"d": 72, "p": 1, "t": "TVAREIIBIIAY 7H orsr2cr count oF oxtanoMa COUNDKLAHOMA MA COURS STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY BILLY & LACY HURSH, SEP 10 2026 Plaintiffs, RICK aintiffs COURT ORREN VY Case No. CJ-2025-2626 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Honorable Amy Palumbo Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL Pursuant to 12 O.8. § 3226(C)(2), 51 O.S. §§ 24A.29 and 24A.30, Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh, respectfully submit their Unopposed Application for Leave to file an unredacted copy of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum and Brief in Support, under seal. In support of this Application, Plaintiffs state: 1. Plaintiffs seek to file their Motion and confidential exhibits thereto under seal. Plaintiffs’ Motion and exhibits relies upon and references lines of deposition testimony from Nicole Manduca’s deposition that State Farm has designated certain portions of as confidential and documents regarding the Defendants’ discovery production. 2. Plaintiffs’ request leave to file under seal an unredacted copy of their Motion with a confidential exhibits in support thereof. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh, respectfully request the Court enter an order granting Plaintiffs’ permission to file under seal an unredacted copy of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance with Subpoena"}, {"d": 72, "p": 2, "t": "Duces Tecum and Brief in Support, in support of their Motion. A proposed order will be submitted herewith. Réggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah E. Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: Facsimile: (405) 516-7800 (405) 516-7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com ~and~ Patrick F. Collogan, OBA #30529 Biby Law Firm 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 918-574-8458 888-572-8263 (fax) pat@bibylaw.com ~and~ R. Ryan Deligans, OBA #19793 Andrew M. Gunn, OBA #19470 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102-2610 Telephone: (405)235-9584 Facsimile: (405)235-0551 rdeligan@dlb.net agunn@dlb.net ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS"}, {"d": 72, "p": 3, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 10, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was delivered, via hand-delivery to all counsel of record for Defendants. Carrie McNeer [Amy Sherry Fischer, OBA No. 16651 Grant A. Fitz GableGotwals 110N. Elgin Ave., Ste. 200 IFOLIART, BOTTOM Tulsa, OK (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 74120-1490 icmcneer@gablelaw.com lefitz@gablelaw.com HUFF, 201 Robert S. Kerr Avenue, OTTAWAY 12th Floor |Telephone: (405) 232-4633 Fax: (405) 232-3462 lamy fischer@oklahomacounsel.com -and- Lance Leffel [Ashlyn M. Smith GableGotwals 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Ste. 2200 ATTORNEYS FOR NON-PARTY ACCENTURE LLP Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com lasmith@gablelaw.com Za Blake Sonne &"}, {"d": 73, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY BILLY & LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo FILED IN DISTRICT COURT OK}. AHOMA COUNTY SEP 10 2026 MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. 110 CK WAS cSoRT Lene REDACTED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL NON-PARTY ACCENTURE LLP’S COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT"}, {"d": 73, "p": 2, "t": "CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.... I. GOOD FAITH CERTIFICATION ........ccssssssececsssseecosssessssseseeacscnseeenesesseseuenssseeeseeseeeens 2 Il. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .......cssssssssssessssssssssnsasononenseseeseeees 2 A. B. Plaintiffs Allege a Company-Wide Scheme, Not an Isolated Claim ENVOY, .cesescessesteceeeessereresesees State Farm Has Defended the Scheme by Invoking Industry Standards, and This Court Has Twice Ordered that Material POGUE, 0... cecceteccsesseessesscsessesesscaceceneccensecsasassnsassnssessesssesensasinsessessesesesssesessoaavess 2 C~, Plaintiffs Served Accenture in Oklahoma City, and Accenture Produced Nothing. 0.0... Iv. LEGAL STANDARD ..........ccccsssssssssecesesesscsersccercoesssrsassrssceresenesecserereseerensereseneesseasensasrerees 3 ARGUMENT A. sess csseseesnsssesssnsssseessssesessininuesenisisssesneessseeenee 3 AND AUTHORITIES .......cccscsssssssssssssseesssessscosscnerensensneanscesosesssnneanecoversvee 5 Accenture’s Blanket, Unparticularized Objections Do Not Carry Its Burden And Should Be Overruled in Their Entirety. 0.00... cccsseesssenseeeseseneeeesere 5 B. This Court May Enforce a Subpoena Served on Accenture in Oklahoma City. ee eeeeseeeseneececesseseeceeneestsnsesdssessaessssnsecenssersseetesseseeseneneeaents 7 1. Accenture Was Served in Oklahoma, and the Return Is Presumptively Valid... eee ce ccssseecseseseeeeseeeneeesenseeeseneeseereeeneacen 7 2. Craft And Lovett Support Plaintiffs, Not Accenture. 00... eee 8 3. The UIDDA Governs Foreign Subpoenas and Has No Application Here... eeeetcsceese scene eenescecesessseeesseseeecsseseninesssenseeseneneeeens 9 4. The Statutory Test Turns on Possession and Control, Not Physical Location... cccccesssssesscseeeesssseecesssssesenesenesssneseeesesesesseanenes 9 Cc. The Documents Sought Are Relevant, And This Court Has Already So Held... eseceeceeeeeeesscesscseseseseseeeseceenesesessesesessneessssssersseseceeanseees 9 D. E. Accenture Cannot Claim Not to Understand the Vocabulary It WYOtC. eee ccccsecscsseseescserseessesneceuseeessesessscsecssssssneeaecsseessseravecasesssteaseteeestereeeeraanteses 14 Accenture May Not Deflect to State Farm, Which Disclaims Both the Relevance and the Ability to Produce.... VI. F. The Subpoena Is Not Overbroad in Time or Geography.........cccsesseeeceseesteees 16 G. The Protective Order Already Answers Accenture’s Confidentiality Concern H. The Court Should Award Plaintiffs Their Reasonable Expenses. ...........ccc0cce 19 CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEP u....csssssssseccscssssscsessesssncesesesseeneseacees 19 ii"}, {"d": 73, "p": 3, "t": "AUTHORITIES Cases Black v. State Farm No. CJ-2024-7827 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct.) oon cneenieneccces i ssssssresseesenseeseassenenes 2 Boswell v. Schultz 2007 OK 94, 175 P.3d 390... eeseseseeeseecsesessseseassesceesessasnscssesesesssteseessssssseeseceseeentceseee 3 Breen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 2012 WL 13020744 (N.D. Okla. Apr. 23, 2012)... sccccssssssseesesssseseereneseseeeensnensseseseasansens 4 Chick-fil-A, Inc. v. Ogden 2026 OK 13, 589 P.3d 138... cccesececsseseeeecssesesescseeseesesesescessssescnssssseeenenensnesereneseensesesee 10 Christian v. Am. Home Assurance Co. 1977 OK 141, 577 P.2d 899. eee sssscssssesesescneesessseseecesssssssssenessssserensneseeeenensemenereneesaeas 10 Craft v. Chopra 1995 OK CIV APP 135, 907 P.2d 1109 vc ceccccssesssseseeeesssceeessssescereneneseneeesennsssneneseneseaeae 8 Crest Infiniti, I, LP v. Swinton 2007 OK 77, 174 P.3d 996... cece ecsscssesesesceneressseseseseecesssssseesenessreseneneneseeeeseae 4, 6,17, 18 Fed. Ins. Co. v. Indeck Power Equip. Co. 2016 WL 5173402 (W.D. Okla, Sept. 21, 2016) ccc ssessessssesreteseseseseeeeneneesseseneasenees 4 Haukaas v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 2022 WL 1719412 (D.S.D. May 27, 2022) weccccccssssssscesenseeeessssssrereneneseseeeanenenssssssssesees 4 Jones v. Jones 1915 OK 763, 154 PL 1136. cece csscsscscseesesssssssscscesssssssessssuranenesessseeeessessssaeaeneersens 8 Lovett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 2001 OK CIV APP 9, 18 P.3d 387 ooo. cssesssssseeeeeecececeererseecseneseeeneaessesserenenensensneseeseasaes 8,9 Morecraft v. Farmers Ins. Co. 2010 WL 1257579 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 25, 2010) ..ccccccsstecee ts tesesssceseecesssessseenenseeeees 16 Newport v. USAA 2000 OK 59, 11 P.3d 190... eeeeeeseeesesnentstecsesestsesnsnscsnscssssensssussssssssessscesessseasnsessseeees 10 Okmulgee Producing & Refining Co. v. Pilsbry-Becker Eng’g & Supply Co. 1923 OK 154, 214 P. 185... ccc sesccssscsssssesercesesenscnseessuesesesesesencesesessesesessiaenees 8,9 Scott v. Peterson 2005 OK 84, 126 P.3d 12320... eeseseeseseseeseseseseseseensesescseresereseceesenenennseseneseesesasieseseeseees 6 SMS Financial L.L.C. v. Ragland 1995 OK CIV APP 160, 918 P.2d 400 oo. cee cessseeresessseseesesenasa nes ssssteeneesenensnes 8 State ex rel. Remington Arms Co. v. Powers 1976 OK 103, 552 P.2d 1150... sesesscscscsssetetsceessecececsseecessesseseevansesesensencacstecesssnsvesssseees 3 iii"}, {"d": 73, "p": 4, "t": "State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. The Honorable Amy Palumbo No. 123,812 (Okla. June 23, 2026)... .cceccscccsccessesessescscsescsasanensscsasseeeessereenenenseeaseeeeees 3 Timmons v. Royal Globe Ins. Co. 1982 OK 97, 653 P.2d 907... escsessssssseecececesescaeasanscseecusencaeeceseceaeacececeeeaesenensnseeseseseseseeseaeee 4 Touhy v. Walgreen Co. 2006 WL 1716646 (W.D. Okla. June 21, 2006) aff'd sub nom., 526 F.3d 641 (10th Cir. 2008) 0.0... ee eeeeseseeneneceseeeceerenceeneatereneveee 4,18 Young v. Macy 2001 OK 4, 21 P.3d 44. ccccsessssssssscesenesesceceseseesessvscseseussscsesecreeeesatansessscneneaeaseneeserarates 18 YWCA of Okla. City v. Melson 1997 OK 81, 944 P.2d 304. ee esescecsstseteecteeseeesesssescseessenseessssseesesanevacaeseneneneeeaveeeeeseeeee 4 Statutes 12 OLS. § 2OO4(C)(1)(C)(3) one eecesesessesecececcseeeeseceacacececsaeseseacseseseeressenansesessvacsesesaraeeeeeaseeseneseeassenenes 7 12 OLS. § 2004 icc ceetescsseseceseceseeesecssesaesessscnscseeeseseensrenceeesesessseeenaneneneees 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 19, 20 12 OLS. § 3226 .. v4, 5, 6, 7, 19 12 OS. § 3237 ooeeccsccsssessesesescssesecescessesesceatersessecccesssasseaeuaseseeseaeaessaeasensseedanereceeeeerate 1, 2, 5, 19,20 12 OVS. § 3250 oo eecccteteesssescscsescseseseucuseacaesseseessssssaseseseusnsasssacesecscuasscececeecicateestecseaeaesenenseaenenes 9 23 OLS. § LD veceeccscsssecsetstststscscscscscsenscseeescasececacssscseseusecessssessseescesuceceaeseseeeseaeatecertseeeseaeiseeeeeee! 4,17 36 O.S. §§ 1250.5, 1250.7 ec ccensesceessseseeseessseseseseenscccessesesdsesasaeseaeesenenceceneceesreeseeseneneneneenenes 10 Other Authorities Deposition of Nicole Manduca June 23, 2026 (West v. State Farm, No. CJ-2025-135) 0... eccceceseeseeseseeeenetenteneeneenses 14, tS"}, {"d": 73, "p": 5, "t": "EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Subpoena Duces Tecum to Accenture LLP, issued July 2, 2026, with Exhibit A” Exhibit 2 Affidavit of Service of Chad Schultheis (served July 2, 2026, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) Exhibit 3 Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Subpoena Duces Tecum, served July 17, 2026 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Court Minute, July 7, 2026 (granting Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel) Journal Entry Sustaining Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel, entered November 25, 2025 Exhibit 6 State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. The Honorable Amy Palumbo, No. 123,812 (Okla. June 23, 2026) Exhibit 7 Excerpts of the Deposition of Nicole Manduca, June 23, 2026 (West v. State Farm, CJ-2025-135) Exhibit 8 Accenture, “ ” (Apr. 6, 2020) (HURPROD-00023868) Exhibit 9 Email from Andrew Larsen (Accenture) - circulating “ -pptx” (Apr. 29, 2020) (HUR00018776-HUR000 18777) Exhibit 10 Email from Andrew Larsen (Accenture) to Nicole Manduca attaching ‘a -pptx” (May 11, 2020) (HUR00037958) Exhibit 11 Duplicate email chain bearing Andrew Larsen’s Accenture signature block (NIDA (Consol. Cases) 0014391-0014392 / HURPROD-00088431HURPROD-00088432) Exhibits 12 - 14 Accenture Classified Partial Roof Outcomes as Normal and Full Roof Replacement as an Anomaly. Ex. 12 (HURPROD-00046897); Ex. 13 (HURPROD-00024959); Ex. 14 (HURPROD-00088846). Exhibit 13 Accenture claim-type analysis materials (HURPROD-00024959) Exhibit 14 Accenture claim-type analysis materials (HURPROD-00088846) Exhibit 15 Accenture impact-analysis tables quantifying the Texas opportunity (HUR00030302) Exhibit 16 Accenture full roof replacement baseline and hi tables (HURPROD-00048299) Exhibit 17 Accenture (D” deck (HURPROD-00089597) Exhibit 18 Accenture status deck dated May 20, 2020, including ; —t—i‘i‘S (HURPROD-00026169) Exhibit 19 Accenture Fire status deck dated May 29, 2020, including Texas wind/hail pilot (i (uRPROD-00091145)"}, {"d": 73, "p": 6, "t": "Exhibit 20 Email from Michael Massa (Accenture) to Wensley J. Herbert, Michael ” July 30, 2020), transmittin -pptx” and ‘ zip’ (HOSIERGAR0088028PROD / WESTPROD00051253) Exhibit 21 Deck, ‘ .” (HOSIERGAR008803 1 PRODHOSIERGAR0088053PROD). Exhibit 22 Exhibit 23 Exhibit 24 Email from Michael Massa (Accenture) dated April 17, 2020 forwarding the » (HOSIERGAR0083800PRODHOSIERGAR0083805PROD / WESTPROD-00047025-WESTPROD00047030) State Farm summary (WEST00152589). State Farm materials attributing the ‘ ” full roof replacement benchmark to Accenture Consulting Services (HUR00029498) Exhibit 25 State Farm materials attributing the ‘ full roof replacement benchmark to Accenture Consulting Services (HUR00030408) Exhibit 26 State Farm materials attributing the ” full roof replacement benchmark to Accenture Consulting Services (HOSIERGAR0075492PROD / HURPROD-0005 1539) Exhibit 27 Email from Kathy Ress to Scott Welsh, Tom Moss, and Nicole Manduca dated October 19, 2021 (HUR00075111) Exhibit 28 Exhibit 29 Email from Scott Welsh forwarding the October 19, 2021 inquiry (HUR00015416) State Farm materials describing January 2021 implementation of the wind/hail quality tactics in all states (HUR00080563) Exhibit 30 “OVP Herbert — Quarterly Business Review a.” 2021 (WEST00004173-WEST00004174) Exhibit 31 Accenture California State Model analysis and accompanying “Document Produced in Native Format” placeholders (HOSIERGAR0088054PROD- HOSIERGAR0088121 PROD / WESTPROD-00051279-WESTPROD00051346) Exhibit 32 July 7, 2020 instruction to carry the tactics and ‘ 00031630-31) Exhibit 33 ” (HOSIERGARO0069161PROD / HURPROD- Michael.j.massa.uwmk@statefarm.com (HOSIERGAR0083539PROD / WESTPROD-00046764) vi April"}, {"d": 73, "p": 7, "t": "Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh, pursuant to 12 O.S. §§ 2004.1(C)(2)(b) and 3237(A)(2), respectfully move the Court for an order overruling the objections of non-party Accenture LLP (“Accenture”) and compelling Accenture to produce all documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ July 2, 2026 Subpoena Duces Tecum. In support, Plaintiffs show the Court as follows: L INTRODUCTION The relevance of Accenture’s work is not an open question. Rather, it is plain on the face of the record and documents produced. On November 25, 2025, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel and ordered State Farm to produce documents concerning the development and implementation of the wind/hail Scheme, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court declined to disturb that ruling. On July 7, 2026, this Court granted the Second Motion to Compel, directed specifically at State Farm’s “industry standards” and its work with Accenture. What remains open is whether Accenture, the consultant that built the machinery, must answer for its own files. In twenty-one pages, Accenture served eight “General Responses,” seventeen “General Objections,” and eleven “Specific” responses that are, word for word, the same paragraph re-typed eleven times. It produced no document, identified no custodian, search term, repository, or dollar of cost, and served no privilege log. Two of those objections are contradicted by the record. Accenture says it was not effectively served because “the subpoena powers of Oklahoma courts stop at the state line,” but the subpoena never crossed the state line: a licensed process server delivered it in Oklahoma City on July 2, 2026. Exhibit 2. Accenture also says it cannot understand terms like “Fire Model Enhancement — Wind/Hail” and “the biggest bucket of opportunity,” though Accenture wrote them, and State Farm’s witness testified that the words came from Accenture."}, {"d": 73, "p": 8, "t": "A consultant may not author the vocabulary of a nationwide claim-handling initiative, invoice more than one million dollars for the work, and then tell an Oklahoma court that it does not know what the words mean. I. GOOD FAITH CERTIFICATION Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3237(A)(2), undersigned counsel certifies that Plaintiffs have in good faith conferred, or attempted to confer, with counsel for Accenture in an effort to secure the requested material without court action. Plaintiffs’ counsel met and conferred with counsel for Accenture and were unable to come to a resolution. Accenture has produced no documents and withdrawn no objection. Ill. A. Plaintiffs Allege FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND a Company-Wide Scheme, Not an Isolated Claim Error. Plaintiffs allege State Farm engaged in a systemic and pervasive Scheme to wrongfully deprive its insureds of coverage on valid wind and hail claims, developed through State Farm’s Wind/Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team (“WHMET”) and driven by arbitrary benchmarks derived from purported “industry standards” for full roof replacement. The Scheme is not a background allegation. It is the claim. B. State Farm Has Defended the Scheme by Invoking Industry Standards, and This Court Has Twice Ordered that Material Produced. State Farm has repeatedly defended the Scheme, in open court, by asserting that its wind/hail tactics were driven by “industry data” and “industry studies” showing that hail of one inch or less and wind of 50 miles per hour or less is “not likely to damage a roof.” Judge Mai’s response was direct: “if you are going to talk about industry standards, you should produce that or else you won’t be able to talk about it, period.” Second Motion to Compel, Ex. 12, Black v. State Farm, CJ-2024-7827, Tr. 36:12-21."}, {"d": 73, "p": 9, "t": "Plaintiffs have twice moved to compel that material. This Court granted the First Motion to Compel on November 14, 2025, Exhibit 5, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court declined to disturb that ruling, State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. The Honorable Amy Palumbo, No. 123,812 (Okla. June 23, 2026), Exhibit 6. The Second Motion to Compel was directed in substantial part to Interrogatory Nos. 31-34 and Requests for Production Nos. 45-52, which expressly seek “the role of Accenture, or any of its affiliates,” “Accenture’s . . . derivation of the industry standards,” and the “contracts, agreements, and/or scopes of work between State Farm and Accenture.” This Court granted that motion on July 7, 2026. Exhibit 4. Cc. Plaintiffs Served Accenture in Oklahoma City, and Accenture Produced Nothing. On July 2, 2026, Plaintiffs issued a Subpoena Duces Tecum to Accenture LLP, 525 NW 11th St., Oklahoma City, OK 73103, with eleven document requests and a July 17, 2026 return date. Exhibit |. That same day a licensed process server personally served Accenture in Oklahoma City. Exhibit 2 (“Successful Attempt: Jul 2, 2026, 3:51 pm CDT ... received by DEBBIE SHAY”; “Manner of Service: Corporation’). On July 17,2026, Accenture served its Objections and Responses. See Exhibit 3. Accenture produced nothing. It stated, eleven times, that it “is willing to meet and confer.” IV. LEGAL STANDARD The purpose of modern discovery practice is “to promote the discovery of the true facts and circumstances of the controversy, rather than to aid in their concealment,” and the rules governing discovery “are to be given liberal construction.” Boswell v. Schultz, 2007 OK 94, ¥ 14, 175 P.3d 390, 395 (citing State ex rel. Remington Arms Co. v. Powers, 1976 OK 103, 4 4, 552 P.2d 1150). Discovery reaches any non-privileged matter “relevant to any party’s claim or defense, reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and proportional to the needs of the case.” 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1){a)."}, {"d": 73, "p": 10, "t": "The burden rests on the objecting party, Crest Infiniti, II, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, 19 16-17, 174 P.3d 996, 1004, and “[s}pecific facts must be demonstrated to enable such discovery restrictions,” id. at 998; accord YWCA of Okla. City v. Melson, 1997 OK 81, 7 15, 944 P.2d 304, 309. A responding person must do more than “simply recite boilerplate objections such as overbroad, burdensome, oppressive or irrelevant,” and a relevance objection requires a showing that the discovery is “of such marginal relevance that the potential harm . . . would outweigh the ordinary presumption in favor of broad disclosure.” Fed. Ins. Co. v. Indeck Power Equip. Co., 2016 WL 5173402, at *2 (W.D. Okla. 2016). A burden objection requires “facts . . demonstrating that the time or expense involved . . . is unduly burdensome.” Touhy v. Walgreen Co., 2006 WL 1716646, at *1 (W.D. Okla. 2006), aff'd sub nom., 526 F.3d 641 (10th Cir. 2008); accord Haukaas v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2022 WL 1719412, at *2 (D.S.D. 2022) (“mere conclusory objections” are insufficient); Breen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2012 WL 13020744, at *2 (N.D. Okla. 2012). In a bad faith action, “the jury may be shown the entire course of conduct between the parties.” Timmons v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 1982 OK 97, J 33, 653 P.2d 907, 917. The punitive damages statute makes the duration and concealment of the misconduct and the number and level of employees involved proper subjects of proof. 23 O.S. § 9.1. And proportionality turns on statutory factors including “the parties’ relative access to relevant information.” 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1)(a). A subpoena “shall issue from the court where the action is pending, and it may be served at any place within the state,” 12 O.S. § 2004.1(A)(2), and commands production of materials “in the possession, custody or control of that person,” id. § 2004.1(A)(1)(b). If objection is made, the serving party “may . . . move at any time for an order to compel the production.” Jd. §"}, {"d": 73, "p": 11, "t": "2004.1(C)(2)(b). Documents must be produced “as they are kept in the usual course of business or . organize[d] and labelled} . . . to correspond with the categories in the demand.” Id. § 2004.1(D)(1){a). Section 3237 supplies the remedy: “ifa party or witness objects to the inspection or copying of any materials designated in a subpoena issued pursuant to subsection A of Section 2004.1 of this title, the discovering party may move for an order compelling . . . inspection and copying.” 12 O.S. § 3237(A)(2). The same paragraph authorizes the Court to order a privilege log and to conduct in camera review. Jd. Section 2004.1(C)(1) requires the issuing party to “take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense,” a duty Plaintiffs have honored. But that provision protects against undue burden; it confers no right to refuse to look. A non-party that believes a subpoena is overbroad or reaches trade secrets has a remedy: a timely motion to quash or modify under § 2004.1(C)(3), or a motion for protective order under § 3226(C)(1). Accenture filed neither. Vv. A. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES Accenture’s Blanket, Unparticularized Objections Do Not Carry Its Burden And Should Be Overruled in Their Entirety. Accenture’s response regurgitates canned objections without merit. [t asserts seventeen General Objections, states that each “is incorporated into the Specific Objections and Responses . . . whether or not separately set forth therein,” and repeats a single paragraph eleven times with the request language swapped out. Every specific response begins by saying “the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action,” and ends by saying Accenture “is willing to meet and confer.” Between them sits the identical recitation that each Request is “vague and ambiguous,” 99 66, “not relevant,” and “overbroad.”"}, {"d": 73, "p": 12, "t": "Oklahoma law forbids this. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a party resisting discovery “must show more than these blanket statements to satisfy their burden for a protective order,” faulting the objecting parties because they “did not explain” the harm they asserted and because their “filings sought to place the discovery burden on the plaintiffs.” Crest Infiniti, 2007 OK 77, Jf 18-19, 174 P.3d at 1004-05. Accenture never filed that motion, and it has made no better showing. It demonstrated no facts and offered no affidavit. It did not say how many custodians might have responsive documents, what systems would be searched, or what any of it would cost. It did not say whether responsive documents exist. Four specific failures compound the problem: No statement of what is being withheld. A responding person must state whether responsive materials are being withheld on the basis ofan objection. Accenture’s response is silent, leaving this Court unable to distinguish between “we have nothing” and “we have everything and will not give it to you.” No privilege log. Accenture asserts the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and a “common-interest privilege” in General Objection 13 and in its response to Request 6, but served no log describing any withheld document. A claim of privilege “shall be made expressly and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the documents .. . sufficient to enable the demanding party to contest the claim.” 12 O.S. § 2004.1(D)(2)(a); see 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(5)(a). Where a party “or a nonparty responding to a subpoena” fails to serve a log that is necessary to adjudicate the claim, the district court “shall order” one. Scott v. Peterson, 2005 OK 84, 4 16, 126 P.3d 1232, 1237. And a “blanket assertion of the privilege” unsupported by facts will not do; the objecting person “must show that particular documents . . . are privileged.” Id. § 7, 126 P.3d at 1234-35. Because Accenture asserted privilege without identifying what is withheld, the Court should require a privilege log before adjudicating any privilege claim."}, {"d": 73, "p": 13, "t": "No good-faith search. Accenture reserved the right to conduct nothing beyond “a reasonable and diligent search of readily accessible files,” General Objection 9, without stating that it conducted even that. No motion to quash and no motion for protective order. If Accenture believed the Subpoena imposed undue burden or reached trade secrets, the statute told it what to do: file a “timely motion” to quash or modify under 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C)(3)(a)-(b), or move for a protective order under 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(1). It filed neither, and so has never submitted those contentions to the Court for adjudication. An objection asserted to every request without differentiation, supported by no facts, and paired with no production is not an objection. It is a refusal that fails to carry Accenture’s burden. B. This Court May Enforce a Subpoena Served on Accenture in Oklahoma City. 1. Accenture Was Served in Oklahoma, and the Return Is Presumptively Valid. A subpoena issued by this Court “may be served at any place within the state,” 12 O.S. § 2004.1(A)(2), “by delivering or mailing a copy thereof to such person,” id. § 2004.1(B)(1). The swom Affidavit of Service establishes that Chad Schultheis, a licensed process server, personally served Accenture LLP on July 2, 2026 at 3:51 p.m. CDT in Oklahoma City by delivering the Subpoena to Debbie Shay, the person authorized to accept service, with the manner recorded as “Corporation.” Exhibit 2; see 12 O.S. § 2004(C)(1)(c)(3). That return is presumptively valid, and Accenture bears both the burden of rebutting it and a demanding standard of proof. A process server’s signature “constitutes a prima facia, but rebuttable, presumption of proper service,” which the opposing party “must overcome . . . by presentation of evidence.” SMS Financial L.L.C. v. Ragland, 1995 OK CIV APP 160, 4 19, 918 P.2d 400, 403-04. Such a return “requires clear and convincing proof to overcome it,” Jones v. Jones, 1915 OK 763, § 0, 154 P. 1136 (syllabus), and may not be “contradicted except upon the"}, {"d": 73, "p": 14, "t": "most clear, cogent, and convincing evidence,” Okmulgee Producing & Refining Co. v. PilsbryBecker Engineering & Supply Co., 1923 OK 154, § 0, 214 P. 185 (syllabus). Accenture has offered nothing, let alone clear and convincing evidence. It submitted no affidavit. It does not say that Ms. Shay was unauthorized to accept service, that it does not maintain the Oklahoma City location, or that the Subpoena never reached it. It says only, in six words, that “effective service ... has not occurred.” 2. Craft And Lovett Support Plaintiffs, Not Accenture. Accenture relies on Craft v. Chopra, 1995 OK CIV APP 135, 907 P.2d 1109, and Lovett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,2001 OK CIV APP 9, 18 P.3d 387, for the proposition that “the subpoena powers of Oklahoma courts stop at the state line.” Read, both confirm Plaintiffs’ position. Craft turned on the place of service. The plaintiff there sought production “by certified mail service of a subpoena issued by the Oklahoma County Court Clerk on SGH in Texas,” and SGH was “a Texas entity with no contacts with Oklahoma.” 1995 OK CIV APP 135, §] 3, 7, 907 P.2d at 1111. The sentence Accenture quotes is not Craft’s own; it is language Craft quoted from a Maryland decision, and it speaks of “the subpoena powers of the State,” not of Oklahoma courts. Craft therefore stands for a proposition Plaintiffs accept: an Oklahoma subpoena must be served in Oklahoma. Here it was. Its rule is satisfied, not offended, and its holding, sanctions against a party who mailed a subpoena to Texas, has no application to a subpoena hand-delivered in Oklahoma County. Lovett is not a subpoena case at all. It is a forum non conveniens appeal by a plaintiff injured at a Wal-Mart in San Jose, California, who sued in Okmulgee County, and the sentence Accenture quotes comes from the discussion of compulsory process for unwilling California witnesses. 200! OK CIV APP 9, 9 1-2, 11-12, 18 P.3d at 387, 389. The very next sentence states the rule that governs here: subpoenas “may be served at any place in the state.” Jd."}, {"d": 73, "p": 15, "t": "3. The UIDDA Governs Foreign Subpoenas and Has No Application Here. Accenture invokes the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act, 12 O.S. § 3250 et seq. The UIDDA is the mechanism by which a subpoena issued in one state is domesticated for service in another; it facilitates interstate discovery, it does not immunize national companies from the courts of states where they do business. Section 2004.1 says so textually: its special provisions apply only “[i]f the action is pending outside of this state.” 12 O.S. § 2004.1(A)(2)(a)-(c). 4. The Statutory Test Turns on Possession and Control, Not Physical Location. Accenture argues that “no information responsive to the Requests is located in Oklahoma.” That is not the statutory test. A subpoena reaches materials “in the possession, custody or control of that person.” 12 O.S. § 2004.1(A)(1)(b). The statute speaks of control, not geography. Were it otherwise, no national firm could be required to produce anything to the courts of a state where it does business, so long as it kept its servers elsewhere. Cc. The Documents Sought Are Relevant, And This Court Has Already So Held. Relevance is not a close question here. Interrogatory Nos. 31-34 and Requests for Production Nos. 45-52 sought from State Farm the industry standards used in the wind/hail initiative; “the role of Accenture, or any of its affiliates”; “all documents received or produced by Accenture”; documents “relating to Accenture’s . . . derivation of the industry standards”; and “all contracts, agreements, and/or scopes of work between State Farm and Accenture.” The eleven Requests in the Subpoena are the mirror image of the ruling granting that motion, directed to the other side of the same engagement. Nor does Chick-fil-A, Inc. v. Ogden, 2026 OK 13, 589 P.3d 138, assist Accenture. There a trial court compelled nationwide records of dissimilar pedestrian incidents on a request “overly broad on its face,” without requiring any showing of relevance to a claim or defense. /d. J§ 15-16, 589 P.3d at 142. Neither condition exists here: eleven requests directed to one engagement, for"}, {"d": 73, "p": 16, "t": "one client, on one subject are not facially overbroad, and relevance is not merely “readily apparent” but twice adjudicated. Chick-fil-A identifies as properly focused discovery “other incidents of the same type,” id. 14; Plaintiffs seek narrower still, the design file for the very rule applied to the Hursh roof. State Farm has told Oklahoma judges that its wind/hail tactics rested on “industry data,” “industry studies,” and “science.” Having done so, it, and the consultant that supplied the analysis, must produce the material on which the defense rests. Oklahoma bad-faith law permits inquiry into whether State Farm had a reasonable, good-faith basis for reducing or denying benefits, including the information, standards, and valuation methodology on which it relied. See 36 O.S. 1250.5(1)-(2), 1250.7; Christian v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 1977 OK §§ 141, J 12, 577 P.2d 899; Newport v. USAA, 2000 OK 59, § 15, 11 P.3d 190. Critically, State Farm’s own production shows Accenture designed, priced, and justified the Roof Program: State Farm Engaged and Paid Accenture to Define its Wind/Hail Accenture deck dated April 6, 2020, titled (IE Tactics. An ” defines the Fire workstream 2 im. names six Accenture personnel to the team, including Andrew Larsen on Fire, and lists a program total of $1,025,000. Ex. 8 (HURPROD-00023868). Andrew Larsen of Accenture Drafted the Scheme’s Tactics Menu. On April 29, 2020, Loren circu ted I jurisdiction, contractor, damage ° icecitying claim type identification, hail size, and weather/loss (HUR00018776-HUR00018777). On May 11, 2020, he sent Nicole Manduca 10 matching. A Ex. 9 -"}, {"d": 73, "p": 17, "t": "EE: I ©. 10 10200037958; se also Ex. 11 (HURPROD-0008843 I -HURPROD-00088432). Accenture Classified Partial Roof Outcomes as Normal and Full Roof Replacement as an Anomaly. Accenture built a claim-type matrix defining the hi to be expected in the data and the ;ti‘i‘C a. the a” stated normal to be identified against them. P| condition is iii and a higher likelihood of closing the claim without payment. Ex. 12 (HURPROD-00046897); Ex. 13 (HURPROD-00024959); Ex. 14 (HURPROD-00088846). Accenture Priced Full Roof Replacement Reduction in Tens of Millions of Dollars. 55.15 family sets of and 111200030302). second against targets of iil and a. Ex. 12 (HURPROD-00046897); Ex. 16 (HURPROD-00048299). Accenture Recommended Management Approval of Full Roof Replacements. Accenture’: III ck sis RE © ic Ste Foe | and builds the file-level mechanics, including a hi | the claim specialist must use for each damaged slope. Ex. 17 (HURPROD-00089597). Accenture Placed the Roof Work Inside a Five-State Indemnity Reduction Program and Defined Success as Fewer Full Roof Replacements. A May 20, 2020 Accenture status deck places the Fire wind/hail work inside a five-state program across Florida, New York, California, Texas, and Michigan, listing g a gi Texas ‘ ”* and the calculation that ‘"}, {"d": 73, "p": 18, "t": "00026169). Its May 29, 2020 deck states the pilot’s hii Es asa hi ” x. 19 (HURPROD-00091 145). Accenture Delivered a Final Deliverables Package Directly to State Farm’s Claims Leadership. On July 30, 2020, Michael Massa emailed Wensley J. Herbert, Michael Arnold, and Schuyler Schupbach, copying two accenture.com addresses: ‘hi eS NS © = 20 2ch mens wor Ex. 20 (HOSIERGAR0088028PROD / WESTPROD-0005 1253). The atached deck, fF assigned execution effectiveness to State Farm’s Execution OVP and VPOs with accountability for tactic usage and adoption, and proposed a continuing control system of measurement reports, claim prioritization, early-signal monitoring, and root-cause analysis to define new tactics. Ex. 21 (HOSIERGARO0088031PROD-HOSIERGAR0088034PROD WESTPROD-00051256-WESTPROD-00051259); Ex. 21 / (HOSIERGAR0088035PROD- HOSIERGAR0088053PROD / WESTPROD-0005 1260- WESTPROD-0005 1278). Months earlier Massa had forwarded (WESTPROD-00047025). the Accenture-authored hii. Ex. 22 Massa used an assigned State Farm email account to organize work, assign follow-up, drive cadence, shape the Fire root-cause framework, and mobilize State Farm personnel around the accelerated wind/hail program. Massa functioned as embedded Accenture leadership inside State Farm’s State Model work. See Ex. 33 (HOSIERGAR0083539PROD WESTPROD-00046764). 12 /"}, {"d": 73, "p": 19, "t": "Accenture’s Work for State Farm Did Not End with the 2020 Engagement. The July 30, 2020 email announced the conclusion of hi. Massa wrote that he would hi not the end of the relationship: to make sure the State Farm team could carry the work forward. Ex. 20 (HOSIERGAR0088028PROD / WESTPROD-00051253). A later State Farm summary sats, onder SS,” an 2x. 23 (WEST00152589). Requests 2, 3, 4, and 9 reach that later workstream. Accenture Supplied the hii State Farm’s internal materials ES 23 state that Benchmark State Farm Repeated for Years. it was hi © 2: b:scine A Fe I sourced on the face of the documents to Accenture Consulting Services. Ex. 24 (HUR00029498); (HUR00030408); Ex. 26 Ex. 25 (HURPROD-0005 1539). In October 2021 Kathy Ress asked how State Farm’s year-to-date total-roof percentages compared against it, Ex. 27 (HUR00075111), and Scott Welsh directed that the wind/hail slide be updated, Ex. 28 (HUR00015416). State Farm Applied the Accenture Tactics to Oklahoma Claims, Including the Hurshes’ Claim. State Farm’s materials state that wind/hail quality tactics were implemented in January 2021 hii after a six-month approach in Texas, with team-manager approval required for full roof replacements on damage potentially caused by small hail and light wind. Ex. 29 (HUR00080563). The Hursh claim was handled under those rules. State Farm’s Own Executive Review Reported the Roof Tactics As i. An April 2021 Quarterly Business Review captioned ‘ee Fs listed as hii 13 execution of Fire Claims Quality Plan"}, {"d": 73, "p": 20, "t": "ee the same controls Accenture recommended. Its expense pages reported a Fo SS: 20 (WEST00004173-WEST00004174); Ex. 17 (HURPROD-00089597). State Farm’s Witness Attributed the hi Accenture. Nicole Manduca, the WHMET Language to team leader, was questioned about a June 29, 2020 communication sin: Re” She testified that Accenture is the entity who developed the theory for State Farm that their ;—t—‘aSsSY ‘x D. meant nivit 7, Manduca Dep. 99-100, 115-116. Accenture Cannot Claim Not to Understand the Vocabulary It Wrote. Accenture objects that it cannot understand ‘Ee 8st); I ES <0: 5: e013 2 (Request 10). A responding person may not manufacture ambiguity out of its own vocabulary. If Accenture required a definition, the remedy was to ask; it instead asserted the objection eleven times and produced nothing. Each term appears in Accenture’s own documents: HE ©. 18 (HURPROD-00026169); Ex. 19 (HURPROD-00091 145). Its own file names use the same vocabulary. Ex. 20 (HOSIERGAR0088028PROD / Nis WESTPROD-0005 1253). 120 0» tne fae of State Farm's 14"}, {"d": 73, "p": 21, "t": "documents to Accenture Consulting Services. Ex. 24 (HUR00029498); Accenture’s own ti‘ Ex. 27 (HUR00075111). page quantifies a $169 million Texas hi. Ex. 18 (HURPROD-000261 69). _______.” hi Nicole Manduca testified that the phrase meant and that the words came from Accenture. Manduca Dep. 115-116. quantifies a $169 million Texas hi and states thi ee” x. 18 (HURPROD-00026169). i.” i Accenture’s tables define the acronym on their face. Ex. 16 (HURPROD-00048299). E. Accenture May Not Deflect to State Farm, Which Disclaims Both the Relevance and the Ability to Produce. Accenture’s lead objection to every Request is that “the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action.” That objection fails for four reasons. First, Plaintiffs sought it from State Farm twice and had to move to compel both times. The objection presumes a cooperative party while the record shows the opposite. Second, State Farm has taken the contrary position. In response to Interrogatory No. 32, State Farm objected that “Plaintiffs have not established—or even alleged that Accenture played any role in the handling of the claim at issue,” and objected “to the extent it seeks documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce.” Third, and dispositively, categories of the Subpoena seek documents State Farm does not have or has not produced studies, methodology, in reviewable and derivation form. Requests underlying 15 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8 seek the industry data, the “Industry Best” benchmark, material"}, {"d": 73, "p": 22, "t": "Accenture assembled and never handed over. Request 9 seeks the contracts and scopes of work, and the record discloses at least two distinct Accenture workstreams (Ex. 23, WEST00152589). A consultant’s workpapers, source data, and internal analyses are not in its client’s files. State Farm’s own authority is in accord: a party cannot be compelled to produce documents held by a third party that it lacks “the legal right to obtain . .. on demand.” Morecraft v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2010 WL 1257579, at *3 (N.D. Okla. 2010). The record proves the point rather than assuming it. Accenture’s P| catalogues analysis it did not complete ‘i AccuWeather wind-speed and refreshed EagleView (HOSIERGAR0088029PROD-HOSIERGAR0088030PROD). over as a compressed archive (HOSIERGAR0088028PROD whose contents the including dwelling data. Ex. 21 Its final work product was handed production / WESTPROD-00051253). deck does not expose. Ex. 20 Twenty-three Accenture files appear only as native-format placeholders, identified by Bates number and unavailable in substance. Ex. 31 (WESTPROD-00051324-WESTPROD-0005 1346). And Plaintiffs have located no executed engagement letter beyond the April 6, 2020 deck, and no data from which the hi frequency was derived. Fourth, the objection is unverified. Accenture does not state that it searched, that its documents duplicate State Farm’s, or that it possesses nothing unique. That is a factual proposition the objecting person must establish with more than “blanket statements.” Crest Infiniti, 2007 OK 77, 4 17-19, 174 P.3d at 1004-05. F. The Subpoena Is Not Overbroad in Time or Geography. The January t, 2018 to present period is tailored to the conduct at issue. Accenture’s State Model work was underway by early 2020 and had produced Texas impact analyses by May 2020; the tactics went to all states in January 2021; and the Accenture-sourced 16 benchmark was still"}, {"d": 73, "p": 23, "t": "circulating to State Farm leadership in October 2021. A start date two years before the engagement captures its formation; “the present” captures its continuation. Massa said he would ‘i HEME (Ex. 20, HOSIERGAR0088028PROD), and a later State Farm summary records a separate hi initiative (Ex. 23, WEST00152589). Where a plaintiff alleges an ongoing scheme, the discovery period must be long enough to show it. 23 O.S. § 9.1. Accenture objects, eleven times, that the Requests are “not limited to State Farm claims handling in Oklahoma.” Scheme designed That in a Texas misapprehends the claim. Plaintiffs allege pilot and deployed nationally, including then an enterprise-wide in Oklahoma. Accenture’s own documents make the national frame explicit: the five-state hi | analysis (Ex. 18, HURPROD-00026169); ‘Tx. | deck the July 7, 2020 instruction to carry the tactics 32, HOSIERGAR0069161PROD); and the ‘A transmitted California State Model analysis HOSIERGAR0088054PROD-HOSIERGAR0088121PROD). State Farm implemented tactics * with the (Ex. 31, those ” Ex. 29, HUR00080563. Accenture leans on Young v. Macy, 2001 OK 4, 4 13, 21 P.3d 44, 47, for the proposition that the duty to avoid undue burden or expense “is higher when the subpoena is directed to a non- party.” Plaintiffs do not quarrel with that sentence. But Young is a cost-allocation case: a district attorney subpoenaed a twelve-year-old child, the child complied, and the only dispute was who should pay the $664.50 charged to record her testimony. /d. §§ 2-4, 13, 16-17, 21 P.3d at 45-48. Young thus stands for cost-shifting, not refusal, and requires a fact-specific inquiry into whether an expense is actually “undue.” The Court held the $664.50 there was “not the kind of expense that is routinely or normally absorbed by a non-party witness who is subject to a subpoena.” /d. | 15, 21 P.3d at 48. Accenture has offered no facts permitting that comparison. To 17"}, {"d": 73, "p": 24, "t": "the extent Young applies, it is satisfied: Plaintiffs offered to reimburse the reasonable cost of reproduction, Exhibit 1, and do not oppose an order allocating any undue expense to Plaintiffs. Accenture has shown nothing. It has not identified a single custodian, system, or archive, estimated a document population, an hour, or a dollar, or submitted an affidavit from anyone with knowledge. Its position, stated in General Objection 3, is that “[a]ny resulting burden prior to the resolution of this motion is premature, may be rendered unnecessary, and is therefore unduly burdensome.” That is circular, and Oklahoma law requires more than “blanket statements.” Crest Infiniti, 2007 OK 77, § 18, 174 P.3d at 1004-05; accord Touhy, 2006 WL 1716646, at *1. If Accenture substantiates significant expense, the Court can condition production on reasonable cost protection under § 2004.1(C)(2)(b). Nor is the Subpoena disproportionate on its face. It is directed to one consulting engagement, for one client, on one subject: wind and hail roof claims. Accenture knows which of its personnel worked on it, because its own deck names them. Ex. 8 (HURPROD-00023868). G. The Protective Order Already Answers Accenture’s Confidentiality Concern. Accenture objects that the Requests seek “confidential commercial, business, financial, or competitively sensitive information, trade secrets, or any other proprietary information,” and states that it “will only produce documents subject to a protective order.” The Discovery Code answers that concern with an order, not with silence: § 3226(C)(1)\\(g) authorizes an order that confidential commercial information “not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way,” and § 2004.1(C)(3)(b) permits production “upon specified conditions.” The condition is already in place. This Court entered a Protective Order on December 11, 2025, and Plaintiffs are willing to stipulate that Accenture may designate its productions thereunder. Plaintiffs’ substantial need is plain: the industry data underlying the benchmark exists nowhere else. 18"}, {"d": 73, "p": 25, "t": "H. The Court Should Award Plaintiffs Their Reasonable Expenses. “If the motion is granted, the court shall, after opportunity for hearing, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion . . . to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney fees, unless the court finds that the opposition to the motion was substantially justified.” 12 O.S. § 3237(A)(4). Accenture produced nothing, served no privilege log, filed no motion to quash, and asserted a jurisdictional objection contradicted by a sworn return of service. VI. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF Accenture was paid more than one million dollars to define State Farm’s wind and hail tactics, to quantify what reducing full roof replacements was worth, and to recommend the management-review control that now sits between an Oklahoma policyholder and a new roof. It was served in Oklahoma City, and it has produced nothing. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter an Order: . Overruling Accenture LLP’s General Responses, General Objections, and Specific Objections in their entirety; . Compelling Accenture LLP to produce all documents responsive to Requests for Production Nos. | through 11 within fourteen (14) days, “as they are kept in the usual course of business or . . . organize[d] and label[ed] . . . to correspond with the categories in the demand,” 12 O.S. § 2004.1(D)(1)(a); . Requiring Accenture LLP, to the extent it withholds any document on a claim of privilege, to serve within fourteen (14) days a privilege log pursuant to 12 O.S. §§ 3237(A)(2) and 2004.1(D)(2)(a), stating as to each document the author, the recipients, the date, the length, the nature or intended purpose, and the basis for the objection; 19"}, {"d": 73, "p": 26, "t": "Requiring Accenture LLP to state, in writing and under oath, the custodians and sources searched and the search terms or methodology used; Directing that any confidential material be produced under the Protective Order entered December 11, 2025, with Accenture permitted to designate its production thereunder; Awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred in bringing this Motion pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3237(A)(4); and Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah E. Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com ~and~ Patrick F. Collogan, OBA #30529 Biby Law Firm 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 918-574-8458 888-572-8263 (fax) pat@bibylaw.com 20 |"}, {"d": 73, "p": 27, "t": "~and~ R. Ryan Deligans, OBA #19793 Andrew M. Gunn, OBA #19470 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102-2610 Telephone: (405)235-9584 Facsimile: (405)235-0551 rdeligan@dlb.net agunn@dlb.net 21"}, {"d": 73, "p": 28, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 10\" day of September, 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Amy Sherry Fischer, OBA No. 16651 FOLIART, HUFF, OTTAWAY & BOTTOM Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 201 Robert S. Kerr Avenue, 12th Floor Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Telephone: (405) 232-4633 110 N. Elgin Avenue, Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) Fax: (405) 232-3462 amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com cmcneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR NON-PARTY ACCENTURE LLP -andLance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Blake Sonne 22"}, {"d": 73, "p": 29, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY COUNTY HURSH, Plaintiffs, v, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo Defendants. SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO: ACCENTURE, LLP 525 NW 11th St. Oklahoma City, OK 73103 YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and produce for inspection and copying of all documents and tangible things in your possession, custody and control, as described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto on or before July 17, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. You may produce the requested documents via mail to Whitten Burrage, 512 N. Broadway Avenue, Suite 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 or via emai] to Blake Sonne at bsonne‘@:whittenburragelaw.com. The reasonable cost of reproduction will be reimbursed to you promptly upon your submission of an invoice for the same. In order to allow objections to the production of documents and things to be filed, you should not produce them until the date specified in this Subpoena, and if an objection is filed, until the Court rules on the objection."}, {"d": 73, "p": 30, "t": "HEREOF FAIL NOT UNDER PENALTY OF LAW. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, | have hereunto set my hand as an officer of the District Court of said County this 2\" day of July, 2026. Respectfully submitted, Blhae Sonne Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 3526] Bradley W. Beskin, OBA No. 35314 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@:whittenburragelaw.com bbeskin‘@iwhittenburragelaw.com jsanders‘@:whittenburragelaw.com jdenne‘@iwhittenburragelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF A-2"}, {"d": 73, "p": 31, "t": "“way The term “Document” or “Documents” means any written, typed, recorded, pictorial, graphic or printed matter, or electronically-stored matter, in its entirety, including any addenda, supplements, amendments, revisions, exhibits and appendices thereto, in its original form and copies thereof bearing notations and all earlier drafts, memoranda or other written information not on the original including but not limited to email and attachments thereto, books, pamphlets, notebooks, correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, interoffice and intraoffice communications, studies, analyses, results of investigations, reviews, agreements, working papers, statistical records, desk calendars, appointment books, time sheets, graphic or aural representations of any kind (including without limitation, recordings, motion photographs, charts, microfiche, microfilm, pictures, plans, drawings, surveys), and videotape, electronic, mechanical, magnetic, optical or electric records or representations of any kind (including without limitation, computer files and programs, tapes, cassettes, discs, recordings), including metadata, computer input data, computer output data, computer runs, computer-stored information (whether printed or not) and computer programs necessary therefor, computer, work sheets or work papers or other materials, including all such defined Documents submitted to accountants or attorneys or others, or submitted by accountants or others to you, or matter or things similar to any of the foregoing. Requests for documents (and communications and correspondence) from “Accenture” shall include their respective employees and agents. “Communication” includes emails, communication regardless of format. A-3 text messages, and all other types of"}, {"d": 73, "p": 32, "t": "B. Production of Documents: . Produce the documents and correspondence of the industry standards and/or other standards or benchmarks on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims that You (Accenture LLP and any of your affiliates) relied on and/or produced and/or utilized in any way with respect to the work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January |, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence of Your work on State Farm’s Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, State Farm’s Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives from January 1, 2018 until the present. Produce Your files, including reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements with third- parties, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis regarding the industry standards on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims You relied on and/or produced and/or utilized with respect to the work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January |, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence received or produced by You for consulting or other work on industry standards or benchmarks on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including but not limited to reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis by You and/or any other third party from January 1, 2018 until the present. Produce the documents and correspondence of State Farm’s performance on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims in relation to the industry standards outlined in Topics 1-4, including internal quality improvement and/or lowering State Farm’s percentage of approvals for full roof replacements to the industry standard and/or to a related benchmark and/or the ratio of full roof replacements to partial roof replacements on wind/hail claims from January |, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence ensuring that any industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims identified in Topics 1-5 were accurate, vetted, and otherwise reflected actual claims and reliable data with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents, reports, data used, models, output relied upon, and other documentation that State Farm supplied to You, and/or any other third party for any consulting or other work on the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents, reports, data used, models, and other documentation on Your derivation of the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. Produce the contracts, agreements, and/or scopes of work between State Farm and Accenture (or any of its affiliates) that include work on wind/hail claims and/or full roof A-4"}, {"d": 73, "p": 33, "t": "replacements on wind/hail claims with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. 10. Produce the documents referring to full roof replacements as the biggest bucket of opportunity for State Farm and/or the FME Wind/Hail from January 1, 2018 until the present. 11. Produce the documents on indemnity and/or potential reductions in indemnity on full roof replacements on Wind/Hail claims on State Farm’s Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail from January |, 2018 until the present. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE & NOTICE OF SUBPOENA I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of July, 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) cemeneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com -andLance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Bhake A-5 Donne"}, {"d": 73, "p": 34, "t": "AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Case: CJ-20252626 Job: 16281319 oe County: OKLAHOMA, OK Court: IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA Defendant / Respondent: STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff / Petitioner: BILLY & LACY HURSH MARK D. WELTY; AND MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. Received by: For: Oklahoma AccuServe Bryan Smith and Associates, Inc. : ; To be served upon: ACCENTURE, LLP |, Chad Schultheis, being duly sworn, depose and say: | am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action, and that within the boundaries of the state where service was effected. | was authorized by law to make service of the documents and informed said person of the contents herein Recipient Name / Address: DEBBIE SHAY, 525 NORTHWEST Manner of Service: Jul 2, 2026, 3:51 pm COT Corporation, Documents: SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM; 11TH STREET, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73103 EXHIBIT “A” (Received Jul 2, 2026 at 1:35pm CDT) Additlonal Comments: ¥) Successful Attempt:jul 2, 2026, 3:51 pm CDT at 525 NORTHWEST 11TH STREET, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73103 received by DEBBIE SHAY. Age: 50°S; Ethnicity: Caucasian; Gender: Female; Weight: 190-200; Height: 5'S\"; Hair: Blond; Other: GLASSES.; Subscribed and sworn to before me by the affiant who is . personally known to me. 07/03/2026 Chad Schulthels PSS-2024-11 Oklahoma AccuServe 705 $ Mustang Rd Ste 294 Yukon, OK 73099 Date — ad dy Essie schuritcg —— + < x fee SCHULTHEIS ! Patan / ) _ NOTARK RauBidg Expire: : On. STATE OF OKLAHOMA. ° . Sommission # 2400a326 :"}, {"d": 73, "p": 35, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY SS BILLY & LACY HURSH, eee SS Plaintiffs, vs. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. Case No. CJ-2025-2626 NON-PARTY ACCENTURE LLP’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Pursuant to the Oklahoma Discovery Code, 12 O.S. § 3226 et seq., and 12 0.8. § 2004.1, and all applicable rules and orders of this Court, Non-Party Accenture LLP (“Accenture”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby objects and responds to Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh’s (“Plaintiffs”) July 2, 2026 Subpoena Duces Tecum Requests collectively the “Subpoena”) served pursuant to Hursh v. State for Production (‘Requests,” Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al. (the “Action’). General Response: 1. Non-Party Accenture’s responses to the Requests are made to the best of its current knowledge, information, and belief. Non-Party Accenture reserves the right to supplement or amend any of its responses should future investigation indicate that such supplementation or amendment is necessary. 2. Non-Party Accenture’s responses to the Requests are confidential and made solely for the purposes of and in relation to this Action. Each response is given subject to all appropriate EXHIBIT 3"}, {"d": 73, "p": 36, "t": "objections (including, but not limited to, objections concerning privilege, competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety, and admissibility). any time. All objections are reserved and may be interposed at Non-Party Accenture will only produce documents subject to a protective order that fully covers Non-Party Accenture’s confidentiality interests in this matter. 3. Non-Party Accenture’s responses are based on its understanding that Plaintiffs seek only information and documents that are within Non-Party Accenture’s possession, custody, and control. 4, Any production of documents that Non-Party Accenture may make is made without waiving, or intending to waive, any privilege or other applicable protection or any future grounds for objection concerning the use or admissibility of the documents. Nor shall the inadvertent production of any privileged document be deemed to be a waiver of any applicable privilege or protection with respect to that document, any other document, or with respect to the subject matter of such document. 5. Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth into each and every Specific Response. repeat a General Objection. From time to time, a Specific Response may The failure to include a General Objection in any Specific Response shall not be interpreted as a waiver of any General Objection to that response. 6. the Requests Nothing contained in these Responses and Objections or provided in response to consists of, or should be construed as, an admission relating to the accuracy, relevance, existence, or nonexistence of any alleged facts, information, or documents referenced in any Request."}, {"d": 73, "p": 37, "t": "7. Subject to Non-Party Accenture’s objections set forth herein, and without waiving them, Non-Party Accenture reserves the right to produce documents with certain confidential, privileged, or immaterial and unnecessary information redacted. 8. Non-Party Accenture reserves the right to raise challenges regarding the jurisdictional limits of the Oklahoma courts, including limits on the ability of the Court to order out-of-state non-party discovery by Non-Party Accenture. Oklahoma Courts have held that they do not have jurisdiction of enforce out-of-state subpoenas. See Craft v. Chopra, 1995 OK CIV APP 135, 4 8, 907 P.2d 1109, 1112; Lovett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2001 OK CIV APP 9, ¥ 12, 18 P.3d 387, 389 (finding that “the subpoena powers of Oklahoma courts stop at the state line.”). The Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act—adopted by Oklahoma in 2021 (12 O.S. § 3250 et seq.) and adopted in Illinois -- the home state of Non-Party Accenture (Illinois Public Act 099-0079, effective 1/1/2016) -- states that the law of the discovery state is controlling because of its authority to protect its own citizens. Non-Party Accenture is an Illinois resident and NonParty to this Action and the Court does not have jurisdiction to compel Non-Party Accenture's compliance with an out-of-state subpoena. General Objections: Non-Party Accenture makes the following General Objections to Plaintiffs’ Requests. Each of these General Objections is incorporated into the Specific Objections and Responses set forth below, whether or not separately set forth therein. 1. Non-Party Accenture objects to the Requests, including each specific Request therein, to the extent they seek to impose obligations that exceed the scope of permissible discovery under Oklahoma law, the Local Rules, and all applicable rules and orders of this Court."}, {"d": 73, "p": 38, "t": "2. Non-Party Accenture objects to the Subpoena in its entirety on the grounds that effective service on Non-Party Accenture has not occurred. 3. Accenture is a non-party to this litigation and objects to each Request to the extent that it seeks documents that can equally or more readily be obtained from Defendant State Farm, or to the extent the documents sought are unduly cumulative or duplicative of documents or information already requested or produced in this Action. There is no need for Non-Party Accenture to search for and, if located in Accenture’s possession, produce documents that can be obtained from Defendant State Farm. This is particularly true as Non-Party Accenture understands that document requests have already been served on Defendant State Farm that seek the same information sought from Accenture. See e.g., 12 O.S. §2004.1(C)(1)(“A party or an attorney responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena.”). The Supreme Court of Oklahoma has set forth that “the duty to avoid undue burden or expense on a person subject to a subpoena exists in all situations—and that the duty is higher when the subpoena is directed to a non-party.” Young v. Macy, 2001 OK 4, ¢ 13, 21 P.3d 44, 47, as corrected (Jan. 23, 2001) (emphasis added). The burden is particularly undue given that Non-Party Accenture did not perform any work regarding the homeowner claim at issue, Non-Party Accenture did not perform any work related to this Action in Oklahoma, no information responsive to the Requests is located in Oklahoma, and any work necessary to assess whether Non-Party Accenture is in possession of responsive material would not take place in Oklahoma. Any resulting burden prior to the resolution of this motion is premature, may be rendered unnecessary, and is therefore unduly burdensome."}, {"d": 73, "p": 39, "t": "4. Non-Party Accenture objects to the Requests and each specific Request therein, to the extent they: (i) seek documents or information that are not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses in this action; (ii) impose a burden disproportionate to the needs of the case; (iii) seek documents or information beyond the scope of permissible discovery; (iv) are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative; or (v) seek information that is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. 5. Non-Party Accenture objects to the Requests, including each specific Request therein, to the extent they seek documents or information (i) not within the possession, custody, or control of Non-Party Accenture; (ii) not obtainable at this time after reasonable investigation or diligent inquiry; (iii) not reasonably accessible to Non-Party Accenture or no longer in Non-Party Accenture’s possession, custody or control and under which Accenture has no obligation to maintain; (iv) as readily available to Plaintiff or Defendant State Farm as to Non-Party Accenture, (v) already produced by or requested from the parties in this action; (vi) already produced by or requested from other non-parties in this action; or (vii) that is public, on the grounds that such Requests are unduly burdensome. 6. Non-Party Accenture objects to each Request to the extent it purports to impose upon Non-Party Accenture a duty to provide or ascertain information in the possession of third parties on the grounds that such information is not within Non-Party Accenture’s possession, custody, or control. 7. foundation, Non-Party Accenture objects to each Request to the extent it is argumentative, lacks or incorporates allegations and assertions that are disputed or erroneous. By responding and objecting to the Request, Non-Party Accenture does not admit the correctness of such assertions."}, {"d": 73, "p": 40, "t": "8. Non-Party Accenture objects to the Requests and each specific Request therein, to the extent they are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and/or unduly burdensome. 9. Non-Party Accenture objects to the Requests, including each specific Request therein, to the extent they purport to impose an obligation to conduct anything beyond a reasonable and diligent search of readily accessible files (including documents reasonably would be expected to be found. electronic files) where responsive Any Requests that seek to require Non- Party Accenture to go beyond a reasonable search of readily accessible centrally located files of individuals whom it reasonably believes may have relevant documents are overbroad and unduly burdensome. 10. Non-Party Accenture objects to the Requests to the extent that they are redundant or duplicative of other specific Requests. 11. Non-Party Accenture objects to the Requests to the extent that any of them require Accenture to produce entire documents where only a portion of a document would contain relevant information, or that requires Accenture to produce proprietary information or information that is subject to a right of privacy and/or privilege. 12. Non-Party Accenture reserves the right to withhold documents that are subject to a protective order, or that were filed under seal in any proceeding, pending court orders permitting their production. 13. Non-Party Accenture objects to the Requests to the extent they seek information, documents, and/or materials protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the workproduct doctrine, the common-interest privilege, and/or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or protection. Specific objections on the grounds of privilege are provided for emphasis and clarity only, and the absence of a specific objection should not be interpreted as evidence that Non-Party"}, {"d": 73, "p": 41, "t": "Accenture does not object to a Request on the basis of an applicable privilege. The inadvertent disclosure of any documents subject to such privilege or protection is not intended to relinquish any privilege or protection and shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any applicable privilege or protection. document Non-Party Accenture reserves the right to demand that Plaintiff return to it any inadvertently produced. immediately return or destroy any Plaintiff shall, upon the request of Non-Party Accenture, such documents inadvertently produced. Further, upon Plaintiff's discovery of what may be a privileged document produced by Non-Party Accenture, Plaintiff shall immediately inform Non-Party Accenture in writing. 14. Non-Party Accenture objects to each Request to the extent it calls for a legal opinion or conclusion. 15. | Non-Party Accenture objects to the Requests to the extent that none of the terms are defined and certain words or phrases may have more than one commonly understood meaning, or Non-Party Accenture cannot reasonably ascertain the meaning of the Request. 16. Non-Party Accenture objects to the Requests and each specific Request therein, to the extent they seek confidential commercial, business, financial, or competitively sensitive information, trade secrets, or any other proprietary information to Non-Party Accenture, respective employees, its its clients, and its business partners, including information subject to confidentiality agreements with third parties. Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Requests and each specific Request therein, to the extent that they seek to require Non-Party Accenture to produce any document containing the private, confidential, or privileged information of nonparties, including, but not limited to, third-party business or technical information and/or user or consumer personal information, which Non-Party Accenture is under an obligation not to disclose."}, {"d": 73, "p": 42, "t": "17. Non-Party Accenture’s responses to the Requests are made solely for the purpose of, and in relation to, the above-captioned action. presently known to Non-Party Accenture These Responses following a reasonably are based on information diligent and good-faith investigation. This diligent and good-faith investigation is continuing, and Non-Party Accenture’s responses contained herein are subject to clarification, modification, or amendment as additional facts are ascertained. Specific Objections and Responses: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Produce the documents and correspondence of the industry standards and/or other standards or benchmarks on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims that You (Accenture LLP and any of your affiliates) relied on and/or produced and/or utilized in any way with respect to the work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference its General Objections. Non-Party Accenture objects to this Request because the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action. Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to its use of the phrase “the documents and correspondence of the industry standards” and undefined terms “industry standards and/or other standards or benchmarks.” Non- Party Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or proportionate to the needs of the case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly burdensome"}, {"d": 73, "p": 43, "t": "and oppressive, particularly on a non-party, as the Request seeks discovery outside the State of Oklahoma and spans an overbroad and effectively unlimited period from January 1, 2018 through “the present” that bears no relationship to the claims or defenses at issue, as the Request seeks “the documents and correspondence” “of the industry standards and/or other standards or benchmarks” that Non-Party Accenture “relied on and/or produced and/or utilized in any way” with respect to work performed for or on behalf of State Farm, which is not reasonably related to Plaintiff's insurance claim or any Oklahoma claims and is not limited to State Farm claims handling in Oklahoma (emphasis added). Non-Party Accenture is willing to meet and confer regarding this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Produce the documents and correspondence of Your work on State Farm’s Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, State Farm’s Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives from January 1, 2018 until the present. RESPONSE AND OBJECTION Non-Party Accenture TO REQUEST incorporates by FOR PRODUCTION reference its General NO. 2: Objections. Non-Party Accenture objects to this Request because the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action. Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to its use of the ambiguous phrase “[p]roduce the documents and correspondence of Your work” and undefined, but capitalized terms “State Farm’s Fire Model Enhancement- Wind/Hail,” “the “Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team,” “Hail Focus Initiative,” and “Hail Initiative,” as well as undefined term “any hail quality focus initiatives.” Non-Party"}, {"d": 73, "p": 44, "t": "Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or proportionate to the needs of the case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly burdensome and oppressive, particularly on a non-party, as the Request seeks discovery outside the State of Oklahoma and spans an overbroad and effectively unlimited period from January 1, 2018 through “the present” that bears no relationship to the claims or defenses at issue, as the Request seeks “the documents and correspondence” relating to work related to fire, wind, or hail insurance policies, which is not reasonably related to Plaintiff's insurance claim or any Oklahoma claims and is not limited to State Farm claims handling in Oklahoma. Non-Party Accenture is willing to meet and confer regarding this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Produce Your files, including reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements with thirdparties, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis regarding the industry standards on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims You relied on and/or produced and/or utilized with respect to the work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference its General Objections. Non-Party Accenture objects to this Request because the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action. Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to its use of the terms “analyses,” Etsy “analytics and data,” Fours “results and/or analysis” “utilized” and further undefined terms “industry standards on wind/hail claims.” 10 Non-Party"}, {"d": 73, "p": 45, "t": "Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or proportionate to the needs of the case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly burdensome and oppressive, particularly on a non-party, as the Request seeks discovery outside the State of Oklahoma and spans an overbroad and effectively unlimited period from January |, 2018 through “the present” that bears no relationship to the claims or defenses at issue, as the Request seeks any and all “files” “regarding the industry standards on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims” Accenture LLP “relied on and/or produced and/or utilized” with respect to “the work” performed for or on behalf of State Farm, which is not reasonably related to Plaintiff's insurance claim or any Oklahoma claims and is not limited to State Farm claims handling in Oklahoma. Non-Party Accenture is willing to meet and confer regarding this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Produce the documents and correspondence received or produced by You for consulting or other work on industry standards or benchmarks on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including but not limited to reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis by You and/or any other third party from January 1, 2018 until the present. RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference its General Objections. Non-Party Accenture objects to this Request because the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action. 11"}, {"d": 73, "p": 46, "t": "Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to its use of the words and phrases “for consulting or other work” and undefined terms “industry standards or benchmarks on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims.” Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or proportionate to the needs of the case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly burdensome and oppressive, particularly on a non-party, as the Request seeks discovery outside the State of Oklahoma and spans an overbroad and effectively unlimited period from January 1, 2018 through “the present” that bears no relationship to the claims or defenses at issue, as the Request seeks “the documents and correspondence” 39 66, “received or produced by You for consulting or other work” on “industry standards or benchmarks” with no connection to State Farm or work implicated by the Plaintiffs’ claims, including documents relating to “reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis by You and/or any other third party,” which are not reasonably related to Plaintiffs insurance claim or any Oklahoma claims and are not limited to State Farm claims handling in Oklahoma. Non-Party Accenture is willing to meet and confer regarding this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Produce the documents and correspondence of State Farm’s performance on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims in relation to the industry standards outlined in Topics 1-4, including internal quality improvement and/or lowering State Farm’s percentage of approvals for full roof replacements to the industry standard and/or to a related benchmark and/or the ratio of full roof replacements to partial roof replacements on wind/hail claims from January 1, 2018 until the present. 12"}, {"d": 73, "p": 47, "t": "RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference its General Objections. Non-Party Accenture objects to this Request because the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action. Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request to the extent it is duplicative of Requests 1 through 4. Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to its use of the ambiguous words and phrases “State Farm’s performance,” “industry standards outlined in Topics 1-4,” “internal quality improvement,” and “industry standard and/or to a related benchmark,” and “the ratio of full roof replacements to partial roof replacements.” Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or proportionate to the needs of the case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly burdensome and oppressive, particularly on a non-party, as the Request seeks discovery outside the state of Oklahoma and spans an overbroad and effectively unlimited period from January 1, 2018 through “the present” that bears no relationship to the claims or defenses at issue, as the Request seeks “the documents and correspondence” of “State Farm’s performance” on various claims in relation to “the industry standard and/or to a related benchmark,” which is not reasonably related to Plaintiff's insurance claim or any Oklahoma claims and is not limited to State Farm claims handling in Oklahoma. Non-Party Accenture is willing to meet and confer regarding this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Produce the documents and correspondence ensuring that any industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims identified in Topics 1-5 were 13"}, {"d": 73, "p": 48, "t": "accurate, vetted, and otherwise reflected actual claims and reliable data with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference its General NO. 6: Objections. Non-Party Accenture objects to this Request because the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action. Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request to the extent it is duplicative of Requests | through 5. Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to its use of the words and phrases “ensuring that any industry standards” related to “claims identified in Topics reflected actual claims and reliable data.” 1-5” were “accurate, vetted and otherwise Non-Party Accenture further objects to the phase “accurate vetted, and otherwise reflected actual claims and reliable data” to the extent that it is argumentative, lacks foundation, or incorporates allegations and assertions that are disputed or erroneous. Non-Party Accenture further objects to the request to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the common privilege, and/or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or protection. interest Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or proportionate to the needs of the case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly burdensome and oppressive, particularly on a non-party, as the Request seeks discovery outside the State of Oklahoma and spans an overbroad and effectively unlimited period from January 1, 2018 through “the present” that bears no relationship to the claims or defenses at issue, as the Request seeks “the 14"}, {"d": 73, "p": 49, "t": "documents and correspondence,” which is not reasonably related to Plaintiff's insurance claim or any Oklahoma claims and is not limited to State Farm claims handling in Oklahoma. Non-Party Accenture is willing to meet and confer regarding this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Produce the documents, reports, data used, models, output relied upon, and other documentation that State Farm supplied to You, and/or any other third party for any consulting or other work on the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims from January 1, 2018 until the present. RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference its General Objections. Non-Party Accenture objects to this Request because the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action. Materials Defendant shared with Non-Party Accenture are in the possession, custody, and control of Defendant State Farm and should be sought therefrom. Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Request to the extent that documents State Farm supplied to “any other third party for any consulting or other work on the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims” are not in the possession, custody, and control of NonParty Accenture and should be sought from Defendant State Farm or “any other third party.” Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to its use of the ambiguous words and phrases including “output relied upon,” “other documentation,” “any consulting or other work,” and undefined terms “industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims.” Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant 15"}, {"d": 73, "p": 50, "t": "to the subject matter of this litigation or proportionate to the needs of the case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly burdensome and oppressive, particularly on a non-party, as the Request seeks discovery outside the State of Oklahoma and spans an overbroad and effectively unlimited period from January 1, 2018 through “the present” that bears no relationship to the claims or defenses at issue, as the Request seeks “the documents” provided by State Farm in connection with “consulting or other work” related to certain industry standards, which is not reasonably related to Plaintiffs insurance claim or any Oklahoma claims and is not limited to State Farm claims handling in Oklahoma. Non-Party Accenture is willing to meet and confer regarding this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Produce the documents, reports, data used, models, and other documentation on Your derivation of the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference its General Objections. Non-Party Accenture objects to this Request because the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action. Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to its use of the phrase “Your derivation of the industry standards” and undefined terms “industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacement on wind/hail claims.” Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that “Your derivation of the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail 16"}, {"d": 73, "p": 51, "t": "claims” is argumentative, lacks foundation, or incorporates allegations and assertions that are disputed or erroneous. Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or proportionate to the needs of the case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly burdensome and oppressive, particularly on a non-party, as the Request seeks discovery outside the State of Oklahoma and spans an overbroad and effectively unlimited period from January 1, 2018 through “the present” that bears no relationship to the claims or defenses at issue, as Request seeks “the documents” and “other documentation” “on” “Your derivation of the industry standards,” which is not reasonably related to Plaintiff's insurance claim or any Oklahoma claims and is not limited to State Farm claims handling in Oklahoma. Non-Party Accenture is willing to meet and confer regarding this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Produce Accenture the contracts, (or any agreements, of its affiliates) that and/or scopes of work include work on wind/hail between claims State Farm and/or and full roof replacements on wind/hail claims with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference its General Objections. Non-Party Accenture objects to this Request because the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action. Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to its use of the phrase “that include work on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims.” Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Request on the 17"}, {"d": 73, "p": 52, "t": "grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or proportionate to the needs of the case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly burdensome and oppressive, particularly on a non-party, as the Request seeks discovery outside the State of Oklahoma and spans an overbroad and effectively unlimited period from January 1, 2018 through “the present” that bears no relationship to the claims or defenses at issue, as the Request seeks “the contracts,” agreements, and/or scopes of work that purportedly “include work on” the wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements referenced above, which is not reasonably related to Plaintiff's insurance claim or any Oklahoma claims and is not limited to State Farm claims handling in Oklahoma. Non-Party Accenture is willing to meet and confer regarding this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Produce the documents referring to full roof replacements as the biggest bucket of opportunity for State Farm and/or the FME Wind/Hail from January 1, 2018 until the present. RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference its General Objections. Non-Party Accenture objects to this Request because the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action. Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to its use of the words and phrases “referring to,” “the biggest bucket of opportunity,” and the undefined term “FME Wind/Hail.” Non-Party Accenture further objects to the phrase “the biggest bucket of opportunity” to the extent that it is argumentative, foundation, or incorporates allegations and assertions that are disputed or erroneous. lacks By responding and objecting to this Request, Non-Party Accenture does not admit the correctness of 18"}, {"d": 73, "p": 53, "t": "any such assertions. Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or proportionate to the needs of the case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly burdensome and oppressive, particularly on a non-party, as the Request seeks discovery outside the State of Oklahoma and spans an overbroad and effectively unlimited period from January 1, 2018 through “the present” that bears no relationship to the claims or defenses at issue, as the Request seeks documents “referring to full roof replacements as the biggest bucket of opportunity” for State Farm and/or the “FME Wind/Hail,” which is not reasonably related to Plaintiff's insurance claim or any Oklahoma claims and is not limited to State Farm claims handling in Oklahoma. Non-Party Accenture is willing to meet and confer regarding this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Produce the documents on indemnity and/or potential reductions in indemnity on full roof replacements on Wind/Hail claims on State Farm’s Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail from January 1, 2018 until the present. RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference its General NO. It: Objections. Non-Party Accenture objects to this Request because the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action. Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to its use of the words and phrases “documents on indemnity,” “potential reductions in indemnity,” and the undefined, but capitalized term “Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail.” Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that “indemnity or potential 19"}, {"d": 73, "p": 54, "t": "reductions in indemnity on full roof replacements” is argumentative, incorporates allegations and assertions that are disputed or erroneous. lacks foundation, or Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or proportionate to the needs of the case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly burdensome and oppressive, particularly on a non-party, as the Request seeks discovery outside the State of Oklahoma and spans an overbroad and effectively unlimited period from January 1, 2018 through “the present” that bears no relationship to the claims or defenses at issue, as the Request seeks “documents on indemnity and/or potential reductions in indemnity” related to “Wind/Hail claims on State Farm’s Fire Model Plaintiff's insurance claim Enhancement — Wind/Hail,” which or any Oklahoma claims and is not reasonably related to is not limited to State Farm handling in Oklahoma. Non-Party Accenture is willing to meet and confer regarding this Request. 20 claims"}, {"d": 73, "p": 55, "t": "FOLIART, HUFF, OTTAWAY & BOTTOM Fischer-OB 201 Robert S. Kerr Avenue, 12th Floor Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Telephone: Fax: 73102 (405) 232-4633 (405) 232-3462 amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com ATTORNEYS FOR NON-PARTY ACCENTURE LLP 21"}, {"d": 73, "p": 56, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on this 17\" day of July, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was emailed and/or mailed as follows: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten GABLEGOTWALS Bradley W. Beskin Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) 110 N. Elgin Avenue, Suite 200 John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com rburrage(@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com cmeneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com -andLance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com bbeskin(@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Defendants Anny Shaney Amy Sher 22 Fischer ain)"}, {"d": 73, "p": 57, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA. Uh (Faust Peagre, Whither, Michael Gustine Diol Smee, artwh Attorney(s) for Petitioner . Petitioner(s) Case No. --Vv8. La Woke Pronc C4 a) Respondent(s) Cl 2005- Bods C37 WAS- 1675 Attorney(s) for Respondent FILED COURT MINUTE Date: Judge D6.) 7 -Agke V7 Hearing On: Digit’ Ruling By Court: ¢ or fi IN DIS OKLAHOMA Cousgy et JUL-0-7-2926 mbe DD. 78 Compel 16 Orented. Dlattes’ Guond Moti, + Pravany @ fo Pre Fine matinty Compal, Are Cour OES Oy enon replects ry pravrded in Pre mney Cove of business. Stake Carmn's Mabe bo Pie Unred acagy Respergs 1) dened | Shas Par LBA 264 198!) Lance E. Lott] When"}, {"d": 73, "p": 58, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILL and LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, CASE NO. CJ-2025-2626 v. Hon. Amy Palumbo STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY FILED COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK IN DISTRICT OKLAHOMA D. WELTY INSURANCE COURT COUNTY NOV 25 2025 AGENCY, INC., RICK WARREN Defendants. v8 COURT CLERK JOURNAL ENTRY COMES ON for hearing before this Court on the 14 day of November 2025, Plaintiffs Bill and Lacy Hursh’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm”). The Court, having reviewed the parties’ briefs, hearing arguments of counsel, and consideration of additional materials provided at the hearing, finds and orders that Plaintiffs’ Motion is SUSTAINED, as follows: 1. The Court has considered the arguments set forth in the parties’ extensive briefing on these discovery issues, as well as arguments made by counsel at the hearings, and consideration of additional materials provided at the hearing. 2. The Court has carefully considered and weighed each of the proportionality factors set forth in 12 O.S. § 3226(B) in conjunction with making its rulings as to the relevance and proportionality of each category of discovery requested in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, including the importance of the issues at stake in this action, the amount in controversy, the EXHIBIT <)"}, {"d": 73, "p": 59, "t": "parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 3. 3. Having considered these factors, the Court finds Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing the discovery sought herein is relevant to their claims, including allegations of pattern and practice and the evidence at issue is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and proportional to the needs of the case . In so finding, the Court considered that this matter involves claims where the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000; 4. The Court further finds that there is a disparity in the parties’ relative access to the requested information in that most of the information is only accessible by State Farm and not by Plaintiffs; 5. That in considering the importance of the issues at stake, the Court finds that without this discovery, it may be impossible to resolve the pertinent issues in this case and that this discovery will allow both parties to proceed in presenting relevant evidence at trial. 6. The Court also takes into consideration the objections and arguments made by counsel for State Farm regarding the potential burden or expense the requested discovery may impose in relation to its likely benefits. 7. The Court further finds that the relevant time frame for the production of responsive material and information is January 1, 2015 to present, unless a shorter time frame is stated in the specific discovery request. 8. The Court hereby SUSTAINS materials within sneeat Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and orders production of such tbe “pCxCept Perducten to ®ukd Previgus Withn dans, bl ardercd Ns Ww"}, {"d": 73, "p": 60, "t": "It is THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED. THE HONORABLE AMY PALUMBO APPROVED AS TO FORM: [p>—~ Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 Whitten Burrage 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Z - Leffel Ashlyn M. Smith GABLE GOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com asmith@gablelaw.com Carrie B. McNeer Grant A. Fitz"}, {"d": 73, "p": 61, "t": "GABLE GOTW ALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 emcneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com Attorneys for Defendants State Insurance Agency, Inc. Farm and Defendants Mark D. Welty and Mark D. Welty"}, {"d": 73, "p": 62, "t": "FILED SUPREME COURT STATE OF OKLAHOMA JUN 23 2026 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA SELDEN JONES C TUESDAY, JUNE 23, Seb RK THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO ENTER THE FOLLOWING ORDERS OF THE COURT: 123,812 State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. The Honorable Amy Paulum bo; and Billy Hursh, Lacy Hursh, Moong Sian Wong-Faust, Stephen Faust; and State of Oklahoma ex rel. Attorney General Gentner Drummond, Real Party in Interest Application to assume original jurisdiction is denied. CONCUR: RECUSED: Rowe, C.J., Kuehn, V.C.J., Winchester, Edmondson, Gurich, and Darby, JJ. Kane, and Jett, JJ. DS. lo. CHIEF JUSTICE Combs, NN EXHIBIT 6"}, {"d": 73, "p": 63, "t": "Hursh vy, State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 7 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 64, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 8 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 65, "t": "Hursh y. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 9 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 66, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 10 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 67, "t": "Hursh y. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 11 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 68, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 12 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 69, "t": "Hursh y. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 13 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 70, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 14 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 71, "t": "Hursh vy. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 15 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 72, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 16 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 73, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 17 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 74, "t": "Hursh y. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 18 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 75, "t": "Hursh y. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 19 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 76, "t": "Hursh y. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 20 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 77, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 21 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 78, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 22 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 79, "t": "Hursh vy. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 23 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 80, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 24 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 81, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 25 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 82, "t": "Hursh vy. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 26 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 83, "t": "Hursh vy. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 27 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 84, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 28 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 85, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 29 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 86, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 30 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 87, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 31 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 88, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 32 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 73, "p": 89, "t": "Hursh vy. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance With Subpoena Duces Tecum And Brief In Support EXHIBIT 33 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 74, "p": 1, "t": "FILED IN DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY wre ors cousrorontanona couse IHINRARIENL v. Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR LEAVE i FILE UNDER SEAL This matter having come on for consideration this day of September, 2026, upon Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh, Unopposed Application for Leave to File Under Seal and the Court having reviewed said Application, finds that good cause exists therefore. IT IS THEREFORE 120.8. ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that pursuant to § 3226(C)(2), 51 O.S. §§ 244.29 and 24A.30, the Court hereby determines that it is necessary in the interests of justice to permit the filing of the requested materials under seal to prevent the materials from being public record. Plaintiffs shall be and hereby are granted leave to file an unredacted copy of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum and Brief in Support, in support of their Motion, thereto under seal, and they shall remain confidential until further order of the Court. Plaintiffs are ordered to place the protected material in a sealed manila envelope clearly marked with the caption and case number and clearly marked with the word” CONFIDENTIAL” and stating the date the Order was entered and the name of the Judge entering the Order. publicly in this matter. A redacted version of the same filing may be filed"}, {"d": 74, "p": 2, "t": "IT IS SO ORDERED! \\ JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVED ie Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 Whitten Burrage 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK Telephone: Facsimile: 73102 405.516.7800 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs"}, {"d": 75, "p": 1, "t": "| HUAN FILED IN DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY 1 * IN THE DISTRICT COURT STATE BILLY & LACY OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY SEP 15 2026 OF OKLAHOMA RICK WARREN ps COURT HURSH, Plaintiffs, CASE VS. NO. CJ-2025-2626 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK INC., D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendants. There was NOTICE OF FILING hereby filed with Clerk named below an original and the following transcript: (1 copy Whitten-Burrage Law Firm and the Deputy Court (1) one copy provided to GableGotwals Law of Firm) 1. Transcript of Court's Continuation and Rendering of Final Order Re: Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce and State Farm's Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines Proceedings, had on the 4th day of August, 2026, consisting of forty-six (46) pages, before the Honorable Amy Palumbo, along with Court's Exhibit No. 1. r Court's Exhibit: 1 Blank Pages Dated this 15 1-5 day of 26. Tara Nixon, RPR, CRR, CRC Official Shorthand Reporter Filed by: epaty fourt Clerk CLERK"}, {"d": 76, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, FILED DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA ) September 15, 2026 4:25 PM oe ) RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK Plaintiffs, V. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Case Number CJ-2025-2626 ) Case No. CJ-2025-2626 ) Hon. Amy Palumbo ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL To: ) OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM A+ Roofing Solutions PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company hereby WITHDRAWS the Deposition Subpoena of A+ Roofing Solutions dated August 28, 2026. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company reserves the right to re-issue in the future, if necessary. DATED this 15\" day of September, 2026. Respectfully submitted, are Pr ' males 1 rd yO Carrie B. McNeer, OBA No. 22235 Grant A. Fitz, OBA No. 19806 Nathan A. Miramontes, OBA No. 36212 GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 Fax cmcneer@gablelaw.com efitz@gablelaw.com nmiramontes@gablelaw.com -and-"}, {"d": 76, "p": 2, "t": "Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 Fax lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com Attorneys for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company"}, {"d": 76, "p": 3, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I do hereby certify that on September 15, 2026, a true, correct and exact copy of the above and foregoing document was served by placing same in the United States mail, with proper postage thereon duly prepaid, to those parties as listed below: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com R. Ryan Deligans, Durbin, Larimore & Bialick 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rdeligans@dlb.net Patrick F. Collogan BIBY LAW FIRM 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 pat@bibylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs"}, {"d": 77, "p": 1, "t": "FILED IN DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY HIRMUNIAUNITY yr oisrmcr cour or oxsanomacouvry SE 1821 STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, RICK’ WARRE COURT CERRY 42_ ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Hon. Amy Palumbo ) Defendants. ) MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF KATHY J. HUANG Defendant State Farm Life Fire & Casualty Company. (hereinafter “State through counsel of record who has appeared in this case, Lance Farm”), by and E. Leffel of the firm GABLEGOTWALS, requests the Court, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2005.2(B) and Article 2, Section 5 of the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association, to admit Kathy J. Huang to practice before this Court solely for the purpose of appearing as counsel for State Farm Defendants in the above-styled case. By filing this Motion, State Farm expressly reserves, and does not waive, any available defenses. In support of this Motion, State Farm Defendants’ counsel represents to the Court as follows: 1.) Kathy J. Huang is an attorney with Alston & Bird, LLP; 350 S. Grand Ave, 1* Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071 2.) Kathy J. Huang is admitted to practice before the courts of the State of California. 3.) Kathy J. Huang has never been the subject of a complaint charging unethical professional conduct and has never been subject to discipline by any bar association or any other"}, {"d": 77, "p": 2, "t": "applicable authority. 4) This Motion is supported by the attached “Signed Application” submitted to the Oklahoma Bar Association (Exhibit “A”), “Certificates of Good Standing” (Exhibit “B”), the “Certificate of Compliance” (Exbibit “C”) from the Oklahoma Bar Association and the “Declaration of Kathy J. Huang (Exhibit “D”) as required by 12 O.S. § 2005.2(B) and Section 5 of Article 2 of the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association, 5 O.S. Appendix 1. 5.) Lance E. Leffel of the firm GableGotwals is an active member of the Oklahoma Bar Association and resident of the State of Oklahoma, whose address is stated below, and who has previously entered an appearance in this case. GableGotwals is associated with Kathy J. Huang as local counsel for State Farm Defendants. 6.) A proposed Order is submitted herewith. WHEREFORE, the undersigned counsel respectfully requests that Kathy J. Huang be admitted to practice before the Court in the above-captioned case as additional counsel of record for State Farm Defendants. Respectfully submitted, Gane 2 SGA. Carrie B. McNeer, OBA No. 22235 Grant A. Fitz, OBA No. 19806 Nathan A. Miramontes, OBA No. 36212 GABLEGOTWALS 110N. Elgin Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 PH: (918) 595-4800 FAX: (918) 595-4990 cmcneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com nmiramontes@gablelaw.com 2"}, {"d": 77, "p": 3, "t": "-and- Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 PH: (405) 235-5500 FAX:: (405) 235-2875 lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com Diane Lee McGimsey -Admitted Pro Hac Vice SULLIVAN & CROMWELL 1888 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, CA 90067 PH: 310-712-6600 megimseyd@sullcrom.com Enrica B. Zolner -Admitted Pro Hac Vice REDGRAVE LLP 230 West Monroe Street, Suite 210, Chicago, IL 60606 PH: 773-720-9169 ezolner@redgravellp.com Tiffany Lynne Powers -Admitted Pro Hac Vice ALSTON & BIRD, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Atlanta, GA 30308 PH: 404-881-7000 Tiffanv.pwers@alston.com Attorneys for Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company"}, {"d": 77, "p": 4, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I do hereby certify that on September 18, 2026, a true, correct and exact copy of the above and foregoing document was served by placing same in the United States mail, with proper postage thereon duly prepaid, to those parties as listed below: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whitten| elaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com R. Ryan Deligans, Durbin, Larimore & Bialick 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rdeligans@dlb.net Patrick F. Collogan BIBY LAW FIRM 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 pat@bibylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs See 2 KGS."}, {"d": 77, "p": 5, "t": "APPLICATION OUT OF STATE ATTORNEY REGISTRATION Kathy Jan First Name Middie Name Huang , Applicant, respectfully represents: Last Name 1. Applicant is an attorney at law and a member of the law firm of Alston & Bird LLP Applicant’s mailing address is _ 350 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles i ,LosAngeles City (213 ) 576-1000 Telephone , (213) (Firm) County §76-4123 ane’ Address CA 90071 State Zip Code , (213 ) 576-1100 Telephone (Applicant's Direct Dial) ' Fax (Applicant) kathy huang@aiston.com E-mall Address (Applicant) 2. Applicant is admitted to practice and is a member in good standing (certificates of good standing attached) of the bar(s) of the highest state court(s) of the following state(s): State California Date of Admission 12/13/2005 3. Applicant is admitted to practice before the following United States District Courts, United States Circuit Courts of Appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States, and/or other tribunals on the dates indicated for each, and is presently a member in good standing of the bars of said courts: Tribunal Date of Admission United States District Court, Central District 03/14/2008 United States District Court, Northern District 02/10/2006 United States District Court, Southern District 07/10/2008 EXHIBIT A"}, {"d": 77, "p": 6, "t": "4. Have you ever been suspended or disbarred in any court except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. court, jurisdiction, date): N 5. Are you currently subject to any pending disciplinary proceedings by any organization with authority to discipline attorneys at law except as hereinafter N provided (Give particulars; e.g. court, discipline authority, date, status): ° 6. Have you ever received public discipline including, but not limited to, suspension or disbarment, by any organization with authority to discipline attorneys at law except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. court, discipline authority, type of discipline, date, status): 7. Have you ever had any certificate or privilege fo appear and practice before any regulatory or administrative body suspended or revoked except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. administrative body, date, status of suspension or reinstatement): lo 8. Applicant seeks admission to practice in the State of Oklahoma in the following matter (give particulars; e.g. caption of case, court or agency, type of matter, parly to be represented): Note - A separate application is to be submitted for each matter in which the applicant seeks admission! Billy & Lacy Hursh v. State Farm Fire and Casually Company; Mark D. Welly; and Mark D. Welly insurance Agency, inc., No, CJ-2025-2626 ( Oct of Oklahoma County), on behaif of State Farm Fire and Casualty Company"}, {"d": 77, "p": 7, "t": "9. The Oklahoma Bar Association Applicant in this matter is: member Lance E. Leffel 19511 First Name Middie Name Last Name O.B.4. Number 599 W. Sheridan Avenue, Suite 2200 Chly 235-5500 _ (405, Tetephone Number 10. is counsel Oklahoma City OK Malling Address (405, who for 73102 State _296-2875 of record Zip Code _leffel@gablelaw.com Fax Number E-mail Address The following accurately represents the names of each party in this matter and the names and addresses of each counsel of record who appear for that party: Pai ame Counsel Name Billy Hursh Lacy Hursh Address Patrick Collogan of sel 6305 E. 120th Ct., Sulte F, Tulsa, OK 74137 Blake Sonne 512 .N. Broadway Ave, Ste 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Reggte Whitten 612 .N. Broadway Ave, Ste 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Hannah Whitten 512. N. Broadway Ave, Sle 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 John Sanders §12.N, Broadway Ave, Ste 300, Oklahoma Cily, OK 73402 Jake Denne 612 N. Broadway Ave, Ste 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 R. Ryan Deligans 920 North Harvey, Oklahoma Cily, OK 73102 11. Applicant certifles that he/she shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and disciplinary governing boards of this state with respect the conduct of attorneys to the same to the laws of this state extenl as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association. 12. Applicant understands and shail comply with the standards of professional conduct required of members of the Oklahoma Bar Association. 13. Applicant has disclosed In writing to the client that the Applicant is not admitted to practice representation. in this Jurisdiction and the client has consented to such"}, {"d": 77, "p": 8, "t": "|, __ Kathy Jan Huang do hereby swear/affirm under penaity of perjury that the assertions of this application are true: | am the Applicant in the above referenced matter; | have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge except as to those matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to those matters | believe them to be true. | further certify that | am subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts and disciplinary boards of this state with respect to the law of this state governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association; | understand and shal! comply with the standards of professional conduct required by members of the Oklahoma Bar Association; and that | am subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Bar Association with respect to any of my actions occurring in the course of such appearance. DATED this 3 day of _ September , 2026 —— cApplicant Mail with check or money order (payable to the OBA) to: Out-of-State Attorney Registration Oklahoma Bar Association P.O, Box 53036 Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3036 Form 200B 2 ,"}, {"d": 77, "p": 9, "t": "THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA CERTIFICATE OF STANDING ISSUE DATE: 9/2/2026 LICENSEE NAME: Kathy Jan Huang LICENSEE BAR NUMBER: 240677 LICENSEE STATUS: Active ADMIT DATE: 12/13/2005 To Whom it May Concern: This certificate of standing certifies the record above is a true and correct copy of Kathy Jan Huang's current standing with the State Bar of California as of the issue date. No recommendation for discipline for professional or other misconduct has ever been made by the Board of Trustees or a Disciplinary Board to the Supreme Court of the State of California. Carla Anarene Carolina Almarante-Terrero Custodian of Record NOTE: Only ACTIVE licensees of the State Bar of California are entitled to practice law in California (See Sections 6006 and 6125, et seq., Business and Professions Code.) E XHI B IT B"}, {"d": 77, "p": 10, "t": "Certificate of Compliance Oklahoma Bar Association 1901 North Lincoln Boulevard Post Oltice Rox 53036 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152-3036 The Oklahoma Bar Association, in response to the application of out-ofstate attorney, submits the following certificate pursuant to 5 O.S. Ch.1 App.1, Art. tl 1. Applicant has submitted a signed application of out-of-state attorneys, certificate(s) of good standing, and the non-refundable application fee pursuant to the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association, 5 O.S. Ch. 1, App. 1, Art. Il. 2. Date of Application: September 11, 2026 3. Application 4. Applying Attorney: Number: 2026-562 Kathy Jan Huang Alston & Bird LLP 350 S. Grand Ave. a Los Angeles, CA 90071 The Application was: GRANTED Dated this 15'\" day of September, 2026. RO, ‘Gina Hendryx, General Counsel Oklahoma Bar Association EXHIBIT C Form 400C"}, {"d": 77, "p": 11, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) v. ) ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) Defendants. Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Hon. Amy Palumbo ) ) DECLARATION OF KATHY J, HUANG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE I, Kathy J. Huang do hereby declare that I have read the above and foregoing Motion for Admission of Counsel Pro Hac Vice in its entirety. Each and every statement contained therein is within my personal knowledge and is true and correct. The undersigned, an attorney to practice before the courts of the State of California, declares under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on 9/18/2026. Kathry J’ Huang ' EXHIBIT D"}, {"d": 78, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY FILED DISTRICT COURT BILLY & LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, Vv. ) OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA ) ) September 18, 2026 11:09 AM RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2025-2626 ) Case No. CJ-2025-2626 ) Hon. Amy Palumbo STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY ) COMPANY; ) MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) Defendants. ) MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF SAMUEL J. PARK Defendant State Farm Life Fire & Casualty Company. (hereinafter “State Farm”), by and through counsel of record who has appeared in this case, Lance E. Leffel of the firm GABLEGOTWALS, requests the Court, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2005.2(B) and Article 2, Section 5 of the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association, to admit Samuel J. Park to practice before this Court solely for the purpose of appearing as counsel for State Farm Defendants in the above-styled case. By filing this Motion, State Farm expressly reserves, and does not waive, any available defenses. In support of this Motion, State Farm Defendants’ counsel represents to the Court as follows: 1.) Samuel J. Park is an attorney with Alston & Bird, LLP; 350 S. Grand Ave., 51* Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071 2.) Samuel J. Park is admitted to practice before the courts of the State of California. 3.) | Samuel J. Park has never been the subject of a complaint charging unethical professional conduct and has never been subject to discipline by any bar association or any other"}, {"d": 78, "p": 2, "t": "applicable authority. 4.) This Motion is supported by the attached “Signed Application” submitted to the Oklahoma Bar Association (Exhibit “A”’), “Certificates of Good Standing” (Exhibit “B”), the “Certificate of Compliance” (Exbibit “C”) from the Oklahoma Bar Association and the “Declaration of Samuel J. Park (Exhibit “D”) as required by 12 O.S. § 2005.2(B) and Section 5 of Article 2 of the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association, 5 O.S. Appendix 1. 5.) Lance E. Leffel of the firm GableGotwals is an active member of the Oklahoma Bar Association and resident of the State of Oklahoma, whose address is stated below, and who has previously entered an appearance in this case. GableGotwals is associated with Samuel J. Park as local counsel for State Farm Defendants. 6.) | A proposed Order is submitted herewith. WHEREFORE, the undersigned counsel respectfully requests that Samuel J. Park be admitted to practice before the Court in the above-captioned case as additional counsel of record for State Farm Defendants. Respectfully submitted, Sane 2 EGE. Carrie B. McNeer, OBA No. 22235 GrantA. Fitz, OBA No. 19806 Nathan A. Miramontes, OBA No. 36212 GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 PH: (918) 595-4800 FAX: (918) 595-4990 cmcneer@gablelaw.com efitz@gablelaw.com nmiramontes@gablelaw.com"}, {"d": 78, "p": 3, "t": "-and- Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 PH: (405) 235-5500 FAX:: (405) 235-2875 lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com Diane Lee McGimsey -Admitted Pro Hac Vice SULLIVAN & CROMWELL 1888 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, CA 90067 PH: 310-712-6600 megimseyd@sullcrom.com Erica B. Zolner -Admitted Pro Hac Vice REDGRAVE LLP 230 West Monroe Street, Suite 210, Chicago, IL 60606 PH: 773-720-9169 ezolner@redgravellp.com Tiffany Lynne Powers -Admitted Pro Hac Vice ALSTON & BIRD, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Atlanta, GA 30308 PH: 404-881-7000 Tiffany .pwers@alston.com Attorneys for Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company"}, {"d": 78, "p": 4, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I do hereby certify that on September 18, 2026, a true, correct and exact copy of the above and foregoing document was served by placing same in the United States mail, with proper postage thereon duly prepaid, to those parties as listed below: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com R. Ryan Deligans, Durbin, Larimore & Bialick 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rdeligans@dlb.net Patrick F. Collogan BIBY LAW FIRM 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 pat@bibylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs See 2 EGOS"}, {"d": 78, "p": 5, "t": "APPLICATION OUT OF STATE ATTORNEY REGISTRATION Samuel J First Name Middie Name Park Applicant, respectfully represents: Last Name 1. Applicant is an attorney at law and a member of the law firm of Alston & Bird LLP Applicant's mailing address is _950 8. Grand Ave., Stst. FI Los Angeles _ Los Angeles\" City County (_218) 576-1000 Telephone , (213) 576-2687 (Firm) CA State 90071 Zip Code , (213) 576-1100 Telephone (Applicant's Direct Dial) Fax (Applicant) Samuel.Park@alston.com E-mail Address (Applicant) 2. Applicant is admitted to practice and is a member in good standing (certificates of good standing attached) of the bar(s) of the highest state court(s) of the following state(s): State Date of Admission California 12/1/2006 3. Applicant is admitted to practice before the following United States District Courts, United States Circuit Courts of Appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States, and/or other tribunals on the dates indicated for each, and is presently a member in good standing of the bars of said courts: Tribunal Date of Admission USDC Central California 12/27/2006 USDC Northern California 11/8/2007 USDC Southern California 11/8/2007 EXHIBIT A"}, {"d": 78, "p": 6, "t": "4, Have you ever been suspended or disbarred in any court except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. court, jurisdiction, date): No 5. Are you currently subject to any pending disciplinary proceedings by any organization with authority to discipline attorneys at law except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. court, discipline authority, date, status): No 6. Have you ever received public discipline including, but not limited to, suspension or disbarment, by any organization with authority to discipline attorneys at law except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. court, discipline authority, type of discipline, date, status): No 7. Have you ever had any certificate or privilege to appear and practice before any regulatory or administrative body suspended or revoked except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. administrative body, date, status of suspension or reinstatement): No 8. Applicant seeks admission to practice in the State of Oklahoma in the following matter (give particulars; e.g. caption of case, court or agency, type of matter, party to be represented): Note - A separate application is to be submitted for each matter in which the applicant seeks admission! Billy & Lacy Hursh v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company; Mark D. Welty; and Mark D. Welty Insurance Agency, Inc. - Case No. CJ-2025-2626, Hon. Amy Palumbo Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. We represent State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Mark D. Welty and Mark D. Welty Insurance Agency, Inc."}, {"d": 78, "p": 7, "t": "9. The Oklahoma Bar Association member who is counsel of record for Applicant in this matter is: Lance E. Leffel 19511 First Name Middie Name Last Name 0.8.4. Number 599 W. Sheridan Avenue, Suite 2200 Oklahoma City OK Mailing Address (405) Cily 235-5500 (405, Telephone Number 10. 235-2875 Fax Number 79102 State Zip Code _ lleffel@gablelaw.com E-mail Address The following accurately represents the names of each party in this matter and the names and addresses of each counsel of record who appear for that party: Party Name Billy Hursh Counsel Name Address of Counsel Patrick Collogan 6305 E. 120th Ct, Sulte F, Tulsa, OK 74137 Lacy Hursh Blake Sonne §12 N. Broadway Ave, Ste 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Reggie Whitten 812 N. Broadway Ave, Ste 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Hannah Whitten 512 N. Broadway Ave, Ste 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 John Sanders 512 N. Broadway Ave, Ste 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Jake Denne 512 N. Broadway Ave, Ste 300, Oklahoma Cily, OK 73102 R, Ryan Deligans 920 Nonh Harvey, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 11. Applicant certifies that he/she shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and disciplinary boards of this state with respect to the laws of this state governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association. 12. Applicant understands and shall comply with the standards of professional conduct required of members of the Oklahoma Bar Association. 13. Applicant has disclosed in writing to the client that the Applicant is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction and the client has consented representation. to such"}, {"d": 78, "p": 8, "t": "L, Samuel J. Park , do hereby swear/affirm under penalty of perjury that the assertions of this application are true: | am the Applicant in the above referenced matter; | have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge except as to those matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to those matters | believe them to be true. | further certify that | am subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts and disciplinary boards of this state with respect to the law of this state governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association; | understand and shall comply with the standards of professional conduct required by members of the Oklahoma Bar Association; and that | am subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Bar Association with respect to any of my actions occurring in the course of such appearance. DATED this 30 dayof September, 2026 . fe Le Applicant 7 Mail with check or money order (payable to the OBA) to: Out-of-State Attorney Registration Oklahoma Bar Association P.O. Box 53036 Oklahoma City, OK Form 200B 73152-3036 = r 7 ae pn ee"}, {"d": 78, "p": 9, "t": "THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA CERTIFICATE OF STANDING ISSUE DATE: 8/31/2026 LICENSEE NAME: Samuel Joon Park LICENSEE BAR NUMBER: 245327 LICENSEE STATUS: Active ADMIT DATE: 12/1/2006 To Whom it May Concern: This certificate of standing certifies the record above is a true and correct copy of Samuel Joon Park's current standing with the State Bar of California as of the issue date. No recommendation for discipline for professional or other misconduct has ever been made by the Board of Trustees or a Disciplinary Board to the Supreme Court of the State of California. Corda Alan Tarn Carolina Almarante-Terrero Custodian of Record EXHIBIT B NOTE; Only ACTIVE licensees of the State Bar of California are entitled to practice law in California (See Sections 6006 and 6125, et seq., Business and Professions Code.)"}, {"d": 78, "p": 10, "t": "Certificate of Compliance Oklahoma Bar Association 1901 s2orth Lincoln Boulevard Post Office Box 53036 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152-3036 The Oklahoma Bar Association, in response to the application of out-ofstate attorney, submits the following certificate pursuant to 5 O.S. Ch.1 App.1, Art. II 1. Applicant has submitted a signed application of out-of-state attorneys, certificate(s) of good standing, and the non-refundable application fee pursuant to the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association, 5 0.8. Ch. 1, App. 1, Art. Il. 2. Date of Application: September 11, 2026 3. Application Number: 2026-561 4. Applying Attorney: 5. The Application was: GRANTED Samuel J. Park Alston & Bird LLP 350 S. Grand Ave., 51st Fl Los Angeles, CA 90071 Dated this 15'\" day of September, 2026. “Gina Hendryx, General Counsel Oklahoma Bar Association EXHIBIT C Form 400C"}, {"d": 78, "p": 11, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, COUNTY ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vv. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ) Case No. CJ-2025-2626 ) Hon. Amy Palumbo ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) DECLARATION OF SAMUEL J. PARK IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE I, Samuel J. Park do hereby declare that I have read the above and foregoing Motion for Admission of Counsel Pro Hac Vice in its entirety. Each and every statement contained therein is within my personal knowledge and 1s true and correct. The undersigned, an attorney to practice before the courts of the State of California, declares under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on 9/18/2026. “e po Le Samuel J. Park EXHIBIT D"}, {"d": 79, "p": 1, "t": "LEE ee ee FILED IN DisTmcCT COUR OKLAFIOMA COUNTY , OE OKLAHOMA Se ot ame ARN RICKOR BILLY & LACY HURSH, 09 Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo ; Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(2), 51 O.S. §§ 24A.29 and 24A.30, Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh, respectfully submit their Unopposed Application for Leave to file an unredacted copy of Plaintiffs’ Supplement to Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-designate Documents Produced, under seal. In support of this Application, Plaintiffs state: 1. Plaintiffs seek to file their Supplement and confidential exhibits thereto under seal. Plaintiffs’ Supplement relies upon and references several exhibits that are currently deemed confidential. 2. Plaintiffs’ request leave to file under seal an unredacted copy of their Supplement with confidential Exhibits in support thereof. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh, respectfully request the Court enter an order granting Plaintiffs’ permission to file under seal an unredacted copy of Plaintiffs’ Supplement to Plaintiffs' Motion to De-designate Documents support of their Motion. A proposed order will be submitted herewith. Produced, in"}, {"d": 79, "p": 2, "t": "Respectfully submitted, Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK Telephone: Facsimile: 73102 405.516.7800 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS"}, {"d": 79, "p": 3, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 21, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was delivered, via hand-delivery to all counsel of record for Defendants. Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) emceneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com Lance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Netfel@gablelaw.com (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) LO PLD"}, {"d": 80, "p": 1, "t": "*1059176546% IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, FILED IN DIST : RICT‘COURT ) Plaintiffs, J vs. ) ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Yh day of Case No. CJ-2025-2626 SEP District Judge Amy Palumbo & 2°2995 ROTA: _ RICK EN COURTWARR CLERK ) AGREED AMENDED THIS ORDER is entered this OKLAHOMA COUNTY SCHEDULING nN ORDER 4 : , 2026. Counsel discussed discovery needed, case complexity, and their caseload in arriving at the fdllowing; therefore, PARTIES ARE HEREBY ORDERED to fully comply with: 1. Joinder of Additional Parties & Amendment to Pleadings: File only with leave of Court or written consent of opposing parties. (12 O.S. § 2015). 2. Discovery: Complete/answer before Pretrial unless otherwise agreed and approved by the Court. 3. Witness & Exhibit List: Exchange preliminary witness/exhibit lists no later than 60 days prior to Pretrial; Exchange final witness/exhibit lists no later than 30 days prior to Pretrial. Additional witnesse s/exhibits shall be stricken by the Court, absent extraordinary circumstances. Exchange exhibits, including demonstrative exhibits, 10 days prior to trial. Failure to comply with this paragraph will result in exclusion of witnesses/exhibits at trial. 4. All Motions, Including Dispositive Motions: Filed by October 15, 2026; Must be set and heard before Pretrial. 5. Motions in Limine: Filed by November 1, 2026; Hearing set by the Court. 6. Trial Depositions: Provide Designation of Deposition Testimony to opposing parties no later than 40 days before trial. Serve objections no later than 30 days before trial. Heard/decided no later than 20 days before trial. (Local Rule 18). 7. Expert Disclosu res to include the disclosures required under 12 O.S. 3226 (B)(4) and/or Expert Reports as agreed to between the Parties: October 15, 2026 8. Expert Testimony and Daubert Motions: Include objections to expert witnesses in the Pretrial Conference Order. 10, 2026. November 9. Pretrial Conference: Date and time: November 19, 2026 at 1:30 o’clock pm. Deliver the Agreed Pretrial Conference Order to the Court by noon one (1) week prior to Pretrial Conference. Do not file individual or unsigned original with Court Clerk. 10. Trial: (check one) Jury [ X ] or Non-Jury [ ] Estimated time for trial: 7 days. If not already paid, party requesting jury trial shall pay jury fee (28 O.S. § 152.1.) Trial Date: Set at Pretrial Conference. 11. Requested Jury Instructions: File complete set with verdict forms by noon one (1) week prior to first day of trial; Email your 14 point, double-spaced, MS Word set to Court's bailiff, unless otherwis e directed by Court. 12. Trial Brief/Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. At Court's request. 13. Trial: December 7, 2026 at o'cl 9:00 ock am. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: Failure to comply with the requirements set forth in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, & 7 waives the legal issue or objection. This schedule may be modified Only upon written motion in complian ce with Local Rule 20, for good cause shown and by Order of this Court prior to the dates scheduled. Failure to com ly with this Order may result in sanctions pursuant to Rule 51) of the Rules of the District Courts. FAILURE TO APPEAR AT PRETRIAL ZONFERENCE MAY RESULT IN THE ENTRY OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT OR DISMISSAL ORDER, AT THE COURT'S DISCRETI OUT FURTHER NOTICE TO THE PARTIES. I Signatufe of Attorney for Plaintiff(s) s/Lance E. Leffel (signed with permission) Signature of Attorney for Defendant(s) \\BISTRICT JUDGE AMY PALUMBO R. Ryan Deligans, OBA #19793 / (405) 235-9584 /rdeligans@dlb.net Printed Name / OBA # / Telephone Number / Email __ Lance E. Leffel, OBA #19511 / (405) 235-5500 / lleffel@gablelaw.com Printed Name / OBA # / Telephone Number / Email A copy of this Order was delivered to counsel of tecord/pro se party on the #22383830.2 Z | day a sqpiember , 2026 Uuly 2025 Form)"}, {"d": 81, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA coum We ‘| ew a4k STATE OF OKLAHOMA ry soe wroee 7 OU, - SEP 23 2026 BILLY & LACY HURSH, 88 Plaintiffs, DISTRICT NUT UCK KURTW: WARREN CLERK ——__. vy STATE FARM FIRE AND Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DE-DESIGNATE"}, {"d": 81, "p": 2, "t": "I. NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY: JUDGE SHEPERD’S ORDER. Since the filing of Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate on August 4, 2026, some of the documents pending have been ruled upon and introduced into the public record. This supplement is intended to provide clarity on the documents remaining to be de-designated by this Court, if the Court so inclines to de-designate. Furthermore, six key depositions took place in Bloomington, Illinois. See Section II below. On July 7, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to De-Designate in West v. State Farm, et al., CJ-2025-135 (the “West Matter”), attaching Exhibits 2-7 to be de-designated. On August 6, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Reply in Support of their Motion to De-Designate, specifically incorporating another 44 exhibits to be de-designated. On August 20, 2026, Judge Sheperd granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike and De-Designate, striking State Farm’s blanket confidentiality designations and de-designating 31 documents, specifically Exhibits 2-7, 9, 11, 12, 14-16, 24, 26-38, 40-42 and 44- 45 identified in Plaintiffs’ Reply. See Ex. 25, Judge Sheperd Order. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a Response motion, attaching the 31 documents into the public record. The exhibits which have been de-designated by Judge Sheperd and are no longer pending in front of this court are Exhibits 3-7, 9, 16, 18, 20-23 in Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate, filed August 4, 2026. The exhibits remaining outstanding are Exhibits 10-15, 17, and 19 from Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate and the thirteen documents referenced in footnote one of Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of their Motion to De-Designate.' (Re-attached as the first 13 Exhibits to this Motion for ease of reference). See also Ex. 23, Index of Documents Left to Be De-Designated. ! See e.g. Ex. 1. HUR00063569-73; Ex. 2. HUR00034836; Ex. 3. HUR00044257, Ex. 4. HUR00068381, Ex. 5. HUR00069466, Ex, 6. HUR00037462, Ex. 7. HUR00125604, Ex. 8. HUR00053719, Ex. 9. HUR00008080, Ex. 10. HUR00078333, Ex. 11. HUR00027781, Ex. 12. HUR00061156, 13. HUR00125604."}, {"d": 81, "p": 3, "t": "Plaintiffs also incorporate and request this Court de-designate Exhibit 14 (HUR00158701- 19), Exhibit 15 (HUR00039527-34) and Exhibit 16 (HUR00156099) to this Motion, as these documents are not confidential and due to the six depositions taken in the last month, Court guidance is required before the depositions set to take place in this Court’s courtroom on September 29 and October | of 2026.7 I. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY. Plaintiffs deposed Wensley Herbert on August 26, Scott Welsh on August 27, and Kathy Ress on August 28 of this year in this case. Subsequently, Plaintiffs deposed the same witnesses in the West Matter three weeks later. However, the testimony of each witness in this case was starkly different to the testimony three weeks later. For example, in this case, Ms. Ress testified: 2 The parties are set for the deposition of Wayne Stewart and Nicole Manduca as corporate representatives to take place in Judge Palumbo’s courtroom on September 29 and October | of 2026. Plaintiffs’ counsel has secured a court reporter and videographer for both days, as well as a courtroom technician to assist with projecting exhibits."}, {"d": 81, "p": 4, "t": "See Ex. 17, Ress Hursh Depo at 86:4-8; 89:14-17; 281:18-21, 319:15-320:3 (emphasis added). Thereafter, in direct opposition to this testimony, Ms. Ress testified in the West Matter the following: See Ex. 18, Ress West Depo at 126:6-127:6; 150:10-14; 151:13-17; Furthermore, Scott Welsh testified to the following in this case: 186:2-7 (emphasis added)."}, {"d": 81, "p": 5, "t": "See Ex. 19, Welsh Hursh Depo at 227:13-20; 231:3-9; 384:10-23 (emphasis added). However, in direct opposition to this testimony, Mr. Welsh testified in the West Matter the following: See Ex. 20, Welsh West Depo at 67:7-15; 161:10-162:3; 230:18-231:4 (emphasis added). Lastly, Wensley Herbert testified to the following in this case:"}, {"d": 81, "p": 6, "t": "See Ex. 21, Herbert Hursh Depo at 112:9-15; 259:1-~6 (emphasis added). However, opposition to this testimony, Mr. Herbert testified in the West Matter the following: in direct"}, {"d": 81, "p": 7, "t": "See Ex. 22, Herbert West Depo at 46:5-47:6, 132:21-134:8 (emphasis added). All three of the West Matter depositions are filled with inaccuracies and inconsistencies when compared to the depositions taken in this matter of the same witnesses just three weeks prior by the same group of attorneys. III. DEPOSITION TESTIMONY REQUIRES URGENT COURT GUIDANCE ON CONFIDENTIALITY OF HUR00158701-19 (EX. 14) AND HUR00039527-34 (EX. 15). At Mr. Wensley Herbert’s deposition, Plaintiffs’ counsel presented a document, Exhibit 133, that has also been produced in this case. See Exhibit 14. State Farm’s counsel took a break afier the presentation of Exhibit 133 and reopened the record by suddenly claiming that Exhibit 133 was produced in error and may be privileged, which has required urgent Court guidance. See Ex. 22 at 353:25-354:4 (“On Exhibit 133, based on the questions that were asked today, we are a little worried that there may be privileged communications that were inadvertently produced and we’re going to investigate that.”). Some of the testimony was so damning that State Farm now seeks to claw back Exhibit 133 and Mr. Herbert’s testimony. See Ex. 24, Rother Letter. First, Mr. Herbert confirmed that SEO stands for Senior Executive Offsite and the CEO, CFO, and COO attend and review SEO material:"}, {"d": 81, "p": 8, "t": "See Ex. 22, Herbert West Depo at 120:5-122:1; 335:5-9. No such request to clawback Exhibit 14 has yet been made in this case, but Plaintiffs expect it to be raised and preemptively raise this issue with this Court before next week’s depositions take place. Furthermore, despite disagreeing that such testimony cited or documents filed as Exhibits to this Motion meet the standard for filing under seal, Plaintiffs are currently forced to file under seal to cooperate with State Farm’s overbroad designations of confidentiality on documents sought"}, {"d": 81, "p": 9, "t": "to be used in public pleadings and testimony which relates to intentional bad faith efforts to reduce claim payments. Because Plaintiffs are relying on these documents in pleadings, these exhibits are being improperly sealed from the public, so there is no conflation of sealing records with discovery confidentiality. As Judge Heaton has noted, “[t]he considerations change significantly once documents are used in litigation of the case. Court proceedings are public proceedings and there is a ‘strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records.’” Coker v. Hartford Life Group Ins. Co., et al, CIV-06-0911-HE, 02/21/2007 Order (footnotes and internal citations omitted). Plaintiffs intend to use the same exhibit produced in this case, HUR00158701-19, in depositions set to take place next week in this case. See Ex. 14. As this Court will be hearing Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate on Monday, September 28, right before the depositions are to take place, Plaintiffs explicitly request this Court de-designate Exhibit 14 and Ex. 15 to this Motion. First, Exhibit 14 lays out State Farm’s knowledge of the exact scheme Plaintiffs have been alleging since filing their petition. State Farm has engaged in an intentional scheme to reduce first- party payments and knew it was improper when doing so. Exhibit 14 went directly to the CEO and C-suite, as Exhibit 14 specifically states on page one, Be Re.” See Ex. 14 at HUR00158701. Here are a few examples of some of the bad faith evidenced presented to the senior executives at State Farn, including the CEO, in Exhibit 14, and Plaintiffs are including screenshots so the Court can see how the original text in portions are crossed out and replaced with others and comments placed into the document itself:"}, {"d": 81, "p": 11, "t": "See Ex. 14 at HUR00158703, 704, 705, 707. It is shocking to see that State Farm executives knew in 202 ee .” but carried their tactics to reduce indemnity out anyway, causing Plaintiffs’ injuries. State Farm wishes to continue its bad faith practices in the dark and limit Plaintiffs’ ability to use documents which prove the Scheme in the public record. This is unjust because “[t]he view that parties may exclusively control which documents appear on a face of a public record, while simultaneously using those documents to obtain a judicial determination of legal rights is one which has been criticized by different members of [the Oklahoma Supreme] Court.” See State ex rel. Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure & Supervision v. Rivero, 2021 OK 31, 4 90, 489 P.3d 36. State Farm seeks to rely on these documents as defenses and attach them to briefs under seal to prevent the public from learning of the hidden tactics implemented to reduce first-party coverage. State Farm must have a good faith basis for any “confidential” designation, and has failed to make any good faith showing on why the documents at issue are somehow a trade secret, confidential research, personal confidential information, development or commercial information. See Hursh Protective Order at { 1. (“The party making the designation of confidential material represents that it has done so after a bona fide determination made in good faith that the material is in fact trade secret or other confidential information as defined in paragraph 3.”). 10"}, {"d": 81, "p": 12, "t": "Under the Protective Order, blanket designations do not control, because “[t]he fact a document has been designated as “Confidential” shall not create a presumption the document is, in fact, confidential or a trade secret entitled to protection by this Protective Order. The burden of establishing that a document or testimony contains trade secret or personal confidential information and is entitled to the protection of this Protective Order shall remain on the party making the designation. Further, a party’s agreement to this Protective Order does not prejudice the party’s right to move the Court to lift the Protective Order for good cause.”). /d. at p. 3 In fact, on this subject, one court wrote: The proposed order...permits any party, in his or its unfettered discretion, to make as “Confidential Material” or designate as “Confidential” essentially anything that that party wishes to keep from public view. * * * In this Court's experience, such orders regularly result in vast amounts of documentation being deemed confidential when in fact there is no valid basis therefore. * * * Just given the names of the corporate defendants, the Court can only assume that the nature of the businesses involved here have to do with the promotion and sale of insurance and other financial products. \\f so, these are hardly the kinds of businesses deeply materials, steeped in trade secrets and other truly Kruanelis v. Sentinel Benefits Group, Inc., 2000 WL added). confidential * * * [Such orders] are not favored by this Court. 33159206 (Mass. Super. Ct.) (emphasis See also Star Scientific, Inc. v. Carter, 204 F.R.D. 410, 416 (S.D. Ind. 2001) (holding that portion of protective order giving the parties “unilateral authority” to designate documents as confidential was “over-broad”). The Protective Order entered in this case gives this Court the sole ability to determine what is and is not confidential, and places the burdens squarely on State Farm, who has failed to meet it. Here, the Protective Order specifically states that claim handling on first party insureds claims are NOT trade secrets. (See Protective Order, at §3(a)(ii)) (“Trade secret’ shall explicitly not include any aspects of the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim as first-party insureds, including but 11"}, {"d": 81, "p": 13, "t": "not limited to attempts to lower indemnity payments on Plaintiffs’ claim, including the total roof replacement requested, and anything regarding denying or partially denying Plaintiffs’ claim.”) This is because first party claim handling materials cannot be considered trade secret or proprietary under Oklahoma law. See e.g. Beers v. Hillory, 2010 OK CIV APP 99, { 30, 241 P.3d 285 (“The Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act can provide the district court for guidance in determining whether particular conduct on the part of an insurer is unreasonable and sufficient to constitute a basis for a bad faith claim.”); 36 O.S. § 1250.5(1-2) (Provision of the Oklahoma Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act) (“1. 1. Failing to fully disclose to first-party claimants, benefits, coverages, or other provisions of any insurance policy or insurance contract when the benefits, coverages or other provisions are pertinent to a claim;2. Knowingly misrepresenting to claimants pertinent facts or policy provisions relating to coverages at issue[.]”);36 O.S. § 1250.7 (Provision of the Oklahoma Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act) (“No property and casualty insurer shall deny a claim because of a specific policy provision, condition, or exclusion unless reference to such provision, condition, or exclusion is included in the denial. A denial shall be given to any claimant in writing, and the claim file of the property and casualty insurer shall contain a copy of the denial.”); Christian v. American Home Assur. Co., 1977 OK 141, § 12, 577 P.2d 899 (An insurer must act fairly when adjusting a claim.); Milroy v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2007 OK CIV APP 6, 918, 151 P.3d 922 (“The duty of good faith and fair dealing is inherent in every contract of insurance.”). These documents are explicitly not confidential or attorney-client privileged. For example, Exhibit 14 has a redaction on HURO0158702 titled “Redacted - AC” purporting to be an attorney- client protected communication: 12"}, {"d": 81, "p": 14, "t": "However, State Farm produced another document which does not redact this section: Ex. 15 at HUR00039528. It would appear as though State Farm redacted the Accenture industry standard and State Farm’s focus on improving towards an industry standard on roofs as an attorney client privileged communication, which it cannot be. First, third-party data provided by Accenture cannot be considered a privileged communication between State Farm and its attorneys, as the third-party destroys the privilege. As the Oklahoma Supreme Court provided in 1934:"}, {"d": 81, "p": 15, "t": "In Ratzlaff v. State, 122 Ok. 263, 249 P. 934, 937, this court said: “* * * The mere fact that a communication is made to an attorney does not, of itself, make such communication privileged. To have that effect, it must have been made in confidence of the relation and under such circumstances as to imply that it should forever remain a secret in the breast of the confidential advisor.” Howsley v. Clark, J 13, 1934 OK 93. Not only did State Farm redact third-party data which it acknowledges came from a third-party (“Source: Accenture Consulting Services”), it also kept this exact language industry standard language pervasive throughout documents which have been dedesignated by Judge Sheperd. See Ex. 25, Sheperd Order. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere inclusion of a lawyer as a recipient of a copy of a draft document circulated by one business person to other business people seeking comments on the draft would not, standing alone, warrant the protection of the attorney-client privilege. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 616 F.3d 1172, 1182 (10th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted) (“[T]he mere fact that an attorney was involved in a communication does not automatically render the communication subject to the attorney-client privilege ....°); Guardiola y. Adams County School District No. 14, 2019 WL 5535224, *2 (D. Colo. 2019) (“The Court [was not] persuaded by Defendants’ argument that chain e-mails, which are now routine in a wide variety of transactions, should be subject to the privilege, in their entirety, merely because one or more links in the chain come from legal counsel.”); .4.H. ex rel. Hadjih v. Evenflo Co., Inc., 2012 WL 1957302, *6 (D. Colo. 2012); existing documents and financial Colton v. US., 306 F.2d 633, 639 (2d Cir. 1962) (“[P]rerecords not prepared by the [clients] for the purpose of communicating with their lawyer in confidence ... have acquired no special protection from the simple fact of being Corporation, 2018 WL turned over to an attorney.”); 4489285, Valassis Communications, *3 (S.D. N.Y. 2018) (“The mere Inc. v. News inclusion of a lawyer as a recipient of a copy of a draft document circulated by one business person to other business people 14"}, {"d": 81, "p": 16, "t": "seeking comments on the draft would not, standing alone, warrant the protection of the attorneyclient privilege.”); Upjohn Co. v. U.S., 449 U.S. 383, 396, 101 S. Ct. 677, 66 L. Ed. 2d 584, 7 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 785, 30 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1101 (1981) (““[The client] may not refuse to disclose any relevant fact within his knowledge merely because he incorporated a statement of such fact into his communication to his attorney.” (quoting City of Philadelphia v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 205 F. Supp. 830, 831, 5 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 546 (E.D. Pa. 1962))); Federal Trade Commission v. Abbvie Inc., 2016 WL 4478803, *3 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (Pre-existing, non-privileged documents do not become privileged merely because they were later sent to an attorney. Every document sent to counsel in relation to a patent application is not automatically deemed privileged.”); Federal Trade Commission v. Innovative Designs, Inc., 104 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 727, 2017 WL 4310236, *7 (W.D. Pa. 2017) (“A party cannot avail itself of the protection of attorney-client privilege simply because a communication was routed through or copied to counsel.”). Even if this Court found some communications herein were attorney client privileged, State Farm’s usage of attorney-client services to perpetrate a fraud against its policyholders would mean there was no privilege to this document. Oklahoma law has long acknowledged a crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. For example, Oklahoma Professional Professional Conduct 1.6 provides: A lawyer may reveal information relating to representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: (1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm; (2) to prevent the client from committing: (i) a crime; or (ii) a fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer's services; (3) to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client's commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer's services, provided that the lawyer has first made reasonable efforts to 15 Rule of"}, {"d": 81, "p": 17, "t": "contact the client so that the client can rectify such criminal or fraudulent act, but the lawyer has been unable to do so, or the lawyer has contacted the client and called upon the client to rectify such criminal or fraudulent act and the client has refused or has been unable to do so; See also 12 O.S. § 2502 (“D. There is no privilege under this section: 1. If the services of the attorney were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud;”). Because of the testimony taken last week which was directly contrary to the testimony taken in this case of the same executives, and the fact that these document issues has arisen in West related to Exhibit 14 and Exhibit 15, leads to the conclusion that the parties need this Court’s guidance for the depositions set to take place next week in this Court’s courtroom. Plaintiffs specifically request this Court de-designate Exhibit 14 and Exhibit 15 to this Motion at the hearing on September 28, 2026. In the alternative, Plaintiffs request this Court do an in camera review of an unredacted version of Exhibit 14 to determine if the redactions are truly privileged, which Plaintiffs dispute. IV. DEPOSITION TESTIMONY ON OUTCOME-BASED CLAIM HANDLING REQUIRES COURT GUIDANCE ON CONFIDENTIALITY OF HUR00156099 (EX. 16). Exhibit 16 is a document titled (x which Vice President Kathy Ress testified Accenture was involved with the development of. See Ex. 18, Ress West Depo at 151:13-17. This operations model which Accenture worked with State Farm on contains blatant bad faith plotting to reduce claim payouts and develop hi 16"}, {"d": 81, "p": 18, "t": "See Ex. 16 at HUR00156103. It is pure bad faith and a gross violation of the duties owed to firstparty insureds that State Farm hired Accenture to develop an operations model for hi i. As such, this document cannot be considered privileged. Oklahoma law is clear that an insurer can never treat its insureds as an adversary, and engaging in outcome-based claim handling to save State Farm $218-$300 million dollars on claims that have not happened yet is the most adversarial conduct an insurance company could engage in. Newport v. USAA, 2000 OK 59, 4 15, 11 P.3d 190 (“An insurer may not treat its own insured in the manner in which an insurer may treat third-party claimants to whom no duty of good faith and fair dealing is owed and cannot offer less than an internal evaluation of how much the claim is worth.”); Furthermore, this same mm operations model is where the hi is developed and implemented to reduce claim payments for an hii the tune of hi or to in the pockets of State Farm. See id. It even discusses leadership 17"}, {"d": 81, "p": 19, "t": "intervention or what becomes team manager review required of full roof replacements to the sina I 0: SIN” see id CONCLUSION Plaintiffs respectfully submit this Supplement of Authority regarding Judge Sheperd’s Order on De-Designation, as well as the depositions testimony taken in this case and three weeks later in the West Matter pending in Comanche County. Plaintiffs respectfully request an Order dedesignating Exhibits 14-16 as not confidential to prevent any argument about its use next week in key corporate representative depositions. Respectfully submitted, Kent N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com -andPatrick F. Collogan, OBA #30529 Biby Law Firm 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 918-574-8458 18"}, {"d": 81, "p": 20, "t": "888-572-8263 (fax) pat@pbibylaw.com -andR. Ryan Deligans, OBA #19793 Andrew M. Gunn, OBA #19470 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102-2610 Telephone: (405)235-9584 Facsimile: (405)235-0551 rdeligan@dlb.net agunn@dlb.net ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 19"}, {"d": 81, "p": 21, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 23\" day of September, 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) cmcneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com -andLance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com ( 405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Fanwah Whitten 20"}, {"d": 81, "p": 22, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate EXHIBIT 1 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 81, "p": 23, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate EXHIBIT 2 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 81, "p": 24, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate EXHIBIT 3 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 81, "p": 25, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate EXHIBIT 4 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 81, "p": 26, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate EXHIBIT 5 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 81, "p": 27, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate EXHIBIT 6 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 81, "p": 28, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate EXHIBIT 7 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 81, "p": 29, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate EXHIBIT 8 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 81, "p": 30, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate EXHIBIT 9 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 81, "p": 31, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate EXHIBIT 10 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 81, "p": 32, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate EXHIBIT 11 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 81, "p": 33, "t": "Hursh vy. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025+-2626 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate EXHIBIT 12 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 81, "p": 34, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate EXHIBIT 13 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 81, "p": 35, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate EXHIBIT 14 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 81, "p": 36, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate EXHIBIT 15 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 81, "p": 37, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate EXHIBIT 16 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 81, "p": 38, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate EXHIBIT 17 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 81, "p": 39, "t": "Hursh y. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate EXHIBIT 18 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 81, "p": 40, "t": "Hursh vy. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate EXHIBIT 19 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 81, "p": 41, "t": "Hursh y. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate EXHIBIT 20 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 81, "p": 42, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate EXHIBIT 21 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 81, "p": 43, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate EXHIBIT 22 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 81, "p": 44, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, CJ-2025-2626, Oklahoma County September 28, 2026, Hearing before Judge Amy Palumbo INDEX OF DOCUMENTS REMAINING OUTSTANDING TO BE DE-DESIGNATED 3 Exhibits from Plaintiffs’ Supplement to Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate 14. HUR00158701-19 15. HUR00039527-34 16. HUR00156099 8 Exhibits Remaining from Motion to De-Designate 10. Fire Claims — 2023 May Meeting 11. Email 2022-08-02 RE: Fire Estimate Difference OVP Summary Report- May 2022 Results 12. Homeowners Paid Severity & Incurred Pure Premium (IPP) by State 13. Email 2025-01-23 RE: Fire Quality Pillar - December Scrimmage Prep (Draft) 14. Video - Haag Education Chapter | - Segment 2 - Impact Testing and Hail Definitions 15. 2021-06-24 Fire Model Enhancement — Water & Wind/Hail 17, P&C Claims Fire Claim Quality June 2021 19, Email 2022-01-12 changing “Reduce” to “Target” 13 Documents Incorporated into Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of its Motion to De-Designate (also attached as the first 13 Exhibits to Plaintiffs’ Supplement to Plaintiffs’ Motion to DeDesignate) PNNAWPR YN DS HUR00063569-73 HUR00034836 HUR00044257 HUR00068381 HUR00069466 HUR00037462 HURO00125604 HUR00053719 9. HUR00008080 10. HUR00078333 11. HUR00027781 12. HUR00061156 13. HURO0125604"}, {"d": 81, "p": 45, "t": "O CROWE DUNLEVY COUNSELORS AT LAW Timila S. Rother Direct Tel: (405) 235-7757 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com September 22, 2026 Reggie Whitten Mike Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten Whitten Burrage 512 N. Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Re: West v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Case No. CJ-2025-135 (Comanche Cty.) — Notice of Inadvertent Production of Documents Counsel: On behalf of State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm’) I write to inform you that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(5)(b) and 12 O.S. § 2502(E), State Farm is clawing back the document Bates-numbered WEST00158702-09, which was marked as Exhibit 133 in the September 17, 2026 deposition of Wensley Herbert, and which you recently attached as an exhibit to your Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Compliance by Nancy Holcomb. State Farm is also clawing back another iteration of that document which is WEST00158712-19. These documents contain communications protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine, which State Farm inadvertently failed to redact when it produced the documents; there are also previous redactions that State Farm is downgrading. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2502(E) and this notification letter, inadvertent disclosure of this document without the appropriate redactions does not operate as a waiver of the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine as to these documents. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(5)(b), State Farm requests that you destroy all copies (both paper and electronic) of these documents (including the version marked as a deposition exhibit), delete them from any and all litigation support or other databases in your possession, and expunge them from any work product reflecting the contents of the documents. Please also destroy all analyses, emails, memoranda, outlines, notes, or any other materials you may have prepared based on these documents and direct any third parties to whom you disclosed the documents (including but not limited to consultants, investigators, experts, vendors and other similar service providers)"}, {"d": 81, "p": 46, "t": "September 22, 2026 Page 2 to do the same. State Farm will follow up with a production volume that provides an overlay for these documents with corrected redactions. State Farm also asks that you voluntarily agree to strike: (1) Mr. Herbert’s testimony regarding the privileged portions of WEST00158702-09 from his deposition transcript, (2) the exhibit to the deposition; and (3) the exhibit to Reply brief referenced above. Indeed, with regard to the attachment of the document to your Reply brief, you did so after State Farm had made known its belief that the document may contain privileged communications which State Farm was investigating and about which it planned to communicate with you further. The use of that document as an exhibit with knowledge of State Farm’s privilege concerns is inconsistent with the law and the obligations of attorneys. The production of WEST00158702-09 and WEST00158712-19 without all appropriate redactions was not a waiver of any protection from disclosure or confidential treatment accorded by law. State Farm in fact redacted that information from other versions of the document, thus demonstrating its intent to maintain its privilege claims. The production of versions without the redactions was unintentional and first became known to State Farm after investigation following Mr. Herbert’s deposition. State Farm intends to and hereby does rely on and invoke all applicable privilege protections as well as the protections for inadvertent disclosure recognized by law for these documents and any others that may be discovered. Please confirm in writing by the close of business on September 25, 2026 that you have complied with our request made pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(5)(b) and 12 O.S. § 2502(E). Thank you, and please let us know if you have any questions or would like to confer. Sincerely, Timifa S. Rother ce: Brad Burgess, Colby Stephenson Ryan Deligans"}, {"d": 81, "p": 47, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL & LACY WEST, COUNTY STATE OF 6 ) Plaintiffs. of Jnche Coun ) Vv. ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY, _) & NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE __ ) AGENCY, INC ) Defendants. Office of the Egle Clerk By AUG 20 2026 Deputy ) COURT ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ VARIOUS MOTIONS FILED ON JULY 7\", 2026 th NOW on this AO aay of August, 2026 the Court, after hearing argument from counsel and reviewing all of the relevant pleadings GRANTS IN PART the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike State Farm’s blanket Confidentiality Assertion; GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion to De- Designate Documents Produced and DENIES the Motion to Lift the Protective Order, subject to the conditions set forth below. FINDINGS OF FACT 1, On May 21, 2026, the Court entered the Protective Order governing the treatment of confidential material produced in discovery in this action. 2. The Protective Order permits a party to designate material “Confidential” only “after a bona fide determination made in good faith that the material is in fact trade secret or other confidential information as defined in paragraph 3.” 3. Paragraph 3 of the Protective Order limits “Confidential” information to three enumerated categories: (a) “trade secret,” which “shall have the same meaning as in 78 O.S. §86(4)”; (b) “confidential research, development or commercial information,” meaning “information that is maintained in secrecy from third parties and which a party in good faith believes would result in substantial competitive harm if publicly disclosed”; and (c) 1 '"}, {"d": 81, "p": 48, "t": "“personal confidential information,” meaning “a person's social security number, medical records, bank records, personnel records and tax information.” Paragraph 3(a)(ii) of the Protective Order expressly provides that “trade secret’ shall explicitly not include any aspects of the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim as first-party insureds, including but not limited to attempts to lower indemnity payments on Plaintiffs’ claim, including the total roof replacement requested, and anything regarding denying or partially denying Plaintiffs’ claim.” Paragraph 4 of the Protective Order establishes the procedure for challenging a designation and allocates the burden of proof. It provides that a designation shall not “create a presumption the document is, in fact, confidential or a trade secret entitled to protection,” and that “[t]the burden of establishing that a document or testimony contains trade secret or personal confidential information and is entitled to the protection of this Protective Order shall remain on the party making the designation.” In response to the Court’s order granting Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, State Farm produced a large volume of documents. Plaintiffs represent that the production exceeds 800,000 pages and that State Farm designated every page “Confidential.” State Farm represents that it produced “nearly 800,000 documents (millions of pages),” that it “has not designated all documents confidential,” and that over 600,000 of the produced documents were reproduced from other litigation in which they are subject to confidentiality provisions of settlement agreements and/or protective orders entered by other courts. State Farm contends that not all documents turned over in discovery were labeled “confidential”."}, {"d": 81, "p": 49, "t": "Plaintiffs objected to State Farm’s designations, and State Farm declined to withdraw them. The parties disagree as to whether or not the “challenge” procedure outlined in paragraph 4 of the Protective Order has been complied with. Regardless, the parties have failed to resolve the dispute informally. The documents Plaintiffs specifically identify as improperly designated concern State Farm’s interna] “FME” and “‘Wind/Hail” initiatives, tracking of roof replacements and indemnity savings, and managerial-approval requirements for full roof replacements. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. Governing standard and allocation of the burden 9. A protective order in Oklahoma issues under 12 O.S. §3226(C)(1), which authorizes the Court, “for good cause shown,” to enter an order protecting a party “from annoyance, harassment, embarrassment, oppression or undue delay, burden or expense,” including an order “that a trade secret or other confidential research, development or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way.” (Okla. Stat. Amn. tit. 12, § 3226) 10. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that §3226(C) shifts the burden of showing ‘good cause’ to the party who opposes discovery. (YWCA of Oklahoma City v. Melson, 1997 OK 81, 944 P.2d 304) The burden of showing good cause “is statutorily placed on the party objecting to discovery and is part of that party’s motion for a protective order.” (Crest Infiniti, I, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, 174 P.3d 996) The Protective Order codifies this same allocation: designation creates no presumption of confidentiality, and"}, {"d": 81, "p": 50, "t": "the burden of establishing that material is entitled to protection “shall remain on the party making the designation.” 11. A party does not carry that burden with conclusory or blanket assertions. In (Crest Infiniti, II, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, 174 P.3d 996), the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that “blanket statements” were insufficient and that the party seeking protection “must show more than these blanket statements to satisfy their burden for a protective order.” (Crest Infiniti, I], LP v, Swinton, 2007 OK 77, 174 P.3d 996) B. Blanket designations. 12. Plaintiffs have raised the issue as to State Farm’s blanket confidentiality designations. Under both Oklahoma law and Paragraph 4 of the Protective Order, the burden now rests on State Farm to justify, on a document or category basis, the confidentiality of the material it has designated. A designation applied uniformly to every page of the production, without regard to content, does not satisfy that burden. C. Trade secret and confidential commercial information 13. The Protective Order adopts the statutory definition of “trade secret” in 78 O.S. §86(4): information that “derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use,” and “is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 78, § 86) 14. Under Oklahoma law, protectable trade secrets and confidential information “must be the particular secrets of the [proprietor] as distinguished from the general secrets of the"}, {"d": 81, "p": 51, "t": "trade,” must possess “a substantial element of secrecy,” and must “‘contain elements which are unique and, not generally known or used in the trade.” (Cent. Plastics Co. v. Goodson, 1975 OK 71, 537 P.2d 330) “Matters of public knowledge in an industry cannot be appropriated by one as [its] secret.” (Cent. Plastics Co. v. Goodson, 1975 OK 71, 537 P.2d 330) Applying §86(4), the Tenth Circuit has confirmed that the proponent must show the information is not readily ascertainable and provide evidence that it “conferred some type of competitive advantage or economic value”; generalized and conclusory evidence will not suffice. (Double Eagle Alloys, Inc. v. Hooper, 134 F.4th 1078 (10th Cir. 2025)) 15. To restrict disclosure of trade secret or “other confidential research, development, or commercial information,” the proponent “must ‘first establish that the information sought is a trade secret [or other confidential research, development, or commercial information]’ and then ’demonstrate that its disclosure might be harmful,” by “a particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.” (Video Gaming Techs., Inc. vy. Castle Hill Studios LLC, No, 17-CV-454-GKF-JEJ, 2019 WL 2514705 (N.D. Okla. June 18, 2019) 16. An insurer’s internal claims-handling policies, procedures, and business strategies are not automatically protectable. Internal corporate documents do not automatically merit protective orders, and a protective order does not exist to prevent “negative publicity” or reputational injury; such material qualifies as confidential commercial information only when the proponent couples it with a particularized showing of competitive harm. (Video Gaming Techs., Inc, v. Castle Hill Studios LLC, No. 17-CV-454-GKF-JFJ, 2019 WL 2514705 (N.D. Okla. June 18, 2019))"}, {"d": 81, "p": 52, "t": "17. Independent of these authorities, Paragraph 3(a)(ii) of the Protective Order removes from the “trade secret” category any aspects of the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim as first-party insureds, including attempts to lower indemnity payments on Plaintiffs’ claim, the total roof replacement requested, and anything regarding denying or partially denying Plaintiffs’ claim. Documents falling within Paragraph 3(a)(ii) are, by the terms the parties agreed to, not trade secrets and may not be designated Confidential on that basis. D. Confidentiality of discovery is distinct from sealing of court records. 18. The Court agrees with State Farm that the standard governing confidentiality designations of discovery material differs from the standard governing the sealing of records filed with the Court. Under Oklahoma law, “discovery documents produced in private litigation are not public records and would not, under the Open Records Act, otherwise be available for public inspection and copying, unless the documents are filed of record or admitted into evidence.” (Good v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2023 OK CIV APP 28, 536 P.3d 961) 19. When material is filed with the Court, however, it becomes subject to the presumption of public access, and sealing is governed by the Oklahoma Open Records Act. (Mitchell vy. Mitchell, 2021 OK CIV APP 17, 491 P.3d 759) Court records are public unless a statute requires confidentiality, and the Court “may seal a record or portion of a record only if a compelling privacy interest exists which outweighs the public’s interest in the record.” A sealing order must be public and must (1) make findings of fact, (2) state conclusions of law specific enough to reveal the legal basis for sealing, (3) use “the least restrictive means for achieving confidentiality,” and (4) be “narrowly tailored so that only the portions of the record subject to confidentiality are sealed and the remainder of the record 6"}, {"d": 81, "p": 53, "t": "is kept open.” (Okla, Stat. Ann, tit. 51, § 244.30) Any order removing material from the public record must also contain a statement that removal “is necessary in the interests of justice” and a “‘specific identification of the material” withheld. (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 51, § 24A.29 ) Strict compliance with these requirements “is mandatory in all cases.” (Good v. Farmers Ins, Co., 2023 OK CIV APP 28, 536 P.3d 961) The “interests of justice” finding is “a very high standard for good reason and is required in every case,” and speculative harm will not support closure. (Good v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2023 OK CIV APP 28, 536 P.3d 961; Nichols v. Jackson, 2001 OK CR 35, 38 P.3d 228) 20. This distinction cuts both ways. It defeats Plaintiffs’ contention that the presumption of public access to court records, standing alone, requires the wholesale de-designation of unfiled discovery. It equally defeats State Farm’s suggestion that the good-faith designation standard excuses it from justifying challenged designations: the challenge procedure in Paragraph 4 and 12 O.S. §3226(C), not the sealing statutes, supply the standard, and under that standard the burden of justification remains on State Farm. (YWCA of Oklahoma City vy. Melson, 1997 OK 81, 944 P.2d 304) IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that State Farm’s blanket designation of its entire production as “Confidential” is STRICKEN. A uniform, undifferentiated designation applied to every page of the production does not reflect the “bona fide determination made in good faith” that Paragraph | of the Protective Order requires, and it does not satisfy State Farm’s burden under 12 O.S. §3226(C) and Paragraph 4 of the Protective Order. (YWCA of Oklahoma City v. Melson, 1997 OK 81, 944 P.2d 304; State ex rel. Oklahoma State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision v. Rivero, 2021 OK 31, 489 P.3d 36."}, {"d": 81, "p": 54, "t": "Further, the Court finds that Exhibit numbers:_2-7, 9, 11, 12, 14-16, 24, 26-38, 40-42 and 4445 identified in Plaintiff's Reply, filed on August 6\", 2026 shall be de-designated and removed from the protective order as the exhibits identified above do not contain any protected information as outlined in the protective order. Further, the exhibits listed above shall be treated like normal documents exchanged in the course of discovery. Re-designation on a particularized basis. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, State Farm shall review its production and re-designate as “Confidential” only those documents, or portions of documents, that it has determined in good faith fall within one of the three categories defined in Paragraph 3 of the Protective Order. For each document or reasonably defined category of documents it re-designates, State Farm shall identify the applicable Paragraph 3 category. Any document not re-designated within that period shall no longer be subject to the Protective Order and is DE-DESIGNATED, consistent with Paragraph 4 of the Protective Order, First-party claim-handling materials. Consistent with Paragraph 3(a)(ii) of the Protective Order, any document concerning the handling of Plaintiffs’ own claim as first-party insureds — including attempts to lower indemnity payments on Plaintiffs’ claim, the total roof replacement requested, and the denial or partial denial of Plaintiffs’ clam — may not be designated “Confidential” as a “trade secret” and is DE-DESIGNATED to the extent so designated on that basis. Burden on any maintained designation. For any designation State Farm maintains and Plaintiffs continue to challenge, State Farm bears the burden of establishing, by a particular and specific demonstration of fact, that the material falls within a Paragraph 3 category and that its disclosure would cause a cognizable competitive or other legally protectable harm. 8"}, {"d": 81, "p": 55, "t": "Documents subject to other courts’ orders. In its re-designation, State Farm shall separately identify any documents it contends remain confidential solely by reason of a protective order or settlement agreement entered in other litigation. The de-designation directed by this Order does not, of its own force, disturb a confidentiality obligation independently imposed by another court; any dispute regarding such documents shall be addressed under the Paragraph 4 procedure with reference to the terms and jurisdiction of the order said to govern them. Meet and confer/further challenges. The parties SHALL MEET AND CONFER IN PERSON AND IN GOOD FAITH regarding any designations that remain in dispute following State Farm’s re-designation, in accordance with Paragraph 4 of the Protective Order. Any designation the parties cannot resolve shall be submitted to the Court for determination, at which time the burden of justifying the designation shall rest on State Farm. The Court further admonishes the parties that future discovery disputes could result in attorney fees, sanctions or the appointment of a discovery master. The Protective Order remains in effect. Plaintiffs’ request to lift or dissolve the Protective Order in its entirety is DENIED. The Protective Order was entered on the parties’ agreement and provides an orderly mechanism, in Paragraph 4, for resolving the very dispute presented here; the appropriate remedy for over-designation is application of that mechanism and the de-designation directed above, not wholesale dissolution. Except as modified by this Order, the Protective Order remains in full force and effect. Sealing of court records. Plaintiffs’ request for a prospective order prohibiting all future under-seal filings absent a particularized showing of harm is DENIED. Nothing in this Order relieves any party of the obligation to satisfy 51 O.S. §§24A.29 and 24A.30 before any material is filed under seal or removed from the public record. Any request to seal a filed record shall be 9"}, {"d": 81, "p": 56, "t": "made by motion, shail be evaluated on a case-by-case basis under the compelling-privacyinterest standard, and shall be granted only upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, leastrestrictive-means, and narrow-tailoring requirements those statutes impose. (Good y. Farmers Ins. Co., 2023 OK CIV APP 28, 536 P.3d 961) IT IS SO ORDERED this AO JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT day of August, 2026. *CLERK TO MAIL A COPY OF THIS ORDER TO ALL PARTIES AND FILE A CERTIFICATE OF MAILING* hee eu I ROBERT: MORALES, ‘Diabier coun Clerk in and for Comanche ‘Coubty. ANatons, ‘Rreby certify that the foregaing'is athe, Obrbet. and _damplete copy of the instrument | neo) fr Joubas es of record in the at Cal 10"}, {"d": 82, "p": 1, "t": "WINMIAMUNL OR FILED IN DISTRICT COURT CAGE OF onLenionrs IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNPKLAHOMA COUNTY SEP 24 2026 BILLY & LACY HURSH, RICK Plaintiffs, WARREN 64 COURT CLERK v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo D. Defendants. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL This matter having come on for consideration this Wiaay of September, 2026, upon Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh, Unopposed Application for Leave to File Under Seal and the Court having reviewed said Application, finds that good cause exists therefore. 12 O.S. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED § 3226(C)(2), §§ 24A.29 and 244.30, 51 O.S. AND DECREED the Court hereby that pursuant to determines that it is necessary in the interests of justice to permit the filing of the requested materials under seal to prevent the materials from being public record. Plaintiffs shall be and hereby are granted leave to file an unredacted copy of Plaintiffs’ Supplement to Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-designate Documents Produced, thereto under seal, and they shall remain confidential until further order of the Court. Plaintiffs are ordered to place the protected material in a sealed manila envelope clearly marked with the caption and case number and clearly marked with the word” CONFIDENTIAL” and stating the date the Order was entered and the name of the Judge entering the Order. A redacted version of the same filing may be filed publicly in this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED!"}, {"d": 82, "p": 2, "t": "JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVED AS TO FORM: egaae'N, Whit et OBA No. 9576 ichael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 Whitten Burrage $12 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: Facsimile: 405.516.7800 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com"}, {"d": 83, "p": 1, "t": "Pe AN nisreicr courror oxtaHoMA couNtY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Hon. Amy Palumbo Vv. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. FILED IN DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY SEP 2 5 2026 86 ebay ae NON-PARTY ACCENTURE LLP’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENA"}, {"d": 83, "p": 2, "t": "Non-Party Accenture LLP (“Non-Party Accenture” or “Accenture”) hereby submits this Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum and Briefin Support (“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel” or “Motion”) filed by Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh (“Plaintiffs”). 1 INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs seek to compel Non-Party Accenture to produce documents despite the fact that the documents are all located outside of Oklahoma and Plaintiffs have improperly served the subpoena at issue in the wrong forum. Accenture is a foreign entity, incorporated in Illinois, and the law requires Plaintiffs to domesticate their subpoena in Illinois in order for a court to compel any response from Non-Party Accenture. Despite this fundamental threshold defect, since receiving Plaintiffs’ subpoena, Non-Party Accenture has gone above and beyond what could be expected of a third-party to try to reach an agreement with Plaintiffs’ counsel concerning their document requests. Non-Party Accenture timely responded to Plaintiffs’ ineffective subpoena, offered to meet and confer to come to an agreement regarding a workable scope and time period, met and conferred after Plaintiffs filed this Motion, and repeatedly explained the reality of the work performed by Non-Party Accenture and the documents within its custody and control, all of which are outside of Oklahoma. Plaintiffs have refused to compromise in any way. Rather than domesticate their subpoena in Illinois, where Accenture is incorporated, they left it atan Oklahoma Accenture office that has no connection documents sought. to the work at issue and does Rather than confer over scope, they filed this Motion. not have any of the Rather than continue to seek these documents from State Farm as multiple other courts in Oklahoma have required, Plaintiffs demand that Non-Party Accenture spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to gather, search, and produce documents over an eight-year period (2018-2026) for an engagement that"}, {"d": 83, "p": 3, "t": "lasted a few months in 2020. This is despite the fact that Non-Party Accenture has repeatedly told Plaintiffs’ counsel that: (1) Non-Party Accenture does not have documents responsive to many of the requests; (2) that certain documents are in fact in State Farm’s possession; and (3) that NonParty Accenture would be willing to consider searching for documents if Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to a reasonable time frame and explained what they were looking for that they had not already received from State Farm or could not obtain from State Farm. Non-Party Accenture’s position on each Request is summarized in a chart attached as Exhibit 1 to this Motion. The Court should not compel an ineffective subpoena and thereby reward Plaintiffs’ counsel for failing to properly serve the subpoena, for refusing to give an inch, and for imposing an unreasonable burden on NonParty Accenture. Rather, Non-Party Accenture respectfully requests that the Court act consistently with its sister courts in Oklahoma and deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and force Plaintiffs to properly serve Non-Party Accenture in the right forum—lIllinois. In order to protect its rights, Non-Party Accenture has also filed a Motion to Quash this subpoena in Illinois. IL. BACKGROUND a. The Work Non-Party Accenture Performed for State Farm. Non-Party Accenture was retained to help State Farm analyze and improve its claims handling processes for several different types of insurance claims as part of State Farm’s Fire Model Enhancement (“FME”). Non-Party Accenture’s work on wind/hail claims was a very small part of this engagement and lasted only a few months from April to July 2020. Plaintiffs’ inflammatory assertions, Non-Party conspiracy to reduce payouts to policyholders. Accenture was not involved Contrary to in some kind of To the contrary, Non-Party Accenture did not handle any of State Farm’s claims and its understanding was that all claims were and would be handled by State Farm based on the merits of the claims."}, {"d": 83, "p": 4, "t": "Non-Party Accenture typically performs its services using its client’s computer systems. That was the case here where Non-Party Accenture’s work for State Farm is concerned. the documents that Plaintiffs attach to their motion demonstrate employees were provided with State Farm email addresses. the vast majority of the documents generated Accenture This is significant because it means by Non-Party possession, custody and control, not Accenture’s. that Non-Party Indeed, Accenture are in State Farm’s See, Exhibit 2, Declaration of Douglas Fuchs in Support of Non-Party Accenture Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Third-Party Subpoena, (“Fuchs Decl.”) at § 4(c); Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel at Exhibits 9, 11, 32. b. On Plaintiffs Have Refused to Meaningfully Engage in Discussions to Reach a Compromise Concerning the Subpoena. July 2, 2026, Plaintiffs improperly administrative assistant at an Accenture Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. LLP served the subpoena duces office located at 525 Northwest tecum on an 11\" Street in Further, many of the requests in the subpoena seek documents that Non-Party Accenture does not have in its possession, or that could be more easily and appropriately obtained from Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“Defendant State Farm”). Non- Party Accenture’s position with respect to each Request is set forth in the chart attached as Exhibit 1 to this Motion. e For example: Requests 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8 seek the industry data, studies, methodology and derivation underlying the “Industry Best” benchmark Plaintiffs allege Non-Party Accenture prepared. However, counsel for Non-Party Accenture has repeatedly told Plaintiffs’ counsel that this type of analysis was not within the scope of Accenture’s engagement and therefore Non-Party Accenture does not have any responsive material."}, {"d": 83, "p": 5, "t": "e Similarly, Request 7 seeks documents provided by State Farm to Non-Party Accenture related to industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements from January |, 2018 to Present. However, as counsel for Non-Party Accenture has informed Plaintiffs’ counsel, similar to Requests 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8 immediately above, because this kind of analysis was not within the scope of Accenture’s engagement, Non-Party Accenture does not have any responsive material. ® Request 5 seeks documents and correspondence of State Farm’s performance on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims in relation to industry standards from January 1, 2018 to Present. However, as counsel for Non- Party Accenture has informed Plaintiffs’ counsel, Accenture did not measure State Farm’s performance in handling wind/hail claims relative to industry standards, and therefore these documents do not exist. Counsel for Non-Party Accenture invited Plaintiffs’ counsel to clarify this request but has not received any response to date. e Request 9 calls for contracts between State Farm and Non-Party Accenture that include work on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims from January |, 2018 to Present. As Non-Party Accenture has informed Plaintiffs’ counsel, this is information in State Farm’s possession and it should be obtained from State Farm (the defendant in the case) in the first instance. On July 17, 2026, Non-Party Accenture served responses and objections and sought to confer regarding scope. Plaintiffs did not take Non-Party Accenture up on its offer but instead waited eight weeks and then suddenly filed this motion instead, despite certifying to this Court that it had met and conferred with Non-Party Accenture when Plaintiffs’ counsel had not. On"}, {"d": 83, "p": 6, "t": "September 11, 2026 — after the Motion was on file — Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to discuss NonParty Accenture’s concerns. However, Plaintiffs’ Counsel refused to compromise on either the time period at issue or any of the requests in the subpoena. Non-Party Accenture followed up in writing on September 21, 2026, addressing each disputed request individually and proposing a compromise approach. Ex. 2, Fuchs Decl. at Exhibit B. As of the date of this Opposition, Plaintiffs have not responded to Non-Party Accenture’s letter. Non-Party Accenture filed a Petition for Protective Order to quash this subpoena in Illinois on September 23, 2026, the appropriate forum governing the discovery sought. See, Exhibit 3, Petition and Memorandum in Support of Nonparty Accenture LLP for Protective Order Quashing or Limiting Subpoena Duces Tecum, Accenture LLP v. Billy and Lacy Hursh (Ill. Cir. Ct. Sept. 23, 2026) (No. 2026L01 1400). c. Oklahoma Courts Have Struck Down Similar Subpoenas Issued to NonParty Accenture. In related litigation involving State Farm in Oklahoma, two courts addressed similar subpoenas directed to Non-Party Accenture earlier this year and in both instances refused to allow discovery to go forward. In Barlow v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., the court entered a protective order precluding service of a subpoena on Non-Party Accenture served by the same Plaintiffs’ counsel as in this case. In doing so, the court found that the requested information should first be sought from State Farm and further found that Plaintiffs’ counsel had improperly served a subpoena notice after a motion to preclude service had been filed. Barlow v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2026 WL 1295782, at *7 (W.D. Okla. May 12, 2026). Similarly, in Foster v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., the court denied the plaintiff's motion to compel third-party subpoena directed to Non-Party Accenture, again finding that plaintiffs should first exhaust their efforts to obtain the discovery from State Farm before seeking any discovery from Accenture."}, {"d": 83, "p": 7, "t": "Docket Entry, May 15, 2026, Foster v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CJ-2023-1426 (Cleveland County). TW. LEGAL STANDARD Oklahoma law is clear that a serving party “shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to [a] subpoena.” See e.g., 12 O.S. §2004.1(C)(1). The Supreme Court of Oklahoma has explicitly held that “the duty to avoid undue burden or expense on a person subject to a subpoena exists in all situations—and that the duty is higher when the subpoena is directed to a non-party.” Young v. Macy, 2001 OK 4, 4 13, 21 P.3d 44, 47, as corrected (Jan. 23, 2001) (emphasis added). An “undue” discovery burden is described as a burden “exceeding what is appropriate or normal; excessive.” /d. at 15. Oklahoma statutes further provide that parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter relevant to any party’s claim or defense, “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and proportional to the needs of the case, considering . . . the parties’ relative access to relevant information. ..” 12 0.8. § 3226(B)(1 (a) (emphasis added). Courts shall also “limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed if it determines that: (1) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive, or “(2) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action.” Jd. § 3226(B)(2)(c) (emphasis added). Oklahoma law provides the specific process by which an excessive subpoena to a nonparty is addressed. Following receipt of an overly broad subpoena to a non-party, the non-party may serve objections and shift the burden to the subpoenaing party to file a motion to compel. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1, “[i]f objection [to the subpoena to a non-party] is made, the party"}, {"d": 83, "p": 8, "t": "serving the subpoena shall not be entitled to inspect, copy, test or sample the materials or inspect the premises except pursuant to an order of the court.” Jd. § 2004.1(C)(2)(b). A motion to compel shall be denied when discovery is deemed to be “unwarranted or outside the scope of discovery.” Royal Hot Shot Invs., Inc. v. Keeton, 2024 OK 70, J 24, 561 P.3d 59, 65 (reh’g denied Dec. 9, 2024). Oklahoma statutes further authorize the Court to quash a subpoena under circumstances in which a subpoena imposes an undue burden or “requires disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information.” 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C)(3)(a)(b). A subpoena may still be issued if the issuing party “shows a substantial need,” or if the need for the material “cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship.” Jd. § 2004.1(C)(3)(b)(2). Finally, Oklahoma courts do not have jurisdiction to enforce out-of-state subpoenas, such as Plaintiffs’ subpoena. See Craft v. Chopra, Lovett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2001 1995 OK CIV APP 135, § 8, 907 P.2d 1109, 1112; OK CIV APP 9, § 12, 18 P.3d 387, 389 (finding that “the subpoena powers of Oklahoma courts stop at the state line.”). IV. ARGUMENT a. Plaintiffs Failed To Comply With The UIDDA, And This Court Lacks Authority To Enforce The Subpoena. As a threshold matter, Plaintiffs have not complied with the procedural rules governing discovery from an out-of-state non-party, and this Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to enforce the subpoena. It is well established that one state does not have jurisdiction over, or the power to order, a nonparty person or entity located in another state to appear in the first state for discovery or trial. See, e.g., Craft, 907 P.2d at 1111 (Oklahoma court lacked jurisdiction to enforce subpoena served on nonparty hospital located in Texas even though the hospital had contacts with Oklahoma); accord Deppa v. Abbott Lab’ys, Inc., 2025 IL App (lst) 241795, 4 46 (there is no"}, {"d": 83, "p": 9, "t": "compulsory process over nonparties outside Illinois); Quinn v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. in & for Cnty. of Clark, 410 P.3d 984, 987-88 (Nev. 2018). Courts have likewise consistently recognized that personal jurisdiction and subpoena power are distinct concepts. Even where a foreign corporation’s contacts with a state may be sufficient to support jurisdiction over that entity as a party defendant, those contacts do not authorize the state to compel the corporation, as a non-party witness, to testify or produce documents in that state. Craft, 907 P.2d at 1111 (applying Oklahoma law); accord In re National Contract Poultry Growers’ Ass’n, 771 So. 2d 466, 469 (Ala. 2000) (“[t]he underlying concepts of personal jurisdiction and subpoena power are entirely different.”); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. OKC Ltd. Partnership, 634 So. 2d 1186, 1187 (La. 1994) (“The concepts, and/or underlying purposes, of personal jurisdiction and subpoena power are simply different.”); see also Ryan W. Scott, Minimum Contacts, No Dog: Evaluating Personal Jurisdiction for Nonparty Discovery, 88 Minn. L. Rev. 968, 984 (2004) (“Most states retain strict limits on the reach of the subpoena power, holding that subpoena service cannot reach nonparties found outside the state.”). This territorial restriction on state courts’ subpoena powers “reflects the traditional concept of states as sovereign powers, exercising plenary jurisdiction within their territories but largely powerless beyond state lines.” Scott, supra, at 984. Accordingly, the mere fact that a corporation owns property, maintains an office, or has a registered agent in a state does not expand that state’s subpoena power over a nonparty witness. See Craft, 907 P.2d at 1111; Jn re National Contract Poultry Growers’ Ass'n, 771 So. 2d at 469. The Uniform Interstate Deposition and Discovery Act (“UIDDA”), 735 ILCS 35/1, et seq., reflects these jurisdictional limitations. Under the UIDDA, discovery from an Illinois nonparty must be pursued through an Illinois subpoena and enforced in Illinois courts. See 735 ILCS 35/3,"}, {"d": 83, "p": 10, "t": "35/6. Oklahoma likewise has adopted the UIDDA, codified at 12 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 3250, et seq. Consistent with this reciprocal framework, courts have recognized that only a court located where a valid subpoena is issued has authority to enforce such a subpoena. See 735 ILCS 35/6; Cascade Builders Corp. v. Rugar, 2021 IL App (Ist) 192410 9 12-14; cf 12 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 3235. Plaintiffs argue that the UIDDA is merely a mechanism for domesticating subpoenas and “does not immunize national companies from the courts of states where they do business.” Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Accenture is immune compel that discovery. at 9. from discovery. That misses the point. The question See No one contends that Non-Party is which state’s courts have authority to The UIDDA answers that question by assigning enforcement authority to the state where compliance is sought, thereby preserving that state’s ability to protect persons and entities within its borders from undue discovery burdens. Oklahoma law is clear that subpoena power does not extend beyond state borders. See Craft, 907 P.2d at 1112; Lovett, 18 P.3d at 389 (“the subpoena powers of Oklahoma courts stop at the state line’). As Craft explained, there is “no statutory authority . . . contemplating [the] extraterritorial effect of [the] Oklahoma discovery process.” 907 P.2d at 1112. Plaintiffs’ attempt to compel an entirely Ilinois-based discovery effort through an Oklahoma subpoena is inconsistent with both Craft and the UIDDA’s allocation of enforcement authority. Here, rather than domesticating and enforcing their subpoena in Illinois, where Non-Party Accenture is located and where compliance would occur, Plaintiffs have attempted to use an Oklahoma office with no substantive connection to the requested discovery as a jurisdictional hook. Plaintiffs seek to compel an IIlinois-based discovery effort through an Oklahoma subpoena based on Non-Party production would Accenture’s unrelated Oklahoma be received by counsel office and the fact that any eventual in Oklahoma. Neither fact expands Oklahoma’s"}, {"d": 83, "p": 11, "t": "subpoena power beyond its borders, and such an interpretation would functionally dismantle the UIDDA altogether. Accordingly, the subpoena duces tecum was not properly issued or served. Plaintiffs failed to comply with the UIDDA, and service on an Oklahoma branch office is insufficient to compel compliance by Accenture, an Illinois company. See Craft, 907 P.2d at 1111. Non-Party Accenture submits the arguments that follow without waiving these threshold objections. b. Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Should Be Denied Because Non-Party Accenture Does Not Have Documents Responsive to Many of the Requests Plaintiffs’ subpoena primarily seeks documents relating to the industry standard for full roof replacement relating to wind/hail damage that Plaintiffs imagine Non-Party Accenture created to help State Farm shortchange policyholders. Accenture’s counsel There was no such conspiracy. has explained to Plaintiffs’ counsel, Accenture As Non-Party was hired in a routine engagement to help State Farm improve its claims handling processes in connection with State Farm’s FME. claims. A small part of that work from April to July 2020 related to analyzing wind/hail Regardless, and as Non-Party Accenture has also repeatedly made clear to Plaintiffs’ counsel, Accenture did not collect or assemble industry data, studies, methodology, or any other information relating to an industry best benchmark in the manner suggested in the requests or in connection with any alleged conspiracy with State Farm. As a result, Non-Party Accenture does not have information responsive to Requests 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8 of the subpoena as it understands the requests. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel information responsive to these requests should therefore be denied. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel documents responsive to Request 7 fails for the same reason. Request 7 seeks all documents that State Farm supplied to Non-Party Accenture for work on the industry standards. As explained to Plaintiffs’ counsel, State Farm did not provide Non-Party -10-"}, {"d": 83, "p": 12, "t": "Accenture with any such information and therefore Accenture is not aware of any responsive information. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel documents responsive to Request 7 should be denied accordingly. Plaintiffs’ misunderstands Motion the nature to Compel documents of Non-Party responsive Accenture’s to work Request where 5 fails because wind/hail claims it were concerned. Non-Party Accenture did not monitor “State Farm’s performance on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims in relation to industry standards,” as Request 5 assumes. It follows that Non-Party Accenture does not have any responsive documents in its possession and Plaintiffs’ motion to compel documents responsive to Request 5 should be denied. Non-Party Accenture has invited Plaintiffs’ counsel to clarify this request but Plaintiffs’ counsel has not done so to date. Plaintiffs make a number of different arguments designed to show that Non-Party Accenture must have documents responsive to these requests. None are persuasive or change the fact that Non-Party Accenture does not have this information. For instance, Plaintiffs contend that in her deposition, State Farm witness Nicole Manduca testified that she received industry best benchmarks from Non-Party Accenture. Even ifthat is true, Ms. Manduca did not testify that she ever received, discussed or even knew about the data underlying those benchmarks provided information to Non-Party Accenture relating to the benchmarks. or ever It follows that Ms. Manduca’s testimony does not in any way undercut Non-Party Accenture’s position that it does not have documents responsive to Requests 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Plaintiffs also incorrectly assert that Non-Party Accenture was paid $1 million for its work analyzing wind/hail claims as part of the Fire Model Enhancement, suggesting that it therefore must have a large quantity of information in its possession. -li- Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel at 10."}, {"d": 83, "p": 13, "t": "As an initial matter, the amount of money Non-Party Accenture received does not change the fact that it did not assemble industry data, receive information from State Farm relating to industry benchmarks, or monitor industry benchmark. State Farm’s performance handling wind/hail claims relative to an However, Plaintiffs greatly overstate the amount of money that Non-Party Accenture received for its limited work relating to wind/hail claims. Exhibit 8 — the document relied on by Plaintiffs - makes clear that the $1 million in fees relates to much more than just wind/hail work. Indeed, page four of the document plainly states that fire-related work, of which wind/hail analysis was a part, comprises only a fraction of the $1 million in fees in the document, completely undercutting Plaintiffs’ position. Finally, on page 16 of their motion, Plaintiffs point to three particular documents, seemingly to suggest that Non-Party Accenture must have responsive information justifying the requests in the subpoena. /d. at 16. A close look at the documents, however, reveals that none support Plaintiffs’ position. Exhibit 21 is a State Farm deck, not a Non-Party Accenture deck as Plaintiffs incorrectly assert, and the quoted language describes work that was not performed, not documents in anyone’s possession, let alone Non-Party Accenture’s. Jd. at Exhibit 21. Exhibit 20 is an email exchange that involves no Non-Party Accenture employees and that includes no Non-Party Accenture work product. Jd. at Exhibit 20. Exhibit 31 appears to attach the wrong document, as its Bates numbers do not match those cited in the motion, nor does the Exhibit support the claim that various files were not produced to Plaintiffs in a reviewable format. Jd. at Exhibit 31. Even if that were true, Plaintiffs’ remedy would be to seek the documents in a reviewable format from the party who produced them, presumably State Farm, and not from Non-Party Accenture. Indeed, nothing suggests that the work product originated on or resides in Non-Party Accenture’s systems. In sum, -12-"}, {"d": 83, "p": 14, "t": "none of these exhibits supports Plaintiffs’ allegation that Non-Party Accenture is withholding responsive materials. Nor do they support the relief sought in the Motion to Compel. e. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Should Be Denied Because Plaintiffs Have and Should Obtain Information Responsive to Certain Requests Directly From Defendant State Farm With regard to the handful of remaining requests in the subpoena, they all seek documents that should be pursued from State Farm in the first instance. It is well established under Oklahoma law that a serving party must take “reasonable steps” to avoid “imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to [a] subpoena.” 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C)(1). This obligation involves the duty to avoid undue burden or expense on any person subject to a subpoena, but “that [ ] duty is higher when the subpoena is directed to a non-party.” Young, J 13, 21 P.3d at 47 (emphasis added). An “undue” discovery burden is one that “exceed[s] what is appropriate or normal; excessive.” Id. ] 15. Here, Plaintiffs have violated their duty to avoid imposing undue burden and expense on Non-Party Accenture by seeking documents that can be obtained from Defendant State Farm. For example, Request 9 seeks contracts between “work on wind/hail State Farm and Non-Party claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail Accenture concerning claims.” Non-Party Accenture is confident the relevant contract is in State Farm’s possession and should be obtained from State Farm. Similarly, Request 2 seeks all documents and correspondence relating to Non- Party Accenture’s work concerning wind/hail claims on State Farm’s FME. This necessarily includes documents in State Farm’s possession including work product generated by Non-Party Accenture for State Farm and correspondence with State Farm. Request 10 seeks documents referring to full roof replacements as “the biggest bucket of opportunity,” and Request 11 seeks documents “on indemnity and/or potential reduction in indemnity.” that should be sought from State Farm in the first instance. -13- Again, these are documents"}, {"d": 83, "p": 15, "t": "This is particularly true given, as discussed above, Non-Party Accenture did all of its work within State Farm’s systems. Ex. 2, Fuchs Decl. at § 4(c). possession if not all, of the relevant the vast majority, Therefore, documents State Farm generated by has in its Non-Party Accenture, including work product and correspondence using State Farm-issued email addresses. See e.g., Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel at Exhibits 9, 11, 32. It is also clear that Plaintiffs have already obtained a significant number of Accenture-related documents from State Farm, some of which are attached as exhibits to Plaintiffs’ motion. In these circumstances, Plaintiffs should not be allowed to simply request from Non-Party Accenture all information relating to its work for State Farm without taking into account what they have already received from State Farm and without exhausting their efforts to obtain any documents they believe are missing from State Farm. Indeed, this was exactly the ruling of the two Oklahoma courts that have confronted the exact situation presented here, and Non-Party Accenture respectfully requests that the Court rule consistently with those decisions and deny Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. Fire & Cas. Co., 2026 WL Barlow v. State Farm 1295782 at (W.D. Okla. May 12, 2026) *7 (independently finding that (i) a protective order precluding service of the subpoena on Non-Party Accenture was warranted because the requested information should first be sought from State Farm, which was a more convenient and less burdensome source of the same information; and (ii) Plaintiffs’ counsel, the same counsel appearing in this action, violated Local Rule 45.1(b) by serving the subpoena notice after a motion to preclude service had already been filed); Docket Entry, May 15, 2026, Foster v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., et al., No. CJ-2023-1426 (granting motion to quash subpoena as to Non-Party Accenture). Plaintiffs’ claim that they have been stymied from obtaining Accenture-related documents because State Farm has objected that it is “not at liberty” to produce documents “authored and/or -14-"}, {"d": 83, "p": 16, "t": "copyrighted by entities that are not parties” does not ring true. related documents State Farm has produced belies this claim. First, the number of Accenture- Second, although Plaintiffs have not provided the actual language State Farm used or the context of its objection, , the exhibits attached to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel indicate that State Farm production of Accenture-related materials. 1257579 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 25, 2010), Morecrafi has not objected wholesale to the v. Farmers Insurance also does not help Plaintiffs here. Co., 2010 WL To the contrary, it concerns documents a party lacks the legal right to obtain from a third party, not documents already in the party’s files. Section 2004.1(C)(1) obliges Plaintiffs to take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a nonparty. Transferring the cost of this production to NonParty Accenture, rather than pursuing an unlitigated objection against the party that holds the documents, is not such a step. Finally, to the extent that Plaintiffs are only seeking documents uniquely in Non-Party Accenture’s possession and not on State Farm’s systems or already produced by State Farm, NonParty Accenture objects on several grounds. none of its requests are so limited. First, Plaintiffs have never taken this position and Second, there is no reason to believe that documents never provided to or seen by State Farm are relevant to State Farm’s state of mind and Plaintiffs’ dispute with State Farm. Third, given that Non-Party Accenture worked in State Farm’s systems, anything in Non-Party Accenture’s possession is likely cumulative of documents in State Farm’s possession and will not add in any material way to the information produced by State Farm or that could be obtained from State Farm. This is particularly true when weighed against the burden of forcing Non-Party Accenture to search through eight years’ worth of data for scraps of information that will not meaningfully advance the development of the facts in the dispute between the Plaintiffs and State Farm. -15-"}, {"d": 83, "p": 17, "t": "d. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Should Be Denied Because the Subpoena Covers an Overbroad Eight-Year Time Period That Imposes an Undue Burden on Non-Party Accenture Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel should also be denied because the subpoena seeks to impose on Non-Party Accenture a wildly overbroad eight-year time period despite the fact that the work at issue took place between April and July 2020. This is particularly problematic because Non- Party Accenture does not maintain a centralized “deal file” relating to its work on the State Farm FME, much less the wind/hail claims that were a small part of that engagement. Rather, as drafted, the subpoena would require Non-Party Accenture to gather custodial data, apply search terms, and then sort through the large number of necessarily irrelevant documents that hit on the search terms but had nothing to do with the engagement because they were created either before or after the short period in 2020 when Non-Party Accenture performed the work at issue. Non-Party Accenture estimates that this process would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars of internal resources, outside counsel fees, and e-discovery hosting costs, and yield very little, if any, information that could not be obtained from State Farm given that Non-Party Accenture performed the work at issue in State Farm’s systems. Counsel for Non-Party Accenture communicated the severe burden imposed by the overbroad time period at the belated meet and confer on September | 1, 2026, and in its letter dated September 21, 2026. Plaintiffs’ counsel refused any compromise. In their Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s attempt to justify the eight-year time period is not persuasive. In a few sentences at pages 16 and 17 of their motion, Plaintiffs contend that because the FME work was underway by early 2020, a start date two years before the engagement “captures its formation.” Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel at 16-17. But there is no reason to believe, and Plaintiffs offer none, that the engagement was “formed” (whatever that means) in 2018 or any time before 2020, when the work took place. Plaintiffs’ attempt to justify extending the time period through the present - 16-"}, {"d": 83, "p": 18, "t": "day is even less persuasive, if that is even possible. Despite acknowledging that Non-Party Accenture produced the Texas impact analysis—the work product relating to wind/hail claims at issue—by May 2020, Plaintiffs seek a discovery period extending more than six years beyond that work and years after the resolution of their clients’ roof claim. Plaintiffs refer in their exhibit list to an email from Mike Massa from July 2020, stating that he would “still be around,” to baldly contend the engagement continued until 2026. Jd. at vi, 13, 17. Significantly, the document cited by Plaintiffs at page 17 of their motion and attached as Exhibit 20 does not involve Mike Massa or contain any statement by him. But regardless, Non-Party Accenture’s analysis of wind/hail claims did not continue until 2026; it ended in July 2020. Moreover, the fact that State Farm may have referenced Non-Party Accenture’s work in 2021 (or even later) does not change the fact that it was completed in July 2020. Finally, Plaintiffs mischaracterize the record in an unsuccessful attempt to justify their excessive proposed time period. Accenture’s involvement in “ECR Plaintiffs contend that an October 2021 Strategic Work” points to a separate purportedly constitutes one of two “distinct Accenture workstreams.” 23. email referencing workstream that Jd. at 13, 16, and Exhibit As an initial matter, this is inconsistent with Plaintiffs’ contention earlier in their motion that their requests are reasonable because they concern “one consulting engagement, for one client, on one subject.” Jd. at 18. But the reality is the exhibit Plaintiffs cite has no connection to the analysis of wind/hail claims. As is apparent from the face of the document, the email concerns the capacity and capability of outside claims adjustors and does not relate to the issues in this case. Moreover, the document is dated October 2021 and provides no basis for extending the relevant time period another five years beyond the timeframe Plaintiffs incorrectly argue is supported by the record. Id. at Exhibit 23. -17-"}, {"d": 83, "p": 19, "t": "Plaintiffs suggest that Non-Party Accenture was required to file a motion for protective order, quantify the costs associated with a potential production, identify withheld materials, prepare a statement describing these determinations, and produce a privilege log. Jd. at 5-7. These demands put the cart before the horse. Before the parties have negotiated a reasonable scope of discovery, Non-Party Accenture should not be required to undertake the costly collection, review, and privilege analysis necessary to generate the materials Plaintiffs unreasonably demand. Requiring a non-party to perform much of the requested discovery simply to establish that the requests are overbroad and unduly burdensome would defeat the protections afforded to nonparties under Oklahoma, and importantly, Illinois discovery rules. In sum, Plaintiffs’ unwillingness to compromise and agree to narrow the time period in the subpoena to one that reflects when the work at issue was actually done imposes a substantial burden on Non-Party Accenture and serves as another independent reason to deny Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. V. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, including those based on the positions with respect to each request described in Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel should be denied. Non-Party Accenture LLP respectfully requests that the Court issue an Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. Additionally, Non-Party Accenture requests that the Court award it its reasonable expenses incurred in opposing Plaintiffs’ Motion, including attorneys’ fees pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3237(A)(4). -18-"}, {"d": 83, "p": 20, "t": "Dated: September 25, 2026 Respectfully submitted, Puyton S.Memilein Amy Sh¢rry Fischer-OBA# 16651 Peyton $. McMillin-OBA# 34721 FOLIART, HUFF, OTTAWAY & BOTTOM 201 Robert S. Kerr Avenue, 12th Floor Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Telephone: Fax: (405) 232-4633 (405) 232-3462 amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com peytonmemillin@oklahomacounsel.com -ana- Douglas Fuchs (Pro Hae Vice forthcoming) GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: 213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 DFuchs@gibsondunn.com ATTORNEYS FOR NON-PARTY ACCENTURE LLP -19-"}, {"d": 83, "p": 21, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on this 25\" day of September, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was emailed as follows: Reggie Whitten Carrie B. McNeer Grant A. Fitz Nathan A. Miramontes Lisa T. Silvestri Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 T: (405) 516-7800 F: (405) 516-7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120 T: (918) 595-4800 F: (918) 595-4990 cmeneer@gablelaw.com nmiramoentes@gablelaw.com Isilvestri@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com Lance E. Leffel David R. Herber GABLEGOTWALS Patrick F. Collogan BIBY LAW FIRM BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Oklahoma City, OK 73102 T: (405) 235-5500 F: (405) 235-2875 Tulsa, OK 74137 T: (918) 574-8458 F: (888) 572-8263 leffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com pat@bibylaw.com R. Ryan Deligans DURBIN, LARIMORE Diane Lee McGimsey (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) & BIALICK 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102-2610 T: (405) 235-9584 F: (405) 235-0551 SULLIVAN & CROMWELL 1888 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 T: (310) 712-6600 mcgimseyd@sullcrom.com Rdeligans(@dlb.net Eric B. Zolner (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Attorneys for Plaintiffs REDGRAVE LLP 230 West Monroe Street, Suite 210 Chicago, IL 60606 T: (773) 720-9169 ezolner@redgravellp.com Tiffany Lynne Powers (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) ALSTON & BIRD, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street NW -20-"}, {"d": 83, "p": 22, "t": "Atlanta, GA 30308 T: (404) 881-7000 Tiffany.powers@alston.com Samuel J. Park (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Kathy J. Huang (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) ALSTON & BIRD, LLP 350 S. Grand Ave., 1* Floor Los Angeles, C 90071 T: (213) 576-1000 F: (213) 576-1100 samuel.park@alston.com kathy. huang@alston.com Attorneys for Defendants State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Mark D. Welty, and Mark D. Welty Insurance Agency, Inc. S Fischer / Peyton S. McMillin -21-"}, {"d": 83, "p": 24, "t": "Non-Party Accenture Subpoena Response Chart Request Request Text Non-Party Accenture’s Response Produce the documents and correspondence of Accenture has no documents responsive to the industry standards and/or other standards or Request 1. No. benchmarks on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims that You (Accenture LLP and any of your affiliates) relied on and/or produced and/or utilized in any way with respect to the work You performed for or on behalfof State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. Produce the documents and correspondence of Based on the eight-year time period, this Your work on State Farm's Fire Model Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any request is overbroad and imposes an extreme burden on Non-Party Accenture. Request 2 also seeks documents already obtained from Defendant State Farm or that hail quality focus initiatives from January 1, could be obtained from Defendant State 2018 until the present. Farm. Produce Your files, including reports, analyses, Accenture has no documents responsive to analytics and data, agreements with third-parties, Request 3. Enhancement -Wind/Hail, State Farm's Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis regarding the industry standards on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims You relied on and/or produced and/or utilized with respect to the work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present."}, {"d": 83, "p": 25, "t": "Request Request Text No. 4 Non-Party Accenture’s Response Produce the documents and correspondence Accenture has no documents responsive to received or produced by You for consulting or Request 4. other work on industry standards or benchmarks on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including but not limited to reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis by You and/or any other third party from January 1, 2018 until the present. Produce the documents and correspondence of Based on its understanding of Request 5, State Farm's performance on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail Accenture has no responsive documents. Accenture has requested clarification from claims in relation to the industry standards Plaintiffs’ counsel but has not received any. outlined in Topics 1-4, including internal quality improvement and/or lowering State Farm's percentage of approvals for full roof replacements to the industry standard and/or to a related benchmark and/or the ratio of full roof replacements to partial roof replacements on wind/hail claims from January 1, 2018 until the present. Produce the documents and correspondence Accenture has no documents ensuring that any industry standards relating to Request 6. wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims identified in Topics 1-5 were accurate, vetted, and otherwise reflected actual claims and reliable data with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. responsive to"}, {"d": 83, "p": 26, "t": "Request 7 Non-Party Accenture’s Response Request Text No. Produce the documents, reports, data used, Accenture has no documents responsive to models, output relied upon, and other Request 7. documentation that State Farm supplied to You, and/or any other third party for any consulting or other work on the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims from January 1, 2018 until the present. Produce the documents, reports, data used, Accenture has no documents responsive to models, and other documentation on Your Request 8. derivation of the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. Produce the contracts, agreements, and/or scopes of work between State Farm and Accenture (or Request 9 seeks documents that should be obtained from Defendant State Farm. any of its affiliates) that include work on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. 10 Produce the documents referring to full roof replacements as the biggest bucket of opportunity for State Farm and/or the FME Wind/Hail from January 1, 2018 until the Request 10 seeks documents that should be obtained from State Farm, and it imposes an unreasonable burden on Non-Party Accenture given the eight-year time period. present. ial Produce the documents on indemnity and/or potential reductions in indemnity on full roof replacements on Wind/Hail claims on State Farm's Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail from January 1, 2018 until the present. Request 10 seeks documents that should be obtained from State Farm, and it imposes an unreasonable burden on Non-Party Accenture given the eight-year time period."}, {"d": 83, "p": 28, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY BILLY & LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. CJ-2025-2626 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Hon. Amy Palumbo Defendants. DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS FUCHS IN SUPPORT OF NON-PARTY ACCENTURE LLP’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENA I, Douglas Fuchs, being duly sworn and under oath, declare as follows: 1. I am Accenture LLP. an attorney at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, counsel for Non-Party 1 am a member of the Bar of the State of California and I have submitted an application for out-of-state attorney registration in this state. 1 submit this Declaration in support of Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel ThirdParty Subpoena. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated in this declaration and would testify truthfully to them if called to do so. 2. On July 2, 2026, Plaintiffs Lucy and Billy Hursh (“Plaintiffs”) purportedly served the subpoena duces tecum, signed by Blake Sonne, an attorney at Whitten Burrage, attached as Exhibit A. 3, On July 10, 2026, I met and conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel to discuss the scope of the subpoena. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not accept Non-Party Accenture’s offer to compromise"}, {"d": 83, "p": 29, "t": "regarding the requests and instead filed its Motion to Compel enforcement of the subpoena without modification on September 10, 2026. 4, The following day, on September 11, 2026, I met with Plaintiffs’ counsel, again attempting to raise concerns about the scope of the subpoena and the burden imposed by its requests on Non-Party Accenture. this call, Plaintiffs’ counsel again refused to modify the subpoena. On | conveyed the following to Plaintiffs’ counsel: a. Non-Party Accenture does not have much of the underlying industry material requested in the subpoena; Locating, searching and reviewing the requested material would be time consuming give the eight-year time period in the subpoena, and the cost would greatly outweigh the marginal relevance of the materials; and Non-Party Accenture works in the electronic system of its clients, including email domains. 5. On September 21, 2026, I sent an email to Plaintiffs’ counsel explaining the following: a. Non-Party Accenture does not have documents responsive to several requests; b. Plaintiffs’ counsel should obtain documents for certain requests directly from State Farm, which is in possession of the requested information; Non-Party Accenture needed clarification to understand certain requests; Non-Party Accenture further proposed a revised time period of January 1, 2020, through the end of July 2020, a period that covered the engagement at issue; and Non-Party Accenture agreed it would consider searching for responsive documents if plaintiffs’ counsel explained what it was seeking that it had not already obtained from State Farm or could not obtain from State Farm."}, {"d": 83, "p": 30, "t": "6. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and accurate copy of a September 21, 2026 email exchange between counsel for Non-Party Accenture and counsel for Plaintiffs regarding Non-Party Accenture’s attempts to confer regarding the scope of the subpoena. 7. Based on my knowledge of the work charged to Non-Party Accenture to date, my best estimate is that gathering the information requested by the subpoena, isolating responsive documents, and conducting responsiveness and privilege review would cost several hundred thousand dollars, given the complexity, breadth, and volume of information implicated by the time period in the subpoena and the requests. 8. 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 25, 2026, at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Douglas Fuchs"}, {"d": 83, "p": 32, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, y. Case No. CJ-2025-2626 STATE FARM FIRE AND Honorable Amy Palumbo CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO: ACCENTURE, LLP 525 NW 11th St. Oklahoma City, OK 73103 YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and produce for inspection and copying of all documents and tangible things in your possession, custody and control, as described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto on or before July 17, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. You may produce the requested documents via mail to Whitten Burrage, 512 N. Broadway Avenue, Suite 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 or via email to Blake Sonne at bsonne(@'whittenburragelaw.com. The reasonable cost of reproduction will be reimbursed to you promptly upon your submission of an invoice for the same. In order to allow objections to the production of documents and things to be filed, you should not produce them until the date specified in this Subpoena, and if an objection is filed, until the Court rules on the objection."}, {"d": 83, "p": 33, "t": "HEREOF FAIL NOT UNDER PENALTY OF LAW. IN WITNESS WHEREOEF, | have hereunto set my hand as an officer of the District Court of said County this 2™ day of July, 2026. Respectfully submitted, Blake Donne _ Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 Bradley W. Beskin, OBA No. 35314 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@@whittenburrazelaw.com bbeskin@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders(@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF A-2"}, {"d": 83, "p": 34, "t": "Instructions and Definitions: The term “Document” or “Documents” means any written, typed, recorded, pictorial, graphic or printed matter, or electronically-stored matter, in its entirety, including any addenda, supplements, amendments, revisions, and exhibits appendices thereto, in its original form and copies thereof bearing notations and all earlier drafts, memoranda or other written information not on the original including but not limited to email and attachments thereto, books, pamphlets, notes, diaries, interoffice and notebooks, correspondence, memoranda, intraoffice communications, studies, analyses, results of investigations, reviews, agreements, working papers, statistical records, desk calendars, appointment books, time sheets, graphic or aural representations of any kind (including without limitation, recordings, motion photographs, charts, microfiche, microfilm, pictures, plans, drawings, surveys), and videotape, electronic, mechanical, magnetic, optical or electric records or representations of any kind (including without limitation, computer files and programs, tapes, cassettes, discs, recordings), including metadata, computer input data, computer output data, computer runs, computer-stored information (whether printed or not) and computer programs necessary therefor, computer, work sheets or work papers or other materials, including all such defined Documents submitted to accountants or attorneys or others, or submitted by accountants or others to you, or matter or things similar to any of the foregoing. Requests for documents (and communications and correspondence) “Accenture” shall include their respective employees and agents. “Communication” includes emails, communication regardless of format. text messages, and all other from types of"}, {"d": 83, "p": 35, "t": "B. Production of Documents: . Produce the documents and correspondence of the industry standards and/or other standards or benchmarks on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims that You (Accenture LLP and any of your affiliates) relied on and/or produced and/or utilized in any way with respect to the work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence of Your work on State Farm’s Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, State Farm’s Wind and Hail Fire Mode! Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce Your files, including reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements with thirdparties, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis regarding the industry standards on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims You relied on and/or produced and/or utilized with respect to the work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence received or produced by You for consulting or other work on industry standards or benchmarks on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including but not limited to reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis by You and/or any other third party from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence of State Farm’s performance on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims in relation to the industry standards outlined in Topics 1-4, including internal quality improvement and/or lowering State Farm’s percentage of approvals for full roof replacements to the industry standard and/or to a related benchmark and/or the ratio of full roof replacements to partial roof replacements on wind/hail claims from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence ensuring that any industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims identified in Topics 1-5 were accurate, vetted, and otherwise reflected actual claims and reliable data with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until . the present. Produce the documents, reports, data used, models, output relied upon, and other documentation that State Farm supplied to You, and/or any other third party for any consulting or other work on the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents, reports, data used, models, and other documentation on Your derivation of the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of . State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. Produce the contracts, agreements, and/or scopes of work between State Farm and Accenture (or any of its affiliates) that include work on wind/hail claims and/or full roof"}, {"d": 83, "p": 36, "t": "replacements on wind/hail claims with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. 10. Produce the documents referring to full roof replacements as the biggest bucket of opportunity for State Farm and/or the FME Wind/Hail from January 1, 2018 until the present. 11. Produce the documents on indemnity and/or potential reductions in indemnity on full roof replacements on Wind/Hail claims on State Farm’s Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail from January 1, 2018 until the present. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE & NOTICE OF SUBPOENA I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of July, 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS TION. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) emcneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com -and- Lance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Blake Sonne A-5"}, {"d": 83, "p": 38, "t": "From: To: Ce: Fuchs, Douglas Blake Sonne; Amy Fischer; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com Peyton McMillin; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten; Brad Beskin; Autumn Hobbs; Kayli Price Subject: Date: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, et al. - CJ-2025-2626 Monday, September 21, 2026 5:14:19 PM Blake, | am writingto see if we can agree to a compromise with regard to the document subpoena such that you will agree to withdraw your motion to compel. In the meantime, please be advised that we will be filing a motion to quash the subpoena and for a protective order in state court in Illinois, where the subpoena should have been served in the first instance because Accenture is an Illinois company and none of Accenture’s documents or witnesses are located in Oklahoma and none of its work on wind/hail claims relating to the FME took place in Oklahoma. With regard to your subpoena, you write in your motion to compel, “Requests 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8 seek the industry data, studies, methodology, and derivation underlying the ‘Industry Best’ benchmark, material Accenture assembled and never handed over.” (MTC at 15-16). In our meet an confer call on September 11, | explained that Accenture does not have any responsive information because Accenture did not gather data, studies or other material when it provided information that was incorporated in certain PowerPoint presentations relating to the frequency of full roof replacement resulting from hail damage. This resolves these requests. Similarly, with regard to Request 7, State Farm did not provide Accenture with the documents sought in the request and therefore Accenture does not have any responsive information. With regard to Request 9, we are confident that State Farm has the relevant contract and can produce it to you (if it has not already). With regard to Request 5, our understanding is that Accenture did not monitor State Farm’s performance on wind/hail claims or full roof replacements, including after Accenture’s work relating to wind/hail claims that was completed in July 2020. However, we are happy to discuss this request with you to the extent you want to explain why you think Accenture did monitor State Farm’s performance and what documents you are seeking that you have not already received from State Farm or could request from State Farm. With regard to Request 10, we are not familiar with Accenture using the phrase “biggest bucket of opportunity.” to compel, You cite Nicole Manduca’s deposition testimony in your motion but unfortunately we have never been provided a copy of Ms. Manduca’s"}, {"d": 83, "p": 39, "t": "testimony and the excerpt cited is ambiguous. Nonetheless, if we can agree ona reasonable time period covering Accenture’s collection of data, Accenture is willingto search for that phrase in its collection set. With regard to Request 11, we do not understand what is meant by “documents on indemnity and/or potential reductions in indemnity” and what you are seeking in this request. This was not a focus of Accenture’s work where the wind/hail analysis was concerned. However, we are happy to discuss with you to the extent you would like to explain what you are looking for and why you think Accenture would have the documents you are seekingto the extent you have not already received them from State Farm or could request them from State Farm. With regard to Request 2, we would like to discuss this request with you to see if we can come to an agreement on a manageable scope. As written, this request appears to cover all documents relating to Accenture’s work on wind/hail claims relating to the FME. As we have explained several times, and contraryto your assertions in your motion to compel, Accenture does not have possession of workpapers (your phrase). Rather, as you know, Accenture worked in State Farm’s systems and therefore State Farm is best positioned to produce the information you are seeking concerning Accenture’s work. It would be extremely burdensome and expensive for Accenture to assemble a data set, particularly for the 8-year time period you are requesting, and search for documents relating to its work on this engagement. The search would undoubtedly yield a huge quantity of nonresponsive information and would only yield at most a small quantity of responsive information that you already obtained from State Farm, could obtain from State Farm, and/or would not meaningfully add anything to the discovery in this case. This is particularly true given, as discussed above, Accenture does not have the data underlying the industry best figures that are the focus of your subpoena. Nonetheless, we are happy to work with you to try to come to a compromise on Request 2. That would start with revising the relevant time period, which we propose would be January 2020 through the end of July 2020. This covers the time-period several months before Accenture’s work began on wind/hail claims relating to the FME through the final deliverable. In addition, we’d like to hear from you what specifically you are after that you have not received from State Farm, as opposed to all documents relating to Accenture’s work on wind/hail claims. Once again, the focus should not be on data underlying the industry best figures because Accenture does not have that information. Finally, | want to address the documents you point to at page 16 of your motion to compel to support your argument that Accenture must have relevant information in its"}, {"d": 83, "p": 40, "t": "possession. First, Exhibit 21 ts not an Accenture deck but rather a State Farm deck, and, regardless, the quoted statement discusses work that was not done, not information in Accenture’s possession. If there is something we are missing, please let us know. Second, Exhibit 20 does not involve any Accenture employees or work product. We do not know what you mean by your statement that Accenture’s “final work product was handed over as a compressed archive whose contents the production does not expose.” To the extent you are referring to a production by State Farm to plaintiffs, then it would seem you should follow up with State Farm. in any event, there is nothing to suggest Accenture’s final work product (which is not what is at issue in Exhibit 20), originated on Accenture’s systems or is even in Accenture’s possession. Third, Exhibit 31 appears to attach the wrong document as the Bates-numbers on the document do not match with the Bates numbers cited in the motion. To the extent you are not able to access documents produced by State Farm, we once again request that you follow up with State Farm. Please let me know your availability for a call to discuss so we can see if we can resolve this among the parties and not unnecessarily involve the Court. Thanks, Doug Douglas Fuchs Partner DFuchs@gibsondunn.com GIBSON Gibson, DUNN Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 12:51 PM To: Amy Fischer <amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com Ce: Fuchs, Douglas <DFuchs@gibsondunn.com>; Peyton McMillin <PeytonMcmillin@oklahomacounsel.com>; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; <hwhitten @whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten Brad Beskin <bbeskin@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, et al. - CJ-2025-2626 Hey Amy, Thanks for the email. Here is the notice of deposition for Accenture. on Friday. 2:30pm Friday work for a call? Please review and we can talk"}, {"d": 83, "p": 41, "t": "On the document subpoena, we already have a motion to compel that we will get on file tomorrow and will set for hearing, but of course happy to discuss resolution on Friday as well. Thank you. BLake SONNE Arrorney, Or COUNSEL BIGNATURE_3602257780 1?) 512. N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 405.516.7800 Tel | Oklahoma City, OK | 405.516.7859 Fax bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www, whitter 73102 | 405.664.2919 Cell Wico The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work- product. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Amy Fischer <amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com> Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 at 12:44 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <pwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com> Ce: Douglas Fuchs <DEuchs@gibsondunn.com>, <PeytonMcmillin@oklahomacounsel.com>, Peyton McMillin Michael Burrage <mbutrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Brad Beskin <bbeskin@ whittenburragelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, et al. - CJ-2025-2626 Blake, Do you have time Friday to chat? My best times at afternoon (except from 1:30-2). Thanks! Amy Sherry Fischer Foliart, Huff, Ottaway & Bottom 201 Robert S. Kerr Avenue Twelfth Floor Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 232-4633 Facsimile: (405) 232-3462 Mobile: (405) 210-6513 amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com"}, {"d": 83, "p": 42, "t": "CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION: This message, including any attachments, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, do not read, copy or distribute the message. Please reply to the sender and then delete the message. From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 10:22 AM To: Amy Fischer <amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com>; Reggie N. Whitten <cwhitten@ whittenburragelaw.com> Cc: Douglas Fuchs <DEuchs@gibsondunn.com>; <PeytonMcmillin@oklahomacounseLcom>; Peyton McMillin Michael Burrage <mburrage@ whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Brad Beskin <bbeskin@whittenburragelaw.com> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, et al. - CJ-2025-2626 Hey Amy, Hope all is well. Reaching out with respect to the document subpoena to Accenture and your client’s objections. Given the Court’s ruling on the second motion to compel and the documents we have in our possession currently, we are very confident the Court will grant a motion to compel. 1 am also sending over later today a subpoena for deposition testimony for Accenture. Please advise if (1) you can accept service of this subpoena and (2) whether Accenture will present a corp rep for deposition. I know we have already discussed these issues, but wanted to reach out one last time before we file our motion to compel. Please advise. Thank you. BiaKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL sicnaTure_2073108203 Le 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bs www , W whi itte agelawice P KY The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Amy Fischer <amyfischer@ oklanomacounsel.com> Date: Friday, July 17, 2026 at 4:01 PM To: \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com> Ce: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Douglas Fuchs <DFuchs@gibsondunn.com>, Peyton McMillin <PeytonMcmillin@oklahomacounsel.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, et al. - CJ-2025-2626"}, {"d": 83, "p": 43, "t": "Sounds good. I have a hearing in Norman at 2:00 so maybe after that? Amy Sherry Fischer Foliart, Huff, Ottaway & Bottom 201 Robert S. Kerr Avenue Twelfth Floor Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 232-4633 Facsimile: (405) 232-3462 Mobile: (405) 210-6513 amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION: This message, including any attachments, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, do not read, copy or distribute the message. Please reply to the sender and then delete the message. From: Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2026 3:59 PM To: Amy Fischer <amyfisch klah > Cc: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Douglas Fuchs <DFuchs@gibsondunn.com>; Peyton McMillin < Lcom> illin Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, et al. - CJ-2025-2626 Blake has a depot that morning. | think ! can make it work but let’s see what Blake says. Might need to be later in the day. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 17, 2026, at 3:50 PM, Amy Fischer <amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com> wrote: Reggie and Blake, After we spoke yesterday, I learned that we already has these done so we went ahead and served them. We are interested in talking next week. How is Tuesday late afternoon? Thanks! Amy Sherry Fischer Foliart, Huff, Ottaway & Bottom 201 Robert S. Kerr Avenue"}, {"d": 83, "p": 44, "t": "Twelfth Floor Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 232-4633 Facsimile: (405) 232-3462 Mobile: (405) 210-6513 amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION: This message, including any attachments, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. tf you believe this message has been sent to you in error, do not read, copy or distribute the message. Please reply to the sender and then delete the message. From: Carolina Bonnet <CarolinaBonnet@oklahomacounsel.com> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2026 2:21 PM To: Reggie N. Whitten <pwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; rburrage@ whittenburragelaw.com; bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com; hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; bbeskin@whittenburragelaw.com; isanders@whittenburragelaw.com; jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com; cmcneer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; gfitz@gablelaw.com; lleffel@gablelaw.com Ce: Amy Fischer <amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com>; Peyton McMillin <PeytonMcmillin@oklahomacounsel. com>; OKC Receptionist <receptionist @oklahomacounsel.com>; Fuchs, Douglas <dfuchs@gibsondunn.com>; Gibbs, BrennaL. <BGibbs@gibsondunn.com> Subject: Hursh v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, et al. - CJ-2025-2626 Good afternoon, Please find attached Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Subpoena Duces Tecum. Thank you! Sincerely, Carolina Bonnet Litigation Paralegal Foliart, Huff, Ottaway & Bottom 201 Robert S. Kerr Ave., 12\" Floor Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 232-4633 Facsimile: (405) 232-3462 www.oklahomacounsel.com CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION: This message, including any attachments, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, do not read, copy or distribute the message. Please reply to the sender and then delete the message. <2026-07-17 (Hursh) Accenture Resp and Obj to Pltf's Subpoena.pdf>"}, {"d": 83, "p": 46, "t": "Law Division Motion Section Initial Case Ma ment Dates for CALENDARS (A,B,C,D,E,F,HI , will be heard in Person. All other Law Division Initial Case Management Dates will be heard via Zoom For more information and Zoom Meeting IDs go to https./Avww.cookcountycourt,org/HOME?Zoam-Links?Agg4906_SelectTab/12 Court Date: 11/19/2026 9:30 AM FILED 9/23/2026 9:59 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS Mariyana T. Spyropoulos COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION e = ACCENTURE LLP, an Illinois Si limited liability partnership, 2026L01 1400 Calendar, Q 40132419 SN Z CIRCUIT CLERK COOK COUNTY. IL = < # SS Petitioner, v. BILLY AND LACY HURSH, Case No. 2026L011400 NS 8 8 g a Respondents/ * Plaintiffs, OO a STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. ee Vv. PETITION OF NONPARTY ACCENTURE LLP FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER QUASHING OR LIMITING SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Petitioner Accenture LLP, an Illinois limited liability partnership, by and through its attorneys Katten & Temple, LLP, pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Deposition and Discovery Act 735 ILCS 35/1, et seg., and Supreme Court Rule 201, petitions this Court for a protective order quashing or limiting the subpoena duces tecum issued by plaintiffs in the underlying foreign lawsuit pending in Oklahoma state court captioned above. The grounds supporting this Petition are set forth below and in the accompanying memorandum. 1. Accenture LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership."}, {"d": 83, "p": 47, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 2. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a Certificate of Good Standing for Accenture LLP, dated as of Sept. 21, 2026, issued by the Illinois Secretary of State. 3. Accenture’s principal corporate office is located at 500 West Madison, 21st Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60661. 4. Accenture’s registered agent for service of process is Corporate Creations Network Inc., 1320 Tower Road, Schaumburg, 5. IL 60173. Billy and Lacy Hursh (“Plaintiffs”) are plaintiffs in a lawsuit pending against defendants State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Mark D. Welty and Mark D. Welty Insurance Agency, Inc., in the district court for Oklahoma county in the State of Oklahoma, Case No. CJ-2025-2626. The underlying lawsuit arises out of homeowners’ property damage claims made by plaintiffs on their State Farm policy in or about 2024. 6. Accenture is a nonparty to the underlying lawsuit in Oklahoma. | 7. Accenture is registered as a foreign company with the Oklahoma Secretary of State. 8. Accenture has an office in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 9. On or about July 2, 2026, Plaintiffs’ counsel delivered a copy of a subpoena duces tecum to Accenture’s Oklahoma office. A true and correct copy of the subpoena duces tecum is attached as Exhibit 2. 10. On September 9, 2026, Plaintiffs’ counsel in the underlying lawsuit mailed to defense counsel a notice of deposition of Accenture’s corporate"}, {"d": 83, "p": 48, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 representative who is “most knowledgeable” to testify regarding 25 different topics on October 16, 2026. A true and correct copy of that subpoena is attached as Exhibit 3. Accenture has not been served yet with a subpoena for this deposition. 11. ‘Plaintiffs’ counsel in the underlying lawsuit have filed a motion to compel with respect to the subpoena duces tecum in the underlying lawsuit in Oklahoma state court. The deadline to file a response to the motion to compel is September 25, 2026. 12. The Oklahoma court lacks jurisdiction to enforce a nonparty subpoena on Accenture, an Illinois company. 13. Pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Deposition and Discovery Act, adopted in Illinois and Oklahoma, the proper procedure is to obtain a subpoena from the Illinois court under that statute and serve on Accenture in J]linois pursuant to that statute and Illinois law. 14. Accenture provides a variety of consulting services to its clients. In or about 2020 Accenture provided certain consulting services to State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (the “2020 State Farm Engagement”). 15. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company is an Illinois mutual insurance company with its principal place of business in Bloomington, Illinois. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the certificate of registration of State Farm Fire and Casualty Company with the Illinois Department. of Insurance."}, {"d": 83, "p": 49, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 16. Mike Massa is a Managing Director of Accenture located in Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Massa performed services in connection with the 2020 State Farm Engagement. 17. Accenture’s documents relating to the 2020 State Farm Engagement are not in Oklahoma. Accenture has documents relating to the 2020 State Farm Engagement in Iinois. 18. Mr. Massa is the Accenture employee with the most knowledge of the 2020 State Farm Engagement. 19. Accenture’s Oklahoma office has no documents or personnel relating to Accenture’s 2020 State Farm Engagement. The services in the 2020 State Farm Engagement did not involve Oklahoma property owners’ policies or claims. 20. Because Accenture, as an Illinois company, conducts business activities in Oklahoma, Accenture is properly registered in the State of Oklahoma as a foreign company. Its registered agent in Oklahoma is Corporate Creations Network Inc. 21. Corporate Creations delivers documents received as registered agent to Accenture’s principal corporate office in Chicago, Illinois. For example, a subpoena in another Oklahoma lawsuit, Foster v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, al, Case No. CJ-2023-1426, Cleveland County District Court, Oklahoma, was delivered to Corporate Creations in Oklahoma, which in turn delivered the subpoena to Accenture in Illinois by sending it to Robert F. Goldman, Accenture LLP, 500 W Madison Street Chicago IL 60661. et"}, {"d": 83, "p": 50, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 22. The subpoena duces tecum in the underlying lawsuit should be quashed because it was not properly issued and served on nonparty Accenture, Illinois company. Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to comply with the UIDDA an and service on a branch office in Oklahoma is defective to force Accenture, an Illinois company, to comply with the subpoena. Under the UIDDA, Ilinois law applies to the subpoena duces tecum and issues regarding enforcement, such as a motion for a protective order to quash or limit the subpoena, because Accenture is an Illinois company and a nonparty to the Oklahoma lawsuit. 23. Alternatively, the subpoena duces tecum should be quashed because it is not proportional, it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, and it seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of the action. Many of the requested documents are already in Plaintiffs’ counsel’s possession because they have been produced by State Farm. 24, Ataminimum, the Court should enter a protective order limiting the subpoena duces tecum to a reasonable scope. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Accenture LLP respectfully requests that the Court quash the subpoena duces tecum. Alternatively, Accenture LLP requests that the Court enter a protective order limiting the scope to a reasonable scope. September 23, 2026 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Nancy A. Temple One of the Attorneys for Accenture LLP Nancy A. Temple Brandon D. Lawniczak '"}, {"d": 83, "p": 51, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 Katten & Temple, LLP 33 N. Dearborn St., Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 663-0800 ntemple@kattentemple.com blawniczak@kattentemple.com Of Counsel: Douglas Fuchs Brenna Gibbs Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 S. Grand Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197"}, {"d": 83, "p": 52, "t": "2026L011400 File Number 000-622 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM a it nne og Cori 6 5one : NOD i Lal ] To all to whom these Presents Shall Come, Greeting: I, Alexi Giannoulias, Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, do hereby certify that I am the keeper of the records of the Department of Business Services. I certify that ACCENTURE LLP, HAVING FILED A STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATION IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ON OCTOBER 23, 2001, APPEARS TO HAVE COMPLIED WITH ALL PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFORM PARTNERSHIP ACT (1997) OF THIS STATE, AND AS OF THIS DATE IS IN GOOD STANDING AS A DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, HAVING FULFILLED ALL REQUIREMENTS OF SAID ACT. In Testimony Wher eof, I hereto set my hand and cause to be affixed the Great Seal of the State of Illinois, this 21ST day of SEPTEMBER A.D. 2026 st Authentication #: 2626402898 verifiable until 09/21/2027 Alyn 4, Authenticate at: https:/Avww.ilsos.gov SECRETARY OF STATE L"}, {"d": 83, "p": 53, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, v STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo Defendants. SUBPOENA DIICES TECUM TO: ACCENTURE, LLP 525 NW 11th St. Oklahoma City, OK 73103 YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and produce for inspection and copying of all documents and tangible things in your possession, custody and control, as described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto on or before July 17, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. You may produce the requested documents via mail to Whitten Burrage, 512 N. Broadway Avenue, Suite 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 or via email to Blake Sonne at bsonne/a@whittenburragelaw.com. The reasonable for cost of reproduction will be reimbursed to you promptly upon your submission of an invoice the same. In order to allow objections to the production of documents and things to be filed, you should not produce them until the date specified in this Subpoena, and if an objection is filed, until the Court rules on the objection."}, {"d": 83, "p": 54, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM HEREOF FAIL NOT UNDER PENALTY OF LAW. IN WITNESS WHEREOF., [ have hereunto set my hand as an officer of the District Court of said County this 2™ day of July, 2026. Respectfully submitted, Cake Dense Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 Bradley W. Beskin, OBA No. 35314 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK Office: Facsimile: 73102 405.516.7800 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburrazelaw.com hwhitten@:whittenburrazelaw.com bbeskin@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF"}, {"d": 83, "p": 55, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM Instructions and Definitions: The term “Document” or “Documents” means any written, typed, recorded, pictorial, graphic or printed matter, or electronically-stored matter, in its entirety, including any addenda, supplements, amendments, revisions, exhibits and appendices thereto, in its original form and copies thereof bearing notations and all earlier drafts, memoranda or other written information not on the original including but not limited to email and attachments thereto, books, pamphlets, notebooks, correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, interoffice and intraoffice communications, studies, analyses, results of investigations, reviews, agreements, working papers, statistical records, desk calendars, appointment books, time sheets, graphic or aural representations of any kind (including without limitation, recordings, motion photographs, charts, microfiche, microfilm, pictures, plans, drawings, surveys), and videotape, electronic, mechanical, magnetic, optical or electric records or representations of any kind (including without limitation, computer files and programs, tapes, cassettes, discs, recordings), including metadata, computer input data, computer output data, computer mins, computer-stored information (whether printed or not) and computer programs necessary therefor, computer, work sheets or work papers or other materials, including all such defined Documents submitted to accountants or attorneys or others, or submitted by accountants or others to you, or matter or things similar to any of the foregoing. Requests for documents (and communications and correspondence) “Accenture” shall include their respective employees and agents. “Communication” includes emails, text messages, communication regardless of format. and all other from types of"}, {"d": 83, "p": 56, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM B. Production of Documents: . Produce the documents and correspondence of the industry standards and/or other standards or benchmarks on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims that You (Accenture LLP and any of your affiliates) relied on and/or produced and/or utilized in any way with respect to the work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence of Your work on State Farm’s Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, State Farm’s Wind and Hail Fire Mode] Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce Your files, including reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements with thirdparties, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis regarding the industry standards on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims You relied on and/or produced and/or utilized with respect to the work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence received or produced by You for consulting or other work on industry standards or benchmarks on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including but not limited to reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis by You and/or any other third party from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence of State Farm’s performance on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims in relation to the industry standards outlined in Topics 1-4, including internal quality improvement and/or lowering State Farm’s percentage of approvals for full roof replacements to the industry standard and/or to a related benchmark and/or the ratio of full roof replacements to partial roof replacements on wind/hail claims from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence ensuring that any industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof repfacements on wind/hail claims identified in Topics 1-5 were accurate, vetted, and otherwise reflected actual claims and reliable data with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents, reports, data used, models, output relied upon, and other documentation that State Farm supplied to You, and/or any other third party for any consulting or other work on the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full . roof replacements on wind/hail claims from January 1, 2018 until the present. Produce the documents, reports, data used, models, and other documentation on Your derivation of the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the contracts, agreements, and/or scopes of work between State Farm and Accenture (or any of its affiliates) that include work on wind/hail claims and/or full roof"}, {"d": 83, "p": 57, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM replacements on wind/hail claims with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. 10. Produce the documents referring to full roof replacements as the biggest bucket of opportunity for State Farm and/or the FME Wind/Hail from January 1, 2018 until the present. 11. Produce the documents on indemnity and/or potential reductions in indemnity on full roof replacements on Wind/Hail claims on State Farm’s Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail from January 1, 2018 until the present. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE & NOTICE OF SUBPOENA I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of July, 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110.N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) cmeneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com -and- Lance E, Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 leffel@gablelaw.com (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Chaka Sonne"}, {"d": 83, "p": 58, "t": "2026L011400 BILLY & LACY HURSH, FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. COUNTY Plaintiffs, STATE FARM Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. TO: ACCENTURE, LLP 525 NW 11th St. Oklahoma City, OK 73103 Please take notice that pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230(C)(5) of the Oklahoma Discovery Code, the Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh will take the deposition upon oral examination of the corporate representative of Accenture through its designated Limited Liability representative(s), on the Partnership (hereinafter, “Accenture”), 12th day of October 2026 before by and an officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the State at the following location: PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 511 Couch Drive, #100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic and videotape means. The deposition(s) will commence at 9:00 a.m., until such deposition(s) are completed. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230(C)(5), Accenture shall designate and produce for deposition one or more officers, directors, managing agents, or other persons who are most knowledgeable and prepared to speak authoritatively on its behalf regarding each of the topics set forth in the attached Exhibit “A” and EXHIBIT 3"}, {"d": 83, "p": 59, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 Defendant shall also produce the documents and/or other materials identified in the attached Exhibit “B” to counsel for Plaintiffs at said date, time and location. Counsel for Defendant are invited to attend and cross-examine. DEFINITIONS FOR VIDEO DEPOSITION OF ACCENTURE’S CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE TAKEN PURSUANT TO 12 OS. § 3230(C)(5) OF THE OKLAHOMA DISCOVERY CODE ATTATCHED TO AND MADE PART OF THE NOTICE TO TAKE VIDEO DEPOSITION The following definitions shall apply to the Topics designated herein: 1. “Action” means the above-styled and cause numbered litigation. 2. “Address/Telephone Number” means both the current business and residential address and telephone number Person(s) referred to in the specific Discovery Request. 3. Insurance “Agent” Agency, Inc. shall collectively and his/its agents mean (s), Mark D. Welty investigator(s), and Mark agent(s), D. Welty or any other representative(s). All information is to be divulged which is in the possession, custody, or control of each individual or corporate party, including all information that is reasonably available to them. 4. “Claim” shall collectively mean and refer to all requests for indemnity to State Farm (along with Documents supportive thereof), as described in the Action, arising from the Dwelling and/or Policy. 5. “Claim File” shall mean the Documents State Farm keeps and maintains with respect to a claim for indemnity under a policy of insurance coverage, which include (but are not limited to): a. Communications between State Farm and insured; b. claim diary or log;"}, {"d": 83, "p": 60, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM c. witness statements; d. adjuster’s file; e. field file and/or notes; f. scope file and/or notes; g. supervisor’s file; h. settlement summaries i. internal policies, procedures, and/or manuals State Farm used, referenced, or relied upon in adjusting or paying the claim; and j. all Documents presented for authority requests or review requests. 6. “Claims Handling Personnel” means State Farm Employees or independent contractors performing work or services related to the receipt, response, adjustment, appraisal, handling of formal and informal disputes, and/or settlement homeowners claims in Oklahoma. It shall include (but not be limited to) YOUR adjusters, claims handlers, supervisors, and consultants 7. “CLUE?” shall refer to the Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange. 8. “Communication(s)” shall refer to any message sent or received orally, in writing, or via technology (including but not limited to telephone, text or instant messaging system(s), social media platform(s), e-mail(s), and/or facsimile). It shall cost/benefit analysis, include any attachments and/or metadata included in said message. 9. Cost/Benefit Analysis means any return-on- investment analysis, financial impact analysis, requests for proposal, return-on-investment analysis, or any other similarly named or synonymous type of documentary analysis that compares the cost of an initiative to the value of its outcome."}, {"d": 83, "p": 61, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 10. “Custodian(s)” refers to the Person(s) having possession, custody, or control of the Document or information requested in the specific Discovery Request. Il. “Document(s)” shall have the same meaning assigned to it in 12 O.S. § 3234(A)(1) and shall include (but is not limited to) all materials described in the definition of “writing” as set forth herein as well as any form of electronic communication, however generated or stored, such as e-mail, which is capable of being copied. The term “Document” includes, but is not limited to the following: every original (and every copy of any original or copy which differs in any way from any original) of every writing of every kind or description, whether handwritten, typed, drawn, sketched, printed or recorded, by any physical, mechanical, or electronic means, including but not limited to accounting records, affidavits, bills, books, calendars, checks, check stubs, contracts, including all policies of insurance and draft policies, diaries, notes, photographs, receipts, reports, tape recordings, tax returns, telephone bills, and all materials within or upon which appear any writing or utterance, whether handwritten, typewritten, printed, transcribed, taped, recorded, filmed, punched, or produced by any other mechanical or electronic system of reproduction, and shall include each Document known to Defendant, its house, dwelling, and/or attorneys, and its agents. 12. “Dwelling” shall refer to a residence, home, other structures. 13. “Employee” shall refer to all employees, past and present, affiliated in any way with any Defendant. 14. “Engineering Services” shall mean any service or creative work, the adequate performance of which requires engineering education, training and experience in"}, {"d": 83, "p": 62, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:58 AM 2026L011400 the application sciences of special to such services knowledge of the mathematical, or creative work planning and design of engineering works physical as consultation, and engineering investigation, evaluation, and systems, planning the engineering use of land and water, teaching of advanced engineering subjects or courses related thereto, engineering research, engineering surveys, engineering studies, and the inspection or review of construction for the purposes of assuring compliance with drawings and specifications; any of which embraces such services or work, either public or private, in connection with any utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, work systems, projects, and industrial or consumer products or equipment of a mechanical, electrical, chemical, environmental, hydraulic, pneumatic or thermal nature, insofar as they involve safeguarding life, health or property, and including such other professional services as may be necessary to the design review and integration of a multidiscipline work, planning, progress and completion of any engineering services. 15. “Indemnity Agreement” shall mean any contractual agreement under which any Person or entity agrees to compensate You for a loss, or under which You agree to compensate any Person or entity for a loss. 16. “Party” shall mean collectively or individually any “Plaintiff,” “Defendant,” and/or “Agent,” as those terms are defined herein. 17. “Person” shall refer to any natural person, firm, association, partnership, corporation, or other form of legal business entity. 18. “Petition” shall refer the Petition filed in this Action. 19. “Plaintiff(s)” or shall refer to the named Plaintiffs in this action. 20. “Relating to” a subject shall mean any documents constituting or"}, {"d": 83, "p": 63, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 comprising that subject, and any document identifying, referring to, dealing with, commenting upon, describing, summarizing, analyzing, explaining, detailing, outlining, defining, interpreting, or pertaining to that subject. 21. “Relevant Time date Period” shall mean the time period from 2010 to the Discovery Requests are answered or supplemented. 22. “You,” “Your,” and “Yourself” shall refer to Accenture, as well as: a. all Persons acting on behalf of or purporting to act on behalf of Accenture (including but not limited to agents, Employees, representatives, attorneys, insurance carriers, experts, and consultants); b. all Persons acting on behalf of or purporting to act on behalf of any subsidiary of Accenture; c. all Persons acting on behalf of or purporting to act on behalf of any merged or acquired predecessors, successors, and/or divested facilities, divisions, or subsidiaries of Accenture; and d. all Persons serving or having served on any governing board of Accenture."}, {"d": 83, "p": 64, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 EXHIBIT A The matters on which examination of Accenture is requested are itemized below. Accenture must designate persons to testify as to each of the following topics. The designation must be delivered to Plaintiffs prior to the commencement of taking the deposition. See 12 O.S. § 3230(C)(5). 1. The full nature, scope, and history of Accenture's engagement(s) with State Farm relating in any way to claims and/or industry standards or benchmarks relating to the same, including but not limited to: a. Industry standards on wind; b. Industry standards on hail; c. Industry standards on water; d. Industry standards on fire; e. Industry standards on total roof replacements; f. Industry standards on partial roof replacements; g. Outcome-based claim handling; h. Industry standards on claim payments. The identity, terms, and scope of all contracts, master service agreements, statements of work, engagement letters, and/or purchase orders between Accenture and State Farm. The identity of every Accenture employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent who performed work, analysis, research, or consulting for State Farm relating to claims industry standards and/or full roof replacement benchmarks, including but not limited to each such person's role and dates of involvement. The methodology, data sources, sample sizes, geographic scope, and time periods Accenture used or relied upon to identify, develop, calculate, or derive any \"industry standard,” benchmark, or comparable metric relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacement rates. The identity of the insurance carrier(s) or industry sources whose claims data, loss data, or"}, {"d": 83, "p": 65, "t": "claim-handling data Accenture used, analyzed, or relied upon in developing any industry 2026L011400 standard or benchmark relating to claims or full roof replacements, including but not limited to how that data was obtained. All reports, analyses, presentations, dashboards, models, and other deliverables Accenture FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM prepared for or provided to State Farm relating to wind/hail claims, full roof replacements, and/or industry standards, including but not limited to the September 10, 2020 Executive Summary PowerPoint and the June 24, 2021 presentation titled \"Fire Model Enhancement — Water & Wind/Hail.\" The process by which Accenture vetted, validated, tested, or otherwise ensured that any industry standard or benchmark it developed, produced, or provided to State Farm was accurate and reflected actual, reliable claims data. Accenture's communications with members of WHMET, including but not limited to Nicole Manduca and Kathy Ress, regarding industry standards, benchmarks, or targets for full roof replacement approval rates or ratios on wind/hail claims. Accenture's role, benchmark, or acceptable percentage or ratio for full roof replacement approvals on wind/hail claims, if any, including in recommending, but not limited calculating, or setting any to Accenture’s role target, in defining full goal, roof replacement as State Farm’s “biggest bucket of opportunity.” 10. Accenture's role, if any, in the development, planning, or execution of the Wind/Hail Initiative \"Kick Off\" in Dallas, Texas in 2020 and its subsequent rollout or introduction into Oklahoma by December of 2020. 11. Accenture's knowledge and understanding of how State Farm intended to use, implement, or apply any industry standard or benchmark Accenture developed or provided, including whether Accenture knew or understood such standards would be used to evaluate, guide, or restrict individual claim-handling decisions, including but not limited to Accenture employee’s participation in the implementation of strategies aimed at reducing total roof replacements and/or claim payments on wind and hail."}, {"d": 83, "p": 66, "t": "12. Any communications, presentations, or documents in which full roof replacements were FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 characterized, described, or identified as a \"bucket of opportunity,\" a source of potential indemnity savings, or similar characterization, and Accenture's role in creating, other property and casualty contributing to, or receiving such characterizations. 13. Accenture's engagements, work, or consulting for any insurance carrier(s) relating to wind/hail claims, industry standards, benchmarks, or full roof replacement rates. 14, Accenture's (including professional any licensed qualifications, engineers, credentials, roofing and consultants, subject-matter meteorologists, expertise or claims professionals) relied upon in performing the wind/hail industry-standards work for State Farm. 15. The compensation, fees, and billing arrangements between Accenture and State Farm for consulting, research, or analytical work relating to wind/hail claims, full roof replacements, and/or industry standards. 16. Any caveats, limitations, disclaimers, or warnings Accenture communicated to State Farm regarding the appropriate use, scope, or limitations of any industry standard or benchmark it developed, including whether such standards were appropriate for use in adjudicating individual insurance claims. 17. Accenture's document retention, recordkeeping, and email/data retention policies and practices applicable to its engagement(s) with State Farm on wind/hail claims and industry standards, and any destruction or loss of responsive documents. 18. The steps Accenture took to search for, identify, collect, and produce documents in response to the Subpoena Duces Tecum served in this action, including the custodians, systems, and repositories searched and the date ranges applied. 19. The corporate and organizational structure of Accenture LLP and any parent, subsidiary, or affiliated entity that performed, supervised, or had knowledge of the wind/hail industrystandards work for State Farm."}, {"d": 83, "p": 67, "t": "20. Accenture's actual findings, conclusions, and underlying data regarding wind/hail claims FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 20261011400 and full roof replacement rates, including any comparison between State Farm's historical claim-handling data and the industry standards or benchmarks Accenture identified. 21. Any internal Accenture quality assurance, peer review, or sign-off process applicable to the industry-standards work product Accenture delivered to State Farm. 22. The complete timeline of Accenture's engagement with State Farm and/or WHMET on wind/hail claims and industry standards, including the dates work began, any renewals or expansions of scope, and the date (if any) the engagement ended. 23. Accenture's actions since learning of State Farm’s usage of its industry standards to lower indemnity payments on wind and hail claims. 24. Accenture's knowledge of, and any role in, State Farm's claim-handling policies restricting field adjusters' authority to approve full roof replacements without Team Manager approval while permitting denial of full roof replacements without such approval. 25. Accenture's understanding of, and any communications concerning, the relationship between the industry standards or benchmarks it produced and State Farm's actual claimpayment outcomes, indemnity reduction, or cost-savings on wind/hail claims following implementation of the Scheme. 10"}, {"d": 83, "p": 68, "t": "1. All documents referred to in Exhibit “A” and reviewed and/or relied upon in preparation for responding to this 12 O.S. § 3230(C)(5) deposition notice. FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 EXHIBIT “B” 11"}, {"d": 83, "p": 69, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 20261011400 Respectfully submitted, Dupe whitn Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah E. Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: Facsimile: (405) 516-7800 (405) 516-7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com ~and~ Patrick F. Collogan, OBA #30529 Biby Law Firm 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 918-574-8458 888-572-8263 (fax) pat@bibylaw.com ~and~ R. Ryan Deligans, OBA #19793 Andrew M. Gunn, OBA #19470 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102-2610 Telephone: (405)235-9584 Facsimile: (405)235-0551 rdeligan@dlb.net agunn@dlb.net ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 12"}, {"d": 83, "p": 70, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 9\" day of September 2026, the above and foregoing was emailed and/or mailed, by certified mail, return receipt requested to: Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) cmcneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com -and- Lance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com ( 405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Dae Réggie Whitten 13 Whiten"}, {"d": 83, "p": 71, "t": "7 ‘uoyBujwWod}g I aoueINsul//:sayy LbEz-992 (608) ssouisng SJaqUINN aud ‘uoyBuiwoojg BZR}q WUE 21215 3UO OLZL9 Suypew eaapeasiuiwpy sassaippy O80LES0-ZE trLGz 92 3sNqeIS sNIGA 78P0) JIVN GE6L/ZL/9 :97eq payesodsoou] aaloy DOYS DIISBWOg IBd SLOU}]| ‘UO}SULWOO]g soWeN [259] sadAy Auedwo3 9]LIWOg Wd 05°€ ‘92/646 ANYdWOD ALTVASVD GNV Juld Wad FLVES 0} SU} aTLGowoyny JeNJnw UUeY ayej5 «= :AURdWIOD jUaIEYg SWOH azes0d105 RZE]g WIR{ 3}e1S BUD OLZL9 SNI=TENOY=s¥900erEg=UaE xdse sLEIaQANUAMAL/ieLHOgIUaBsy/suONed!|dde/Ag6'siou yakeg Auedwiog - aouesnsyl Jo juswyedsq sioulll| WY 69:6 9c0z/e7/6 -ALVO GAld OOrLiO19ZOZ"}, {"d": 83, "p": 72, "t": "ae S|OUll]| SNIFPPRAIDY=S9009rE9=U9z youras Auedwos - aoueunsu| jo JuaWedsq xdseslejaqAUqMal/A [eo gjuabay/suojeoydde/ao6'sioul||aqueinsuly/:sdyy S]yfisoy Yosees 0} yoeg --> Wd 0S°€ ‘9Z/6 1/6 WY 69:6 9zOze7/é ‘ALvd Galld OOrLLOIgZ02"}, {"d": 83, "p": 73, "t": "Hearing Date: 10/1/2026 10:00 AM - 10:05 Location: <<CourtRoomNumber>> Judge: Calendar, Q FILED 9/23/2026 11:10 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS Mariyana T. Spyropoulos COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION CIRCUIT CLERK COOK COUNTY. IL 3 2026L011400 5 Calendar, Q z ACCENTURE LLP, an Illinois S limited liability partnership, 40135326 = <t = 8 i v. Case No. 2026-L-011400 BILLY AND LACY HURSH, x a a Respondents/ i Plaintiffs, Vv. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. ee e Petitioner, NONPARTY PETITIONER ACCENTURE LLP’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND/OR FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Nonparty petitioner Accenture LLP, an [linois limited liability partnership, by and through its attorneys Katten & Temple, LLP, pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Deposition and Discovery Act 735 ILCS 35/1, et seg., and Supreme Court Rule 201, respectfully submits this memorandum in support of its petition to quash and/or for a protective order with respect to a subpoena duces tecum issued by respondents and plaintiffs in the underlying foreign action pending in Oklahoma state court."}, {"d": 83, "p": 74, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM 2026L011400 Procedural History Accenture LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership. See Exhibit 1 hereto (Illinois Secretary of State Certificate of Good Standing for Accenture LLP, dated as of Sept. 21, 2026). Its principal corporate office is located at 500 West Madison, 21st Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60661. Ja. Accenture’s registered agent for service of process is Corporate Creations Network Inc., 1320 Tower Road, Schaumburg, IL 60173. Jd. Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh are plaintiffs in a lawsuit pending against defendants State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Mark D. Welty and Mark D. Welty Insurance Agency, Inc., in the district court for Oklahoma county in the State of Oklahoma, Case No. CJ-2025-2626. The underlying lawsuit arises out of homeowners’ property damage claims made by plaintiffs on their State Farm policy in or about 2024. Although Accenture is a nonparty and foreign to Oklahoma, plaintiffs’ counsel in the underlying lawsuit delivered a copy of a subpoena duces tecum to an office Accenture has in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on July 2, 2026. A true and correct copy of the subpoena is attached as Exhibit 2.. Accenture understands there are more than 140 actions brought by more than 30 plaintiffs’ firms against State Farm in Oklahoma, alleging similar claims. Each of those actions could potentially involve depositions of Accenture witnesses. It follows that Accenture faces a potential onslaught of time consuming, distracting and expensive nonparty discovery, and not merely a single deposition and document subpoena."}, {"d": 83, "p": 75, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM 2026L011400 Accenture has attempted informally to resolve the subpoena duces tecum, which includes 11 broad requests for documents from 2018 to present, including documents already in plaintiffs’ counsel’s possession from the defendant State Farm. Specifically, after plaintiffs’ counsel served the subpoena duces tecum on July 2, 2026, Accenture met and conferred with plaintiffs’ counsel on July 10, to no avail. Accenture then served its responses and objections to the subpoena on July 17, once again offering to meet and confer concerning each of the document requests in the subpoena. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not take Accenture up on its offer and instead filed its motion to compel enforcement of the subpoena without modification on September 10, 2026. The next day, Accenture met with plaintiffs’ counsel, again attempting to raise concerns about the scope of the subpoena and the burden imposed by the subpoena. Plaintiffs’ counsel again refused to modify the subpoena. On September 21, 2026, Accenture sent plaintiffs’ counsel a lengthy email, explaining (1) Accenture did not have documents responsive to several requests: (2) plaintiffs’ counsel should obtain documents for certain requests directly from State Farm, which is in possession of the requested information; and (3) Accenture needed clarification to understand certain requests. time period of Accenture further proposed a revised January 1, 2020, through the end of July 2020, the period of the engagement at issue. Accenture agreed it would consider searching for responsive documents if plaintiffs’ counsel explained what it was seeking that it had not already obtained from State Farm or could not obtain from State Farm. To date, Accenture has received no response from plaintiffs’ counsel."}, {"d": 83, "p": 76, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM Accenture has explained that it does not have any responsive documents for many of the requests in the subpoena. It has also agreed to conduct to search for documents in the relevant time period in 2020, for specific documents that Plaintiffs have not been able to obtain from State Farm. However, Accenture’s efforts have been unsuccessful to date as plaintiffs’ counsel has refused any compromise, and Accenture therefore petitions this Court for a protective order quashing the subpoena or limiting the scope. On September 9, 2026, plaintiffs’ counsel in the underlying lawsuit mailed to defense counsel a notice of deposition of Accenture’s corporate representative who is “most knowledgeable” to testify regarding 25 different topics on October 16, 2026. Ex. 3. The notice of deposition purports to require Accenture to produce a witness to testify concerning these overly broad and irrelevant topics in Oklahoma. Accenture has not been served yet with a subpoena for this deposition, but anticipates issues concerning the overly broad scope of the subpoena and notes that any such deposition should necessarily occur in Chicago, [inois. Plaintiffs’ counsel in the underlying lawsuit filed a motion to compel with respect to the subpoena duces tecum in the underlying lawsuit in Oklahoma state court. The deadline to file an opposition to that motion is September 25, 2026, and Accenture intends to file an opposition in order to preserve its arguments that the Oklahoma court lacks jurisdiction to compel Accenture to produce documents in response to the nonparty subpoena duces tecum."}, {"d": 83, "p": 77, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM 2026L011400 Facts Accenture provides a variety of consulting services to its clients. From approximately April to July 2020 Accenture provided certain consulting services to State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, an Illinois mutual insurance company with its principal place of business in Bloomington, Illinois. Ex. 4, Illinois Dept. of Insurance certificate of registration. Mike Massa, Managing Director of Accenture located in Chicago, Illinois, performed services in connection with Accenture’s 2020 engagement for State Farm (the “2020 State Farm Engagement”). The documents relating to those services are located in part in Illinois, and the documents are not located in Oklahoma. Mr. Massa is the Accenture employee with the most knowledge of the 2020 State Farm Engagement and thus the person “most knowledgeable,” that Plaintiffs apparently intend to seek to testify on behalf of Accenture. Accenture’s Oklahoma office has no documents or personnel relating to Accenture’s 2020 State Farm Engagement and was not involved in Accenture’s provision of service to State Farm at issue here. The 2020 State Farm Engagement also did not involve Oklahoma property owners’ policies or claims. Because Accenture, as an Illinois company, conducts business activities in Oklahoma, Accenture is properly registered in the State of Oklahoma as a foreign company. Its registered agent in Oklahoma is Corporate Creations Network Inc. Corporate Creations delivers documents received as registered agent to Accenture’s principal corporate office in Chicago, Illinois. For example, a subpoena in another"}, {"d": 83, "p": 78, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM 2026L011400 Oklahoma lawsuit, Foster v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al, Case No. CJ-2023-1426, Cleveland County District Court, Oklahoma, was delivered to Corporate Creations in Oklahoma, which in turn delivered the subpoena to Accenture in Illinois by sending it to Robert F. Goldman, Accenture LLP, 500 W Madison Street Chicago IL 60661. Ex. 7. Argument Legal Standard. It 1s well established that one state does not have jurisdiction over, or the power to order, a nonparty person or entity located in another state to appear in the first state for discovery or trial. See, e.g., Deppa v. Abbott Lab'ys, Inc., 2025 IL App (1st) 241795, 7 46 (there is no compulsory process over nonparties outside Illinois); Quinn v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. in & for Cnty. of Clark, 410 P.3d 984, 987-88 (Nev. 2018) (citing cases); accord Craft v. Chopra, 907 P.2d 1109, 1111 (Okla. App. Ct. 1995) (Oklahoma state court did not have jurisdiction to enforce subpoena served on nonparty hospital located in Texas even though the hospital had contacts with Oklahoma). Courts have consistently made clear that even if a foreign corporate entity registered to do business in a state may have sufficient contacts with that state to satisfy due process requirements to exercise jurisdiction over that foreign corporation as a “party defendant,” that state lacks jurisdiction to compel a nonparty, foreign corporation to produce documents or testify as a “witness” in that state. Craft v. Chopra, 907 P.2d at 1111 (original emphasis; applying Oklahoma law); accord In re National Contract Poultry Growers' Ass'n, 771 So. 2d 466, 469"}, {"d": 83, "p": 79, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM 2026L011400 (Ala. 2000) (“[tlhe underlying concepts of personal jurisdiction and subpoena power are entirely different.”); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. OKC Ltd. Partnership, 634 So. 2d 1186, 1187 (La. 1994) (“The concepts, and/or underlying purposes, of personal jurisdiction and subpoena power are simply different.”); see also Ryan W. Scott, Minimum Contacts, No Dog: Evaluating Personal Jurisdiction for Nonparty Discovery, 88 Minn. L. Rev. 968, 984 (2004) “Most states retain strict limits on the reach of the subpoena power, holding that subpoena service cannot reach nonparties found outside the state.”). This territorial restriction on state courts’ subpoena powers “reflects the traditional concept of states as sovereign powers, exercising plenary jurisdiction within their territories but largely powerless beyond state lines.” Scott, supra, at 984. In short, the mere facts of owning property, having a branch office, and having a registered agent as a foreign entity authorized to conduct business in a particular state do not give the state authority over that nonparty foreign entity to compel compliance with a subpoena to testify as a witness or produce documents. See Craft, 907 P.2d at 1111; In re National Contract Poultry Growers’ Ass’n, 771 So. 2d at 469. The Uniform Interstate Deposition and Discovery Act “UIDDA”), 735 ILCS 35/1, et seq., recognizes these jurisdictional limits of each state court. Under the UIDDA, a valid subpoena of a nonparty located in Illinois may be obtained from the clerk of the Circuit Court and enforced in Illinois courts. See 735 ILCS 35/3, 35/6."}, {"d": 83, "p": 80, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM 2026L011400 Oklahoma likewise has adopted the UIDDA, codified at 12 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 3251, et seq. Thus, only a subpoena issued by a court where the nonparty is located is valid to be enforced against that nonparty. See, e.g., Syngenta Crop Protection, Ine. v. Monsanto Co., 908 So. 2d 121, 128 (Miss. 2005) (Mississippi court lacked authority to subpoena documents from nonresident nonparty corporations, even if they did business in Mississippi); supra, pp. 5-6. And only a court located where a valid subpoena is issued has authority to enforce such a subpoena. See 735 ILCS 35/6; Cascade Builders Corp. v. Rugar, 2021 IL App (1st) 192410 ff 12-14; cf 12 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 3235. I. The Nonparty Subpoena Duces Tecum Should Be Quashed. A. Service on Accenture’s office in Oklahoma was ineffective. The subpoena duces tecum should be quashed because it was not properly issued and served. Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to comply with the UIDDA and service on a branch office in Oklahoma is defective to force Accenture, an Illinois company, to comply with the subpoena. See Craft v. Chopra, 907 P.2d at 1111; supra, pp. 5-7. B. Alternatively, the Subpoena Duces Tecum Should Be Quashed Because It Is Not Proportional, It Is Overly Broad and Unduly Burdensome, and It Seeks Information Not Relevant to the Subject Matter of the Action. Even if the subpoena had been properly served, it should be quashed. Under Illinois law, a nonparty subpoena for documents is issued pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 204(a)(1), which provides that the subpoena must comply with discovery rules, subject to limitations imposed under Rule 201(c), which permits"}, {"d": 83, "p": 81, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM 2026L011400 protective orders. Rule 201(c)(1) provides that the trial court “may at any time on its own initiative, or on motion of any party or witness, make a protective order as justice requires, denying, limiting, conditioning, or regulating discover to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or oppression.” Rule 201(c)(3) provides: “Proportionality. When making an order under this Section, the court may determine whether the likely burden or expense of the proposed discovery, including electronically stored information, outweighs the likely benefit, taking into account the amount in controversy, the resources of the parties, the importance of the issues in the litigation, and the importance of the requested discovery in resolving the issues.” 1. The Subpoena is Not Proportional and Imposes an Undue Burden on Accenture. Even if the information sought in the subpoena is relevant, which is denied, it need not be produced if the benefits of producing it do not outweigh the burden. Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 201(c)(8); Burdess v. Cottrell, Inc., 2020 IL App (5th) 190279, 976, 77. In Burdress, the appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a nonparty insurer to produce documents without conducting a balancing test on proportionality and found that the burden on the nonparty to collect, review, and produce the requested materials outweighed any anticipated benefit. See id. Moreover, when the documents have been produced by a party, the benefit of compelling a nonparty to reproduce the same materials is minimal, while the burden on the nonparty is significant, weighing in favor of quashing or limiting the subpoena."}, {"d": 83, "p": 82, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM 2026L011400 Here, Accenture’s services were performed for a limited period from April to July 2020, but Plaintiffs unreasonably seek production of documents for an 8-year period from 2018 to present. Accenture also performed its services within State Farm’s data systems and thus State Farm, and not Accenture (a nonparty), is in the best position to produce documents responsive to plaintiffs’ requests. Forcing Accenture to collect, search and review documents over an 8-year period would impose a massive burden on Accenture in terms of internal resources and legal fees, all while yielding very little, if any relevant information, that either has already been obtained from State Farm or could more properly be obtained from State Farm, the defendant in the underlying litigation. 2. Alternatively, the Court Should Enter a Protective Order Limiting the Subpoena to a Reasonable Scope. Trial courts have wide discretion to determine whether and to what extent a protective order is necessary. Payne v. Hall, 2013 IL App (1st) 113519, J 12: Willeford v. Toys ‘R’ Us-Delaware, Inc., 385 Ill. App. 3d 265, 272-73 (Sth Dist. 2008). If the subpoena is not quashed entirely, it should be limited to a reasonable scope, proportional to the needs in the underlying lawsuit, without imposing an undue burden on Accenture. Plaintiffs are not entitled to a fishing expedition or to duplicate information already provided by a party. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Accenture LLP respectfully requests that the Court enter a protective order quashing the subpoena duces tecum. Alternatively, 10"}, {"d": 83, "p": 83, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM 20261011400 Accenture LLP requests that the Court enter a protective order limiting the scope to a reasonable scope. September 23, 2026 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Nancy A, Temple One of the Attorneys for Accenture LLP Nancy A. Temple Brandon D. Lawniczak Katten & Temple, LLP 33 N. Dearborn St., Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 663-0800 ntemple@kattentemple.com blawniczak@kattentemple.com Of Counsel: Douglas Fuchs Brenna Gibbs Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 S. Grand Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 11"}, {"d": 83, "p": 84, "t": "000-622 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM 2026L011400 File Number To all to whom these Presents Shall Come, Greeting: I, Alexi Giannoulias, Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, do hereby certify that I am the keeper of the records of the Department of Business Services. I certify that ACCENTURE LLP, HAVING FILED A STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATION IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ON OCTOBER 23, 2001, APPEARS TO HAVE COMPLIED WITH ALL PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFORM PARTNERSHIP ACT (1997) OF THIS STATE, AND AS OF THIS DATE IS IN GOOD STANDING AS A DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, HAVING FULFILLED ALL REQUIREMENTS OF SAID ACT. InTestimony Whereof, I hereto set my hand and cause to be affixed the Great Seal of the State of Illinois, this day of wd SEPTEMBER A.D. 21ST 2026 ws Authentication #: 2626402898 verifiable until 09/21/2027 Aun 4, Authenticate at: https://vww.ilsos.gov L PLAINTIFF'S SECRETARY OF STATE EXHIBIT"}, {"d": 83, "p": 85, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D, WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo Defendants. SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO: ACCENTURE, LLP 525 NW 11th St. Oklahoma City, OK 73103 YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and produce for inspection and copying of all documents and tangible things in your possession, custody and control, as described the on Exhibit “A” attached hereto on or before July 17, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. You may produce requested documents via mail to Whitten Burrage, 512 N. Broadway Avenue, Suite 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 or via email to Blake Sonne at bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com. The reasonable cost of reproduction will be reimbursed to you promptly upon your submission of an invoice for the same. In order to allow objections to the production of documents and things to be filed, you should not produce them until the date specified in this Subpoena, and if an objection is filed, until the Court rules on the objection."}, {"d": 83, "p": 86, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM HEREOF FAIL NOT UNDER PENALTY OF LAW. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, | have hereunto set my hand as an officer of the District Court of said County this 2™ day of July, 2026. Respectfully submitted, Blade Donne Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 Bradley W. Beskin, OBA No. 35314 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 ‘WHITTEN BURRAGE §12 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: Facsimile: 405.516.7800 405.516.7859 rvhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhittend@whittenburrazelaw.com bbeskin@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders(@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF"}, {"d": 83, "p": 87, "t": "2026L011400 Instruct 1 Definitions: FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM The term “Document” or “Documents” means any written, typed, recorded, pictorial, graphic or printed matter, or electronically-stored matter, in its entirety, including any addenda, supplements, amendments, revisions, exhibits and appendices thereto, in its original form and copies thereof bearing notations and all earlier drafts, memoranda or other written information not on the original including but not limited to email and attachments thereto, books, pamphlets, notes, diaries, interoffice and notebooks, correspondence, memoranda, intraoffice communications, studies, analyses, results of investigations, reviews, agreements, working papers, statistical records, desk calendars, appointment books, time sheets, graphic or aural representations of any kind (including without limitation, photographs, charts, microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures, plans, drawings, surveys), and electronic, mechanical, magnetic, optical or electric records or representations of any kind (including without limitation, computer files and programs, tapes, cassettes, discs, recordings), including metadata, computer input data, computer output data, computer runs, computer-stored information (whether printed or not) and computer programs necessary therefor, computer, work sheets or work papers or other materials, including all such defined Documents submitted to accountants or attorneys or others, or submitted by accountants or others to you, or matter or things similar to any of the foregoing. Requests for documents (and communications and correspondence) “Accenture” shall include their respective employees and agents. “Communication” includes emails, communication regardless of format. A-3 text messages, and all other from types of"}, {"d": 83, "p": 88, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM Production of Documents: . Produce the documents and correspondence of the industry standards and/or other standards or benchmarks on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims that You (Accenture LLP and any of your affiliates) relied on and/or produced and/or utilized in any way with respect to the work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence of Your work on State Farm's Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, State Farm’s Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce Your files, including reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements with thirdparties, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis regarding the industry standards on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims You relied on and/or produced and/or utilized with respect to the work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence received or produced by You for consulting or other work on industry standards or benchmarks on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including but not limited to reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis by You and/or any other third party from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence of State Farm’s performance on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hai! claims in relation to the industry standards outlined in Topics 1-4, including internal quality improvement and/or lowering State Farm’s percentage of approvals for full roof’ replacements to the industry standard and/or to a related benchmark and/or the ratio of full roof replacements to partial roof replacements on wind/hail claims from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence ensuring that any industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims identified in Topics 1-5 were accurate, vetted, and otherwise reflected actual claims and reliable data with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents, reports, data used, models, output relied upon, and other documentation that State Farm supplied to You, and/or any other third party for any consulting or other work on the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents, reports, data used, models, and other documentation on Your derivation of the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the contracts, agreements, and/or scopes of work between State Farm and Accenture (or any of its affiliates) that include work on wind/hail claims and/or full roof"}, {"d": 83, "p": 89, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM 2026L011400 replacements on wind/hail claims with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. 10. Produce the documents referring to full roof replacements as the biggest bucket of opportunity for State Farm and/or the FME Wind/Hail from January 1, 2018 until the present. 11. Produce the documents on indemnity and/or potential reductions in indemnity on full roof replacements on Wind/Hail claims on State Farm’s Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail from January 1, 2018 until the present. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE & NOTICE OF SUBPOENA I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of July, 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110.N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) cmeneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com -and- Lance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com ( 405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Blak A-5 Sonne"}, {"d": 84, "p": 1, "t": "Wi RA all e10591765 HH 70% SREP OFORT cena IN THE DISRCT GuiuA Lacy Hursh _ t Attorney(s) Petitioner(s¥ 282 ( ( --VS. 1g COURT CLR Case No. y for Petitioner Delgers 20 aly ~ AG A 6 (ile Lestel_, Asnlyn Smith Wate Varm ,@t. al. Attorney($) for Respondent Respondent(s) y COURT MINUTE Date: _. COUNTY COURT OF OKLAHOMA q - aX - AAG . Hearing On: Plaine ¢! Ruling By Court: (akon x 6 Judge — Piny De- -Desiaiiate Dalarna q Strive Canfdent al it ¢ THIS Cou de desinnarts. if davuments Extioirs (0, P12, 16, '7, and 19; Exhibits 4-6 ond 12 40 Plamds Fes | Peply ISD De- Desi¢n action | and EXMibit (6 +o Plaine s? Supplernental Peta heaping Plainkige s / Matin 4s QeDcsagnate- Plantices :"}, {"d": 85, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY FILED DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA September 28, 2026 4:59 PM BILLY & LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-2626 v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo Defendants. NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY ON STATE FARM’S EXECUTIVES’ KNOWLEDGE OF BAD FAITH TACTICS AND OUTCOME-BASED CLAIM HANDLING COME NOW the Plaintiffs, Billy and Lacy Hursh, and hereby provide Notice to the Court of Supplemental Authority on State Farm’s Executives’ Knowledge of Bad Faith Tactics and Outcome-Based Claim Handling. This supplement is to bring clarity to and correct the records at multiple hearings before this Court, including but not limited to the September 1, 2026 hearing on State Farm’s Motion for a Protective Order and to Quash Plaintiffs’ Deposition Notice of State Farm’s Chief Executive Officer Jon Farney, wherein State Farm has argued to this Court that State Farm’s CEO has no knowledge of State Farm’s bad faith tactics and outcome-based claim handling targeted at reducing indemnity payouts on wind/hail property damage and/or roof replacement claims before those claims ever occurred pursuant to the Wind/Hail Focus Initiative. To clear the record as to State Farm’s false arguments and in considering the Court’s September 28, 2026 Court Minute that de-designated 11 documents, Plaintiffs hereby file Exhibit 17 (remarked and reattached hereto as Exhibit 1) attached to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike State Farm’s Blanket"}, {"d": 85, "p": 2, "t": "Confidentiality Assertion and De-Designate Documents Produced for Good Cause (filed Aug. 4, 2026) and Exhibit 16 (re-marked and re-attached hereto as Exhibit 2) attached to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate (filed Sept. 23, 2026). Exhibits 1 and 2 attached hereto were both included in the Court’s September 28, 2026 Court Minute on de-designation and are no longer confidential. These documents attached to this Notice are crucial due to numerous State Farm executives’ depositions taking place in Judge Palumbo’s courtroom, as well as CEO Jon Farney’s deposition that was ordered by this Court and is currently scheduled to take place on October 19, 2026. Plaintiffs have the right to use these documents at these upcoming depositions to shed light on contradictory statements made by State Farm’s attorneys in court and by the State Farm executives whose testimony has differed greatly between this case and the West case in Comanche County. According to State Farm when it receives notices for deposition, the executives who were essential to State Farm’s work with Accenture have no unique fact knowledge. See e.g. 10/24/2025 SF MTQ Ress Notice at p. 9 (“Ms. Ress has no unique knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ insurance claims.”). However, key discovery in this case shows that Ms. Ress was one of four Vice Presidents who served as an executive lead on State Farm’s work with Accenture. See Ex. 2, HUR00156099 (“The Exec leads ... Kathy,”). Exhibit 2 is a document titled “Executive Summary — Op Model — 9.10.20” which Accenture was involved with the development of. This operations model which Accenture worked with State Farm on contains blatant bad faith plotting to reduce claim payouts and develop “‘outcome-based"}, {"d": 85, "p": 3, "t": "handling:” claim * Move coverage (and liability) decisions earlier in the lifecycle through insights acceleration and workflow integration + Expansion of automation for downstream activities allows minimal touch for claim resolution * * Damage Evaluation partners engage to accelerate virtual estimating capabilities & accuracy Claim classification informs skill-based routing and outcome-based claim handling. Auto & Fire Model Enhancement teams are optimized for ‘specialized handling’ footprint * . . Insights driven workflow optimizes inspection option presentation driving vendor network or virtual inspections only * Vendors are empowered to make decisions and pass conclusions along to move claim forward Estimators and vendor footprint is optimized to maintain and increase virtual inspection % Shift from calendar-based workflow to intelligent inventory prioritization and task surfacing Leadership intervention and escalation will be surfaced based on claim characteristics to allow narrowed yet prioritized management structure » Claim characteristics are analyzed at intake to predict exposure & path EXPENSE! EFFICIENCY - “B. ASPIRATIONS - §218M - $300M $325M - $500M See Ex. 16 at HUR00156103. It is pure bad faith and a gross violation of the duties owed to firstparty insureds that State Farm hired Accenture to develop an operations model for “outcome-based claim handling.” As such, this document cannot be considered privileged. Oklahoma law is clear that an insurer can never treat its insureds as an adversary, and engaging in outcome-based claim handling to save State Farm $218-$300 million dollars on claims that have not happened yet is the most adversarial conduct an insurance company could engage in. Newport v. USAA, 2000 OK 59, q 15, 11 P.3d 190 (“An insurer may not treat its own insured in the manner in which an insurer may treat third-party claimants to whom no duty of good faith and fair dealing is owed and cannot offer less than an internal evaluation of how much the claim is worth.”); Furthermore, this same operations model is where the “Fire Model Enhancement” or “FME” is developed and implemented to reduce claim payments for an “efficiency aspiration” to the tune of “$218M-$300M” in the pockets of State Farm. See id. It even discusses leadership"}, {"d": 85, "p": 4, "t": "intervention or what becomes team manager review required of full roof replacements to the estimated “efficiency aspiration” of “$325M-$500M.” See id. Outcome-based claim handling is inappropriate because Oklahoma law and the duty of good faith and fair dealing requires each claim be handled on the merits and based on the policy terms. See e.g. Beers v. Hillory, 2010 OK CIV APP 99, ¢ 30, 241 P.3d 285 (“The Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act can provide the district court for guidance in determining whether particular conduct on the part of an insurer is unreasonable and sufficient to constitute a basis for a bad faith claim.”); 36 O.S. § 1250.5(1-2) (Provision of the Oklahoma Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act) (“1. 1. Failing to fully disclose to first-party claimants, benefits, coverages, or other provisions of any insurance policy or insurance contract when the benefits, coverages or other provisions are pertinent to a claim;2. Knowingly misrepresenting to claimants pertinent facts or policy provisions relating to coverages at issue[.]”);36 O.S. § 1250.7 (Provision of the Oklahoma Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act) (“No property and casualty insurer shall deny a claim because of a specific policy provision, condition, or exclusion unless reference to such provision, condition, or exclusion is included in the denial. A denial shall be given to any claimant in writing, and the claim file of the property and casualty insurer shall contain a copy of the denial.”); Christian v. American Home Assur. Co., 1977 OK 141, § 12, 577 P.2d 899 (An insurer must act fairly when adjusting a claim.); Milroy v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2007 OK CIV APP 6, 18, 151 P.3d 922 (“The duty of good faith and fair dealing is inherent in every contract of insurance.”). Furthermore, the same executive discussed how “coverage is the strongest area of improvement, HURO00031476. following: yet remains She also the largest discusses area of opportunity “quality indicators related to FED$.” trending positively” See Ex. 2, including the"}, {"d": 85, "p": 5, "t": "Other quality indicators trending positively include: e May 2021 Total Roof to Partial Roof Replacement down from 4.1 in June 2020 to 2.3 in May 2021 » Wind/Hail estimate payment bands over $10,000 decreased 13% YOY * Wind Cat/NCAT CWP/Reported ratio is up 7.7 at 32.3 R12 (10YR CAGR is 25.2); Hail Cat/NCAT CWP/Reported ratio is up 15.7 at 34.7 R12 (10YR CAGR is 22.9) See Ex. 2. State Farm leadership is openly bragging about total roof payments decreasing, and calling that positive, including tracking how many claims closed without payment (“CWP”). As such, Plaintiffs respectfully submit this Notice to clear the record of certain allegations about State Farm executive involvement in Accenture, outcome-based claim handling, and bragging about reductions in claim payments as a positive trend. Respectfully submitted, Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com -and- Patrick F. Collogan, OBA #30529 Biby Law Firm"}, {"d": 85, "p": 6, "t": "6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 918-574-8458 888-572-8263 (fax) pat@bibylaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS"}, {"d": 85, "p": 7, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 28\" day of September, 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) emcneer@gablelaw.com gtitz@gablelaw.com -and- Lance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com ( 405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Hannah Whitten"}, {"d": 85, "p": 8, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Pac Claims Fire Claim Quality ry e * x & StateFarin & une 2021 Fire Claims The 2021 Fire Property Claims Quality Plan outlines specific tactics to address quality opportunities, yet action plans are adjusted based on actual results. Measurement and monitoring is in place at the team and individual level. Results are reviewed monthly at each level and documented in MyBlock to include trends and next steps for improvement and oversight. Results, Drivers and Actions in Progress are outlined by each VPO to drive improvement with the common thread of a one team quality approach to improve accuracy across fire claims. Fire Weather: Ress Coverage analysis is the strongest area of improvement, yet remains the largest area of opportunity related to FED $. Estimate reconciliation also improved in reconciling the contractors estimate, yet remains an area of focus. Scoping covered damages needs improvement. Action plans are heightened for scoping. Results Fire Weather Reinspection Fire Frequency Error Target is 7.8%, or a 20% improvement from 9.75% 4Q20 results. ¢ 7.33% YTD results for Fire Weather internal staff only (includes Winter Storm Uri) ¢ 8.12% YTD results for all Externals (includes Winter Storm Uri) compared to 8.36% at 4Q20 ¢ 7.73% YTD Wind Hail combined; 7.58% YTD Wind Only, 7.93% YTD Hail Only Three month wind/nail trends are improving for combined wind/hail peril from March to May and running at target error rate. External trends also improving Mar to May. Fire Weather internal staff 3-month trends declined, primarily related to winter freeze claim reinspection findings as Uri claims represent the largest volume of catastrophe claims handled YTD. Other quality indicators trending positively include: e May 2021 Total Roof to Partial Roof Replacement down from 4.1 in June 2020 to 2.3 in May ¢ « 2021 Wind/Hail estimate payment bands over $10,000 decreased 13% YOY Wind Cat/(NCAT CWP/Reported ratio is up 7.7 at 32.3 R12 (10YR CAGR is 25.2); Hail Cat/NCAT e Virtual Inspection CWP/Reported ratio is up 15.7 at 34.7 R12 (10YR CAGR is 22.9) FED 40 Actual 4.06% for Fire Weather Internal Staff, YTD FED 4.25% with Mar to May trending down. FED 4Q Actual 4.71% for Externals, YTD FED 5.53 % with March to May also trending down. FED $ results are heavily related to freeze losses. Drivers The top three drivers of results differ between Fire Weather internal and external resources. members, the drivers include: « Paying for non-covered roof damage e Reconciling the contractor's estimate related to finish carpentry (freeze losses) * Roof estimates reflect covered damages per the scope For staff The Roofing Skills Assessment identified the following areas for improvement in scoping the roof o Xactimate Category/Selector Codes (e.g. skylight trim) o Application of Appropriate Roof Waste Factor o Identifying Hail Resistive Roofing Material EXHIBIT For ECRs, the drivers include: « Paying for non-covered roof damage « Reconciling the contractor's estimate related to water extraction (freeze losses) OR INTERNAL STATE FARM USE ONLY .. Dontaing CONFIDENTIAL infermation which may nai be disci 1 T without express wrilien AHON. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HUR00031476"}, {"d": 85, "p": 9, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al e Estimate reflecting covered damages per the scope related to Painting (freeze losses) Actions in Progress Fire Model Enhancement Wind/Hail guidelines with TM intervention for total roof replacements on smail hail/light wind. Fire Data Accuracy Dashboard spot-check reviews for ‘TM Approvals’ on smail hail, light wind and age & condition (specified states). e Conducting recalibration sessions in early July on repair/replace and reasonabie consistent appearance following a file review. Estimatics Skills Enhancement « WCCS Stewardship TM Estimate Writing Assessment conducted on June 21° to implement targeted estimatics training. TMs completed Assessment on 6/21, with an average overall score of 83%. Training assessment in progress {to deliver targeted training in July. Implementing targeted Training Modules based on under-scoping reinspection analysis in July. Reinspectors to deploy onsite to support findings earlier in the cycle starting in July. Leadership Accountability and Alignment « e Division/Section/Team/Individual reinspection results are reviewed monthly with Top 3 Areas of Focus for monthly MyBlock, huddle and performance dialogues. This focus has led to identifying several individual claim handlers driving negative quality results. All division leaders (CM, SM and TM) complete spot-check reviews as outlined in the Fire Quality Plan with focus on CWP to Payments 2 $2500 (5 reviews) and Total Roof Reason Codes (6 reviews) Monthly meeting with Claim Consultant to review overturned roof calls by In-Office to drive consistency and specific opportunities like “Reasonable Appearance”. e ECR Vendor Performance Management e Delivering reinspection findings at macro and micro level to vendor executives and leaders e regarding error frequency and most common errors to enable action Vendor Performance Dialogue sessions with vendor leaders where specific actions/tactics are e delivered by firms in quality space Tracking of ECR tenure to obtain action plans by ECR Vendors when there is iower tenure Fire Proximity: Smith The main areas of opportunity based on findings and FED include Coverage, Reconciliation and Scope. Results While opportunities remain, Reinspection trending supports the efficacy in the action items currently in place. Overall Proximity results for May, in both % FED to Estimate Dollars Written (5.38%) and Finding Frequency (10.15%) were below the Q4 benchmarks. e Finding Frequency has been below benchmark (10.75%) each month so far this year. May's result was the lowest of the year. « % FED to Estimate Dollars Written has been below benchmark (5.43%) 4 of 5 months this year. Drivers Coverage e e Wind/Hail: accurate damage assessment on roof claims Water: accurate coverage analysis on continuous, repeated, seepage and leakage (CRSL) related claims Reconciliation e Identification in overlap between mitigation and repair estimates e File documentation to support claim handling Scope e Over scoping; top driver associated with paint SOR INTERNAL STATE FARM USE ONLY .. Contains CON i wiation, Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order TENTIAL infomnation which mey nat be disciosad without express writie MAGE 2af3 HUR00031477"}, {"d": 85, "p": 10, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Actions in Progress Additional oversight, accountability and monitoring have been added at each leadership level as outlined. « Review of Reinspection Results associated with coverage, reconciliation and scope e e e o Tobe reviewed between TMs and SMs on FED findings over $1K; SMs to review trends o with CM and Consultant SMs to review FED findings over $5K with CM o Review Reinspection Coverage finding in monthly performance conversations Q2 Water Forums — Focus on Estimatics and Reconciliation based on top Reinspection Findings o xpectation setting for all claim specialists and leadership Wind/Hail Quality Focus o Primary focus is on coverage and repair versus replacement damage evaluations o o TM authority required on wind less than 50 MPH and hail less than 1” SM and CM review of Utilization Dashboards results associated with partial/total roofs and TM file reviews in monthly performance discussions Waiter Quality Focus o o Accelerated Management Reviews to address Coverage and Estimatics Water Claim Handling Estimatics Considerations developed for handlers based on most common Reinspection findings o SMand CM review of Utilization Dashboards results associated with completion and direction provided through the Accelerated Management Reviews/Water Coverage Analysis tasks e¢ Monthly Quality Review at the Segment and Division levels to address results, drivers and impact of the plan. Fire In-Office: Mazza The main areas of opportunity based on findings and FED include Coverage, Reconciliation and Scope. Results Overall reinspection findings for HCCS In-Office operations have made improvements over Q4 2020 results for both severity (FED %) and frequency (findings per claim). FED% is down from Q4 benchmark of 5.2% to 4.1% YTD, and findings per claim from .535 to .498. However there are opportunities for continued improvement. Coverage determination has seen the biggest change over Q4, with remaining improvements expected for CRSL and slab leak losses. Our largest areas of opportunity are Estimate reconciliation specifically related to water mitigation and paint, Depreciation and Coverage. The majority of findings and dollars are in Estimate Reconciliation. Drivers * Lack of strong estimatics and water mitigation skillsets to efficiently reconcile estimates e Inconsistent confidence levels preventing handlers from engaging with contractors on reconciliation * Coverage determination for CRSL and slab leaks is inconsistent Actions in Progress ¢ e Accountability and follow up to the individual Online Reinspection Tool resuits is focused and scheduled for all levels of leadership, with MyBlock documentation. Water Forums are building skillsets and confidence for handlers with coverage determination and reconciliation. Skills assessments following the forums are utilized to identify areas needing follow up at the individual and team levels. in-office TM estimatics skill assessmenis to ensure knowledge and ability to coach Art of the Conversation attendance to build confidence with handlers Claim Insights for accelerated water reviews for coverage and estimatics Water test team is scaling proven tactics to HSTWD operation (starting this week) FOR INTERNAL STATE FARM USE ONLY .. Contains CONFIDE NAL Infomation which may nal be discins auihonzation, Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HUR00031478"}, {"d": 85, "p": 11, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, From: Sent: To: BCC: Subject: Attachments: et al Kathy Ress [/O=STATEFARM/OU=HOME/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=HESJ] 9/17/2020 1:30:59 PM Nicole Manduca [nicole. manduca.lok2@statefarm.com] Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com] FW: Op Model Discussion Next Phase of Claims OVP Check [In 9112020.pdf Please do not forward. From: Wensley J Herbert Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 3:44 PM To: DL-PC-CLMS-OVPs <DL-PC-CLMS-OVPs.DLUSS? @internal.statefarm.com>; Robert Yi <robert.yi.caqa@statefarm.com> Cc: Carol Waldron <carol.waldron.bipO@statefarm.com>; Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8j@statefarm.com>; Cheryl Schaefer <cheryl.schaefer.Irkt@statefarm.com>; Matthew Parola <matthew.parola.nzjn@statefarm.com> Subject: 1/A: Op Model Discussion Team, Since our last showcase which focused on the conceptual view of the Op Model, we have been working on the next two phases and have started Phase 3. The last two weeks have focused on: - Strategy refinement to set the parameters for execution - An assessment of the inflight initiatives for prioritization/start/stop/continue - Detailed new initiative definition from the journey/horizon roadmaps We would like to spend our time on Tuesday, on reviewing the work of our last two weeks and align on the output, specifically the strategy refinement and the initiative view by horizon. The Exec leads (Carol, Kathy, Chery! and Matt} will join us for that discussion. Post that discussion, our next steps will be: - Refinement towards the next level of detail on the implications to the Op Model by Horizon Complete our Horizon outcome analysis and alignment on those Finalize our oversight and ownership structure Thanks, W&SS Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HURO0156099"}, {"d": 85, "p": 12, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a RDG UERCVERG HUROO( S600"}, {"d": 85, "p": 13, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only hs Ce Comal Orie | Daf strategic goals for P&C Claims | | Y Define journey goals and operating model objectives | | |. Sa on ca aT | ¥ Define the high-level journey vision of work a a - | =‘ tt aN ‘ a aN ae a ae Phase 2: Define States Investments | Y Define the key enablers to achieve goals & vision Y [dentify most important strategic cepabilties | ¥ Assess people, oracess, technology, philosophy gaps to help priontize intatives Goverance) Philosophy | | Organizationand Workforce Metrics and Incentives po prmernarasinecencenc ens ne nny Phase 3: nate Execution | |iY High-level design and journey roadmap | | + Qp, model migration intiatve scoping & prortization | | oF + Data /technology intlative scoping & priortization | | + Detalled design end journey roadmap | | + Metrics to align with new Org design | | lon st i i th A kt ! Y Complete » In Progress Conder ial Soe Pursuant to Protective Order HUROD(56101"}, {"d": 85, "p": 14, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only As we mobilize for execution in September, we've made progress on the Init at ve Scoping & Planning (verthe last two weeks, we have refined the strategic intent for our key strategies, assessed in-fightintatives and defined new intiatives i alignment with the Journey / Horizon roadmap scope, and began to priontize the workstreams / natives overall, ¥ Scope! strategic intent refinement ” Work packaging / Read aint & prioritization Dae i we oA ’ at Meas [alt us a wi ae lad Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order | BED ~——-HUROOISIO2"}, {"d": 85, "p": 15, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a + Damage Evaluation partners engage to accelerate virtual estimating capabiities& accuracy + Claim classtication informs skil-hased routing and outcome-based claim handling, + Expansion of automation for downstream + Estimators and vendor footprint is optimized to maintain and increase virtual inspection + Auto & Fire Model Enhancement teams are + Leadership intervention and escalation will be surfaced based on claim characteristics f allow narrowed yet prortized menagement Optimized for ‘specialized hancling footprint structure + Claim characteristics are analyzed at intake to predict exposure & path | : S325 - $5004 SS A) Produced Pursuant {0 Protective Order Coverage and lablity decisions not requiring Specialization are automated activities allows minimal fouch for claim resolution + Shift from calendar-based workflow to intelligent inventory prioritization and task surfacing Delivery of instant claim valuation greatly reduces manual evaluation - + Insights driven workflow optimizes inspection option presentation criving vendor network or virtual inspections only + Vendors are empowered to make decisions and pass conclusions along to move claim forward ~- ' Move coverage (and liability) decisions earlier in the lifecycle through insights acceleration and Workflow integration - DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only Full optimized digital claims process is delivered Low value tasks are automated Cross journey skilling wil alow realignment of workforce to enable realization of future state Enterprise claims structure"}, {"d": 85, "p": 16, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a of focus across all three DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only Today's Environment Wor of smier complet is algneg for scale and consistency nameeeeenenanes peenemeenemeen! Areas of Focus eens - Areas of Focus ~ reas of Focus | | ‘Maximized repair options Increase numberof through Select Service : touchless claims =» Fully optimized digital periencefom intake Enterprise or virtual channel to resolution Claims Tier 4 ages dy ‘Increased lebityand enfinand direct «Instant aim valuation to coverage detenination clamant resolution at ——=—reduoe ycl time and at NOL icc manuel efor + Automated and enfanced accuracyof claim routing -+ Realzaton of substantial» Resting and reduction infil realignment of workforce : inspection needs : to fully suppor target | model Key Capailtes * Inteligent Messaging TIER! | * Modem Associate eXperience (MAX) SPECIALIZED «Claim Handler Inventory + Instant Claim Valuation Prioritization /Claim © « Inteligent Damage Eveluation sights OT Architecture + Automated Liality Assessments ‘Advance Claim Triage «Intent Driven Dil Iterations - + Document Imaging & Indexing «Third-Party data Ingestion ~ «Optical Character Recognition Text Mining _ + Dynamic Paty Profles Conde Produced Pursuant to Protve Oe i SS HUROOS04"}, {"d": 85, "p": 17, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a kay “worksireams” tO CloS@. DRAFT-For Discussion Purposes Only Detailed Journey roadmaps outlining Initiatives by Horizon Refined scope of key strateyies/workstreams fo provide guideposts for execution... VEHICLE JOURNEY ROWMAP PROPLU JOURNEY ROABMAP"}, {"d": 85, "p": 18, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only Strategic Intent & Vision + Afull optimized digtal claims process to enable early fecycle claim handling, enhariced data colection, and sireamlined resolution. Leverage claim information collected at FNOL and throughout clam lifecycle events for continuous triage and routing, Strategic Statements * Constraints aroundjob level, ski level do not prohibit the ably to get claim resolved at 1° interaction + Core claim decisions (coverage, iallty, damage repar, etc)will be made at '* interaction Transferfr specialization (if needed} will occur at intake with decisions stil targeted for 1* interaction + Ineficiency, handoffs, duplications minimized post intake wih decisions being made at intake + Third party | internal sources and vendors leverage \"Know the Claim’ and \"Know the Party’ information at FNOL + Ominkchannel experience wil enable information 8 actions to be shared in real-time across channels Outcomes * Labor expense reduction through Increased STP ' Inereased soeed fo resolution (decreased avg. cycle tine) Reduce non-value work due to accurate inital routing * Reduce manual claim reassignments by xx%b + Achieve measurable improvements n claim resolution and accuracy + Digital capture of photo / video /IOT data at intake (for claims where required) wil be priory + Gervice expectations and orirtizaion wil vary by {Sand 9 party (ron-SF} customers / work + Vendors related to {party wil be piortized over 3° arty for resolution + 3¢ party handling wil be dferentfor resolution path - oioritze satistying handing for good fth, but elminate work solcting 3\" party handing through SF Objectives | Key Metrics + AQ‘Irt of losses go through digital intake and are contained in fhe digtal channel (no human follow up required} + 340% touchless claims + §0/b+ of required data and supporting information is ingested up front to inform a touchless path + QOTo+ of uo front and continuous triage to Tier2/ Specialized is automated * XX%h improvement in cycle time (ex. Bl settlements within 60 days, cycle time to ladlity established] « XX%h increase in model identtied claims routing to specialized segments (ex, SIU Confidential Produced Pursuant fo Protective Ord HUROO1S6106"}, {"d": 85, "p": 19, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only Strategic Intent & Vision Leverage internal and external claim information collected at FNOL to translate facts of loss into coverage and lability decisions andior recommendations, In addition, continuously validate lablity and coverage determination throughout clam lifecycle events. Strategic Statements Outcomes + Information and documentation required for coverage and lablity decisionswil be established and gathered un ftont based on claim path and scenarios, + Greater automation and! or decision support leading to labor expense reduction * Coverage and Liablity decisions where possible wil be made at ‘interaction with the insuredipolleyholde, + lhereased speed to resolution (decreased avg, cycle tim} + Lablty and Coverage escalation varies by complextywth decisions stl targeted for 4interacton based on the folowing + Less variation in dectsion accuracy ies + Level {: escalation to non-specialzed handler, Reviews decision or communicates to parties invoived. After interception of clam for lablity, claim is back on fouchless path * Improved customer satisfaction with the claims rocess * Level 2: escalation to the right specialized handler for comolex scenarios where Al's not able fo make determination, Ohpecves Key Mes + OF) of habil inati inital tr Anat terion ae mate ltl age May require additional investigation, may be outside of intake function + §0/b+ of coverage decisions are made at intial trage * Level 3: escalationfor leadership review based on scenario. high exposure, decision is made outside of models recommended range, and/or deviation from antcivated oath predicted and intervention is needed ©» 90-80) increase in throughputper handler + Sof gan oll nfl ce + Insights and/or specified vendors (body shops, contractors, rental car agency) will complete damage investigation to inform and where apolicable make coverage decisions; internal data from other denariments ie, Underwriting and Agency wil be better leveraged as wel: exceptions kick out to SF claim handlers as noted in levels above + 7% of subrogation referrals automated with no rework * Follow-up for documentation / information wil be lmited post FNOL as more decisions made andlor documentation/nformation request is automatediauto requested + Documentation required for subrogation recovery wil be dentied during intl customer interaction or automated + Vendor partnerships will have the skis, certfications andlor Icensing required for desired workflow. Confidential Produced Pursuant o Protective ~-HUROOLSBIO7"}, {"d": 85, "p": 20, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only Strategic Intent & Vision + Guide customers fo optimal virtual or preferred vendor network option at intake, Leverage photos and loss reported data to understandpotee anes (inclusive of vehicle, property, home), Determine repatrablity and the right repair channel at intaketo eliminate delays in determining the correct pathfor property damage. Strategic Statements Outcomes + Weare going to optimize our vendors to posttion as the best inspectionontion for the customer. een + MSO JDRP for Vehicle a + Conlractor//endor Network for Home/Business one . + Increased Utlization of Viral Estimating (X\"b handled by State Farm, Y% handled by vendor) « Deorease Salvage Cycle time * Virtual estimating wil be handled based on 3 levels of complexty: + fnereage Preferred contract uflizaton * Level{ ~ estimate is written through Artficial Iteligence (Al) capability delivering instant claim valuation + Ingovenentinledtin * Level 2~ estimate is pre-populated and review & approved by most cost beneficial accurate channel (SF vs. vendor * Level2-Alleel of orfcenc low based on eparabltyDamageID fr pepopulting estimate ths Ga fouled io reteed — Qhigotiyes / Key Metrics service provider fo be physically inspected. + The EXE salvage process's a hybrid process leveragng a combination of etrenat ae r solutions, intemal capabities ‘99% of repairs go through virtual or preferred vendoroptions ald process changes, and a SF run governarice and quality monitoring structure for facitation + * Contents self-service options wil require vendors to work clrectlywith the customer to create inventories (H/B) ALE self service option wil require vendors to work dlrecly withthe customer for housing solutions (H/B) + Injurisdictions where allowable, only DRP options are presented to customer. (Criteria such as shop performance, location ete, are utlized of danagevan dove italy . 7 + 10% Select Servica program utlization . . . 80% virtual handling of non-program estimates to uraoe list of shops to select fom}, Shop connect allows customer to view inspection avalalty and schedule ei appointment * 60% of non-program estimates are handledthrough photo estimating Vet + XX of Tota! Loss claims are handled through ETL + Injurisditions where we cant be as drectve, MSO/Select Service shops wil be postioned as the best option forthe customer, however, decison ree wil provide adtional options to sat statutory requieerts (Vehicle) “ * AK ‘himprovement in reparadle and noreparable ea te + Basedon nereasedaouay neal los, wrt fing to DRP shopswillbe forreaate vhs nly and canbe futher aged ‘4X7 of estatesare inated through automaton at the shop level based on complexty of hit and claim characteristic (vehicle) + MSO and DRP shops wil fciitate all actuties once assignments mace (vehicle Confidential Produced Pursuant fo Protective Ord + YOhofestmals ae completly aomated + XX% of total oss settlements are completed virtually HUROO156108"}, {"d": 85, "p": 21, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only Strategic Intent & Vision Utlize internal and external data to inform insights fo improve injury denttication, claim classtication, escalation, inury evaluation, offers, offer timing and negotiation ({f applicable). This includes demand packages, medical bills / records to be automatically reviewed/analyzed and surfaced if necessary to helo inform what is needed during claim life cycle. Strategic Statements Outcomes + Offer workfiow (¢.g ming, delvery, et) wi! be based on exposure, oartclnants and claim characteristics * Increased of automated ote wihout hander intervention + Ors be made aia where posse basin dts ae captured for evaluation zing frat itn *-*oTeasedaceuray claim fie and lor historical data + Direct Ciaimant Closures * Offerswl be made cect to camantsfatomeys trough dgtl channels wthoutacaim handler tou forlow compet + Grage fiany in fist party medial cams and low isk claims, Reduce relance on over-documentation where anorooriate and allow {Sand 3\" part inury claim elton to be informed by sighs * Demand package review wil be enabled, driven and automated by insights | | oe | * Human capital wil be shed towards focusing on negotiation/detense strategy, | + 18 3¢Party medical lls / records wil be analyzed against claim characteristics and outputs (¢.9, icing, range of value, strengtis and assertions) wil be embedded into the workflow without human intervention where possible _ Objectives / Key Metrics + $f of uy exposure dente alt tage + gation stateywl be informed by data fom both internal and extemal souoes Ligation wil be more aulomeled based © * 90 of jury rect carat resouton at rake on eect pln gan clam scenario and esata or leven ner aporoprate The cl wil be made avalaole for modeling insights to inform muttiple elements during the ltigation Ife cycle. Continuous improvement of fhe Satl/Defnd recommendation wil be supported by enema vendor agreement tat il constanlymontorexterl Pint + XAhadlopayment of pay medical cains eee * $80 crease in troughputper hander Attorney actions/esuts + Folow-up for itgation strategy is optimized and documentation information related to ligation is warehoused in dla environment that minimizes mal/emaliphone interaction needed with defense counsel Vendor oartnershios wil enable abilty fo automate generation of people profile (while also leveraging internal data avalaole) for early [D of injury and improve accuracy. Data wil not require human discretion to produce rather be driven based on claim characterstes Confidential Produced Pursuant o Protective ~-HUROOTSB109"}, {"d": 85, "p": 22, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only Strategic Intent & Vision + Ingestion of telematics wil reduce manual intake effortand inform the claimpath through ingestion of realtimeloss information, The value realization wil requirea target state data architecture which captures all forms of data, unlocksito be leveraged across multiple fools, build insights, and ensure that data recelved is accurate, Strategic Statements | | re + * Telematics /loT data strategy wil focus on procuring data in a format fnat alows us to utlized telematics data across Journeyslacross vendors etc. downsiream, * Telematics / {OT use cases wil focus on loss orevention services to drive digtal engagement, pre-population of claims data at intake, augmentcore claim decisions 4 + Telematicsand [OT will be enriched wih internal and 3 party data to feed analytical models and inform insightsto iri cin aati * Supplementing claim data with Telematics and 1OT data is a key component for touctless claim journeys, Qutcomes * Eyoense reduction by reducing need for capturing loss information manually at intake Accuracy benefits by defining claim classfication and path ear'y in —_—‘fecyce | + Increased customer adoption of auto/smart home telematics + Decrease in severity due to early detection/mtqation of damages (Home/Business} Objectives Key Metis + §0%o+ of required data and supoorting information is ingested un front to inform a touchiess path 30-50% Confidential Produced Pursuant fo Protective Ord increasein throughout per handler HUROO156110"}, {"d": 85, "p": 23, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only Strategic Intent & Vision Create a customer centric journey providing personalized interactions and ariving self service interactions, Leverage insights and claim charactenstcs which surface the ‘next best action’ for customers in self service workflow, Create clay for customers and agents and reduce the need for Stete Farm intervention, Strategic Statements Outcomes + Atal phases in the claim ifecycle we wil lead witha dita! fst communication strategy. The dtl channel wil be -* ‘Reduction in inbound cal equency Informed by customer preferences, clam charactenstcs/c'asstication, Flow up will be crected to digital channel, * Qutbound communication, exoectations and notfications are prontized by claim classtication and jurisdictional requirements, These communications wil be executed through cigital channel, and exception based non-digital interactions wil be focused and intentional. + Reduction of cai hale tasks and calendars * Chl Tine reduc + Customers are ‘opt-out instead of ‘opbin’ for priortizing digtal communication channe's, Onjctes Key Mets + Simplified and intutive workflows through digital interactions are established to drive ease of use (this goas for claims hub, agents, 3rd partes, vendors} ae + Cosme sue ina Co, , Dt \"Measurement and goverance mechanisms bult around interactions drive accountabilty and maintain adoption of digtal channels + £0%ot of losses go through digital intake and are contained inthe digital channel (no human follow up required) unit cost rection per service transaction XA of Sid party calls are handled via @ non-human responder + Difernties ae cuted fr rterested pats fo alow aces cfhfomatn aswel arentiv worl asadon * ™¥6TAgetcals ce harlt va arontuman spon party and level of action needed for claim, + Reduce ells pe claim by XX (Auto) Certain journeys, claim types and parties wil o¢ nted to only sel-service cotions (VR, chat bot, mobile app, online) + -‘Inerease Sel-Service fom XX to KX%s (¥EZO020 target, 20%) + fer intake, al tasks needing to drive claim towards resolution wil be prompted for customer workflow trough se —-«*-—‘Wevease Loss Reporting Sel-Servioe om AX fo XX‘ (YEZ0 tage. 12) sevice canneswin Irterventon equred ony for complex scenarios + reese RepaAssitart Sl See fem 8s to XX (VEO arg 274 + Inerease Rental Selt-Service from XX¥h fo XX% (YE2O target: 9.5%) + Inorease Glass Selt-Service ffom XX%a to XX%s (YE20 target 41.5%) Increase ERS Self-Service from XX% to XX (YE20 target: 18.5%) Confidential Produced Pursuant o Protective ~-HUROOLSBITT"}, {"d": 85, "p": 24, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only Strategic Intent & Vision + Escalations and oversight for activities wil be based on claim characteristics and surfaced to the night handler, leadership, or expert. We wil cross reference historical data and performance with claim characteristics fo choose the appropriate evel of leadership for intervention, Dynamic quality monitoring will enable inventory inteligence and early signal monitoring and to allow pre-emptive claim intervention, Strategic Statements Outcomes * Calendar based workflow wil be eliminated and replaced with data-driven interactions to work files at ight time Reduction n complaint frequency (agent, contractor, DO!) + Authorty process is no longer determined by monetary thresholds and escalation folows data driven escalation thatis + ‘Increase n qualitydue o appropriate intervention senaant ca cass se * Escalation is surfaced to the right evel of intervention or review needed insteadof manual identfication and push through nui eves Reduction in cycle time due fo prioritization and handing efficiency a . Narrowed and priortized span of controls for leadershio « Escalation wil be ‘action based’ instead of ‘ule based’ * Ear tera Financial contro! and review wil be streamlined, automated, and prorlized based on claim characteristics and revamped Opjctves Key Metis triggers. * Qualty claim handling metrics Qualty monitoring is narrowed and priortized based on analytics and insights, replacing the current OAR and MCAR processes, * Inventory inteligence informs real-te quality monitoring, minimizing need for retroactive fie reviews and analysis Confidential Produced Pursuant fo Protective Ord HUROOTS6112"}, {"d": 85, "p": 25, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only Strategic Intent & Vision + Increase strategic vendor partnershios with expanded decision-making rights anc implement real-ime performance monitoring to drive accuracy & efficiency Improvernent. Vendors wil be required to/enabled fo provide supplemental information or validate the accuracy of loss facts for a given clam fo ensure adequate performance, Strategic Statements Outcomes «Vendor engagementin processes is dynamic based on workflow needs + Abiity to dynamically change cost structure and footorint based on + Vendors are utized as strategic partners within ecosystem and leveraged to increase efficiencies, cost structure, and pane and cea accuracy. Objectives / Key Metrics Vendors wil be assessed for where they can be engaged to dive efficiencies and benefits n the process, + 20-50% unt cost reduction for field inspection \"Governance structure for vendors is tallored to use case and engagement level of vendor within procasses, + 20-50%+ cycle time reduction + Oversight or vendor partnerships wil be optimized based on performance and contractual agreement + 20-50% unt cost reduction per service transaction Vendor oversight wil he data driven based on vendor integration into claims Ifecycie and tasks performed, Confidential Produced Pursuant fo Protective Ord HUROOTS6113"}, {"d": 85, "p": 26, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a oto Intake Test External Data & Medla Ingestion at FNOL Digi! Intake Ootimizati Extemal Data & Media Ingestion al FNOL Fire Digtal Payment Workflow Proximity Design Claims Triage Optimization Fire Mortgage Company Validation Shift Fraud Test Digital Reporting Enhacements Fire Work Priortization Insights - Tage, OCR, Specialized HandingAME Avtopay Enhancements Automate Assurant / CDE RDG UERCVERG HUROOI S614"}, {"d": 85, "p": 27, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a Virtua! Claim Handling Design «Aut Optirize Estimate Pre-popuation Virual Claim Handling Design - Fir Fuly Integrated Virtual Inspections Instant Glam Valuation Optimize Eslimatic Options Total Loss Identfication Ontinization Hal Damage Analysis Vendor Proflefor Key Skis Automated WindHall Workflow RDG UERCVERG HURODI S618"}, {"d": 85, "p": 28, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a Drive Sate& Save Diaitel Mecia Integration Auto Manufactures Initative lol and Smart Home Qualty Scoring & Review TBD Claim Quaity Escalation Fraud Specialized Handling Design RDG UERCVERG HURODIS616"}, {"d": 85, "p": 29, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a Claim Role Recesign Future State Tir 4 Desin New Model Migration Express Demand Pool Consolidation Future State Ter 2 Design Proximity Design Auto ILR& Exoress Design Review Future State Te 3 Design Auto ICR & Fire ILR Design Review Enterprise Claim Associate Design Property Complex Design Review Inury Segment Design Review Auto ILR& Express Design Review Insights Move Teams RDG UERCVERG HUROOIS6117"}, {"d": 85, "p": 30, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only ' Finalize Accountability & Oversight Framework- create of framework fo ensure progress ovards arget stale and realization of benefits Refine Detailed Horizon { Implied Changes - connect strategic intent fo Horizon 1 changes and Summarize major People, process, technology, mode! implications ' Finalize Horizon Qutcome Analysis - complete highoutcometargets by horizon S fo suppor ners eficeny Resource Mobilization & Work Activation - alignment of leadership and project resources to workstreams /intatives and activate new or continu in-fight work Conder ial Soe Pursuant to Protective Order HUROO156118"}, {"d": 85, "p": 31, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a ch HUROOIS6119"}, {"d": 85, "p": 32, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only In Phase 1, we set strategic goals & aligned on the potential benefits as we evolve to the new model Strategic Goals SS Sas os ufdertl Produced Pursuant to Protective"}, {"d": 85, "p": 33, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only future operating model principles + Example: Auto & Fire Model Enhancements * Other opportunites new markets an . Move Claim resolution toward beginning of Lifecycle . Embed Arificial Intelligence in most workflows Insurance clas RR: em +» Equipoed with new, ftHor-purpose tools & capabilites + Skis & talent to proactively address specttic trends Example: Expert Talent on Complex a ‘. \\ « cap | mance th enonment + Evpand Rideshare / Fleet volume + OEM Partnerships * Support growth of Smal Business ro + Rapid response to frends From the core model, we defined the folowing future operating model quiding principles... aN st a | Multi Skilled Talent a> Tailored Interactions _— New Ways of Working End to End _ Eliminate non-judgment based actities through automation . Guide interactions to the optimal channel . Leverage vendor ecosystem to accelerate solutions and play spectfic roles in our model . Algn talent and ski sets to the right work Strengthen The Model {Capabilities} Vendor Ecosystem Talent / Performance Flexibleand Leading Technology Quality Claim Handling Fundamentals Claim Insights Led a Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HUROOTS121"}, {"d": 85, "p": 34, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only It/ enhanced existing strategies and focused on how current transformat jon enables the future model In-Flight Transformation Building Towards Future Operating Model Current strategy has demonstrated that using data and Alin the clams process improves qually clam handling and customer service. We wil be Claim Insights led in everything that we do {o improve productivity, enhance customer experiences, and pay what we owe. Strategic Imperatives & Building Blocks Claim Insights Driven ee ee Auto & Fire Model Enhancements ee + Focused on better defining ‘Human Capital Alignment\" in our InsightsDriven Transformation + Validated Strategic Imperatives and Building Blocks are sil relevant and required for future success ee Data Enablement Ecosystem Partnerships + World Class Thage + Automation & Self Service + Intelligent Decision Support AE ar OY RES RC RTE AE AY aM Philosophy Confidential Produced Pursuant o Protective ee ee ee ee This work has provided a foundation for focus and enabling claims employees to work smarter and more efficiently, ee Technology & ee ee ee ee ee ee ene ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee oe ee ee ee es er es We wil continue to focus on scale plays whe enabling specialization and expert skills where requlted. ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee Technology and data enablement have been key to We wil continue to focus on claims technology and changing how work is completed (e9,, insights, self dala modernization by making key technology sence] Investments Worked with our vendors to take a more performance-based approach fo support our objectives. Te at ay ee FH AE a OR RE aE aT ae ee We wil shift our mindset io strategic partnerships with vendors fo accelerate solutions and fo play speciic roles in our operating model ee ed ee ee ee ee We wil continue to evaluate claim handling Modernization of key elements of our claim handling philosophy considerations required to support the philosophy future model ~-HUROOTSBI22"}, {"d": 85, "p": 35, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only Cur future model wil enable State Farm claims to better support the needs of our customer and the enterprise, Today's Environment Work of similar complexity is aligned for scale and consistency Future Environment Equigned with modern technology, digital capabiities and fools fo enable scale and specialization across Enterprise Claims Front door (mobile, cigtal and call center} to the claim Enterprise Clams organization wil focus heavily on resolution and trage of claims Tier 4 early at intake, We expect some specialization to reside here in order to increase our ability to resolve claims more quickly We expect more complex claims to require a degree of specialization to handle additonal investigation, evaluation, and negotiation to resolve accurately and promptly The model wil enable key specialization required to address the most complex work, unique jurisdictional challenges, and emerging trends, oe ae Confidential P roduced Pu sua to Protective Order HUROO156123"}, {"d": 85, "p": 36, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only Future Environment Align scale and specialization across Enterprise Cialis Examples Front door (mobile, cigtal and call center fo the claim + Simple Auto Claim: Shit focus from purely FNOL to Enterse Cains organization wil focus heal on resolution an tage of clams establishing coverage, lab, and damages at Intake. Tier { early at intake, We expect some specialization to reside here i order fo increase our abilty to resolve claims more quickly «Tier | Injury: Prompt resolution at Intake We expect some claims to require additional investigation, evaluation, and negotiation fo resolve accurately and prom sunninnsininninannninnsnnnnnnanin The model wil enable key specialization required to address the mast complex work, unique jurisdictional challenges, and emerging trends. SPECIALZED A we > Confer? roduced Pusuant {0 Proter ive + Complex Liability: Further investigation required (multi car rerio cst Complex Injury: Mechanism of injury investigation or clinical expertise required * Complex claim situations - litigation management, extracontractual tigation, etc."}, {"d": 85, "p": 37, "t": "Hursh, Billy, etal. v. SFF&CC, et al DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only Operating Model Principles 1, Move Claim resolution to beginning of Lifecycle 4° Guide interactions to the optimal channel (Sel-service, chal, et.) 2, Embed Artfical Inteligenice n all workflows 9, Leverage vendor ecosystem to accelerate solutions and play spectfic roles in our model 3, Elminatenon-judgment based activties through automation 6. Align talent and skl sets to the night work Strateaic Imperative * Data inteligence (photo/video telematics) atFNOL + Deliver solutionsto automate claim handing decisions * Pri nyc es an pertvor + Establish guided repair inspection processes * Guide interactions fo the optimized channel « Dataecriven Workflows «Intentional, personalized customer interactions TENSE Sg np DES TG Anighly skiled and experienced workforce to improve doe qualty claim handling Coriden al Produced Pursue {0 Proter ive A we >"}, {"d": 85, "p": 38, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a oe ook OC. OE) P2582. en ok Oe ee ab SSfcPRE ts oe OD ee gS 2 22 a SE ee ae ES Pe SS DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only 15 Automated Sub Referal! Aad Comp. Nag 25, Business Process Management _ {Case Nanagerent 4 Customer Sentiment Analysis ‘7. nteligent ALE 28. Automated Inspection _ {Sperone tases T hed Coens Reon 5, nl ian Asie Asin 14. Digtal Signature 24, VR Ghat Bots Answering FAGs) 13, Conversational Loss Reportng 32, Claims Capabilties for Agents (CGFA 20, Digtal Payments 2, Feld Service Management 9, Rental Sel Serace 3 Automated Salvage on Sh Ligation Lfeyce Oversigt | 1) Automated Cortents Advencod Fraud Detection 0 Han 33, Automated Tow Assignment a 23, Claris Hub a es ‘ Confidential Produced Pursuantto Protective Order HUROO'S6128"}, {"d": 85, "p": 39, "t": "Hursh, Billy, etal. v. SFF&CC, et al DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only Notifications are received regardinga loss via telematics or other intemal vehicle device Commuricaons ave automated othe customer digtaly to rfor on status pons and request ations pe a 2d taken to complete a guided workflow inclucing chat Bot interaction texting capabilly, and othe aporoptiae communication curing the claim lfecycle, OS Claim handler inventory prioritization tool Standardized business and mode! real me montoring to undetstand ie clans on he aporopte path Produc is inceesed by reducing he amour (CHIP) (Louchless oath, touchless+, or complex} (automation of intake, coverage, labllty, payment, et oflow value or unnecessary tasks per claim un Automated Laity Deteminaton Liablly decisions are automatically recommended based on facts ofloss,piclures of vehicles, and customer provided details Productivity i increased as legs manual efortis aquired 1 the investigation process crn Advanced Claim Triage Claim information 's leveraged (collected intlly at FNOL and as information is refined} to route tothe appropriate claim specialist This i continually updated and acted upon in real fe: this process should improve the information thats known and predictive modeling to start and interpre the path that a fle Improve quay claim handling and more accurate (+Flexible Staffing Capacity] take (jury and efcientage se Intelligent Messaging Specialized staff are utlized to address exception handling andl route the clam fo a fouchless path SPARE ARN Condental Proud Pusan Poecive Oe HUROOS27"}, {"d": 85, "p": 40, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only Optical Character Recognition (OCR) / Text Mining Third Party Data Ingestion Leveraging of OCR’Text mining tools for the consumption of unstructured data, index, ilerpret and use for operational nteligence and action (.e, photos of vehicle damage to interpret impact points and provice labity support, mecteal billing and records intake) Leveraging data fom outside resources, vendors, and unstructured data comming from customers that wil inform the claim process, remove manual tracking and data entry and create analytes that support data driven decisions, This wilreduce manual activities and inaccurate data gathering, I wil also automate and streamline processes fo mprave accuracy and efficiency. This wil reduce manual acivtles and inaccurate dala gathering. wil also automate and strearnline processes to improve accuracy and efficiency, his wil reduce manual actives fo scan and ssign inbound mall and paper and routing to the rect claim and helo with priortizing next best actions. IT Architecture Evteral dala proviced by programs such as Drive Smart and Save, or OEMS to document known information and inform claim decision making (Le. speed and point of impact ofthe vehicle} Increase n acouracy and reduction in cycle time wth early determination of cla path Intent Driven Digital Interactions Customer intent s understood and ullized for service interactions based on oml-channel responses, current behavior, and historical customer data Provides fr the ability to Keep a claim on a touehless nat thereby increasing productinty and decreasing manual fouches Modern Associate Desktop (MAX) A worktlow that is context spectic and is able to follow “next best action’ methodology wit Itle associate interaction! decision making, wich can be leveraged for both internal and extemal process quidance Inorease handler productvty and accuracy through enhanced workfow, Instant Claim Valuatio AI ity ‘o provide valuation based on vehiclelproperty dala and facts ofos instanly tothe customerat logs report ((.¢, Vehicle otal loss conditioning, Medical Bis, Theft of Personal Property) 8 > Ingestion of documents, creation of dill copies, and indexing documents received fo spectfic claim fies, = Document Imaging and Indexing Time spent analyzing documents and information to achieve claim value wil be minimized and ually lain handling wil improve wih Al assistance Dynamic Party Profiles Intelligent Damage Evaluation Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order Profiles ofall parties involved in the claim wil be created and constantly updated as new data flows in Accuracy improvement based on adaltional This includes, buts not limited to, medical history, clei history and thc party data information collected to determine claim path Damages are entfied (vehicle, property, home) by leveraging photos and loss reported data to understand potential extent of camage, Physical inspections fo identfication of eparabilly wil be limited, and capacitywil be shifted to evaluation of damages f needed. Time inprocess wil be shortened due to increased accuracy of repaltabilty at intake, HUROO1S6128"}, {"d": 85, "p": 41, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only FocusArea Summary of Key Gaps FCOSYSTEN Identify vendors fo play soectfic and more holistic oles within the operating mode! PARTHERS Expand 3° party data partnership to enable more accurate and efficient decisions “cing ait TRS AN o PROCESS Pps Guide associates & customers to take action or make decisions eran + TER Integrate more insignt into the parties and claim to enable more accurate and efficient decisions a RRR Kaha “ee Escalate to leadership automatically based on insights and claim characteristics eee ee Coe ow oe eS Cae sy ‘ ‘ eee PHILOSOPHY - Ce Identify vendors to assist wih complex decisions ‘ @ AS Guide customers to best options based on claim characteristics, customer preferences and vendor performance 1 BURNS | cp AER Cipancidocmit dati velininekypianniniein Ae PEOPLE PUVA, <2 Gg Uoskl reskilor acquire skils to make complex decisions, ulize analyticstechnology, and world class service emmnnnnnnnnnnnnn Equip workforce to be flexible and adaptable fo changing trends and reeds of the operation Confidential P 10: cue Pursuant {0 Protective Order HUROO1S6129"}, {"d": 85, "p": 42, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al v. SFF&CC, et a gh-level DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only strategic Goals Operating Model Princiles ', Move Claim Resolution toward beginning of Lieeycle 2. Embed Articial Intelligence in most workflows 3, Eliminate non-judgment based actvties through automation 4. Guide interactions to the ootimal channel (self-service, chat, et.) 9, Leverage vendor ecosystem to accelerate solutions and play specific roles in our model 6, Align talent and skil sels tothe right work Onerating Mode! Obiectives ‘, 99% of repairs go through virtual or preferred vendor options 2. (ot of losses go through cigtl intake and are contained in the digital channel (no human follow up required) 3. 35-40% touchless claims 4. 90% of labilty determinations are made at intial tage 9. 80+ of coverage decisions are made at inital rage 6, 40) of damage evaluation done virtually 7, 95% of injury exposure dentiled at intial trage 8, 90'o+ of injury crect claimant resolution at intake 9 20-30% unit cost reduction for field inspection \"0. 20-30%b+ cycle time reduction \"1, 20-50 unit cost reduction per service transaction \"2. 80/I+ of required data and supporting information is ingested up front to inform a fouctless path \"3, 90/b+ of up frontand continuous trlage to Tier2/ Specialized is automated ‘4, 30-30% increase in throughput per handler Coreral Produoed Pursuant {0 Proter ive A we AN"}, {"d": 86, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY FILED DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA BILLY and LACY HURSH, ) , ) September 28, 2026 4:59 PM RICK WARREN, Plaintiffs, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-2626 v. ) Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Hon. Amy Palumbo STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY ) ) COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D._ ) WELTY INS. AGENCY, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION NOTICE OF STATE FARM’S OPERATIONS VICE PRESIDENT MICHAEL KEATING, AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (‘State Farm”), pursuant to 12 O.S. §§ 3226(B)(2)(c), 3226(C), and 3226.1, respectfully moves for a protective order and to quash Plaintiffs’ September 21, 2026 Notice of Intention to Take Oral & Videotaped Deposition of State Farm’s Operations Vice President, Michael Keating (the “Keating Notice”) (Exhibit 1). Mr. Keating was not involved in the handling of Plaintiffs’ claims, nor did he directly supervise any person who was involved in the insurance claims. Neither the Keating Notice nor the email transmitting the Keating Notice identify any basis that would justify Plaintiffs’ demand to depose a high-level executive with no specific connection to Plaintiffs’ insurance claims. (See Ex. 1, see also Exhibit 2, Email from B. Sonne (September 21, 2026).) This alone warrants quashing the Keating Notice. See Schultz v. Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd. No. 4:15-CV-04160-LLP, 2016 WL 3149686, at *3 (D.S.D. June 3, 2016) (a party seeking discovery must “describe with a reasonable degree of specificity, the information they hope to obtain and its importance to their case.”) (citing Cervantes v. Time, Inc., 464 F.2d 986, 994 (8th Cir. 1972))."}, {"d": 86, "p": 2, "t": "Further, taking the deposition of a high-level executive—like an Operations Vice President—is not permitted unless (1) the executive possesses unique personal knowledge of facts germane to the litigation, and (2) the information sought cannot be obtained through less intrusive means. Plaintiffs have not, and cannot, identify any germane knowledge that would justify their demand to depose Mr. Keating. whatever Moreover, Plaintiffs can obtain, and have already obtained, information they seek through other means—including, but not limited to, the depositions the Court has already ordered of State Farm’s current and former employees who Plaintiffs contend were involved in State Farm’s Wind/Hail Fire Model Enhancement (“FME”) quality initiative and State Farm’s Fix Profit Task Force (“FPTF’”). Requiring Mr. Keating to take multiple days to prepare for and attend a deposition concerning matters about which he has no relevant or unique knowledge would also be unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of this individual case. Accordingly, the Court should enter a protective order and quash the Keating Notice. BACKGROUND This case arises from two insurance claims for approximately $22,000.00 in combined alleged damages to a single insured property, from weather events that reportedly occurred on October 4, 2023 and May 21, 2024. Plaintiffs assert claims against State Farm for breach of contract and bad faith; claims against agent Mark D. Welty and Mark D. Welty Insurance Agency for negligent procurement; and claims against all Defendants for constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation. (See Pet. {| 40, 45-79.) Plaintiffs (wrongly) allege that this case involves a “scheme” by State Farm, which they contend was implemented through the FME to lower indemnity payments by, inter alia, misattributing roof damage from storms to non-covered “wear and tear.” (See generally id.) Plaintiffs have already obtained vast discovery about their insurance claims and their (false) 2"}, {"d": 86, "p": 3, "t": "theories of the FME’s influence on claim handling generally. State Farm has produced over a thousand documents related to Plaintiffs’ claims, including Plaintiffs’ policy, their Claim File, three years of financial and annual statements, underwriting guidelines in effect when Plaintiffs’ policy was issued, applicable claim-handling guidelines in place at the time of the alleged loss, Wind and Hail Guidelines, performance evaluations for the claim handlers involved in Plaintiffs’ claims, and the Fire Property Claims Quality Plan in effect on the dates of loss, among others. Plaintiffs also requested, moved to compel, and have now received over 110,000 State Farm documents (along with over 600,000 documents State Farm produced in other cases)}—most of which have nothing to do with the claims decisions they challenge, but that Plaintiffs allege are necessary to prove their theory around the FME. On November 25, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel and, over State Farm’s objection, ordered production of information and documents Plaintiffs claimed were relevant to State Farm’s purported “scheme” to deny wind/hail roof claims, including, inter alia: claims training materials since 2015; information from 2019 onward regarding the FME and wind/hail initiatives, including purported tracking of roof replacements, indemnity savings, and payment volumes; six years of documents and communications relating to managerial approval requirements for full roof replacements; documents about alleged efforts to reduce indemnity payments for wind/hail claims; and all documents previously produced or ordered in six unrelated lawsuits. Plaintiffs also issued a corporate representative deposition notice to State Farm seeking ' The Court also ordered State Farm to produce training provided to agents regarding policy sales and underwriting; information on its relationship with Haag Engineering; Fire Property Claims Quality Plans since 2019 plus documents on initiatives concerning indemnity payments and roof replacement ratios, approval rates, and payments; documents about settings and features in thirdparty estimating software State Farm uses; and emails or other correspondence to or from Nicole Manduca, Sharon Arnold, Tom Moss, and Susan Maynard, from January 2019 onward, about the FME and various metrics relating to roof replacements. 3"}, {"d": 86, "p": 4, "t": "testimony and documents on 30 topics with 101 subparts, spanning 15 years of corporate operations (including multiple topics regarding the FME), and noticed the depositions of eight current and former employees. Over State Farm’s objections, the Court denied State Farm’s motions to quash the corporate representative notice and Plaintiffs’ notices of deposition to: Jon Farney, State Farm’s CEO, whom Plaintiffs contended was involved in the FME and State Farm’s FPTF—a group created to monitor enterprise-wide trends on a monthly basis that has nothing to do with the allegations in this case or the FME (see Exhibit 3, Email from B. Sonne (July 1, 2026)); Thomas Moss, whom Plaintiffs contended was a “member” of the team charged with responsibility for the FME initiative (see Nov. 14, 2025 Pls.’ Consol. Resp. at 2-3); Wensley Herbert, State Farm’s Vice President, Property & Casualty Claims, who Plaintiffs represented was “the highest-ranking individual in charge of claims at State Farm” and to whom “[eJach of the other Noticed Deponents serving in a Vice President role” reported (see id. at 5 (emphasis in original)); Nicole Manduca, who Plaintiffs contended was “the leader of the [FME]” and an “architect” of the alleged scheme (see id. at 2, 9); Scott Welsh, State Farm’s Director of Consulting Services whom Plaintiffs claimed was “the most senior individual at State Farm” involved in training (id. at 6-7); Kathy Ress, a State Farm Operations Vice President, who Plaintiffs contended “served as Manduca’s team leader and asked Manduca to head the [FME] Team” and “was directly involved in the reporting, development, and success of the [FME] team, including specifically comparing State Farm’s success rates with the success of the [FME] in lowering full roof replacement percentages” (id. at 10); and Wendy Mazza and Tyrone Smith, former State Farm Vice Presidents of Operations, who Plaintiffs clatmed supervised Manduca and were “directly involved in reporting, objectives.” (id. at 11). monitoring, supervising, reviewing, and implementing the [FME]"}, {"d": 86, "p": 5, "t": "As to any possible need to depose Mr. Keating, in Mr. Herbert’s August 26, 2026 deposition in this case, Mr. Keating’s name was mentioned only twice. In one instance, Plaintiffs’ counsel asked Mr. Herbert who “the operational vice presidents that report” to him are (to which Mr. Hebert responded Mr. Keating and Millicent Roth). (See Exhibit 4, Hursh W. Herbert Dep. Tr. at 23:1624.) In the other, Plaintiffs’ counsel referenced a single email Mr. Keating sent relating to FPTF, which has nothing to do with Plaintiffs’ claims, the FME, or any other allegations in this case. (See id. at 354:11-14.) In short, despite now having access to over 700,000 documents (in both this and other cases) regarding their insurance claims and a wide range of topics purportedly relevant to their “scheme” theory—and their counsel having had the opportunity to ask supposed “architects” of their alleged scheme questions about Mr. Keating’s role—including Mr. Herbert, to whom Mr. Keating directly reported during the relevant time period—Plaintiffs have not established, and cannot establish, any connection between Mr. Keating and the evaluation, review, or adjustment of their insurance claims or anything germane to it, including their FME theories. Mr. Keating is a State Farm Operations Vice President. Mr. Keating does not oversee the day-to-day handling of insurance claims and is, in fact, multiple levels above the claim teams that directly handle claims—including the Claim Specialists and Team Manager Plaintiffs’ insurance claims here. (See Exhibit 5, Declaration of M. Keating, at who handled §3.) And as is apparent from Plaintiffs’ claim files, Mr. Keating has no personal knowledge of the insurance claims at issue. Further, Mr. Keating was not involved in the FME—the initiative that Plaintiffs alleged was the purported “scheme.” (See Ex. 5, Keating Decl. § 4.)"}, {"d": 86, "p": 6, "t": "ARGUMENT I AND AUTHORITY A HIGH-LEVEL EXECUTIVE SHOULD NOT BE DEPOSED UNLESS THE EXECUTIVE HAS UNIQUE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND THE DISCOVERY CANNOT BE OBTAINED FROM OTHER EMPLOYEES. In Crest Infiniti, I, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, the Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized that apex depositions have unique potential for abuse, and should not be had if “annoyance, oppression, and undue burden and expense outweigh the need for discovery” on those issues. Jd. q§ 14-15. Courts have consistently held that a deposition of a high-level executive—like an Operations Vice President—is improper absent a showing that the executive possesses unique personal knowledge relevant to the pertinent facts. See Thomas v. Int’l Bus. Mach., 48 F.3d 478, 483-484 (10th Cir. 1995) (affirming district court’s granting of protective order preventing deposition of IBM’s Chairman in an age discrimination case where the Chairman had no personal knowledge of plaintiff and deposition would have caused severe hardship, despite the Chairman’s alleged involvement in purportedly discriminatory policy); Okla. ex rel. Edmondson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 05-CV-329-GKF, 2009 WL 10694083, at *4 (N.D. Okla. April 24, 2009) (granting protective order preventing deposition of an executive when the record did not establish the executive’s “unique personal knowledge of the controversy”).” That exception to the rule is not applicable here where Mr. Keating possesses no unique personal knowledge relevant to the pertinent facts, either of the subject claims or of any “scheme” allegations. ? See also Lachney v. Target Corp., No. CIV-06-1389-HE, 2008 WL 11420069, at *3, (W.D. Okla. Aug. 20, 2008) (denying motion to compel deposition of Vice Chairman because “[a|part from indications he had general responsibility for strategic planning ... there appears to be little basis, other than speculation, as to what knowledge he would have bearing on the claims in this case.”); Miller v. Loves Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc., No. CIV-06-1008-D, 2008 WL 11338079, at *7 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 7, 2008) (quashing deposition notice to Chairman where age discrimination plaintiff sought evidence of company-wide discriminatory policies because Chairman had no unique knowledge of specific facts pertaining to the plaintiff’s claims). 6"}, {"d": 86, "p": 7, "t": "Courts have further held that deposing a high-level executive is improper if the information is obtainable through less intrusive means, such as by deposing other personnel who are closer to the facts giving rise to the claims. See Thomas, 48 F.3d at 483 (granting protective order preventing deposition of high-level official in part because plaintiff made no attempt to demonstrate that the information sought could not be obtained by imposing the lesser burden of depositions of lowerlevel employees); Roblox Corp. v. WowWee Grp. Ltd., No. 22-CV- 04476-SI, 2023 WL 5507176, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2023) (denying request for discovery from corporate president where “Plaintiffs have made no showing that Yanofsky has relevant information, much less that he has information that would not be discoverable through the other custodians named by defendants.”); Todd v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, Inc., No. 219CVO0085JMSDLP, 2019 WL 8272621, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 13, 2019) (“Plaintiff has yet to take a deposition in this case, but desires to start that process at the top of the food chain with the former CEO of the Defendant’s parent company ... this case is limited to a single-plaintiff consumer protection matter regarding the handling of [Plaintiff’s] mortgage loan. This is not a nationwide collective action. .... ”); U.S. ex rel. Galmines v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., No. 06-3213, 2015 WL 4973626, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2015) (granting motion to quash deposition of defendant’s former CEO where “the Court has not been made aware of any efforts [by the plaintiff] to ascertain from [other] deponents the extent of [the former CEO’s] personal involvement in the alleged actions”). With respect to Plaintiffs’ purported “scheme” allegations, Plaintiffs have already requested, and the Court has already ordered (1) a thirty-topic corporate representative deposition on every conceivable topic related to the FME and Plaintiffs’ +e “scheme” theories, and (2) individual depositions of eight current and former State Farm employees—including State Farm’s CEO, Mr. Farney; and Mr. Keating’s direct supervisor during the relevant time period, Mr. Herbert. Plaintiffs"}, {"d": 86, "p": 8, "t": "do not and cannot show that Mr. Keating has any unique testimony regarding the FME or their “scheme” theories that will not be, or has not been, already covered by the depositions this Court has already ordered. Evans y. Allstate Ins. Co., 216 F.R.D. 515 (N.D. Okla. 2003) is squarely on point here. In Evans, the plaintiffs sued Allstate, alleging it improperly denied their fire loss claim, and sought to depose three of its officers. /d. at 516. Allstate contended that the corporate officers whom the plaintiffs sought to depose had no unique personal knowledge of the matters at issue and that the requests were burdensome, irrelevant, and propounded solely for the purpose of harassment and abuse. /d. at 518. Allstate also noted that the plaintiffs had taken the depositions of all adjusters and supervisors involved in the handling of plaintiffs’ insurance claims. /d. In response, the plaintiffs argued the depositions were necessary to prove their theory that a pervasive practice of inadequate supervision over Allstate claims adjusters existed within the corporation. /d. The court found that even if the plaintiffs had a right to explore those themes, Allstate had already provided adequate information, or the information could be obtained from other sources without the depositions of the officers sought. /d. Accordingly, the Northern District granted Allstate’s motion for a protective order prohibiting the depositions of the officers. /d. This Court should likewise reject Plaintiffs’ overreach of an apex deposition, where the information Plaintiffs seek is neither relevant nor unique to Mr. Keating. IL CHICK-FIL-A AND THE OKLAHOMA DISCOVERY STANDARD. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has made clear that relevance—the threshold requirement for obtaining discovery—‘should be firmly applied.” Quinn v. City of Tulsa, 1989 OK 112, ¢ 63, 777 P.2d 1331, 1342 (quoting Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979)); see also Nitzel v. Jackson, 1994 OK 49, 92 n.*, 879 P.2d 1222, 1223 n* (“Discovery is not without limitation. It must lead or tend to lead to relevant evidence.”). Relevance to a “party’s claim or defense” —as the Oklahoma 8"}, {"d": 86, "p": 9, "t": "Discovery Code requires*—is not simply assumed. See Chick-fil-A, Inc. v. Ogden et al., 2026 OK 13, 9 15-16 (Mar. 10, 2026) (holding trial court abused its discretion when it failed to require plaintiffs “to demonstrate how [the requested discovery] would be relevant to a claim or defense in this case.”). See also Stainsby v. Okla. ex rel. Okla. Health Care Auth., No. CIV-21-1073-D, 2022 WL 1748263, *1 (W.D. Okla. May 31, 2022) (“When the request is overly broad, or relevance is not clear, the party seeking the discovery has the burden to show the relevance of the request.”).4 Nor does a “plaintiff’s broad theory of the case ... necessarily justify broad discovery,” and courts should thus endeavor to “thwart fishing expeditions.” Willis v. Johnson, No. CIV-18-323-D, 2021 WL 8446071, at *2 (W.D. Okla. May 20, 2021). And as the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals has recognized, insurance cases should be handled according to their circumstances. See City Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins., 1990 OK CIV APP 89, § 18, 804 P.2d 463, 469 (“[B]efore ... bad faith may be submitted to the jury, the Trial Court must first determine, under the facts of the particular case ... whether [the] insurer’s conduct may be reasonably perceived as tortious.”). Here, there is no relevant connection between the deposition of Mr. Keating and the handling of the subject insurance claims or the FME (about which the Court has already granted Plaintiffs depositions, including of all the supposed “architects” of the FME). Proportionality is as critical as relevance to discoverability. The Oklahoma Discovery Code, like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure from which it is derived, requires that discovery be “proportional to the needs of the case.” 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1)(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In 3-12 OS. § 3226 (2025) (“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to any party's claim or defense, reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and proportional to the needs of the case, considering [various factors].”) (emphasis added). * Because “[t]he Oklahoma Discovery Code mirrors the Federal rules,” Meritor, Inc. v. State ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma, 2019 OK CIV APP 64, § 20 n.15, 451 P.3d 914, 922 n.15, Oklahoma courts often look to “discovery procedures in the federal rules when construing similar language in the Oklahoma Discovery Code,” Crest Infiniti, I, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, § 2, 174 P.3d 996, 999, 9"}, {"d": 86, "p": 10, "t": "fact, “the proper scope of discovery is that which is both relevant to the claims or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case; considering the various factors.” Dodd v. Indian Health Care Res. Ctr. of Tulsa, Inc., No. 24-CV-00327-SH, 2024 WL 4648150, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 1, 2024) (emphasis in original).” The Oklahoma Supreme Court recently made clear that a trial court must specifically consider the proportionality of discovery before it may compel the production of documents. See Order, Werner Enters., Inc. v. Kirkland, No. 122,385 (Okla. Sept. 24, 2024) (attached as Exhibit 6). Earlier this year in Chick-fil-A, the Oklahoma Supreme Court provided extensive guidance on the standards for determining the relevance and proportionality of discovery requests. In that case, the parents of a two-year-old child sued Chick-fil-A for negligence and wrongful death after a vehicle struck and killed their child in the drive-through lane while walking to the entrance of a Chick-fil-A in Yukon, Oklahoma. 2026 OK 13, § 2. In discovery, the parents asked Chick-fil-A to produce documents spanning 10 years “related to adverse events, complaints, incidents, and/or accidents involving the injury or death of any person at any restaurant owned, leased, franchised, or operated by Chick-fil-A within the United States,” plus “all complaints or petitions filed against Chick-fil-A... wherein negligence was or is alleged to have caused or contributed to the injury or death of a pedestrian as a result of being struck, hit, run over, or coming in contact with a motor vehicle . . .while on a Chick-fil-A restaurant premises in the United States.” /d. 43. Chick-fil-A objected to the requests as overbroad and unduly burdensome because they were “improperly tailored as to time and scope [and] were not limited to substantially similar incidents.” Id. ¥ 4. * These factors include: (1) the importance of the issues at stake in the action; (2) the amount in controversy; (3) the parties’ relative access to relevant information; (4) the parties’ resources; (5) the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues; and (6) whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. See 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1)(a). 10"}, {"d": 86, "p": 11, "t": "The parents moved to compel (agreeing to limit the requests to the last five years within Oklahoma), and the trial court granted the motion. /d. ¥§ 5-7. On an application for an extraordinary writ, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the trial court judge abused his discretion in granting the parents’ motion to compel because the requests were facially overly broad and the trial court did not “require [Plaintiffs] to initially demonstrate how their request was relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” /d. 4 16. The Court explained that 12 O.S. § 3226—which allows parties to obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter “which is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . and proportional to the needs of the case’—“was amended in 2017 to more closely follow amendments to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Jd. § 11. In particular, the Court observed that “[t]he amendments . . . omitted language that had bearing on whether a discovery request is relevant” and that it was no longer sufficient for discovery to be related to “the subject matter” without also being related to “any party’s claim or defense.” Jd. § 12.° Moreover, “the party seeking discovery has the burden to show the relevancy of the request.” /d. { 15 (internal citation omitted). Based on the foregoing, the Oklahoma Supreme Court explained that “{r]ecords related to any pedestrian accident that occurred in a Chick-fil-A parking lot may be relevant to the subject matter involved here. But that is no longer the standard.” Jd. §] 15 (emphasis added). Because “(t]he trial court did not require Parents to demonstrate how information about dissimilar incidents would be relevant to a claim or defense in this case,” it abused its discretion. /d. Accordingly, the Court prohibited the parents from enforcing this portion of the trial court’s order. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has further cautioned that “pretrial discovery by depositions ° Since 2000, the Federal Rules Advisory Committee has advised that “it intended for ‘the parties and the court to focus on the actual claims and defenses involved in the action.”” /d. 4 13 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee’s notes to 2000 amendment). 1"}, {"d": 86, "p": 12, "t": "and interrogatories has a significant potential for abuse.” YWCA of Oklahoma City v. Melson, 1997 OK 81, § 24 n.41, 944 P.2d 304, 311 n.41. Accordingly, the Discovery Code requires a court to “limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed if it determines” that “the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by subparagraph a of paragraph 1 of this subsection [regarding relevance and proportionality].” 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(2)(c). As such, this Court may issue, “for good cause shown ... any order which justice requires to protect a party or person” from “oppression or undue delay, burden or expense,” including “that the discovery not be had” or “that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions.” 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(1). Il. THE COURT SHOULD QUASH THE KEATING NOTICE BECAUSE MR. KEATING’S DEPOSITION IS IRRELEVANT AND DISPROPORTIONATE. A. Plaintiffs Cannot Demonstrate the Relevance of the Testimony They Seek. As an initial matter, Plaintiffs cannot establish that the deposition testimony of a State Farm Operations Vice President is “relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Chick-fil-A, Inc. v. Ogden, 2026 OK 13, 4 16. Mr. Keating has no relevant information as to the actual claims (which is what should be at issue) or to the FME (which Plaintiffs grossly mischaracterize). (See Ex. 5, Keating Decl. 9] 3, 4.) While it may go without saying, Mr. Keating did not assist Plaintiffs in procuring the their insurance policy or have any involvement in the investigation, evaluation, or decisions regarding Plaintiffs’ insurance claim, and Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Mr. Keating has information regarding any of the claims asserted in their Petition. Indeed, State Farm’s Operations Vice President is not only multiple levels above those who actually handled Plaintiffs’ clatm—.e., those who could testify as to State Farm’s coverage decision—but also numerous levels above those who supervised the insurance claims investigation, evaluation, and decision-making. Regardless of whether Mr. Keating’s testimony is broadly related to the “subject matter” of their suit (and even that is too far unless the subject matter is simply “ansurance”), Plaintiffs have not 12"}, {"d": 86, "p": 13, "t": "demonstrated Mr. Keating has any information regarding their claims, nor can they, and the Court should quash the deposition for that reason alone. See Chick-fil-A, 2026 OK 13, 4 15-16. Plaintiffs failed to provide any justification for Mr. Keating’s deposition, let alone explain its relevance. See Schultz, Ltd., 2016 WL 3149686, at *3 (a party seeking discovery must “describe with a reasonable degree of specificity, the information they hope to obtain and its importance to their case.”) (citation omitted). In any event, there is no evidence in the record that demonstrates Mr. Keating has unique, relevant testimony regarding any claim or defense in this matter. 1. Mr. Keating Has No Unique, Relevant Information Regarding the FME. Plaintiffs’ institutional allegations center on the FME, which was an effort by State Farm to improve the accuracy and quality of its wind/hail claim handling by conducting additional training, increasing management involvement, and improving file documentation. Even if the FME were relevant—and State Farm maintains it is not—Plaintiffs cannot articulate any unique testimony Mr. Keating would be able to offer connected to their FME-related allegations that would not be provided, deposition of State and former State or has not been provided already, in the corporate representative Farm or the eight other depositions the Court has already ordered of current Farm employees who Plaintiffs contended were involved in the FME. Indeed, Mr. Keating was not involved in the FME (and as Operations Vice President did not even have responsibility for fire property claims until June 2023. (See Ex. 5, Keating Decl. 4.) Notably, in opposing State Farm’s motions to quash the depositions of Mr. Moss, Mr. Herbert, Ms. Manduca, Mr. Welsh, Ms. Ress, Ms. Mazza, and Mr. Smith, Plaintiffs repeatedly argued that those individuals—not Mt. Keating—were the “key” members of the FME initiative and the supposed “architects” of the “scheme.” (See, e.g., Nov. 14, 2025 Pls.’ Consol. Resp. at 2, 3-12.) And Plaintiffs repeatedly represented that Ms. Manduca—not Mr. Keating—was the 13"}, {"d": 86, "p": 14, "t": "“leader” and the “head” of the FME initiative. (See, e.g., id. at 8-10.) Plaintiffs mentioned Mr. Keating not once in that brief. Then, in deposing Mr. Herbert in this case, Plaintiffs’ counsel only mentioned Mr. Keating’s name once when counsel asked Mr. Herbert about an email chain containing an email from Mr. Keating relating to the FPTF—not the FME. (See Ex. 4 at 354:11-14.) In West, Plaintiffs’ counsel also deposed Mr. Herbert and took a similar tack in their line of questioning. Plaintiffs’ counsel mentioned Mr. Keating’s name only in the context of the FPTF and that same email chain. (See, e.g., Exhibit 7, West W. Herbert Dep. Tr. at 207:10-208:12.) Despite twice questioning Mr. Herbert—who directly supervised Mr. Keating during the relevant time period— for hours, Plaintiffs’ counsel did not ask Mr. Herbert a single question about Mr. Keating’s involvement in the FME. If Plaintiffs’ reason for deposing Mr. Keating is his purported involvement in the FME, their counsel presumably would have had at least one question for Mr. Herbert about it. They did not.’ See Galmines, 2015 WL 4973626, at *2. As such, the demand for Mr. Keating’s deposition appears intended to harass State Farm and coerce abusive settlements to avoid the burden and expense created by these discovery tactics. See Lachney, 2008 WL 11420069, at *2 (“Efforts to compel the depositions of high ranking officials in large national or international companies ordinarily require a more thorough predicate showing of knowledge of, or involvement in, the matters [at] issue so as to avoid ‘fishing expeditions’ or efforts to unreasonably increase the settlement value of a case.”) (citing Thomas, 48 F.3d 478, 482-83); see also Lewelling v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, 879 F.2d 212, 218 (6th Cir. 1989) (affirming district 7 Similarly, Plaintiffs did not serve a single Interrogatory seeking information on Mr. Keating’s purported involvement in the FME. Cf Nucap Indus., 2017 WL 6059770, at *3 (granting motion for protective order preventing deposition of defendant’s Chairman where, inter alia, plaintiffs had failed to “seek written discovery regarding [the Chairman’s] alleged involvement in, or knowledge of, the acts giving rise to their claims”). 14"}, {"d": 86, "p": 15, "t": "court’s granting of protective order over the plaintiffs’ deposition notice to isurer’s Chairman/CEO where the executive had no personal knowledge of the pertinent facts and plaintiffs offered to cancel the deposition in exchange for settlement talks). 2. The FPTF Is Not Relevant and Mr. Keating Does Not Have Unique, Personal Knowledge. To the extent Plaintiffs seek discovery about the FPTF through Mr. Keating’s deposition, this approach is, at best, perplexing. Plaintiffs have consistently and persistently argued that the FME is at the center of the purported “scheme.” But for the first time in seeking Mr. Farney’s deposition, Plaintiffs alleged that the FPTF somehow was relevant through an unidentified connection to the FME. But the FPTF is not connected to the FME. (See Exhibit 8, N. Manduca Decl. ¥ 6.) Regardless, even if the FPTF were relevant—which it is not—Plaintiffs have already had 12 hours—through two depositions of Mr. Herbert—to obtain testimony regarding that initiative. Plaintiffs do not explain what testimony Mr. Keating could offer that Plaintiffs have not already obtained from Mr. Herbert. What’s more, the Court recently denied State Farm’s motion to quash the deposition of Mr. Farney, State Farm’s CEO—who also attended the FPTF meetings with Mr. Herbert. Plaintiffs do not explain what additional information about the FPTF Mr. Keating could offer that could not be covered in the deposition of Mr. Farney. B. The Deposition of Mr. Keating Is Not Proportional to the Needs of the Case. Even assuming Plaintiffs could demonstrate that Mr. Keating has relevant, unique information, the Court should quash the Keating Notice because his testimony would be wholly disproportionate to the needs of the case. 12 O.S. §§ 3226(B)(1)(a), 3226(B)(2)(c)(3).® This is an ® See also Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Group Ins. Plan, 619 F.3d 1151, 1163 (10th Cir. 2010) (“Rule 26(b), although broad, has never been a license to engage in an unwieldy, burdensome, and speculative fishing expedition.”); Chrisman v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Oklahoma Cuty., No. 15"}, {"d": 86, "p": 16, "t": "individual homeowners’ case involving a contractual dispute for the totaling of a roof that is estimated at $22,000, yet Plaintiffs are demanding a State Farm Operations Vice President prepare for and appear for a deposition despite not being involved in the coverage decisions at issue—and even though the Court has already ordered State Farm to provide eight depositions of other current and former employees. Subjecting an executive like Mr. Keating to a deposition based on speculation he may have information not available from other sources far exceeds the bounds of permissible discovery. Courts routinely recognize that depositions of high-level executives are improper absent a showing that they have unique personal knowledge that could not be obtained from other employees. See Crest Infiniti, IT, 2007 OK 77, {§ 14, 16 (recognizing that a protective order should be issued to prevent an apex deposition if “annoyance, oppression, and undue burden and expense outweigh the need for discovery” on those issues); Schultz, 2016 WL 3149686, at *3 (“Mere speculation that information might be useful will not suffice.”); Galmines, 2015 WL 4973626, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2015) (quashing depositions of high-level executives because relator was unable to rebut the “presumption that a high-level official’s deposition represents a significant burden upon the deponent and that this burden is undue” by establishing that executives had unique personal knowledge that could not be obtained from other employees or less burdensome discovery). At best, Mr. Keating’s testimony would be cumulative of any testimony of those who actually handled Plaintiffs’ claims and, as to the FME or FPTF, would provide no unique information that Plaintiffs could not obtain, or have not already obtained, through the depositions the Court has already ordered. Like the officers in Evans, Mr. Keating has no unique personal knowledge about Plaintiffs’ CIV-17-1309-D, 2020 WL 7033965, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 30, 2020) (“While the scope of discovery is broad, it is not unlimited and is further defined by proportionality considerations.”) (internal cites omitted). 16"}, {"d": 86, "p": 17, "t": "insurance clatim—whether limited to the individual claims or expanded to Plaintiffs’ speculative theories about the claims. See Evans, 216 F.R.D. 515, 516; see also Okla. ex rel. Edmondson, 2009 WL 10694083, at *4. Plaintiffs’ attempt to depose Mr. Keating is nothing more than a classic (and improper) fishing expedition. See Todd, 2019 WL 8272621, at *3. Plaintiffs have not established that Mr. Keating had any connection to, or has any knowledge of, the handling of their claim—nor can they. See Evans, 216 F.R.D. at 518-19. Nor have they established that Mr. Keating has any unique information regarding the FME, the FPTF, or any other “initiative” Plaintiffs contend is relevant to their theory—let alone that any such “initiative” impacted the claim decisions they are challenging. Until Plaintiffs demonstrate what—if any—unique, relevant knowledge Mr. Keating may have relating to their claims, the Court should not allow his deposition to proceed. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion to quash the Keating Notice and for a protective order preventing the deposition of Michael Keating Plaintiffs noticed for September 28, 2026. Respectfully submitted, Se 2 EGE. Carrie B. McNeer, OBA No. 22235 Grant A. Fitz, OBA No. 19806 Nathan A. Miramontes, OBA No. 36212 GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 PH: (918) 595-4800 FAX: (918) 595-4990 cmcneer@gablelaw.com efitz@gablelaw.com nmiramontes@gablelaw.com 17"}, {"d": 86, "p": 18, "t": "-and- Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 PH: (405) 235-5500 FAX:: (405) 235-2875 lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com Diane Lee McGimsey -Admitted Pro Hac Vice SULLIVAN & CROMWELL 1888 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, CA 90067 PH: 310-712-6600 megimseyd@sullcrom.com Erica B. Zolner -Admitted Pro Hac Vice REDGRAVE LLP 230 West Monroe Street, Suite 210, Chicago, IL 60606 PH: 773-720-9169 Tiffany Lynne Powers -Admitted Pro Hac Vice ALSTON & BIRD, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Atlanta, GA 30308 PH: 404-881-7000 Tiffany.pwers@alston.com Attorneys for Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 18"}, {"d": 86, "p": 19, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I do hereby certify that on September 28, 2026, a true, correct and exact copy of the above and foregoing document was served by placing same in the United States mail, with proper postage thereon duly prepaid, to those parties as listed below: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com R. Ryan Deligans, Durbin, Larimore & Bialick 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rdeligans@dlb.net Patrick F. Collogan BIBY LAW FIRM 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 pat@bibylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs See 2 EGS 19"}, {"d": 86, "p": 21, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY and LACY HURSH, § § Plaintiffs, § § V. § Case No.: CJ-2025-2626 § STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY § COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and § MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.,§ § Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF INTENTION TO TAKE ORAL & VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL KEATING TO: All Defendants and their counsel of record. Deponent: Michael Keating Date: September 28, 2026 Time: 9:30 a.m. Location: Bloomington-Normal Marriott Hotel & Conference Center 201 Broadway Ave, Normal, [L In person Method: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230(C), Plaintiffs will take the oral deposition of Michael Keating before a Certified Court Reporter or other officer authorized to administer oaths, at the date, time, and location set forth above, and will continue from day to day until completed. This deposition will be recorded by stenographic and audiovisual means. Dated: September 21, 2026 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Michael Keating Page | of 3"}, {"d": 86, "p": 22, "t": "Respectfully submitted, Plaka Donne Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that on September 21, 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 918.595.4800 918.595-4990 cmceneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com -andLance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Michael Keating Page 2 of 3"}, {"d": 86, "p": 23, "t": "499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com 405.235.5500 405,.235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Blake Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Michael Keating Page 3 of 3 Senne"}, {"d": 86, "p": 25, "t": "From: Blake Sonne To: John Sanders; Carrie McNeer; Rebeca Matheus: rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten; Jake Denne; Karen Stratton; Autumn Hobbs; Kayli Price; Ryan Deligans; Pat Collogan; Marsha Murray Ce: Grant Fitz; Lance Leffel; David R. Herber; Nathan A. Miramontes; Janet _L. Wright; Christine Hill; Kari Cyrs; Jaylea Subject: A. Allen; Amy H. Jenkins; Kayli Price; Autumn Hobbs; Ryan Deligans Re: Hursh v. State Farm Date: Monday, September 21, 2026 10:01:05 AM Attachments: image001.jpg image002.png image003.jpg image004.jpg image005.jpg image006.jpg image00Q7.jpa image008.jpg image009.jpq image010.png imageQ11.jpg image012.jpg image013.png image014.ong imageQ15.ong image016.png image017.png Hursh - Depo SDT to Ezekiel Waite.pdf Hursh - Notice of Deposition - Michael Keating FINAL.pdf External email — beware of links and attachments Lance and Carrie, Please advise on Mr. Caylao/Seek Now as soon as you can. In addition, please find attached a Notice for Deposition of Operations Vice President Michael Keating, set for September 28, 2026 in Bloomington. Please advise if State Farm will agree to produce Mr. Keating and we can work on an agreeable date. Otherwise, we will get this issue before the Court. Finally, please find attached a subpoena for deposition for Ezekiel Waite. We have put a temporary date for October 2\" but are waiting to hear back from Mr. Waite as to whether that date or some other dates will work better for him and will update and let you know as needed. Thank you. BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, Or COUNSEL SIGNATURE_1102629327 a 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax bsonne(@whittenburragelaw.com | 405.664.2919 Cell www. whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you."}, {"d": 86, "p": 26, "t": "From: John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com> Date: Friday, September 18, 2026 at 1:47 PM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>, Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten” <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins\" <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Just to clarify, will State Farm be representing Mark Caylao and presenting him for his deposition? | realize | may have put the cart before the horse. Respectfully, John Scott Sanders Attorney 7] 512 N. Broadway Avenue Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 Jjsanders(@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com If the recipient of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and unauthorized. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by return e-mail and delete this message from your computer. Thank you."}, {"d": 86, "p": 27, "t": "From: John Sanders Sent: Friday, September 18, 2026 1:40 PM To: ‘Carrie McNeer’ <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@clb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Carrie, Thank you for providing dates on Mr. Feller, we are working on verifying. What about Mark Caylao with Seek Now? Have you obtained his availability? Thanks! Respectfully, John Scott Sanders Attorney a 512 N. Broadway Avenue Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com If the recipient of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and unauthorized. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by return e-mail and delete this message from your computer. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>"}, {"d": 86, "p": 28, "t": "Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2026 1:47 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; Reggie N. Whitten <cwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz7@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <pmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Blake, We can present Conrad Feller in San Antonio on October 27 or 28. Let me know which date works best, and we are working on a location. Thanks, Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 1:40 PM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dib.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chiil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm"}, {"d": 86, "p": 29, "t": "External email — beware of links and attachments That works, thanks! BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, Or COUNSEL SIGNATURE_3822861927 1? 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonnei@ whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 at 1:35 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins\" <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Thanks, Blake. We will present JR at Professional Reporters in Tulsa on October 26 at 9:30AM."}, {"d": 86, "p": 30, "t": "Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 1:28 PM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments Yes Oct 26\" works for JR Phillips. We want to depose Feller in person. Thanks! BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL SIGNATURE_466599110 Bi $12 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 at 12:16 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@ whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten"}, {"d": 86, "p": 31, "t": "<hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins\" <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Blake/John, Following up on the below. Does October 26 work for JR Phillips? Also, Conrad Feller is located in San Antonio. Are you planning to depose him in person or via Zoom? Thanks, Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Carrie McNeer Sent: Friday, September 11, 2026 9:56 AM To: ‘Blake Sonne’ <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>: Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm We will issue Amended Notices for the Plaintiffs."}, {"d": 86, "p": 32, "t": "Does October 26 work for JR Phillips? Thanks, Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2026 4:32 PM To: Carrie McNeer <cmecneer@gablelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>: rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Ce: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <|leffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments Carrie, I think both John and I responded with emails last night (see below 9:08pm last night) about this as we were offering the 22 and 23 for the Hurshes due to their work schedule so were asking for alternative dates for Phillps. 10am in Tulsa works for Wood on Oct 29. Let me know — thanks! BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL SIGNATURE_3251235207 a $12N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405, 516. 7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell www, whittenburr. agelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the"}, {"d": 86, "p": 33, "t": "telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Date: Thursday, September 10, 2026 at 4:23 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins” <ajenkins@gablelaw.cam>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Blake, | sent an email earlier this afternoon offering to present Phillips on October 22. See attached. We will present him at PR Tulsa. Just let us know what time you want to start the depos on October 22 and 29. | will work on the SeekNow inspector. Thanks, Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2026 4:18 PM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>: Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>;"}, {"d": 86, "p": 34, "t": "Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments Hey Carrie, Please let us know dates on Phillips...we also want dates for Seek Now inspector Mark Caylao. Please provide some dates for him as well. Thanks! BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL SIGNATURE_1737983080 7] $12. N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www. whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 at 9:08 PM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dib.net> Ce: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\""}, {"d": 86, "p": 35, "t": "<dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins\" <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm Actually, I think we were going to offer the 22\" and 23 for the Hursh’s due to their work schedule they need to do TH or FR. John, can you confirm? Can you provide some alternative dates for Phillps? BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL SIGNATURE_1697063885 Bl 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne(@whittenburragelaw.com www. whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 at 9:06 PM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@ whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <nwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dib.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins\" <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm"}, {"d": 86, "p": 36, "t": "Carrie, We will make Oct 22\"4 work for Phillips. Where is he located? Mark Wood on Oct 29\" at PR in Tulsa works for him. BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL SIGNATURE_878860953 Bi 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax bsonne(@whittenburragelaw.com www. whittenburragelaw.com | 405.664.2919 Cell The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 at 4:46 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@ whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dib.net> Ce: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins” <ajenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Blake/John, Have we gotten new dates for the Plaintiffs’ depositions? We can present JR Phillips on October 22. Please let me know if that works for your side."}, {"d": 86, "p": 37, "t": "Thanks, Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 11:10 AM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>: John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>: Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@clb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright @gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments Ok sounds good, thanks! BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, Or COUNSEL SIGNATURE_2775690708 L?| 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne(@ whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Date: Friday, September 4, 2026 at 11:06 AM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders"}, {"d": 86, "p": 38, "t": "<jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes” <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins” <ajenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Yes, he is in the Tulsa area. | can present him at PR in Tulsa. Thanks. Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 8:18 AM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten @whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chiil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jalen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments Thank you Carrie. Let’s do the 29\" Is he located in Oklahoma lam assuming? If so let’s do PR in okc. Thanks! Blake Sonne Attorney, Of Counsel"}, {"d": 86, "p": 39, "t": "512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516. 7800 Tel | 4405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell www. whittenburrace law.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 12:32 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Blake, TM Mark Wood can be available October 29 or 30. Let me know if either of those dates would work. Thanks, Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 11:49 AM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>: Jake"}, {"d": 86, "p": 40, "t": "Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dib.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <pmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright @gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments Thank you Blake Sonne Attorney, Of Counsel signature_1997176144 a 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne(@ whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Date: Thursday, September 3, 2026 at 11:48 AM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.cam>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.cam>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <pwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@wnhittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dib.net> Ce: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.cam>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs"}, {"d": 86, "p": 41, "t": "<kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins’ 1 <aienkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Yes, | will work on getting you dates for these people. Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <psonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 11:45 AM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>: Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenourragelaw.com: Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <idenne@whittenburrageaw.com>; Karen Stratton <xstratton@whittenourrageiaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice @whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dib net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@cdib.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gabielaw.com>; Lance Leffel <|leffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <cherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>: Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>: Kari Cyrs <keyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments Thank you Carrie...can you also get us dates in October for CS Jr Phillips, TM Mark Wood, and ECR Conrad Feller? We will need copies of their personnel files as well prior to the depos if those have not already been produced. Thanks! Blake Sonne Attorney, Of Counsel signature_3213685148 1? 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you."}, {"d": 86, "p": 42, "t": "From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Date: Thursday, September 3, 2026 at 11:34 AM To: John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurrav@dlb.net> Ce: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel </leffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.cam>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H., Jenkins” <ajienkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm John, Once we get new agreed dates, we will send second amended notices. I’ll look for new proposed dates. Thanks for letting us know. Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: John Sanders <jsanders@wohittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 11:31 AM To: Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>: Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <korice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <giltz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffe|@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <cherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gaplelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>: Carrie McNeer <cmceneer@gaplelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments"}, {"d": 86, "p": 43, "t": "Carrie and All, iam very sorry, but | was premature on the dates | gave you for Billy and Lacy Hursh for October and missed several conflicts on our end for October 8 and 9. That is my mistake and apologies for missing this before you issued your amended notices. Could we please try this again, and | will make sure we get you better dates that work for us, the client, and your firm? We are working on alternative dates ASAP. Again, this is my mistake alone. Respectfully, John Scott Sanders Attorney 7] 512 N. Broadway Avenue Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 jsanders(@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com If the recipient of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and unauthorized. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by return e-mail and delete this message from your computer. Thank you. From: Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gabielaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 10:45 AM To: John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Reggie N. Whitten <rpwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice @ whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rceligans@clo.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dib.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <leffel\\@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <cherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gaplelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.cam>: Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Carrie McNeer <cmecneer@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm"}, {"d": 86, "p": 44, "t": "Good morning, Please see attached the amended notices. A hard copy will be placed in the mail to you. Rebeca Matheus | 918-595-4984 | GableGotwals From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@eableiaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 8:29 AM To: John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburrageiaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gabielaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@wnhittenourragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <korice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Ce: Grant Fitz <glitz@egablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <leffel@gabielaw.com>; David R. Herber <cherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@ganlelaw.com>: Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jalen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <alenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm John, Thanks for getting backto me. We will send amended notices for October 8 and 9. Thanks, Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: John Sanders <jsancers@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 6:21 PM To: Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>: rwhitten@wnhittenburragelaw.com:; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <awhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <|denne@whittenburragelaw.com>: Karen Stratton <kstratton@wnhittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburrageiaw.com>; Kayll Price <korice@whittenburragelaw.cam>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Ce: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>: Grant Fitz <gefitz@gabielaw.com>; Lance Leffel <jeffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dnerber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwrignt@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>: Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jJalen@gab Amy H. Jenkins <alenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm claw.com>:"}, {"d": 86, "p": 45, "t": "External email — beware of links and attachments Carrie, In response to your letter, we have obtained the following dates of availability from Billy and Lacy Hursh for their depositions: 10/8-10/9, and 10/22-10/23. Please let us know if any of these will work for you. We are also working on getting our pared-down witness list to you asap. Thank you! Respectfully, John Scott Sanders Attorney a 312 N. Broadway Avenue Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com If the recipient of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and unauthorized. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by return e-mail and delete this message from your computer. Thank you. From: Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2026 4:51 PM To: Reggie N. Whitten <nwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders(@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs(@ whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice(@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat(@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray(@dlb.net> Ce: Carrie McNeer <cmecneer@gablelaw.com>; Grant Fitz <gfitz@eablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lletfel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes(@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@ gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <keyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins(@gablelaw.com> Subject: Hursh v. State Farm"}, {"d": 86, "p": 46, "t": "Good afternoon, Please see attached a letter from Carrie McNeer. A hard copy has been placed in the mail to you. a Rebeca Matheus | Litigation Legal Assistant | GableGotwals (w) 918-595-4984 | (f) 918-595-4990 | rmatheus(@gablelaw.com 110 N. Elgin Ave., Ste. 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1495 | USA | www-.gablelaw.com | This message and any attachments are for the addressee only and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received this in error, please notify me immediately and permanently delete the message and any prints or other copies."}, {"d": 86, "p": 48, "t": "From: Blake Sonne To: Lance Leffel; Karen Stratton; Carrie McNeer; Rebeca Matheus; Janet L. Wright; Kari Cyrs; David R. Herber; Nathan A. Miramontes ca: rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten; John Sanders; Jake Denne; Autumn Hobbs; Kayli Price; Brad Beskin; Marsha Murray; Ryan Deligans; Pat Collogan Subject: Re: Hursh/Faust v. State Farm - Writ Denial & Discovery Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 5:06:53 PM Attachments: Hursh - State Farm - Notice to Take Deposition of Jon Farney.pdf External email — beware of links and attachments Counsel, This email follows my email below as well as Reggie and I’s phone call with Lance earlier today. As I mentioned to Lance, we will be filing a motion to enforce in the morning and request expedited enforcement from Judge Palumbo considering the 8-month delay in producing documents and corporate/executive depositions. We intend to discuss these issues with the Court at our hearing on our Second Motion to Compel on Tuesday July 7\" We prefer to work with State Farm on dates for Ress, Herbert, Moss, and the corporate representative depositions but we have still not received any dates. Please advise. In addition, please find attached the Notice of Deposition for Jon Farney for July 20, 2026, former State Farm Sr. VP, Treasurer, and CFO as well as current CEO. Farney’s involvement in the FME, P&C tactics and Wind/Hail success, his knowledge of indemnity reductions on FME Wind/Hail as well as his direct involvement in State Farm’s Fix Profit Task Force, which directly involved Wind/Hail claims are all directly related to State Farm’s FME and continued work to maintain its momentum on reducing indemnity in Wind/Hail claims. Moreover, as the CFO receiving direct reports on financials from Wind/Hail claims, Farney has direct knowledge of indemnity reductions and other financials related to the FME and subsequent plans by SF. In fact, during the very timeframe of the Hursh’s claim, Farney was receiving monthly Fire Claims Trends on a rolling 12month basis, specifically discussing Wind/Hail results. The Fire Trends were sent specifically to Wensley Herbert and Jon Farney. Similarly, Farney was a key participant in the Fix Profit Task Force during the time of the Hursh’s claim. State Farm executives including Farney discussed continued improvements in P&C profits from building on the momentum of the FME and “quality results” from Wind/Hail indemnity and FRR to PRR ratio reductions. Again, the documents show this occurring during the very time of the Hursh’s claim and adjustment. We have noticed the deposition for OKC or Bloomington, IL and will work with you to coordinate per your preferred location like we offered with Ress, Herbert, and Moss. Thank you. BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL SIGNATURE_3768441789 1? 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne(@ whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work-"}, {"d": 86, "p": 49, "t": "product. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Date: Monday, June 29, 2026 at 7:54 AM To: Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com> Cc: \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Brad Beskin <bbeskin@whittenburragelaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com> Subject: Hursh/Faust v. State Farm - Writ Denial & Discovery Counsel, This email follows the Supreme Court’s order last week denying the writ of prohibition taken on Judge Palumbo’s rulings on (1) the motion to compel; (2) the motion to quash executive depositions; and (3) the motion to quash the corporate representative deposition of State Farm. We are seeking immediate compliance with these discovery rulings and this email serves as our request for State Farm to provide an update in its compliance without Court intervention. As you know, State Farm’s documents were ordered to be produced back in December 2025 and also in March 2026. The documents in December were documents from previous cases under RFP #44. We expect immediate production of these bates stamped numbers from the previous cases. With respect to the rest of the document production, we expect full compliance with 12 O.S. § 3234(B)(2)(e)(1), which requires a producing party to produce documents “as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request.” (emphasis added). Oklahoma law does not allow a “document dump” to force Plaintiffs to sift through thousands of pages to try and locate responsive documents. This may also deny any opportunity to examine a corporate designee and/or verifying agent as to any supplementation made. Such practices fail to comply with the specificity obligations the discovery code. See Low v. OMNI Life Sci., Inc., No. CIV-18-305-SLP, 2020 WL 12787583, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 5, 2020) (producing party must identify document on which they rely by numbers so that there can be no dispute at trial what documents to which the producing party is referring to); Crest Res., Inc. v. Dan Blocker Petroleum Consultants, Inc., No. 09-CV-766-TCK-PJC, 2013 WL 618865, at *1 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 19, 2013) (sufficient to compel supplementation to discovery to identify by bates the documents that correspond to each of the specific document where the supplementation made had no apparent organizational structure to the production). In addition, any blanket designation of confidentiality does not comply with the Oklahoma"}, {"d": 86, "p": 50, "t": "Discovery Code and we will seek immediate action with the Court to de-designate documents under a blanket confidentiality designation as was done in the West case. With respect to the executive depositions, please provide dates and proposed locations in July for Herbert, Ress, Welsh, and Moss. We will issue notices this week if we cannot reach an agreement on these depositions. We intend to issue other executive deposition notices this week. On the corporate representative deposition, please also provide names/topics and proposed dates and locations. The writ process delayed this case by almost 8 months. We do not intent to move any trial date and therefore request assistance in these discovery matters without court intervention. Please advise as soon as possible. Thank you. BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, Or COUNSEL SIGNATURE _633434822 ai 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne(@ whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you."}, {"d": 86, "p": 52, "t": "Page 1 2 3 4 22 Page jury your job duties as Senior Vice President of Property and Claims at State Farm? is, 1 2 A. Yes. I lead our Claims Department, which 3 you know, approximately 32,000 -- people, | 4 know, you You know, 5 or so. are largely, 6 administrative, you know, making sure we're, 7 know, the right experience to our providing my duties 32,000 Vice 5 Q. Okay. 6 President, 7 report customers, 9 the 10 customers 11 be 12 things, 13 14 Q. Okay. How long have you been Senior Vice President of Property and Claims -- Property -- P&C 15 16 at State Farm? A. Iwas 17 of 2021. 18 Q. 20- what? 19 20 A. Q. 2021. 19 Where were you previously prior to October | 20 of 22 operation service-level A. 8 21 so meeting you as responding to, claims. And yeah, catastrophe events, have large-scale A. of Operations sometimes it could |10 handles those of 11 technology 12 Q. A. I was Farm? an Operations Vice President. 23 24 Q. And at that time, who was the Senior Vice President of P&C that you were reporting to as an 25 Operations Vice President? A. Robert 2 Q. How do you 3 AL Y¥-i. Q. So currently, 5 6 7 8 Yes, right. also President? And reports and have a VP to me as well I also that -- our process and areas. Okay. How many VP of Operations do you have in -A. Let me see. Q. Okay. Operations? I think 14, I think. And who reports to the VP of 17 A. Either a claim manager or a director. Q. Okay. What's the difference between a claim manager and a director? A. A claim manager role has operational 21 responsibilities, more executional responsibilities. 22 They our -- our operations. will receive claim They are generally third-line leaders, so they have direct reports who also have direct reports. And then our directors are -- are more on 23 the last name? as the Senior Vice Vice 18 | 23 24 Yi. spell that's that our technology 25 Page 1 4 15 |16 So there's to the Operational 9 -- I went into this role in October '21 at State Vice 8 |13 | 14 to that just | kind reports an Operational our too. of Operations and they have VP of Operations know, when President them. objectives, you Page 1 the 2 3 President | 4 of P&C, my understanding is you have a series of operational vice presidents that report directly to you? A. Yes, I do. 5 6 7 8 kind of the project side governance and oversight area area, kind of roles. They are sometimes leaders sometimes first-line those second-line or are of things like our technology leaders. Q. As a claim manager or a director between those two, who would be more involved in actual claim handling on wind and hail claims, for example? 9 Q. How many? 9 MR. A. Five. 10 Go ahead. 11 Q. Are they broken down by particular 11 THE DEPONENT: 12 division or type of claim? 12 -- aren't 13 A. Yeah, 13. BY MR. 14 Q. Okay. 14 15 16 A. Q. Yep. Who are the operational vice presidents 15 16 suggesting -- I know you have claims specialists. They report to team managers. They report to 17 section managers. bit of both. 17 that report to you that are 18 homeowners' claims? 19 20 21 22 A. So Michael Keating is an operations vice president. He has responsibility for fire claims. Millicent Roth is an operations vice president who has -- her area of responsibilities 23 are 24 fire claims. governance 25 Q. Okay. ~~ would cover 18 and oversight area over both auto 19 20 21 22 and | 23 So she's also connected to that. And then those operational vice NAEGELI DEPOSITION & TRIAL 25 or our 10 a little 24 presidents, who reports to them in the chain of command at State Farm under you? LEFFEL: directly Objection; form. Our claim managers involved aren't in claim handling. SONNE: Q. A. Sorry. Yes, Let me interrupt. Yeah. I'm not Correct? that's right. Q. managers, A. Q. And section managers report to claim correct? That's correct. I -- that was a bad question. I'm not suggesting your claim managers are involved to-day adjusting of claims. 25 claim managers and directors more in the reporting (800) 528-3335 NAEGELIUSA.COM My question is: in day- 24 Are"}, {"d": 86, "p": 54, "t": "DECLARATION OF MICHAEL KEATING I, Michael Keating, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the following is true and correct: l. I am over the age of 21 years, of sound mind, legally capable of making this Declaration, and have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Declaration. 2. I am currently Operations Vice President at State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), with responsibility for fire property claims. I have been in my current position since October 2, 2021. I have been a State Farm employee since 1993. 3. I do not oversee the day-to-day handling of insurance claims, including the homeowners’ policies issued by State Farm. There are multiple levels of management between my position and the claims teams that adjust claims. 4. In my current role as Operations Vice President, I receive updates and/or reporting that at times include information concerning quality initiatives and enterprise-wide trends. It is my understanding that Plaintiffs in this case are seeking testimony about State Farm’s F ire Model Enhancement (the “FME”). I was not involved in the FME. For nearly a decade prior to June 2023, my roles involved only auto claims. I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 0/29/2026 (Date) Uf lake (Signature)"}, {"d": 86, "p": 56, "t": "ORIGINAL LOUIE 1059561 039% SUPRENE IN THE SUPREME ENTERPRISES, Petitioner, ATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 24 2024 JOHN D. HADD CLERK EN et INC., ee WERNER COURT OF THE STATE OF oKLaHoma® COURT No. 122,385 ee ee V. ee ee THE HONORABLE KORY KIRKLAND, et ee Respondent, and ee ae JODI CROSS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of RAE ANN DARROW, deceased, TIMOTHY CLEMONS and MICHAEL DENNIS PECK, mrad Mailed. TAA! pistrub____9¢\"1 Publish___ Nee Defendants. Posted ee and Ne ee ae Rec'd (date) AT yA yes” no ORDER Original Werner jurisdiction Enterprises, is assumed. Inc.’s Okla. Const. to assume application granted. A writ of mandamus art. 7, § 4. original Petitioner jurisdiction is is issued to Caddo County District Judge Kory Kirkland, or any assigned judge, in Jodi Cross, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rae Anne Darrow, deceased v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., et. Al., CJ-2021-47. Respondent’s certain documents proportionality December 20, 2023 compelling as Respondent is unenforceable, test as outlined Order in Title 1 12 O.S., did Section production of not consider the 3226(B)(2)(c), in"}, {"d": 86, "p": 57, "t": "determining the relevancy of the requested documents. Respondent, any other assigned judge, or a special master appointed by the district court shall review the discovery requests at issue and consider the proportionality factors stated in 12 O.S. Section 3226 (B(2)(c) along with all other statutory requirements before ruling on the discovery disputes. DONE BY THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE ON THE _23rd_ __—s DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024. CHIEF JUSTICE CONCUR: DISSENT: KANE, C.J., and WINCHESTER, GURICH, DARBY and KUEHN, JJ. ROWE, V.C.J., and KAUGER, EDMONDSON and COMBS, JJ."}, {"d": 86, "p": 59, "t": "DECLARATION OF NICOLE MANDUCA I, Nicole Manduca, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the following is true and correct: 1, I am over the age of 21 years, of sound mind, legally capable of making this Declaration, and have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Declaration. 2. I am currently a Director in Property & Casualty at State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm”) and have been in my current position since April 2026. Before assuming my current role, I was a Claim Manager at State Farm. I have been a State Farm employee since 2000. 3. In my previous role as a Claim Manager, I was part of the Wind/Hail Fire Model Enhancement (“FME”), which began in spring 2020. 4, The FME focused on quality claim handling and ways to improve consistency in handling wind/hail claims through training and documentation. 5. Throughout my work on the FME, I did not report to, communicate with, or otherwise discuss the FME with Jon Farney, State Farm’s CEO. Mr. Farney also did not attend FME meetings, which were held regularly. 6. It is my understanding that Plaintiffs in this case are seeking testimony about the Fix Profit Task Force (“FPTF”). My work on the FME did not involve or relate in any way to the FPTF. I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. July 20th, 2026 Tempe, AZ Nucele Wlanducn (Date and Place) (Signature) Page 1 of 1"}, {"d": 87, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY FILED gt git! Case Number CJ-2025-2626 Sgt Plaintiffs, September 29, 2026 11:13 AM RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK tet OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, Defendants. eee ieee Newer STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Hon. Amy Palumbo et te get Vv. NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA AND SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO DIAMOND GUTTER COMPANY To: Diamond Gutter Company, LLC PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company hereby WITHDRAWS the Deposition Subpoena and Subpoena Duces Tecum to Diamond Gutter Company, LLC dated September 11, 2026. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company reserves the right to re-issue in the future, if necessary. DATED this 24\" day of September, 2026."}, {"d": 87, "p": 2, "t": "Respectfully submitted, a , Onn le i, | AME ytCO Carrie B. McNeer, OBA No. 22235 Grant A. Fitz, OBA No. 19806 Nathan A. Miramontes, OBA No. 36212 GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 Fax cmcneer@gablelaw.com efitz@gablelaw.com nmiramontes@gablelaw.com -and- Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 Fax lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com Attorneys for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company"}, {"d": 87, "p": 3, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I do hereby certify that on September 24, 2026, a true, correct and exact copy of the above and foregoing document was served by placing same in the United States mail, with proper postage thereon duly prepaid, to those parties as listed below: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com R. Ryan Deligans, Durbin, Larimore & Bialick 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rdeligans@dlb.net Patrick F. Collogan BIBY LAW FIRM 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 pat@bibylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs"}, {"d": 88, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA gt LACY HURSH September 29, 2026 11:13 AM git! BILLY & FILED DISTRICT COURT COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-2626 Defendants. get Newer ieee AGENCY, INC., Hon. Amy Palumbo et STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE Case No. CJ-2025-2626 eee V. te Sgt , RICK WARREN, tet Plaintiffs NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO R TURLEY ROOFING To: — R Turley Roofing, Inc. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company hereby WITHDRAWS the Deposition Subpoena to R Turley Roofing, Inc. dated September 11, 2026. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company reserves the right to re-issue in the future, if necessary. DATED this 24\" day of September, 2026. Respectfully submitted, Ve AN On ate | yoo Carrie B. McNeer, OBA No. 22235 Grant A. Fitz, OBA No. 19806 Nathan A. Miramontes, OBA No. 36212 GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 Fax cmcneer@gablelaw.com efitz@gablelaw.com nmiramontes@gablelaw.com -and-"}, {"d": 88, "p": 2, "t": "Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 Fax lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com Attorneys for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company"}, {"d": 88, "p": 3, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I do hereby certify that on September 24, 2026, a true, correct and exact copy of the above and foregoing document was served by placing same in the United States mail, with proper postage thereon duly prepaid, to those parties as listed below: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com R. Ryan Deligans, Durbin, Larimore & Bialick 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rdeligans@dlb.net Patrick F. Collogan BIBY LAW FIRM 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 pat@bibylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs"}, {"d": 89, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA gt HURSH FILED DISTRICT COURT tet RICK WARREN, get te Hon. Amy Palumbo Defendants. Newer ieee AGENCY, INC., Case No. CJ-2025-2626 et STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE CLERK. eee Vv. COURT Case Number CJ-2025-2626 Sgt Plaintiffs COUNTY, OKLAHOMA September 29, 2026 11:13 AM git! BILLY & LACY COUNTY NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO REPUBLIC ROOFING COMPANY To: — Republic Roofing Company, Inc. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company hereby WITHDRAWS the Deposition Subpoena to Republic Roofing, Inc. dated September 11, 2026. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company reserves the right to re-issue in the future, if necessary. DATED this 24\" day of September, 2026. Respectfully submitted, Ve AN On ate | yoo Carrie B. McNeer, OBA No. 22235 Grant A. Fitz, OBA No. 19806 Nathan A. Miramontes, OBA No. 36212 GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 Fax cmcneer@gablelaw.com efitz@gablelaw.com nmiramontes@gablelaw.com -and-"}, {"d": 89, "p": 2, "t": "Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 Fax lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com Attorneys for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company"}, {"d": 89, "p": 3, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I do hereby certify that on September 24, 2026, a true, correct and exact copy of the above and foregoing document was served by placing same in the United States mail, with proper postage thereon duly prepaid, to those parties as listed below: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com R. Ryan Deligans, Durbin, Larimore & Bialick 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rdeligans@dlb.net Patrick F. Collogan BIBY LAW FIRM 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 pat@bibylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs"}, {"d": 90, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, ) Plaintiffs, V. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., COUNTY FILED DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA ) September 29, 2026 11:13 AM ) RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2025-2626 ) Case No. CJ-2025-2626 ) Hon. Amy Palumbo ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO JESSE CHAMBERS To: Jesse Chambers Elliot Roofing 3900 N Harvard Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73122 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, hereby WITHDRAWS the Deposition Subpoena and Subpoena Duces Tecum to Jesse Chambers dated September 11, 2026. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company reserves the right to re-issue in the future, if necessary. DATED this 29\" day of September, 2026."}, {"d": 90, "p": 2, "t": "Respectfully submitted, ANU i yt0l a , Nhl } ~7 Carrie B. McNeer, OBA No. 22235 Grant A. Fitz, OBA No. 19806 Nathan A. Miramontes, OBA No. 36212 GABLEGOTWALS 110 .N. Elgin Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 Fax cmcneer@gablelaw.com efitz@gablelaw.com nmiramontes@gablelaw.com -and- Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 Fax lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com Attorneys for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company"}, {"d": 90, "p": 3, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I do hereby certify that on September 29, 2026, a true, correct and exact copy of the above and foregoing document was served by placing same in the United States mail, with proper postage thereon duly prepaid, to those parties as listed below: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com R. Ryan Deligans, Durbin, Larimore & Bialick 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rdeligans@dlb.net Patrick F. Collogan BIBY LAW FIRM 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 pat@bibylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs pis Ps duce rte Ne f"}, {"d": 91, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY and LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, v. FILEDCOURT DISTRICT ) OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA ) September 29, 2026 12:01 PM ) RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2025-2626 ) Case No. CJ-2025-2626 ) ) Hon. Amy Palumbo STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK DD.) WELTY INS. AGENCY, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S AMENDED MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION NOTICE OF STATE FARM’S OPERATIONS VICE PRESIDENT MICHAEL KEATING, AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (‘State Farm”), pursuant to 12 O.S. §§ 3226(B)(2)(c), 3226(C), and 3226.1, respectfully moves for a protective order and to quash Plaintiffs’ September 21, 2026 Notice of Intention to Take Oral & Videotaped Deposition of State Farm’s Operations Vice President, Michael Keating (the “Keating Notice”) (Exhibit 1). Mr. Keating was not involved in the handling of Plaintiffs’ claims, nor did he directly supervise any person who was involved in the insurance claims. Neither the Keating Notice nor the email transmitting the Keating Notice identify any basis that would justify Plaintiffs’ demand to depose a high-level executive with no specific connection to Plaintiffs’ insurance claims. (See Ex. 1, see also Exhibit 2, Email from B. Sonne (September 21, 2026).) This alone warrants quashing the Keating Notice. See Schultz v. Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd. No. 4:15-CV-04160-LLP, 2016 WL 3149686, at *3 (D.S.D. June 3, 2016) (a party seeking discovery must “describe with a reasonable degree of specificity, the information they hope to obtain and its importance to their case.”) (citing Cervantes v. Time, Inc., 464 F.2d 986, 994 (8th Cir. 1972))."}, {"d": 91, "p": 2, "t": "Further, taking the deposition of a high-level executive—like an Operations Vice President—is not permitted unless (1) the executive possesses unique personal knowledge of facts germane to the litigation, and (2) the information sought cannot be obtained through less intrusive means. Plaintiffs have not, and cannot, identify any germane knowledge that would justify their demand to depose Mr. Keating. whatever Moreover, Plaintiffs can obtain, and have already obtained, information they seek through other means—including, but not limited to, the depositions the Court has already ordered of State Farm’s current and former employees who Plaintiffs contend were involved in State Farm’s Wind/Hail Fire Model Enhancement (“FME”) quality initiative and State Farm’s Fix Profit Task Force (“FPTF’”). Requiring Mr. Keating to take multiple days to prepare for and attend a deposition concerning matters about which he has no relevant or unique knowledge would also be unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of this individual case. Accordingly, the Court should enter a protective order and quash the Keating Notice. BACKGROUND This case arises from two insurance claims for approximately $22,000.00 in combined alleged damages to a single insured property, from weather events that reportedly occurred on October 4, 2023 and May 21, 2024. Plaintiffs assert claims against State Farm for breach of contract and bad faith; claims against agent Mark D. Welty and Mark D. Welty Insurance Agency for negligent procurement; and claims against all Defendants for constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation. (See Pet. {| 40, 45-79.) Plaintiffs (wrongly) allege that this case involves a “scheme” by State Farm, which they contend was implemented through the FME to lower indemnity payments by, inter alia, misattributing roof damage from storms to non-covered “wear and tear.” (See generally id.) Plaintiffs have already obtained vast discovery about their insurance claims and their (false) 2"}, {"d": 91, "p": 3, "t": "theories of the FME’s influence on claim handling generally. State Farm has produced over a thousand documents related to Plaintiffs’ claims, including Plaintiffs’ policy, their Claim File, three years of financial and annual statements, underwriting guidelines in effect when Plaintiffs’ policy was issued, applicable claim-handling guidelines in place at the time of the alleged loss, Wind and Hail Guidelines, performance evaluations for the claim handlers involved in Plaintiffs’ claims, and the Fire Property Claims Quality Plan in effect on the dates of loss, among others. Plaintiffs also requested, moved to compel, and have now received over 110,000 State Farm documents (along with over 600,000 documents State Farm produced in other cases)}—most of which have nothing to do with the claims decisions they challenge, but that Plaintiffs allege are necessary to prove their theory around the FME. On November 25, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel and, over State Farm’s objection, ordered production of information and documents Plaintiffs claimed were relevant to State Farm’s purported “scheme” to deny wind/hail roof claims, including, inter alia: claims training materials since 2015; information from 2019 onward regarding the FME and wind/hail initiatives, including purported tracking of roof replacements, indemnity savings, and payment volumes; six years of documents and communications relating to managerial approval requirements for full roof replacements; documents about alleged efforts to reduce indemnity payments for wind/hail claims; and all documents previously produced or ordered in six unrelated lawsuits. Plaintiffs also issued a corporate representative deposition notice to State Farm seeking ' The Court also ordered State Farm to produce training provided to agents regarding policy sales and underwriting; information on its relationship with Haag Engineering; Fire Property Claims Quality Plans since 2019 plus documents on initiatives concerning indemnity payments and roof replacement ratios, approval rates, and payments; documents about settings and features in thirdparty estimating software State Farm uses; and emails or other correspondence to or from Nicole Manduca, Sharon Arnold, Tom Moss, and Susan Maynard, from January 2019 onward, about the FME and various metrics relating to roof replacements. 3"}, {"d": 91, "p": 4, "t": "testimony and documents on 30 topics with 101 subparts, spanning 15 years of corporate operations (including multiple topics regarding the FME), and noticed the depositions of eight current and former employees. Over State Farm’s objections, the Court denied State Farm’s motions to quash the corporate representative notice and Plaintiffs’ notices of deposition to: Jon Farney, State Farm’s CEO, whom Plaintiffs contended was involved in the FME and State Farm’s FPTF—a group created to monitor enterprise-wide trends on a monthly basis that has nothing to do with the allegations in this case or the FME (see Exhibit 3, Email from B. Sonne (July 1, 2026)); Thomas Moss, whom Plaintiffs contended was a “member” of the team charged with responsibility for the FME initiative (see Nov. 14, 2025 Pls.’ Consol. Resp. at 2-3); Wensley Herbert, State Farm’s Vice President, Property & Casualty Claims, who Plaintiffs represented was “the highest-ranking individual in charge of claims at State Farm” and to whom “[eJach of the other Noticed Deponents serving in a Vice President role” reported (see id. at 5 (emphasis in original)); Nicole Manduca, who Plaintiffs contended was “the leader of the [FME]” and an “architect” of the alleged scheme (see id. at 2, 9); Scott Welsh, State Farm’s Director of Consulting Services whom Plaintiffs claimed was “the most senior individual at State Farm” involved in training (id. at 6-7); Kathy Ress, a State Farm Operations Vice President, who Plaintiffs contended “served as Manduca’s team leader and asked Manduca to head the [FME] Team” and “was directly involved in the reporting, development, and success of the [FME] team, including specifically comparing State Farm’s success rates with the success of the [FME] in lowering full roof replacement percentages” (id. at 10); and Wendy Mazza and Tyrone Smith, former State Farm Vice Presidents of Operations, who Plaintiffs clatmed supervised Manduca and were “directly involved in reporting, objectives.” (id. at 11). monitoring, supervising, reviewing, and implementing the [FME]"}, {"d": 91, "p": 5, "t": "As to any possible need to depose Mr. Keating, in Mr. Herbert’s August 26, 2026 deposition in this case, Mr. Keating’s name was mentioned only twice. In one instance, Plaintiffs’ counsel asked Mr. Herbert who “the operational vice presidents that report” to him are (to which Mr. Hebert responded Mr. Keating and Millicent Roth). (See Exhibit 4, Hursh W. Herbert Dep. Tr. at 23:1624.) In the other, Plaintiffs’ counsel referenced a single email Mr. Keating sent relating to FPTF, which has nothing to do with Plaintiffs’ claims, the FME, or any other allegations in this case. (See id. at 354:11-14.) In short, despite now having access to over 700,000 documents (in both this and other cases) regarding their insurance claims and a wide range of topics purportedly relevant to their “scheme” theory—and their counsel having had the opportunity to ask supposed “architects” of their alleged scheme questions about Mr. Keating’s role—including Mr. Herbert, to whom Mr. Keating directly reported during the relevant time period—Plaintiffs have not established, and cannot establish, any connection between Mr. Keating and the evaluation, review, or adjustment of their insurance claims or anything germane to it, including their FME theories. Mr. Keating is a State Farm Operations Vice President. Mr. Keating does not oversee the day-to-day handling of insurance claims and is, in fact, multiple levels above the claim teams that directly handle claims—including the Claim Specialists and Team Manager Plaintiffs’ insurance claims here. (See Exhibit 5, Declaration of M. Keating, at who handled §3.) And as is apparent from Plaintiffs’ claim files, Mr. Keating has no personal knowledge of the insurance claims at issue. Further, Mr. Keating was not involved in the FME—the initiative that Plaintiffs alleged was the purported “scheme.” (See Ex. 5, Keating Decl. § 4.)"}, {"d": 91, "p": 6, "t": "ARGUMENT I AND AUTHORITY A HIGH-LEVEL EXECUTIVE SHOULD NOT BE DEPOSED UNLESS THE EXECUTIVE HAS UNIQUE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND THE DISCOVERY CANNOT BE OBTAINED FROM OTHER EMPLOYEES. In Crest Infiniti, I, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, the Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized that apex depositions have unique potential for abuse, and should not be had if “annoyance, oppression, and undue burden and expense outweigh the need for discovery” on those issues. Jd. q§ 14-15. Courts have consistently held that a deposition of a high-level executive—like an Operations Vice President—is improper absent a showing that the executive possesses unique personal knowledge relevant to the pertinent facts. See Thomas v. Int’l Bus. Mach., 48 F.3d 478, 483-484 (10th Cir. 1995) (affirming district court’s granting of protective order preventing deposition of IBM’s Chairman in an age discrimination case where the Chairman had no personal knowledge of plaintiff and deposition would have caused severe hardship, despite the Chairman’s alleged involvement in purportedly discriminatory policy); Okla. ex rel. Edmondson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 05-CV-329-GKF, 2009 WL 10694083, at *4 (N.D. Okla. April 24, 2009) (granting protective order preventing deposition of an executive when the record did not establish the executive’s “unique personal knowledge of the controversy”).” That exception to the rule is not applicable here where Mr. Keating possesses no unique personal knowledge relevant to the pertinent facts, either of the subject claims or of any “scheme” allegations. ? See also Lachney v. Target Corp., No. CIV-06-1389-HE, 2008 WL 11420069, at *3, (W.D. Okla. Aug. 20, 2008) (denying motion to compel deposition of Vice Chairman because “[a|part from indications he had general responsibility for strategic planning ... there appears to be little basis, other than speculation, as to what knowledge he would have bearing on the claims in this case.”); Miller v. Loves Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc., No. CIV-06-1008-D, 2008 WL 11338079, at *7 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 7, 2008) (quashing deposition notice to Chairman where age discrimination plaintiff sought evidence of company-wide discriminatory policies because Chairman had no unique knowledge of specific facts pertaining to the plaintiff’s claims). 6"}, {"d": 91, "p": 7, "t": "Courts have further held that deposing a high-level executive is improper if the information is obtainable through less intrusive means, such as by deposing other personnel who are closer to the facts giving rise to the claims. See Thomas, 48 F.3d at 483 (granting protective order preventing deposition of high-level official in part because plaintiff made no attempt to demonstrate that the information sought could not be obtained by imposing the lesser burden of depositions of lowerlevel employees); Roblox Corp. v. WowWee Grp. Ltd., No. 22-CV- 04476-SI, 2023 WL 5507176, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2023) (denying request for discovery from corporate president where “Plaintiffs have made no showing that Yanofsky has relevant information, much less that he has information that would not be discoverable through the other custodians named by defendants.”); Todd v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, Inc., No. 219CVO0085JMSDLP, 2019 WL 8272621, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 13, 2019) (“Plaintiff has yet to take a deposition in this case, but desires to start that process at the top of the food chain with the former CEO of the Defendant’s parent company ... this case is limited to a single-plaintiff consumer protection matter regarding the handling of [Plaintiff’s] mortgage loan. This is not a nationwide collective action. .... ”); U.S. ex rel. Galmines v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., No. 06-3213, 2015 WL 4973626, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2015) (granting motion to quash deposition of defendant’s former CEO where “the Court has not been made aware of any efforts [by the plaintiff] to ascertain from [other] deponents the extent of [the former CEO’s] personal involvement in the alleged actions”). With respect to Plaintiffs’ purported “scheme” allegations, Plaintiffs have already requested, and the Court has already ordered (1) a thirty-topic corporate representative deposition on every conceivable topic related to the FME and Plaintiffs’ +e “scheme” theories, and (2) individual depositions of eight current and former State Farm employees—including State Farm’s CEO, Mr. Farney; and Mr. Keating’s direct supervisor during the relevant time period, Mr. Herbert. Plaintiffs"}, {"d": 91, "p": 8, "t": "do not and cannot show that Mr. Keating has any unique testimony regarding the FME or their “scheme” theories that will not be, or has not been, already covered by the depositions this Court has already ordered. Evans y. Allstate Ins. Co., 216 F.R.D. 515 (N.D. Okla. 2003) is squarely on point here. In Evans, the plaintiffs sued Allstate, alleging it improperly denied their fire loss claim, and sought to depose three of its officers. /d. at 516. Allstate contended that the corporate officers whom the plaintiffs sought to depose had no unique personal knowledge of the matters at issue and that the requests were burdensome, irrelevant, and propounded solely for the purpose of harassment and abuse. /d. at 518. Allstate also noted that the plaintiffs had taken the depositions of all adjusters and supervisors involved in the handling of plaintiffs’ insurance claims. /d. In response, the plaintiffs argued the depositions were necessary to prove their theory that a pervasive practice of inadequate supervision over Allstate claims adjusters existed within the corporation. /d. The court found that even if the plaintiffs had a right to explore those themes, Allstate had already provided adequate information, or the information could be obtained from other sources without the depositions of the officers sought. /d. Accordingly, the Northern District granted Allstate’s motion for a protective order prohibiting the depositions of the officers. /d. This Court should likewise reject Plaintiffs’ overreach of an apex deposition, where the information Plaintiffs seek is neither relevant nor unique to Mr. Keating. IL CHICK-FIL-A AND THE OKLAHOMA DISCOVERY STANDARD. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has made clear that relevance—the threshold requirement for obtaining discovery—‘should be firmly applied.” Quinn v. City of Tulsa, 1989 OK 112, ¢ 63, 777 P.2d 1331, 1342 (quoting Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979)); see also Nitzel v. Jackson, 1994 OK 49, 92 n.*, 879 P.2d 1222, 1223 n* (“Discovery is not without limitation. It must lead or tend to lead to relevant evidence.”). Relevance to a “party’s claim or defense” —as the Oklahoma 8"}, {"d": 91, "p": 9, "t": "Discovery Code requires*—is not simply assumed. See Chick-fil-A, Inc. v. Ogden et al., 2026 OK 13, 9 15-16 (Mar. 10, 2026) (holding trial court abused its discretion when it failed to require plaintiffs “to demonstrate how [the requested discovery] would be relevant to a claim or defense in this case.”). See also Stainsby v. Okla. ex rel. Okla. Health Care Auth., No. CIV-21-1073-D, 2022 WL 1748263, *1 (W.D. Okla. May 31, 2022) (“When the request is overly broad, or relevance is not clear, the party seeking the discovery has the burden to show the relevance of the request.”).4 Nor does a “plaintiff’s broad theory of the case ... necessarily justify broad discovery,” and courts should thus endeavor to “thwart fishing expeditions.” Willis v. Johnson, No. CIV-18-323-D, 2021 WL 8446071, at *2 (W.D. Okla. May 20, 2021). And as the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals has recognized, insurance cases should be handled according to their circumstances. See City Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins., 1990 OK CIV APP 89, § 18, 804 P.2d 463, 469 (“[B]efore ... bad faith may be submitted to the jury, the Trial Court must first determine, under the facts of the particular case ... whether [the] insurer’s conduct may be reasonably perceived as tortious.”). Here, there is no relevant connection between the deposition of Mr. Keating and the handling of the subject insurance claims or the FME (about which the Court has already granted Plaintiffs depositions, including of all the supposed “architects” of the FME). Proportionality is as critical as relevance to discoverability. The Oklahoma Discovery Code, like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure from which it is derived, requires that discovery be “proportional to the needs of the case.” 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1)(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In 3-12 OS. § 3226 (2025) (“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to any party's claim or defense, reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and proportional to the needs of the case, considering [various factors].”) (emphasis added). * Because “[t]he Oklahoma Discovery Code mirrors the Federal rules,” Meritor, Inc. v. State ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma, 2019 OK CIV APP 64, § 20 n.15, 451 P.3d 914, 922 n.15, Oklahoma courts often look to “discovery procedures in the federal rules when construing similar language in the Oklahoma Discovery Code,” Crest Infiniti, I, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, § 2, 174 P.3d 996, 999, 9"}, {"d": 91, "p": 10, "t": "fact, “the proper scope of discovery is that which is both relevant to the claims or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case; considering the various factors.” Dodd v. Indian Health Care Res. Ctr. of Tulsa, Inc., No. 24-CV-00327-SH, 2024 WL 4648150, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 1, 2024) (emphasis in original).” The Oklahoma Supreme Court recently made clear that a trial court must specifically consider the proportionality of discovery before it may compel the production of documents. See Order, Werner Enters., Inc. v. Kirkland, No. 122,385 (Okla. Sept. 24, 2024) (attached as Exhibit 6). Earlier this year in Chick-fil-A, the Oklahoma Supreme Court provided extensive guidance on the standards for determining the relevance and proportionality of discovery requests. In that case, the parents of a two-year-old child sued Chick-fil-A for negligence and wrongful death after a vehicle struck and killed their child in the drive-through lane while walking to the entrance of a Chick-fil-A in Yukon, Oklahoma. 2026 OK 13, § 2. In discovery, the parents asked Chick-fil-A to produce documents spanning 10 years “related to adverse events, complaints, incidents, and/or accidents involving the injury or death of any person at any restaurant owned, leased, franchised, or operated by Chick-fil-A within the United States,” plus “all complaints or petitions filed against Chick-fil-A... wherein negligence was or is alleged to have caused or contributed to the injury or death of a pedestrian as a result of being struck, hit, run over, or coming in contact with a motor vehicle . . .while on a Chick-fil-A restaurant premises in the United States.” /d. 43. Chick-fil-A objected to the requests as overbroad and unduly burdensome because they were “improperly tailored as to time and scope [and] were not limited to substantially similar incidents.” Id. ¥ 4. * These factors include: (1) the importance of the issues at stake in the action; (2) the amount in controversy; (3) the parties’ relative access to relevant information; (4) the parties’ resources; (5) the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues; and (6) whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. See 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1)(a). 10"}, {"d": 91, "p": 11, "t": "The parents moved to compel (agreeing to limit the requests to the last five years within Oklahoma), and the trial court granted the motion. /d. ¥§ 5-7. On an application for an extraordinary writ, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the trial court judge abused his discretion in granting the parents’ motion to compel because the requests were facially overly broad and the trial court did not “require [Plaintiffs] to initially demonstrate how their request was relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” /d. 4 16. The Court explained that 12 O.S. § 3226—which allows parties to obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter “which is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . and proportional to the needs of the case’—“was amended in 2017 to more closely follow amendments to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Jd. § 11. In particular, the Court observed that “[t]he amendments . . . omitted language that had bearing on whether a discovery request is relevant” and that it was no longer sufficient for discovery to be related to “the subject matter” without also being related to “any party’s claim or defense.” Jd. § 12.° Moreover, “the party seeking discovery has the burden to show the relevancy of the request.” /d. { 15 (internal citation omitted). Based on the foregoing, the Oklahoma Supreme Court explained that “{r]ecords related to any pedestrian accident that occurred in a Chick-fil-A parking lot may be relevant to the subject matter involved here. But that is no longer the standard.” Jd. §] 15 (emphasis added). Because “(t]he trial court did not require Parents to demonstrate how information about dissimilar incidents would be relevant to a claim or defense in this case,” it abused its discretion. /d. Accordingly, the Court prohibited the parents from enforcing this portion of the trial court’s order. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has further cautioned that “pretrial discovery by depositions ° Since 2000, the Federal Rules Advisory Committee has advised that “it intended for ‘the parties and the court to focus on the actual claims and defenses involved in the action.”” /d. 4 13 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee’s notes to 2000 amendment). 1"}, {"d": 91, "p": 12, "t": "and interrogatories has a significant potential for abuse.” YWCA of Oklahoma City v. Melson, 1997 OK 81, § 24 n.41, 944 P.2d 304, 311 n.41. Accordingly, the Discovery Code requires a court to “limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed if it determines” that “the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by subparagraph a of paragraph 1 of this subsection [regarding relevance and proportionality].” 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(2)(c). As such, this Court may issue, “for good cause shown ... any order which justice requires to protect a party or person” from “oppression or undue delay, burden or expense,” including “that the discovery not be had” or “that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions.” 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(1). Il. THE COURT SHOULD QUASH THE KEATING NOTICE BECAUSE MR. KEATING’S DEPOSITION IS IRRELEVANT AND DISPROPORTIONATE. A. Plaintiffs Cannot Demonstrate the Relevance of the Testimony They Seek. As an initial matter, Plaintiffs cannot establish that the deposition testimony of a State Farm Operations Vice President is “relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Chick-fil-A, Inc. v. Ogden, 2026 OK 13, 4 16. Mr. Keating has no relevant information as to the actual claims (which is what should be at issue) or to the FME (which Plaintiffs grossly mischaracterize). (See Ex. 5, Keating Decl. 9] 3, 4.) While it may go without saying, Mr. Keating did not assist Plaintiffs in procuring the their insurance policy or have any involvement in the investigation, evaluation, or decisions regarding Plaintiffs’ insurance claim, and Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Mr. Keating has information regarding any of the claims asserted in their Petition. Indeed, State Farm’s Operations Vice President is not only multiple levels above those who actually handled Plaintiffs’ clatm—.e., those who could testify as to State Farm’s coverage decision—but also numerous levels above those who supervised the insurance claims investigation, evaluation, and decision-making. Regardless of whether Mr. Keating’s testimony is broadly related to the “subject matter” of their suit (and even that is too far unless the subject matter is simply “ansurance”), Plaintiffs have not 12"}, {"d": 91, "p": 13, "t": "demonstrated Mr. Keating has any information regarding their claims, nor can they, and the Court should quash the deposition for that reason alone. See Chick-fil-A, 2026 OK 13, 4 15-16. Plaintiffs failed to provide any justification for Mr. Keating’s deposition, let alone explain its relevance. See Schultz, Ltd., 2016 WL 3149686, at *3 (a party seeking discovery must “describe with a reasonable degree of specificity, the information they hope to obtain and its importance to their case.”) (citation omitted). In any event, there is no evidence in the record that demonstrates Mr. Keating has unique, relevant testimony regarding any claim or defense in this matter. 1. Mr. Keating Has No Unique, Relevant Information Regarding the FME. Plaintiffs’ institutional allegations center on the FME, which was an effort by State Farm to improve the accuracy and quality of its wind/hail claim handling by conducting additional training, increasing management involvement, and improving file documentation. Even if the FME were relevant—and State Farm maintains it is not—Plaintiffs cannot articulate any unique testimony Mr. Keating would be able to offer connected to their FME-related allegations that would not be provided, deposition of State and former State or has not been provided already, in the corporate representative Farm or the eight other depositions the Court has already ordered of current Farm employees who Plaintiffs contended were involved in the FME. Indeed, Mr. Keating was not involved in the FME (and as Operations Vice President did not even have responsibility for fire property claims until June 2023. (See Ex. 5, Keating Decl. 4.) Notably, in opposing State Farm’s motions to quash the depositions of Mr. Moss, Mr. Herbert, Ms. Manduca, Mr. Welsh, Ms. Ress, Ms. Mazza, and Mr. Smith, Plaintiffs repeatedly argued that those individuals—not Mt. Keating—were the “key” members of the FME initiative and the supposed “architects” of the “scheme.” (See, e.g., Nov. 14, 2025 Pls.’ Consol. Resp. at 2, 3-12.) And Plaintiffs repeatedly represented that Ms. Manduca—not Mr. Keating—was the 13"}, {"d": 91, "p": 14, "t": "“leader” and the “head” of the FME initiative. (See, e.g., id. at 8-10.) Plaintiffs mentioned Mr. Keating not once in that brief. Then, in deposing Mr. Herbert in this case, Plaintiffs’ counsel only mentioned Mr. Keating’s name once when counsel asked Mr. Herbert about an email chain containing an email from Mr. Keating relating to the FPTF—not the FME. (See Ex. 4 at 354:11-14.) In West, Plaintiffs’ counsel also deposed Mr. Herbert and took a similar tack in their line of questioning. Plaintiffs’ counsel mentioned Mr. Keating’s name only in the context of the FPTF and that same email chain. (See, e.g., Exhibit 7, West W. Herbert Dep. Tr. at 207:10-208:12.) Despite twice questioning Mr. Herbert—who directly supervised Mr. Keating during the relevant time period— for hours, Plaintiffs’ counsel did not ask Mr. Herbert a single question about Mr. Keating’s involvement in the FME. If Plaintiffs’ reason for deposing Mr. Keating is his purported involvement in the FME, their counsel presumably would have had at least one question for Mr. Herbert about it. They did not.’ See Galmines, 2015 WL 4973626, at *2. As such, the demand for Mr. Keating’s deposition appears intended to harass State Farm and coerce abusive settlements to avoid the burden and expense created by these discovery tactics. See Lachney, 2008 WL 11420069, at *2 (“Efforts to compel the depositions of high ranking officials in large national or international companies ordinarily require a more thorough predicate showing of knowledge of, or involvement in, the matters [at] issue so as to avoid ‘fishing expeditions’ or efforts to unreasonably increase the settlement value of a case.”) (citing Thomas, 48 F.3d 478, 482-83); see also Lewelling v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, 879 F.2d 212, 218 (6th Cir. 1989) (affirming district 7 Similarly, Plaintiffs did not serve a single Interrogatory seeking information on Mr. Keating’s purported involvement in the FME. Cf Nucap Indus., 2017 WL 6059770, at *3 (granting motion for protective order preventing deposition of defendant’s Chairman where, inter alia, plaintiffs had failed to “seek written discovery regarding [the Chairman’s] alleged involvement in, or knowledge of, the acts giving rise to their claims”). 14"}, {"d": 91, "p": 15, "t": "court’s granting of protective order over the plaintiffs’ deposition notice to isurer’s Chairman/CEO where the executive had no personal knowledge of the pertinent facts and plaintiffs offered to cancel the deposition in exchange for settlement talks). 2. The FPTF Is Not Relevant and Mr. Keating Does Not Have Unique, Personal Knowledge. To the extent Plaintiffs seek discovery about the FPTF through Mr. Keating’s deposition, this approach is, at best, perplexing. Plaintiffs have consistently and persistently argued that the FME is at the center of the purported “scheme.” But for the first time in seeking Mr. Farney’s deposition, Plaintiffs alleged that the FPTF somehow was relevant through an unidentified connection to the FME. But the FPTF is not connected to the FME. (See Exhibit 8, N. Manduca Decl. ¥ 6.) Regardless, even if the FPTF were relevant—which it is not—Plaintiffs have already had 12 hours—through two depositions of Mr. Herbert—to obtain testimony regarding that initiative. Plaintiffs do not explain what testimony Mr. Keating could offer that Plaintiffs have not already obtained from Mr. Herbert. What’s more, the Court recently denied State Farm’s motion to quash the deposition of Mr. Farney, State Farm’s CEO—who also attended the FPTF meetings with Mr. Herbert. Plaintiffs do not explain what additional information about the FPTF Mr. Keating could offer that could not be covered in the deposition of Mr. Farney. B. The Deposition of Mr. Keating Is Not Proportional to the Needs of the Case. Even assuming Plaintiffs could demonstrate that Mr. Keating has relevant, unique information, the Court should quash the Keating Notice because his testimony would be wholly disproportionate to the needs of the case. 12 O.S. §§ 3226(B)(1)(a), 3226(B)(2)(c)(3).® This is an ® See also Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Group Ins. Plan, 619 F.3d 1151, 1163 (10th Cir. 2010) (“Rule 26(b), although broad, has never been a license to engage in an unwieldy, burdensome, and speculative fishing expedition.”); Chrisman v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Oklahoma Cuty., No. 15"}, {"d": 91, "p": 16, "t": "individual homeowners’ case involving a contractual dispute for the totaling of a roof that is estimated at $22,000, yet Plaintiffs are demanding a State Farm Operations Vice President prepare for and appear for a deposition despite not being involved in the coverage decisions at issue—and even though the Court has already ordered State Farm to provide eight depositions of other current and former employees. Subjecting an executive like Mr. Keating to a deposition based on speculation he may have information not available from other sources far exceeds the bounds of permissible discovery. Courts routinely recognize that depositions of high-level executives are improper absent a showing that they have unique personal knowledge that could not be obtained from other employees. See Crest Infiniti, IT, 2007 OK 77, {§ 14, 16 (recognizing that a protective order should be issued to prevent an apex deposition if “annoyance, oppression, and undue burden and expense outweigh the need for discovery” on those issues); Schultz, 2016 WL 3149686, at *3 (“Mere speculation that information might be useful will not suffice.”); Galmines, 2015 WL 4973626, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2015) (quashing depositions of high-level executives because relator was unable to rebut the “presumption that a high-level official’s deposition represents a significant burden upon the deponent and that this burden is undue” by establishing that executives had unique personal knowledge that could not be obtained from other employees or less burdensome discovery). At best, Mr. Keating’s testimony would be cumulative of any testimony of those who actually handled Plaintiffs’ claims and, as to the FME or FPTF, would provide no unique information that Plaintiffs could not obtain, or have not already obtained, through the depositions the Court has already ordered. Like the officers in Evans, Mr. Keating has no unique personal knowledge about Plaintiffs’ CIV-17-1309-D, 2020 WL 7033965, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 30, 2020) (“While the scope of discovery is broad, it is not unlimited and is further defined by proportionality considerations.”) (internal cites omitted). 16"}, {"d": 91, "p": 17, "t": "insurance clatim—whether limited to the individual claims or expanded to Plaintiffs’ speculative theories about the claims. See Evans, 216 F.R.D. 515, 516; see also Okla. ex rel. Edmondson, 2009 WL 10694083, at *4. Plaintiffs’ attempt to depose Mr. Keating is nothing more than a classic (and improper) fishing expedition. See Todd, 2019 WL 8272621, at *3. Plaintiffs have not established that Mr. Keating had any connection to, or has any knowledge of, the handling of their claim—nor can they. See Evans, 216 F.R.D. at 518-19. Nor have they established that Mr. Keating has any unique information regarding the FME, the FPTF, or any other “initiative” Plaintiffs contend is relevant to their theory—let alone that any such “initiative” impacted the claim decisions they are challenging. Until Plaintiffs demonstrate what—if any—unique, relevant knowledge Mr. Keating may have relating to their claims, the Court should not allow his deposition to proceed. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion to quash the Keating Notice and for a protective order preventing the deposition of Michael Keating Plaintiffs noticed for September 28, 2026. Respectfully submitted, Se 2 EGE. Carrie B. McNeer, OBA No. 22235 Grant A. Fitz, OBA No. 19806 Nathan A. Miramontes, OBA No. 36212 GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 PH: (918) 595-4800 FAX: (918) 595-4990 cmcneer@gablelaw.com efitz@gablelaw.com nmiramontes@gablelaw.com 17"}, {"d": 91, "p": 18, "t": "-and- Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 PH: (405) 235-5500 FAX:: (405) 235-2875 lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com Diane Lee McGimsey -Admitted Pro Hac Vice SULLIVAN & CROMWELL 1888 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, CA 90067 PH: 310-712-6600 megimseyd@sullcrom.com Erica B. Zolner -Admitted Pro Hac Vice REDGRAVE LLP 230 West Monroe Street, Suite 210, Chicago, IL 60606 PH: 773-720-9169 Tiffany Lynne Powers -Admitted Pro Hac Vice ALSTON & BIRD, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Atlanta, GA 30308 PH: 404-881-7000 Tiffany.pwers@alston.com Attorneys for Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 18"}, {"d": 91, "p": 19, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I do hereby certify that on September 29, 2026, a true, correct and exact copy of the above and foregoing document was served by placing same in the United States mail, with proper postage thereon duly prepaid, to those parties as listed below: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com R. Ryan Deligans, Durbin, Larimore & Bialick 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rdeligans@dlb.net Patrick F. Collogan BIBY LAW FIRM 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 pat@bibylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs See 2 EGS 19"}, {"d": 91, "p": 21, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY and LACY HURSH, § § Plaintiffs, § § V. § Case No.: CJ-2025-2626 § STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY § COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and § MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.,§ § Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF INTENTION TO TAKE ORAL & VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL KEATING TO: All Defendants and their counsel of record. Deponent: Michael Keating Date: September 28, 2026 Time: 9:30 a.m. Location: Bloomington-Normal Marriott Hotel & Conference Center 201 Broadway Ave, Normal, [L In person Method: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230(C), Plaintiffs will take the oral deposition of Michael Keating before a Certified Court Reporter or other officer authorized to administer oaths, at the date, time, and location set forth above, and will continue from day to day until completed. This deposition will be recorded by stenographic and audiovisual means. Dated: September 21, 2026 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Michael Keating Page | of 3"}, {"d": 91, "p": 22, "t": "Respectfully submitted, Plaka Donne Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that on September 21, 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 918.595.4800 918.595-4990 cmceneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com -andLance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Michael Keating Page 2 of 3"}, {"d": 91, "p": 23, "t": "499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com 405.235.5500 405,.235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Blake Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Michael Keating Page 3 of 3 Senne"}, {"d": 91, "p": 25, "t": "From: Blake Sonne To: John Sanders; Carrie McNeer; Rebeca Matheus: rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten; Jake Denne; Karen Stratton; Autumn Hobbs; Kayli Price; Ryan Deligans; Pat Collogan; Marsha Murray Ce: Grant Fitz; Lance Leffel; David R. Herber; Nathan A. Miramontes; Janet _L. Wright; Christine Hill; Kari Cyrs; Jaylea Subject: A. Allen; Amy H. Jenkins; Kayli Price; Autumn Hobbs; Ryan Deligans Re: Hursh v. State Farm Date: Monday, September 21, 2026 10:01:05 AM Attachments: image001.jpg image002.png image003.jpg image004.jpg image005.jpg image006.jpg image00Q7.jpa image008.jpg image009.jpq image010.png imageQ11.jpg image012.jpg image013.png image014.ong imageQ15.ong image016.png image017.png Hursh - Depo SDT to Ezekiel Waite.pdf Hursh - Notice of Deposition - Michael Keating FINAL.pdf External email — beware of links and attachments Lance and Carrie, Please advise on Mr. Caylao/Seek Now as soon as you can. In addition, please find attached a Notice for Deposition of Operations Vice President Michael Keating, set for September 28, 2026 in Bloomington. Please advise if State Farm will agree to produce Mr. Keating and we can work on an agreeable date. Otherwise, we will get this issue before the Court. Finally, please find attached a subpoena for deposition for Ezekiel Waite. We have put a temporary date for October 2\" but are waiting to hear back from Mr. Waite as to whether that date or some other dates will work better for him and will update and let you know as needed. Thank you. BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, Or COUNSEL SIGNATURE_1102629327 a 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax bsonne(@whittenburragelaw.com | 405.664.2919 Cell www. whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you."}, {"d": 91, "p": 26, "t": "From: John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com> Date: Friday, September 18, 2026 at 1:47 PM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>, Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten” <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins\" <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Just to clarify, will State Farm be representing Mark Caylao and presenting him for his deposition? | realize | may have put the cart before the horse. Respectfully, John Scott Sanders Attorney 7] 512 N. Broadway Avenue Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 Jjsanders(@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com If the recipient of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and unauthorized. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by return e-mail and delete this message from your computer. Thank you."}, {"d": 91, "p": 27, "t": "From: John Sanders Sent: Friday, September 18, 2026 1:40 PM To: ‘Carrie McNeer’ <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@clb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Carrie, Thank you for providing dates on Mr. Feller, we are working on verifying. What about Mark Caylao with Seek Now? Have you obtained his availability? Thanks! Respectfully, John Scott Sanders Attorney a 512 N. Broadway Avenue Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com If the recipient of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and unauthorized. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by return e-mail and delete this message from your computer. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>"}, {"d": 91, "p": 28, "t": "Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2026 1:47 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; Reggie N. Whitten <cwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz7@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <pmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Blake, We can present Conrad Feller in San Antonio on October 27 or 28. Let me know which date works best, and we are working on a location. Thanks, Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 1:40 PM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dib.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chiil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm"}, {"d": 91, "p": 29, "t": "External email — beware of links and attachments That works, thanks! BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, Or COUNSEL SIGNATURE_3822861927 1? 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonnei@ whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 at 1:35 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins\" <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Thanks, Blake. We will present JR at Professional Reporters in Tulsa on October 26 at 9:30AM."}, {"d": 91, "p": 30, "t": "Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 1:28 PM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments Yes Oct 26\" works for JR Phillips. We want to depose Feller in person. Thanks! BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL SIGNATURE_466599110 Bi $12 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 at 12:16 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@ whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten"}, {"d": 91, "p": 31, "t": "<hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins\" <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Blake/John, Following up on the below. Does October 26 work for JR Phillips? Also, Conrad Feller is located in San Antonio. Are you planning to depose him in person or via Zoom? Thanks, Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Carrie McNeer Sent: Friday, September 11, 2026 9:56 AM To: ‘Blake Sonne’ <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>: Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm We will issue Amended Notices for the Plaintiffs."}, {"d": 91, "p": 32, "t": "Does October 26 work for JR Phillips? Thanks, Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2026 4:32 PM To: Carrie McNeer <cmecneer@gablelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>: rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Ce: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <|leffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments Carrie, I think both John and I responded with emails last night (see below 9:08pm last night) about this as we were offering the 22 and 23 for the Hurshes due to their work schedule so were asking for alternative dates for Phillps. 10am in Tulsa works for Wood on Oct 29. Let me know — thanks! BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL SIGNATURE_3251235207 a $12N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405, 516. 7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell www, whittenburr. agelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the"}, {"d": 91, "p": 33, "t": "telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Date: Thursday, September 10, 2026 at 4:23 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins” <ajenkins@gablelaw.cam>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Blake, | sent an email earlier this afternoon offering to present Phillips on October 22. See attached. We will present him at PR Tulsa. Just let us know what time you want to start the depos on October 22 and 29. | will work on the SeekNow inspector. Thanks, Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2026 4:18 PM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>: Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>;"}, {"d": 91, "p": 34, "t": "Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments Hey Carrie, Please let us know dates on Phillips...we also want dates for Seek Now inspector Mark Caylao. Please provide some dates for him as well. Thanks! BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL SIGNATURE_1737983080 7] $12. N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www. whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 at 9:08 PM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dib.net> Ce: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\""}, {"d": 91, "p": 35, "t": "<dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins\" <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm Actually, I think we were going to offer the 22\" and 23 for the Hursh’s due to their work schedule they need to do TH or FR. John, can you confirm? Can you provide some alternative dates for Phillps? BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL SIGNATURE_1697063885 Bl 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne(@whittenburragelaw.com www. whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 at 9:06 PM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@ whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <nwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dib.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins\" <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm"}, {"d": 91, "p": 36, "t": "Carrie, We will make Oct 22\"4 work for Phillips. Where is he located? Mark Wood on Oct 29\" at PR in Tulsa works for him. BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL SIGNATURE_878860953 Bi 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax bsonne(@whittenburragelaw.com www. whittenburragelaw.com | 405.664.2919 Cell The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 at 4:46 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@ whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dib.net> Ce: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins” <ajenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Blake/John, Have we gotten new dates for the Plaintiffs’ depositions? We can present JR Phillips on October 22. Please let me know if that works for your side."}, {"d": 91, "p": 37, "t": "Thanks, Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 11:10 AM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>: John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>: Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@clb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright @gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments Ok sounds good, thanks! BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, Or COUNSEL SIGNATURE_2775690708 L?| 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne(@ whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Date: Friday, September 4, 2026 at 11:06 AM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders"}, {"d": 91, "p": 38, "t": "<jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes” <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins” <ajenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Yes, he is in the Tulsa area. | can present him at PR in Tulsa. Thanks. Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 8:18 AM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten @whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chiil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jalen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments Thank you Carrie. Let’s do the 29\" Is he located in Oklahoma lam assuming? If so let’s do PR in okc. Thanks! Blake Sonne Attorney, Of Counsel"}, {"d": 91, "p": 39, "t": "512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516. 7800 Tel | 4405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell www. whittenburrace law.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 12:32 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Blake, TM Mark Wood can be available October 29 or 30. Let me know if either of those dates would work. Thanks, Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 11:49 AM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>: Jake"}, {"d": 91, "p": 40, "t": "Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dib.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <pmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright @gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments Thank you Blake Sonne Attorney, Of Counsel signature_1997176144 a 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne(@ whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Date: Thursday, September 3, 2026 at 11:48 AM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.cam>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.cam>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <pwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@wnhittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dib.net> Ce: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.cam>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs"}, {"d": 91, "p": 41, "t": "<kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins’ 1 <aienkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Yes, | will work on getting you dates for these people. Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <psonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 11:45 AM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>: Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenourragelaw.com: Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <idenne@whittenburrageaw.com>; Karen Stratton <xstratton@whittenourrageiaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice @whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dib net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@cdib.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gabielaw.com>; Lance Leffel <|leffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <cherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>: Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>: Kari Cyrs <keyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments Thank you Carrie...can you also get us dates in October for CS Jr Phillips, TM Mark Wood, and ECR Conrad Feller? We will need copies of their personnel files as well prior to the depos if those have not already been produced. Thanks! Blake Sonne Attorney, Of Counsel signature_3213685148 1? 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you."}, {"d": 91, "p": 42, "t": "From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Date: Thursday, September 3, 2026 at 11:34 AM To: John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurrav@dlb.net> Ce: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel </leffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.cam>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H., Jenkins” <ajienkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm John, Once we get new agreed dates, we will send second amended notices. I’ll look for new proposed dates. Thanks for letting us know. Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: John Sanders <jsanders@wohittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 11:31 AM To: Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>: Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <korice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <giltz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffe|@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <cherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gaplelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>: Carrie McNeer <cmceneer@gaplelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments"}, {"d": 91, "p": 43, "t": "Carrie and All, iam very sorry, but | was premature on the dates | gave you for Billy and Lacy Hursh for October and missed several conflicts on our end for October 8 and 9. That is my mistake and apologies for missing this before you issued your amended notices. Could we please try this again, and | will make sure we get you better dates that work for us, the client, and your firm? We are working on alternative dates ASAP. Again, this is my mistake alone. Respectfully, John Scott Sanders Attorney 7] 512 N. Broadway Avenue Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 jsanders(@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com If the recipient of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and unauthorized. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by return e-mail and delete this message from your computer. Thank you. From: Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gabielaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 10:45 AM To: John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Reggie N. Whitten <rpwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice @ whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rceligans@clo.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dib.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <leffel\\@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <cherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gaplelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.cam>: Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Carrie McNeer <cmecneer@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm"}, {"d": 91, "p": 44, "t": "Good morning, Please see attached the amended notices. A hard copy will be placed in the mail to you. Rebeca Matheus | 918-595-4984 | GableGotwals From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@eableiaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 8:29 AM To: John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburrageiaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gabielaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@wnhittenourragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <korice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Ce: Grant Fitz <glitz@egablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <leffel@gabielaw.com>; David R. Herber <cherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@ganlelaw.com>: Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jalen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <alenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm John, Thanks for getting backto me. We will send amended notices for October 8 and 9. Thanks, Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: John Sanders <jsancers@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 6:21 PM To: Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>: rwhitten@wnhittenburragelaw.com:; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <awhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <|denne@whittenburragelaw.com>: Karen Stratton <kstratton@wnhittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburrageiaw.com>; Kayll Price <korice@whittenburragelaw.cam>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Ce: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>: Grant Fitz <gefitz@gabielaw.com>; Lance Leffel <jeffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dnerber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwrignt@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>: Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jJalen@gab Amy H. Jenkins <alenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm claw.com>:"}, {"d": 91, "p": 45, "t": "External email — beware of links and attachments Carrie, In response to your letter, we have obtained the following dates of availability from Billy and Lacy Hursh for their depositions: 10/8-10/9, and 10/22-10/23. Please let us know if any of these will work for you. We are also working on getting our pared-down witness list to you asap. Thank you! Respectfully, John Scott Sanders Attorney a 312 N. Broadway Avenue Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com If the recipient of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and unauthorized. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by return e-mail and delete this message from your computer. Thank you. From: Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2026 4:51 PM To: Reggie N. Whitten <nwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders(@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs(@ whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice(@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat(@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray(@dlb.net> Ce: Carrie McNeer <cmecneer@gablelaw.com>; Grant Fitz <gfitz@eablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lletfel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes(@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@ gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <keyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins(@gablelaw.com> Subject: Hursh v. State Farm"}, {"d": 91, "p": 46, "t": "Good afternoon, Please see attached a letter from Carrie McNeer. A hard copy has been placed in the mail to you. a Rebeca Matheus | Litigation Legal Assistant | GableGotwals (w) 918-595-4984 | (f) 918-595-4990 | rmatheus(@gablelaw.com 110 N. Elgin Ave., Ste. 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1495 | USA | www-.gablelaw.com | This message and any attachments are for the addressee only and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received this in error, please notify me immediately and permanently delete the message and any prints or other copies."}, {"d": 91, "p": 48, "t": "From: Blake Sonne To: Lance Leffel; Karen Stratton; Carrie McNeer; Rebeca Matheus; Janet L. Wright; Kari Cyrs; David R. Herber; Nathan A. Miramontes ca: rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten; John Sanders; Jake Denne; Autumn Hobbs; Kayli Price; Brad Beskin; Marsha Murray; Ryan Deligans; Pat Collogan Subject: Re: Hursh/Faust v. State Farm - Writ Denial & Discovery Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 5:06:53 PM Attachments: Hursh - State Farm - Notice to Take Deposition of Jon Farney.pdf External email — beware of links and attachments Counsel, This email follows my email below as well as Reggie and I’s phone call with Lance earlier today. As I mentioned to Lance, we will be filing a motion to enforce in the morning and request expedited enforcement from Judge Palumbo considering the 8-month delay in producing documents and corporate/executive depositions. We intend to discuss these issues with the Court at our hearing on our Second Motion to Compel on Tuesday July 7\" We prefer to work with State Farm on dates for Ress, Herbert, Moss, and the corporate representative depositions but we have still not received any dates. Please advise. In addition, please find attached the Notice of Deposition for Jon Farney for July 20, 2026, former State Farm Sr. VP, Treasurer, and CFO as well as current CEO. Farney’s involvement in the FME, P&C tactics and Wind/Hail success, his knowledge of indemnity reductions on FME Wind/Hail as well as his direct involvement in State Farm’s Fix Profit Task Force, which directly involved Wind/Hail claims are all directly related to State Farm’s FME and continued work to maintain its momentum on reducing indemnity in Wind/Hail claims. Moreover, as the CFO receiving direct reports on financials from Wind/Hail claims, Farney has direct knowledge of indemnity reductions and other financials related to the FME and subsequent plans by SF. In fact, during the very timeframe of the Hursh’s claim, Farney was receiving monthly Fire Claims Trends on a rolling 12month basis, specifically discussing Wind/Hail results. The Fire Trends were sent specifically to Wensley Herbert and Jon Farney. Similarly, Farney was a key participant in the Fix Profit Task Force during the time of the Hursh’s claim. State Farm executives including Farney discussed continued improvements in P&C profits from building on the momentum of the FME and “quality results” from Wind/Hail indemnity and FRR to PRR ratio reductions. Again, the documents show this occurring during the very time of the Hursh’s claim and adjustment. We have noticed the deposition for OKC or Bloomington, IL and will work with you to coordinate per your preferred location like we offered with Ress, Herbert, and Moss. Thank you. BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL SIGNATURE_3768441789 1? 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne(@ whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work-"}, {"d": 91, "p": 49, "t": "product. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Date: Monday, June 29, 2026 at 7:54 AM To: Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com> Cc: \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Brad Beskin <bbeskin@whittenburragelaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com> Subject: Hursh/Faust v. State Farm - Writ Denial & Discovery Counsel, This email follows the Supreme Court’s order last week denying the writ of prohibition taken on Judge Palumbo’s rulings on (1) the motion to compel; (2) the motion to quash executive depositions; and (3) the motion to quash the corporate representative deposition of State Farm. We are seeking immediate compliance with these discovery rulings and this email serves as our request for State Farm to provide an update in its compliance without Court intervention. As you know, State Farm’s documents were ordered to be produced back in December 2025 and also in March 2026. The documents in December were documents from previous cases under RFP #44. We expect immediate production of these bates stamped numbers from the previous cases. With respect to the rest of the document production, we expect full compliance with 12 O.S. § 3234(B)(2)(e)(1), which requires a producing party to produce documents “as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request.” (emphasis added). Oklahoma law does not allow a “document dump” to force Plaintiffs to sift through thousands of pages to try and locate responsive documents. This may also deny any opportunity to examine a corporate designee and/or verifying agent as to any supplementation made. Such practices fail to comply with the specificity obligations the discovery code. See Low v. OMNI Life Sci., Inc., No. CIV-18-305-SLP, 2020 WL 12787583, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 5, 2020) (producing party must identify document on which they rely by numbers so that there can be no dispute at trial what documents to which the producing party is referring to); Crest Res., Inc. v. Dan Blocker Petroleum Consultants, Inc., No. 09-CV-766-TCK-PJC, 2013 WL 618865, at *1 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 19, 2013) (sufficient to compel supplementation to discovery to identify by bates the documents that correspond to each of the specific document where the supplementation made had no apparent organizational structure to the production). In addition, any blanket designation of confidentiality does not comply with the Oklahoma"}, {"d": 91, "p": 50, "t": "Discovery Code and we will seek immediate action with the Court to de-designate documents under a blanket confidentiality designation as was done in the West case. With respect to the executive depositions, please provide dates and proposed locations in July for Herbert, Ress, Welsh, and Moss. We will issue notices this week if we cannot reach an agreement on these depositions. We intend to issue other executive deposition notices this week. On the corporate representative deposition, please also provide names/topics and proposed dates and locations. The writ process delayed this case by almost 8 months. We do not intent to move any trial date and therefore request assistance in these discovery matters without court intervention. Please advise as soon as possible. Thank you. BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, Or COUNSEL SIGNATURE _633434822 ai 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne(@ whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you."}, {"d": 91, "p": 52, "t": "(800) 528 - 3335 NAEGELIUSA.COM COURT REPORTING LEGAL VIDEOGRAPHY REMOTE DEPOSITIONS TRIAL PRESENTATION LEGAL TRANSCRIPTION COPYING AND SCANNING LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS Py, LITIGATION & SUPPORT NAEGELTI|! (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 91, "p": 53, "t": "APPEARANCES Appearing on behalf BLAKE SONNE, REGGIE WHITTEN, Whitten Burrage 512 N (844) the Plaintiffs: ESQUIRE ESQUIRE Broadway Oklahoma of Avenue, City, OK Suite 300 73102 246-6569 10 bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com 11 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com 12 13 Appearing 14 Fire 15 LANCE LEFFEL, ESQUIRE 16 Gable Gotwals Counsel 17 499 Sheridan Avenue, 18 Oklahoma 19 (405) 20 lleffel@gablelaw.com & W on behalf Casualty City, of Company OK the Defendants State Farm 2200 Park Plaza) and Suite (BOK 73102 235-5500 21 22 -and- 23 24 25 NAEGELI|( (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 91, "p": 54, "t": "APPEARANCES DIANE L. Sullivan MCGIMSEY, and 1888 Century Los Angeles, (310) ESQUIRE Cromwell LLP Park Suite CA (CONTINUED) E, 2100 90067 712-6600 mcgimseyd@sullcrom.com 10 -and- 11 12 BRICA 13 Redgrave 14 230 15 Chicago, 16 (312) 17 ezolner@redgravellp.com B. W ZOLNER, ESQUIRE LLP Monroe Street, IL Suite 210 60606 800-1968 18 19 ALSO PRESENT: 20 Bobby Lenahan 21 Witness) 22 Mark 23 Hannah Whitten, Assistant 24 Walter Haskin, Expert 25 Jess on Romano, Bryan, behalf Expert Naegeli of Chris Young (Expert Witness Witness Technician NAEGELI|( (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 91, "p": 55, "t": "EXAMINATION INDEX PAGE EXAMINATION BY MR. SONNE EXAMINATION BY MS. MCGIMSEY FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. 10 399 SONNE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NAEGELI|( (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM 417"}, {"d": 91, "p": 56, "t": "NO Q. How you WH A. Y-i. & Q. So my operational you? Vice understanding is you have a series presidents that report vice 10 Five. 11 Q. Are 12 division 13 A. Yeah, 14 Q. Okay. 15 A. Yep. 16 Q. Who or 18 homeowners' 19 A. 20 report I many? type broken of a are the you that So down by to particular bit of both. operational Michael He has vice are -- would Keating is an responsibility Millicent president 23 are governance and 24 fire claims. So Q. directly claim? little 22 25 of do. they to President presidents cover claims? president. 21 name? Senior How that last the Yes, 17 the as YP P&C, spell currently, Oo of do Pr Oo Yi. HS Robert ~“ A. who has Okay. Roth is her area -- an oversight she's And also then operations for fire & TRIAL claims. operations vice of responsibilities area over connected those both to | NAEGELIUSA.COM auto that. operational NAEGELI|( (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION vice vice and"}, {"d": 91, "p": 57, "t": "you DH work our way back, WwW left or the page -- you're before. -- we're going to Michael Roper -- page, \"The briefly cover sorry. says at approach the bottom of that for Tuesday is to a high level the November trends at the majority of time focusing content.\" read that correctly? then if Did I Sir, 10 A. Yes, 11 Q. Okay. 12 turning 13 Schulkins 14 Christensen? 15 A. 16 Operations. 17 18 the 21 left, And Michael and John on Q. Is he in A. He -- he's -- fire claims. Q. Okay. Fire side. He with -- the go sends Christensen. Christensen the claims fire he's spending specific upwards and keep an to Matt President of Who is yes, before Claims you Keating John 20 turn to the tentative 19 going to DH Q. so page aS Oh, the © A. turn wo Ss If WwW Q. email is Vice John side? a fire -- he's I was gone on next week's FPTF being you see email -- all right. 22 23 \"claims\" 24 bottom? 25 A. says focused Yes, do that Sir. NAEGELI|( (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM at the in"}, {"d": 91, "p": 59, "t": "DECLARATION OF MICHAEL KEATING I, Michael Keating, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the following is true and correct: l. I am over the age of 21 years, of sound mind, legally capable of making this Declaration, and have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Declaration. 2. I am currently Operations Vice President at State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), with responsibility for fire property claims. I have been in my current position since October 2, 2021. I have been a State Farm employee since 1993. 3. I do not oversee the day-to-day handling of insurance claims, including the homeowners’ policies issued by State Farm. There are multiple levels of management between my position and the claims teams that adjust claims. 4. In my current role as Operations Vice President, I receive updates and/or reporting that at times include information concerning quality initiatives and enterprise-wide trends. It is my understanding that Plaintiffs in this case are seeking testimony about State Farm’s F ire Model Enhancement (the “FME”). I was not involved in the FME. For nearly a decade prior to June 2023, my roles involved only auto claims. I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 0/29/2026 (Date) Uf lake (Signature)"}, {"d": 91, "p": 61, "t": "ORIGINAL LOUIE 1059561 039% SUPRENE IN THE SUPREME ENTERPRISES, Petitioner, ATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 24 2024 JOHN D. HADD CLERK EN et INC., ee WERNER COURT OF THE STATE OF oKLaHoma® COURT No. 122,385 ee ee V. ee ee THE HONORABLE KORY KIRKLAND, et ee Respondent, and ee ae JODI CROSS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of RAE ANN DARROW, deceased, TIMOTHY CLEMONS and MICHAEL DENNIS PECK, mrad Mailed. TAA! pistrub____9¢\"1 Publish___ Nee Defendants. Posted ee and Ne ee ae Rec'd (date) AT yA yes” no ORDER Original Werner jurisdiction Enterprises, is assumed. Inc.’s Okla. Const. to assume application granted. A writ of mandamus art. 7, § 4. original Petitioner jurisdiction is is issued to Caddo County District Judge Kory Kirkland, or any assigned judge, in Jodi Cross, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rae Anne Darrow, deceased v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., et. Al., CJ-2021-47. Respondent’s certain documents proportionality December 20, 2023 compelling as Respondent is unenforceable, test as outlined Order in Title 1 12 O.S., did Section production of not consider the 3226(B)(2)(c), in"}, {"d": 91, "p": 62, "t": "determining the relevancy of the requested documents. Respondent, any other assigned judge, or a special master appointed by the district court shall review the discovery requests at issue and consider the proportionality factors stated in 12 O.S. Section 3226 (B(2)(c) along with all other statutory requirements before ruling on the discovery disputes. DONE BY THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE ON THE _23rd_ __—s DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024. CHIEF JUSTICE CONCUR: DISSENT: KANE, C.J., and WINCHESTER, GURICH, DARBY and KUEHN, JJ. ROWE, V.C.J., and KAUGER, EDMONDSON and COMBS, JJ."}, {"d": 91, "p": 64, "t": "(800) 528 - 3335 NAEGELIUSA.COM COURT REPORTING LEGAL VIDEOGRAPHY REMOTE DEPOSITIONS TRIAL PRESENTATION LEGAL TRANSCRIPTION COPYING AND SCANNING LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS Py, LITIGATION & SUPPORT NAEGELTI|! (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 91, "p": 65, "t": "APPEARANCES Appearing on behalf HANNAH WHITTEN, BLAKE SONNE, BURRAGE, Whitten Burrage North Oklahoma the Plaintiffs: ESQUIRE ESQUIRE MICHAEL 512 of ESQUIRE Broadway Avenue, City, 73102 OK (Via Zoom) Suite 10 (405) 11 hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com 12 bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com 13 mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com 14 -and- 15 R. 16 Durbin 17 920 18 Oklahoma 19 (405) 20 rdeligans@dlb.net 21 -and- 300 516-7800 RYAN DELIGANS, Larimore North ESQUIRE & Bialick Harvey City, OK Avenue 73102 235-9584 22 23 24 25 NAEGELI|( (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 91, "p": 66, "t": "APPEARANCES COLBY A. STEPHENSON, Burgess 21 & (CONTINUED) ESQUIRE (Via Zoom) Hightower Northwest 44th Lawton, OK (580) 355-8920 Street, Room 201 73505 colby@burgess-hightower.com 10 Appearing on 11 TIMILA S. ROTHER, ESQUIRE 12 Crowe and Dunlevy PC 13 324 North Robinson Avenue, 14 Oklahoma City, 73102 15 (405) 16 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com 17 -and- behalf OK of Defendants Suite and the 100 235-7700 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NAEGELI|( (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM Deponent:"}, {"d": 91, "p": 67, "t": "APPEARANCES ERICA B. ZOLNER, Redgrave LLP 230 Monroe West Chicago, (312) IL (CONTINUED) ESQUIRE Street, Suite 210 60606 800-1968 ezolner@redgravellp.com -and- 10 11 TIFFANY L. 12 Alston and 13 1201 14 Atlanta, 15 (404) 16 tiffany.powers@alston.com 17 -and- West POWERS, ESQUIRE Bird Peachtree GA Street, Suite 4900 30309 881-4249 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NAEGELI|( (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 91, "p": 68, "t": "APPEARANCES DIANE L. Sullivan MCGIMSEY, and 1888 Century Los Angeles, (310) ESQUIRE Cromwell Park CA (CONTINUED) LLP East 90067 712-6600 mcgimseyd@sullcrom.com 10 Also Present: 11 Mark Romano, 12 Walter Haskin, Expert Witness 13 Autumn Hobbs, Assistant to 14 Jess Bryan, Expert Naegeli Witness (via Zoom) (via Whitten Zoom) Law Firm Technician 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NAEGELI|( (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 91, "p": 69, "t": "that testimony? A. Yes, sir. Q. And those -- the executives and other year, were CEO, meetings the executives, of COO, right? the Happened A. Yeah, Q. I'm This is that's showing you what's three times marked as back several an email chain, goes emails pages, and like most of 11 to back and then work your if you turn to of this email, exhibit or the I'm the 12 So 13 I guess 14 last 15 page. the beginning page of 16 A. Yeah. Can 17 through real quick. 18 Q. 19 profit 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Do 22 A. Yeah. 23 Q. Are fixed profit A. Yes, 25 yourself a correct. 10 the CFO, correct? 28. 24 certain it that The task title these I -- of this way the you Exhibit have to go which is up. last page, it second would be to last going to go email is the fixed were you ever a just the force. you you I see that? on the task force? -- was. NAEGELI|( (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM part of"}, {"d": 91, "p": 70, "t": "Okay. A. I the last Okay. A. Yeah. Q. So wa Q. would include oOo m on ow here ever a part Who's think HD GW Q. on there was -- well, that those would Michael include the fixed was his Yes. 10 Q. What 11 A. He was the operations the Was Michael Keating task force? vice president president over profit role? operations claims. 14 Q. Does 15 A. He 16 Q. What was his role in -- hail claim handling in the last A. He has fire claims. 20 Q. Okay. 21 claims 18 19 for on report does, yes. And A. Yes, 23 Q. So how We don't 25 force to prior you? in homeowners five wind years? operational responsibilities that wind includes and all fire hail often claims. does the fixed profit meet? A. over homeowners? 22 24 vice he just there? That 13 and on Farney. -- 17 it's Jon 12 is think individuals Tipsord. A. he I page. All of that? have them anymore -- NAEGELI|( (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM task"}, {"d": 92, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY and LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D._ WELTY INS. AGENCY, INC., ) COUNTY FILED DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA ) September 29, 2026 2:59 PM ) RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2025-2626 ) Case No. CJ-2025-2626 ) Hon. Amy Palumbo ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S AMENDED MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION NOTICE OF STATE FARM’S OPERATIONS VICE PRESIDENT MICHAEL KEATING, AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (‘State Farm”), pursuant to 12 O.S. §§ 3226(B)(2)(c), 3226(C), and 3226.1, respectfully moves for a protective order and to quash Plaintiffs’ September 21, 2026 Notice of Intention to Take Oral & Videotaped Deposition of State Farm’s Operations Vice President, Michael Keating (the “Keating Notice”) (Exhibit 1). Mr. Keating was not involved in the handling of Plaintiffs’ claims, nor did he directly supervise any person who was involved in the insurance claims. Neither the Keating Notice nor the email transmitting the Keating Notice identify any basis that would justify Plaintiffs’ demand to depose a high-level executive with no specific connection to Plaintiffs’ insurance claims. (See Ex. 1, see also Exhibit 2, Email from B. Sonne (September 21, 2026).) This alone warrants quashing the Keating Notice. See Schultz v. Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd. No. 4:15-CV-04160-LLP, 2016 WL 3149686, at *3 (D.S.D. June 3, 2016) (a party seeking discovery must “describe with a reasonable degree of specificity, the information they hope to obtain and its importance to their case.”) (citing Cervantes v. Time, Inc., 464 F.2d 986, 994 (8th Cir. 1972))."}, {"d": 92, "p": 2, "t": "Further, taking the deposition of a high-level executive—like an Operations Vice President—is not permitted unless (1) the executive possesses unique personal knowledge of facts germane to the litigation, and (2) the information sought cannot be obtained through less intrusive means. Plaintiffs have not, and cannot, identify any germane knowledge that would justify their demand to depose Mr. Keating. whatever Moreover, Plaintiffs can obtain, and have already obtained, information they seek through other means—including, but not limited to, the depositions the Court has already ordered of State Farm’s current and former employees who Plaintiffs contend were involved in State Farm’s Wind/Hail Fire Model Enhancement (“FME”) quality initiative and State Farm’s Fix Profit Task Force (“FPTF’”). Requiring Mr. Keating to take multiple days to prepare for and attend a deposition concerning matters about which he has no relevant or unique knowledge would also be unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of this individual case. Accordingly, the Court should enter a protective order and quash the Keating Notice. BACKGROUND This case arises from two insurance claims for approximately $22,000.00 in combined alleged damages to a single insured property, from weather events that reportedly occurred on October 4, 2023 and May 21, 2024. Plaintiffs assert claims against State Farm for breach of contract and bad faith; claims against agent Mark D. Welty and Mark D. Welty Insurance Agency for negligent procurement; and claims against all Defendants for constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation. (See Pet. {| 40, 45-79.) Plaintiffs (wrongly) allege that this case involves a “scheme” by State Farm, which they contend was implemented through the FME to lower indemnity payments by, inter alia, misattributing roof damage from storms to non-covered “wear and tear.” (See generally id.) Plaintiffs have already obtained vast discovery about their insurance claims and their (false) 2"}, {"d": 92, "p": 3, "t": "theories of the FME’s influence on claim handling generally. State Farm has produced over a thousand documents related to Plaintiffs’ claims, including Plaintiffs’ policy, their Claim File, three years of financial and annual statements, underwriting guidelines in effect when Plaintiffs’ policy was issued, applicable claim-handling guidelines in place at the time of the alleged loss, Wind and Hail Guidelines, performance evaluations for the claim handlers involved in Plaintiffs’ claims, and the Fire Property Claims Quality Plan in effect on the dates of loss, among others. Plaintiffs also requested, moved to compel, and have now received over 110,000 State Farm documents (along with over 600,000 documents State Farm produced in other cases)}—most of which have nothing to do with the claims decisions they challenge, but that Plaintiffs allege are necessary to prove their theory around the FME. On November 25, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel and, over State Farm’s objection, ordered production of information and documents Plaintiffs claimed were relevant to State Farm’s purported “scheme” to deny wind/hail roof claims, including, inter alia: claims training materials since 2015; information from 2019 onward regarding the FME and wind/hail initiatives, including purported tracking of roof replacements, indemnity savings, and payment volumes; six years of documents and communications relating to managerial approval requirements for full roof replacements; documents about alleged efforts to reduce indemnity payments for wind/hail claims; and all documents previously produced or ordered in six unrelated lawsuits. Plaintiffs also issued a corporate representative deposition notice to State Farm seeking ' The Court also ordered State Farm to produce training provided to agents regarding policy sales and underwriting; information on its relationship with Haag Engineering; Fire Property Claims Quality Plans since 2019 plus documents on initiatives concerning indemnity payments and roof replacement ratios, approval rates, and payments; documents about settings and features in thirdparty estimating software State Farm uses; and emails or other correspondence to or from Nicole Manduca, Sharon Arnold, Tom Moss, and Susan Maynard, from January 2019 onward, about the FME and various metrics relating to roof replacements. 3"}, {"d": 92, "p": 4, "t": "testimony and documents on 30 topics with 101 subparts, spanning 15 years of corporate operations (including multiple topics regarding the FME), and noticed the depositions of eight current and former employees. Over State Farm’s objections, the Court denied State Farm’s motions to quash the corporate representative notice and Plaintiffs’ notices of deposition to: Jon Farney, State Farm’s CEO, whom Plaintiffs contended was involved in the FME and State Farm’s FPTF—a group created to monitor enterprise-wide trends on a monthly basis that has nothing to do with the allegations in this case or the FME (see Exhibit 3, Email from B. Sonne (July 1, 2026)); Thomas Moss, whom Plaintiffs contended was a “member” of the team charged with responsibility for the FME initiative (see Nov. 14, 2025 Pls.’ Consol. Resp. at 2-3); Wensley Herbert, State Farm’s Vice President, Property & Casualty Claims, who Plaintiffs represented was “the highest-ranking individual in charge of claims at State Farm” and to whom “[eJach of the other Noticed Deponents serving in a Vice President role” reported (see id. at 5 (emphasis in original)); Nicole Manduca, who Plaintiffs contended was “the leader of the [FME]” and an “architect” of the alleged scheme (see id. at 2, 9); Scott Welsh, State Farm’s Director of Consulting Services whom Plaintiffs claimed was “the most senior individual at State Farm” involved in training (id. at 6-7); Kathy Ress, a State Farm Operations Vice President, who Plaintiffs contended “served as Manduca’s team leader and asked Manduca to head the [FME] Team” and “was directly involved in the reporting, development, and success of the [FME] team, including specifically comparing State Farm’s success rates with the success of the [FME] in lowering full roof replacement percentages” (id. at 10); and Wendy Mazza and Tyrone Smith, former State Farm Vice Presidents of Operations, who Plaintiffs clatmed supervised Manduca and were “directly involved in reporting, objectives.” (id. at 11). monitoring, supervising, reviewing, and implementing the [FME]"}, {"d": 92, "p": 5, "t": "As to any possible need to depose Mr. Keating, in Mr. Herbert’s August 26, 2026 deposition in this case, Mr. Keating’s name was mentioned only twice. In one instance, Plaintiffs’ counsel asked Mr. Herbert who “the operational vice presidents that report” to him are (to which Mr. Hebert responded Mr. Keating and Millicent Roth). (See Exhibit 4, Hursh W. Herbert Dep. Tr. at 23:1624.) In the other, Plaintiffs’ counsel referenced a single email Mr. Keating sent relating to FPTF, which has nothing to do with Plaintiffs’ claims, the FME, or any other allegations in this case. (See id. at 354:11-14.) In short, despite now having access to over 700,000 documents (in both this and other cases) regarding their insurance claims and a wide range of topics purportedly relevant to their “scheme” theory—and their counsel having had the opportunity to ask supposed “architects” of their alleged scheme questions about Mr. Keating’s role—including Mr. Herbert, to whom Mr. Keating directly reported during the relevant time period—Plaintiffs have not established, and cannot establish, any connection between Mr. Keating and the evaluation, review, or adjustment of their insurance claims or anything germane to it, including their FME theories. Mr. Keating is a State Farm Operations Vice President. Mr. Keating does not oversee the day-to-day handling of insurance claims and is, in fact, multiple levels above the claim teams that directly handle claims—including the Claim Specialists and Team Manager Plaintiffs’ insurance claims here. (See Exhibit 5, Declaration of M. Keating, at who handled §3.) And as is apparent from Plaintiffs’ claim files, Mr. Keating has no personal knowledge of the insurance claims at issue. Further, Mr. Keating was not involved in the FME—the initiative that Plaintiffs alleged was the purported “scheme.” (See Ex. 5, Keating Decl. § 4.)"}, {"d": 92, "p": 6, "t": "ARGUMENT I AND AUTHORITY A HIGH-LEVEL EXECUTIVE SHOULD NOT BE DEPOSED UNLESS THE EXECUTIVE HAS UNIQUE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND THE DISCOVERY CANNOT BE OBTAINED FROM OTHER EMPLOYEES. In Crest Infiniti, I, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, the Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized that apex depositions have unique potential for abuse, and should not be had if “annoyance, oppression, and undue burden and expense outweigh the need for discovery” on those issues. Jd. q§ 14-15. Courts have consistently held that a deposition of a high-level executive—like an Operations Vice President—is improper absent a showing that the executive possesses unique personal knowledge relevant to the pertinent facts. See Thomas v. Int’l Bus. Mach., 48 F.3d 478, 483-484 (10th Cir. 1995) (affirming district court’s granting of protective order preventing deposition of IBM’s Chairman in an age discrimination case where the Chairman had no personal knowledge of plaintiff and deposition would have caused severe hardship, despite the Chairman’s alleged involvement in purportedly discriminatory policy); Okla. ex rel. Edmondson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 05-CV-329-GKF, 2009 WL 10694083, at *4 (N.D. Okla. April 24, 2009) (granting protective order preventing deposition of an executive when the record did not establish the executive’s “unique personal knowledge of the controversy”).” That exception to the rule is not applicable here where Mr. Keating possesses no unique personal knowledge relevant to the pertinent facts, either of the subject claims or of any “scheme” allegations. ? See also Lachney v. Target Corp., No. CIV-06-1389-HE, 2008 WL 11420069, at *3, (W.D. Okla. Aug. 20, 2008) (denying motion to compel deposition of Vice Chairman because “[a|part from indications he had general responsibility for strategic planning ... there appears to be little basis, other than speculation, as to what knowledge he would have bearing on the claims in this case.”); Miller v. Loves Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc., No. CIV-06-1008-D, 2008 WL 11338079, at *7 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 7, 2008) (quashing deposition notice to Chairman where age discrimination plaintiff sought evidence of company-wide discriminatory policies because Chairman had no unique knowledge of specific facts pertaining to the plaintiff’s claims). 6"}, {"d": 92, "p": 7, "t": "Courts have further held that deposing a high-level executive is improper if the information is obtainable through less intrusive means, such as by deposing other personnel who are closer to the facts giving rise to the claims. See Thomas, 48 F.3d at 483 (granting protective order preventing deposition of high-level official in part because plaintiff made no attempt to demonstrate that the information sought could not be obtained by imposing the lesser burden of depositions of lowerlevel employees); Roblox Corp. v. WowWee Grp. Ltd., No. 22-CV- 04476-SI, 2023 WL 5507176, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2023) (denying request for discovery from corporate president where “Plaintiffs have made no showing that Yanofsky has relevant information, much less that he has information that would not be discoverable through the other custodians named by defendants.”); Todd v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, Inc., No. 219CVO0085JMSDLP, 2019 WL 8272621, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 13, 2019) (“Plaintiff has yet to take a deposition in this case, but desires to start that process at the top of the food chain with the former CEO of the Defendant’s parent company ... this case is limited to a single-plaintiff consumer protection matter regarding the handling of [Plaintiff’s] mortgage loan. This is not a nationwide collective action. .... ”); U.S. ex rel. Galmines v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., No. 06-3213, 2015 WL 4973626, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2015) (granting motion to quash deposition of defendant’s former CEO where “the Court has not been made aware of any efforts [by the plaintiff] to ascertain from [other] deponents the extent of [the former CEO’s] personal involvement in the alleged actions”). With respect to Plaintiffs’ purported “scheme” allegations, Plaintiffs have already requested, and the Court has already ordered (1) a thirty-topic corporate representative deposition on every conceivable topic related to the FME and Plaintiffs’ +e “scheme” theories, and (2) individual depositions of eight current and former State Farm employees—including State Farm’s CEO, Mr. Farney; and Mr. Keating’s direct supervisor during the relevant time period, Mr. Herbert. Plaintiffs"}, {"d": 92, "p": 8, "t": "do not and cannot show that Mr. Keating has any unique testimony regarding the FME or their “scheme” theories that will not be, or has not been, already covered by the depositions this Court has already ordered. Evans y. Allstate Ins. Co., 216 F.R.D. 515 (N.D. Okla. 2003) is squarely on point here. In Evans, the plaintiffs sued Allstate, alleging it improperly denied their fire loss claim, and sought to depose three of its officers. /d. at 516. Allstate contended that the corporate officers whom the plaintiffs sought to depose had no unique personal knowledge of the matters at issue and that the requests were burdensome, irrelevant, and propounded solely for the purpose of harassment and abuse. /d. at 518. Allstate also noted that the plaintiffs had taken the depositions of all adjusters and supervisors involved in the handling of plaintiffs’ insurance claims. /d. In response, the plaintiffs argued the depositions were necessary to prove their theory that a pervasive practice of inadequate supervision over Allstate claims adjusters existed within the corporation. /d. The court found that even if the plaintiffs had a right to explore those themes, Allstate had already provided adequate information, or the information could be obtained from other sources without the depositions of the officers sought. /d. Accordingly, the Northern District granted Allstate’s motion for a protective order prohibiting the depositions of the officers. /d. This Court should likewise reject Plaintiffs’ overreach of an apex deposition, where the information Plaintiffs seek is neither relevant nor unique to Mr. Keating. IL CHICK-FIL-A AND THE OKLAHOMA DISCOVERY STANDARD. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has made clear that relevance—the threshold requirement for obtaining discovery—‘should be firmly applied.” Quinn v. City of Tulsa, 1989 OK 112, ¢ 63, 777 P.2d 1331, 1342 (quoting Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979)); see also Nitzel v. Jackson, 1994 OK 49, 92 n.*, 879 P.2d 1222, 1223 n* (“Discovery is not without limitation. It must lead or tend to lead to relevant evidence.”). Relevance to a “party’s claim or defense” —as the Oklahoma 8"}, {"d": 92, "p": 9, "t": "Discovery Code requires*—is not simply assumed. See Chick-fil-A, Inc. v. Ogden et al., 2026 OK 13, 9 15-16 (Mar. 10, 2026) (holding trial court abused its discretion when it failed to require plaintiffs “to demonstrate how [the requested discovery] would be relevant to a claim or defense in this case.”). See also Stainsby v. Okla. ex rel. Okla. Health Care Auth., No. CIV-21-1073-D, 2022 WL 1748263, *1 (W.D. Okla. May 31, 2022) (“When the request is overly broad, or relevance is not clear, the party seeking the discovery has the burden to show the relevance of the request.”).4 Nor does a “plaintiff’s broad theory of the case ... necessarily justify broad discovery,” and courts should thus endeavor to “thwart fishing expeditions.” Willis v. Johnson, No. CIV-18-323-D, 2021 WL 8446071, at *2 (W.D. Okla. May 20, 2021). And as the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals has recognized, insurance cases should be handled according to their circumstances. See City Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins., 1990 OK CIV APP 89, § 18, 804 P.2d 463, 469 (“[B]efore ... bad faith may be submitted to the jury, the Trial Court must first determine, under the facts of the particular case ... whether [the] insurer’s conduct may be reasonably perceived as tortious.”). Here, there is no relevant connection between the deposition of Mr. Keating and the handling of the subject insurance claims or the FME (about which the Court has already granted Plaintiffs depositions, including of all the supposed “architects” of the FME). Proportionality is as critical as relevance to discoverability. The Oklahoma Discovery Code, like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure from which it is derived, requires that discovery be “proportional to the needs of the case.” 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1)(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In 3-12 OS. § 3226 (2025) (“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to any party's claim or defense, reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and proportional to the needs of the case, considering [various factors].”) (emphasis added). * Because “[t]he Oklahoma Discovery Code mirrors the Federal rules,” Meritor, Inc. v. State ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma, 2019 OK CIV APP 64, § 20 n.15, 451 P.3d 914, 922 n.15, Oklahoma courts often look to “discovery procedures in the federal rules when construing similar language in the Oklahoma Discovery Code,” Crest Infiniti, I, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, § 2, 174 P.3d 996, 999, 9"}, {"d": 92, "p": 10, "t": "fact, “the proper scope of discovery is that which is both relevant to the claims or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case; considering the various factors.” Dodd v. Indian Health Care Res. Ctr. of Tulsa, Inc., No. 24-CV-00327-SH, 2024 WL 4648150, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 1, 2024) (emphasis in original).” The Oklahoma Supreme Court recently made clear that a trial court must specifically consider the proportionality of discovery before it may compel the production of documents. See Order, Werner Enters., Inc. v. Kirkland, No. 122,385 (Okla. Sept. 24, 2024) (attached as Exhibit 6). Earlier this year in Chick-fil-A, the Oklahoma Supreme Court provided extensive guidance on the standards for determining the relevance and proportionality of discovery requests. In that case, the parents of a two-year-old child sued Chick-fil-A for negligence and wrongful death after a vehicle struck and killed their child in the drive-through lane while walking to the entrance of a Chick-fil-A in Yukon, Oklahoma. 2026 OK 13, § 2. In discovery, the parents asked Chick-fil-A to produce documents spanning 10 years “related to adverse events, complaints, incidents, and/or accidents involving the injury or death of any person at any restaurant owned, leased, franchised, or operated by Chick-fil-A within the United States,” plus “all complaints or petitions filed against Chick-fil-A... wherein negligence was or is alleged to have caused or contributed to the injury or death of a pedestrian as a result of being struck, hit, run over, or coming in contact with a motor vehicle . . .while on a Chick-fil-A restaurant premises in the United States.” /d. 43. Chick-fil-A objected to the requests as overbroad and unduly burdensome because they were “improperly tailored as to time and scope [and] were not limited to substantially similar incidents.” Id. ¥ 4. * These factors include: (1) the importance of the issues at stake in the action; (2) the amount in controversy; (3) the parties’ relative access to relevant information; (4) the parties’ resources; (5) the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues; and (6) whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. See 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1)(a). 10"}, {"d": 92, "p": 11, "t": "The parents moved to compel (agreeing to limit the requests to the last five years within Oklahoma), and the trial court granted the motion. /d. ¥§ 5-7. On an application for an extraordinary writ, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the trial court judge abused his discretion in granting the parents’ motion to compel because the requests were facially overly broad and the trial court did not “require [Plaintiffs] to initially demonstrate how their request was relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” /d. 4 16. The Court explained that 12 O.S. § 3226—which allows parties to obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter “which is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . and proportional to the needs of the case’—“was amended in 2017 to more closely follow amendments to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Jd. § 11. In particular, the Court observed that “[t]he amendments . . . omitted language that had bearing on whether a discovery request is relevant” and that it was no longer sufficient for discovery to be related to “the subject matter” without also being related to “any party’s claim or defense.” Jd. § 12.° Moreover, “the party seeking discovery has the burden to show the relevancy of the request.” /d. { 15 (internal citation omitted). Based on the foregoing, the Oklahoma Supreme Court explained that “{r]ecords related to any pedestrian accident that occurred in a Chick-fil-A parking lot may be relevant to the subject matter involved here. But that is no longer the standard.” Jd. §] 15 (emphasis added). Because “(t]he trial court did not require Parents to demonstrate how information about dissimilar incidents would be relevant to a claim or defense in this case,” it abused its discretion. /d. Accordingly, the Court prohibited the parents from enforcing this portion of the trial court’s order. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has further cautioned that “pretrial discovery by depositions ° Since 2000, the Federal Rules Advisory Committee has advised that “it intended for ‘the parties and the court to focus on the actual claims and defenses involved in the action.”” /d. 4 13 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee’s notes to 2000 amendment). 1"}, {"d": 92, "p": 12, "t": "and interrogatories has a significant potential for abuse.” YWCA of Oklahoma City v. Melson, 1997 OK 81, § 24 n.41, 944 P.2d 304, 311 n.41. Accordingly, the Discovery Code requires a court to “limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed if it determines” that “the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by subparagraph a of paragraph 1 of this subsection [regarding relevance and proportionality].” 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(2)(c). As such, this Court may issue, “for good cause shown ... any order which justice requires to protect a party or person” from “oppression or undue delay, burden or expense,” including “that the discovery not be had” or “that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions.” 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(1). Il. THE COURT SHOULD QUASH THE KEATING NOTICE BECAUSE MR. KEATING’S DEPOSITION IS IRRELEVANT AND DISPROPORTIONATE. A. Plaintiffs Cannot Demonstrate the Relevance of the Testimony They Seek. As an initial matter, Plaintiffs cannot establish that the deposition testimony of a State Farm Operations Vice President is “relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Chick-fil-A, Inc. v. Ogden, 2026 OK 13, 4 16. Mr. Keating has no relevant information as to the actual claims (which is what should be at issue) or to the FME (which Plaintiffs grossly mischaracterize). (See Ex. 5, Keating Decl. 9] 3, 4.) While it may go without saying, Mr. Keating did not assist Plaintiffs in procuring the their insurance policy or have any involvement in the investigation, evaluation, or decisions regarding Plaintiffs’ insurance claim, and Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Mr. Keating has information regarding any of the claims asserted in their Petition. Indeed, State Farm’s Operations Vice President is not only multiple levels above those who actually handled Plaintiffs’ clatm—.e., those who could testify as to State Farm’s coverage decision—but also numerous levels above those who supervised the insurance claims investigation, evaluation, and decision-making. Regardless of whether Mr. Keating’s testimony is broadly related to the “subject matter” of their suit (and even that is too far unless the subject matter is simply “ansurance”), Plaintiffs have not 12"}, {"d": 92, "p": 13, "t": "demonstrated Mr. Keating has any information regarding their claims, nor can they, and the Court should quash the deposition for that reason alone. See Chick-fil-A, 2026 OK 13, 4 15-16. Plaintiffs failed to provide any justification for Mr. Keating’s deposition, let alone explain its relevance. See Schultz, Ltd., 2016 WL 3149686, at *3 (a party seeking discovery must “describe with a reasonable degree of specificity, the information they hope to obtain and its importance to their case.”) (citation omitted). In any event, there is no evidence in the record that demonstrates Mr. Keating has unique, relevant testimony regarding any claim or defense in this matter. 1. Mr. Keating Has No Unique, Relevant Information Regarding the FME. Plaintiffs’ institutional allegations center on the FME, which was an effort by State Farm to improve the accuracy and quality of its wind/hail claim handling by conducting additional training, increasing management involvement, and improving file documentation. Even if the FME were relevant—and State Farm maintains it is not—Plaintiffs cannot articulate any unique testimony Mr. Keating would be able to offer connected to their FME-related allegations that would not be provided, deposition of State and former State or has not been provided already, in the corporate representative Farm or the eight other depositions the Court has already ordered of current Farm employees who Plaintiffs contended were involved in the FME. Indeed, Mr. Keating was not involved in the FME (and as Operations Vice President did not even have responsibility for fire property claims until June 2023. (See Ex. 5, Keating Decl. 4.) Notably, in opposing State Farm’s motions to quash the depositions of Mr. Moss, Mr. Herbert, Ms. Manduca, Mr. Welsh, Ms. Ress, Ms. Mazza, and Mr. Smith, Plaintiffs repeatedly argued that those individuals—not Mt. Keating—were the “key” members of the FME initiative and the supposed “architects” of the “scheme.” (See, e.g., Nov. 14, 2025 Pls.’ Consol. Resp. at 2, 3-12.) And Plaintiffs repeatedly represented that Ms. Manduca—not Mr. Keating—was the 13"}, {"d": 92, "p": 14, "t": "“leader” and the “head” of the FME initiative. (See, e.g., id. at 8-10.) Plaintiffs mentioned Mr. Keating not once in that brief. Then, in deposing Mr. Herbert in this case, Plaintiffs’ counsel only mentioned Mr. Keating’s name once when counsel asked Mr. Herbert about an email chain containing an email from Mr. Keating relating to the FPTF—wnot the FME. (See Ex. 4 at 354:11-14.) In West, Plaintiffs’ counsel also deposed Mr. Herbert and took a similar tack in their line of questioning. Plaintiffs’ counsel mentioned Mr. Keating’s name only in the context of the FPTF and that same email chain. (See, e.g., Exhibit 7, West W. Herbert Dep. Tr. at 239:23-240:15.) Despite twice questioning Mr. Herbert—who directly supervised Mr. Keating during the relevant time period— for hours, Plaintiffs’ counsel did not ask Mr. Herbert a single question about Mr. Keating’s involvement in the FME. If Plaintiffs’ reason for deposing Mr. Keating is his purported involvement in the FME, their counsel presumably would have had at least one question for Mr. Herbert about it. They did not.’ See Galmines, 2015 WL 4973626, at *2. As such, the demand for Mr. Keating’s deposition appears intended to harass State Farm and coerce abusive settlements to avoid the burden and expense created by these discovery tactics. See Lachney, 2008 WL 11420069, at *2 (“Efforts to compel the depositions of high ranking officials in large national or international companies ordinarily require a more thorough predicate showing of knowledge of, or involvement in, the matters [at] issue so as to avoid ‘fishing expeditions’ or efforts to unreasonably increase the settlement value of a case.”) (citing Thomas, 48 F.3d 478, 482-83); see also Lewelling v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, 879 F.2d 212, 218 (6th Cir. 1989) (affirming district 7 Similarly, Plaintiffs did not serve a single Interrogatory seeking information on Mr. Keating’s purported involvement in the FME. Cf Nucap Indus., 2017 WL 6059770, at *3 (granting motion for protective order preventing deposition of defendant’s Chairman where, inter alia, plaintiffs had failed to “seek written discovery regarding [the Chairman’s] alleged involvement in, or knowledge of, the acts giving rise to their claims”). 14"}, {"d": 92, "p": 15, "t": "court’s granting of protective order over the plaintiffs’ deposition notice to isurer’s Chairman/CEO where the executive had no personal knowledge of the pertinent facts and plaintiffs offered to cancel the deposition in exchange for settlement talks). 2. The FPTF Is Not Relevant and Mr. Keating Does Not Have Unique, Personal Knowledge. To the extent Plaintiffs seek discovery about the FPTF through Mr. Keating’s deposition, this approach is, at best, perplexing. Plaintiffs have consistently and persistently argued that the FME is at the center of the purported “scheme.” But for the first time in seeking Mr. Farney’s deposition, Plaintiffs alleged that the FPTF somehow was relevant through an unidentified connection to the FME. But the FPTF is not connected to the FME. (See Exhibit 8, N. Manduca Decl. ¥ 6.) Regardless, even if the FPTF were relevant—which it is not—Plaintiffs have already had 12 hours—through two depositions of Mr. Herbert—to obtain testimony regarding that initiative. Plaintiffs do not explain what testimony Mr. Keating could offer that Plaintiffs have not already obtained from Mr. Herbert. What’s more, the Court recently denied State Farm’s motion to quash the deposition of Mr. Farney, State Farm’s CEO—who also attended the FPTF meetings with Mr. Herbert. Plaintiffs do not explain what additional information about the FPTF Mr. Keating could offer that could not be covered in the deposition of Mr. Farney. B. The Deposition of Mr. Keating Is Not Proportional to the Needs of the Case. Even assuming Plaintiffs could demonstrate that Mr. Keating has relevant, unique information, the Court should quash the Keating Notice because his testimony would be wholly disproportionate to the needs of the case. 12 O.S. §§ 3226(B)(1)(a), 3226(B)(2)(c)(3).® This is an ® See also Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Group Ins. Plan, 619 F.3d 1151, 1163 (10th Cir. 2010) (“Rule 26(b), although broad, has never been a license to engage in an unwieldy, burdensome, and speculative fishing expedition.”); Chrisman v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Oklahoma Cuty., No. 15"}, {"d": 92, "p": 16, "t": "individual homeowners’ case involving a contractual dispute for the totaling of a roof that is estimated at $22,000, yet Plaintiffs are demanding a State Farm Operations Vice President prepare for and appear for a deposition despite not being involved in the coverage decisions at issue—and even though the Court has already ordered State Farm to provide eight depositions of other current and former employees. Subjecting an executive like Mr. Keating to a deposition based on speculation he may have information not available from other sources far exceeds the bounds of permissible discovery. Courts routinely recognize that depositions of high-level executives are improper absent a showing that they have unique personal knowledge that could not be obtained from other employees. See Crest Infiniti, IT, 2007 OK 77, {§ 14, 16 (recognizing that a protective order should be issued to prevent an apex deposition if “annoyance, oppression, and undue burden and expense outweigh the need for discovery” on those issues); Schultz, 2016 WL 3149686, at *3 (“Mere speculation that information might be useful will not suffice.”); Galmines, 2015 WL 4973626, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2015) (quashing depositions of high-level executives because relator was unable to rebut the “presumption that a high-level official’s deposition represents a significant burden upon the deponent and that this burden is undue” by establishing that executives had unique personal knowledge that could not be obtained from other employees or less burdensome discovery). At best, Mr. Keating’s testimony would be cumulative of any testimony of those who actually handled Plaintiffs’ claims and, as to the FME or FPTF, would provide no unique information that Plaintiffs could not obtain, or have not already obtained, through the depositions the Court has already ordered. Like the officers in Evans, Mr. Keating has no unique personal knowledge about Plaintiffs’ CIV-17-1309-D, 2020 WL 7033965, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 30, 2020) (“While the scope of discovery is broad, it is not unlimited and is further defined by proportionality considerations.”) (internal cites omitted). 16"}, {"d": 92, "p": 17, "t": "insurance clatim—whether limited to the individual claims or expanded to Plaintiffs’ speculative theories about the claims. See Evans, 216 F.R.D. 515, 516; see also Okla. ex rel. Edmondson, 2009 WL 10694083, at *4. Plaintiffs’ attempt to depose Mr. Keating is nothing more than a classic (and improper) fishing expedition. See Todd, 2019 WL 8272621, at *3. Plaintiffs have not established that Mr. Keating had any connection to, or has any knowledge of, the handling of their claim—nor can they. See Evans, 216 F.R.D. at 518-19. Nor have they established that Mr. Keating has any unique information regarding the FME, the FPTF, or any other “initiative” Plaintiffs contend is relevant to their theory—let alone that any such “initiative” impacted the claim decisions they are challenging. Until Plaintiffs demonstrate what—if any—unique, relevant knowledge Mr. Keating may have relating to their claims, the Court should not allow his deposition to proceed. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion to quash the Keating Notice and for a protective order preventing the deposition of Michael Keating Plaintiffs noticed for September 28, 2026. Respectfully submitted, Se 2 EGE. Carrie B. McNeer, OBA No. 22235 Grant A. Fitz, OBA No. 19806 Nathan A. Miramontes, OBA No. 36212 GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 PH: (918) 595-4800 FAX: (918) 595-4990 cmcneer@gablelaw.com efitz@gablelaw.com nmiramontes@gablelaw.com 17"}, {"d": 92, "p": 18, "t": "-and- Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 PH: (405) 235-5500 FAX:: (405) 235-2875 lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com Diane Lee McGimsey -Admitted Pro Hac Vice SULLIVAN & CROMWELL 1888 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, CA 90067 PH: 310-712-6600 megimseyd@sullcrom.com Erica B. Zolner -Admitted Pro Hac Vice REDGRAVE LLP 230 West Monroe Street, Suite 210, Chicago, IL 60606 PH: 773-720-9169 Tiffany Lynne Powers -Admitted Pro Hac Vice ALSTON & BIRD, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Atlanta, GA 30308 PH: 404-881-7000 Tiffany.pwers@alston.com Attorneys for Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 18"}, {"d": 92, "p": 19, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I do hereby certify that on September 29, 2026, a true, correct and exact copy of the above and foregoing document was served by placing same in the United States mail, with proper postage thereon duly prepaid, to those parties as listed below: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com R. Ryan Deligans, Durbin, Larimore & Bialick 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rdeligans@dlb.net Patrick F. Collogan BIBY LAW FIRM 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 pat@bibylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs See 2 EGS 19"}, {"d": 92, "p": 21, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY and LACY HURSH, § § Plaintiffs, § § V. § Case No.: CJ-2025-2626 § STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY § COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and § MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.,§ § Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF INTENTION TO TAKE ORAL & VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL KEATING TO: All Defendants and their counsel of record. Deponent: Michael Keating Date: September 28, 2026 Time: 9:30 a.m. Location: Bloomington-Normal Marriott Hotel & Conference Center 201 Broadway Ave, Normal, [L In person Method: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230(C), Plaintiffs will take the oral deposition of Michael Keating before a Certified Court Reporter or other officer authorized to administer oaths, at the date, time, and location set forth above, and will continue from day to day until completed. This deposition will be recorded by stenographic and audiovisual means. Dated: September 21, 2026 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Michael Keating Page | of 3"}, {"d": 92, "p": 22, "t": "Respectfully submitted, Plaka Donne Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that on September 21, 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 918.595.4800 918.595-4990 cmceneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com -andLance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Michael Keating Page 2 of 3"}, {"d": 92, "p": 23, "t": "499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com 405.235.5500 405,.235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Blake Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intention to Take Deposition of Michael Keating Page 3 of 3 Senne"}, {"d": 92, "p": 25, "t": "From: Blake Sonne To: John Sanders; Carrie McNeer; Rebeca Matheus: rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten; Jake Denne; Karen Stratton; Autumn Hobbs; Kayli Price; Ryan Deligans; Pat Collogan; Marsha Murray Ce: Grant Fitz; Lance Leffel; David R. Herber; Nathan A. Miramontes; Janet _L. Wright; Christine Hill; Kari Cyrs; Jaylea Subject: A. Allen; Amy H. Jenkins; Kayli Price; Autumn Hobbs; Ryan Deligans Re: Hursh v. State Farm Date: Monday, September 21, 2026 10:01:05 AM Attachments: image001.jpg image002.png image003.jpg image004.jpg image005.jpg image006.jpg image00Q7.jpa image008.jpg image009.jpq image010.png imageQ11.jpg image012.jpg image013.png image014.ong imageQ15.ong image016.png image017.png Hursh - Depo SDT to Ezekiel Waite.pdf Hursh - Notice of Deposition - Michael Keating FINAL.pdf External email — beware of links and attachments Lance and Carrie, Please advise on Mr. Caylao/Seek Now as soon as you can. In addition, please find attached a Notice for Deposition of Operations Vice President Michael Keating, set for September 28, 2026 in Bloomington. Please advise if State Farm will agree to produce Mr. Keating and we can work on an agreeable date. Otherwise, we will get this issue before the Court. Finally, please find attached a subpoena for deposition for Ezekiel Waite. We have put a temporary date for October 2\" but are waiting to hear back from Mr. Waite as to whether that date or some other dates will work better for him and will update and let you know as needed. Thank you. BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, Or COUNSEL SIGNATURE_1102629327 a 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax bsonne(@whittenburragelaw.com | 405.664.2919 Cell www. whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you."}, {"d": 92, "p": 26, "t": "From: John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com> Date: Friday, September 18, 2026 at 1:47 PM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>, Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten” <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins\" <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Just to clarify, will State Farm be representing Mark Caylao and presenting him for his deposition? | realize | may have put the cart before the horse. Respectfully, John Scott Sanders Attorney 7] 512 N. Broadway Avenue Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 Jjsanders(@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com If the recipient of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and unauthorized. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by return e-mail and delete this message from your computer. Thank you."}, {"d": 92, "p": 27, "t": "From: John Sanders Sent: Friday, September 18, 2026 1:40 PM To: ‘Carrie McNeer’ <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@clb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Carrie, Thank you for providing dates on Mr. Feller, we are working on verifying. What about Mark Caylao with Seek Now? Have you obtained his availability? Thanks! Respectfully, John Scott Sanders Attorney a 512 N. Broadway Avenue Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com If the recipient of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and unauthorized. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by return e-mail and delete this message from your computer. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>"}, {"d": 92, "p": 28, "t": "Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2026 1:47 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; Reggie N. Whitten <cwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz7@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <pmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Blake, We can present Conrad Feller in San Antonio on October 27 or 28. Let me know which date works best, and we are working on a location. Thanks, Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 1:40 PM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dib.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chiil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm"}, {"d": 92, "p": 29, "t": "External email — beware of links and attachments That works, thanks! BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, Or COUNSEL SIGNATURE_3822861927 1? 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonnei@ whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 at 1:35 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins\" <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Thanks, Blake. We will present JR at Professional Reporters in Tulsa on October 26 at 9:30AM."}, {"d": 92, "p": 30, "t": "Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 1:28 PM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments Yes Oct 26\" works for JR Phillips. We want to depose Feller in person. Thanks! BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL SIGNATURE_466599110 Bi $12 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 at 12:16 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@ whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten"}, {"d": 92, "p": 31, "t": "<hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins\" <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Blake/John, Following up on the below. Does October 26 work for JR Phillips? Also, Conrad Feller is located in San Antonio. Are you planning to depose him in person or via Zoom? Thanks, Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Carrie McNeer Sent: Friday, September 11, 2026 9:56 AM To: ‘Blake Sonne’ <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>: Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm We will issue Amended Notices for the Plaintiffs."}, {"d": 92, "p": 32, "t": "Does October 26 work for JR Phillips? Thanks, Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2026 4:32 PM To: Carrie McNeer <cmecneer@gablelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>: rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Ce: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <|leffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments Carrie, I think both John and I responded with emails last night (see below 9:08pm last night) about this as we were offering the 22 and 23 for the Hurshes due to their work schedule so were asking for alternative dates for Phillps. 10am in Tulsa works for Wood on Oct 29. Let me know — thanks! BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL SIGNATURE_3251235207 a $12N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405, 516. 7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell www, whittenburr. agelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the"}, {"d": 92, "p": 33, "t": "telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Date: Thursday, September 10, 2026 at 4:23 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins” <ajenkins@gablelaw.cam>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Blake, | sent an email earlier this afternoon offering to present Phillips on October 22. See attached. We will present him at PR Tulsa. Just let us know what time you want to start the depos on October 22 and 29. | will work on the SeekNow inspector. Thanks, Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2026 4:18 PM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>: Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>;"}, {"d": 92, "p": 34, "t": "Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments Hey Carrie, Please let us know dates on Phillips...we also want dates for Seek Now inspector Mark Caylao. Please provide some dates for him as well. Thanks! BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL SIGNATURE_1737983080 7] $12. N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www. whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 at 9:08 PM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dib.net> Ce: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\""}, {"d": 92, "p": 35, "t": "<dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins\" <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm Actually, I think we were going to offer the 22\" and 23 for the Hursh’s due to their work schedule they need to do TH or FR. John, can you confirm? Can you provide some alternative dates for Phillps? BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL SIGNATURE_1697063885 Bl 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne(@whittenburragelaw.com www. whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 at 9:06 PM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@ whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <nwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dib.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins\" <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm"}, {"d": 92, "p": 36, "t": "Carrie, We will make Oct 22\"4 work for Phillips. Where is he located? Mark Wood on Oct 29\" at PR in Tulsa works for him. BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL SIGNATURE_878860953 Bi 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax bsonne(@whittenburragelaw.com www. whittenburragelaw.com | 405.664.2919 Cell The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 at 4:46 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@ whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dib.net> Ce: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins” <ajenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Blake/John, Have we gotten new dates for the Plaintiffs’ depositions? We can present JR Phillips on October 22. Please let me know if that works for your side."}, {"d": 92, "p": 37, "t": "Thanks, Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 11:10 AM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>: John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>: Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@clb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright @gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments Ok sounds good, thanks! BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, Or COUNSEL SIGNATURE_2775690708 L?| 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne(@ whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Date: Friday, September 4, 2026 at 11:06 AM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders"}, {"d": 92, "p": 38, "t": "<jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes” <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins” <ajenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Yes, he is in the Tulsa area. | can present him at PR in Tulsa. Thanks. Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 8:18 AM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten @whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chiil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jalen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments Thank you Carrie. Let’s do the 29\" Is he located in Oklahoma lam assuming? If so let’s do PR in okc. Thanks! Blake Sonne Attorney, Of Counsel"}, {"d": 92, "p": 39, "t": "512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516. 7800 Tel | 4405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell www. whittenburrace law.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 12:32 PM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Blake, TM Mark Wood can be available October 29 or 30. Let me know if either of those dates would work. Thanks, Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 11:49 AM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>: Jake"}, {"d": 92, "p": 40, "t": "Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dib.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <pmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright @gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments Thank you Blake Sonne Attorney, Of Counsel signature_1997176144 a 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne(@ whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Date: Thursday, September 3, 2026 at 11:48 AM To: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.cam>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.cam>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <pwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@wnhittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dib.net> Ce: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.cam>, Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs"}, {"d": 92, "p": 41, "t": "<kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H. Jenkins’ 1 <aienkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm Yes, | will work on getting you dates for these people. Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: Blake Sonne <psonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 11:45 AM To: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>: Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenourragelaw.com: Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <idenne@whittenburrageaw.com>; Karen Stratton <xstratton@whittenourrageiaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice @whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dib net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@cdib.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gabielaw.com>; Lance Leffel <|leffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <cherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>: Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>: Kari Cyrs <keyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: Re: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments Thank you Carrie...can you also get us dates in October for CS Jr Phillips, TM Mark Wood, and ECR Conrad Feller? We will need copies of their personnel files as well prior to the depos if those have not already been produced. Thanks! Blake Sonne Attorney, Of Counsel signature_3213685148 1? 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you."}, {"d": 92, "p": 42, "t": "From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com> Date: Thursday, September 3, 2026 at 11:34 AM To: John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurrav@dlb.net> Ce: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>, Lance Leffel </leffel@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.cam>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>, Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"Jaylea A. Allen\" <jallen@gablelaw.com>, \"Amy H., Jenkins” <ajienkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm John, Once we get new agreed dates, we will send second amended notices. I’ll look for new proposed dates. Thanks for letting us know. Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: John Sanders <jsanders@wohittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 11:31 AM To: Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>: Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <korice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <giltz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lleffe|@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <cherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gaplelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>: Carrie McNeer <cmceneer@gaplelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm External email — beware of links and attachments"}, {"d": 92, "p": 43, "t": "Carrie and All, iam very sorry, but | was premature on the dates | gave you for Billy and Lacy Hursh for October and missed several conflicts on our end for October 8 and 9. That is my mistake and apologies for missing this before you issued your amended notices. Could we please try this again, and | will make sure we get you better dates that work for us, the client, and your firm? We are working on alternative dates ASAP. Again, this is my mistake alone. Respectfully, John Scott Sanders Attorney 7] 512 N. Broadway Avenue Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 jsanders(@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com If the recipient of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and unauthorized. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by return e-mail and delete this message from your computer. Thank you. From: Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gabielaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 10:45 AM To: John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; Reggie N. Whitten <rpwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice @ whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rceligans@clo.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dib.net> Cc: Grant Fitz <gfitz@gablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <leffel\\@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <cherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gaplelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.cam>: Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins@gablelaw.com>; Carrie McNeer <cmecneer@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm"}, {"d": 92, "p": 44, "t": "Good morning, Please see attached the amended notices. A hard copy will be placed in the mail to you. Rebeca Matheus | 918-595-4984 | GableGotwals From: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@eableiaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 8:29 AM To: John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburrageiaw.com>; Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gabielaw.com>; rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@wnhittenourragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <korice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Ce: Grant Fitz <glitz@egablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <leffel@gabielaw.com>; David R. Herber <cherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@ganlelaw.com>: Janet L. Wright <jwright@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jalen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <alenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm John, Thanks for getting backto me. We will send amended notices for October 8 and 9. Thanks, Carrie Carrie McNeer She/Her/Hers | 918-595-4888 | GableGotwals From: John Sanders <jsancers@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 6:21 PM To: Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>: rwhitten@wnhittenburragelaw.com:; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <awhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <|denne@whittenburragelaw.com>: Karen Stratton <kstratton@wnhittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburrageiaw.com>; Kayll Price <korice@whittenburragelaw.cam>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net> Ce: Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>: Grant Fitz <gefitz@gabielaw.com>; Lance Leffel <jeffel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dnerber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwrignt@gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chil@gablelaw.com>: Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jJalen@gab Amy H. Jenkins <alenkins@gablelaw.com> Subject: RE: Hursh v. State Farm claw.com>:"}, {"d": 92, "p": 45, "t": "External email — beware of links and attachments Carrie, In response to your letter, we have obtained the following dates of availability from Billy and Lacy Hursh for their depositions: 10/8-10/9, and 10/22-10/23. Please let us know if any of these will work for you. We are also working on getting our pared-down witness list to you asap. Thank you! Respectfully, John Scott Sanders Attorney a 312 N. Broadway Avenue Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com If the recipient of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and unauthorized. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by return e-mail and delete this message from your computer. Thank you. From: Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2026 4:51 PM To: Reggie N. Whitten <nwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders(@whittenburragelaw.com>; Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>; Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs(@ whittenburragelaw.com>; Kayli Price <kprice(@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Pat Collogan <pat(@bibylaw.com>; Marsha Murray <mmurray(@dlb.net> Ce: Carrie McNeer <cmecneer@gablelaw.com>; Grant Fitz <gfitz@eablelaw.com>; Lance Leffel <lletfel@gablelaw.com>; David R. Herber <dherber@gablelaw.com>; Nathan A. Miramontes <nmiramontes(@gablelaw.com>; Janet L. Wright <jwright@ gablelaw.com>; Christine Hill <chill@gablelaw.com>; Kari Cyrs <keyrs@gablelaw.com>; Jaylea A. Allen <jallen@gablelaw.com>; Amy H. Jenkins <ajenkins(@gablelaw.com> Subject: Hursh v. State Farm"}, {"d": 92, "p": 46, "t": "Good afternoon, Please see attached a letter from Carrie McNeer. A hard copy has been placed in the mail to you. a Rebeca Matheus | Litigation Legal Assistant | GableGotwals (w) 918-595-4984 | (f) 918-595-4990 | rmatheus(@gablelaw.com 110 N. Elgin Ave., Ste. 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1495 | USA | www-.gablelaw.com | This message and any attachments are for the addressee only and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received this in error, please notify me immediately and permanently delete the message and any prints or other copies."}, {"d": 92, "p": 48, "t": "From: Blake Sonne To: Lance Leffel; Karen Stratton; Carrie McNeer; Rebeca Matheus; Janet L. Wright; Kari Cyrs; David R. Herber; Nathan A. Miramontes ca: rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com; Hannah Whitten; John Sanders; Jake Denne; Autumn Hobbs; Kayli Price; Brad Beskin; Marsha Murray; Ryan Deligans; Pat Collogan Subject: Re: Hursh/Faust v. State Farm - Writ Denial & Discovery Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 5:06:53 PM Attachments: Hursh - State Farm - Notice to Take Deposition of Jon Farney.pdf External email — beware of links and attachments Counsel, This email follows my email below as well as Reggie and I’s phone call with Lance earlier today. As I mentioned to Lance, we will be filing a motion to enforce in the morning and request expedited enforcement from Judge Palumbo considering the 8-month delay in producing documents and corporate/executive depositions. We intend to discuss these issues with the Court at our hearing on our Second Motion to Compel on Tuesday July 7\" We prefer to work with State Farm on dates for Ress, Herbert, Moss, and the corporate representative depositions but we have still not received any dates. Please advise. In addition, please find attached the Notice of Deposition for Jon Farney for July 20, 2026, former State Farm Sr. VP, Treasurer, and CFO as well as current CEO. Farney’s involvement in the FME, P&C tactics and Wind/Hail success, his knowledge of indemnity reductions on FME Wind/Hail as well as his direct involvement in State Farm’s Fix Profit Task Force, which directly involved Wind/Hail claims are all directly related to State Farm’s FME and continued work to maintain its momentum on reducing indemnity in Wind/Hail claims. Moreover, as the CFO receiving direct reports on financials from Wind/Hail claims, Farney has direct knowledge of indemnity reductions and other financials related to the FME and subsequent plans by SF. In fact, during the very timeframe of the Hursh’s claim, Farney was receiving monthly Fire Claims Trends on a rolling 12month basis, specifically discussing Wind/Hail results. The Fire Trends were sent specifically to Wensley Herbert and Jon Farney. Similarly, Farney was a key participant in the Fix Profit Task Force during the time of the Hursh’s claim. State Farm executives including Farney discussed continued improvements in P&C profits from building on the momentum of the FME and “quality results” from Wind/Hail indemnity and FRR to PRR ratio reductions. Again, the documents show this occurring during the very time of the Hursh’s claim and adjustment. We have noticed the deposition for OKC or Bloomington, IL and will work with you to coordinate per your preferred location like we offered with Ress, Herbert, and Moss. Thank you. BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, OF COUNSEL SIGNATURE_3768441789 1? 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne(@ whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work-"}, {"d": 92, "p": 49, "t": "product. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com> Date: Monday, June 29, 2026 at 7:54 AM To: Lance Leffel <lleffel@gablelaw.com>, Karen Stratton <kstratton@whittenburragelaw.com>, Carrie McNeer <cmcneer@gablelaw.com>, Rebeca Matheus <rmatheus@gablelaw.com>, \"Janet L. Wright\" <jwright@gablelaw.com>, Kari Cyrs <kcyrs@gablelaw.com>, \"David R. Herber\" <dherber@gablelaw.com>, \"Nathan A. Miramontes\" <nmiramontes@gablelaw.com> Cc: \"Reggie N. Whitten\" <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>, Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>, John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>, Jake Denne <jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com>, Autumn Hobbs <ahobbs@whittenburragelaw.com>, Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>, Brad Beskin <bbeskin@whittenburragelaw.com>, Marsha Murray <mmurray@dlb.net>, Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>, Pat Collogan <pat@bibylaw.com> Subject: Hursh/Faust v. State Farm - Writ Denial & Discovery Counsel, This email follows the Supreme Court’s order last week denying the writ of prohibition taken on Judge Palumbo’s rulings on (1) the motion to compel; (2) the motion to quash executive depositions; and (3) the motion to quash the corporate representative deposition of State Farm. We are seeking immediate compliance with these discovery rulings and this email serves as our request for State Farm to provide an update in its compliance without Court intervention. As you know, State Farm’s documents were ordered to be produced back in December 2025 and also in March 2026. The documents in December were documents from previous cases under RFP #44. We expect immediate production of these bates stamped numbers from the previous cases. With respect to the rest of the document production, we expect full compliance with 12 O.S. § 3234(B)(2)(e)(1), which requires a producing party to produce documents “as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request.” (emphasis added). Oklahoma law does not allow a “document dump” to force Plaintiffs to sift through thousands of pages to try and locate responsive documents. This may also deny any opportunity to examine a corporate designee and/or verifying agent as to any supplementation made. Such practices fail to comply with the specificity obligations the discovery code. See Low v. OMNI Life Sci., Inc., No. CIV-18-305-SLP, 2020 WL 12787583, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 5, 2020) (producing party must identify document on which they rely by numbers so that there can be no dispute at trial what documents to which the producing party is referring to); Crest Res., Inc. v. Dan Blocker Petroleum Consultants, Inc., No. 09-CV-766-TCK-PJC, 2013 WL 618865, at *1 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 19, 2013) (sufficient to compel supplementation to discovery to identify by bates the documents that correspond to each of the specific document where the supplementation made had no apparent organizational structure to the production). In addition, any blanket designation of confidentiality does not comply with the Oklahoma"}, {"d": 92, "p": 50, "t": "Discovery Code and we will seek immediate action with the Court to de-designate documents under a blanket confidentiality designation as was done in the West case. With respect to the executive depositions, please provide dates and proposed locations in July for Herbert, Ress, Welsh, and Moss. We will issue notices this week if we cannot reach an agreement on these depositions. We intend to issue other executive deposition notices this week. On the corporate representative deposition, please also provide names/topics and proposed dates and locations. The writ process delayed this case by almost 8 months. We do not intent to move any trial date and therefore request assistance in these discovery matters without court intervention. Please advise as soon as possible. Thank you. BLAKE SONNE ATTORNEY, Or COUNSEL SIGNATURE _633434822 ai 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 | Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.516.7800 Tel | 405.516.7859 Fax | 405.664.2919 Cell bsonne(@ whittenburragelaw.com www.whittenburragelaw.com The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney workproduct. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you."}, {"d": 92, "p": 52, "t": "(800) 528 - 3335 NAEGELIUSA.COM COURT REPORTING LEGAL VIDEOGRAPHY REMOTE DEPOSITIONS TRIAL PRESENTATION LEGAL TRANSCRIPTION COPYING AND SCANNING LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS Py, LITIGATION & SUPPORT NAEGELTI|! (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 92, "p": 53, "t": "APPEARANCES Appearing on behalf BLAKE SONNE, REGGIE WHITTEN, Whitten Burrage 512 N (844) the Plaintiffs: ESQUIRE ESQUIRE Broadway Oklahoma of Avenue, City, OK Suite 300 73102 246-6569 10 bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com 11 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com 12 13 Appearing 14 Fire 15 LANCE LEFFEL, ESQUIRE 16 Gable Gotwals Counsel 17 499 Sheridan Avenue, 18 Oklahoma 19 (405) 20 lleffel@gablelaw.com & W on behalf Casualty City, of Company OK the Defendants State Farm 2200 Park Plaza) and Suite (BOK 73102 235-5500 21 22 -and- 23 24 25 NAEGELI|( (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 92, "p": 54, "t": "APPEARANCES DIANE L. Sullivan MCGIMSEY, and 1888 Century Los Angeles, (310) ESQUIRE Cromwell LLP Park Suite CA (CONTINUED) E, 2100 90067 712-6600 mcgimseyd@sullcrom.com 10 -and- 11 12 BRICA 13 Redgrave 14 230 15 Chicago, 16 (312) 17 ezolner@redgravellp.com B. W ZOLNER, ESQUIRE LLP Monroe Street, IL Suite 210 60606 800-1968 18 19 ALSO PRESENT: 20 Bobby Lenahan 21 Witness) 22 Mark 23 Hannah Whitten, Assistant 24 Walter Haskin, Expert 25 Jess on Romano, Bryan, behalf Expert Naegeli of Chris Young (Expert Witness Witness Technician NAEGELI|( (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 92, "p": 55, "t": "EXAMINATION INDEX PAGE EXAMINATION BY MR. SONNE EXAMINATION BY MS. MCGIMSEY FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. 10 399 SONNE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NAEGELI|( (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM 417"}, {"d": 92, "p": 56, "t": "NO Q. How you WH A. Y-i. & Q. So my operational you? Vice understanding is you have a series presidents that report vice 10 Five. 11 Q. Are 12 division 13 A. Yeah, 14 Q. Okay. 15 A. Yep. 16 Q. Who or 18 homeowners' 19 A. 20 report I many? type broken of a are the you that So down by to particular bit of both. operational Michael He has vice are -- would Keating is an responsibility Millicent president 23 are governance and 24 fire claims. So Q. directly claim? little 22 25 of do. they to President presidents cover claims? president. 21 name? Senior How that last the Yes, 17 the as YP P&C, spell currently, Oo of do Pr Oo Yi. HS Robert ~“ A. who has Okay. Roth is her area -- an oversight she's And also then operations for fire & TRIAL claims. operations vice of responsibilities area over connected those both to | NAEGELIUSA.COM auto that. operational NAEGELI|( (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION vice vice and"}, {"d": 92, "p": 57, "t": "you DH work our way back, WwW left or the page -- you're before. -- we're going to Michael Roper -- page, \"The briefly cover sorry. says at approach the bottom of that for Tuesday is to a high level the November trends at the majority of time focusing content.\" read that correctly? then if Did I Sir, 10 A. Yes, 11 Q. Okay. 12 turning 13 Schulkins 14 Christensen? 15 A. 16 Operations. 17 18 the 21 left, And Michael and John on Q. Is he in A. He -- he's -- fire claims. Q. Okay. Fire side. He with -- the go sends Christensen. Christensen the claims fire he's spending specific upwards and keep an to Matt President of Who is yes, before Claims you Keating John 20 turn to the tentative 19 going to DH Q. so page aS Oh, the © A. turn wo Ss If WwW Q. email is Vice John side? a fire -- he's I was gone on next week's FPTF being you see email -- all right. 22 23 \"claims\" 24 bottom? 25 A. says focused Yes, do that Sir. NAEGELI|( (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM at the in"}, {"d": 92, "p": 59, "t": "DECLARATION OF MICHAEL KEATING I, Michael Keating, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the following is true and correct: l. I am over the age of 21 years, of sound mind, legally capable of making this Declaration, and have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Declaration. 2. I am currently Operations Vice President at State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), with responsibility for fire property claims. I have been in my current position since October 2, 2021. I have been a State Farm employee since 1993. 3. I do not oversee the day-to-day handling of insurance claims, including the homeowners’ policies issued by State Farm. There are multiple levels of management between my position and the claims teams that adjust claims. 4. In my current role as Operations Vice President, I receive updates and/or reporting that at times include information concerning quality initiatives and enterprise-wide trends. It is my understanding that Plaintiffs in this case are seeking testimony about State Farm’s F ire Model Enhancement (the “FME”). I was not involved in the FME. For nearly a decade prior to June 2023, my roles involved only auto claims. I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 0/29/2026 (Date) Uf lake (Signature)"}, {"d": 92, "p": 61, "t": "ORIGINAL LOUIE 1059561 039% SUPRENE IN THE SUPREME ENTERPRISES, Petitioner, ATE OF OKLAHOMA SEP 24 2024 JOHN D. HADD CLERK EN et INC., ee WERNER COURT OF THE STATE OF oKLaHoma® COURT No. 122,385 ee ee V. ee ee THE HONORABLE KORY KIRKLAND, et ee Respondent, and ee ae JODI CROSS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of RAE ANN DARROW, deceased, TIMOTHY CLEMONS and MICHAEL DENNIS PECK, mrad Mailed. TAA! pistrub____9¢\"1 Publish___ Nee Defendants. Posted ee and Ne ee ae Rec'd (date) AT yA yes” no ORDER Original Werner jurisdiction Enterprises, is assumed. Inc.’s Okla. Const. to assume application granted. A writ of mandamus art. 7, § 4. original Petitioner jurisdiction is is issued to Caddo County District Judge Kory Kirkland, or any assigned judge, in Jodi Cross, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rae Anne Darrow, deceased v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., et. Al., CJ-2021-47. Respondent’s certain documents proportionality December 20, 2023 compelling as Respondent is unenforceable, test as outlined Order in Title 1 12 O.S., did Section production of not consider the 3226(B)(2)(c), in"}, {"d": 92, "p": 62, "t": "determining the relevancy of the requested documents. Respondent, any other assigned judge, or a special master appointed by the district court shall review the discovery requests at issue and consider the proportionality factors stated in 12 O.S. Section 3226 (B(2)(c) along with all other statutory requirements before ruling on the discovery disputes. DONE BY THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE ON THE _23rd_ __—s DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024. CHIEF JUSTICE CONCUR: DISSENT: KANE, C.J., and WINCHESTER, GURICH, DARBY and KUEHN, JJ. ROWE, V.C.J., and KAUGER, EDMONDSON and COMBS, JJ."}, {"d": 92, "p": 64, "t": "(800) 528 - 3335 NAEGELIUSA.COM COURT REPORTING LEGAL VIDEOGRAPHY REMOTE DEPOSITIONS TRIAL PRESENTATION LEGAL TRANSCRIPTION COPYING AND SCANNING LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS Py, LITIGATION & SUPPORT NAEGELTI|! (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 92, "p": 65, "t": "APPEARANCES Appearing on behalf HANNAH WHITTEN, BLAKE SONNE, BURRAGE, Whitten Burrage North Oklahoma the Plaintiffs: ESQUIRE ESQUIRE MICHAEL 512 of ESQUIRE Broadway Avenue, City, 73102 OK (Via Zoom) Suite 10 (405) 11 hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com 12 bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com 13 mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com 14 -and- 15 R. 16 Durbin 17 920 18 Oklahoma 19 (405) 20 rdeligans@dlb.net 21 -and- 300 516-7800 RYAN DELIGANS, Larimore North ESQUIRE & Bialick Harvey City, OK Avenue 73102 235-9584 22 23 24 25 NAEGELI|( (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 92, "p": 66, "t": "APPEARANCES COLBY A. STEPHENSON, Burgess 21 & (CONTINUED) ESQUIRE (Via Zoom) Hightower Northwest 44th Lawton, OK (580) 355-8920 Street, Room 201 73505 colby@burgess-hightower.com 10 Appearing on 11 TIMILA S. ROTHER, ESQUIRE 12 Crowe and Dunlevy PC 13 324 North Robinson Avenue, 14 Oklahoma City, 73102 15 (405) 16 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com 17 -and- behalf OK of Defendants Suite and the 100 235-7700 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NAEGELI|( (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM Deponent:"}, {"d": 92, "p": 67, "t": "APPEARANCES ERICA B. ZOLNER, Redgrave LLP 230 Monroe West Chicago, (312) IL (CONTINUED) ESQUIRE Street, Suite 210 60606 800-1968 ezolner@redgravellp.com -and- 10 11 TIFFANY L. 12 Alston and 13 1201 14 Atlanta, 15 (404) 16 tiffany.powers@alston.com 17 -and- West POWERS, ESQUIRE Bird Peachtree GA Street, Suite 4900 30309 881-4249 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NAEGELI|( (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 92, "p": 68, "t": "APPEARANCES DIANE L. Sullivan MCGIMSEY, and 1888 Century Los Angeles, (310) ESQUIRE Cromwell Park CA (CONTINUED) LLP East 90067 712-6600 mcgimseyd@sullcrom.com 10 Also Present: 11 Mark Romano, 12 Walter Haskin, Expert Witness 13 Autumn Hobbs, Assistant to 14 Jess Bryan, Expert Naegeli Witness (via Zoom) (via Whitten Zoom) Law Firm Technician 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NAEGELI|( (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM"}, {"d": 92, "p": 69, "t": "that testimony? A. Yes, sir. Q. And those -- the executives and other year, were CEO, meetings the executives, of COO, right? the Happened A. Yeah, Q. I'm This is that's showing you what's three times marked as back several an email chain, goes emails pages, and like most of 11 to back and then work your if you turn to of this email, exhibit or the I'm the 12 So 13 I guess 14 last 15 page. the beginning page of 16 A. Yeah. Can 17 through real quick. 18 Q. 19 profit 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Do 22 A. Yeah. 23 Q. Are fixed profit A. Yes, 25 yourself a correct. 10 the CFO, correct? 28. 24 certain it that The task title these I -- of this way the you Exhibit have to go which is up. last page, it second would be to last going to go email is the fixed were you ever a just the force. you you I see that? on the task force? -- was. NAEGELI|( (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM part of"}, {"d": 92, "p": 70, "t": "Okay. A. I the last Okay. A. Yeah. Q. So wa Q. would include oOo m on ow here ever a part Who's think HD GW Q. on there was -- well, that those would Michael include the fixed was his Yes. 10 Q. What 11 A. He was the operations the Was Michael Keating task force? vice president president over profit role? operations claims. 14 Q. Does 15 A. He 16 Q. What was his role in -- hail claim handling in the last A. He has fire claims. 20 Q. Okay. 21 claims 18 19 for on report does, yes. And A. Yes, 23 Q. So how We don't 25 force to prior you? in homeowners five wind years? operational responsibilities that wind includes and all fire hail often claims. does the fixed profit meet? A. over homeowners? 22 24 vice he just there? That 13 and on Farney. -- 17 it's Jon 12 is think individuals Tipsord. A. he I page. All of that? have them anymore -- NAEGELI|( (800) 528-3335 DEPOSITION & TRIAL | NAEGELIUSA.COM task"}, {"d": 93, "p": 1, "t": "TERME: 8 we oisreicr court oF oxtasoms ceawermn District couR f STATE OF OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA SEP BILLY & LACY HURSH, 3 COUNTY 0 2026 RICK WARREN COURT CLERK Plaintiffs, 88 v. Case No. CJ-2025-2626 STATE FARM Honorable Amy Palumbo FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. CORRECTED NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY ON STATE FARM’S EXECUTIVES’ KNOWLEDGE OF BAD FAITH TACTICS AND OUTCOME-BASED CLAIM HANDLING COME NOW the Plaintiffs, Billy and Lacy Hursh, and hereby provide Corrected! Notice to the Court of Supplemental Authority on State Farm’s Executives’ Knowledge of Bad Faith Tactics and Outcome-Based Claim Handling. This supplement is to bring clarity to and correct the records at multiple hearings before this Court, including but not limited to the September 1, 2026 hearing on State Farm’s Motion for a Protective Order and to Quash Plaintiffs’ Deposition Notice of State Farm’s Chief Executive Officer Jon Farney, wherein State Farm has argued to this Court that State Farm’s CEO has no knowledge of State Farm’s bad faith tactics and outcome-based claim handling targeted at reducing indemnity payouts on wind/hail property damage and/or roof replacement claims before those claims ever occurred pursuant to the Wind/Hail Focus Initiative. To clear the record as to State Farm’s false arguments and in considering the Court’s September 28, 2026 Court Minute that de-designated 11 documents, Plaintiffs hereby file Exhibit ' The exhibit stickers were deleted when originally submitted for filing. The only correction herein are the exhibit stickers. 17"}, {"d": 93, "p": 2, "t": "(remarked and re-attached hereto as Exhibit 1) attached to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike State Farm’s Blanket Confidentiality Assertion and De-Designate Documents Produced for Good Cause (filed Aug. 4, 2026) and Exhibit 16 (re-marked and re-attached hereto as Exhibit 2) attached to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate (filed Sept. 23, 2026). Exhibits 1 and 2 attached hereto were both included in the Court’s September 28, 2026 Court Minute on de-designation and are no longer confidential. These documents attached to this Notice are crucial due to numerous State Farm executives’ depositions taking place in Judge Palumbo’s courtroom, as well as CEO Jon Farney’s deposition that was ordered by this Court and is currently scheduled to take place on October 19, 2026. Plaintiffs have the right to use these documents at these upcoming depositions to shed light on contradictory statements made by State Farm’s attorneys in court and by the State Farm executives whose testimony has differed greatly between this case and the West case in Comanche County. According to State Farm when it receives notices for deposition, the executives who were essential to State Farm’s work with Accenture have no unique fact knowledge. See e.g. 10/24/2025 SF MTQ Ress Notice at p. 9 (“Ms. Ress has no unique knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ insurance claims.”). However, key discovery in this case shows that Ms. Ress was one of four Vice Presidents who served as an executive lead on State Farm’s work with Accenture. See Ex. 2, HURO0156099 (“The Exec leads ... Kathy,”). Exhibit 2 is a document titled “Executive Summary — Op Model ~ 9.10.20” which Accenture was involved with the development of. This operations model which Accenture worked with State Farm on contains blatant bad faith plotting to reduce claim payouts and develop “outcome-based"}, {"d": 93, "p": 3, "t": "claim handling:” a * Move coverage (and liability) decisions earlier in the lifecycle through insights acceleration and workflow integration + Vendors are empowered to make decisions and pass conclusions along to move claim forward + Expansion of automation for downstream * Insights driven workflow optimizes inspection option presentation driving vendor network or activities allows minimal touch for claim resolution virtual inspections only + Damage Evaluation partners engage to + Estimators and vendor footprint is optimized to maintain and increase virtual inspection % accelerate virtual estimating capabilities & + Shift from calendar-based workflow to intelligent accuracy + Claim classification Informs skill-based routing and o t . 4 claim handling. ] inventory prioritization and task surfacing pera + Auto & Fire Model Enhancement teams are optimized for ‘speciatized handling’ footprint 4 intervention and escalation wit be allow narrowed yet priodlized management structure » Claim characteristics are analyzed at intake to predict exposure & path EXPFSE , aspRarions 3a ecteams - “™ $218M-$300M * ) $325M - ssoom a See Ex. 16 at HURO0156103. It is pure bad faith and a gross violation of the duties owed to firstparty insureds that State Farm hired Accenture to develop an operations model for “outcome-based claim handling.” As such, this document cannot be considered privileged. Oklahoma law is clear that an insurer can never treat its insureds as an adversary, and engaging in outcome-based claim handling to save State Farm $218-$300 million dollars on claims that have not happened yet is the most adversarial conduct an insurance company could engage in. Newport v. USAA, 2000 OK 59, 4 15, 11 P.3d 190 (“An insurer may not treat its own insured in the manner in which an insurer may treat third-party claimants to whom no duty of good faith and fair dealing is owed and cannot offer less than an internal evaluation of how much the claim is worth.”); Furthermore, this same operations model is where the “Fire Model Enhancement” or “FME” is developed and implemented to reduce claim payments for an “efficiency aspiration” to the tune of “$218M-$300M” in the pockets of State Farm. See id, It even discusses leadership"}, {"d": 93, "p": 4, "t": "intervention or what becomes team manager review required of full roof replacements to the estimated “efficiency aspiration” of “$325M-$500M.” See id. Outcome-based claim handling is inappropriate because Oklahoma law and the duty of good faith and fair dealing requires each claim be handled on the merits and based on the policy terms. See e.g. Beers v. Hillory, 2010 OK CIV APP 99, 4 30, 241 P.3d 285 (“The Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act can provide the district court for guidance in determining whether particular conduct on the part of an insurer is unreasonable and sufficient to constitute a basis for a bad faith claim.”); 36 O.S. § 1250.5(1-2) (Provision of the Oklahoma Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act) (“‘l. 1. Failing to fully disclose to first-party claimants, benefits, coverages, or other provisions of any insurance policy or insurance contract when the benefits, coverages or other provisions are pertinent to a claim;2. Knowingly misrepresenting to claimants pertinent facts or policy provisions relating to coverages at issue[.]”);36 O.S. § 1250.7 (Provision of the Oklahoma Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act) (“No property and casualty insurer shall deny a claim because of a specific policy provision, condition, or exclusion unless reference to such provision, condition, or exclusion is included in the denial. A denial shall be given to any claimant in writing, and the claim file of the property and casualty insurer shall contain a copy of the denial.”); Christian v. American Home Assur. Co., 1977 OK 141, 4 12, 577 P.2d 899 (An insurer must act fairly when adjusting a claim.); Milroy v, Allstate Ins. Co., 2007 OK CIV APP 6, 18, 151 P.3d 922 (“The duty of good faith and fair dealing is inherent in every contract of insurance.”). Furthermore, improvement, HURO00031476. following: the same yet remains She also the executive discussed largest area of opportunity “quality indicators discusses how “coverage related trending is the strongest area of to FED$.” positively” See Ex. 2, including the"}, {"d": 93, "p": 5, "t": "ae a a a sa Other quality indicators trending positively Include: May 2021 Total Roof to Partial Roof Replacement down from 4.1 in June 2020 to 2.3 2021 in May Wind/Hail estimate payment bands over $10,000 decreased 13% YOY Wind Cat/(NCAT CWP/Reported ratio is up 7.7 at 32.3 R12 (10YR CAGR is 25.2); Hail Cat/NCAT CWP/Reported ratio is up 15.7 at 34.7 R12 (10YR CAGR is 22.9) sa See Ex. 2. State Farm leadership is openly bragging about total roof payments decreasing, and calling that positive, including tracking how many claims closed without payment (“CWP”). As such, Plaintiffs respectfully submit this Notice to clear the record of certain allegations about State Farm executive involvement in Accenture, outcome-based claim handling, and bragging about reductions in claim payments as a positive trend. Respectfully submitted, Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com -and- Patrick F. Collogan, OBA #30529 Biby Law Firm"}, {"d": 93, "p": 6, "t": "6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 918-574-8458 888-572-8263 (fax) pat@bibylaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS"}, {"d": 93, "p": 7, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 30\" day of September, 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) cmeneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com -andLance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Hannah Whitten"}, {"d": 93, "p": 8, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al ee State Farm P&C Claims Fire Claim Quality June 2021 Fire Claims The 2021 Fire Property Claims Quality Plan outlines specific tactics to address quality opportunities, yet action plans are adjusted based on actual results. Measurement and monitoring is in place at the team and individual levet. Results are reviewed monthly at each level and documented in MyBlock to include trends and next steps for improvement and oversight. Results, Drivers and Actions in Progress are outlined by each VPO to drive improvement with the common thread of a one team quality approach to improve accuracy across fire claims. Fire Weather: Ress Coverage analysis is the strongest area of improvement, yet remains the largest area of opportunity related to FED $. Estimate reconciliation also improved in reconciling the contractors estimate, yet remains an area of focus. Scoping covered damages needs improvement. Action plans are heightened for scoping. Results Fire Weather Reinspection Fire Frequency Error Target is 7.8%, or a 20% improvement from 9.75% 4Q20 results. ¢ 7.33% YTD results for Fire Weather internal staff only (includes Winter Storm Uri) « 8.12% YTD results for all Externais (includes Winter Storm Uri) compared to 8.36% at 4Q20 « 7.73% YTD Wind Hail combined; 7.58% YTD Wind Only, 7.93% YTD Hail Only Three month wind/hail trends are improving for combined wind/hail peril from March to May and running at target error rate. External trends also improving Mar to May. Fire Weather internal staff 3-month trends declined, primarily related to winter freeze claim reinspection findings as Uri claims represent the largest volume of catastrophe claims handled YTD. Other quality indicators trending positively include: « e « May 2021 Total Roof to Partial Roof Replacement down from 4.1 in June 2020 to 2.3 in May 2021 Wind/Hail estimate payment bands over $10,000 decreased 13% YOY Wind Cat(NCAT CWP/Reported ratio is up 7.7 at 32.3 R12 (10YR CAGR is 25.2); Hail Cat/(NCAT e CWP?/Reported ratio is up 15.7 at 34.7 R12 (10YR CAGR Virtual Inspection is 22.9} FED 4Q Actual 4.06% for Fire Weather Internal Staff, YTD FED 4.25% with Mar to May trending down. FED 4Q Actual 4.71% for Externals, YTD FED 5.53 % with March to May also trending down. FED $ results are heavily related to freeze losses. Drivers The top three drivers of results differ between Fire Weather internal and external resources. For staff members, the drivers include: e Paying for non-covered roof damage « Reconciling the contractor's estimate related to finish carpentry (freeze losses) « Roof estimates reflect covered damages per the scope The Roofing Skills Assessment identified the following areas for improvement in scoping the roof o o Xactimate Category/Selector Codes (e.g. skylight trim) Application of Appropriate Roof Waste Factor o Identifying Hail Resistive Roofing Material For ECRs, the drivers include: e Paying for non-covered roof damage e Reconciling the contractor's estimate related to water extraction (freeze losses) FOR INTERNAL STATE FARM USE ONLY -— Contains CONFIDENTIAL information which may not be disclosed without express writlen authorization, Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order Paya 10f2 HURO0031476"}, {"d": 93, "p": 9, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al e ! Estimate reflecting covered damages per the scope related to Painting (freeze losses) Actions in Progress Fire Model Enhancement « Wind/Hail guidelines with TM intervention for total roof replacements on small hail/light wind. e Fire Data Accuracy Dashboard spot-check reviews for ‘TM Approvals’ on small hail, light wind and age & condition (specified states). « Conducting recalibration sessions in early July on repair/replace and reasonable consistent appearance following a file review. Estimatics Skills Enhancement 1 « WCCS « targeted estimatics training. TMs completed Assessment on 6/21, with an average overall score of 83%. Training assessment in progress to deliver targeted training in July. Implementing targeted Training Modules based on under-scoping reinspection analysis in July. e Reinspectors to deploy onsite to support findings earlier in the cycle starting in July. l Stewardship TM Estimate Writing Assessment conducted on June 21%; to implement Leadership Accountability and Alignment « Division/Section/Team/Individual reinspection results are reviewed monthly with Top 3 Areas of Focus for monthly MyBlock, huddle and performance dialogues. This focus has led to identifying saveral individual claim handlers driving negative quality results. Alldivision jeaders (CM, SM and TM) compiete spot-check reviews as outlined in the Fire Quality ¢ Pian with focus on CWP to Payments 2 $2500 (5 reviews) and Total Roof Reason Codes (5 reviews) Monthly meeting with Claim Consultant to review overtumed roof calls by in-Office to drive consistency and specific opportunities like “Reasonable Appearance”. e ECR Vendor Performance Management « Delivering reinspection findings at macro and micro level to vendor executives and leaders regarding error frequency and most common errors to enable action Vendor Performance Dialogue sessions with vendor leaders where specific actions/tactics are « delivered by firms in quality space ¢ Tracking of ECR tenure to obtain action plans by ECR Vendors when there is lower tenure Fire Proximity: Smith The main areas of opportunity based on findings and FED include Coverage, Reconciliation and Scope. Results While opportunities remain, Reinspection trending supports the efficacy in the action items currently in place. Overail Proximity results for May, in both % FED to Estimate Dollars Written (5.38%) and Finding Frequency (10.15%) were below the Q4 benchmarks. e Finding Frequency has been below benchmark (10.75%) each month so far this year. May’s * result was the lowest of the year. % FED to Estimate Dollars Written has been below benchmark (5.43%) 4 of 5 months this year. Drivers Coverage « « Wind/Hail: accurate damage assessment on roof claims Water: accurate coverage analysis on continuous, repeated, seepage and leakage (CRSL) related claims Reconciliation « Identification in overlap between mitigation and repair estimates « File documentation to support claim handling Scope e Over scoping; top driver associated with paint FOR INTERNAL STATE FARM USE ONLY -- Contains CONFIDENTIAL infomation which may not be disclosed without express writlen authorization. Page 2 of 3 Confidentiai Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HUR00031477"}, {"d": 93, "p": 10, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Actions in Progress Additional oversight, accountability and monitoring have been added at each leadership level as outlined. ¢ Review of Reinspection Results associated with coverage, reconciliation and scope o Tobe reviewed between TMs and SMs on FED findings over $1K; SMs to review trends with CM and Consultant ¢ o SMs to review FED findings over $5K with CM o Review Reinspaction Coverage finding in monthly performance conversations Q2 Water Forums -- Focus on Estimatics and Reconciliation based on top Reinspection Findings o Expectation setting for all claim specialists and leadership Wind/Hail Quality Focus e o Primary focus is on coverage and repair versus replacement damage evaluations o o TM authority required on wind less than 50 MPH and hail less than 1” SM and CM review of Utilization Dashboards results associated with partial/total roofs and TM file reviews in monthly performance discussions Water Quality Focus e o Accelerated Management Reviews to address Coverage and Estimatics o Water Claim Handling Estimatics Considerations developed for handlers based on most common Reinspection findings o SM and CM review of Utilization Dashboards results associated with completion and direction provided through the Accelerated Management Reviews/Water Coverage Analysis tasks « Monthly Quality Review at the Segment and Division levels to address results, drivers and impact of the plan. Fire in-Office: Mazza The main areas of opportunity based on findings and FED include Coverage, Reconciliation and Scope. Results Overall reinspection findings for HCCS In-Office operations have made improvements over Q4 2020 results for both severity (FED %) and frequency (findings per claim). FED% is down from Q4 benchmark of 5.2% to 4.1% YTD, and findings per claim from .535 to .498. However there are opportunities for continued improvement. Coverage determination has seen the biggest change over Q4, with remaining improvements expected for CRSL and slab leak losses. Our largest areas of opportunity are Estimate reconciliation specifically related to water mitigation and paint, Depreciation and Coverage. The majority of findings and dollars are in Estimate Reconciliation. Drivers e Lack of strong estimatics and water mitigation skillsets to efficiently reconcile estimates * inconsistent confidence levels preventing handlers from engaging with contractors on reconciliation e Coverage determination for CRSL and slab leaks is inconsistent Actions in Progress e Accountability and follow up to the individual Online Reinspection Tool results is focused and « scheduled for all levels of leadership, with MyBlock documentation. Water Forums are building skillsets and confidence for handlers with coverage determination and reconciliation. Skills assessments following the forums are utilized to identify areas needing follow up at the individual and team levels. In-office TM estimatics skill assessments to ensure knowledge and ability to coach Art of the Conversation attendance to build confidence with handlers Claim Insights for accelerated water reviews for coverage and estimatics Water test team is scaling proven tactics to HSTWD operation (starting this week) FOR INTERNAL STATE FARM USE ONLY -— Contains CONFIDENTIAL information which may not be disciosed without express written authorization. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order Page Iota HUR00031478"}, {"d": 93, "p": 11, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al From: Kathy Ress [/O=STATEFARM/QU=HOME/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=HE8J] Sent: 9/17/2020 1:30:59 PM To: BCC: Subject: Attachments: Nicole Manduca (nicole. manduca.lok2@statefarm.com] Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.lok2 @statefarm.com] FW: Op Model Discussion Next Phase of Ciaims OVP Check In 9112020.pdf Please do not forward. From: Wensley J Herbert Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 3:44 PM To: DL-PC-CLMS-OVPs <DL-PC-CLMS-OVPs.DLUSS2@internal.statefarm.com>; Robert Yi <robert.yi.caqa@statefarm.com> Ce: Carol Waldron <carol.waldron.bip0@statefarm.com>; Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8j@statefarm.com>; Cheryl Schaefer <cheryl.schaefer.Irkt@statefarm.com>; Matthew Parola <matthew.parola.nzjn@statefarm.com> Subject: I/A: Op Model Discussion Team, Since our last showcase which focused on the conceptual view of the Op Model, we have been working on the next two phases and have started Phase 3. The last two weeks have focused on: - Strategy refinement to set the parameters for execution An assessment of the inflight initiatives for prioritization/start/stop/continue Detailed new initiative definition from the journey/horizon roadmaps We would like to spend our time on Tuesday, on reviewing the work of our last two weeks and align on the output, specifically the strategy refinement and the initiative view by horizon. The Exec leads (Carol, Kathy, Cheryl and Matt) will join us for that discussion. Post that discussion, our next steps will be: - Refinement towards the next level of detail on the implications to the Op Model by Horizon Complete our Horizon outcome analysis and alignment on those Finalize our oversight and ownership structure Thanks, W&SS EXHIBIT 2 Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HUROO156099"}, {"d": 93, "p": 12, "t": "soe OCU : » OH eS . een . .Uuej3}e}5 ee 1298 ‘QOR44S “A ‘Te 18 ‘Aig ‘ysunH OPES NOLVAXOINI IWILNATIJNOS Wav4 SLWLS ; SARC) BISBEL MOLY O] PEN esSuisng 8 UO UOITALISIC - J9PUO BANDE}OJg 0} JUSNSING PaONpog |BUaPyUOD 020160 lepoW do Asewiuing 8aAijnoexy"}, {"d": 93, "p": 13, "t": ":7 oseld saanoelqo japow Bunesedo pue sjeob Aeusnof suyeg ~ + + - 4 \\ HOM JO uoIsIA AsuuNof jeagl-yBiy ayy auyaqg ~ tof t oo SJUBLUISIAY| DIDSJEsjS suysg saryiqedes oi6eyes)s juepodusl ysow Ayuep| UOISIA 9 sjeO6 sASIUE 0} siejqeua Aey ey} euyeg ~ SOAHEMU! aZUOUd diay 0; sdeb Aydosojyd ‘ABojouyoe) ‘sseooid ‘ajdoad ssassy UOnMoexy oqeuy -¢ oseyd dewpeoi Aeusnof pue uBisep jane-yBity ubisep BC Meu UM UBl|e 0} SOLEW dewpeo Aeusnof pue ubisep payrejeq uoyeznuoud 9 Burdoos aageniul ABojouyse) / Req uoyezquonud » Burdoos eapeniui uojesbiww jepow ‘do -LOL9S LOOYNH ( I | l | t po | [EN}AGIIUOT Bjed1D °} assed SUIEID Dd 10} S206 oBeyeys euyeg » | MBIAIBAC 18 99 ‘OORASS “A 12 32 ‘All 'YSINH Ajug sesodung uolssnasig Jo4 — Lived |1 777 aunyng : JOPIO BAIDAIOIg O} JUENSING PaoNpold |BUSpyUCD Audasollud ABojouyse 1, / BDUBWIBADS) pue someyy BOOP UOAA pue sajdiouud |apow 6uyesedc_ : pue uojeziuebic saniiqedeo ssauisng eanounsiq suojeaduy oy TTT TTT i OW ONILYYSdO a0 440M Jo Saseyd 3814} OjU! }apoW Buljessdo ue jo s}UaUOdWIOD ay} UMOP ayO1q OMA ANiddanta"}, {"d": 93, "p": 14, "t": "e ZOL9SL00YNH '$$a00id) (ABojouyoay ‘eyeq uonnsaxy aAelytu] MOH,, 84} pae4 NOLLVASOANE Wed FLVLS UOIUIJag UOZLIOY j2A97-YBIH aunjonys jeuonezueiio jenapyblHsannoelgo ; sau0oyno jeAap-yBIH Bui) @ adoos uozuoY jena]-YBIH » uORIUep UOZLOY JepoY do jere/-yBIH TWILNAGISNOO ROC BISBEE] MOUY OF paany sseulsng 8 UO UOHTGYSIC— ueid uoneanoe-paj ubiseq « SBANBTIU a]NDBXS Om SP fapoll poUOReZUeHIC UO oyesay qauuBye SBA pue sishjeur sanualgo / 8ul0d]NO. uoINUeg lapow Buyjessdg pajrejaq uonentl worn UOHezyiqoul SouNOSay « uoneznold g juswuBHWe dewpeoy » GurBeyoed yon, » jyuewauls: 94 JUS}! DIGBajyByjs { adoog » Buruueld 9 Burdoos aaneniuyl JEYAA,, 84) BUlIG + ayeidiuog a J9PO 9ANSa]OJq O} JUBNSING PIONpold |BHUaPYUOD sseiboig Uj) ued uOneANSe | UOZHO} {aAgl-YByy A Sse JINbes sanigeded jangi-yBiyy uozuoy Aq dewpeoi jansi-yBiy: > seanoalgo japou ‘do pauyey » ubisaq [8437 YyBiH | / SURES HIOM Oly OZUOLId 0} UeBeq pue ‘edoos dewpeol UOZHOH / Aeuinor ey) ym juewubye Ul SAENIUI Meu Ppeuep pue seAljeniul JYBiy-ul passasse ‘seiHayejs Aay Jno Jo} JUe]U! OIBaye.4s ey) peuljas eAEY OM ‘SyOOM OM] JSP] BU) JAAD Buluuejg g Burdoss aaneniuy ay} uO ssaiBoid apew 3A,am ‘“aquiajdag U! UOIINDEXe JO} BZIIGOW OM sy A\\ug sesodung uojssnosig 4104 — 4vEG | 18 18 ‘Q084ES “A ‘Te 39 ‘Ayia ‘usin"}, {"d": 93, "p": 15, "t": "F ng Ot 9S LOONNH au @ ainjonys sue| esudiaquy 9]E{S GIN}Ny JO UONEezZI|eEJ afqeue of BTUOPYOM “OS ean SLVLS Sssuisng 8 Uo uolNduisiq - NONLLVIANSOJNI IWILNSCIANOD Wav AUC siseg wooss-wszes @) eunjonys JAPIO SAIa}ON 0} JUBNSINg PeonNposy |BYUePYUOD SNOLLVYIdSV JOON OZOZ O} BAIBfa/ B18 $ | UOZUGH -ajON INOOES - WEIZS @ ujed 9 ainsodxe yolpasd - - O} aye}U! Je pazAjeue ale SoNsUa}eIeYS WIE; - quudjooy Suyjpuey pezijeeds, Jo) pezjwydo 818 SWES] JUSIUSSUBYUS (spo; ssl4 +g ONY “Buyjpuey wie peseq-ewosjno pue Bugnos pesed-|I}1s SWLOJUI UOReOUISse|o UNE jusweGeuew pezyuoud jah pemoueu Mole 0} SONSLOJOBUeYO LWIBID UO pase peoBpNs 9q |HM UORRIeOSa pue UOHUe/JEU! diysiepee7 + 6ulepns yse] pue uoneznuolsd ArozUsAUI quaBy}9}uUl 0} MOyOM paseg-epuajeo WO WIS uopesBayul moLpuoMm JalPes suoisioap (Az|Iqel| pue) aBesaAod ACW pue uoyei9ja00e syySisu YGnouyy ajoAoagyy eu} Ut + 40 ylOmjou JopusaA BulAUP UOReJUasasd UoNdo uoljedsut seziuijdo MoLpOM UeAUP s}YyBisuy « fjuo suogoedsul jena 0} aBeGue siouyed uoyeneag ebeweg Adeinooe 9 soniliqedes Burjewnse fenya ayesajoa0e « uonnjose: UE[O JO} YONO] [EWIUILU SMOIE SOIANDe - » jo juawuBbyees Moye {ju Buytiys Aauinol ssoin ne . posontiee + WeaZJSUMOP JOJ UONBUWO{Ne Jo UaIsUBdKy 0} Bude sucIsnjouCD ssed PUE SUOISISEp ayeW 0} palamoduua ale SIOPUSA - PIEMIO; WIE} SAW + 0} paziwydo si jUld}00j JopuaA puke sioyewNsy % uoNSedsu! jenwiA eseeoUl pue U;E}UTEW 3 SIE SYSE} NEA + 4 PSBUIOINE MO] 8} Sseooid suutepo JeyBIp paziuindo Alny psyewojne ase uogezierseds UONEN|PAS enuew seonpa Guuinbes you suoisisap Ayiqel| pue eHeieaocg + JOM paylejep ssasse 0} pabesang] 919M ,,S}UIOg Bulpue,, 8014} aul uolndexe YyYBnosy} ssesBosd eAyese}! ounsua pue saaneipul 9 sobeyoed Ajeo6 uonenjen wiels yueysul jo Aeayoq AluQ sesoding uolssnosig 404 - 1ivud (219 ‘O0%53S “A ‘Te 18 ‘Aiea 'usiNH"}, {"d": 93, "p": 16, "t": "GaZziWwidads “A ‘Te 10 ‘Ang ‘usin ET OmEma Ms Eres er eee e tee eee renee eee « qeden pet Buoy my - Xoy AJOJUSAU] JO|PUBH LYE,D + buibessay- juabiyjoyuy « WED / UOEZUOUd s}yBisu) sjuewussessy Ayiqer peyewoyny « oben] weg sourapy « NOLLVINSOSNI IVILNSGISNOOD Wavd ALVLs = AJUO Siseg MoUy of Pedy ssauisng 6 Ud UONNQUISIG - _ SO|Old AUed oWeUAG « Buju xa] / UoNUBooey seye1eYD jeondo + uojsaby eyep Apeg-puyy « Burxepul g BurBew) juewnoog - SUONIEIE}Y| |eI6IQ U@ALG JUe}UT « SINPEWYoy LO] uoyenjeagq eBeweg yuebiyjexu| « uojenjen wie|D Jueysu| ue Bune wie Jo Adeinooe peoueyue pue TONSA 38 uOReUILUa}ap eBe1aAce pue Ajyiqel) paseaouy « eyequl ye uoNNjosas yueWIeE}O yOadIp puke UOeoynUSp! JauueYD jenyIA Jo PIey ul UoHONpel {enueysqns jo uonez}eey « speou uoloedsut (XV) eouaedya ayeossy wapoyy Jepow ye61e} poddns Ajjny 0} BOJOPOM Jo jueWUBIjeel pue Buijrjsey « Yoye jenuew pure att ajoAo sonpal 0} UOHeNjeA wie; JUe}SUY » Ainfut pesealouy suondo wedas peziuixey + SdIAIag yoe1es YyBnouyy SUE} SSE|4YONO} JO saquinu asearou| « : ! jeyBip peziumndo Ajing « Shd04 JO Sealy uoHNOsel 0} Sy2}UI WoL aouaVedxe Shao jo Sealy Snood jo sealy ouqns | fer ; xaiduic \" soyeuiysy JENO BAIPS}Osq OL JUBASING PsoNpald |BUSpyUuCD nis oe sete 8507 (CIOL CZ IDL Aanfut } ri AULUNXON ong 3210 uj aug ee Aauajsisudd pue af89S JOf quawuollAUug s,Aepol poubye s} Auxajdusoo septs $0 on ssajGoid pue uoneziuoid wuoyul djay 0} suoziuoy Alu sesoding uoyssnosiq o4- 14vua BOY} [JE SSOJDE SNIOJ JO SEaIE PASN 9M ‘|2POUW JUBIIND BY} BAJOAS OM SY 12.18 ‘OOR44S |"}, {"d": 93, "p": 17, "t": "‘y comer SOL9SLOONNH 'A “te 19 ‘Alta Sn SRL Soe TeES Le Aas Peer WWLENAGIANOS AVA SEVLS ee ee HEN MEAT TT Te \"2 Aug siseq MoUs! ge OFane pagNy sseulsng @ ud LONNqUISIG - NOLLVIANSOIN! 146181209 p juewobeuey AyeENnH ee Eee QO an ces OMIUILL, JUaWaHeUeW SIURULIOLIId JOPUaA, SE A LOT; SoHeWaIEL yt ag 5 cas r 9s aes Sea Eg&s 27 &3 5 See Zo 5 Boo oo MEVOR ABRENOT 3108S D at Yo g 2 3 a zz a < a P$ 3o JOPIO BAND9}Olg 0} JUBNSIN PIONPOlg /ewAPyLOD _ AT uozpoyY Aq seageniuy GBuiuiyno sdeuipeos Aausnor pejiejaq sXauinof ay} ssosoe paynuap! sdeb ay} 9SO/9 O} ,,SWBd1}SYIOM,, Ady g 40) JUdJU! DIBayesjs / adoos ay} pouljad OMA apjaosd 0; sweansyiomysaiBazens Aay jo adoos pauyay ““uoRNaaxa J0j s}sodepinB 9 UCHESUNWIWOD JaWO}SND ee <a BAIS HIS 337 Said om ‘YSINH Alu sesoding uojsenosiq 4o4- 1avud fe 38 ‘ORs"}, {"d": 93, "p": 18, "t": "4 901-95 L00NNH oe acuanysnara Adeuno3e id Nn: pue UoHNjOSes WES Ul SJUSWBAOIGUUI B|qeINSBalU sAalyoy + . eeeennerep e comer ecuyery WaW4 SLVLS + =. + > se Ja—O BAND9}OJq 0} JUBNSING Psonposg |ByUapyUCD dS yBnony Sujpuey Aved pe Bugiojos ezQlold — yyed UONN|Osal JO, JaIEyIp oq Buypuey Aved pe - Auoud 2g lim (pauinbes aJoym sUUIE/9 40}) AYBIU! IE BEP LO! / OBpiA / Ojoyd Jo eMjded jeyBiIq + pue sudje}oedxa aalAIeg SJ@UUBYD SSO1OB SLUN-/BSJ Ul Peres aq 0} SUONSE y LOREWOJUI a|qeua |JIM BoUBLedXe jOULEYO-IUWIQ TONG 32 LoneWWOU! Aled aly MoUy, PUB ,WIR;}Q al) Mouy, eBevang] SJOPUeA pu Sadunos eWAyU! ; Aed pul, - + . @yeJUI Je epew Bulaq suossioep UM ayEIU! ISOd paziMIUIWW Si LONEDI|dNp ‘syopuey ‘Aoualayau; UOIPEBIGIU js} 10) payo6e} |INS SUCISIOSNp YYIM @yEIU! Je INDD0 |IIM (pepsau jf!) UORBZEEdS JO} JEssUBIL Huswayeys w6aenS qe at) WaqIYOUd JOU Op {aAgF} {JS ‘JeAe] Gof punoJe syujEAsUCD 121] ‘eB2J9A00) suo|sioep WEI « 6 UOHOBIOIU! jo} JE OPEW eq IIIM (\"919 ‘ede aBeWeP + a10D YOM / SIOWOISNS (4S-UOU) AVed p.€ PU js} Aq AURA IIA UONeZUOUd JOM BJEUILUIS Ng *LAIE} poof Jo) BuRpUeY Buses NOLLVIANSOANE TWILNAGIINOS + » + - - %xx Aq squaUB|ssea! WIE} |enUBW soNp|ay + uoN|OSel JO} Aled p.€ J8AO pazZyOUd aq [IM Aued jsf 0) payejau suopuapA, 2 AUG SiSeq MOUS Of DASN sseuisng @ Ud LONNquIsig - amaac ep eae DSSS 1] OF BUY BOAO Nis xe) syuaWBe 1loads 0} Bulynos SUED PayRUSp! japoU Ul asBaIOUI %XK (peysiiqese “sAeP OQ UIUIIM S]JUBWA|NAS |g “XB) BUN a[DAD UI JUSWUBAQIGWI %™XK payBwojne S| pezieiads jz 481] 0) aBeuy snonujueo pue juoy dn jo +#%0G Bugoddns pue Byep pesinbel jo#%0g + Wyed ssajyono) B UUOjU! 0} UCU} SUIEP SSEIUSNO) %Op-GE (pexnbaa dn mojo) Uewny ou) jauUeYo jexIBip dn peyseBut st uoeuojU! 24) UI PeulejUOS ale puke SyEIU! Jey5ip YBNoW O68 sesso] jo+%Or Bupnod jeniut eyeuno9e 0] ENP JOM anyeA-UOU soNpey - hay / saaqzefqo (awn a|9A9 “Bae paseaioap) uoynjosel 0) peeds peseaouy « SoueW uBnoy) i uolpnpes esuedxe joqe7 dls peseasoul Ms sawoojno 2 peyoel||oo jeyw6ip pezimndo Ainpy “Bunnoy pue a6e1y snonuguos Joy syuese ajoAoey!) wirejo jnoyBnou} pue JON 9 ayequ| afeuy 9 syely UOISIA 9 JUS}U] D1B9a7e.Q5 ABajessg abel YORBUUOJUI WuIE}o eHeseAg] “UOHN|OSe pauljLUBes pue ‘UONoaOo eyep peoueyuS ‘Bul|puey wie|o efoAoe}!| Aee ejqeue 0} sseooid sue Aju sesodung uolssnosig Jo4 — 14wHd 12 8 'OOR44S ‘A ‘12 18 ‘Ang ‘YsINY"}, {"d": 93, "p": 19, "t": "| LOL9SL004NH sen rar ee a racemaseen ar oe seer yesber Sree renner TVILNSQIANOS Wei SLWLS J8RO BANDIIO 0} JUBNSIN, PeoNpoly jeHUapyuoD + NOILVINSOAN > AUG SISBg MaUy Oo} DeSN ssauisng 6 uid UONNquIsiq — sdiysusuyed lopuaa =« “MOLPHOM Pal|Sep JO) painbeu Bulsusol Jo/pue SUONedYAIEd ‘sqHIs OU BABY POJEWOINE JO VOHORIE}U! JeWO}sNd jeu! BuLNp peyNuUepi eq jim AJeAcoed UOWeGOsgNs 1o; penbed uOWeyUeWNDOg + + “UOREUILE}AP SHEL 0] B1Ge JOU SI Ny BBY SOLBUaDS Xa|diWOd 20} Ja|pUeY pezijeioads yYyBL ouy oj UOQEIEOSe :z jase] - Papaeu St UONUSAJAIU! Pue payoipeld yyed payedioque wou) LONeIASp Jo/pue ‘eBuel pepuewiuooel « - . + paysenbad oyne/payewoyne sj sanba: uoneuojUI/uOReyUaUNDOp JO/PUE SpE SUOIsIO@p aJOW Se TON IsOd pallu] aq | UORBUUOYUT / YOWE}UBUINDOP JO} dn-MoOg SAOGE S/@A9| Ul PSJOU SB SUB|PUBY WEIS 4S 0} NO YOY SUONdeOxa ‘]}9m SB peBeJaAg| JOVeqG 2HOM-B1 OU YM PaIEWIOINE SyeU19j91 UOHEBO.GNS JO %GL « $J@poW Jo apisjno epew S| UOIsioap ‘ainsedxe UBiy ‘a\"| OLEUeDs UO paseq Marval diysiapea| JO} UOAE|BISe -¢ Jone] (Aoua6e 129 je}Ua, ‘siopeuod ‘sdoys Apog) suopuea paytoods Joypue syyBisuy @E]U! JE PaYNUED! |eQUE}Od LOAEBoIgNs Jjo%DG + UONDUN) BxEIU) Jo apisyno eq Aew 'vogefiyseau! jauoIppe ozinbes Aey aq [wa AoueBy pue Buguaapun ‘3'| sjuaupedap sayjo Wo Eyep |BWBzU! ‘suoIsioap aBBI2A09 aye aiqeoidde ley pue sejpuey Jed yndyBnoyy ul sseaioul %OS-O + tuOju! 0) UoQeBASaAU! aBeWep ajajdiuuce 2BeL) JEU! je epew aie suOISI9ap BBEIeACD JO +%0B - aBeiy jeniulye apew are suoneunuerep Aye! jo.%06 Wed ssejyano} Uo yoRQ Ss! LUIEID ‘AqiIQet] 40} LUIE|D Jo UONdS2Je]Ul JeYly ‘PeAjoAuU! salyed 0} sayea1UNWWOD JO UGISIOSp SMBIABY “JO|PULY PezyeIoeds-UOU O} UORE|ISA :| |eABT Buimojjo) ay) Uo peseg UONdeJA)UI 5 |, JO} payeBie) 19S SUOIsIOap YM Alixajduad Aq saUeA UCHEIEOSe aBelaAc| pue iy ner “JaproyAd|jod/paunsul ayy YW UOROBJEYU! 1s | JE BPEL aq |}IM BIGQISSOd Sal SUOISIOSp Ayiger] pue aBeEaACD Sona Aay / seanoaigo SBS9Old SWIB/D BY) YW LONSE|Shes JELWOISND peroidw] + AoBsnooe udIsI9ep Ul UONBUEA ssa] (aun 9[949 ‘Bae paseaioap) uonnjosa oy peads peseeiouy + “SOUBUSOS pue ed WIE} UO —_ peseg U0; dn pareyes pue paysiiqeyse aq ||IM SuO!SIOep Ayjiqel| pue BBeIeA0D Jo} Paxnba: UONeE|UAWUNDOP PUE UOHeWOJU| syUBUIBIeIS TBqeNS - uogonped esuedxe Joga} 0} Buipes| Woddns uojsi2ep Jo spur UOAeWOINE Je}EBlg S@WO0N}INC “SJUGAG BfOADOY] LUIE|O JNoYBnosy) UOeUILUA}Ep eGes9A09 PUe Apiqel ByepyeA AJsnonuAUod ‘uONIPpe UOISIA B 1UEIUT 9169725 ABayes Ayyiqer] pue aBesanos Juebyj9}u] 9 aBesanog woahigayyy Ayqery U| “suofepUSULODeJ JO/pUe sudIsIep Ayiqel| pue EGE1EACS OJLY SSO/ JO S}OB] E}e{SUBs) 0} TONS Je pejoe/[oo UOHeWJOJU! UIE} ;eUe)Xe pus (eUieyUI ebeJeAe] AluQ sasoding uolssnasig 404 ~ Lava $812 ‘OOR4S “A Ie 19 ‘Ailig 'usuNH"}, {"d": 93, "p": 20, "t": "S 80L95L004NH + Bugewnse ojoyd YBnoy paipuey aue seyewysa weiBold-uoU jo %OQ 711d yBnony pejpuey ase suuep ss07 [BOL 10. %XK + + + + SISeA MOUy OF Paafy ssouisng @ Ud uoNquisiC - + « - - J8PIO 9AND9}OJ 0} JUBNSING PsoNposg |BIUaPYOD (ep1yea) epeu 8! ueuUuBisse eouD senlAnoe jie eyeyHoR) (IA SdoYs GUC PUEOSW (@p1Yyes) ONSe}BIeYS WILD Pue WY Jo Apxe;dw0o UO peseg jeg; doys 9y) Je PeZIIpN eue O08 LYONS] “eoUeWIOPed doys se Yyons B118}2) “JeWOJSN9 Oo] pejueseld 82e sudo GUC Aluo 'eqemoyje eseym SuOgoIpsuN{ uy {(8/H) SeLO]UeAU! 8]e810 0} JELUO}SND BY) LpIM AYO@IIp 310M 0} SJOPUA euinbes vA SUONdS eo}rU8S-}es SJUMUGD Yone} 198} JO) eunjonuys BuLoyua.y Ayyenb pue soueweaos uns 4S e pus ‘sebueyo ssecoud pue Soqiiqe deo jeuieyuy ‘suognjos JopueA eGeajes pue Gunewinse Jo UONeUIquOD e BulBesenc] ssedosd pugky es] sseo0ld ebenles azqOUL - “pepedsui AypearsAyd aq 0] Jepiacid aolAies Penejasd 04 peynos s| WEP sity — eyewse Gugeindodadd soy qi] ebeweq/Aqesedal Uo paseg MO{ St EQUEpPyUGD JO JOA] |Y-¢ {oAe] se « (g/H) suognjos Busnoy 404 JaLUo}sn9 ep LIM ARoeJip YOM O} SJOPUIA OsINbeA IM UONO eo1As8S Hos TW queuquiodde 464) e¢npeyos pue AyIGEWEAe UOOSdSLY MOIA O] JeLUO]SNO SMO}[E AWAND@UUD doYs “(LOY JOeJes 0} sdoys Jo SI] e9R)INS 0} (epuen) “JeAaMOY \"1OUOISTO @tp 104 UOAdO jseq etQ SE PeLORised eq jm sdoYs ea1IES DE}eS/OSW ‘BANQANP Se 6q 1,UBD OM EJOYA SUORDIPSUN! uo. {apryea) sjuewesinbes Aojnyeys Aysjes 0) suojdo (euonippe eplAoid ji aan UOISIO@D —PeBeM selpiny eq Led pue Ajuo sejsiyen e[qeyeder 10) 8g jm Sdoys Guq 0} Buyroy x10M ‘sso} |e}OVsedeu Uy ADeINDDe peseaiouy uo peseg NOLLVINSOJNI WWLLNAGISNOD WHYS SLVLS + AUG Allenuia payejduoo ee SUaWA|YS SSO| {B10} JO %XK + - pejewone Ajeye|dwioo are sayewunse Jo %XX uoyewoyne YyBnouy payeqiul ase sayeuigse jo %Xy sayeunse wesBold-uou Jo Buyjpuey yenyiA %Og - . uogezyyn wesBoid asvues pejes %OZ Ce . 9g * peaj ajqesede.-uou pue eqesjedai Ul jUaWaAd!dU % XX ‘ . Aenuin auop UoTEN|eAa BBEWEP JO %OP Aay / SaAnOaIGO < + Uopuea \"Sa 4S) jauUeYS ayeund08 / [BI9YeUE 1S09 JsoW Aq percudde ¥ moje! pue payeindod-ord s| ayeuN|se—Zjene] alu Peal U! ;UaaAOdW] « « + squawayers oBayeng “FOUI0}SNO OLA JO} LONdoO UONoedsu! }seq eu] Se UONISOd 0) sJOPUeA JNO eziLUnde 0] BuloB euweA~A -Kyxe|dusoo Jo sj@n9] ¢ uo peseq pelpuEY eq jm BueuNse fenpIA UONEZIIN JOJIVNUOD PAW@lalq @SBasU}] - + Uonenien WET jueisui BuLenyep Ayigeded (jy) eouehi feu] jeoyRrY YEnaiy ueTUM Ss] eyeUNSe — | }eAe] BUN ako sBealeg eseeiaq SIYSA 10} CHC OSW - SSOUISAE/OUO} 40) YOMJON JOpUsAYIC}IeQUOD Aq perpueY %X) SunewinSy [ENUIA Jo UoREZIIIN pesea‘oul (zopuea Aq paypuey % A ‘Wey Sola suogdo Jopue paiajaid Jo jena yBnosy) OB suledeljo %GE eI sauioajng ‘eBewep Ayiedod 104 yyed yoa.109 ey) Bulujuneyep ur sKejep ayeuILUI|s 0} ayeyUl Je jouUeYO ede, ;YyBU ou pue Amiqeseder SulWUejeq ‘(ewoy ‘Ayedod ‘ajoiye Jo eaisnjoul) UOISIA F JUAZU] DIBa}ejS ABajeijg steday 9 aBeweg pouibewiay 9 abrueg pauBeuyay aeday eBewep jo ue}xe |ejuejod pue}siepun 0} Byep peyode, sso} pue sojoyd sBesene7 ‘eyejul ye UORdO YIOMJEU JOPUBA PeLlejerd Jo JENUIA feUdo 0} sIeUIOYSNO eping Ayug sesoding uolssnosig Jo4 — f4wud fe 18 ‘OO844S °A 12 18 “Alte ‘ysunH"}, {"d": 93, "p": 21, "t": "OF SLVLS JODO 9ANI9}OJY 0} JUBNSIN, PsoNpoly jeUapyuCD SONSUBJOBIEYD LIB pue Ainful Jo GQ] Alsea JO) + ‘Aowungoe saci (o1qeyene e}ep jeuia,U BulBesengy osje ally) aloud ajdoed Jo uoNnesauaB oyewoyne o} Ayiqe ajqeue jim sdiyssouyed JOPUSA + ay} GuNp sjuewejs edAiNW Wout oO} syYBisu! / Buyapous Joy ajqe|eAeE JSSUNOS esuaJep YIM Papasu UOSeJe}Ul BuOYd/eWa/IeEWW SeZILUILIW Jeu) JU@WLONAUE 0] payejel UOReWWOJUI/UOReIUSWNDOp PUR peziuNdo st ABajeqs UOHeBHY 10 dn-MoO4 *2j9A9 ay] OES ul pasnoyaem si uoNe SNONUAUOY “gyinsausuogoe Aawony |]IM YEU) JetWaalBe JopuaA |eWa)xe Aq peyoddns aq ||/M UOAepUaWODaJ pugjaqemes @u) JO USWEACIdU MAUI pew aq (mM eyep sy) ‘ayeldoudde Usym UONUaAJasU! JO] payereose pus OUeUSOS WIE] LONeBH 10} Wed pejsadxe Uo paseq payewojne aiow 9q JIM UOReBAI] “seouNes |eWaIXs pue /BUazU! JOM WO, BYep Aq pawuoyur aq |i ABsyedjs uoNeBYT] p.€ pue | Mole pue ejeudosdde sey we Pel sjaUUeYD |EyGip YBNowyy shewoNe/syUeUNe|O 0} ANI@IIP EPEUI aq |IIM SIBYO - syySisur Aq pauzojul ag 0) suoynjosaz LOQEIUAWNDOP-19A0 LO SoUeT}e! BONPEY “SUIIEIO YSL MO} PUe siyBisul Aq peyewoyne pur UsAlip 'pa|qeue aq ||IM Mela aBeyord puewag Wie} \\sueBe pazAjEUB aq [|1M SP10de1 / Sig EAIPeLL ALE @iqISsod eJeYM VONUe/LE}UI UEWWNY JNOLIM MO_DJOM el] OJ! pappequis aq {IM (SuOTesse pue sinBuazys Ainfui Aed ‘anjea Jo eBuei ‘Buroud ‘8:a) syjndjno pue soysuejeleyo wep - Ayxe|dies moj 40) Yond) Jeipuey WEP B NOY BYEP /BIVOISIY 4O/ PUB ayy WIP UUM UoQeUOjU! BUIZINN UOReN|eAa Jo) paunjdes ale speyap Aunful a1seq J! B/qIssod asym axBIUI IE OPEL Aq [IM SIAYO + SONSLA;IBIEYD Wik|D pue s]uedioed ‘asnsodxe uo peseg aq ||lM (9)8 ‘Alaayap ‘Bul sqUSWAINS WBayeNS “B'e) MOYIOM JOO - [BUIB}XS 1O}UOU AUE}SUOD Uo pased UsALIP aq Jeyyes sonpold OF UONeJOSIpP UeLUNY auinbeu jou (IM eyeq NOLLVINSOJNI TWELNAGIANOO Wavd > AUC sIsBg MOUy oF PeaK sseulsng & LO LolNquisiq - + + + + « 60195 1L00HNH Jajpuey sed indyBnoy ul asearoul %OG-0E SUueIO jeOIpaL Ayed js) JO LUeUUAEdOINe %X 8e)U) Je UOAN|OSsa, JUEWTE|D JauIp Ainful Jo +%0G aBeuy jeqiut ye peyuep! esnsodxe Ainiut jo %Ge SoMa Aey / S2an29{q0 ‘ABayens asuajapsuonegoBeu uo Buisnoo) spuemo) paylys eq IM Jedeo uewnY SAINSOD JUBWUEID BIG Aoeinsoe paseeioul + StuIp|o JeoIpetu Aued ysuy ul Aouaye eH UONUEAJE}UI Ja;PUBY INOYYIM SJOYO PayeWOINE Jo % paseoiouy sawosino “@}0A9 op] Wejo Buuinp pepesu si eum UOISIA '9 3Ua}U; D1693e.95 ABia}e235 eduabi)9}uU] JusWeaLy / Aunfuy asus oni wauwyeauy 7 Asnfuy Woyul diay 0} Alessaoeu J paoeyins pue pezs|eue/pamelags Ajjeoqewojne oq 0} spsooei / Sijiq jealpaw ‘seBeyoed puewiep sepnpoul sly] ‘(ejqeoydde j) uojnenobeu pue Bury sey ‘suayo ‘'uoyenjers Aun{ul ‘uoNejeose ‘uOeoYIssEsO WUTe]o ‘UOHeOYHUEp! AuNful eACJduI 0} S}yBISUI WJOJU! 0} BJEP |EUJE]XE PUB EUOJUI OZ) “A ‘Te 38 ‘Alita ‘SIN AjuQ sesoding uolssnosiq J04 — LsvUud 12 38 ‘0844S"}, {"d": 93, "p": 22, "t": "WW OLLOSLOONNH Ja|puey Jad yndyGnosy) ul aseaioul %OS-0E red ssajyono} & WOU! 0} JU0J} dn pajsabul s1 uoneuoju Bunioddns pue eyep pauinbesjo+%Qg + - LNSCINOS Wada SLVLS @ MOU Oo] pagan sesuisng @ Ud udEndiisig — JOPIO BAID9]OJq 0} JUENSING PaInpolg (BUapyUuoD - NOLLVINSOSNI “sAauinof wieso ssajyono} Jo} JUsuodUOD Aay & SI EJEP LO] PUB SONeWa|e, LAM EYep WE|O BugUaWaiddng a@yEIULe Wed Wrep auluelep souew Aey / seancelao (ssoulsngsewo}) « + seBewep jo uojeBiu/uonoajep Asee 0) enp A\\Weaes ul esBeIDaGq - UOISIA 9 IUBTUT D/69;eNS ABazels 1O] / SoWewajay + « 0) S}UB|su) WOJU! pue sjepow jeonAjeUe pas) o} IEP AUed pe PUB [eWATLI YIM PaYOUUS 9g [IM LO] Pue soNewo}aL SORBWS}a} BUOY YeLUS/ONe Jo UONdope JeWO\\sNo peseasou| suoisioep wilejo 109 JuawuBne ‘ayE|U! Je BVep Sue! jo UONeindod-sd uewaBebue |e1/Bip sap 0} SedlA1as UORUSAGId SSO} UO SM90) IM SESED ASN LOI /SOREWA|AL “WIEAJISUMOP '0)8 SIOPUBA SsOIDR/SKaUNO! “9yeinsoe syuaulE ess oBaens SSODE BlEp SOREWA|a) PEZIINN o} SN SMOIIE JU] JUD, e UI BYEP BuyND0ud UO sno0y IM ABIEAS eyep JO] / soHEWA|a| « - aoAooytl ui Auee yyed pue uonesysselo tie Buiuyap Aq syyaueq Aoeunooy eyequi 18 Ajenuew UOHEWOJU! SSO] BuLinyded 10) paau Buyonpes Aq uononpey esuadxg sawiedjng 40] 7 SAHEWIS}Sit SI parlsce! Byep Jey) ensue pue ‘s}yHIsul pjing ‘sjoo) ejdyjnw ssos9e paBesadgj oq 04}! SyoojuN ‘eyep jo SUJOJ JE SouN|deo YoIyM ainyeyYole Byep a}e]s Jobe} © eynbeu |M UoyeZyee! eNjeA SY, “UORELUOJUW! sso] LUN [eed Jo UONSeBUI YSnouy yjed Wiel 64) WOJUT PUB Woe exeIUI |enUeW eoNped |IM SONBWEIO} Jo UORSeBUL ysun} AjuQ sesoding uolssnosig Jo4 — | 4vad 18 18 ‘OORASS “A “Te 39 ‘Alli |"}, {"d": 93, "p": 23, "t": "i. LELL9SLO0ONNH LNAGIANOS Wad FLVLS JAPIC 9A9}OJ 0} IUENSING Peonposy jeUapyuoD UO PASE SMO[JOM AUP JUBIU! SB {JOA SE UOAEUUOJUI JO Ssad0e8 Moje 0} Sayed Pa}sezeqU JO) PeyBIND ole SMAI JUBIEYIG pue sedéy wiE|D ‘shauinol upyEg + + } sjeuueyo ‘sjuaBe —- ‘ pug ‘sjuabe ‘any SUWIE)D JO} S806 SIL}) Sn Jo aSea BALIP 0} paysiqeisa ave suONesayu! ;eYOip YBNoyy SMO—PLIOM ‘sented aAHINVU pue paylduis + se “JeUCUAyU! PUB Pesnod} aq |IIM SUONEJE]UI feuoRoipsun! pue uogesysssejo wie[s Aq pazquoud ave suoeoyou pue suogeyadxe ‘uoyeoUNUIWOD punC™NO jeuBip-uou paseg uondeoxe pus ‘JauuByo |ey6ip YBnouy) paynoexe eq j|/M SUOEIUNUUWWOS asey) ‘s]UeLUeJINbeL ey, “ABo}eNs UOWeoIUNUIUOS Jsuy [EYBIP © UWA peEy |[IM eM BOAD8)| Wiep aly Ul SesBUd ETy “JouLeYD |eNBIp 0} pe}setp eq yn dn Mo|IO4 ‘UOBO\\Issejo/soqsua}aeseYo WEY 'seoUeJajeld JeLUOISNO Aq PeUOJU! 8q |W jeuUeYD B61 syuswajeys 21Baje13¢ UOISIA F JU8}U) 21693295 ABaj21jS Bd1A1ag J[9S *Q UONeDUNWWOD saWO}sSND le “SJUUEYO VOEoUNUUOS }B16)p Buz uotd 20; U-}do, jo peaysui ynoydo, ase siawioysng (ssopuen “WHE|D JO} papeau UONE Jo |eAg] pue AUed tey16ip jo uondope uleyUIeEW pue AyigejuncooR aAUp SUC_OEJe]U! PUNOIe YING sUIsIUBYOeL EOURWWEAOB PUR UewWeNSEEW (auyuo 'dde ajiqoui \"oq yeys YAI) Suondo aajses-jJas AjUO 0} pay wi] aq {IM seed sOLeUaoS Xe/duioo 10) AJUO pauinbal UOQUaAJaqU! YIM sjauUeYo aolKes 48 YBnosyy Moy>JOM JeLUOYSNd Jo) payduuoid aq ||IM LONN|OSEl SpueMO} WU/E/D SALIP 0} BuIpe@u SySe} [Ie ‘AXE Joy NOLLVINYOANE + AlUO sISUE MOUY OF PAdNy Ssoulsng o Ud ‘UoNquisic — « - (%9'2z r0BIE) OZBA) %XX 91 XX WOY BAIES-WeS JULISISSY JEdey eseELOUL - « (%9°6 JeB1€) OZIA) %XX OF %XX WHOY Ed!AIEG-Hes [eIUSY EseeDU (%ZL 30618) OZBA) %XX OF XX WOY BoIAIES-Nes Buodey sso] esRalou] (49°81 30812) OZTA) %XX O} %XX WO) EOIAIES-WeS SUF eseesU) (95°bp J96uE1 OSTA) %XX 0} %XX Woy eMEg-4os seEID esee;U] OZOZTAA) %XX 0} %XX Woy BIIAISS-}JeS eseausu; - (%0z Jee - (oyny) %xx Aq wef Jed seo eonpey Jepuodse: wewiny-uoU e e1A paipueY ole s}1e0 JUaBy jo XX > INpe ys09 UN %OS-0Z Uogoesueg eo1Ales fed UO Jepuodsei UeWny-uoU e ein peypuey ese syeo Ayted pug Jo %XX + « (peanbe. dn mojo) uewuny ou) JouUeyp jen6Ip ou) uy peuIE}UOD e1e pue eyeIUI feYBIP YBNOsA OB sesso} Jo +%40h SOLOW Aay / SeANDaIGO uoypnpes aul) aig + ‘SW8y JEPUEIEd PUP S¥SE] JE|PUEY LARP JouoRoONpey = - xepuy Aenins sewiojsng Auenbey [wea punoqui ut uojonpey saluosjno aomuag Has ‘FB vonesnnuiw085 saueRsng, “UORUSAJB]U] ULE }2}S JOY paau BY] <onpal pue sjueBe pue sISLWO}SND JO} AJLIEPO 8}B6ID ‘MOIPIOM BOIAIOS J19S U] SJOLWO}SNO JO} ,UONOe seq )XSuU, ay] aoeuNS YIU SONSLOE}EIEYO LIB[O pue s]Ybisul e6eseAe7 “suOHOBIEIUI edIAJes Jes BUIAUP pue suOHOeJe\\UI pozeuosied Bulproid Aeusnol oljues sawoysno e eyeaig Ajug sesoding uolssnosig 304 -— 14WHd 1219 ‘OOR4SS “A Te 19 ‘AItg 'YSINH"}, {"d": 93, "p": 24, "t": "eT eee Me ey ser nana eR YF perce, SLVLS (SBq MOUS} OF NSdNy seaulsng oud LoUNquisigNOLLVINYOIN TWILNSGIINOO Wad PUe YYO 1U8UNS 843 Buloe|dai ‘syyBisul pue sonsjeue Uo peseg Aeno + « JOPIO FAIV9}Od 0} JUBNSING PaonpoJg |ENUSPyUOD pazquoud pur pemoweu s| SuuouOW “sessacold SISAJEUB PUB SMAIAS, ail] GANOBOJAJ 10) paau BulzjwUIL ‘BuLOyUOW Ayyenb alug-jees suUOJU! aoUEBja}U! AloWAaAU| VOW « “sueB51y jIJM AIAG PUR [O1NUGD [BIOURUIy Padweral puke soysuajeseyo W/e|9 Uo peseg peZqUOU PUI ‘payBWoyNe ‘paUI|Weeds aq + + “ paseq ajr, JO pee}su! peseg uOIpE, eq ||M UORB|EISQ Zt}9S00H8NH Aen - sounaw fay / seanoelqa soujew Buljpuey wie uoeoyquep! puen eweg “s]aaq} ardainw YBnouy) ysnd pue uogeoiyjuap! jenueW Jo peaysu! papaau Ma!Aal JO UOQUAAIAILI JO }9AQ] YB! BY] O] PedByNS si UONBIEOSZ pue oueUeos - $1 ]2Y] UONP/eoSa UBALIp REP SMO!O] LOYE|EOSe pUe spjoyselly Alejo Aq PeUIWUayep JaBuo| OU Ss} ssao0id AON SUI 1YBU JE SEIY HOM 0) SUONSEBJE}UI U@ALIP-Eyep LYM padeide, pue PeyeUIUUI|a Oq ||/M MOYXJOM Paseg Jepuaeg -paseq UoNeoyissep uel diysiepes| 40} sjostu00 Jo ueds peznuolid pue PEMOLIEN - + Aoueroyyje Buljpuey pue volezquoud 0) enp ewy ajoAo ul UOONpey + syUsUlazE)S 9169}8.g + - UonueAsa}u ayeudoudde 0} anp Ayjenb ui eseaiouy (IO ‘10}9eQUOD \"WeGe) Aousnbey yule;dwoS UL UONONpay sawos}ng ‘YOnUaALAIU! UIE} eAgduue-eid Mo}/e 0] pue BuoyuOW jeuBis Auee pue souaBijayul AiojUsAut ABa}e135 }yBIsiaAC *9 JUBWaBeUeEW AWeEND UOISIA 2 JUS; D1Bea7e.ng aiqeue jm Buuoyuow Ayyenb oiweukq ‘uonueAs9jUu! Joy diyssapea| Jo Jang] eyeudoidde Sy) esooyo 0} soNSUA}OBIeYO WIE} YIM eoUeWOped pue BYep jeouO}sIYy S0US0J0s SSOJ9 [IM Bf “Yedxe Jo ‘diysepee| ‘se|pueY }YHY oY) 0} peoejNs pue sonsE}eJeYO WIE|O UO peseq aq JIM SBIIANO 10) JyBIsueAO pue suongjeosy TYSis19AO Bg Uamabeury Aen ‘A 18 12 ‘Alitg ‘USINH Ajug sesoding uvolssnosig 404 — Lavy 1298 ‘OO 844s"}, {"d": 93, "p": 25, "t": "fh €1+9SL00HNH Seen eee Tee eTeT NTE TNT ee Te a LA Eas MEET RN ae Lene See we ee TE RNC FRAN Sea eT Hae een ee eee JOPO SAND} 0} JUENSING Psonposg (EnUspyUuCD + SLVLS “peuuopad sysey pUue aoAcay!| SutEIO OU! UONeJBaqUl JOpUeA LO pased LeALp eyep aq |[IM JUBISI@A0 JOpUaA, + = + Wad Uo paseq peziundo aq JIM sdiysieuped JopuaA Joj WBISIaAQ NOLLYINSOANI WILNSCIANOS UTS AUC) SISBEp MOUy OF PaSNy sseuisng @ Ud lolnquisia - + “\"SBSSEOO! UIYIA JOPUBA Jo [OAG} JUeWABEBUS PU SSEd ESN 0) PEJO[IE} S} SIOPUBA JOJ BIMONIS BQUBLBADD quatwee6e jenjoesuoo puke eoueWo}ied « UOROBSUEL) BIAJBS Jed UOIONP| Js09 HUN %OG-0Z UOI]ONPOI OUI} BOAO +%HQSG-OZ + + «+ SP3SU MOIDOM UO paseg iWeUAD S| Sessaz0ud Ul JUsWAaBeBUS JOpueA ue ‘eiNjONAs JS0d ‘sejuUaIOWJe Bsea0U! 0) paBelang] PUe We}shsode UILPIM saUped oIGayed}s SB Pazl|yn ese sIOpUsA “ADeung0e YoRSedsU! Pjay 40} UOIPONPal JSOd WUN %OG-OZ + sjuawajeys 263325 “eouBuoped o1Beyeys eseelou; UOISIA *F }U8jU] 916987813 ABoye11g JuUBWeBeueW eoUeWOLe,g JOPUaA « “ssaooid aly Ul S]yaueg PUe salue|olya sAUp 0) pabeGua aq UES Aay) aJeyM JO} PeSS@SSe aq |IM SIOPUsA soupy Aay / saanoaiqg puewep pue soueuoyed UO paseg yuUdjoo) pue sunjongs Jsoo sBueyo AIJEOIWELAP 03 Aigy sawio3no Aoustoyyje g Aoeinooe AUP 0} BuLOWUOW eoUeWOLed ew)-[ees JUeWe;duy) pue sjYySU Buyew-uoispep pepuedxe UW sdiysieued JOA ayenbsape ensue 0} wire; AAI & 10} s}9ey sso] jo AOBINODe Oy) B}EpIfeA JO UONELUOJUI ;eJUSLUE|ddns epIAoid 0} pe|qeue/o) peyinbai aq | SJOPUaA “JUaWIaAOIGUUI soUBUUOLeY JOPUSA wuomawuelg JURWAHeUEWY Aju sesodung uolssnosig 404 — Ljwud 1818 ‘OOPssS ‘A ‘le 19 ‘Ata ‘USN"}, {"d": 93, "p": 26, "t": "YL LSSLOONNH pera *€ NOZINOH ubeeg Amis 1819 ‘OORASS A “Te 39 “Ata ‘YSN ereear warmest Pe eryRa ey ne Re Aer een gente eee eT UIE . 9 ayezU] afel 1 9 ayezuy JaPIO sANPe}N_ 0} JUENSINY Peonpold jeNUaPYUTD 300 /1uainesy e1ewojny sjudwedtieyuig Aedoiiry UOREZHOUd HON ey ~ sweweoeyus puinsodens sued ‘wel pres wis: : a vopeaundo etey sist ‘Lb NOZINOH TON IP vogsaguy Spey 9 hag europa oe oR Ww/Buypuey pezueeds 00\" ‘eau = BYCisuy NOLLVINSOJNI WILNAGIANOD Waiva SLVis ES 'MUG s(884 MOUS}! Day SSaulsng 8 Ud Uoinquisiq - - WOREDRBA Kueduled eBeBuOW eng pew» sec _ MeIpHOM EUKed revéig ox 8 uopsobu ‘2 NOZINOH uojewuoysues) Aeuinor / Sue] O%q uozioyH Aq dewpeoy sanenul abe"}, {"d": 93, "p": 27, "t": "1 SLL@SLOONNH 1818 ‘OOR44S “A ‘Te 19 “Allg ‘USINY ‘€ NOZRIOH ISN Po USITIQUISIG = s NOLLYANSOANI TWILNIGIINOD WHY SLVLS emounes equitda . Sudden] renin peruBeiy Ayhy udpendod-oig ‘@ NOZIMOH uoneuuoysues) Aauinor / sule|D Od aun PRUE open ve Sines aa ge LENG) pauiBeunay ICIS seday @ JOPIC BANII}O1d 0} WENSIN pamNpold |eYUsPYUOD Gite \" Biefreuy ebewer rer SUIS ABy 10} eiijdsd ope) Una \" : UBised Sugpuep anes jemaA : uoneziuedg Uopeoypuep) sso je}, ef - ubisag Senpiey wnetD rergan ‘tL NOZINOH uozWoH Aq dewpeoy sieday 9 uonenjeaq aBeweq poulbewiay"}, {"d": 93, "p": 28, "t": "ab rr eC ee eres 18 19 ‘998448 “A TE 12 “Alig ‘YSU : AMW4 ‘% NOZINOH 2 SMO Peus puB ya) ga NOLLVANSYOINI TWILNAGIINGO SLVLS a — vee “AU Siseg MOUY 0} PedNy ssoulsng B Ud LORNGuISIC - MMR *€ NOZINOH uoneuuojsues, Asunor / SWIIEID 98d SoqeUaya) Ayeno 9 jawabieuew 1WBisiaAQ JOPIO BANI}OJ 0} JUENSIN Paonposg jBNUepyuD a ios _ UBiseq GupueHUg pezieseds prey pn ghs' vovebusueubn ‘+ NOZIMOH uozoH Aq dewpeoy jyBissenC 9 JLUsWabeURW; AyeNyH ‘sonewajay"}, {"d": 93, "p": 29, "t": ": et Z+L9GLO0UNH ISERIES 1818 ‘OO0844S “A TE 12 ‘Aja ‘ysuny EIS *€ NOZINOH SIS TS NOILLVARMOSNE WILNSCIINOO Waa SLVLS Rug ISB] MOUSPO} PBSNY ssauisng 6 Ud uoNnquisic - = UoHeWLaUBIS wos, jeuoneziuUrsig ¥ JAPIO SANIGIOd 0} JUENSING Ppaonporg [eEUapyuoD anonl Ubon sesud 9 AruieOU uit onde erowy _ ens wreng oui fi money uoeon meinood ements ari oeny : UBiseg eepoesy uel equdena uOls eeuee eemg amin : uloREpioaUDS ood uEWEG asieckey “+ NOZINOH udiseq Z 2611 eRAS ening ‘@ NOZIYOH UOHeUoysuBsy ABUINOL / SWIRID O¥d uozioH Aq dewpeoy juswubliy jeuonjeziuebic 9 UOITe}USUBaS yOAA"}, {"d": 93, "p": 30, "t": "6L SLLOSLOONNH per erreur wy enpar ans ema recsone was ueniny pocene REE oe eS ae aS Te ET NOILLVINSOINE TVELNACIANOS e Wiivd SLV LS lid ‘sisBg MOUY OF HAdRy ssouisng BUG LONNqUIsiC| ~ JaPIO BAVA} - - 0} JUENSING PSONPoig /eNUEPYyLOD YOM JYBIY-Ul ENUIUCS JO MOU ayBAIOe PUe SEANeNIU / SLULAI}SyIOM 0} seaunosal josloid pue diyssapes] Jo jusWUBYe — UOIJEAI}OY YJOAA QB UONEZIIGOW adunosey uozuoy Aq sje6ie} awosjno suonedl|duul japow ‘ABojouyos} ‘sseooud ‘ajdoed sofew eziewuns pue sebueyd |, UOZUOH 0} JUa}U! OIBayesjs JoouUOD — saBueyy paldul | uoZOH paylejoq suyay - Anuaoya / asuadxa poddns 0} sishjeue |9Ag|-YyBiy a}a|dw09 — sisAyeuly 9wW09jNG UOZOY ezyeulg s}yaueq Jo uoezI|ea1 pue 94e}s joHse} spieMmo} sseibod ainsua 0} YOMaWe4 JO a}eaJ0 — lomaWes4 JYBYsuaAK B AyIgeyUNODDy ezeUlg UOI}]NDAXS JO} BIedaid 0} SAIPANOL UO!EZI[IQOW 3}9;GWODS ||,aM SY99M OM} JXOU SUL Ajug sasodung uolssnosig Jo4 — L4yvya 1218 ‘OOR4AS A ‘Te 10 ‘Aig ‘YSINH"}, {"d": 93, "p": 31, "t": "wot + 9S LO0YNH 02 122 ‘O0R44S “A ‘1 18 ‘Aue bre erreearrpereyrerar errs oescevee rire nasser meme 4sunH mecenmreget enn Seay RS eee ye eee eee ee NOLLVINSOINE IWILNAGIANOS Weis 2LVLS ‘AQ sISBq MOUY O] PaSpy ssoulsng Ud LOINGUish XIQGNAddV JBPIC 9AHa}O1g 0} WENSINd PsONpoly jeUEpYyuoD"}, {"d": 93, "p": 32, "t": "iz I JSPOW MSU O} SAJOAS IIIS 3} Alug sesoding uoissnosiq Jo4 — Lava 12.48 ‘DOR4AES “A Te 19 ‘Aig ‘UsINY SE spousq S OUISNG paubiye JLVLS B UO UOIITUISIC Way3 934} uo WWILNAGISNOO OF BABA jenuajod NOILYANOANI SES AGS SISBE] MOLI 3M 9 sjeob AOVENDIY ‘L Sseud S[eOH dibajelS JOS OM Uj J8pUO 2AND91OJq 0} JUBNSING Peonpolg jeNUaPYyUTD oaBayeus"}, {"d": 93, "p": 33, "t": "(eA : NOLLVINSOINI WWILNAGHNOO Pay sIUBoUy WEI SOUBULOLSY / JUTE] ‘SUG!SIDEP XejdCD 10) esiiedxe deag « wayshsoog Jopua, sqyBisuy ‘SURED suewesUeyUy Jepoyy edi 9 OY :e}dwexg seqpqedes 9 s}00) sesodind-s0}-1y ‘meu yy peddinby JUSLUUOHAUS BLA Ly SCOUENU 9 Spueg 0] esuodsel pidey PdT JOIEW uonezyeisads E YUJIM Papyle]sS ofA asiisdxg UOHJEPUNO) uoneBazuj juaye, PUL + JEPIO 9A99}0Jg 0} JUBNSINgG PSONPOld [BNVSpPIJLOD syusuepuns BuypueH wel Aurend, WYW4 JLVLS POAUQ SSB MOUy OF DASNY sssuisng @ Ud uolINquisiG - ABojouyoa, Bujpesy pue aiqrayy (saniqeded) jepow ey, ueyGuags pug 0} puz Bupom jo shay Man “9 {ssas0ig 9 a}dooq) |aPOW ,,0105.. MON LZ-8S LOOMNH : HOM JYBU 94} 0} Sjos |/D]S pue jug]e] UB “S suep JOPOU JNO Ul Salo! Oyloeds Aejd pue SUOHNIOS 9}259{9008 0) LUa}sAso0e JOpUBA BBeIEAe] “yp + suoqseseyul pagel Jauueys jeundo ey] 0} suOHORJE]UI BPIND -¢ syeJeW MOU /SenUMOddS JED wee, Pes HOW uogewoyne yGnoiy) seniagoe peseq juewHpnf-uou ayeulyy -z xejduie) uo jaye} yedxy :ejdwexy Spues} vonezajads, SMOLPLOM JSOW Ul eoUaHja}U} [Eloy paquuay « ube 0} J] PSDUeYUS @uunjoa yea} / eeYSeply pUEdxy UO SdAUaS & SE SUHEID ain}nj ssouppe Ajeapoeoid 0148181 dyoeds 8 SINS. « @OUeINSUI sseuisng {ews jo YaouB yoddng ° Bunessdo sdysieuyed W30 + “| . apoAoayr] jo BuruuiBeq psemoy uonNjose: Wie[D sAOWy ** seidiouud Buipin6 jepow Bugesedo fapow anny Bumoyjoy ayy) pauyep 9M ‘jepoud 8109 oy) WOIJ sajdisuid Alug sesodind uoissnosig 104 — 14vNd 1819 ‘OORAS “A Te 18 ‘Atiig 'YsINH"}, {"d": 93, "p": 34, "t": "cctgsloOunn ‘}apow anny ayy yoddns 0} pauinbar suonelepisuce Aydosoyiyud Burpuey wiep ajenjeas 0} ANUNUOD IIMA SA, NOULLVINYOINE IWILNAGINOO pue Joes WHYS “ANuaioyys soul YOM 0} saahojdius suwe}o Gullqeua pure snoo] Jo} UORBpUNO B paplAoid sey yom SIYT ‘eolAuas Jawoysno pue Buljpuey MOY UO uoneuoysues) 74B)14-Ut JUdING SLVLS yoddng uolsioeg juebijaju| + + « PsoUueByus / ING oA « « JOPIO BAWS}Od 0} JUENSIN PAONPold [BUAPYLOD aBeul Sse[D POM SAIS HES Y UOVeWO}NY sdiyssauped wajsksooq SS999NS BNjNy JO} pasnbes pure jUeAg]al IIHS aie syooig Buipjing pue soanesoduy aBeyeg poyepyen uoVeUuojsues) UsAUG Buijsixe sxo0/g Bulpiing ¥ seaneseduyy 16a3e4S -syBisu| ino ur juewublyy jedes ueuwinH, Buruyep Jeyeq uc pesnoo4 1g ABojouysse, quawa)qeug e7eq ail4 3 ONY syuawiaoueyug POW usauq saiBajels syyBisuy wmielD Pp|asndo} pue unejo Ajenb sarod ssaooid SWB} Buy UI | pue Byep Bulsn jeu) payeqsuowap sey ABeyens juaung UOHBWIOJSURI) Aydosolud “SNUG SIS2q MOUY O} PdeNy ssauisng w ud LonNdisiC ~ Aydesojiyd Buypuey wiejo ino jo sjuawes Aay Jo uoneZIepoyy “‘saanoa(qo ino yoddns 0} yoeodde paseq-souewwoped ‘japouw Hunesedo sno ul sajol ayjoads Aad 0) pue SUONIOS 9]818|2008 0} SIOPUSA UIM @JOUI B BYP} 0} SIOPUBA INO YIM PAO, 9Yy} Sojqeus (aovues Has ‘syyBisui 6'a) payajduoa si yuom Moy BulBueyo 0) Ady Uaeq aaBy juaWa;qeus BBP pus ABojouyoo | sdiysuauyed o16ayes)s 0} JSSPUILU INO YIYs HIM AA *S{USLU]SBAUI ABojouyoa) Aoy Buryew Aq uoneziwapow eyep pue ABojouyoa} Suef UO SNOOJ O] @NUUCD [IM BAA alym skejd ayeas U0 S00} 0] @NUALOD IIIA BAA “pauinbau @uaUM S||DiS Wadxa pue voRezeloads Bulqeus |IIM BAA “3MO @M JeyM Aed pue 'ssouatedxa Jawojsnd souByua ‘Atanonpad saqidul 0} op JIN}N} lepow Bupesedo aininy spsemo]) Burpiing Om Jey BuipAiane ul pay syyBIsuy WIE[D @q JBPpOW Aju sasoding uolssnosig 104 — 14H 1818 ‘OO844S “A Te 39 ‘Alig ‘YSINH"}, {"d": 93, "p": 35, "t": "“ve £2195 L008NH NOLLVARNOANE WILNSGISNOS Wad JLVLS ones }xeyduco L4an Aunfuy JOPO BANVE]O_ 0} JUBNSING peonposg jEnUapyuoD eres €/z aap Aanfuy sso Aguajsisuoo pue aes U dl astidsajuy sullejD asudiajuy ssosoe uonezyeisads pue ajeos ajqeue oO} doy poubye $1 AYXB{AUIOD JE/LUIS JO JOA SWIe}D AYWWUXOdd alg SESE, Aug) aIsBg mOuy OF pean sssulsng wld LONnquISIC - “spues} BuiBiewe ‘yom xeiduios sow au) SSaJPpe 0} posinbas uonezeroads Aoy a|qeue |IIM JaPOLW SY, pue ‘saBuayeyo jeuonsipsunf anbiun “Andwiod pue Ajeyeznooe eAjoses 0} uonegoBeu pue Jo eei6ep e asinbel oj sues xejduios alow yoedxe aA, uonenjeas ‘uoneByseaul |euoMppe ejpuey o} UOHeZzIEI9eds Ayyoinb sow SUule|> eAjosel 0} AyIGe Ino SseaJOU! 0} Jap Ul asey Episai 0} UONeZIeIOads eWOS JOedx| aAA . “eyxe]UI Je AES sluejo yo abe) pue uognjosel uo AjABey Snooy [IM UOTeziueBIC $/00} pue sanijiqedes jeybip ABojouyoe] uapow Yim peddinby yuswUOsAUY S,Aepol Wuie|o 84) 0} (49]US9 [Jeo pul jey6Ip ‘ayqou) Joop yUoLy yuUsWUOIAUA 3injn4 ‘aslidiajUe 8Y} PUB JALUO}SNd JNO jo spaauU sy} YOddns Jayeq 0} SUIE|O WEY a}e}S a]qeue ||IM |ePOWW aiNyny 4NE JUSWUOJIAUS 31N}NJ SIY} 0} SAJOAD / BADIYDE 0} SaniluNjioddo sayeasd ayep 0} ssasGo.d uno “A ‘12 19 ‘Ain ‘USINH Ajug sasoding uolssnosiq 404 — Lava 1 1a ‘OORI4S"}, {"d": 93, "p": 36, "t": ": eae é : « : ¥Z1 9S L00Y8NH ‘oj@ ‘uoneBy!) fenjoesjuos ~81x9 ‘JuaweBbeuew uoReby! ~ suoyenyis Wiel xe|dW0D - SLVLS iO SSP MOUy.OF PadNy-sseulsng @ UC LOlnguisid sue} sinj}n4 ano ul sojdwexy 132\\TWidadS Sue]9 asudiayug b 4olh J9PIC BAi}9}0J_ 0} JUBNSINd psonparg jenuepyuos *‘spuai GuiBowe pue ‘seBuayeyo jeucgoipsun{ anbiun Syom xejdiuce ysow ey) sseippe 0} peuinbas uojezieroeds Aay aiqeue jj jepow Sy NOLYASOINE WILNSGIINOD WW een \" “Anduioid ‘uoyeSysaau! |euoHIppe auinbe 0} swlejo auios joodxe aA, pesinbal asniodxe jeoluljo Jo uoyeBysaaul Ainful jo wsiueyoay :Ainful xajdwioy . pue Ajayeino0e eAjose 0} UoHenobeu pue ‘uonenleae (uepicoe Uojoesieyut Jeo NNW) pasinbas UopeByseaul seypng ‘Ayqer] Xejdui0D JeapoW yUSWUOJIAUY anny sulej) asudiajuz ssosoe uonezyelseds pue ajeos ubiy Wi1e|D ey} 0} (48]U9 Jeo puke [eyHip ‘ajiqowl) Joop yuol4 a SUWIE;S JO eGeLN) 6 pue UONNjOse! UO kK AjIAeaY SOO} + : \" ayezU| 38 UOQNOSe, Jdwodg :Aunfu| | JeLL - Apjoinb asous suse|o aajosal 0} Aylige Ino aseaioUl 0} Japso U! B19Y Splseas 0} UOHEzeIOeds sos joodxe a~A “oyeyUI Je Ayes 6 [JIM UONEZIUeBIO :uNeE{D OyNYy eydUIS . oyequ| je sobewep pue : ‘Ayiqey ' ‘eBererco Bulysiqeyse 01 TONS Ajaind woy snoo} WY sojdwexy A\\ug sasoding uolssnosiq 404 - Lavy 18 8 ‘QO853S “A 12 39 ‘Alig ‘UsINY,"}, {"d": 93, "p": 37, "t": "Wad i SLVLS t , + SZLOSLOOYNH NOLLVINYOANI WILNAGIINOO “SUS RJUQ sISBEy MOUS 0] PEON $s SUOROEIB}U JSUUGISN PaziEUosied \"|BUCRUB|L « SAILITMEVdVD OIOALVYLS jeuueys paziuydo sy).0} suogogequl eping) Buypuey ue Ayenb SAdudUU! 0} aoJOpOM peouauiadxe pus paynys AjuBiY y+ suoisioep Bulpuey une} ayBuuo\\Ne o} guONNjos Jenjog « \\YOM azqoud pur spuan wie AINUepI AWeARoeOId + Bunjeur uorsioep xajduioo oddns diay 0 sjooy zenyaq . JODO SANDA}OJq 0} JUBNSIN, PSONposg jeVUapyUOD SMOPHOAA UOAUP-BEQ sesseooid vonsedsul sedeu papind ysiqersq JON 22 (soneuietet / COPIA / ojoyd) eoueByeNU Beg oben e ayxeIU] SSE] POM “¢ TUNASSJ1aS FUOSUIOINY PSSUEADY —-_UOBLOWNE YBno.yy senANoe peseq wewBpnt-uou eeu SANeIIdU| DibajesS SHOM 1YBy ely 0} S368 |ID{S PUB JUTE} UBINY “g “Zz O} PIU OM ‘919U} 306 Oo} Ng Sd|dioullg [opow DuljessdO SMOYYIOM [fe UI eoUeByEyUy [EOYRAY pequy SULLSP “¢ Kay Jepouws ino Uj sejou oyjOeds Avid pue sUONNjOS e}eJ8}999k 0} WIe}sXsooe JOpuaA eBeisAs] suajqeusa “| pue apAoeyry Jo BuruuiBeq 0} uoHN}oses WwIe|D BAC sanyiqedes “py pounbes (oye eyo ‘eotAies-yes) jouUeYs peundo ay} Oo] sUOQOBIaWUI epINg Ajug sesoding uolssnosiq 104 — 14y4Na 12 9 ‘ODR4SS “A ‘Te 39 “Alig ‘'YSINH"}, {"d": 93, "p": 38, "t": ". 92195 LOOUNH ‘2 = ; [—uoqsey prety peouenpy eq 9 r . WB. ephosyy uoneBa of yuoul uogetigr] peyewomyy “¢ uBies ~: Fi eBeIU| : sv notwen zs 7 L f : i 1818 ‘OO844S “A Te 19 ‘Aina ‘usin AjuQ sasoding uolssnosig 404 — L4vNd sich’ ai semaqedes SURED Ze wer jueweeayseg beuey pply By 10) Gavi fyems 98 uy) RUD UAL samme covewouna dus + jususbeuey sen; OZ x a ond o yr] “| an re mz a Ba 5 = EO3 Z FS < ep a JARO BAIPEIOsY 0} JUBNSING PsONpog BIUapyUoD WH SUAETD “EZ soues Hes UE ‘6 . queuke eR gz sc Bupisdey, 8807 jucgemenudd a of a jouutissy ~ Sen “diuoa penddy J Teue ang paewany yy °¢) . ; Z| !| i f SNIM XSIND quoweBwseodig esouieng ‘sz eusyy omreubss eH6i0 “yl [ wountessy mos porewoany ec! . . ~ { [ Z r aq SAU Siseg mousy oF padhy seoulsng @ Lio Uolnquisiq NOLLVINGOINI TVILNAGIINOD WY JLVLS 2 mueIwog ParewoInY r , oBexES peeuiomy ‘16 | | ¢ ¢ aatuy nounues BUD} Fe : x obe, [ wouryosoy eBexonor paymeuny : “2z | OIDSLVYLS pasinbas saiijiqedeo yueyodun ay} Bulzjuoud ; BulAyjuep! ym syeys YIU, ‘queyodul jsow aue yey} sanyiqedeo ayy aznuoUd pedjey Yyoiym jUaLUaldLU! 0} Ayxe;duwos ay} pue sje20B o6eye.)s Jno ysurebe samjiqedeo pe pessesse oA, LNAWLS3ANI wang"}, {"d": 93, "p": 39, "t": "22195 LO0UNH . e6ery jue}Iys pue Bi AldG ais bey MOUS OF HSON SSeuisng BUS UoINqUISIC NOLLYIWOAINI THLLNAGIINOS Wad FLVLS e429 ied ssepjonoy & 0} wre eig eynos pure BuypueY UoRdeoxe sseippe oj paziian are YeIs pezijejoedg (Aanfuy -@7) 1g B eg (ned ot) JosdLejUI pue je}s 0} Buyspow eAyoIPaxd pUE UMOUY $1 JEL UOReUUOYL aig aAosdLU sare wotn pebinoud seizing Spee opto : \"bie Anse a sen ac Pinoys seecoud sin coup Feo uf uodn pete pug payepdn Agenuguoo5 si. qs}}epeds uyez eyeucosdde Sif OF eyo: 0) (Peuyel 8] LOREUOIU) se PLE JONte Apennt persenoa) peBavency $1 UoeULOpUY LuTEID, : oe vera Ge Juewhed ‘Ayaqut] ‘efelenca‘eye uy Jo uopetuaine) (xejdutco Jo ‘-e9eryono} ‘ued esajyono}) __ Sep ep . _/ounpe Wenbal Pe : ip SUR ACACIA Hepes lic Ch soe : « ~ (dIH9) MOppurAU AURGET aVeR ReyeuayMY. aBeu, wera peourapy (Ayoedeg Buuyeys ofqixe}4+) JBPIO BANIE}O1g 0} JUENSIN Peonpold [eYUapYyUOD . ere ee Ayyiqedea ere ee tne BuaBessoyy teOyrejuy of {00} UOReZQUOLd ALo}UeAU! JOIPURY LUTeID ; Ricereerean) JO MI0|0y 0 AENEID souscyero eg oy HaFeOITE 80 BuCRIDIUNKULIOD cohonmla i suoHiuyeg suondussag Ayyiqedes yuepodul 4H yoIND eure Jeno Jo sonswors Bx ao0|« Buea: parece: are auonsougon BSI “au pe “Aargedes —- ed eyetsdoxdde otg Uo SUNT ein puRjasepUN oj SuLM|UOU wp jeu }epoLU!pue sseulEng peziprepuas : PES bagi ‘Syeinooe iow pus Suyjpuey use Aypenb arosdus) xn arene 9 esi \"cost kinesin : onan eave Uuyep sed sysey AtessedeuUi 10 ENYEA MoI jo : junole otf Buonperfq poseerul 9] AYARONPAg sc ‘QO8S4S *A “12 12 ‘Alig ‘UsINH A\\uQ sesoding uolssnosiq 104 ~ Lwud 2"}, {"d": 93, "p": 40, "t": "ene otis t Benne ani napecactiee ; ppm a ect ee : a SAVES RIUG) SSBE MOUS O} BRON) S89ulsng @ Uo UOINqUIsIC- ent “Sousa jo uae eanhiod paar NOLLYINSOJNI TVELNSGIINOO IVS nein man ‘sepNfoUE SILL PU PaywEZD OG MIA LUE} OU) UL PEAJOALH Sond HE Jo SORJOld wep hed pany pue© hiormy wep “Aroysiy feojpeur ‘oy ey]JOU S| Ing Uy amoy Rep Meu se perepdn ApuE|sUOD mas wp wend en Pe pe popu a sueIBald Aq papjacud | Savane tis pen pe pone taj pers en aE ee BHO AIDC) 2 BulSewdAwy Sn. bine : os ve ostens ee EP FEMS sod pus poods \"e ‘1) Bupjew uosep UREP ULO]UT pu LORBUUEgU JUBLUNGOP 0} SWCJO ‘BABS PUB HELUg GAO 82 YON {apnyon oun 49 peda “SUOIBPEP UBALP Psion shialosp Busepi pu “Saas exe so uss: ‘queumoop jo uoneaby : ' \"(oto einckocrnetentn suOniUysg ’ Woneineas) oBudubriwucueial : Ueto Fuso Seuoid Ayed ojueucg : “MOHEREA : - Moprerneng eBeusc jueSyrey ae wee ee er a (xvw) dopiseq syepossy wepoy ee * aunjoeyory 101 Burcepuy: pur Styesi: teumooges i uonsedu eyeg Aped paul suondiwoseg Ayiqedes juawjseauy 9160}2.13g pale joxdeia \"opin ett peunonigtn fo Uohyduitietion eu 40) shoo) Dlauat FIR \"th Byep yoddne jel, sopAjeue eyeeo pue Aqua eiep pue Bupows fenuew enroute:‘sseoaid Wye etp ULOsY) (MIU Stewoysno Woy Suu eBp pelnjonuysun pue ‘slopusa ‘seoinoser apisinosyne Way ejep Be. BuiBersre) \"beam MOU ni Of Lay ABojopoyjeu! .uoRDe J80q KELL, MOHIO} 4] 9IqE 8} PUP oNDads pra LOD StSBR MODHOM y eouepin6 Sseeocidjeulexe pur (EUe}U) INOG 40) paBereng oq UD Yom ] ‘Bupjeul Uo;Ss}pep juOROBAyU! ayEIDOSSE es ‘fring sein joi eiig eeRG tiie cae ORRSA ei) odes 36 peur ou of AncEeK BH0) Jo ee} pUP ap Avedoid/ePYeA vo podEd uoTENIEA opm Siew , SE Burfyeud weds euE pesueyue yBnowy pun epuoUnoo “OOM niet aisle ie teirmam pare Pla UBoe 0} Son) AOR RANUER eonped RUM StiEL aetna @uug PAD Uy VORONp pur Aoeuriove e! ul eseELOU} (ped wep jo uoReuULE; Apres p UA pestepean Aoeunaoe pus Ayponpoxd .ejpuey eseeisu] LOVUZOW ce \"eigen wreahik oa Deepens ij Fevowipve uo pena wetencudy Aoesnoy tged utp euruue}9p 0; perooyoo voReLio;4 Epp ylay eer lectern ‘Gamal on Be Ateneo _ ‘foueroiye pue Assinoor exaidus 0] sesseooud euyureeys cape [nMy “‘Buyened eyep eyes ue eyeuuojne y PUE SOUARDEREN UBL gored Tex oy, : ¥ ‘pus hour eon pal Esato sal ant ietsbooid eujweene. oun SOUDINE Gore im st ‘GutieED eiep sem RMS \"croup: Alu sasoding uolssnosig 104 — | wud 12 38 ‘QO834S “A ‘12 19 ‘Alig \"YSINH"}, {"d": 93, "p": 41, "t": "] | ' oF 6ZL98SL0048NH _ TWILNSGIINOS ANY SLVLS ssa90ud ee AHdOSOTIHd WidOad SBE] MOUY OF PaaNy sseuisng e Ud uoNNaNISIC NOILLVINSOAN! uoneuedo au) yo spasu pue spuay BuiBueyo 0] eiqeydepe pue alqixay aq 0) soJoppiom dinb3 S0/U9s SSBP pilom pue ‘AAojouysaysonAjeue ozqn 'suoisioap xa}duoo aye Oo} sjs auinboe Jo sed ‘|NWySdr) UORUSAIOIU! PUB UONEZUONd AJOJUSAUI ‘MOEPYOM UBAUP Byep Jo /NSAJ B Se joNUOD Jo sueds puedxy SOUBUOLEd JOpUaA pub SeQUeJajasd JALWO}SN9 ‘soNSUa}OBJeYo LUIBID UC paseq suOHdo jsaq 0] SIaWO}sNo apins, SUOISIIAP XA|CLUOD UYIM JSISSB 0} SIOPUA Ap USP] SONSUSJOBIeYS Lu|e|O pue s}yBisul UO pase Aj}PoVeWoyne diyssepeg| 0} Bye/e0sy syyBisul pue eyep Buisn (Ajiqay ‘e6e1aaco “B'a) sucisioap Wiejo awios ayewoyny ne Wiel yIpalg wo eeecee dIHSUANLUvd eee ajqeue oj Byep Aued Ayed pe ued: puedxy 1g 0) diyseuied diyssaued eyep een cee ee syyBisul pue eyep Ayed pe YBnong aBeuy Ajjeonewoyne pue yjed ee WALSASO9A cae SUOISHAP ByBW JO LOSE ayB} O} SIGWO]SNO Y SejBIDOSSB ApINE) SUOISHAaP JUSIOIYS PUB B}B1ND0B aio BIqeua oO) WEI PUB saned at oyu! WYSisuI alow oye169}u) tn wn bo sajol oRSOY asoWw PUB aioads Agjd 0, siOpUaA ApQUap] early sns04 JUSIIYS AO JUBPILS PI PUB s}BINOOB y ee ee eee SUCISIOSP ISIO@P eb sdeg Aey jo Aewuing Q : by veneer : Fe anne . ? Wap Bpaqua P SxeIU] Sse/5 PIO UdieMONY pasuEApY SsIATSS 19S & i JOPO BAIVE}Og O} JUBNSINg PaoNpold |BNUapyUucs : we ABojouyss} pue Aydosoyiyd ‘ssaood ‘ajdoad ssoise sdeb ay] pessesse osiy ay Jepow Buneiedo oy) uly AtuQ sesoding ualssnosiq 404 -— Lwad 18 8 ‘OOR44S “A Te 38 ‘Ailig ‘USI"}, {"d": 93, "p": 42, "t": "te O€ 19S LOCYNH IVILNSGISNOO Weivd SLVLS “a AJUQ SISBG MOUY 0} PSdNy seeuisng @ UC Ualinguisiq NOLLVASOANE Jajpuey ied yndy6nouy ul aseasoul %0G-0E “FL payewojne 8! paziebadg /z 4911 0) a6e1y snonuquos pue juoY dn Jo +%06 “Ch ined ssafyono} & WHoju! oF uO. dn paysaBul si uoHeULOjU| BunIoddns pue Byep pasinbad jo +% 0g ‘71. Uonoesueyy ad\\Ales 138d UOHONpPad }S09 JUN %OG-O% “LL UOHSNPSJ BLU B|DKD +%QS-0Z - uonoadsul pjay 40} UoRONpal jsoo JUN %OG-0Z SYBUU! }! UOAN|OSe! JUBLUIELO JOauIp AINfUl Jo +%OG aban [eqiul ye paynuap! sinsodxa Aun{ul Jo %GB Bt] JO %OG ae SUOISIOap aBBIBAD Jo +%Qg Ajenyia auop uojenjers abewep jo %pp abou] |ENIUI je ape 26eu) yeniul je apew aie suoReuILWA}ap SWIRIOD SSaIYONO, %OP-GE bujeisdo (pauinbey dn Mojo} Uewny ou) ;auUeYD |eYI6Ip Buy Ul POUIE|UOS aie PUB syejU! (ey161Ip YBnosLy 06 sasso| jo +%OP ig “USINH apoAdayr7 Jo BuluuiGaq piemo) uoHNjOsey WED BAC; SMOIPHOM sou UW) aoUEHyIjoVU| [BOWL paquiy (978 Jeys ‘soluas-yjas) jauUBYS jeLUAdo a4) 0) sUO}}OBJayUI apIng Uonewoyne ySnoiyy seniagoe paseq juswBpni-uou ayeuiUly JAMO GA1}09}0Jq 0) JUBNSING paoNposg |BNUAaPYUOD ¢ ISNAGXA AOVENDOY AON3IDISAA S[20D dIbayels uonluyep UOZOY [@A2|-YBly pue dewpeoy swie|g O-gq 94} JOJ }JUNODIE O}U! Syndu! asay} Yoo} aA buneIedG FH S3|d/uN POW NO fepow sno uy sejcu oyIoeds ABjd pue sUONNos ayes8}e09e 0} We}sAsooe JOpUdA aBesOAd] SHOM YBU BU} 0} sas [II4s pUE yUEIE) UBIY SeA/}S9IqO JePOW suoido JopuaA paiajesd Jo yenuia YBnosy) o6 suedau jo %GG 12 18 '‘DOBIAS ‘A ‘Ie ya Alug sesoding uorssnosig so4~1ayua - i=) oa G NOT HON ~~—"}, {"d": 94, "p": 1, "t": "FILED IN DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY TUR AN = wre pisteictSTATEcourt oF oKLaHo SEP WARREN $ 0202 * 98397 x OF OKLAHOMA MAcounry RICK COURT BILLY & LACY HURSH, CLERK 68 Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(2), 51 O.S. §§ 24A.29 and 24A.30, Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh, respectfully submit their Unopposed Application for Leave to file an unredacted copy of Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendant State Farm’s Amended Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Plaintiffs’ Deposition Notice of State Farm’s Operations Vice President Michael Keating and Counter Motion for Rule 4 Order, and Brief in Support, under seal. In support of this Application, Plaintiffs state: I. Plaintiffs seek to file their Response and confidential exhibits thereto under seal. Plaintiffs’ Response relies upon and references documents regarding the Defendants’ discovery production. 2. Plaintiffs’ request leave to file under seal an unredacted copy of their Response with a confidential Exhibits. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh, respectfully request the Court enter an order granting Plaintiffs’ permission to file under seal an unredacted copy of Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendant State Farm’s Amended Motion for"}, {"d": 94, "p": 2, "t": "Protective Order and to Quash Plaintiffs’ Deposition Notice of State Farm’s Operations Vice President Michael Keating and Counter Motion for Rule 4 Order, in support of their Motion. A proposed order will be submitted herewith. Respectfully submitted, ‘ggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 Whitten Burrage 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com -and- Patrick F. Collogan, OBA #30529 Biby Law Firm 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 918-574-8458 888-572-8263 (fax) pat@bibylaw.com -and- R. Ryan Deligans, OBA #19793 Andrew M. Gunn, OBA #19470 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102-2610 Telephone: (405)235-9584 Facsimile: (405)235-0551"}, {"d": 94, "p": 3, "t": "rdeligan@dlb.net agunn@dlb.net ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS"}, {"d": 94, "p": 4, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 30, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was delivered, via hand-delivery to all counsel of record for Defendants. Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GableGotwals Lance Leffel Ashlyn M. Smith GableGotwals 110 N. Elgin Ave., Ste. 200 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Ste. 2200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 cmcneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com asmith@gablelaw.com line SanLande n Sanders"}, {"d": 95, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA PILED DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, September 30, 2026 10:01 AM RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-2626 V. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC, Defendants. ee ea ee a a Plaintiffs, Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Hon. Amy Palumbo MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF KRISTIN A. SHEPARD Defendant State Farm Life Fire & Casualty Company. (hereinafter “State Farm”), by and through counsel of record who has appeared in this case, Lance E. Leffel of the firm GABLEGOTWALS, requests the Court, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2005.2(B) and Article 2, Section 5 of the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association, to admit Kristin A. Shepard to practice before this Court solely for the purpose of appearing as counsel for State Farm Defendants in the above-styled case. By filing this Motion, State Farm expressly reserves, and does not waive, any available defenses. In support of this Motion, State Farm Defendants’ counsel represents to the Court as follows: 1.) Kristin A. Shepard is an attorney with Alston & Bird, LLP; 950 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20012 2.) Kristin A. Shepard is admitted to practice before the courts of Washington, DC. 3.) Kristin A. Shepard has never been the subject of a complaint charging unethical professional conduct and has never been subject to discipline by any bar association or any other"}, {"d": 95, "p": 2, "t": "applicable authority. 4.) This Motion is supported by the attached “Signed Application” submitted to the Oklahoma Bar Association (Exhibit “A”’), “Certificates of Good Standing” (Exhibit “B”), the “Certificate of Compliance” (Exbibit “C”) from the Oklahoma Bar Association and the “Declaration of Kristin A. Shepard (Exhibit “D”) as required by 12 O.S. § 2005.2(B) and Section 5 of Article 2 of the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association, 5 O.S. Appendix 1. 5.) Lance E. Leffel of the firm GableGotwals is an active member of the Oklahoma Bar Association and resident of the State of Oklahoma, whose address is stated below, and who has previously entered an appearance in this case. GableGotwals is associated with Kristin A. Shepard as local counsel for State Farm Defendants. 6.) | A proposed Order is submitted herewith. WHEREFORE, the undersigned counsel respectfully requests that Kristin A. Shepard be admitted to practice before the Court in the above-captioned case as additional counsel of record for State Farm Defendants. Respectfully submitted, Sane 2 EGE. Carrie B. McNeer, OBA No. 22235 GrantA. Fitz, OBA No. 19806 Nathan A. Miramontes, OBA No. 36212 GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 PH: (918) 595-4800 FAX: (918) 595-4990 cmcneer@gablelaw.com efitz@gablelaw.com nmiramontes@gablelaw.com"}, {"d": 95, "p": 3, "t": "-and- Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 PH: (405) 235-5500 FAX:: (405) 235-2875 lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com Diane Lee McGimsey -Admitted Pro Hac Vice SULLIVAN & CROMWELL 1888 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, CA 90067 PH: 310-712-6600 megimseyd@sullcrom.com Erica B. Zolner -Admitted Pro Hac Vice REDGRAVE LLP 230 West Monroe Street, Suite 210, Chicago, IL 60606 PH: 773-720-9169 ezolner@redgravellp.com Tiffany Lynne Powers -Admitted Pro Hac Vice ALSTON & BIRD, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Atlanta, GA 30308 PH: 404-881-7000 Tiffany .pwers@alston.com Attorneys for Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company"}, {"d": 95, "p": 4, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I do hereby certify that on September 30, 2026, a true, correct and exact copy of the above and foregoing document was served by placing same in the United States mail, with proper postage thereon duly prepaid, to those parties as listed below: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com R. Ryan Deligans, Durbin, Larimore & Bialick 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rdeligans@dlb.net Patrick F. Collogan BIBY LAW FIRM 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 pat@bibylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs See 2 EGOS"}, {"d": 95, "p": 5, "t": "APPLICATION OUT OF STATE ATTORNEY REGISTRATION Kristin Ann Shepard , Applicant, respectfully represents: First Name Middle Nama Last Name 1. Applicant is an attorney at law and a member of the law firm of Alston & Bird Applicant's mailing address is 950 F Street NW Mailing Address Washington , DC City (202)239-3300 Telephone , County , (202) 239-3277 (Firm) 20012 = State , Zip Code , (202)239-3333 Telephone (Applicant's Direct Dial) Fax (Applicant) Kristin. Shepard@Alston.com E-mail Address (Applicant) 2. Applicant is admitted to practice and is a member in good standing (certificates of good standing attached) of the bar(s) of the highest state court(s) of the following state(s): State Date of Admission DC 2001 MO 2000 3. Applicant is admitted to practice before the following United States District Courts, United States Circuit Courts of Appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States, and/or other tribunals on the dates indicated for each, and is presently a member in good standing of the bars of said courts: Tribunal Date of Admission U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 2003 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2008 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2005 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 2018 EXHIBIT A"}, {"d": 95, "p": 6, "t": "4. Have you ever been suspended or disbarred in any court except as N hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. court, jurisdiction, date): 5. Are you currently subject to any pending disciplinary proceedings by any organization with authority to discipline attorneys at law except as hereinafter N provided (Give particulars; e.g. court, discipline authority, date, status): 6. Have you ever received public discipline including, but not limited to, suspension or disbarment, by any organization with authority to discipline attorneys at law except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. court, discipline authority, type of discipline, date, status): 7. Have you ever had any certificate or privilege to appear and practice before any regulatory or administrative body suspended or revoked except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. administrative body, date, status of suspension or reinstatement): lo 8. Applicant seeks admission to practice in the State of Oklahoma in the following matter (give particulars; e.g. caption of case, court or agency, type of matter, party to be represented): Note - A separate application Is to be submitted for each matter in which the applicant seeks admission! Billy & Lacy Hursh v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company; Mark D. Welty; and Mark D. Welty Insurance Agency, inc., No. CJ-2025-2626 ( Det of Oklahoma County), on behalf of State Farm Fire and Casualty Company"}, {"d": 95, "p": 7, "t": "9. The Oklahoma Bar Association member who is counsel of record for Applicant in this matter is: Lance E. Leffel 19511 First Name Middle Name Last Name 0.B.A. Number 699 W. Sheridan Avenue, Suite 2200 Oklahoma City OK Mailing Address (405) Cily _ 235-5500 (405, Telephone Number 73102 State 235-2875 Fax Number Zip Code _ lleffel@gabletaw.com E-mail Address 10. The following accurately represents the names of each party in this matter and the names and addresses of each counsel of record who appear for that party: Party Name Billy Hursh Counsel Name Patrick Collogan Address of Counsel 6305 E. 120th Ct., Sulte F, Tulsa, OK 74137 Lacy Hursh Blake Sonne 512 N. Broadway Ave, Ste 300, Okiahoma City, OK 73102 Reggle Whitten 512 N. Broadway Ave, Ste 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Hannah Whitten §12 N. Broadway Ave, Ste 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 John Sanders §12 N. Broadway Ava, Ste 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Jake Denne 512 N. Broadway Ave, Ste 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 R. Ryan Deligans 920 North Harvey, Oklahoma Cily, OK 73102 11. Applicant certifies that he/she shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and disciplinary boards of this state with respect to the laws of this state governing the conduct of aitorneys to the same extent as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association. 12. Applicant understands and shall comply with the standards of professional conduct required of members of the Oklahoma Bar Association. 13. Applicant has disclosed in writing to the client that the Applicant is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction and the client has consented to such representation."}, {"d": 95, "p": 8, "t": "I, Kristin Ann Shepard , do hereby swear/affirm under penalty of perjury that the assertions of this application are true: | am the Applicant in the above referenced matter, | have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge except as to those matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to those matters | believe them to be true. | further certify that | am subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts and disciplinary boards of this state with respect to the law of this state governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association; | understand and shall comply with the standards of professional conduct required by members of the Oklahoma Bar Association; and that | am subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Bar Association with respect to any of my actions occurring in the course of such appearance. DATED this 3rd day of _September Applicant Mail with check or money order (payable to the OBA) to: Out-of-State Attorney Registration Oklahoma Bar Association P.O. Box 53036 Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3036 Form 200B , . 2026 N"}, {"d": 95, "p": 9, "t": "On behalf of JULIO A, CASTILLO, Clerk of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the District of Columbia Bar does hereby certify that Kristin A Shepard was duly qualified and admitted on April 2, 2001 as an attorney and counselor entitled to practice before this Court; and is, on the date indicated below, an Active member in good standing of this Bar. In Testimony Whereof, Ihave hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of this Court at the City of Washington, D.C, on September 03, 2026. ‘ JULIO A. CASTILLO Clerk of the Court Issued By: , a _ 7 : yihite.— David Chu - Director, Membership District of Columbia Bar Membership For questions or concerns, please contact the D.C. Bar Membership Office at 202-626-3475 or email memberservices@dchar.org, EXHIBIT B"}, {"d": 95, "p": 10, "t": "The Supreme Court of Missouri Certificate of Admission as an Attorney at Law 1, Betsy Ledgerwood. Clerk of the Supreme Court of Missour:. do hereby certify that the records of this office show thet on 9'27/2000. Kristin Ann Shepard was duly admitted and licensed to practice as an Attorney and Counselor at Law in the Supreme Court of Missouri and all courts of record in this state. and is. on the date indicated below. a member in good standing of this Bar. IN TESTIMONY WIHEREOF. [hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of the Supreme Court of Missouri at mv office in Jefferson City, Missouri. this 18\" day of September, 2026, Pty [seed Clerk of the Supreme Court of Missouri"}, {"d": 95, "p": 11, "t": "Certificate of Compliance ®klahoma Bar Association 1901 North Lincoln Boulevard Post Office Box 33036 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73132-3036 The Oklahoma Bar Association, in response to the application of out-ofstate attorney, submits the following certificate pursuant to 5 O.S. Ch.1 App.1, Art. Il 1. Applicant has submitted a signed application of out-of-state attorneys, certificate(s) of good standing, and the non-refundable application fee pursuant to the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association, 5 O.S. Ch. 1, App. 1, Art. Il. 2. Date of Application: September 21, 2026 3. Application Number: 2026-563 4, Applying Attorney: Kristin Ann Shepard Alston & Bird 950 F Street NW Washington, 5. DC 20012 The Application was: GRANTED Dated this 21'\" day of September, 2026. Lira Hendryx, General Counsel Oklahoma Bar Association Fm 4000 EXHIBIT C"}, {"d": 95, "p": 12, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) V. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Hon. Amy Palumbo ) Defendants. ) DECLARATION OF KRISTIN A. SHEPARD IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE I Kristin A. Shepard do hereby declare that I have read the above and foregoing Motion for Admission of Counsel Pro Hac Vice in its entirety. Each and every statement contained therein is within my personal knowledge and is true and correct. The undersigned, an attorney to practice before the courts of the State of Missouri and the District of Columbia, declares under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on 9/21/2026. Axt G. &. fl Kristin A. Shepard ! EXHIBIT D"}, {"d": 96, "p": 1, "t": "k IST SON PD HAAN CT COURT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA (CT - 1 2026 RICK WARREN COURT CLERK BILLY & LACY HURSH, 126 Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CJ-2025-2626 STATE FARM FIRE AND Honorable Amy Palumbo CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR LEAVE T This matter having come on for consideration this LE,UNDER SEAL AY day of September, 2026, upon Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh, Unopposed Application for Leave to File Under Seal and the Court having reviewed said Application, finds that good cause exists therefore. 12 OS. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED § 3226(C)(2), §§ 244.29 and 24A.30, the Court hereby determines that it is 51 O.S. AND DECREED that pursuant to necessary in the interests of justice to permit the filing of the requested materials under seal to prevent the materials from being public record. Plaintiffs shall be and hereby are granted leave to file an unredacted copy of Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendant State Farm’s Amended Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Plaintiffs’ Deposition Notice of State Farm’s Operations Vice President Michael Keating and Counter Motion for Rule 4 Order, thereto under seal, and they shall remain confidential until further order of the Court. Plaintiffs are ordered to place the protected material in a sealed manila envelope clearly marked with the caption and case number and clearly marked with the word” CONFIDENTIAL” and stating the date the Order was entered"}, {"d": 96, "p": 2, "t": "and the name of the Judge entering the Order. A redacted version of the same filing may be filed publicly in this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED! GE OF THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVED AS TO FORM: ‘eggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 Whitten Burrage 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs"}, {"d": 97, "p": 1, "t": "AN ver G Anto s) fot rney ( on’ petiti Jol VM"}, {"d": 98, "p": 1, "t": "CURATION crate pisteicr court oF OKLAHOMA COUNTED IN DISTRICT COURT OKLABOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA OCT - 2 2026 BILLY & LACY HURSH Pia Vv. 108 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and Teta Ne Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. COUNTY REDACTED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE-PRODUCTION OF DEFENDANT ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION IN THE FORM STATE FARM ELECTED, AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT"}, {"d": 98, "p": 2, "t": "CONTENTS Introduction..........ssscsscssssssssssssssorsnsoserscnssesscscsasecscscesesesessneneneneacnenenensasesnanaeaeasacnenseseenenaeas 1 I. HL. Background ......ccssscscsssesssscconsessssesenenssesssseseasacacsesnenscacacsseesssascscesoooouansssansssasansnssaseneneneeen 2 A. Plaintiffs Specified a Form of Production and Served an ESI PLOtOCOL, ....csccscsssscsssscscsescnsececsrscseetseucusescacacsescscscucsensessscsseesenstarststissesarerecessosesenensnes 2 B. State Farm Objected and Elected Its Own Form of Production...........sssccceeer 3 C. The Court’s Prior Discovery Orders and the Production that Followed. ...... D. State Farm Delivered Flattened Files... ssssesssesesssssessseeseesssneeeeesnssensnsceeeseesees 5 Argument and Authority.........sssssssssssscerscsecseneescnseseeressnssessssssncossnnnssnsnssnnnnsnssceneasoorsnsstes 6 A. Electronically Stored Information Is a Distinct Discovery Category, and the Code Governs Its Form B. State Farm Did Not Produce in the Form it Elected. ........ccccscusseseseeeseeresseseeee 9 C. The One-form Rule Does Not Apply......ccccscscccsssssesressseerssrsressssensnsseseeeenss 10 D. Flattening Removed and Significantly Degraded what State Farm Maintains. E. A Production That Cannot Be Assembled Is Insufficient Regardless of VOLUME. .......cccccsesceesereseeeeeenetsesnsesssssssssnsesecnseseeseaseesseneeeseneesenenss 11 F. The Stripped Fields Are the Same Fields State Farm’s Own Privilege Assertions Require.........ccscsccceeretesseessssssesssseseeseeeseseserseeenesesensnseaeees 12 IV. G. Plaintiffs’ Forensic Examiner Examined the Production... reece 13 H. The October 26, 2021 Senior Executive Offsite Document Family. ......0.000000.- 14 lL State Farm Has Asserted No Burden and Identified No Inaccessible SOuUrCE. ......cccccccecsecenceceteeneserstsessesesscsesasseaseasssescsssecessecessscsesneeseeenesets 16 J. The Court Has Already Directed Production in the Ordinary Course of Business....c...cccescsesesesscssessessasssssssecscasescscssscecessscessseassssstsaneseeeseeeentets 17 Relief Requested ...........ssscsscssssssssssssssseessssnsnensneanssssssensnsasnnsnsssssssssssoonooeseseosecsesnencaroresenes 17 CONCIUSION ........ccccssssssessnscersssessnsssenceecssecscetsnsrecsssseuauseensesersesessecesesssaceceacncencesearerserseseesssees 20"}, {"d": 98, "p": 3, "t": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Aguilar v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Division 255 F.R.D. 350 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) o..cscecescesessseeseeessesseseessesesssceneeeeeaseenssennsessnensensscensesenees 9, 12 Andrews v. St. Paul Re-Insurance Co. No. 00-CV-0283K(J), 2000 WL 1760638 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 29, 2000)......:cssseeesnsees 14 Barnett v. Simmons 2008 OK 100, 197 P.3d 12. eects rseststeescessscessssseseeeeeeseresssesesesesssnsesnenssesesernesensseenasenena 20 Crest Infiniti, II, LP v. Swinton 2007 OK 77, 174 P.3d 996... cecsesssssessesssescersseenssssssessesesssssssessesescenessenssceesseensetenseneneys 8, 16 DE Technologies, Inc. v. Dell Inc. 238 F.R.D. 561 (W.D. Va. 2006)... cscscecessssccseesssseseseseseseerensesnessessesesensenenereseesenees 11, 12 Hall v. Goodwin 1989 OK 88, 775 P.2d 29]... eeeeseescceceeeeerenesessssssssesesesssssseseeenesenesssesnssessesesensensnesesesesatee 14 Heffron v. District Court of Oklahoma County 2003 OK 75, 77 P.3d 1069... ecsssssssecssesesesescesesessssenseseseseeseesensnssesssseseenenenene 2, 8, 10, 13 In re Honeywell International, Inc. Securities Litigation 230 F.R.D. 293 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) oo. eeseeetesetstsesssssssssssssssenssssssnsecnsnsesseserseeensseseeensees 12, 20 Landry v. Swire Oilfield Services, L.L.C. 323 F.R.D. 360 (D.N.M. 2018)... esesssssesnesteesseessessessnesssessesnnsssseseneesescasesseneseeeeneneensenes 8,17 Scott v. Peterson 2005 OK 84, 126 P.3d 1232... eceesessssessesesessesessenssnescesesesssssnsssssnesseesscsssssssesseaaseensesenees 8, 13 Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co. 230 F.R.D. 640 (D. Kann. 2005)... ccecsnsssnssesnesessseessssensseenesseneasssrissnsnsnieasersaes 9,11, 12 Wyeth v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. 248 F.R.D. 169 (D. Del. 2006) o.cccscsesesscsesssssscssessesesnessesensesenseneneesenerssessesnsensesensaees 11, 20 STATUTES 12 O.S. § 3226(B) ..eeeececeesecssestsssscsssssssssesscscssssssessssessensssseaseneseensseenesesucassssesssnensananecesisensssensnenens 4 12 OS. § 3226(B)(2)(b)..essecresessesesesssssessessessessenesesesecsecsecseaseaseescsarsnessaseqinsaetsstistscnscarsareneenrestessss 17 12 OVS. § 3234(A)(1)(8) vecesecsesstesssreesssssssesssssessessesseseseasecsecssanssucescensenssesnesussutsssnntascnsonenseneenereeaens 7 12 OLS. § 3234(BY(L)(C) .eeeesesssessesessessessecssesssessnsssssecssseeseeneassnessssssnesesecseonssenenssnensensuseneasensecenseseesas 7 12 OLS. § 3234(B)(2)(d)...e.escecesesseessesssssssescsneseeesseseesesesesssetssssscenssesosuecessssecseseenesseseneeneasensasenses 1,7 12 OLS. § 3234(B)(2)(€) ..eesesessessecsecsesssssesnsssssssssssssesssessesesssassneeneesscaeenessensensseseeneseeacseceeceecees passim 12 O.S. § 323 7(A)(2) ceccsessrsssssestssesssnescsnencsneessassesneasentassnensseeseassacsansssnsassenenennensansesnenseees 13, 18, 22"}, {"d": 98, "p": 4, "t": "12 OLS. § 3237(AN(3) svesssssssssssessssssscssenssessssccessssssssseseessssssesesssnssssesesesesssssserseeecenneseeseeees 2, 8, 18 12 O.S. § B23 7(A)(A) vicccssscssccssecsssscrssrsseseasssesescesessesnesesesneneesesessresesneneeessneneaeeaegenessensnenenses 2, 20, 21 RULES Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(A) ceseeseseececseceseceeeseeenssesscsensssssessnassseaacsvenssesneseeessceesscesscesssensssesesseeesesessot 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E) (ii)... sssesesesseseseseceneesssestssessssesssussaaesuesssessssnesssceesscessscensscenseresessenseceneee 8 OTHER AUTHORITIES Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) advisory committee’s note to 2006 amendment .........cccseceeeeeeeeeees 8,9, 11 The Sedona Conference Glossary (2d ed. 2007)... eeesesssersesesetetsssssssnnsesessssessusesesessensseenes 12 ili"}, {"d": 98, "p": 5, "t": "EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Defendant State Farm’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Discovery Requests (Sept. 22, 2025) Exhibit 2: Defendant State Farm’s Answers, Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production (Jan. 27, 2026) Exhibit 3: Plaintiffs’ First Discovery Requests—“Definitions”, “Instructions”, and ESI Exhibit 4: November 25, 2025 Journal Entry Sustaining Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel Exhibit 5: Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel (June 5, 2026) Exhibit 6: HUR00158217-HUR00158218 Exhibit 7: HURO00151883-HUR00151887 Exhibit 8: Declaration of Lance E. Watson Exhibit 9: HUR00158701 Exhibit 10: HUR00075111-HUR00075112 Exhibit 11: Order, State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. The Honorable Amy Palumbo, No. 123,812 (Okla. June 23, 2026) Exhibit 12: Court Minute (July 7, 2026) Granting Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel Exhibit 13: Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Response to Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel (Oct. 23, 2025) Exhibit 14: Defendant State Farm’s Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Discovery Requests (Sept. 3, 2026) iv"}, {"d": 98, "p": 6, "t": "I INTRODUCTION State Farm failed to produce critical metadata for the electronic records at the center of this case. It did not withhold that metadata under any provision of the Oklahoma Discovery Code or claim a right to withhold it. State Farm elected, in writing, to produce it and then simply did not. Plaintiffs specified a form of production in their First Set of Discovery Requests. State Farm objected (as it was entitled to do) and then discharged its obligation: it stated “the form or forms it intends to use.” 12 O.S. § 3234(B)(2)(d). State Farm committed to produce images accompanied by document-level searchable text, “metadata load files ... in .DAT file format,” image load files “in .OPT format (i.e., industry standard ‘Concordance’ formatted load files).” Ex. 1, Def.’s Resps. & Objs. at 12-13 (Sept. 22, 2025). It repeated that election verbatim on January 27, 2026. Ex. 2, Def.’s Resps. & Objs. at 12-13 (Jan. 27, 2026). What arrived was different. State Farm has produced 156,748 files to date. Approximately ninety percent of them are flattened PDF renderings carrying substantially no native file metadata-—no .DAT load file and no .OPT load file accompanied the volumes, and attachments cannot be matched to the Microsoft Outlook (“MS Outlook”) emails they came from. One produced document exemplifies the broad deficiency and the harm it has caused: an October 26, 2021 message transmitting a roof-results presentation prepared for a State Farm Senior Executive Offsite (“SEO”). The email names two attachments, only one of which can be located in the production, and carries a Word document whose legal-department comments and tracked changes survive as pictures stripped of their authors, dates, and sequence. Ex. 9. The records were converted into pictures of themselves, and the data describing who sent them, who received them, when, on whose behalf, and what traveled with them was left behind. Plaintiffs do not ask this Court to decide what form State Farm should have chosen. They ask the Court to hold State Farm to the form it chose. Its response falls short of its own stated form"}, {"d": 98, "p": 7, "t": "— an impermissible election under § 3234(B)(2)(e). It is an incomplete response, and “an evasive or incomplete answer is to be treated as a failure to answer.” 12 O.S. § 3237(A)(3). Plaintiffs allege State Farm indemnity payments, applied a program to reduce full roof replacements and and that their claim was decided under it. Proof turns on sequence and authorship — who circulated what, to whom, on whose behalf, and when. Oklahoma law makes that the center of the case: “[t]he reasonableness of any investigation conducted by the insurer is ... oftentimes one of the main issues in the bad faith tort case.” Heffron v. Dist. Ct. of Okla. Cnty., 2003 OK 75, J 17, 77 P.3d 1069, 1077. Plaintiffs request re-production in the elected form, at State Farm’s expense, with the expenses of this motion under 12 O.S. § 3237(A)(4). I. A. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Specified a Form of Production and Served an ESI Protocol. 1. Plaintiffs served their First Set of Discovery Requests on approximately August 27, 2025. Instruction No. 8 directed that documents be produced “as they are kept in the usual course of business, or ... organize[d] and label[ed] ... to correspond to the categories in the Requests,” and that “all Electronic Documents must be produced in the format described in the ESI Protocol described below.” Ex. 3, Pls.’ Ist Disc. Reqs., Instr. No. 8. 2. Plaintiffs defined “Communications” to include “any message sent or received orally, in writing, or via technology,” and expressly provided that the term “shall include any attachments and/or metadata included in said message.” /d., Def. No. 7 (emphasis added). The ESI Protocol foreclosed a generic objection: “To the extent Defendant objects to Plaintiffs’ requested form of production, Defendant shall so state and advise of the specific format of production ... that Defendant believes to be a reasonably usable format. ... [A] promise to produce documents in ‘imaged format’ lacks the requisite specificity.” Jd., ESI Protocol, ESI Production { 2. Plaintiffs reserved the right to seek re-production in native format. /d. 3."}, {"d": 98, "p": 8, "t": "B. State Farm Objected and Elected Its Own Form of Production. 3. State Farm responded on September 22, 2025. It objected to the ESI Protocol and then answered the Protocol paragraph by paragraph, electing the form it intended to use. 4, ESI As to electronically stored information generally, State Farm stated: “To the extent is produced, State Farm will produce reasonably accessible, relevant, non-privileged information in image format, accompanied by document-level text files containing searchable text (either extracted text or text created with optical character recognition (‘OCR’)). Notwithstanding State Farm’s objections and format set forth above, where applicable, metadata load files will be produced in .DAT file format and image load files in .OPT format (i.e., industry standard ‘Concordance’ formatted load files).” Ex. 1 at 12-13. 5. State Farm identified five narrow exceptions to that approach, none of which reaches the electronic mail, calendar records, or working files at issue on this motion. /d. at 13. 6. State Farm closed: “To the extent there is a need for any deviation from the above, State Farm will meet and confer and negotiate in good faith effort to resolve the dispute with Plaintiffs’ counsel.” /d. at 13. 7. State Farm’s only stated ground for withholding metadata was relevance, not burden and not inaccessibility: “The information pertinent to the claims and defenses in this case can be found in the text of the documents and is not generally found in metadata and Plaintiffs have not set forth any basis or arguments to the contrary.” Jd. at 12. State Farm asserted that position in the same paragraph in which it promised the .DAT metadata load file. Cc. The Court’s Prior Discovery Orders and the Production that Followed. 8. Plaintiffs moved to compel on October 8, 2025. Following briefing and argument on November 14, 2025, the Court sustained the motion and entered its Journal Entry on November 25, 2025. Ex. 4. The Journal Entry states that the Court “carefully considered and weighed each of"}, {"d": 98, "p": 9, "t": "the proportionality factors set forth in 12 O.S. § 3226(B),” and it names them: “the importance of the issues at stake in this action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Jd. § 2. Having weighed them, the Court found the discovery “relevant to [Plaintiffs’] claims, including allegations of pattern and practice,” “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and proportional to the needs of the case,” and noted that “this matter involves claims where the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000”; found “a disparity in the parties’ relative access to the requested information in that most of the information is only accessible by State Farm and not by Plaintiffs”; found that “without this discovery, it may be impossible to resolve the pertinent issues in this case”; and stated that it “also takes into consideration the objections and arguments made by counsel for State Farm regarding the potential burden or expense.” Jd. {ff 3-6. The Court fixed the relevant period as “January 1, 2015 to present” and ordered production within 120 days, with previously produced materials to be produced within 30 days. Jd. {J 7-8. 9. Plaintiffs filed a Second Motion to Compel on May 18, 2026, which State Farm opposed on June 4, 2026. Ex. 5. On July 7, 2026, the Court granted the Second Motion to Compel and directed that, “[p]ursuant to the First Motion to Compel, the Court expects production reflects {and] is provided in the ordinary course of business.” Ex. 12. 10. State Farm served supplemental answers on September 3, 2026, stating that it did so “as ordered by the Court” and that it “understands that the Court has overruled State Farm’s objections to those responses supplemented, at least insofar as it has found the information discoverable.” Ex. 14 at 1. The volumes at issue on this motion accompanied that court-ordered production."}, {"d": 98, "p": 10, "t": "D. State Farm Delivered Flattened Files. lt. | The volumes were delivered through a download link created by State Farm counsel, as a single compressed .zip archive containing multiple batches of assorted records. Of the 156,748 files produced to date, approximately ninety percent (including emails of the State Farm executives this Court has ordered produced for deposition) were produced as image-only, “flattened” PDFs rather than in native format, and the order of documents within the batches does not correspond to the categories in Plaintiffs’ requests. To the extent any cross-reference or index file accompanied the delivery, it supplies no field identifying a message’s sender or recipients, date, custodian, or relationship to an attachment. Ex. 8, Decl. of Lance E. Watson §§ 12-13, 19. 12. Plaintiffs conducted a documented random selection of approximately fifty percent of the batched PDF files and inspected each sampled file’s properties and internal structure for creation and modification dates, author, application, embedded objects, attachments, searchable text, original filenames, revision information, and any MS Outlook email or calendar properties. The results were uniform: what date information exists belongs to the PDF container, not the underlying record; no sampled file carried any native MS Outlook email or calendar properties. Plaintiffs’ forensic examiner was provided a sample of the production and found that the documents impede counsel from determining authorship, distribution, and veracity. Ex. 8, Decl. of Lance E. Watson Jf 11-12. 13. No .DAT metadata load file and no .OPT image load file accompanied these volumes. Attachments were not given discrete Bates numbers, and no BegAttach or EndAttach values exist, so no attachment can be matched to its parent message. Ex. 8, Decl. of Lance E. Watson §f 13, 15, 17-19. The consequences are concrete. In one produced communication, 5"}, {"d": 98, "p": 11, "t": "I ©. (1'200158217-158218), Because the native records were not produced, Plaintiffs cannot confirm which Executives had been copied on the earlier message and its attachments. 14. Similarly, a produced email and calendar event created by Jon Farney (State Farm’s current CEO and CFO at the time) carries the subject “Fix Profit Task Force” and P| es 2x. 7 (1UR00151883-151887). Without the native records, neither the account behind Famey’s name nor the identities of the executives who received the message, invitation, and attachments can be confirmed. Nevertheless, State Farm disputes Farney’s involvement and opposes his deposition. See Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Motion for a Protective Order and to Quash Plaintiffs’ Deposition Notice of State Farm’s Chief Executive Officer Jon Farney, and Brief in Support (July 20, 2026). State Farm has made its flattened production both a sword and a shield. I. A. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY Electronically Stored Information Is a Distinct Discovery Category, and the Code Governs Its Form. Section 3234(A)(1)(a) permits a party to request inspection and copying of “any designated documents or electronically stored information” — including data “stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form.” The Legislature named electronically stored information separately from documents, as Congress did in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(A), and then wrote form rules that govern electronically stored information alone. The requesting party “may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced.” § 3234(B)(1)(c). A party that objects to the specified form “shall state the form or forms it intends"}, {"d": 98, "p": 12, "t": "to use.” § 3234(B)(2)(d). Only where no form has been specified does the responder choose between the form “in which it is ordinarily maintained” and one “reasonably usable,” and only then does it “not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.” § 3234(B)(2)(e)(2)-(3). The Code gives no responding party a further option of producing in a form of its own devising after stating in writing the form it intends to use. A native file and an imaged rendering of it are not the same discovery object. State Farm does not read the sequence differently. Objecting to Plaintiffs’ ESI Protocol, it told Plaintiffs that the Code “allows the requesting party to specify a form of production, and, in response, the producing party can object and state the form of production it intends to make.” Ex. 1 at 11-12. That is the obligation § 3234(B)(2)(d) imposes, and State Farm discharged it. What follows is that the form it stated governs. Because the Oklahoma Discovery Code was taken from the Federal Rules, federal authority construing the parallel provisions is persuasive. Heffron, 2003 OK 75, ff 13-14, 77 P.3d at 1076; Scott v. Peterson, 2005 OK 84, J 22, 126 P.3d 1232, 1238; Crest Infiniti, I, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, ¥ 2, 174 P.3d 996, 999. Federal courts reading the parallel provision describe the same sequence. In Landry v. Swire Oilfield Services, L.L.C., the court explained that Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(ii) “puts the ball in the requesting party’s court by first giving them the option to ‘specify a form for producing’ ESI,” and that “[i]t is only if the requesting party declines to specify a form that the producing party is offered a choice between producing in the form ‘in which it is ordinar[il]y maintained’ — native format — or ‘ina reasonably useful form or forms.’” 323 F.R.D. 360, 390 (D.N.M. 2018). The plaintiffs there sought payroll records “in a computer readable format, such as excel” and received 12,249"}, {"d": 98, "p": 13, "t": "pages of PDFs. The court held that “the producing party must produce documents in the requested form,” and ordered re-production in the format requested. Jd. at 397. The statement of intended form has a purpose. The Advisory Committee explained that a party producing electronically stored information “in a form of its choice, without identifying that form in advance of the production in the response required by Rule 34(b), runs a risk that the requesting party can show that the produced form is not reasonably usable and that it is entitled to production of some or all of the information in an additional form.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) advisory committee’s note to 2006 amendment. The converse governs here. A party that does identify its form earns the protection of the one-form rule — but only as to the form identified. Having elected a form, the responding party must produce in it. A production falling short of the elected standard is an incomplete response, and “an evasive or incomplete answer is to be treated as a failure to answer.” 12 O.S. § 3237(A)(3). The reasonably-usable option is a choice among honest forms, not a license to deliver less than the record. A responding party is not “free to convert electronically stored information from the form in which it is ordinarily maintained to a different form that makes it more difficult or burdensome for the requesting party to use the information efficiently.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) advisory committee’s note to 2006 amendment, quoted in Aguilar v. Immigration & Customs Enf’t Div., 255 F.R.D. 350, 355 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Metadata is “information describing the history, tracking, or management of an electronic document.” Williams v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 230 F.R.D. 640, 646 (D. Kan. 2005). System metadata — author, custodian, dates, sender and recipient — “is relevant ... if the authenticity of a document is questioned or if establishing ‘who received what information and when’ is important to the claims or defenses of a party.” Aguilar, 255 F.R.D. at 354. That is what Plaintiffs seek,"}, {"d": 98, "p": 14, "t": "together with the information tying each attachment to its parent. Plaintiffs do not seek the drafting history or prior versions of any document. Williams addressed the allocation of that burden. Its holding is framed in terms of a court order directing production as the records are maintained: [W]hen a party is ordered to produce electronic documents as they are maintained in the ordinary course of business, the producing party should produce the electronic documents with their metadata intact, unless that party timely objects to production of metadata, the parties agree that the metadata should not be produced, or the producing party requests a protective order. The initial burden with regard to the disclosure of the metadata would therefore be placed on the party to whom the request or order to produce is directed. Williams, 230 F.R.D. at 652. The rationale does not depend on any order: the burden sits with the producing party because it “already has access to the metadata and is in the best position to determine whether producing it is objectionable,” and because “metadata is an inherent part of an electronic document, and its removal ordinarily requires an affirmative act by the producing party that alters the electronic document.” /d. And to the extent the rule requires an antecedent order, the Code supplies the authority to enter one: § 3234(B)(2)(e)’s procedures apply “[uJnless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court.” That is the relief Plaintiffs seek. Whether metadata is “relevant to the dispute” turns on the dispute. In a first-party bad-faith action the question is “what did the insurance company know or what should it have known at the time the insured requested payment.” Heffron, 2003 OK 75, 17, 77 P.3d at 1077. Who acted, when, in what order, and on whose instruction is inherent to the inquiry. B. State Farm Did Not Produce in the Form it Elected. This is the narrowest ground, and it requires no ruling on what State Farm was obligated to agree to. State Farm promised four things together: images, document-level searchable text, a Concordance-format .DAT metadata load file, and an .OPT image load file. The production delivers at most the first. Measured against Ex. | at 12—13, it is deficient in five respects:"}, {"d": 98, "p": 15, "t": "qd) No .DAT metadata load file was served with these volumes. Ex. 8, Decl. of Lance E. Watson JJ 13, 19. (2) No .OPT image load file was served, so document boundaries and family relationships cannot be reconstructed. (3) (4) | No document-level extracted-text or OCR files accompanied the flattened renderings. Attachments bear no discrete Bates numbers and no BegAttach or EndAttach values, so no attachment can be matched to its parent message. Ex. 8, Decl. of Lance E. Watson {J 1719; Ex. 9. (5) Where a header was rendered, it exists only as text printed on an image, not as a field: no message class, Internet conversation Message-ID, identifier, Global Object ID, representing-sender property, or attachment table, and nothing sortable or searchable as data. See, e.g., Ex. 9. State Farm’s relevance assertion cannot excuse items (1) through (4). State Farm made that assertion and promised the .DAT load file in the same paragraph. Ex. t at 12. A party cannot rely on an argument it did not act on to excuse the omission of a deliverable it separately committed to make. And the burden of showing that the production matches the form claimed for it is State Farm’s. DE Technologies, Inc. v. Dell Inc., 238 F.R.D. 561, 566 (W.D. Va. 2006). Cc. The One-form Rule Does Not Apply. State Farm invoked the one-form rule in the same objection in which it elected its form, quoting § 3234(B)(2)(e) for the proposition that “a party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.” Ex. | at 12; Ex. 2 at 11. It will likely lead with that rule in responding here. But § 3234(B)(2)(e)(3) does not reach this motion. That provision protects a party that has produced in a stated form from producing again in a different one. Plaintiffs seek one form: the one State Farm chose. 10"}, {"d": 98, "p": 16, "t": "D. Flattening Removed and Significantly Degraded what State Farm Maintains. The second ground reaches the metadata itself. Custodian electronic mail and working files are maintained in electronically searchable and sortable form by their nature — a mailbox by sender, recipient, date, and subject; a file share by name, path, author, and modification date. The Advisory Committee addressed this circumstance: where “the responding ordinarily party maintains the information it is producing in a way that makes it searchable by electronic means, the information should not be produced in a form that removes or significantly degrades this feature.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) advisory committee’s note to 2006 amendment. Flattening removes it, and the removal was an affirmative act. Records do not shed their metadata by sitting still; they shed it when a party processes them. Williams, 230 F.R.D. at 652; Wyeth v. Impax Laboratories, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 169, 171 (D. Del. 2006); Ex. 8, Decl. of Lance E. Watson J 14-15. Under Williams, the burden of objecting to that removal was State Farm’s, made no discharged by a timely objection, an agreement, or a protective order. State Farm objection to producing metadata that it did not contradict in the next sentence by promising a. DAT load file; it obtained no agreement; and it sought no protective order. 230 F.R.D. at 652. E. A Production That Cannot Be Assembled Is Insufficient Regardless of Volume. The attachment problem requires no new rule; it follows from what a load file is. A load file “indicates where individual pages or files belong together as documents, to include attachments, and where each document begins and ends,” and “may also include data relevant to the individual documents, such as metadata, coded data, text, and the like.” Aguilar, 255 F.R.D. at 353 n.3 (quoting The Sedona Conference Glossary 31 (2d ed. 2007)). Tying an attachment to the message it traveled with is the defining function of the deliverable State Farm promised and did not provide. Exhibit 9 shows the result of its absence: a message that names two attachments, 11"}, {"d": 98, "p": 17, "t": "followed by pages that cannot be tied to it, and no way to tell whether the second attachment was produced at all. Ex. 8, Decl. of Lance E. Watson {4 17-19. State Farm has emphasized the scale of what this litigation has already cost it, representing to this Court that complying with the November 25 Order alone “has cost State Farm millions of dollars.” Ex. 5 at 2. In In re Honeywell International, Inc. Securities Litigation, the producing party furnished tens of thousands of pages with “a complete index of workpapers and attachments, as well as annotated charts,” and the production was still held insufficient because the producing party “ha{d] not provided plaintiffs with an adequate means to decipher how the documents are kept.” 230 F.R.D. 293, 296-97 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). That is a usability holding, and it governs here. Volume is no answer. Neither is the manner of assembly described in Part III.D: what survived that process is State Farm’s to establish. DE Technologies, 238 F.R.D. at 566. F. The Stripped Fields Are the Same Fields State Farm’s Own Privilege Assertions Require. The omission also disables a step this case cannot proceed without. Where a party withholds documents on privilege or work-product grounds, 12 O.S. § 3237(A)(2) prescribes the log’s contents: “the author or authors,” “the recipient or recipients,” “its origination date,” its length, its nature or intended purpose, and the basis for the objection. The first three are precisely the metadata absent from this production. State Farm has undertaken to “provide a privilege log in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code.” Ex. | at 11. It cannot strip authorship and date from what it produces and then log what it withholds by reference to them. State Farm has itself relied on the very fields it stripped. Opposing Plaintiffs’ first motion to compel, State Farm told this Court when a document was written and who wrote it, and vouched for that account by pointing to the record’s metadata: “As State Farm has repeatedly explained (and as the produced metadata confirms), Analyst Gina Prine authored this memo in March 2012 12"}, {"d": 98, "p": 18, "t": "....” Ex. 13 at 16. A party that establishes authorship and date from metadata when those fields serve its argument cannot maintain that the same fields are immaterial when they do not. The same fields govern the substantive privilege question. Under Heffron, an insurer’s claim-handling records “cannot automatically be deemed to have been generated in anticipation of litigation merely because litigation may be deemed a contingency,” and whether “the primary motivating purpose behind creation of a document” was to aid litigation “turns on the facts of each particular case.” 2003 OK 75, Scott v. Peterson, 2005 OK 21, 77 P.3d at 1079. A blanket assertion will not carry that inquiry. 84, 99] 7. 9, 126 P.3d 1232, 1234-35. Nor does the prospect of a privilege assertion answer this motion. The threshold facts — the identity of an electronic record, its date, its custodian, its version, its attachment relationships, and the existence and authorship of comments — are not privileged communications, and whether a particular field is privileged can be resolved field by field or in camera. What the Code does not permit is for the entire electronic history to disappear in the conversion. The Oklahoma test cannot be applied without dates. Under Hall v. Goodwin, 1989 OK 88, 775 P.2d 291, a court “must determine whether the document was secured in the regular course of duties performed by the individual as an employee of the insurance company (the ordinary course of business). In other words, is such a document typically prepared by the insurance company prior to notice of a lawsuit?” Jd. at 295. The burden of answering it is State Farm’s. /d. at 295 n.7. And where bad faith is pleaded, “[t]he allegation of bad faith is sufficient to sustain a good cause showing for substantial need.” /d. at 296. Accord Andrews v. St. Paul Re-Insurance Co., No. 00- CV-0283K(J), 2000 WL 1760638, at *2—3 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 29, 2000). G. Plaintiffs’ Forensic Examiner Examined the Production. 15. Plaintiffs engaged Lance E. Watson, COO of Avansic, Inc. (a digital forensics and electronic discovery firm) to evaluate the nature and style of State Farm’s production. Mr. Watson 13"}, {"d": 98, "p": 19, "t": "holds a master’s degree in computer science, expertise in information assurance and digital forensics, and five federal information assurance certifications. Ex. 8, Decl. of Lance E. Watson q9 3-10 & Ex. A. He examined documents from the production and found they impede counsel from determining authorship, distribution, and veracity. fd. 16. 11. The records are low-resolution PDF renderings of seemingly native electronic mail messages, arranged in apparent family order with attachments following the message. Apparent family order is not verification: a message’s attachment names appear in the flattened image, but nothing permits confirmation that the documents produced next in the series are in fact those attachments, which can be established only from the native file. Jd. J] 12, 14-15, 17-19. 17. The body of an electronic mail message is ordinary text that can be edited without restriction, and a reply pastes the prior message and a text-only summary of its header into the body, where either can be altered; the veracity of a chain cannot be tested against a flattened image of the last message alone. Calendar records present the same problem: an invitation gives an incomplete view, and the logs of the application used to host the meeting identify who was invited, who attended, and what was attached to the request. /d. JJ 22-31. H. The October 26, 2021 Senior Executive Offsite Document Family. 18. A single produced document demonstrates each of these failures on its face. At HUR00158701, State Farm produced a flattened rendering of an October 26, 2021 message from Scott Welsh to Gregory E. Jones and Kathy Ress, copying Nicole Manduca and Tom Moss, subject “SEO Fire Claims Service & Quality Update.” Ex. 9. iS eS 14"}, {"d": 98, "p": 20, "t": "19. The rendered header names two attachments: “10.26.21 SEO Fire Claims Service Quality Updated.docx” and “Law Department Feedback.msg.” Neither attachment bears a discrete Bates number, and there are no BegAttach or EndAttach values. Nothing in the production identifies where either attachment begins or ends, identifies any produced page as that .docx rather than a separate record, or discloses whether either attachment was produced at all, so the family relationship the message announces cannot be verified. Jd. 20. The message itself shows what the conversion destroyed. Its text reports chin a redaction applied to ee the face of the image. Ex. 9 (HUR00158701). The attached summary was produced, if at all, with its editing artifacts rendered as pictures: struck-through text, marginal change bars, and formattingchange labels appear on the page, but the rendering does not carry the data those artifacts are made of — the author of each comment, the date and time of each comment and revision, the order of the revisions, whether a change was accepted or rejected, and the document’s properties and revision history. A picture of a tracked change is not a tracked change. 21. That some renderings, including this one, print header text on the face of the image is no answer. Printed text is not metadata: it cannot be loaded, queried as a field, sorted, or tested for integrity, and it carries none of the identifiers — message class, Internet Message-ID, conversation identifier, Global Object ID, representing-sender and on-behalf-of properties, or the attachment table — by which messages are linked to one another and to what traveled with them. 22. The family bears directly on matters State Farm has placed in dispute. Transmitting the draft summary on October 19, 2021, Scott Welsh wrote tha a HUR00075111-075112. 1, Seven days later, the revised summary was circulated for use at the 15"}, {"d": 98, "p": 21, "t": "offsite, carrying the edits the law department recommended. Ex. 9. Which executives received it, in which version, with which attachments, and what followed the offsite are facts that exist only in the metadata State Farm removed. I. State Farm Has Asserted No Burden and Identified No Inaccessible Source. A party resisting discovery in Oklahoma bears the burden of justifying its position, and general assertions do not carry it. The Supreme Court has “decline[d] to adopt a ... doctrine that shifts a burden to the party seeking discovery,” holding that “[iJn Oklahoma the burden of showing ‘good cause’ is statutorily placed on the party objecting to discovery.” Crest Infiniti, 2007 OK 77, {1 17-18, 174 P.3d at 1004. Unsworn statements of counsel are not evidence of the facts underlying an objection. id. | 11, 174 P.3d at 1002. The same rule governs a producing party’s account of its own production: it “bears the burden of showing, by more than an unsupported representation to the Court, that the manner of production is the manner in which the documents are kept in the usual course of business.” Landry, 323 F.R.D. at 390 n.22. State Farm has carried none of that. It has never contended that producing in the elected form is burdensome, and it has offered no affidavit, no estimate of hours or cost, and no description of what its systems capture. Its position rests on a single unsworn sentence asserting that pertinent information “is not generally found in metadata.” Ex. | at 12. State Farm did object, in the abstract, to producing ESI “from sources that are not reasonably accessible.” /d. at 4, 12. But a general reservation does not satisfy § 3226(B)(2)(b), which is sequenced: it excuses production only from sources “that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible,” and on a motion to compel the responding party “must show that the information is not reasonably accessible.” No source has been identified and no showing made. That silence is not the silence of a party unable to quantify burden. When State Farm has wished to make a burden record in this case, it has made one. Opposing Plaintiffs’ second motion 16"}, {"d": 98, "p": 22, "t": "to compel, it supported its objection with a sworn declaration describing a query of its Enterprise Claim System that returned 20,016 responsive claims, stating that the system could not filter them further, that manual review would take at least twenty minutes per file, and that the total would be “at least 6,672 hours” and “could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees.” Ex. 5 at 18-19 and its Exhibit 6 (Declaration of Jacob Nimesgerm). It filed a second declaration on the merits. Id., Ex. 4 (Declaration of Nicole Manduca). And it told the Court that compliance with the November 25 Order “has cost State Farm millions of dollars.” Id. at 2. As to the form of its electronic production — the subject of this motion — State Farm has offered nothing of the kind: no declaration, no estimate of hours, no estimate of cost, and no identification of any source as not reasonably accessible. The contrast answers any burden argument raised for the first time in response to this motion. J. The Court Has Already Directed Production in the Ordinary Course of Business. The Court has already addressed the manner of production. Granting Plaintiffs’ second motion to compel on July 7, 2026, the Court directed that “[p]ursuant to the First Motion to Compel, the Court expects production reflects [and] is provided in the ordinary course of business.” Ex. 12. That is the standard § 3234(B)(2)(e)(2) prescribes for electronically stored information — the form “in which it is ordinarily maintained.” A set of image-only PDFs, stripped of the fields by which the underlying records are identified, sorted, and tied to their attachments, and delivered without the load files that would restore those fields, is not how State Farm maintains this material in the ordinary course. The relief Plaintiffs request asks for nothing the Court has not already directed. IV. RELIEF REQUESTED Section 3237(A)(2) authorizes an order compelling production where a party “fails to produce documents ... or fails to permit the inspection or copying as requested,” and an evasive 17"}, {"d": 98, "p": 23, "t": "or incomplete answer is treated as a failure to answer. § 3237(A)(3). The Court’s authority to fix the form is express: § 3234(B)(2)(e)’s procedures apply “[u]nless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court.” Plaintiffs respectfully request an order directing that, within [__] days, State Farm: 1. re-produce the documents in the form State Farm elected on September 22, 2025 — images with document-level extracted or OCR text, a Concordance-format .DAT metadata load file, and an .OPT image load file; produce each attachment as a discrete document bearing its own Bates number, with family relationships expressed through BegAttach and EndAttach values tying every item in a produced chain to its parent message or calendar event; for electronic mail and calendar records, produce in a form preserving the native Outlook and Exchange properties — through PST or individual MSG files, or through a .DAT carrying the equivalent MAPI fields — including each message in a produced chain as it was sent or received rather than the last message alone, and, where winmail.dat components exist in the collected records, produce those components or the properties they carry; for calendar and meeting records, produce the logs of the application used to schedule or host the meeting, identifying the invitees, the persons who attended, the documents attached to the meeting request, and any change to the meeting time or invitee list; as to the October 26, 2021 HUR00158701 Kathy Ress, “SEO Fire Claims Service & Quality Update” family at and any related drafts or transmittals in the mailboxes of Scott Welsh, Gregory E. Jones, Nicole Manduca, and Tom Moss, produce the native Outlook message with its complete recipient and attachment tables; the native “10.26.21 SEO Fire Claims Service Quality Updated.docx” with its comments, comment authors and 18"}, {"d": 98, "p": 24, "t": "timestamps, tracked changes, document properties, and revision data as they exist in the source record; the native “Law Department Feedback.msg” and each item attached within it; and the family relationship among them; 6. serve a declaration from the person or vendor responsible for collection and processing, describing the methodology, identifying what metadata was captured at collection, and identifying every processing step that removed, suppressed, or failed to carry forward metadata present in the collected records; 7. preserve, pending completion of re-production, the native records, source collections, processing database, export sets, and all collection, export, settings, exception, and processing logs and reports; and 8. bear the cost of re-production. Cost allocation follows the authority. The producing party in Jn re Honeywell was a nonparty and still bore its own re-production costs, because it “could have avoided the added expense it now faces by producing the workpapers in electronic form at the outset.” 230 F.R.D. at 297. State Farm is a party, and it elected the form it did not deliver. A party that fails to “preserve the integrity of the electronic documents it produces” cannot then call native production “overly burdensome.” Wyeth, 248 F.R.D. at 171. Section 3237(A)(4) makes the award presumptive: the court “shall ... require the party ... whose conduct necessitated the motion ... to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney fees, unless the court finds that the opposition to the motion was substantially justified.” 12 O.S. § 3237(A)(4) (emphasis added). Where the standard applied is the producing party’s own elected form, an opposition to enforcing it is difficult to characterize as substantially justified, and no showing of bad faith is required. Barnett v. 19"}, {"d": 98, "p": 25, "t": "Simmons, 2008 OK 100, 17, 197 P.3d 12, 19. Plaintiffs request leave to submit an affidavit of fees and expenses within fourteen days of any order granting this motion. Vv. CONCLUSION State Farm chose the form of its production. Plaintiffs ask only that it produce in that form. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant this motion, order re-production as set out in Section IV at State Farm’s expense, and award Plaintiffs their reasonable expenses and attorney fees under 12 O.S. § 3237(A)(4). Respectfully submitted, as Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com bbeskin@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com -andPatrick F. Collogan, OBA No. 30529 Biby Law Firm 6305 E. 120th Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 918-574-8458 888-572-8263 (fax) pat@bibylaw.com 20"}, {"d": 98, "p": 27, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of October , 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to Lance E. Leffel and David R. Herber, GABLEGOTWALS, BOK Park Plaza, 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, and Carrie B. McNeer, Grant A. Fitz, and Nathan A. Miramontes, GABLEGOTWALS, 110 N. Elgin Avenue, Suite 200, Tulsa, OK 74120-1490, Attorneys for Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. Blake Blake Sonne 22 Senna"}, {"d": 98, "p": 29, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vv. ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, MARK D. WELTY, and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ») Case No. CJ-2025-2626 ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm” or “Defendant”) submits the following answers and responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Discovery Requests. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS State Farm’s Responses are based on information and documentation presently available to State Farm, and include only that information which State Farm currently understands to be material. State Farm anticipates that further investigation, research, and analysis will supply additional facts and documents, add meaning to known facts, and perhaps establish new factual conclusions, all of which may in turn lead to additions or changes to these Responses. Accordingly, State Farm reserves the right to amend these Responses as additional facts are ascertained, analyses are made, research is completed, and contentions become apparent. In addition, State Farm will fulfill its obligation to supplement these Responses pursuant to the Oklahoma Discovery Code. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEFINITIONS Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Address/Telephone Number.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ request for “both the current business and residential address and telephone number” of natural persons on the grounds that such information constitutes personally identifiable"}, {"d": 98, "p": 30, "t": "information sought in violation of those individuals’ right to privacy. The business addresses and business telephone numbers of natural persons is sufficient to identify and contact potential witnesses. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Claim.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim.” State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth the Oklahoma Discovery Code and seeks discovery regarding “all requests for indemnity to [State Farm].” State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—*Claim File.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “claim,” “document(s),” and “communication(s)” and applies each to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim file.” State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim file” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code and seeks discovery regarding any “claim for indemnity under a policy of insurance coverage [State Farm has] issued.” In addition, State Farm objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. State Farm further states that it does not maintain a physical file folder with respect to most claims. Information regarding Plaintiffs’ Claim is created, stored, managed, and accessed primarily in and through the Enterprise Claims System (“ECS”), a proprietary web-based system used by State Farm claims associates. “Claim File” has a distinct meaning to State Farm based upon the portion of its Claim Procedures Guide that provides instructions on what to retrieve from ECS to generate a Claim File for"}, {"d": 98, "p": 31, "t": "production outside the ECS environment. State Farm maintains the information for each claim as required by 36 Okla. Stat. § 1250.4 (“Such files shall contain all notes and work papers pertaining to acclaim in such detail that pertinent events and the dates of such events can be reconstructed.”). Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Claims Handling Personnel.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claims handling personnel.” In addition, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition as vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “performing work or services related to,” 99 66, “receipt,” “response,” “adjustment,” “appraisal,” and “handling of formal and informal disputes.” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Communication(s).” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “communication(s).” State Farm objects to the inclusion of “oral” exchanges in Plaintiffs’ definition of “communication(s)” on the grounds that the Oklahoma Discovery Code does not require State Farm to produce “communications” that do not already exist on a medium from which information can be obtained. State Farm also objects to the inclusion of text or instant messaging system(s) and social media platform(s) in Plaintiffs’ definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to produce such materials, which are not captured by State Farm in its ordinary course of business. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Custodian(s).” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “custodian(s).” Objection and Response to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Document(s).” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “communication(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s). Additionally, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of"}, {"d": 98, "p": 32, "t": "“document(s)” on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and to the extent Plaintiffs seek production of all identical copies of ESI. ESI is frequently duplicated and disbursed in the ordinary course of business, and discovery regarding all identical copies of ESI would be cumulative, duplicative, and impose unnecessary burdens without any benefit to the adjudication of this action. State Farm also objects to the extent that Plaintiffs seek production of ESI from sources that are not reasonably accessible, as such discovery would require extraordinary efforts that are not proportional to the scope of the matter. State Farm also objects to the extent this definition seeks discovery regarding ESI that is ephemeral in nature, such as temporary computer files, log/history files, or file fragments, as the preservation and production of such things is not proportional to the needs of the case. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and beyond the scope of permissible discovery to the extent Plaintiffs purport to include system information not created by State Farm users, such as caches, cookies, or logs, or otherwise seek to require State Farm to record and/or provide discovery regarding records and information that are not ordinarily captured and/or are overwritten in the ordinary course of operating State Farm’s computing systems. State Farm objects to the inclusion of “every copy” in Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” on the grounds that copies are not universally relevant to the claims and defenses of a case and are likely to be cumulative or duplicative. To the extent that a copy is not a business record stored in a central repository in State Farm’s ordinary course of business, discovery regarding “every copy” would not be proportional to the needs of the case. Finally, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” to the extent it would require the production or disclosure of information protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or other privileges recognized by law. Notwithstanding these"}, {"d": 98, "p": 33, "t": "objections, to the extent any responsive documents or ESI are produced, State Farm will produce reasonably accessible, relevant, non-privileged information in reasonably usable formats as set forth in State Farm’s objections to the ESI Protocol. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Employee.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “employee(s)” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code and seeks discovery from “all employees, past and present.” State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Engineering Services.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Engineering Services” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. In addition, State Farm objects to this definition as vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “any of which embraces such services or work.” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to a corporation. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” when used in reference to a “corporation, firm, or other entity” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide."}, {"d": 98, "p": 34, "t": "Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to a meeting or conference. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” to the extent it seeks information about “meeting[s] or conference{s]” that is overly broad and not relevant to the claims and defenses of any party. State Farm further objects to the definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to provide such detailed information for all “meeting[s] or conference[s].” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to a telephonic conversation. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” to the extent it seeks information about “telephone communication[s]” that is overly broad and not relevant to the claims and defenses of any party. State Farm further objects to the definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to provide such detailed information for all discoverable “telephone communication[s].” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to a “writing.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” when used in reference to a “writing.” State Farm further objects that while capitalized, “Writing” is not separately defined in Plaintiffs’ First Set of Discovery Requests. In addition, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” with respect to “writings” as overly broad and not relevant to the claims and defenses of any party. State Farm further objects to the definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to provide such detailed information for all discoverable “writings.” State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ definition insofar as it seeks the “present location or custodian” of all discoverable “writings” on the grounds that the definition is overly broad and"}, {"d": 98, "p": 35, "t": "unduly burdensome and such information is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case. There are multiple ways that ESI may be held, stored, or used together by one or multiple custodians, such as on a shared or personal hard drive, in a container file, or in a database, and State Farm cannot reasonably catalogue and describe the information regarding any myriad of ways ESI may be held, stored, or used together without undue burden. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” insofar as it seeks details regarding “writings” that are “no longer {] in [State Farm’s] possession or control” on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and purports to impose obligations greater than those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. There is no basis to demand State Farm generally describe all requested information that may have existed at some time. State Farm further objects to this definition as unduly burdensome and beyond the scope of permissible discovery to the extent it purports to call for forensic investigation into computing devices or systems to determine or locate information indicating or evidencing ESI that was deleted or that is no longer accessible as active data on that device or system. State Farm further objects that ESI and/or documents that were deleted or no longer exist are not reasonably accessible, and discovery about the same would require extraordinary efforts that are not proportional to the scope of the matter. Furthermore, State Farm objects on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ definition is not limited in time or scope and State Farm had no duty to preserve relevant information prior to the time this litigation was reasonably anticipated. Finally, State Farm objects to this definition to the extent that it purports to require State Farm to provide information more properly requested via separate interrogatory. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to an “Oral Conversation.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification”"}, {"d": 98, "p": 36, "t": "to the extent it seeks information about “oral communication{s]” that is overly broad and not relevant to the claims and defenses of any party. State Farm further objects to the definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to provide such detailed information for all discoverable “oral communication{[s].” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to an “individual natural person.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” when used in reference to an “individual natural Person” insofar as it seeks the “residential address” of natural persons on the grounds that such information constitutes personally identifiable information sought in violation of those individuals’ constitutional right to privacy. To the extent required to address the claims and defenses at issue in this case, the business addresses and business telephone numbers of natural persons will be sufficient to identify and contact potential witnesses. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—‘Relevant Time Period.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Relevant Time Period” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. State Farm will not produce any documents prior to one year prior to the dates of loss or after the filing of the Petition unless otherwise stated in its responses. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—*“You.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “You” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm further objects to this definition as overly broad to the extent it purports to include individuals “purporting to act on behalf” of various entities, individuals acting"}, {"d": 98, "p": 37, "t": "on behalf of “any merged or acquired predecessors, successors, and/or divested facilities, division, or subsidiaries of State Farm,” and individuals “serving or having served on any governing board of any State Farm.” OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INSTRUCTIONS Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 1. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 1. State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 1 to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm will provide documents and information within its possession, custody, and control in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 2. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 2 to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm will fulfill its obligation to supplement these Responses pursuant to the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 4. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 4 on the grounds that it exceeds the parameters of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm will state its Objections and Responses to the Requests in accordance the Oklahoma Discovery Code and substantive law. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 5. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 5. State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 5 on the grounds that it exceeds the parameters of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm will state its Objections and Responses to the Requests in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code and substantive law."}, {"d": 98, "p": 38, "t": "Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 6. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 6 on the grounds that it exceeds the parameters of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm will state its Objections and Responses to the discovery in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code and substantive law. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 7. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 7. State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 7 on the grounds that the inclusion of “no longer [] in [State Farm’s] possession or control” it is overly broad and because it imposes obligations that are unduly burdensome and greater than those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm further objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 7 on the grounds that it exceeds the parameters of the Oklahoma Discovery Code and because State Farm had no duty to preserve relevant information prior to the time this litigation was reasonably anticipated.. State Farm will state its Objections and Responses to the discovery in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code and substantive law. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8. In addition, State Farm restates and incorporates its objections to Plaintiffs’ ESI Protocol and applies them to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8. State Farm also restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 9 and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8. State Farm further objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8 to the extent it seeks to unilaterally dictate a form of production. State Farm will produce documents Discovery Code. 10 and ESI in accordance with the Oklahoma"}, {"d": 98, "p": 39, "t": "Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 9. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s”) and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 9. In addition, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 9 to the extent it seeks to unilaterally dictate a form of production. State Farm will produce documents and ESI in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 10. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 10 to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. To the extent State Farm withholds any information on the basis of privilege, State Farm will provide a privilege log in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 11. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 11 as overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case on the grounds that it requires State Farm to provide information and documents relating to “all States of the United States in which [State Farm] conduct{s] business.” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 12. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Relevant Time Period” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 12. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ ESI PROTOCOL Objection to Plaintiffs’ “ESI Protocol.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ attempt to unilaterally impose an “ESI Protocol” in their Instructions and Exhibit 1 to govern the scope of discovery. The Oklahoma Discovery Code addresses the form of production of ESI and does not require parties to produce ESI in any particular way or allow requesting parties to unilaterally dictate a form of production. Instead, it allows the requesting party to specify a form of production at"}, {"d": 98, "p": 40, "t": "and, in response, the producing party can object and state the form of production it intends to make. 12 O.S. § 3234(B)(1)(c)-(d). In fact, Oklahoma law only requires that the format be “reasonably usable” and further provides that “a party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.” 12 O.S. § 3234(A)(1)(a) and § 3234(B)(2)(e). State Farm further objects to Plaintiffs’ “ESI Protocol” because it exceeds the scope of permissible discovery and imposes obligations above and beyond those set forth under the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ ESI Protocol to the extent it requires the production of documents or discovery of information that is not reasonably accessible to State Farm on the ground that such discovery would require extraordinary efforts that are not proportional to the scope of this matter. 12 O.S. § 3226(B); Werner Enter., Inc. v. Kirkland et al., No. 122, 385 (Okla. Sept. 24, 2024) (“Respondent, any other assigned judge, or a special master appointed by the district court shall review the discovery requests at issue and consider the proportionality facts stated in 12 O.S. Section 3226 (B)(2)(c) along with all other statutory requirements before ruling on the discovery disputes.”). State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ “ESI Discovery Protocol,” attached as Exhibit | for the same reasons. To the extent ESI is produced, State Farm will produce reasonably accessible, relevant, non-privileged information in image format, accompanied by document-level text files containing searchable text (either extracted text or text created with optical character recognition (“OCR”). The information pertinent to the claims and defenses in this case can be found in the text of the documents and is not generally found in metadata and Plaintiffs have not set forth any basis or arguments to the contrary. Notwithstanding State Farm's objections and format set forth above, where applicable, metadata load files will be produced in .DAT file format and image load files in 12"}, {"d": 98, "p": 41, "t": "OPT format (i.e., industry standard “Concordance” formatted load files). The exceptions to this approach are: State Farm will produce responsive, non-privileged, and unredacted spreadsheets (e.g., Microsoft Excel files) in native format. State Farm will produce responsive, redacted Excel-file documents in near-native format with redacted text, unless doing so would be unduly burdensome or render the file(s) unusable, in which case the State Farm will seek to meet and confer with Plaintiffs on the proper redaction method. State Farm will produce responsive, non-privileged, and unredacted ES] maintained in presentation formats (e.g., Microsoft PowerPoint) in native format if relevant information exists that cannot be displayed on an image (e.g., animations or embedded audio files). State Farm will produce responsive, redacted ESI maintained in presentation formats (e.g., Microsoft PowerPoint) as image files with redacted text, unless doing so would be unduly burdensome or render the file(s) unusable, in which case the State Farm will seek to meet and confer with Plaintiffs on the proper redaction method. State Farm may choose to produce ESI that is difficult or impracticable to render in Bates stamped image format, such as video or audio files, in native format. To the extent there is a need for any deviation from the above, State Farm will meet and confer and negotiate in good faith effort to resolve the dispute with Plaintiffs’ counsel. Objection and Response to Plaintiffs’ Definition of “Electronically Stored Information.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “document(s)” and “communication(s),” and applies each to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Electronically Stored Information.” Objection to Plaintiffs’ ESI Preduction No. 1. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 1 on the grounds that the Oklahoma Discovery Code address the form of production of ESI and do not require parties to produce ESI in any particular way or allow 13"}, {"d": 98, "p": 42, "t": "requesting parties to unilaterally dictate of form of production. State Farm will produce ESI in a reasonably usable format as set forth above, which is all the Oklahoma Discovery Code require. Objection to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 2. State Farm restates and incorporates its objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “document(s),” and “communication(s),” and applies each to Plaintiffs’ ESI] Production No. 2. State Farm further restates and incorporates its General Objection to Plaintiffs’ ESI Protocol and applies it to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 2. Objection to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 3. State Farm restates and incorporates its objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “document(s),” and “communication(s),” and applies each to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 3. State Farm further restates and incorporates its General Objection to Plaintiffs’ ESI Protocol and applies it to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 3. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ PROTECTIVE ORDER STATEMENT State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ unilateral and self-serving statements and conclusions concerning its hugely overly broad discovery requests seeking State Farm’s confidential and proprietary institutional documents that have no relevance to the Plaintiffs’ claim and are vastly disproportionate even if they were relevant. State Farm objects further because, contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, Oklahoma law expressly grants courts permission to enter protective orders protecting the use of confidential information produced during discovery. 12 Okla. Stat. § 3226(C)(g); YWCA af Oklahoma City v. Melson, 1997 OK 81, | 18, 944 P.2d 304 (1997) (holding that the need for pretrial disclosure should “be harmonized” with a party’s right of privacy,” and preventing public disclosure of sensitive information “is sufficient justification for the authorization of protective orders.”); State ex rel. Oklahoma State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision v. Rivero, 2021 OK 31, Jf 79, 489 P.3d 36, 64 (explaining that courts’ authority under Section 3226(c) to enter protective orders has “conceptual origins in [its] counterparts found in” 14"}, {"d": 98, "p": 43, "t": "Rule 26 of the Federal Rules.”). State Farm will thus not produce documents it deems to be Confidential until the entry of a mutually acceptable protective order unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Notwithstanding its objections, State Farm will meet and confer and negotiate in good faith on a mutual protective order with Plaintiffs’ counsel. A proposed Protective Order governing the exchange and disclosure of Confidential information in this matter is attached as Exhibit A. For purposes of its below Responses to Plaintiffs’ specific Requests, and to avoid repeating its objections stated in these introductory sections, State Farm’s above General Objections, Objections to Plaintiffs’ Definitions, Objections to Plaintiffs’ Instructions, Objections to Plaintiffs’ ESI Protocol and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Protective Order Statement shall be collectively referred to as “State Farm’s Universal Objections.” INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Provide the name, address, and job title of any Claims Handling Personnel who were involved with, adjusted, managed, supervised, investigated, worked on, reviewed, or provided any work or oversight on any aspect of Plaintiffs’ Claim or the handling thereof. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad in scope. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or documentation. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm states that information reflecting the personnel involved in adjusting the subject claims is available in the Claim File for the claim sued upon from which Plaintiffs may obtain the requested information without any greater burden than that imposed upon State Farm in identifying each person individually. Therefore, 15"}, {"d": 98, "p": 45, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY BILLY & LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, v. Case No.: CJ-2025-2626 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S ANSWERS, RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (‘State Farm” or “Defendant”) submits the following answers and responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS State Farm’s Responses are based on information and documentation presently available to State Farm and include only that information which State Farm currently understands to be material. State Farm anticipates that further investigation, research, and analysis will supply additional facts and documents, add meaning to known facts, and perhaps establish new factual conclusions, all of which may in turn lead to additions or changes to these Responses. Accordingly, State Farm reserves the right to amend these Responses as additional facts are ascertained, analyses are made, research is completed, and contentions become apparent. In addition, State Farm will fulfill its obligation to supplement these Responses pursuant to the Oklahoma Discovery Code."}, {"d": 98, "p": 46, "t": "OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEFINITIONS Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—*Address/Telephone Number.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ request for “both the current business and residential address and telephone number” of natural persons on the grounds that such information constitutes personally identifiable information sought in violation of those individuals’ right to privacy. The business addresses and business telephone numbers of natural persons is sufficient to identify and contact potential witnesses. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—*“Claim.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objections to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s),” infra, and applies them to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim.” State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth the Oklahoma Discovery Code and seeks discovery regarding “all requests for indemnity to [State Farm].” State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—*Claim File.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “claim,” “document(s),” and “communication(s)” and applies each to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim file.” State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim file” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code and seeks discovery regarding any “claim for indemnity under a policy of insurance coverage [State Farm has] issued.” In addition, State Farm objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. State Farm further states that it does not maintain a physical file folder with respect to most claims. Information regarding Plaintiffs’ Claim is created, stored, managed, and accessed primarily in and through the Enterprise Claims System (“ECS”), a proprietary web-based system used by State Farm claims associates. “Claim File” has a distinct meaning to State Farm based upon the portion"}, {"d": 98, "p": 47, "t": "of its Claim Procedures Guide that provides instructions on what to retrieve from ECS to generate a Claim File for production outside the ECS environment. State Farm maintains the information for each claim as required by 36 O.S. § 1250.4 (“Such files shall contain all notes and work papers pertaining to a claim in such detail that pertinent events and the dates of such events can be reconstructed.”). Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Claims Handling Personnel.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claims handling personnel.” In addition, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition as vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “performing work or services related to,” “receipt,” “response,” “adjustment,” “appraisal,” and “handling of formal and informal disputes.” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—*Communication(s).” State Farm restates and incorporates its objections to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s),” infra, and applies them to Plaintiffs’ definition of “communications.” In addition, State Farm objects to the inclusion of “oral” exchanges in Plaintiffs’ definition of “communication(s)” on the grounds that the Oklahoma Discovery Code does not require State Farm to produce “communications” that do not already exist on a medium from which information can be obtained. State Farm also objects to the inclusion of instant messaging system(s) and social media platform(s) in the definition of “communication(s)” on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to produce such materials, which are not captured by State Farm in its ordinary course of business. In addition, State Farm objects on the grounds that State Farm has no obligation to collect, review, or produce text messages sent or received by devices that are not in State Farm’s possession, custody, or control. 12 O.S. §§ 3226(A), 3234(A). State Farm further objects that text message data that exists on mobile devices within State Farm’s possession, custody, or control is not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and discovery from such devices would not be proportional to the needs of the case. 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1), (2). State Farm also objects because any text message data from such devices is unlikely to contain unique,"}, {"d": 98, "p": 48, "t": "relevant information that does not also exist in the relevant claim file(s) or another location that is less burdensome for collection, review, and production. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—Custodian(s).” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s),” infra, and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “custodian(s).” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Document(s).” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “communications,” supra, and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s).” Additionally, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and to the extent Plaintiffs seek production of all identical copies of ESI. ESI is frequently duplicated and disbursed in the ordinary course of business, and discovery regarding all identical copies of ESI would be cumulative, duplicative, and impose unnecessary burdens without any benefit to the adjudication of this action. State Farm also objects to the extent that Plaintiffs seek production of ESI from sources that are not reasonably accessible, as such discovery would require extraordinary efforts that are not proportional to the scope of the matter. State Farm also objects to the extent this definition seeks discovery regarding ESI that is ephemeral in nature, such as temporary computer files, log/history files, or file fragments, as the preservation and production of such things is not proportional to the needs of the case. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and beyond the scope of permissible discovery to the extent Plaintiffs purport to include system information not created by State Farm users, such as caches, cookies, or logs, or otherwise seek to require State Farm to record and/or provide discovery regarding records and information that are not ordinarily captured and/or are overwritten in the ordinary course of operating State Farm’s computing systems. State Farm objects to the inclusion of “every copy” in Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” on the grounds that copies are not universally relevant to the claims and defenses of a case and are likely to"}, {"d": 98, "p": 49, "t": "be cumulative or duplicative. To the extent that a copy is not a business record stored in a central repository in State Farm's ordinary course of business, discovery regarding \"every copy” would not be proportional to the needs of the case. In addition, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition to the extent it includes text messages on the grounds that State Farm has no obligation to collect, review, or produce text messages sent or received by devices that are not in State Farm’s possession, custody, or control. 12 O.S. §§ 3226(A), 3234(A). State Farm further objects that text message data that exists on mobile devices within State Farm’s possession, custody, or control is not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and discovery from such devices would not be proportional to the needs of the case. 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1), (2). State Farm also objects because any text message data from such devices is unlikely to contain unique, relevant information that does not also exist in the relevant claim file(s) or another location that is less burdensome for collection, review, and production. Finally, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” to the extent it would require the production or disclosure of information protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or other privileges recognized by law. Notwithstanding these objections, to the extent any responsive documents or ESI are produced, State Farm will produce reasonably accessible, relevant, non-privileged information in reasonably usable formats. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—*Employee.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “employee” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code and seeks discovery from “all employees, past and present.” State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Engineering Services.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Engineering Services” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set"}, {"d": 98, "p": 50, "t": "forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. In addition, State Farm objects to this definition as vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “any of which embraces such services or work.” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to a corporation. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” when used in reference to a “corporation, firm, or other entity” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to a meeting or conference. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” to the extent it seeks information about “meeting[s] or conference[s]” that is overly broad and not relevant to the claims and defenses of any party. State Farm further objects to the definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to provide such detailed information for all “meeting[s] or conference{s}.” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—‘“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to a telephonic conversation. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” to the extent it seeks information about “telephonic conversation[s]” that is overly broad and not relevant to the claims and defenses of any party. State Farm further objects to the definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to provide such detailed information for all discoverable “telephonic conversation[s].” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to a “writing.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “writings,” infra, and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” when used in reference to a"}, {"d": 98, "p": 51, "t": "“writing.” In addition, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” with respect to a “writing” as overly broad and not relevant to the claims and defenses of any party. State Farm further objects to the definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to provide such detailed information for all discoverable “writing[s].” State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ definition insofar as it seeks the “present location or custodian” of all discoverable “writings” on the grounds that the definition is overly broad and unduly burdensome and such information is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case. There are multiple ways that ESI may be held, stored, or used together by one or multiple custodians, such as on a shared or personal hard drive, in a container file, or in a database, and State Farm cannot reasonably catalogue and describe the information regarding any myriad of ways ESI may be held, stored, or used together without undue burden. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” insofar as it seeks details regarding “writing{s]” that are “no longer in [State Farm’s] possession or control” on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and purports to impose obligations greater than those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. There is no basis to demand State Farm generally describe all requested information that may have existed at some time. State Farm further objects to this definition as unduly burdensome and beyond the scope of permissible discovery to the extent it purports to call for forensic investigation into computing devices or systems to determine or locate information indicating or evidencing ESI that was deleted or that is no longer accessible as active data on that device or system. State Farm further objects that ESI and/or documents that were deleted or no longer exist are not reasonably accessible, and discovery about the same would require extraordinary efforts that are not proportional to the scope of the matter. Furthermore, State Farm objects on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ definition is not limited in time or scope and State Farm had no duty to preserve relevant information prior to the time this litigation was reasonably anticipated."}, {"d": 98, "p": 52, "t": "Finally, State Farm objects to this definition to the extent that it purports to require State Farm to provide information more properly requested via separate interrogatory. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to an “Oral Conversation.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” to the extent it seeks information about “oral conversation[s]” that is overly broad and not relevant to the claims and defenses of any party. State Farm further objects to the definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to provide such detailed information for all discoverable “oral conversation{[s}.” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to an “individual natural person.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” when used in reference to an “individual natural Person” insofar as it seeks the “residential address” of natural persons on the grounds that such information constitutes personally identifiable information sought in violation of those individuals’ constitutional right to privacy. To the extent required to address the claims and defenses at issue in this case, the business addresses and business telephone numbers of natural persons will be sufficient to identify and contact potential witnesses. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Relevant Time Period.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Relevant Time Period” as the “time period from 2010 to the date Discovery Requests are answered to supplemented” as overly broad and not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party. State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. State Farm will not produce any documents prior to one year prior to the date of loss or after the filing of the Petition unless otherwise stated in its responses. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—*You.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “You” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm further objects to this definition as overly broad in its inclusion of individuals “purporting to act on behalf of” various entities, individuals acting on behalf of “any merged or acquired predecessors,"}, {"d": 98, "p": 53, "t": "successors, and/or divested facilities, division, or subsidiaries of State Farm,” and individuals “serving or having served on any governing board of any State Farm.” OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INSTRUCTIONS Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 1. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. |. State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. | to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm will provide documents and information within its possession, custody, and control in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 2. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 2 to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm will fulfill its obligation to supplement these Responses pursuant to the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 4. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 4 on the grounds that it exceeds the parameters of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm will state its Objections and Responses to the Requests in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code and substantive law. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 5. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 5. State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 5 on the grounds that it exceeds the parameters of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm will state its Objections and Responses to the Requests in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code and substantive law. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 6. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 6 on the grounds that it exceeds the parameters of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm will state its"}, {"d": 98, "p": 54, "t": "Objections and Responses to the discovery in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code and substantive law. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 7. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 7. State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 7 on the grounds that the inclusion of “no longer [] in [State Farm’s] possession or control” is overly broad and because it imposes obligations that are unduly burdensome and greater than those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm further objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 7 on the grounds that it exceeds the parameters of the Oklahoma Discovery Code and because State Farm had no duty to preserve relevant information prior to the time this litigation was reasonably anticipated. State Farm will state its Objections and Responses to the discovery in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code and substantive law. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8. In addition, State Farm restates and incorporates its objections to Plaintiffs’ ES] Protocol and applies them to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8. State Farm also restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 9 and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8. State Farm further objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8 to the extent it seeks to unilaterally dictate a form of production. State Farm will produce documents and ESI in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 9. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s”) and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 9. In addition, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 9 to the extent it seeks to unilaterally dictate a form of production. State Farm will produce documents and ESI in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code."}, {"d": 98, "p": 55, "t": "Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 10. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 10 to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. To the extent State Farm withholds any information on the basis of privilege, State Farm will provide a privilege log in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 11. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 11 as overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case on the grounds that it requires State Farm to provide information and documents relating to “all States of the United States in which [State Farm] conduct[s] business.” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 12. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Relevant Time Period” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 12. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ ESI PROTOCOL Objection to Plaintiffs’ “ESI Protocol.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ attempt to unilaterally impose an “ESI Protocol” in their Instructions to govern the scope of discovery. The Oklahoma Discovery Code addresses the form of production of ESI and does not require parties to produce ESI in any particular way or allow requesting parties to unilaterally dictate a form of production. Instead, it allows the requesting party to specify a form of production, and, in response, the producing party can object and state the form of production it intends to make. 12 O.S. § 3234(B)(1)(c)-(d). In fact, Oklahoma law only requires that the format be “reasonably usable” and further provides that “a party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.” 12 O.S. § 3234(A)(1)(a) and § 3234(B)(2)(e). State Farm further objects to Plaintiffs’ “ESI Protocol” because it exceeds the scope of permissible discovery and imposes obligations above and beyond those set forth under the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ ES] Protocol to the extent it requires the production of documents or discovery of information that is not reasonably accessible to State Farm on the ground that such discovery 11"}, {"d": 98, "p": 56, "t": "would require extraordinary efforts that are not proportional to the scope of this matter. 12 0.S. § 3226(B); Werner Enter., Inc. y. Kirkland et al., No. 122,385 (Okla. Sept. 24, 2024) (Respondent, any other assigned judge, or a special master appointed by the district court shall review the discovery requests at issue and consider the proportionality facts stated in 12 O.S. Section 3226 (B)(2)(c) along with all other statutory requirements before ruling on the discovery disputes.”). State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ “ESI Discovery Protocol,” attached as Exhibit | for the same reasons. To the extent ESI is produced, State Farm will produce reasonably accessible, relevant, nonprivileged information in image format, accompanied by document-level text files containing searchable text (either extracted text or text created with optical character recognition (“OCR”)). The information pertinent to the claims and defenses in this case can be found in the text of the documents and is not generally found in metadata and Plaintiffs have not set forth any basis or arguments to the contrary. Notwithstanding State Farm’s objections and format set forth above, where applicable, metadata load files will be produced in .DAT file format and image load files in .OPT format (i.e., industry standard “Concordance” formatted load files). The exceptions to this approach are: e State Farm will produce responsive, non-privileged, and unredacted spreadsheets (e.g., Microsoft Excel files) in native format. e State Farm will produce responsive, redacted Excel-file documents in near-native format with redacted text, unless doing so would be unduly burdensome or render the file(s) unusable, in which case State Farm will seek to meet and confer with Plaintiffs on the proper redaction method. e State Farm will produce responsive, non-privileged, and unredacted ESI maintained in presentation formats (e.g., Microsoft PowerPoint) in native format if relevant information exists that cannot be displayed on an image (e.g., animations or embedded audio files). e State Farm will produce responsive, redacted ESI maintained in presentation formats (e.g., Microsoft PowerPoint) as image files with redacted text, unless doing so would be unduly burdensome or render the file(s) unusable, in which case State Farm will seek to meet and confer with Plaintiffs on the proper redaction method. © State Farm may choose to produce ESI that is difficult or impracticable to render in Bates stamped image format, such as video or audio files, in native format. 12"}, {"d": 98, "p": 57, "t": "To the extent there is a need for any deviation from the above, State Farm will meet and confer and negotiate in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute with Plaintiffs’ counsel. Objection State Farm and restates “communication(s),” Response and to Plaintiffs’ incorporates supra, and Definition its objections applies each to of “Electronically to Plaintiffs’ Plaintiffs’ definitions definition Stored Information.” of “document(s)” of “Electronically and Stored Information.” Objection to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production Nos. 1-3. State Farm restates and incorporates its objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “document(s)” and “communication(s)” and its objections to ESI Protocol set forth above and applies each to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production Instructions 1-3. State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production Instructions 1-3 on the grounds that the Oklahoma Discovery Code addresses the form of production of ESI and does not require parties to produce ES] in any particular way or allow requesting parties to unilaterally dictate a form of production. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ ESI Production Instructions !-3 exceed the scope of permissible discovery and impose obligations above and beyond those set forth under the Oklahoma Discovery Code. As such, State Farm will not produce ESI— if any—in accordance with Plaintiffs’ unilateral ESI Protocol and, to the extent ES] is produced, State Farm will produce the reasonably accessible, non-redacted content of each document in a reasonably usable format as set forth above, which is all the Oklahoma Discovery Code requires. State Farm further objects because it does not need to produce ESI in more than one form, and the reproduction of ESI in other formats would be cumulative and duplicative of the alternate reasonably usable formats proffered above. 12 O.S. § 3234(B)(2)(e)(3). Further, to the extent these instructions call for production of “native” files, State Farm construes “native” as the “associated file structure defined by the original creating application.” The Sedona Conference Glossary: eDiscovery & Digital Information Management, 5th Ed., 21 Sedona Conf. J. 263 (2020) 13"}, {"d": 98, "p": 58, "t": "OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ PROTECTIVE ORDER STATEMENT. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ unilateral and self-serving statements and conclusions concerning their hugely overly broad discovery requests seeking State Farm’s confidential and proprietary institutional documents that have no relevance to Plaintiffs’ claim and are vastly disproportionate even if they were relevant. State Farm objects further because, contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, Oklahoma law expressly grants courts permission to enter protective orders protecting the use of confidential information produced during discovery. 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(1)(g) (allowing a court to enter any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, harassment, embarrassment, oppression or undue delay, burden, or expense, including that a trade secret or other confidential research development or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way); YWCA of Oklahoma City v. Melson, 1997 OK 81, 7 18-24 n.41, 944 P.2d 304, 310-11 n.41 (holding that the need for pretrial disclosure should “be harmonized” with a party’s right of privacy, and preventing public disclosure of sensitive information “is sufficient justification for the authorization of protective orders.”); State ex rel. Oklahoma State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision v. Rivero, 2021 OK 31, 4 79, 489 P.3d 36, 64 (explaining that courts’ authority under Section 3226(C) to enter protective orders has “conceptual origins in [its] counterparts found in” Rule 26 of the Federal Rules.). State Farm will thus not produce documents it deems to be Confidential until the entry of a mutually acceptable protective order unless otherwise ordered by the Court. State Farm is willing to meet and confer and negotiate in good faith on a mutual protective order with Plaintiffs’ counsel. For purposes of its below Responses to Plaintiffs’ specific Requests, and to avoid repeating its objections stated in these introductory sections, State Farm’s above General Objections, Objections to Plaintiffs’ Definitions, Objections to Plaintiffs’ Instructions, Objections to Plaintiffs’ ES] Protocol and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Protective Order Statement shall be collectively referred to as “State Farm’s Universal Objections.” 14"}, {"d": 98, "p": 60, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, COUNTY Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASE NO. CJ-2025-2626 CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY Plaintiffs hereby request, pursuant to the Oklahoma Discovery Code, that You respond within thirty (30) days to these Discovery Requests. You are hereby required to file in the above-styled cause and serve upon the undersigned counsel at the address stated herein below your written answers to the following Interrogatories, which should be made fully, separately, and in writing under oath and signed by the person making them. You are required to permit inspection and copying at our expense of the Documents described in the following Requests for Production, which are in Your possession, custody, or control, at Whitten Burrage, 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102, or at such other time and location as the parties may agree. |"}, {"d": 98, "p": 61, "t": "INSTRUCTIONS 1. These Discovery Requests are directed toward all information and Documents, within the descriptions set forth herein, which are known or available to You through Your respective agents, representatives, or Persons authorized to act on Your behalf, including information contained in Documents in the custody, possession, or control of You, Your respective agents, representatives, or Persons authorized to act in Your behalf, or available to them upon reasonable inquiry, request, or demand, whether such Documents are maintained at a local, regional, territorial, or national location. 2. These Discovery Requests shall be deemed continuing pursuant to the Oklahoma Discovery Code and require, without further request from Plaintiffs, additional and supplemental answers from You if, at any time between the time the answers to these Discovery Requests are served and time of trial, You obtain or acquire from any source any additional knowledge, information, or belief pertaining to the subject matter of any Discovery Request. Such supplementary responses and production shall be served and made seasonably, but not later than thirty (30) days after such additional information and/or Documents are acquired or discovered. 3. Wherever used herein, the singular shall be deemed to include the plural, and the plural shall be deemed to include the singular. The feminine shall be deemed to include the masculine and the masculine shall be deemed to include the feminine. The disjunctive “or” shall be deemed to include a conjunctive “and”, and the conjunctive “and” shall be deemed to include the disjunctive “or”, and each of the functional words “each”, “every”, “any”, and “all” shall be deemed to include each of the other functional words. References 2"}, {"d": 98, "p": 62, "t": "to the past tense shall include the present and vice versa. Use of the word “including” or any form thereof shall be construed without limitation. 4, Where Discovery Requests cannot be answered in full, they shall be answered or responded to as completely as possible, and incomplete answers shall be accompanied by a specification of the reasons for the incompleteness of the answer and whatever knowledge, information, or belief is possessed with respect to each unanswered or incompletely answered Discovery Request. 5. shall If you object to the production of any Document for any reason, Your answer state whether Documents Additionally, if no Documents responsive to the specific Discovery Request exist. are responsive to a specific Discovery Request, Your answer shall state the same in response to that Discovery Request. 6. supplied Where facts set forth in Your answers or responses or portions thereof are upon information and belief, rather than actual knowledge, so state and specifically describe or identify the source or sources of such information and belief. If any estimate can reasonably be made in place of unknown information, set forth Your best estimate, clearly designated as such, in place of unknown information, and describe the basis upon which the estimate is made. If You cannot answer an Interrogatory in full after exercising due diligence to secure the information requested, so state and answer to the fullest extent possible, specifying Your inability to answer the remainder and stating whatever information or knowledge you have relating to the answered portion. 7. If any Document responsive to a Request for Production was, but is no longer in Your possession, custody or control, or in existence, state whether it (1) is missing or 3"}, {"d": 98, "p": 63, "t": "lost; (2) has been destroyed; (3) has been transferred to others; or (4) has been otherwise disposed of, and in each instance explain the circumstances surrounding such disposition, as well as the date or approximate date thereof. 8. Pursuant to the Oklahoma Discovery Code, You are required to produce any Documents requested as they are kept in the usual course of business, or, You shall organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the Requests. Additionally, all Electronic Documents must be produced in the format described in the ESI Protocol described below. Further, no document produced by Defendants shall contain any watermark that covers or obscures in any way any text of the document being produced. 9. For all documents produced in response to these Discovery Requests, You are specifically instructed to not include any watermark on any such Document. 10. If any document is withheld for any reason, including but not limited to any alleged claim or privilege or trade secret, or for any other permissible (under current Oklahoma law) and recognized (under current Oklahoma law) reason or objection, please provide a description of the document being withheld which includes the following: a. The date of the document; b. The author(s) of the document (including all Persons who may have participated in the development of the Document); c. All recipients of the document (including anyone the document was directed to, forwarded to, blind-copied to, and/or otherwise received and/or reviewed by); d. All persons to whom copies of the document have been furnished; 4"}, {"d": 98, "p": 64, "t": "If stated in the document, the subject matter of the document; A complete description of the information and/or Document withheld that sufficiently describes the nature of the Documents, Communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable Plaintiffs to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection; The file and/or computer database in which the document is kept in the ordinary course of business; and h. 11. The current custodian of the document. | Unless otherwise limited or expanded, the geographical scope of these Discovery Requests encompasses all States of the United States in which You conduct business. 12. Unless otherwise limited or expanded, the temporal scope of these Discovery Requests encompasses the Relevant Time Period."}, {"d": 98, "p": 65, "t": "DEFINITIONS The following definitions shall apply to these Discovery Requests: 1. “Action” means the above-styled and cause numbered litigation. 2. “Address/Telephone Number” means both the current business and residential address and telephone number Person(s) referred to in the specific Discovery Request. 3. “Agent” shall collectively mean MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC, his attorney(s), investigator(s), agent(s), or any other representative(s). All information is to be divulged which is in the possession, custody, or control of each individual or corporate party, including all information that is reasonably available to them. 4. “Claim” shall collectively mean and refer to all requests for indemnity to You (along with Documents supportive thereof), as described in the Action, whether submitted directly to You or through Agent, arising from the Dwelling and/or Policy. 5. “Claim File” shall mean the Documents You keep and maintain with respect to a claim for indemnity under a policy of insurance coverage You have issued, which include (but are not limited to): a. Communications between You and insured; b. Communications between Your Claims Handling Personnel; c. claim diary or log; d. reports prepared by You or anyone You retained to perform work on the claim (including any contractors or engineers); e. witness statements;"}, {"d": 98, "p": 66, "t": "f. adjuster’s file; g. field file and/or notes; h. scope file and/or notes; i. supervisor’s file; j. settlement summaries k. internal policies, procedures, and/or manuals You used, referenced, or relied upon in adjusting or paying the claim; and L all Documents presented for authority requests or review requests. The Claim File shall include (a) all electronic information You store relating to the respective claim in any claims-management software; (b) all Communications between You and the insured as well as any third-party relating to the claim; and (c) all information sent to and/or reviewed by any supervisor and/or claim consultant relating to the claim. 6. contractors “Claims Handling performing work Personnel” or services means Your Employees or independent related to the receipt, response, adjustment, appraisal, handling of formal and informal disputes, and/or settlement homeowners claims in Oklahoma. It shall include (but not be limited to) Your adjusters, claims handlers, supervisors, and consultants 7. “Communication(s)” shall refer to any message sent or received orally, in writing, or via technology (including but not limited to telephone, text or instant messaging system(s), social media platform(s), e-mail(s), and/or facsimile). It shall include any attachments and/or metadata included in said message. 8. Cost/Benefit Analysis means 7 any cost/benefit analysis, return-on-"}, {"d": 98, "p": 67, "t": "investment analysis, financial impact analysis, requests for proposal, return-on-investment analysis, or any other similarly named or synonymous type of documentary analysis that compares the cost of an initiative to the value of its outcome. 9. “Custodian(s)” refers to the Person(s) having possession, custody, or control of the Document or information requested in the specific Discovery Request. 10. “Document(s)” shall have the same meaning assigned to it in Rule 34(a)(1)(A) and shall include (but is not limited to) all materials described in the definition of “writing” as set forth herein as well as any form of electronic communication, however generated or stored, such as e-mail, which is capable of being copied. The term “Document” includes, but is not limited to the following: every original (and every copy of any original or copy which differs in any way from any original) of every writing of every kind or description, whether handwritten, typed, drawn, sketched, printed or recorded, by any physical, mechanical, or electronic means, including but not limited to accounting records, affidavits, bills, books, calendars, checks, check stubs, contracts, including all policies of insurance and draft policies, diaries, notes, photographs, receipts, reports, tape recordings, tax returns, telephone bills, and all materials within or upon which appear any writing or utterance, whether handwritten, typewritten, printed, transcribed, taped, recorded, system filmed, punched, of reproduction, or produced by any other mechanical and shall include each Document known or electronic to Defendant, its attorneys, and its agents. 11. structures. “Dwelling” shall refer to a residence, home, house, dwelling, and/or other"}, {"d": 98, "p": 68, "t": "12. “Dwelling Policy” refers to any policy of insurance written by any Defendant providing coverage for physical loss or damages to a Dwelling. It shall include Plaintiffs’ Homeowners’ policy of insurance, or other policy of insurance providing insurance for Plaintiffs’ Dwelling at the time of the loss that is the subject of this Action, and was issued by You or anyone acting on Your behalf, including but not limited to all summary(ies) of changes, declaration page(s), deductible disclosures, Definitions, identification of any additional insured(s), endorsement(s), consumer bill of rights, and notices. “Dwelling Policy” shall have the same definition as provided in Plaintiffs’ operative Petition. 13. “Employee” shall refer to all employees, past and present, affiliated in any way with any Defendant. 14. “Engineering Services” shall mean any service or creative work, the adequate performance of which requires engineering education, training and experience in the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical sciences work investigation, to such services or creative as consultation, and engineering evaluation, planning and design of engineering works and systems, planning the engineering use of land and water, teaching of advanced engineering subjects or courses related thereto, engineering research, engineering surveys, engineering studies, and the inspection or review of construction for the purposes of assuring compliance with drawings and specifications; any of which embraces such services or work, either public or private, in connection with any utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, work systems, projects, and industrial or consumer products or equipment of a mechanical, electrical, chemical, environmental, hydraulic, pneumatic or thermal nature, insofar as they 9"}, {"d": 98, "p": 69, "t": "involve safeguarding life, health or property, and including such other professional services as may be necessary to the design review and integration of a multidiscipline work, planning, progress and completion of any engineering services. 15. “Expert” shall mean a person skilled through education, training and experience in a particular field or vocation. 16. “Identify” or “Identification,” a. when used in reference to a corporation, firm or other entity, means its full name, form of organization, and its present or last known Address/Telephone Number; when used in reference to a meeting or conference, means to state the date of the meeting or conference, the place of the meeting or conference, the full name and the present or last known position, business affiliation and Address/Telephone Number of each Person attending the meeting or conference; when used in reference to a telephonic Conversation, means to state the full name, business affiliation and business address at the time, present or last known position and business affiliation and Address/Telephone Number of each party to the telephonic Conversation, the location of each such party at the time the telephonic Conversation took place, which of the parties initiated the telephonic Conversation, and when such telephonic conversation took place; and when used in reference to a Writing, means a description of that writing in a manner sufficient for a subpoena duces tecum or for production pursuant to the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Also provide its present location or Custodian. If any such Writing was, but no longer is, in your possession or control, state what disposition was made of it, the date thereof, the Person responsible for making the decision as to such disposition, and the Person responsible for carrying out such disposition; when used in reference to an oral Conversation other than telephonic Conversation, means to state when such Conversation took place, where such Conversation took place, and the full name and present or last known position and business affiliation and residential address of 10"}, {"d": 98, "p": 70, "t": "each party to such conversation. f. when used with reference to an individual natural Person, means to state his or her full name, Residential Address, and present or last known position and business affiliation; 17. “Indemnity Agreement” shall mean any contractual agreement under which any Person or entity agrees to compensate You for a loss, or under which You agree to compensate any Person or entity for a loss. 18. “Party” shall mean collectively or individually any “Plaintiff,” “Defendant,” and/or “Agent,” as those terms are defined herein. 19. “Person” shall refer to any natural person, firm, association, partnership, corporation, or other form of legal business entity. 20. “Petition” shall refer the Petition filed in this Action. 21. “Plaintiff(s)” shall refer to the named Plaintiff(s) in this Action. 22. “Relating to” a subject shall mean any documents constituting or comprising that subject, and any document identifying, referring to, dealing with, commenting upon, describing, summarizing, analyzing, explaining, detailing, outlining, defining, interpreting, or pertaining to that subject. 23. “Relevant Time Period” shall mean the time period from 2010 to the date Discovery Requests are answered or supplemented. 24. “You,” “Your,” and “Yourself” shall refer to Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (‘State a. Farm”), as well as: all Persons acting on behalf of or purporting to act on behalf of State Farm. (including but not limited to agents, representatives, attorneys, insurance carriers, experts, and consultants); 11"}, {"d": 98, "p": 71, "t": "all Persons acting on behalf of or purporting to act on behalf of any subsidiary of State Farm; all Persons acting on behalf of or purporting to act on behalf of any merged or acquired predecessors, successors, and/or divested facilities, divisions, or subsidiaries of State Farm; and all Persons serving or having served on any governing board of any State Farm. 12"}, {"d": 98, "p": 72, "t": "ESI PROTOCOL Additional Definitions: 1. All definitions provided in the Discovery Requests to which this Exhibit are incorporated as if fully set out in this Exhibit. 2. Documents, “Electronically Stored Information” or other data that are stored on (7e., “ESI”) computers, is defined file servers, disks, as files, or other reasonably accessible devices or media. ESI Production: 1. Defendant shall produce all documents in accordance with the ESI Protocol provided contemporaneously herewith. 2. To the extent Defendant objects to Plaintiffs’ requested form of production, Defendant shall so state and advise of the specific format of production (i.e., JPEG, TIFF+, etc.) that Defendant believes to be a reasonably usable format. documents in an unidentified ‘reasonably usable format” A mere promise to produce shall not constitute a valid objection to Plaintiffs’ requested format. Additionally, a promise to produce documents in “imaged format” lacks the requisite specificity to inform Plaintiffs of Defendant’s intended format. 3. Should Defendant refuse to produce documents in the format requested, Plaintiffs specifically reserve the right to seek entry of their ESI Protocol and seek reproduction of documents in their native format, as defined in the ESI Protocol. 13"}, {"d": 98, "p": 73, "t": "PROTECTIVE ORDER 1. Defendant has made a regular practice of refusing to produce documents without the prerequisite entry of a blanket protective order. 2. Plaintiffs do not agree any information sought herein requires Defendant to divulge information that is confidential or trade secret, nor do Plaintiffs agree to the propriety of a blanket protective order in any case. INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO.1. —_ Provide the name, address, and job title of any Claims Handling Personnel who were involved with, adjusted, managed, supervised, investigated, worked on, reviewed, or provided any work or oversight on any aspect of Plaintiff's Claim or the handling thereof. INTERROGATORY NO.2. __If State Farm maintains Plaintiff failed to comply with the terms of the Policy, please set forth (a) the facts that support such contention; (b) all Persons with knowledge to support such contention; and (c) all Documents or other evidence that may support such contention. INTERROGATORY NO. 3. _Please identify all Wind/Hail Claims and corresponding civil cases in Oklahoma since January 1, 2019 wherein a Total or Full Roof Replacement was denied prior to a lawsuit being filed, but was subsequently approved and/or paid to an insured after the insured filed a civil lawsuit against State Farm. INTERROGATORY NO.4. Describe with specificity, in detail, and by date all inspection(s) conducted by any of the named defendants, or anyone acting on their behalf, 14"}, {"d": 98, "p": 75, "t": "«1 O61217161% IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY BILL and LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, CASE NO. CJ-2025-2626 Hon. Amy Palumbo STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., FILED IN DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY NOV 25 2025 RICK WARREN COURT CLERK Defendants. 78 JOURNAL ENTRY COMES ON for hearing before this Court on the 14 day of November 2025, Plaintiffs Bill and Lacy Hursh’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm”). The Court, having reviewed the parties’ briefs, hearing arguments of counsel, and consideration of additional materials provided at the hearing, finds and orders that Plaintiffs’ Motion is SUSTAINED, as follows: 1. The Court has considered the arguments set forth in the parties’ extensive briefing on these discovery issues, as well as arguments made by counsel at the hearings, and consideration of additional materials provided at the hearing. 2. The Court has carefully considered and weighed each of the proportionality factors set forth in 12 OS. § 3226(B) in conjunction with making its rulings as to the relevance and Proportionality of each category of discovery requested in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, including the importance of the issues at stake in this action, the amount in controversy, the EXHIBIT 4"}, {"d": 98, "p": 76, "t": "parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 3. 3. Having considered these factors, the Court finds Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing the discovery sought herein is relevant to their claims, including allegations of pattern and practice and the evidence at issue is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and proportional to the needs of the case . In so finding, the Court considered that this matter involves claims where the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000; 4. The Court further finds that there is a disparity in the parties’ relative access to the requested information in that most of the information is only accessible by State Farm and not by Plaintiffs; 5. That in considering the importance of the issues at stake, the Court finds that without this discovery, it may be impossible to resolve the pertinent issues in this case and that this discovery will allow both parties to proceed in presenting relevant evidence at trial. 6. The Court also takes into consideration the objections and arguments made by counsel for State Farm regarding the potential burden or expense the requested discovery may impose in relation to its likely benefits. 7. The Court further finds that the relevant time frame for the production of responsive material and information is January 1, 2015 to present, unless a shorter time frame is stated in the specific discovery request. 8. The Court hereby SUSTAINS materials within si: tio Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and orders production of such days, Except “pQ@dud Prous with Prdustan %W + danys. be ardecd MY Rs"}, {"d": 98, "p": 77, "t": "It is THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED. THE HONORABLE AMY PALUMBO APPROVED AS TO FORM: sn Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 Whitten Burrage 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs me - Leffel Ashlyn M. Smith GABLE GOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com asmith@gablelaw.com Carrie B. McNeer Grant A. Fitz"}, {"d": 98, "p": 78, "t": "GABLE GOTW ALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 cmeneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com Attorneys for Defendants State Farm and Defendants Mark D. Welty and Mark D. Welty Insurance Agency, Inc."}, {"d": 98, "p": 80, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY FILED STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA June 5, 2026 11:31 AM RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK Plaintiffs, v. Case Number CJ-2025-2626 Case No. CJ-2025-2626 STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL EXHIBIT"}, {"d": 98, "p": 81, "t": "Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel (the “Motion” or “MTC”) seeks information that either duplicates discovery the Court has already ordered State Farm to produce regarding the Fire Model Enhancement (“FME”) or is irrelevant and disproportionate to this single homeowner’s insurance dispute. The sole basis of Plaintiffs’ requests concerning “industry standards and/or benchmarks” is State Farm’s purported attempt, through the FME, to “meet arbitrary benchmarks” in connection with its handling of wind/hail and roof claims.” (MTC at 6-7.).| While State Farm denies such allegations and disputes the relevance and proportionality of the requested information, many of these requests fall squarely within the scope of the Court’s November 25 and December 31, 2025 Orders compelling FME-related discovery—which are currently pending the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s review—and are thus unnecessarily and inappropriately cumulative and duplicative. Plaintiffs’ additional requests for deposition transcripts from other cases, as well as claim files associated with over five years of wind/hail roof claims and underwriting information for other Tulsa County insureds, have no apparent or demonstrated connection to the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim. Instead, Plaintiffs mischaracterize testimony from other lawsuits and the statements of State Farm’s counsel in a different case to continue to advance their speculative theory that State Farm is engaged in a purported enterprise-wide “scheme” to pre-deny wind/hail roof claims. But as the Oklahoma Supreme Court recently held, when a request is “overly broad on its face’—as here—the requesting party must “demonstrate how their request [is] relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Chick-fil-A, Inc. v. Ogden, 2026 OK 13, 916.2 Plaintiffs have not met this burden. State Farm does not dispute Plaintiffs’ right to challenge its claim decision or to seek discovery relevant to their specific allegations. But the Oklahoma Discovery Code limits how far ' See, e.g., RFPs 45-52; MTC at 6-7. 2 See also Ross v, Univ. of Tulsa, No. 14-CV-484-TCK-PJC, 2015 WL 13622518, at *1 (N.D. Okla. Apr. 24, 2015) (“[T]he mere fact that a plaintiff offers a ‘broad theory of the case’ does not automatically justify equally broad discovery, ‘unless the discovery is relevant to the plaintiff's actual claims or defenses.””) 1"}, {"d": 98, "p": 82, "t": "Plaintiffs may go and requires discovery to be not only relevant but also proportional to the needs of the case. The requests at issue are neither. Not only are they untethered to the parties’ actual claims and defenses, they are disproportionate to the needs of this $22,000 case, particularly because the Court has already ordered State Farm to produce the FME-related discovery Plaintiffs contend is the basis of their additional requests, and complying with that Order alone has cost State Farm millions of dollars. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s apparent goal—to make this case so painful and expensive to defend that State Farm is pressured to settle for an exorbitant amount far exceeding the case’s actual value— violates both the letter and the spirit of proportionality. The Court should deny the Motion. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case concerns damages Plaintiffs allegedly sustained to their home during weather events on October 4, 2023 and May 21, 2024. Plaintiffs claim State Farm should have paid approximately $22,000 for alleged roof damage and assert claims against State Farm for breach of contract and bad faith; claims against agent Mark D. Welty and Mark D. Welty Insurance Agency for negligent procurement; and claims against all Defendants for constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Pet. {| 40, 45-79. State Farm has already produced over a thousand documents relating to Plaintiffs’ claims, including Plaintiffs’ policy and relevant Claims Files, and (1) three years of financial and annual statements; (2) underwriting guidelines in effect when the Policy issued; (3) applicable claim-handling guidelines in place at the time of the alleged loss; (4) Wind and Hail Guidelines from 2020 and 2021; (5) performance evaluations for the claim handlers involved in Plaintiffs’ claims; and (6) the Fire Property Quality Plan in effect on the dates of loss, among others. On November 25, 2025, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel and, over State Farm’s objection, ordered production of information and documents Plaintiffs claimed were relevant to State Farm’s purported “scheme” to pre-deny wind/hail roof claims, including, inter alia claims training materials since 2015; information from 2019 onward regarding the FME and wind/hail 2"}, {"d": 98, "p": 83, "t": "initiatives, including purported tracking of roof replacements, indemnity savings, and payment volumes; six years of documents and communications relating to managerial approval requirements for full roof replacements; documents about alleged efforts to reduce indemnity payments for wind/nail claims; and all documents previously produced or ordered in six unrelated lawsuits. Plaintiffs also issued a corporate representative deposition notice seeking testimony and documents on 30 topics with 10] subparts, spanning 15 years of corporate operations, and noticed the depositions of numerous high-level employees without noticing the deposition of any State Farm employee who actually handled Plaintiffs’ insurance claim. Plaintiffs justified those requests with the same “pattern and practice” and FME-related allegations they advance here. On December 31, 2025, this Court denied State Farm’s motions to quash the deposition notices for the corporate representative and individual employees. State Farm then pursued its right to seek appellate review of the Court’s November 25 and December 31, 2025 Orders by filing an Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction and Petition for Writ of Prohibition (“Application”) with the Supreme Court. Although the Application is still pending—and encompasses FME information that would subsume many of the requests at issue— Plaintiffs nonetheless filed their MTC in another effort to saddle State Farm with disproportionate discovery and costs that dwarf the size of their claim. Plaintiffs seek an order compelling’: e Industry Standards and Benchmarks Requests (Rogs 31-34; RFPs 45-52). These requests seek production and identification of any wind/hail and full-roof-replacement “industry standards” and “benchmarks”—including any related reports, data, models, analyses, and scope of work documents—State Farm relied on for wind/hail claims and 3 The Court also ordered State Farm to produce training provided to agents regarding policy sales and underwriting; information on its relationship with Haag; Fire Property Claims Quality Plans since 2019 plus documents on initiatives concerning indemnity payments and roof replacement ratios, approval rates, and payments; documents about personal and program rules, features in third-party estimating software State Farm uses; and emails or other correspondence to or from Nicole Manduca, Sharon Amold, Tom Moss, and Susan Maynard, from January 2019 onward, about the FME and various metrics relating to roof replacements. ‘ As an organizational tool, State Farm herewith submits a chart of these requests organized by subjectmatter with objections noted as Ex. 1."}, {"d": 98, "p": 84, "t": "full roof replacements in connection with the FME, including associated claims-handling practices, performance metrics, and alleged efforts to reduce full roof replacement approvals to meet internal or industry benchmarks; the role of Accenture or other third parties in developing them; and State Farm’s performance against them before and after the FME team’s 2020 Dallas kick-off and 2021 Okiahoma rollout. ¢ Deposition Transcripts Requests (RFPs 53-57). Plaintiffs seek deposition transcripts and exhibits for five State Farm employees, none of whom were involved in Plaintiffs claim, taken in five unrelated cases: Nicole Manduca in Nida v. State Farm; Tom Moss in Barnett v. State Farm; Sharon Armold in Johnson v, State Farm; Jacqueline Draper in Hosier v. State Farm; and Jason Taylor in Cunanan v. State Farm e H. Other Insureds’ Claim Files (RFPs 58-59). Plaintiffs seek all Tulsa County homeowner claim files since January 1, 2021 involving wind and hail roof damage, plus the corresponding underwriting materials reflecting each home’s roof covering or rating. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES A. The Oklahoma Discovery Standard. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has made clear that relevance—the threshold requirement for obtaining discovery—“should be firmly applied.” See Quinn v, City of Tulsa, 1989 OK 112, { 63, 777 P.2d 1331, 1342 (quoting Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979)); see also Nitzel v. Jackson, 1994 OK 49, 879 P.2d 1222, n* (“Discovery is not without limitation. It must lead or tend to lead to relevant evidence.”). Relevance to a “party’s claim or defense”—as the Oklahoma Discovery Code requires® —is not simply assumed: \"[w]Jhen the request is overly broad, or relevance is not clear, the party seeking the discovery has the burden to show the relevance of the request.” Stainsby y. Okla. ex rel. Okla. Health Care Auth., No, CIV-21-1073-D, 2022 WL 1748263, *1 (W.D. Okla. May 31, 2022). Accordingly, courts routinely deny discovery that is facially overbroad and irrelevant, such as when discovery requests “sweep in. . . all manner of organizational documents.” In re Kidd, No. 5 Nida v. State Farm et al, No. CJ-2020-4453 (Okla. Dist. Ct. Okla. Cnty.); Barnett v. State Farm et al., No. CJ- 2020-141 (Okla. Dist. Ct. Grady Cnty.); Johnson v. State Farm et al., No. CJ-2019-4360 (Okla. Dist. Ct. Tulsa Cnty.); Hosier v. State Farm et al, No. CJ-2021-1741 (Okla. Dist. Ct. Okla. Cnty.); Cunanan v. State Farm et al, No. Civ-23-540R (U.S. Dist. Ct. W.D. Okla). 5 12 OK Stat § 3226 (2025) (“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to any party's claim or defense, reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and proportional to the needs of the case, considering [various factors].”) (emphasis added). 4"}, {"d": 98, "p": 85, "t": "3:20-CV-0800 (KAD), 2020 WL 5594122, at *12 (D. Conn. Sept. 18, 2020).’ Nor does a “plaintiff's broad theory of the case ... necessarily justify broad discovery,” and courts should thus endeavor to “thwart fishing expeditions.” Willis v. Johnson, No. CIV-18-323-D, 2021 WL 8446071, at *2 (W.D. Okla. May 20, 2021); see also Ross, 2015 WL 13622518, at *1. The Oklahoma Discovery Code, like the Federal Rules, provides that discovery must be “proportional to the needs of the case.” 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1)(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Indeed, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has made clear that a trial court must consider the proportionality of requests before it may compel production. See Ex. 2, Order, Werner Enters., Inc. v. Kirkland, No. 122,385 (Okla. Sept. 24, 2024); see also Chick-fil-A, Inc., 2026 OK 13,4 11. “The proper scope of discovery is that which is both relevant to the claims or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the various factors.”® Dodd v. Indian Health Care Res. Ctr. of Tulsa, Inc., No. 24CV-00327-SH, 2024 WL 4648150, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 1, 2024) (emphasis in original). Thus, the Court’s analysis must go beyond determining whether specific requests are relevant to the claims and defenses. First Horizon Nat'l Corp. v. Houston Cas. Co., No. 2:15-CV-2235-SHL-DKV, 2016 WL 5869580, at *7 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 5, 2016) (“[E]ven if such information may be considered remotely relevant, . . . its production would be unduly burdensome and disproportionate to this litigation.”). Instead, the Court must weigh its potential benefit against the burden and expense.” 7 See also Conservation L. Found, Inc. v. All-Star Transportation, LLC, No. 3:21-CV-00201 (JBA), 2022 WL 16901999, at *3 (D. Conn. Nov. 11, 2022) (“[T]he Court does not need an affidavit to know that, in asking for substantially all information and documents related to the defendants’ vehicles, real estate, operations, employee job responsibilities, and environmental compliance efforts ... [plaintiff] has requested production of a significant percentage of all the documents the defendants created over the past seven years.”) (citing Jn re Kidd, 2020 WL 5594122, at *11). ® These factors include: (1) the importance of the issues at stake in the action; (2) the amount in controversy; (3) the parties’ relative access to relevant information; (4) the parties’ resources; (5) the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues; and (6) whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. See 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1){a). ° Compare 12 OS. § 2401 (defining relevant evidence) with 12 0.8. § 3226(B)(1)(a) (discussing proportionality factors)."}, {"d": 98, "p": 86, "t": "In Chick-fil-A, Inc. v. Ogden, the Oklahoma Supreme Court applied the Discovery Code’s relevance and proportionality standards to a discovery request with no apparent connection to the underlying incident and was thus “overly broad on its face.” 2026 OK 13, 416. The Court held that the trial court erred in allowing facially overbroad discovery without requiring the requesting party to “initially demonstrate how their request was relevant to any party’s claim or defense,” id. ¥ 16, and reaffirmed that Oklahoma’s relevance standard “focus[es] on the actual claims and defenses involved in the action,” not merely its “subject matter.” Jd. ff 13-15. There, the parents of a two-year-old child sued Chick-fil-A for negligence and wrongful death after a vehicle struck and killed their child in the drive-through lane as the child walked toward the restaurant entrance in Yukon, Oklahoma. 2026 OK 13, 92. The parents sought ten years of documents conceming injuries or deaths at Chick-fil-A restaurants nationwide, along with any “complaints or petitions” alleging negligence caused a motor vehicle-related pedestrian injury or death at any such restaurant. Jd. 3. Chick-fil-A objected that the requests were overbroad and unduly burdensome because they were “improperly tailored as to time and scope [and] were not limited to substantially similar incidents.” /d. 4. The parents moved to compel, agreeing to limit the requests to the last five years within Oklahoma, and the trial court granted the motion. Jd. §{] 5-7. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the trial court judge abused his discretion in granting the parents’ motion to compel because the requests were facially overly broad and the trial court did not “require [Plaintiffs] to initially demonstrate how their request was relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” /d. | 16. In so holding, the Court explained that 12 O.S. § 3226—which allows parties to obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matters “which is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . and proportional to the needs of the case”’—“was amended in 2017 to more closely follow amendments to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” /d. 4 11. In particular, the"}, {"d": 98, "p": 87, "t": "Court observed that “[t]he amendments . . . omitted language that had bearing on whether a discovery request is relevant” and, specifically, that it was no longer sufficient for discovery to be related to “the subject matter’ without also being related to “any party’s claim or defense.” Jd. | 12 (emphasis added). Based on the foregoing, the Oklahoma Supreme Court explained that “[r]ecords related to any pedestrian accident that occurred in a Chick-fil-A parking lot may be relevant to the subject matter involved here. But that is no longer the standard.” Id. § 1S (emphasis added). The Court also observed that the “drafters of the federal rules” from which Section 3226 is derived “wanted to emphasize that ‘proportionality’ is a core element in assessing the scope of discovery.” /d. 4 11 Here, Plaintiffs’ Petition makes clear that Plaintiffs are complaining about Defendants’ purported conduct in connection with their Policy and insurance claims, i.e., the application of the Policy’s terms to their claims. The Court should deny the Motion because (1) the Orders subject to State Farm’s Application subsume many of Plaintiffs’ requests; and, in any event, (2) Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how any of the disputed discovery requests (which are overly broad and facially irrelevant) shed any light on the issues specific to Plaintiffs’ claims. Instead, Plaintiffs seek additional enterprise-wide discovery for a span of five to sixteen years, or for an undefined period, that they contend relates to the subject matter of their counsel’s invented scheme—one they have not shown impacted the claim decision they are challenging, as the law requires. B. Plaintiffs’ “Evidence” Does Not Establish A Scheme Involving “Industry Standards” Asa threshold matter, none of the testimony Plaintiffs cite supports their contention that State Farm undertook “efforts to reach some benchmark with respect to State Farm’s aggregate, predetermined claim handling on Wind/hail Claims before those claims occur.” MTC at 9-12. First, Plaintiffs cite their counsel’s self-serving brief in Nida v. State Farm to argue that “Thomas Moss identified that State Farm’s Scheme appeared to reflect efforts to reach some benchmark with respect"}, {"d": 98, "p": 88, "t": "to State Farm’s aggregate, pre-determined claim handling on Wind/Hail Claims before those claims occur.” MTC at 9. But, that brief selectively quotes from a document State Farm produced in another matter (HOSIERGAR0073099PROD) that—read in full—shows the opposite: Mr. Moss confirmed that State Farm docs 7 \"Ns See a”. 3 Plaintiffs also distort the testimony of Jason Taylor in Kyger v. State Farm, where Mr. Taylor served as State Farm’s corporate representative on topics relating to Haag—anot the FME. MTC Ex. 9 at 12:1-13:10. In that off-topic questioning, Plaintiffs’ counsel asked Mr. Taylor to read cherrypicked excerpts from documents he expressly testified he had never seen and could not place in context. Id.at 244:3-245:4; 256:09-258: 14. That testimony proves nothing about State Farm’s alleged use of benchmarks or standards; it shows only Plaintiffs’ counsel straying beyond the noticed topics and further misusing discovery from other lawsuits against State Farm. Plaintiffs also selectively quote from the statements of State Farm’s counsel at a hearing in an unrelated matter, Black v. State Farm, No. CJ-2024-7827 (Okla. Cnty), to suggest State Farm affirmatively invoked and relied on “industry standards” as a defense. But State Farm’s counsel— different counsel than in this case—expressly stated “according to [Plaintiffs] ... you’re going to hear about standards, there aren’t standards, there aren’t benchmarks. There’s industry data.” MTC Ex. 12 at 36:6-13. Nor is counsel’s decision not to continue an email dispute over Plaintiffs’ counsel’s recollection of alleged statements from an in-chambers appearance in another case, Barlow v, State Farm (MTC at 12; MTC Exs. 10-11), an admission that “industry standards” are relevant here. Indeed, State Farm disputed Plaintiffs’ recollection of counsel’s statements from the Barlow appearance in its discovery responses. MTC at 12; MTC Ex. 12 at Rogs 31-34; RFPs 46-47, 51-52."}, {"d": 98, "p": 89, "t": "Cc. Plaintiffs’ Bad Faith Allegations Do Not Justify the Requested Discovery. Plaintiffs’ bare-bones bad faith allegations do not justify their expansive discovery requests concerning, inter alia, State Farm’s enterprise-wide operations and/or dealings with other insureds. As the Oklahoma Supreme Court held in Chick-fil-A, the Court must limit discovery to the claims and defenses of the specific case at issue, not on allegations of other wrongdoings. Chick-fil-A, Inc., 2026 OK 13, 16. Plaintiffs’ briefing and proffered evidence fail to show how underlying their claims—i.e., the “specific [alleged] wrongdoing” here—reflect a “pattern and practice” or “scheme.” fd. This alone warrants denial of the Motion. As stated in Morecroft v. Farmers Ins. Co., No. 09-CV-175-TCK-FHM, 2010 WL 1257579, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 25, 2010): Although relevancy is broadly defined for discovery purposes, it is not without bounds. The broad scope of discovery does not give a Plaintiff pursuing a bad faith claim unfettered license to examine all data regardless of how attenuated a relationship that data may have to the decision-making pertaining to Plaintiff's particular insurance claim. (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Morecroft court denied the plaintiff’s request for policies related to the insurer’s loss ratio for Oklahoma motor vehicle claims from 2004 to 2008, because the “plaintiff [did] not provide[] the court with any information to support his theory or explain how it is applicable to this case.” /d. at *2. Likewise, Plaintiffs offer no evidence from State Farm’s claimspecific productions showing how the facts relevant to their claims—that is, the “specific [alleged] wrongdoing” at issue—constitute or even reflect a scheme, nor have they deposed anyone involved in the claim handling to establish such a connection. Instead, Plaintiffs rely on speculation modeled after allegations their counsel routinely makes against insurance companies and promotes on their website.'® But merely alleging a “scheme” (Pet. {{] 9, 10) falls far short of establishing relevance. \"0 See Whitten Burrage Law, https://www.whittenburragelaw.convbad-laith-roofing-claims/, stating “Did you know that denying a full roof replacement in favor of just paying for minor repairs is a common tactic used by insurance companies to save themselves millions of dollars?” 9"}, {"d": 98, "p": 90, "t": "Because claim-specific evidence does not support Plaintiffs’ alleged “scheme,” they instead distort State Farm’s efforts to improve claim handling into a nefarious, corporate-wide effort to “to wrongfully deprive its insurers of coverage on valid wind and hail claims.” MTC at 6. To the contrary, the FME was an effort State Farm undertook in 2020 to improve the accuracy and quality of claim handling—one that is neither sinister nor surprising but a part of corporate responsibility. As part of the FME, State Farm identified potential ways to improve consistency in handling wind/hail claims and to address both overpayment and underpayment by improving file documentation, conducting additional training, and increasing management involvement.!! See Ex. 4, Declaration of Nicole Manduca { 3. Suggesting that efforts to promote consistency, training, and high standards in claim handling equate to a “scheme” to deprive policyholders of owed indemnity payments is unfounded and contrary to basic principles of corporate responsibility. The alternative, abandoning all guidelines, training, and oversight, would leave policyholders exposed to arbitrary, inconsistent, and potentially uninformed decisions by untrained claim handlers. D. Plaintiffs’ Punitive Damages Claim Does Not Justify Broad Discovery. Plaintiffs erroneously contend that the discovery at issue—particularly requests relating to industry standards and other insureds’ claims files—is relevant to punitive damages. As the United States Supreme Court has made clear, punitive damages must be based on the alleged misconduct at issue in a particular case—not unrelated acts. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 422 (2003) (‘A defendant’s dissimilar acts, independent from the acts upon which liability was premised, may not serve as the basis for punitive damages.”); See also Online Oil, Inc. v. CO&G Prod. Grp., LLC, 2018 OK CIV APP I, 4 40, 419 P.3d 337, 350 (quoting Campbell, supra). Here, the claim file of every single homeowner in Tulsa who made a claim for wind or \"Tn particular, claim file data indicated that State Farm may have been replacing roofs where significant damage was not expected, primarily due to the smail hail and light wind events associated with the date of loss. 10"}, {"d": 98, "p": 91, "t": "hail damage for the past 5 years, or purported “industry standards” Plaintiffs have not connected to the merits of this case, cannot justify punitive damages under that standard. To the extent Plaintiffs argue this discovery is necessary to investigate their alleged “scheme” in connection with the FME (MTC at 10, 16, 18), as discussed above, the Court has already ordered extensive FME- related discovery that—in the event the Supreme Court denies State Farm’s writ—will be sufficient for Plaintiffs to “investigate” their fabricated “scheme.” Any additional discovery in the name of punitive damages is unwarranted and disproportionate to the needs of this case, which involves a dispute over whether Plaintiffs’ roof sustained more covered damage than State Farm estimated. Plaintiffs offer no evidence that State Farm’s decision was based on anything beyond State Farm’s judgment that there was no further damage beyond that estimated by State Farm (Pet. J 40(c), (f, (k)), nor have they pointed to any claim-specific evidence indicating that was the case. Thus, there is no factual basis for the notion that a punitive damages claim will even reach the jury.'? E. The Additional Discovery Sought Is Irrelevant and Disproportionate. Industry Standards & Benchmarks Requests (Rogs 31-34; RFPs 45-52). Plaintiffs socalled “industry standards” requests already fall within the scope of Plaintiffs’ prior, broader discovery requests—and to the extent they do not—seek irrelevant information. The sole justification Plaintiffs assert for seeking “[d]ocuments and information related to industry standards and State Farm’s assessment of such industry standards” is State Farm’s purported use of the “Wind-Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team” to “meet arbitrary benchmarks based on State Farm’s research, studying, '2 Tf punitive damages were awarded based on the existence of a scheme (which State Farm denies), State Farm cannot be penalized multiple times for the same alleged conduct. See 23 0.8. § 9.1(C) (punitive damages against an insurer for breaching duty of good faith must be reduced by amounts paid in prior punitive damage verdicts in the state for the same conduct, and any award entered otherwise is void and reversible error). Plaintiffs’ counsel alleges the same purported scheme and seeks punitive damages in multiple cases against State Farm. Thus, any punitive damages award must be reduced to the extent State Farm was already penalized for the same conduct and the idea of punitive damages justifying broad and excessive discovery is increasingly ineffective. sel"}, {"d": 98, "p": 92, "t": "and tracking industry standards on wind/hail and roof claims.” already requested—and State Farm MTC at 6-7. But Plaintiffs have has been ordered to produce—voluminous FME-related documents and information, including any FME-related “analyses,” documents and information related to management and executive employees involved in FME, third-party consultants and related agreements, information dissemination regarding the FME, and descriptions of the creation, implementation, and analyses related to FME and any other “wind/hail” initiatives. See, e.g., Rogs 6, 7, 9, 13, 28, 29; RFPs 14, 15, 21-24, 27, 29, 33, 35-39, 43. As just two of many examples, Plaintiffs’ RFP 14 demands that State Farm produce “alf documents related to the Fire Model Enhancement on Wind/Hail from January 1, 2019 until the present, including any and all presentations, memos, documents, or plans of the FME Wind/Hail, whether in draft or final format.” (emphasis added). And RFP 15 seeks “all documents related to the implementation of any measures, program rules, tactics, claim handling procedures or policies related to the Fire Model Enhancement on Wind/Hail from January 1, 2019 until the present.” (emphasis added). Plaintiffs previously argued—in support of their First Motion to Compel—that these and other such requests were relevant and necessary, inter alia, to discover “the basis, analysis, and reports used to trigger State Farm’s efforts to achieve some arbitrary industry standard.” (First MTC at 13 (emphasis added).)!? In other words, documents regarding “industry standards” related to FME, if any exist, and as Plaintiffs themselves previously acknowledged, are already subsumed within Plaintiffs’ prior requests for “all documents” associated with the FME. State Farm maintains that the materials Plaintiffs previously sought are irrelevant to this case. '3 See also id. at 5 (arguing that the Court should grant Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel because “Accenture provided State Farm with alleged “industry standards” on full roof replacements on Wind/Hail insurance claims nationwide” and that “State Farm and the WHMET acted upon Accenture’s consulting and worked with Accenture to develop its Wind/Hail Scheme to reduce its internal performance measures on percentages of full roof replacements to the alleged much lower industry standards”). 12"}, {"d": 98, "p": 93, "t": "Nonetheless, if the Supreme Court denies State Farm’s request for writ relief on these issues, State Farm will abide by that decision and produce documents responsive to those prior requests. Thus, State Farm’s Court-ordered production of FME-related documents—which State Farm does not concede are relevant or proportional—renders moot a substantial portion of Plaintiffs’ Motion. In the alternative, if Plaintiffs’ discovery requests seek something other than “industry standards” related to the FME, Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy Oklahoma’s relevance standard. These requests are facially overbroad—seeking enterprise-wide information regarding, e.g., State Farm’s use of “industry standards” and work with Accenture or “any other third party” for at least 16 years— and the burden thus falls on Plaintiffs to “demonstrate how their requests are relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Chick-fil-A, 2026 OK 13, {16. But at no point in their lengthy diatribe about “industry standards” do Plaintiffs identify any “standards” other than those related to State Farm’s alleged use of metrics and data in the FME. See id. at 7-10. Thus, to the extent Plaintiffs’ new discovery requests extend beyond their old requests for “all documents” related to the FME, Plaintiffs have provided no basis to find such documents relevant to their claims here.'4 Nor have Plaintiffs identified any claim-specific information showing that State Farm’s relationship with Accenture played any role in the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim. Thus, Plaintiffs’ requests for “all documents received or produced by Accenture” or “any other third party for any consulting or other work related to industry standards” (see RFP 47); all documents, data, or models supplied to Accenture regarding “industry standards” (see RFP 50); all documents, data, or models used by Accenture (see RFP 51); or all contracts, agreements, or scope of work documents between State Farm and Accenture (see RFP 52) are simply not relevant or proportionate to Plaintiffs’ claims. Courts routinely deny plaintiffs access to information about their insurers’ consultant 4 Plaintiffs also mischaracterize State Farm’s counsel’s prior comments in an attempt to justify their expansive Tequests. See supra, at 8. 13"}, {"d": 98, "p": 94, "t": "engagements designed to improve claim handling when plaintiffs cannot directly connect that consulting work to the claim decisions at issue in their case. See, e.g., Nava v. Allstate Texas Lloyds, No. 1:20-CV-415, 2021 WL 7906872, at *6 (E.D. Tex. July 14, 2021) (Denying plaintiff's requests for documents concerning the defendant’s relationship with a consulting firm in a bad-faith insurance dispute because the plaintiff failed to show that the requests were tailored to her specific causes of action, and deeming them “a fishing expedition.”); Hall-Williams v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. CV 074257, 2008 WL 11355077, at *5-7 (E.D. La. March 28, 2008) (same; citing several cases holding the same). The Nava and Hall- Williams holdings are consistent with the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s directive in Chick-fil-A that trial courts must limit discovery based on the claims and defenses of the specific case at issue, not on allegations of other wrongdoings. As in Nava and Hall-Williams, Plaintiffs fail to show that Accenture’s work for State Farm, or any analysis of “industry standards,” played any part in the handling of their claim. The Motion should be denied on that basis alone. In any event, the Court should deny the Motion as to Rogs 31-34 because these interrogatories exceed the statutory limits set forth in 12 O.S. § 3233(A), which provides: “[t]he number of interrogatories to a party shall not exceed thirty in number’ and that “[nJo further interrogatories will be served unless authorized by the court.” /d. (emphasis added), The Court did not authorize Plaintiffs to serve these interrogatories, and Plaintiffs did not follow the process in Section 3233(A) to obtain leave to exceed the statutory limit; nor do Plaintiffs argue they have good cause to do so here. See id. (requiring a party to meet and confer before serving additional interrogatories and then file a motion establishing good cause to exceed the statutory limit). As such, the Court must deny Plaintiffs’ motion to compel State Farm to respond to unauthorized interrogatories exceeding the statutory limit. See id; see also Wright v. Stagnaro Distributing, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-369, 2021 WL 1383374, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 13, 2021) (denying untimely motion to 14"}, {"d": 98, "p": 95, "t": "serve nine interrogatories over the limit, noting that “[t}he Court cannot condone defendant’s unilateral decision to ignore the requirements of [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 33(a)(1), which contains an unambiguous limitation on the number of interrogatories which can be propounded”). Deposition Transcripts (RFPs 53-57). Plaintiffs seek the deposition transcripts and exhibits for the following current and former State Farm employees from five unrelated lawsuits involving different insureds, coverage issues, claim handling personnel, weather events, and circumstances: Nida Claim (Deposition of Nicole Manduca). RFP 53 seeks the transcript and exhibits to the deposition of Senior Leader/Director of Property & Casualty Operations Nicole Manduca from Nida v. State Farm, et al, No. CJ-2020-4453 (Okla. Dist. Ct. Okla. Cnty.), which involved an insurance claim arising from a storm on or about October 6, 2019, over four years before the alleged dates of loss here. Barnett Claim (Deposition of Thomas Moss). RFP 54 seeks the transcript and exhibits to the deposition of former Claim Consultant Thomas Moss from Barnett v. State Farm et al., CJ-2020-141 (Okla. Dist. Ct. Grady Cnty.), which involved an insurance claim arising from a weather event in June 2019, over four years before Plaintiffs’ dates of loss here. Johnson Claim (Deposition of Sharon Arnold). RFP 55 seeks the transcript and exhibits to the deposition of Section Manager Sharon Amold from Johnson v. State Farm, et al, No. CJ-2019-4360 (Okla. Dist. Ct. Tulsa Cnty.), which involved an insurance claim arising from a storm in August or September 2017 and May or June 2019, over six years before the alleged dates of loss here. Hosier Claim (Deposition of Jacqueline Draper). RFP 56 seeks the transcript and exhibits to the deposition of Team Manager Jacqueline Draper from Hosier v. State Farm et al., CJ2021-1741 (Okla. Dist. Ct. Okla. Cnty.), which involved an insurance claim arising from a weather event on April 28, 2020, over three years before Plaintiffs’ dates of loss here. Cunanan Claim (Deposition of Jason Taylor). RFP 57 seeks the transcript and exhibits to the corporate representative deposition of Team Manager Jason Taylor from Cunanan v. State Farm, CIV-2023-00520 (W.D. Okla.), which involved an insurance claim arising from a weather event on October 14, 2021, over two years before the dates of loss here. Plaintiffs’ distorted characterization of the testimony in these transcripts conceming other claims—coupled with their conclusory assertions that Mr. Moss, Ms. Draper, Mr. Taylor, Ms. Manduca, and Ms. Arnold were involved in claim handling in Oklahoma and that these cases “involve[s] the same Scheme alleged here”—does not make the requested transcripts discoverable 15"}, {"d": 98, "p": 96, "t": "here. MTC at 13, 14. Testimony from “other cases that involved completely different parties, circumstances and facts than those present in the instant action is irrelevant to plaintiff's claims and this lawsuit and, therefore, is not discoverable.” Randall v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. No. CIV-09-166-M, 2009 WL 10671732, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 26, 2009)'° (Denying motion to compel production of corporate representative depositions from other bad-faith suits involving underinsured motorist claims, noting “[w]hether an insurance company has acted in good faith is extremely fact-dependent and is governed by what the insurance company knew or could have known about the specific facts and circumstances in any given claim.”), /d. at *1. Plaintiffs thus cannot simply allege a “scheme” and automatically be entitled to broad discovery from unrelated lawsuits without showing the requested discovery is relevant and proportional to the instant litigation. Chick-fil-A, 2026 OK 13, {| 15 (explaining that relevance to the “subject matter” of the litigation does not alone make information discoverable because “[t]hat is no longer the standard.”). Rather, Plaintiffs must explain how discovery concerning multiple other insureds’ dissimilar insurance claims is relevant and proportional to the claims and defenses at issue here. See id. Plaintiffs have not done so. This “cloned discovery” also contravenes well-established authority holding that “wholesale duplicates of discovery produced in other litigation”—based solely on overlapping issues—fails to meet the relevance and proportionality standards. TravelPass Grp., LLC v. Caesars Ent. Corp., No. 5:18-CV-153-RWS-CMC, 2020 WL 698538, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2020); see also Goro v. Flowers Foods, Inc., No. 17-CV-02580-JLS-JLB, 2019 WL 6252499, at *18 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2019). Documents produced in other cases are nor public materials, and these requests thwart the protective orders intended to safeguard confidential information in those cases. See, e.g., Good v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2023 OK CIV APP 28, | 14, 536 P.3d 961, 970, reh’g denied (Mar. 13, 2023) 'S Although Randall involved a corporate representative deposition, its reasoning applies equally to individual depositions taken in other cases. 16"}, {"d": 98, "p": 97, "t": "(rejecting request for productions in a different lawsuit because discovery materials are not public materials until admitted into evidence).'° The Court should thus deny RFPs 53-57, Other Insureds’ Claim Files (RFPs 58-59), This Court has already ordered State Farm to produce voluminous information about other Oklahoma insureds’ claims in response to Plaintiffs’ Rogs 3,!” 22,'8 and 23.' Those requests—which require manual review of at least 120,000 claim files—are currently subject to State Farm’s pending writ Application. Yet Plaintiffs seek to expand those irrelevant, disproportionate, and burdensome inquiries into other insureds’ claims solely because, in their view, RFPs 58 and 59 seek information that is “substantially similar” to that sought in their Interrogatories. MTC at 16. But conclusory allegations that discovery is “similar” to previously ordered discovery fall far short of the relevance and proportionality showing Oklahoma law requires. And even if these allegations were tree—they are not—Plaintiffs have not shown that this discovery is not cumulative of what this Court has already ordered and thus disproportionate. Plaintiffs demand a “copy of every claim file where a homeowner made a claim for wind and hail damage to their roof in Tulsa County since January 1, 2021 to the present” (RFP 58) and “any roof cover section or roof rating in the underwriting file for each home” (RFP 59). But RFPs 58 and 59 are facially overbroad, unduly burdensome, and are strikingly similar in scope and breadth to the '$ See also Thomas v. Farmers Ins. Co., inc. No. 16-CV-17-TCK, 2016 WL 11258178, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 29, 2016) (denying discovery into other claims arising from the same kind of loss event); AG Equip. Co. v. AIG Life Ins. Co., No. 07-CV-556-CVE, 2008 WL 5205192, at *5 (N.D. Okla. Dec. 10, 2008) (refusing to compel discovery of other insureds’ claim files because “Plaintiffs have offered no foundation from which the Court can conclude that these files are relevant to the claims and defenses herein or may lead to admissible evidence”) \"” “Please identify all Wind/Hail Claims and corresponding civil cases in Oklahoma since January 1, 2019 wherein a Total or Full Roof Replacement was denied prior to a lawsuit being filed, but was subsequently approved and/or paid to an insured after the insured filed a civil lawsuit against State Farm.” ‘8 “Identify the total number of homeowners’ wind/hail claims from 2019-present in Oklahoma in which State Farm found damage the insured roofs soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to exceed the policy's deductible.” '9 “Identify the total number of homeowners’ wind/hail claims from 2019 to present in Oklahoma in which State Farm found damage the insured roof's soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to warrant a Full or Total Roof Replacement.” 17"}, {"d": 98, "p": 98, "t": "“dissimilar incidents” information at issue in Chick-fil-A. These requests encompass claims arising from different weather events, handled by employees uninvolved in Plaintiffs’ claim, and based on different factual circumstances, including but not limited to different insurance coverages. Plaintiffs have not explained—nor can they—how claims involving different policies, people, properties and storms are relevant to the issues here. See Chick-fil-A, Inc., 2026 OK 13, 49] 14-15; City Nat’l Bank v. Jackson Nat. Life Ins., 1990 OK CIV APP 89, 18, 804 P.2d 463. Indeed, the requested discovery—claim files for aff wind/hail roof claims in Tulsa for five years regardless of claim outcome —extends even beyond the “subject matter” of the purported “scheme” to deny roof claims. Plaintiffs cases (MTC at 16-17) only underscore the overbreadth of this request.”° For example, in Jones v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., No. CIV-11-159-R, 2012 WL 12863976, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 29, 2012), the court recognized that while pattem or practice evidence may be relevant, requiring a manual search of all “relevant” claims files imposed an undue burden. On reconsideration, the court held that the burden of reviewing all claims files outweighed their minimal relevance. (See Ex. 5, Order, Jones v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., No. CIV-11-159-R (W.D. Okla. Apr. 20, 2012), Dkt. No. 86.) The same reasoning applies here. As set forth in the Declaration of Jacob Nimesgerm (Ex. 6), claims materials are stored in State Farm’s Enterprise Claim System (“ECS”). An electronic search of ECS identified 20,016 2° Plaintiffs misplace reliance on Reibert v. CSAA Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., as the court in that case limited requests relating to other claims to those directly in line with the plaintiffs’ allegations regarding usc of a specific thirdparty engineer for a period of three years. No. 17-CV-350-CVE-JFJ, 2018 WL 279348, at *9 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 3, 2018). Moreover, Vining v. Enters. Fin. Grp., Inc., 148 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 1998), Metzger v. Am. Fid. Assur. Co., No. CIV-05-1387-M, 2007 WL 4342082 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 7, 2007), Markham v. Nat'l States Ins. Co., 122 Fed. App’x 392 (10th Cir. 2004), Barnes v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 2000 OK 55, 19, 11 P.3d 162, 170, as corrected (July 25, 2000), as corrected (Aug. 9, 2000), as corrected (Jan. 16, 2001), and Copeland v. Tela Corp., 2003 OK CIV APP 98, 73, 79 P.3d 1128, 1130 did not even address discovery disputes and instead involved evidentiary rulings limiting the admissible evidence to fact patterns similar to those at issue, Plaintiff also misstates Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co. v. Russell, 2025 OK 79, 579 P.3d 728. There, the Oklahoma Supreme Court did not address the relevance of the production of claim files. The writ only challenged whether insureds’ addresses could be disclosed and whether the plaintiffs properly served their request. 18"}, {"d": 98, "p": 99, "t": "wind/hail claims in Tulsa County, Oklahoma for the period January 1, 2021, through May 1, 2025. Ex. 6, 95. State Farm cannot, however, structure a query to determine which of the 20,016 wind/hail claims involved alleged roof damage, rather than damage to other parts of the property. Jd. 6. As such, further filtering is not possible to identify claims that meet the full criteria of RFP 58 and State Farm must manually review all 20,016 claim files to determine if they meet Plaintiffs’ criteria. Id. Claim file volume varies from less than one hundred to several thousand pages per claim. /d. {| 7. For context, the Claim Files at issue in this case are approximately 453 and 204 pages. Based on counsel’s experience, reviewing a single claim file to determine if RFP 58’s criteria are met would require at least 20 minutes. Applying this average to the 20,016 claims identified, the total review time would be at least 6,672 hours. But that would not end the inquiry. For each claim file responsive to RFP 58, RFP 59 demands production of “any roof cover section or roof rating in the underwriting file for each home.” After manually reviewing 20,016 claim files for RFP 58, State Farm would then be required to collect and review each responsive home’s underwriting information to identify any “roof cover section or roof rating” for production. Complying with these requests would require multipte reviewers and could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees—an extraordinary burden considering the amount in controversy represents only a fraction of the compliance cost. See Hammond v. Lyndon S. Ins. Co., No. CIV-19-245-D, 2019 WL 6118269 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 18, 2019) (finding that the cost to review 6,753 responsive claim files outweighed any possible benefit, especially given the amount in controversy).”! The same logic the Hammond court applied to deny a compelling order applies here. The Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion with respect to RFPs 58-59, as Chick-fil-A, Inc. instructs. 21 In Grove v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 13-CV-754-JED-FHM, 2014 WL 11636148 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 23, 2014), the court denied plaintiffs’ requests for 5 years of records relating to complaints of State Farm’s claim handling, finding the requests were overly broad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant. 19"}, {"d": 98, "p": 100, "t": "F. Other Trial Courts’ Orders Compelling Discovery Are Irrelevant. Plaintiffs repeatedly contend they are entitled to the discovery at issue because other courts in different lawsuits involving different parties, facts, and circumstances, have ordered production of what they view as similar information.22 (MTC at 3, 15, 16,21; MTC Exs. 4-7.) But Plaintiffs are improperly insinuating that this Court should simply adopt those rulings rather than exercise its own judgment. The Discovery Code requires this Cour to impose meaningful limits on broad, irrelevant, and disproportionate discovery requests. See Section I-A, supra. The Court should reject Plaintiffs’ attempt to substitute rulings from unrelated cases for this Court’s independent judgment. G. — State Farm’s Objections Are Proper. Finally, Plaintiffs claim that “State Farm’s Responses here consist entirely of boilerplate objections.” MTC at 17 (emphasis in original). That is false. State Farm’s Responses explain how its objections apply to specific requests. Plaintiffs’ argument also disregards the governing principles of the Oklahoma Discovery Code, as well as the legitimate concerns that underlie State Farm’s objections.”? State Farm’s objections are not only proper but necessary to preserve its rights and to ensure that discovery is confined to matters of relevance, proportionality, and clarity as the law requires. Plaintiffs’ expansive and unfocused discovery requests fail to meet these standards. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel. ® Hosier v. State Farm, et al., Okla. Cnty. Case No. CJ-2021-1741 (Aug. 22, 2023 and Sept. 1, 2023 Orders), Wedin v, Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Co. et al., Rogers Cnty. Case No. CJ-2023-181 (Feb. 10, 2025 Order), and Lyle v. State Farm, et al., Cleveland Cnty. Case No. CJ-2024-183 (Apr. 7, 2025 Order). State Farm respectfully submits that the decisions in Hosier and Lyle were erroneous. State Farm was not a party to Wedin. Furthermore, none of these decisions are binding and each hold no precedential value in this Court. 23 Plaintiffs’ reliance on Fed. Ins. Co. v. Indeck Power Equip. Co., No. CIV-15-491-D, 2016 WL 5173402, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 21, 2016) and Touhy v. Walgreen Co., No. CIV-05-135-M, 2006 WL 1716646, at *1 (WD. Okla. June 21, 2006), aff'd sub nom., 526 F.3d 641 (10th Cir. 2008), is misplaced because Oklahoma law is clear that that burden (o demonstrate relevance of a facially overbroad request lies with the requesting party. 20"}, {"d": 98, "p": 101, "t": "Respectfully submitted, Grane 8 Spe. Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 Fax lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com -andCarrie B. McNeer, OBA No. 22235 Grant A. Fitz, OBA No. 19806 Nathan A. Miramontes, OBA No. 36212 GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 Fax cmeneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com nmiramontes@gablelaw.com Attorneys for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 21"}, {"d": 98, "p": 102, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I do hereby certify that on June 5, 2026, a true, correct and exact copy of the above and foregoing document was served by placing same in the United States mail, with proper postage thereon duly prepaid, to those parties as listed below: Reggie N. Whitten Gentner Drummond Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten Cameron P. Capps Christopher J. Campbell OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 Northeast 21st Street John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR PLAINTIFF 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 -and- R. Ryan Deligans DURBIN, LARIMORE, & BIALICK 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 -andPatrick Collogan BIBY LAW FIRM 6305 E, 120th Ct., Suite F Tulsa, Oklahoma 74137 Gone 8 Sffed. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF Lance E. Leffel 22"}, {"d": 98, "p": 104, "t": "Billy & Lacy Hursh y. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. et al. — No. CJ-2025-2626 (istrict Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, Hon. Amy Palumbo) No. A Discovery Requests A sagt State Farm’s Objection(s) Period Covered “Industry Standards” and Benchmark Requests IROG | Identify the industry standards regarding 31 |e | wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims identified by counsel for State Farm at the Status Hearing on December 11, 2025 before Judge Russell in Barlow v. set by 12 O.S.§ 3233(A); ¢ Seeks information not relevant to |» resolution of claims and defenses in this case; Unduly burdensome and not State Farm, CIV-25-44-R, including what are the standards, where such standards are published, when were such proportional to needs of case; ® Overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the standards identified and for what _ specific insurance claim and/or timeframe and geogr aphical location, coverages at issue in this used or were otherwise relied upon in creating such standards, and why such a reasonable period of time) , and geographic area (not limited to which insurance companies data were standards were sought, created, or provided to or by State Farm. litigation), and time (not limited to ¢ TROG | Identify and describe the role of 32 Exceeds the 30 Interrogatory limit regarding claims of other insureds; | 9919 through | Accenture, or any of its affiliates, or any | ° other third party in identifying the industry standards regarding wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on |* wind/hail claims, including standards identified by counsel for State Farm at the Status Hearing on December 11, materials applicable to Oklahoma); Seeks irrelevant information Secks con fidential business information invading privacy rights of non-party policyholders; Vague and ambiguous as to terms used; |* . : Seeks confidential/proprictary/ trade secret business information 2025 before Judge Russell in Barlow v. and/or information protected by of Accenture, or any of its affiliates, or any other third party in consulting, privileges; ; Seeks information/documents State Farm, CIV-25-44-R, and the role present! attorney client or other legal ¢ research, and other work with State authored and/or copyrighted by Farm on the identification, development, and/or reliance by State Farm on such industry standards. entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce; and e Impermissibly assumes facts. IROG | Identify and describe State Farm’s 33__| performance in relation to any industry Plaintiff's discovery requests define the “Relevant Time Period” as 2010 through the present, unless otherwise stated in a specific discovery request."}, {"d": 98, "p": 105, "t": "No. Discovery Requests standards regarding wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including standards identified by counse! for State Farm at the Status Hearing on December 11, 2025 before Judge Russell in Barlow v. State Farm, CIV-25-44-R, both before and after the FME team implemented its tactics and Kick Off in Dallas in 2020 and subsequent introduction into Oklahoma by 2021. IROG 34 Identify and describe Your actions and analysis, including models, data used, the output relied upon, data sent to Accenture or any of its affiliates, and the supporting documentation relied upon to ensure that any industry standards regarding wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including standards identified by counsel for State Farm at the Status Hearing on December 11, 2025 before Judge Russell in Barlow v. State Farm, CTV-25-44-R, were accurate, vetted, and otherwise reflected actual claims and reliable data. RFP 45 Produce the industry standards and/or other standards or benchmarks relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on Wind/Hail claims that You relied on and/or utilized in any way with respect to, regarding, or relating to (i) Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives, (ii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Dallas County, Texas; (iii) implementation of Fire Model State Farm’s Objection(s) Period Covered"}, {"d": 98, "p": 106, "t": "No. Discovery Requests Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Texas; (iv) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Oklahoma; (v) claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans; (vi) Fire Model Enhancement Guidelines; (vii) tracking of indemnity savings, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims; and/or (viii) a standard percentage of Full Roof Replacements to Your internal standard on percentage of Full Roof Replacements; and/or (ix) any opportunity for internal quality improvement by seeking to lower Your percentage of approvals for full roof replacements to the industry standard and/or to a related benchmark. RFP 46 Produce Your files, including reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements with third-parties, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis regarding the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including standards identified by counsel for State Farm at the Status Hearing on December 11, 2025 before Judge Russell in Barlow v. State Farm, CIV-25-44-R. RFP 47 Produce all documents received or produced by Accenture, or any of its affiliates, and/or any other third party for any consulting or other work related to State Farm’s Objection(s) Period Covered"}, {"d": 98, "p": 107, "t": "No. Discovery Requests State Farm’s Objection(s) the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including standards identified by counsel for State Farm at the Status Hearing on December 11, 2025 before Judge Russell in Barlow v. State Farm, CIV-25-44-R, including but not limited to reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis by Accenture and/or any other third party. RFP 48 Produce all documents relating to State Farm’s performance on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims in relation to the industry standards identified in Interrogatories No. 31 and Requests for Production 45-47 both before and after the FME team implemented its tactics and Kick Off in Dallas, Texas in 2020 and subsequent introduction into Oklahoma by 2021, including internal quality improvement and/or lowering Your percentage of approvals for full roof replacements to the industry standard and/or to a related benchmark. RFP 49 Produce ail documents ensuring that any industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims identified in Interrogatory No. 31 and Requests for Production 45-47 both before and after the FME team implemented its tactics and Kick Off in Dallas, Texas in 2020 and subsequent introduction into Oklahoma by 2021 were accurate, vetted, and otherwise reflected actual claims and reliable data. RFP 50 Produce all documents, reports, data used, models, output relied upon, and other documentation that State Farm Period Covered"}, {"d": 98, "p": 108, "t": "Discovery Requests No. State Farm’s Objection(s) supplied to Accenture, or any of its affiliates, and/or any other third party for any consulting or other work related to the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including standards identified by counsel for State Farm at the Status Hearing on December 11, 2025 before Judge Russell in Barlow v. State Farm, CIV-25-44-R. RFP 51 Produce all documents, reports, data used, models, and other documentation relating to Accenture’s (or any of its affiliates) derivation of the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof reptacements on wind/hail claims, including the standards identified by counsel for State Farm at the Status Hearing on December 11, 2025 before Judge Russell in Barlow v. State RFP 52 Farm, C1V-25-44-R. Produce all contracts, agreements, and/or scopes of work between State Farm and Accenture’s (or any of its affiliates) relating to industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including the standards identified by counsel for State Farm at the Status Hearing on December 11, 2025 before Judge Russell in Barlow v. State Farm, CIV-25-44-R. Depositi on Transcripts RFP 53 Produce the deposition transcript and all exhibits attached thereto of Nicole Manduca taken on April 23, 2024 in Nida v. State Farm et al., CJ-2020-4453, District Court of Oklahoma County. Oklahoma. Seeks information not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant facts; Period Covered"}, {"d": 98, "p": 109, "t": "No. Discovery Requests State Farm’s Objection(s) RFP | Produce the deposition transcript and all 54 | exhibits attached thereto of Thomas Moss taken on August 17, 2023 in Barnett v. State Farm et al., CJ-2020- 141, District Court of Grady County, Oklahoma. RFP | Produce the deposition transcript and all 55 | exhibits attached thereto of Sharon Amold taken in Johnson v. State Farm et al., CJ-2019-4360, District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. RFP | Produce the deposition transcript and all 56 | exhibits attached thereto of Jacqueline Draper taken in Hosier v. State Farm et al., CJ-2021-1741, District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. RFP | Produce the deposition transcript and all 57 | exhibits attached thereto of Jason Taylor taken in Cunanan v. State Farm, CJ2023-520, United States District Court Period Covered Seeks information not relevant to resolution of claims and defenses in this case; Cloned discovery undermines the Oklahoma Discovery Code - See 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1); Seeks to circumvent limits on the number and length of depositions and the limits on the number of other discovery requests - See 12 OS. §§ 3230(a) 3233(A); Seeks confidential business information invading privacy rights of non-party policyholders; Seeks information protected by work product doctrine/attorney client privilege; and Seeks to circumvent protective orders and confidentiality agreements that is against public policy and violates the Oklahoma Discovery Code. for the Western District of Oklahoma. Other Claims Requests REP | Produce a copy of every claim file 5g | where a homeowner made a claim for wind and hail damage to their roof in Tulsa County since January 1, 2021 to the present. REP 59 | For every homeowner claim file | produced by State Farm in response to Request for Production No. 58, include any roof cover section or roof rating in the underwriting file for each home. Seeks information not relevant to resolution of claims and defenses in this case; Unduly burdensome, and not proportional to needs of case; Seeks information not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant facts; Seeks confidential business information invading privacy rights of non-party policyholders; Seeks confidential/proprietary/ trade secret business information and/or information protected by attorney client or other legal privileges; and January 1, 2021 - Present"}, {"d": 98, "p": 110, "t": "No. Discovery Requests State Farm’s Objection(s) Seeks information/documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce. Period Covered"}, {"d": 98, "p": 112, "t": "ORIGINAL AOAIN CEUKANRE FILED SUPREM URT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF oxtanomaSTAEOF OKTAHOMA SEP 24 2024 JOHN D. H CLERK ee WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioner, No. 122,385 eS v. HONORABLE KORY KIRKLAND, es THE ee Respondent, ee and ee JODI CROSS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of RAE ANN DARROW, deceased, and MICHAEL DENNIS PECK, Maited___“S(V\\___ pistrus__S¢¥1 ee TIMOTHY CLEMONS eee Posted___JfY|__ ee and Rec'd Ga Defendants. Publish___yes_7 no ORDER Original jurisdiction Werner Enterprises, Inc.'s is assumed. Okla. Const. to assume application art. 7, § 4. Petitioner original jurisdiction is granted. A writ of mandamus is issued to Caddo County District Judge Kory Kirkland, or any assigned judge, in Jodi Cross, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rae Anne Darrow, deceased v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., et. Al., CJ-2021-47. Respondent’s certain documents December 20, 2023 is unenforceable, as Order compelling Respondent did proportionality test as outlined in Title 12 O.S., Section 1 production of consider the 3226(B)(2)(c), in not"}, {"d": 98, "p": 113, "t": "determining the relevancy of the requested documents. Respondent, any other assigned judge, or a special master appointed by the district court shall review the discovery requests at issue and consider the proportionality factors stated in 12 0.S. Section 3226 (B(2)(c) along with all other statutory requirements before ruling on the discovery disputes. DONE BY THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE ON THE _23rd__ DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024. CHIEF JUSTICE CONCUR: DISSENT: KANE, C.J., and WINCHESTER, GURICH, DARBY and KUEHN, JJ. ROWE, V.C.J., and KAUGER, EDMONDSON and COMBS, JJ."}, {"d": 98, "p": 116, "t": "DECLARATION OF NICOLE MANDUCA T, Nicole Manduca, make the following declaration pursuant to 12 O.S. § 426: 1. Tam currently a Claims Manager at State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm”) and have been in my current position since 2018. I have been a State Farm employee since 2000. Unless otherwise indicated, | have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and am competent to testify thereto if called as a witness. 2. As part of my work as a Claims Manager, | was part of the Wind/Hail Fire Model Enhancement (“FME”) which began in spring 2020. 3. The FME focused on quality claim handling and thus focused on both overpayment and underpayment of wind/hail claims. State Farm sought to improve consistency in handling wind/hail claims through training and documentation. 4, As part of its work, the FME prepared “Wind/Hail Guidelines” in June 2020, which provided guidance regarding claim handling and file documentation. The FME updated these guidelines throughout 2020 and into 2021. 5, The Wind/Hail Guidelines were incorporated into State Farm’s operative wind/hail determination guidance document, Operation Guide 75-160, as of February 2022. The guidelines have not been updated since June 2021. 6. I state under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma that the foregoing is true and correct. By:___ Nicole Manduca Nicole Manduca Date: _11/12/2025"}, {"d": 98, "p": 118, "t": "Case 5:11-cv 9-R Document 86 Filed 04/20/1 age 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ROBERT JONES and LORENE JONES, Plaintiffs, vs. ) ) ) ) ) ) FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Defendant. Case No. CIV-11-159-R ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Before the Court are Defendant’s motion to reconsider [Doc. No. 66] this Court’s Order of February 29, 2012 [Doc. No. 51] and Plaintiffs’ renewed motion to compel [Doc. No. 80]. Having reviewed these motions and the responses and replies thereto, the Court reconsiders its Order of February 29, 2012 and DENIES Plaintiff renewed motion to compel for the following reasons. The parties have been unable to or failed to agree on a method of sampling of Defendant’s claim files. The Court previously found that it would be unduly burdensome for Defendant Farmers to review all of its claim files to determine which of these files met the criteria set out by Plaintiffs so as to produce those files to Plaintiffs and answer Plaintiffs’ interrogatory. The Court, however, did find that the files sought by Plaintiffs were relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. The Court now specifically finds that the undue burden to Defendant of conducting the review process necessary to ascertain which, if any, of its claims files are responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery request exceeds the minimal"}, {"d": 98, "p": 119, "t": "Case 5:11-cv 9-R Document 86 relevance those files have to Plaintiffs’ claims. Filed 04/20/1 age 2 of 2 Defendant asserts that the shingles on Plaintiffs’ north roof’s slope had no compensable value, but acknowledges that even if they had any compensable value, Plaintiff’s total contract claim would be for $4,000. Even if'a jury found that Defendant’s denial of that claim was in bad faith, the potential damages and punitive damages do not justify the extraordinary expenditure of time and expense necessary to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. In summary, the Court finds that “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” F.R.Civ.P. 26(b){2)(c). Defendant’s motion to reconsider the Court’s Order of February 20, 2012 [Doc. No. 66] is GRANTED and the Court’s Order of February 29, 2012 is altered consistent with this Order and Plaintiffs’ motion to compel [Doc. No. 40] responses by Defendant to Interrogatory No. 20 and Requests for Production Nos. 28 and 29 is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ renewed motion to compel [Doc. No. 80] is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 20\" day of April, 2012. DAVID L. RUSSELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE"}, {"d": 98, "p": 121, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. CJ-2025-2626 ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; and MARK D. WELTY ) ) INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) DECLARATION OF JACOB NIMESGERN 1, Jacob Nimesgerm, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the following is true and correct: 1. 1 am over the age of 21 years, of sound mind, legally capable of making this Declaration, and have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Declaration. 2. I am a Technology Analyst in P&C Claims Enterprise Technology at State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm Mutual”), the parent company for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”). In my role, | have access to and am knowledgeable about the regular practices and procedures of State Farm as to the storage and retrieval of claim data. 3. It is my understanding that State Farm received the following discovery request in the above-mentioned case: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Produce a copy of every claim file where a homeowner made a claim for wind and hail damage to their roof in Tulsa County since January 1, 2021 to the present. [You may redact the identities and residential addresses of policyholders.] Page 1 of 3"}, {"d": 98, "p": 122, "t": "4. Materials relating to claims are kept on the State Farm Enterprise Claim System (ECS). To pull information from the ECS, certain queries need to be developed based on fields within ECS. 5. Relevant to Plaintiffs Request for Production (“RFP”) No. 58, an electronic search of ECS was conducted that included the number of wind/hail claims submitted to State Farm in Tulsa County, Oklahoma with a date of loss (“DOL”) between January 1, 2021, and May 1, 2025. The report included the following parameters: fire line of business for Tulsa County, Oklahoma concerning wind and hail cause of loss. This query revealed a total of 20,016 wind/hail claims in Tulsa County, Oklahoma with a DOL between January 1, 2021, and May 1, 2025. 6. A query, however, can only be structured to search in ECS to identify claims for wind/hail damage to an insured property. State Farm cannot, however, further filter or structure a query to identify which of the 20,016 wind/hait claims in Tulsa County involved damage specifically to the roof, as opposed to other parts of the property. As such, determining which of these 20,016 claims meet the specific criteria of Plaintiff’s RFP No. 58 would require an intensive manual claimby-claim review of each of the 20,016 unique claims. 7. The volume of materials associated with an individual claim depends on a variety of factors, including the severity of the damages alleged, the number of experts and other vendors involved, whether the claim is in active litigation, etc. The documents and/or other materials are not uniform in size or content. Accordingly, the materials associated with an individual claim may vary from less than a hundred pages to thousands of pages when provided to counsel’s office for review in PDF format. For example, the claim files for the Plaintiffs’ claim at issue here are approximately 453 pages and 204 pages. I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Page 2 of 3"}, {"d": 98, "p": 123, "t": "6/4/2026 and East Peoria, Illinois Quceb MeAa geAn Vv (Date and Place) (Signature) Page 3 of 3"}, {"d": 98, "p": 125, "t": "Hursh y. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Re-Production of Electronically Stored Information in the Form Defendant State Farm Elected, and Brief in Support EXHIBIT 6 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 98, "p": 127, "t": "Hursh y. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Re-Production of Electronically Stored Information in the Form Defendant State Farm Elected, and Brief in Support EXHIBIT 7 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 98, "p": 129, "t": "OF Lance E. Watson I, Lance E. Watson, state the following: 1. I am a competent adult and have personal knowledge Dna I am the Chief Operating Officer of Avansic, I am wan I received my masters in computer science from the University of Tulsa (“TU”) in 20038 oO Since 2003, I have specialized in the fields of information assurance, ee Be WHE papers, information assurance, digital ie RP ie OO computer security, and digital forensics. published In addition, I have and journal forensics, articles and in the areas of telecommunications security. I have five National Information Assurance Education and ee DBA Training Program federal information assurance certifications from the Committee on National Security Systems and the National Security Telecommunications and Information Security System Instruction. ew ew MWA NHN HB BF SHO Inc. (‘Avansic”). responsible for day to day operations at Avansic. also Avansic provides e-discovery and digital forensics services to the business and legal communities by investigating and retrieving information from computer hard drives and other digital devices. 8. My CV is attached as Exhibit A. BACKGROUND NY RR 9. Avansic was engaged by Blake Sonne of Whitten Burrage to evaluate the nature NwNwNYy bY SxnN De NY NY ONS of the following facts. fF WwW NH DECLARATION matter. 10. and style of document production in the State Farm Hursh I was provided with a sample of documents produced by State Farm by counsel and found issues that impede counsel from being able to EXHIBIT 8"}, {"d": 98, "p": 130, "t": "evaluate the documents to determine authorship, distribution and WO PRODUCTION STANDARD FF NHN veracity. 11. The produced documents I have reviewed are low resolution PDF in family order with attachments following the produced email. produced PDF files is the industry norm. 13. matter. The Production inclusion as a PDF of a load in this file containing manner SF metadata “flattens” removing underlying metadata that accompanies the about document, the native version of the file. This metadata is key to understanding who authored the email, wD who PF Se oe OO this metadata from any attachments to the message. received the email, timing of sending the email and additional Da manner HY OH prevents verification of parent-child relationships between email and attachments. A verification that can only be fully accomplished through investigation of the native email file. 15. In this matter there are several EMAILS issues with evaluation of the attachments, meeting events. Below I address the resolution for each of these. NY FH DN this NHN NYS in DO NY production produced emails, including verification of the parent-child relationship of FF NY NH Further, ISSUES WITH EVALUATION OF PRODUCED nan DSH 14, DANA ee ee i ee Counsel has advised me that no metadata has been provided for Mme 12. oO NY On version of what appears to be native emails. They appear to be produced verification of email chains and verification of calendar VERIFICATION OF PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP 16. When a production is made by flattening a PDF the accepted method of production is to produce the parent email, followed by the child oN on attachments, supported with metadata provided in a load file for both the parent and child emails."}, {"d": 98, "p": 131, "t": "DHS email document wW The names of attachments are contained in the text of the flattened verify if the documents produced next in the series are actually these BP 17. attachments. file name matter, no metadata was provided so this is not possible. oOo DA If metadata is produced then some assurance can be made since the 19. could be compared the produced attachment is the same as the document listed in the parent ee DBO HO to the text of the parent email. For this Even if metadata is provided, the only way to completely verify that email is to examine pe there is no way to ns 18. on the “Attachments” line. However, the native file version of the email and open the attachment. This allows the comparison of the produced attachment to the actually sent attachment to determine if their contents are the same. 20. For this reason, in cases where the attachment veracity is in ee ee DOAN WN for review. can be accomplished. If only the latest email in a chain is produced, it is at least missing header metadata information and would be missing attachment information for any previous emails in the chain. 22. FF NY of documents be produced so that verification of the emails purported to be in the chain Indeed, attachment information is only included when an email chain is forwarded and not when it is replied to. In a reply email there is no indication that an attachment N NY to reduce the number However, for production purposes, all members of the email chain should on NNN oan For strictly review purposes the review of the latest email ina chain is an efficient method FY ew 21. HF OH PRODUCTION OF EMAIL CHAINS NS ND OAR question, native email files should be produced. was included in prior emails unless discussed in the body of the email. 23. An email is comprised of two primary parts, the header and the body. An email header contains formatted data that can be extracted to"}, {"d": 98, "p": 132, "t": "DO wW the text that comprises the content of the email. This is, indeed, simply text and can be edited with no restriction. 24. the text of the prior email, be modified to include or exclude email senders or receivers, or the body oO ee Se oe ee BDHaABR AHH EO to an email, content. For instance, the text-only version of the included header could text of the original email could be changed to include, exclude or change parts of the email. 25. As an example, editing the contents of an email to include inline comments would be an example of editing body text. 26. For this reason, the only way to evaluate the veracity of the included emails in the chain is to produce every email in the chain as it is was originally sent/received and provide metadata or a native version of the email. This allows senders, ew eB DAH De FCO NY HE reply is made body of the email. This text can be freely edited to reflect any arbitrary receivers and content of the top-level email to be verified. 27. This is true whether the email in question is in a parent or has been attached as a native file (i.e. .msg). PRODUCTION OF CALENDAR EVENTS 28. Calendar events as part of establishing an online meeting provide an view of the event. NY incomplete information wNwNY NY aA nan rt NY DY WN When a including a text-only summary version of the header is pasted into the mat omar Subject, Time Sent, Date Sent and routing information. An email body is P determine metadata regarding the email, including To, From, CC, BCC, from the meeting must be obtained. 29. regarding the meeting, In order to determine the full logging from the application used Logs from these applications can be used to determine not only who was invited to meetings, but information such as who actually attended, documents that were attached to the meeting request, changes to timing -4-"}, {"d": 98, "p": 133, "t": "30. DA Onn om ae ee BONES es TDA ee ew DA he BP CGH NY HP NY WHY NN YW anak ~PwNyn might include information such as recordings or Counsel has advised me that no logging of this nature has been provided at this time. 31. Qnr list and transcripts. BP won & or invitee I affirm under penalties of perjury that the foregoing statements are true. Date: September 30, 2026 OO = 6 Lance Watson"}, {"d": 98, "p": 135, "t": "LANCE PHONE EDUCATION 15 AND WATSON E. 5TH ST SUITE (918) 856-5337 « 1800 » TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74103 E-MAIL LANCE.WATSON@AVANSIC.COM CERTIFICATIONS M.S. in Computer Science, University of Tulsa, Oklahoma, 2003 B.S. in Computer Science, University of Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1997 Federal Information Security Certifications: Committee on Nation Security Systems Certificates. NSTISSI No. 4011: Information Systems Security Professional, 4012: Designated Approving Authority, 4013: Administration in Information Systems Security, 4014: Information Systems Security Officer and 4015: Systems Certifier. AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION Digital forensics, electronic discovery, software development, information assurance, telecommunications, voicemail systems, prepaid cellular systems, Signaling System 7, cyber law. PROFESSIONAL EXPERENCE 2004 - Present Avansic, Inc. (Digital Forensics Professionals) Tulsa, Oklahoma Vice President and Chief Operating Officer = Assist project managers with their primary responsibilities. Assists with budgeting, project scope, preservation and collections. Assists with training project managers. = Directs the research efforts Works with the Manager of R&D to plan, execute and evaluate all research projects Works with the Manager of R&D for the summer intern program = Directs the development cycle for the laboratory and other corporate information systems = Assists with special projects and complex collection/processing events Interface with the Collection and Lab teams to complete necessary case goals for special projects. Analyze lab output to determine if it meets case criteria, = Established and incorporated Avansic, Inc. (Digital Forensics Professionals) in 2004 Predicated in hiring ail staff including forensics examiners, evidence custodians, sales, marketing, management, and technical writers. Established secure forensics laboratory space with state of the art forensics workstations, secure evidence storage, and advanced access control systems. = Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Created, presented, and moderated over six hours of CLE curriculum on Digital Evidence Preservation, Production, Redaction, and Ethics. Topics include: Forensics and E-Discovery: An Overview, Introduction to ESI: Defining, Preserving, and Collecting, Processing ESI, Digital Redaction and Clawback Procedures, ESI Ethics and Considerations. ! Presented at multiple seminars, bar associations, meetings and conferences. 1997 - 2004 Boston Communications Group, Inc. Tulsa, Oklahoma Manager of Technical Services and Software Developer = = 1 Develop and support domestic voicemail systems and international prepaid cellular systems Oversee the customer support group which provided remote trouble shooting and onsite repair of telecommunications systems = Responsible for the hiring and termination of employees in customer support and manufacturing LANCE WATSON - VITA Page 1 of 2"}, {"d": 98, "p": 136, "t": "BOOK CHAPTERS [1] A. Barclay, L. Watson, D. Greer, J. Hale, G. Manes, “Tokens for Use in Redacting Digital Information from Electronic Devices,” Advances in Digital Forensics (Eds.), Springer, Norwell, MA, 2007. PAPERS AND III, P. Craiger, S. Shenoi PROCEEDINGS [2] G. Manes, E. Downing, L. Watson, “A Digital Forensics Primer,” International Joint Conferences on Computer, Information, and Systems Sciences, and Engineering (CISSE 08), December 9, 2008. [3] G. Manes, L. Watson, E. Downing, A. Barclay, D. Greer, J. Hale, “A Framework for Redacting Digital Information from Electronic Devices,” Proceedings of the 8th Annual IEEE SMC Information Workshop, Assurance West Point, New York, June 20-22, 2007. [4] G. Manes, E. Downing, L. Watson, C. Thrutchley, \"New Federal Rules And Digital Evidence,” Proceedings of the ADFSL 2007 Conference on Digital Forensics, Security and Law, Arlington, Virginia, April 18-20, 2007. [5] G. Manes, L. Watson, A. Barclay, D. Greer, J, Hale, “Towards Redaction of Digital Information from Electronic Devices,” Proceedings of the ADFSL 2007 Conference on Digital Forensics, Security and Law, Arlington, Virginia, April 18-20, 2007. [6] “Wireless Internet and Wireless Content Provider Liability,” Prepared for Oklahoma Representatives, January 2005. House of PATENTS [7] G. Manes, L. Watson, J. Hale, “CryptoStore (Near Real-Time Encryption),” Patent Pending. [8] G. Manes, L. Watson, J. Hale, D. Greer, A. Barclay, “Redaction Electronic Device,” Patent Pending. INVITED [1] Of Digital Information From An TALKS “Litigation Holds - What IT Departments Need to Know,” Tulsa TechFest 2016, Tulsa OK, August 5, 2016. [2] “Digital Forensics and E-Discovery: an Overview,” Comanche County Bar Association, Lawton, OK, April 15, 2009, [3] “Digital [4] “Cellphone Investigations and Digital Forensics,” Oklahoma Electronic Discovery Summit, City, OK, September 23 2005. Forensics,” Society for Human Resource Development, Lawton, OK, July 12, 2006. Midwest SERVICE “Five Tips for Keeping Kids Safe Online,” a curriculum in combination with a donated brochure and presentation titled “Dangers of the Internet: How safe are your children?” promotes opened communication between adults and youth about the potential dangers of Internet. This curriculum has been delivered in dozens of presentations at schools, parents associations, and cornmunity organizations, 2006 - Present. LANCE WATSON - VITA Page 2 of 2"}, {"d": 98, "p": 138, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Re-Production of Electronically Stored Information in the Defendant State Farm Elected, and Brief in Support EXHIBIT 9 FILED UNDER SEAL Form"}, {"d": 98, "p": 140, "t": "Hursh v. State Farm, et al; CJ-2025-2626 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Re-Production of Electronically Stored Informa tion in the Form Defendant State Farm Elected, and Brief in Support EXHIBIT 10 FILED UNDER SEAL"}, {"d": 98, "p": 142, "t": "nA A oie See FILED *1065675778% IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHO MA JUN 23 2026 SELDEN JONES TUESDAY, JUNE 23, Job&RK THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO ENTER THE FOLLOWIN G ORDERS OF THE COURT: 123,612 State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. The Honorable Amy Paulumbo; and Billy Hursh, Lacy Hursh, Moong Sian WongFaust, Stephen Faust; and State of Oklahoma ex rel. Attorney General Gentner Drummond, Real Party in Interest Application to assume original jurisdiction is denied. CONCUR: RECUSED: Rowe, C.J., Kuehn, V.C.J., Winchester, Edmo ndson, Gurich, and Darby, JJ. Kane, and Jett, JJ. DSi Combs, hx CHIEF JUSTICE N“\\"}, {"d": 98, "p": 144, "t": "wi a612173 au IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA. Uvch (Faust Paes Wan Mel uy fil Snes — v8. ate Prin. & a . Case No. (:J- 2085- NOX la US - AOAS- 1675 Respondent(s) Attorney(s) for Respondent COURT MINUTE Date: “7 ~ 7 -d0ue ev OKLAN CR Judge Po) mbe ST COURT UL-0-7-2926 Hearing On: Dian¥A! dnd thom +o Compal, C'S app. % File WRAL ABARREN Ruling By Court: 78 Diambtes’ Gand Motim t Compel i6 Orented. Proven @ fo Are Fine Mate +. Compol, Aw Cour ORES DL cérgn, Cowye of businesy. replects 1) prarded Chale Corns in tre mdncy Chaban be One Unred aay Aesporge 1) deaved eneeterny Plavebress Sate. Par KA 264 1981/ BE Bla CAP Sone"}, {"d": 98, "p": 146, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY SS BILLY & LACY HURSH, STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ee a SS Plaintiffs, Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Defendants. DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 Fax lleffel@gablelaw.com -andCarrie B. McNeer, OBA No. 22235 Lacy B. Williamson, OBA No. 34004 GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 Fax cmeneer@gablelaw.com Iwilliamson@gablelaw.com Attorneys for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company"}, {"d": 98, "p": 147, "t": "This is a single homeowners’ case involving an approximately $22,000.00 dispute over damages to a single Oklahoma property, yet Plaintiffs seek years-worth of information under dozens of broad, sweeping requests without any connection to the facts of this case—far exceeding the bounds of permissible discovery. Plaintiffs’ Motion fails to articulate why or how the discovery they seek to compel relates to State Farm’s purported wrongdoings or their alleged damages, relying instead on conclusory assertions and a generic “pattern and practice” theory based on misstatements and false assumptions—all in an attempt to justify far-reaching inquiries into State Farm’s business operations (or purported operations) as well as other insureds and losses. Mot. at 4. But “the mere fact that a plaintiff offers a ‘broad theory of the case’ does not automatically justify equally broad discovery, ‘unless the discovery is relevant to the plaintiff’s actual claims or defenses.’” Ross v. Univ. of Tulsa, No. 14-CV-484 -TCK-PJC, 2015 WL 13622518, at *1 (N.D. Okla. Apr. 24, 2015).! Plaintiffs are certainly entitled to dispute State Farm’s claim decisions and to undertake discovery to attempt to prove State Farm’s decision was wrong and even in bad faith (State Farm denies both). But that does not open the door to unlimited discovery to fish for documents just to twist them to a nefarious purpose that has nothing to do with Plaintiffs’ claims at all. Tellingly, Plaintiffs fail to cite any claim-specific documents or depositions that would justify their demands for excessively burdensome discovery. Nor could they -- because they have not taken a single deposition of anyone involved in the claim. Plaintiffs also fail to tie their requested discovery to State Farm’s evaluation of their claims. Indeed, the discovery sought is not about Plaintiffs, it is ' Willis v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., No. CV-22-349-SLP, 2023 WL 4711080, at *2 (W.D. Okla. July 24, 2023) (denying discovery into other insureds on relevance and proportionality grounds because “the importance of other insureds claim letters in resolving the issues in Plaintiff's case is low.”). Federal cases interpreting the Federal Rules are persuasive authority because the Oklahoma Discovery Code was adopted from those rules. See Meritor Inc. v, State ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma, 2019 OK CIV APP 64, 451 P.3d 914. Thus, Oklahoma courts look to “the federal rules when construing similar language in the Oklahoma Discovery Code.” Crest Infiniti, If, LP vy. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, 2, 174 P.3d 996, 999."}, {"d": 98, "p": 148, "t": "about exploiting discovery to harass State Farm and pressure it into incurring substantial attorneys’ fees or settling for an exorbitant amount. The Court should deny the Motion. L BACKGROUND A. Factual Background This lawsuit involves a straightforward dispute between State Farm and Plaintiffs regarding the scope of alleged damages their home sustained after storms that reportedly occurred on October 4, 2023 and May 21, 2024. After Plaintiffs reported their losses, State Farm promptly and properly investigated each claim and, applying the terms, conditions, and exclusions of Plaintiffs’ full replacement cost insurance policy (the “Policy”), denied both claims. For both claims pertaining to the October 2023 event and the May 2024 event, State Farm found that the cost of damage was below the Policy deductible. Plaintiffs’ contractor disagreed with State Farm and claimed that a full roof replacement was necessary (Pet. at 7 40(j)), and the alleged cost for the full roof replacement was $22,000.00. Pet. at | 40(j), (m). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against State Farm and agent Mark D. Welty and Mark D. Welty Insurance Agency (collectively “Welty”), bringing claims against State Farm for breach of contract and the duty of good faith and fair dealing; claims against Welty for negligent procurement of insurance; and claims against both Defendants for constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Petition, ff] 45-79. Plaintiffs allege that State Farm inadequately inspected their property after the October 4, 2023 event and “refused to acknowledge the comprehensive damage to the entire Insured Property, including the need for a full roof replacement.” Jd. J 40(e). Plaintiffs further allege that State Farm’s damage estimates relating to the May 21, 2024 storm “were inadequate, shoddy, and significantly lower than that of the reputable roofers and contractors to inspect the Property.” /d. J 40(n)."}, {"d": 98, "p": 149, "t": "The Petition also identifies a laundry list of alleged “duties” Welty purportedly breached, ranging from procuring and renewing “illusory coverage” that “deviates” from Plaintiffs requested coverage; failing to inspect or “disclose pre-existing damage to the Insured misrepresenting that Plaintiffs were eligible for “full replacement coverage”; Property”; and failing to “disclose all material facts” of a purported “scheme” by State Farm to lower indemnity payments. Id. § 63; 73. Plaintiffs, however, concede that State Farm did issue a full replacement Policy, the “four corners” of which provide the coverage they requested. Jd. 927 (“Agent marketed, sold, procured, and bound coverage . . . without limitation”); [29 n.8 (“[T]he Petition alleges conduct on [Defendants’] part{s] . . . that does not square with the four corners of State Farm’s policy.”). As a backdrop to these specific allegations against Defendants, Plaintiffs allege that State Farm and its agents are engaged in a purported, enterprise-wide “scheme” to deny claims, particularly full roof replacements, through inter alia, various claims handing “tactics” wherein State Farm “misattributes” damage to non-covered losses, and fails to disclose this “scheme” at policy inception or renewal. See, generally, id. B. Procedural Background Plaintiffs have propounded dozens of discovery requests, totaling 44 requests for production (“RFPs”), 30 interrogatories (“Rogs”), and 30 requests for admission, and have issued a notice seeking the deposition testimony of a State Farm corporate representative on 30 topics with collectively 101 subparts—many of which have no connection to the merits of this case. To date, State Farm has produced 874 pages of documents relating to Plaintiffs’ claims, including Plaintiffs’ insurance policy and claim file, and is preparing for a supplemental production upon the entry of a Protective Order, including 3-years-worth of financial information, relevant claimhandling guidelines and underwriting information, and performance evaluation information (i.e.,"}, {"d": 98, "p": 150, "t": "employee shields) regarding the State Farm claims handlers who were substantively involved in Plaintiffs’ claims. On September 22, 2025, State Farm served Plaintiffs with its Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Discovery Requests (“Discovery Responses”), objecting to Plaintiffs’ requests for, among other things, information with no logical connection to the facts, claims, or issues in this case. (Ex. 1). The parties have been unable to reach any agreements with respect to the discovery requests. Plaintiffs have also refused to agree to a suitable protective order. IL ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES A. The Oklahoma Discovery Standard The Oklahoma Supreme Court has made clear that relevance—the threshold requirement for obtaining discovery—‘should be firmly applied.” See Quinn v. City of Tulsa, 1989 OK 112, 777 P.2d 1331, 1342 (quoting Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979)); see also Nitzel v. Jackson, 1994 OK 49, 879 P.2d 1222, n* (“Discovery is not without limitation. lt must lead or tend to lead to relevant evidence.”). Relevance is not simply assumed: “(w]hen the request is overly broad, or relevance is not clear, the party seeking the discovery has the burden to show the relevance of the request.” Stainsby v. Okla. ex rel. Okla. Health Care Auth., No. CIV-21-1073-D, 2022 WL 1748263, *1 (W.D. Okla. May 31, 2022); see also Chrisman v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Okla. Cnty., No. CIV-17-1309-D, 2020 WL 7033965, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 30, 2020) (“Plaintiff, as the party seeking the discovery, has the burden of demonstrating relevance here because relevance a ‘is not readily apparent.’”). Nor does a “plaintiff’s broad theory of the case . . . necessarily justify broad discovery,” and courts should thus endeavor to “thwart fishing expeditions.” Willis v. Johnson, No. CIV-18-323-D, 2021 WL 8446071, at *2 (W.D. Okla. May 20, 2021); see also Ross, WL 13622518, at *I. As the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals has recognized, insurance cases should be handled according to their circumstances. See City Nat. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Jackson Nat. 4"}, {"d": 98, "p": 151, "t": "Life Ins., 1990 OK CIV APP 89, {| 18, 804 P.2d 463, 468 (“[B]efore . . . bad faith may be submitted to the jury, the Trial Court must first determine, under the facts of the particular case . . . whether [the] insurer’s conduct may be reasonably perceived as tortious.”). Proportionality is just as critical as relevance for establishing discoverability. The Oklahoma Discovery Code, like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure from which it is derived, provides that discovery must be “proportional to the needs of the case.” 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1)(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In fact, “the proper scope of discovery is that which is both relevant to the claims or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the various factors.” Dodd v. Indian Health Care Res. Ctr. of Tulsa, Inc., No. 24-CV-00327-SH, 2024 WL 4648150, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 1, 2024) (emphasis in original).? The Oklahoma Supreme Court recently made clear that a trial court must specifically consider the proportionality of discovery requests as set forth in 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(2)(c) before it may compel the production of documents. See Order, Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Kirkland, No. 122,385 (Okla. Sept. 24, 2024) (“Respondent, or any other assigned judge, or a special master appointed by the district court shall review the discovery requests at issue and consider the proportionality facts stated in 12 O.S. Section 3226 (B)(2)(c) along with all other statutory requirements before ruling on the discovery disputes.”).? Here, the Petition makes clear that Plaintiffs are complaining about Defendants’ purported conduct in connection with Plaintiffs’ Policy and claims—i.e., the terms and application of the ? These factors include: (1) the importance of the issues at stake in the action; (2) the amount in controversy; (3) the parties’ relative access to relevant information; (4) the parties’ resources; (5) the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues; and (6) whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. See 12 OS. § 3226(B)(1)(a). 3 Contrary to Plaintiffs’ claim, Werner is directly applicable here and State Farm is not using Werner as a “blanket pass to decline to participate meaningfully in discovery” or to avoid production of even the claim file in this case. (Motion, p. 22-23) In fact, State Farm’s discovery responses (Ex. 2) and the discovery referenced in this response clearly demonstrate that State Farm has agreed to produce the claim file related to Plaintiffs’ claim, along with other information and documents that are relevant and proportional to Plaintiffs’ claim. 5"}, {"d": 98, "p": 152, "t": "Policy (which Plaintiffs had a duty to read) and what Defendants said (or did not say) to Plaintiffs.4 None of the disputed discovery requests shed any light on these issues. Instead, Plaintiffs seek discovery relating to “institutional” issues with no apparent connection to the claims in this case. Further, the discovery requests define the “Relevant Time Period” as “January 1, 2010 to present,” but never use this term anywhere else in the requests (Ex. 1}—meaning Plaintiffs are seeking information and documents either for a 15-year or an unlimited time period. While Plaintiffs may argue the requested discovery relates to the enterprise-wide “scheme” alleged in the Petition, such far-reaching allegations—which Plaintiffs’ counsel has copied in identical fashion in numerous cases—do not justify equally broad discovery here absent a logical, coherent showing that a purported scheme had an impact on these claims. Plaintiffs have not made such a showing. B. Claims Training Requests (Rogs 5, 18, and 19; RFPs 6, 30, and 42) While Plaintiffs concede that they seek “the training that State Farm provides its claims handling personnel who handled the Claim,” Mot. at 8, they demand broad categories of temporally, geographically, and topically overbroad training materials that have no relevance to the handling of Plaintiffs’ claims. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek resources used to train claims handlers nationwide on wind and hailstorm claims; and policies for training adjusters nationwide on “functional damage” definitions for roof claims and related coverage limits—all for either at least 15 years or an unlimited period of time, as well as Wind/Hail Claims Guidelines from January 1, 2019 to present (the “Claims Training Requests”).° 4 See, e.g., Thurston v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2020 OK 105, | 22, 478 P.3d 415, 421 (Refusing to waive insured’s duty to read his insurance policy, rejecting insured’s argument to apply instead his “reasonable expectations” of what the policy covered); Estrada v. Kriz, 2015 OK CIV APP 19, 9 15, 345 P.3d 403, 408 (stating that “an averment of fraud only exists where there is some ‘false suggestion or suppression of the truth’. . .”). ° State Farm also objects to the requests to the extent they seek confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attomey work product and/or protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. ° Plaintiffs also seek discovery regarding the “Art of the Conversation,” but their Motion does not even address what they believe this term refers to or how it is relevant."}, {"d": 98, "p": 153, "t": "State Farm has agreed to produce the relevant portions of its claims handling procedures, specifically the Estimatics and Claim Handling Practices (“ECHP”), that were utilized in adjusting Plaintiffs’ claims arising from the weather events on the dates of losses at issue. State Farm also agrees to produce training transcripts for the individuals involved in the handling of Plaintiffs’ claims, as well as the corresponding and relevant training materials from those transcripts.’ This scope of production is more than enough for Plaintiffs to fulfill their purported objective: assess how “State Farm [trains] its claims handling personnel who handled the Claim” insofar as it is related to the handling of Plaintiffs’ individual insurance claims. Jd. at 13-14. Plaintiffs have not articulated why additional, unrelated, and inapplicable training materials are relevant or proportional, as is their burden. See Stainsby, 2022 WL 1748263, *1. Indeed, it strains credulity how all training State Farm provides to its adjusters nationwide for at least 15 years—even if limited to wind/hail claims—has any relation to the alleged harm they suffered in this case. See Young v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., No. CIV-24-1064-R, 2025 WL 837028, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 17, 2025) (“Plaintiff’s discovery request is too broad in that it appears to seek training materials, guidelines, and procedures that relate in any way to the handling of Plaintiff’s claim, rather than the specific topics that are pertinent to the issues in this case.”) Training materials that were either obsolete at the time of Plaintiffs’ alleged loss or were not part of the relevant claims handlers’ training, are neither relevant nor proportional, and it is Plaintiffs’ burden to demonstrate that they are. See Stainsby, 2022 WL 1748263, *1. Cc. Agency Training Requests (Rog 10; RFPs 6, 30, and 42) Plaintiffs’ Motion is devoid of any argument justifying discovery into the training of State 7 State Farm’s production of the relevant training materials is subject to entry of an approved protective order. Moreover, as addressed further in Section II-E, State Farm is also willing to produce the Wind/Hail Guidelines the FME prepared in 2020 and 2021, despite their lack of relevance to this case. Moreover, with respect to Haag training materials, see Section I]-D."}, {"d": 98, "p": 154, "t": "Farm’s independent contractor Agents (the “Agency Training Requests”). In fact, the Motion contains no argument af all regarding the Agency Training Requests. Rather, Plaintiffs group these requests by number only in the section relating to adjuster training in an apparent attempt to try to convince the Court to broadly grant a group of disparate requests together. But Plaintiffs’ concession that they personnel who seek discovery regarding how handled the Claim” “State Farm [trains] its claims handling cuts directly against the relevance of their requests for discovery into (1) training provided to State Farm’s “captive agents” regarding the sale and procurement of insurance policies; (2) underwriting guidelines, binding rules, contractual agreements, and training materials related to selling and issuing the Policy; (3) purported duties of agents to “keep abreast of the condition of properties” and/or monitor and reduce risks to insured properties; and (4) purported discussions with Agency Leadership regarding “wind/hail topics.” (Rog. Nos. 10, 30; RFPs Nos. 5, 35, and 40). Here, the crux of Plaintiffs’ claims does not relate to the underwriting, sale, marketing, or binding of the Policy, or any inspection or assessment of the Plaintiffs’ property in connection with the Policy inception or renewal. The Petition makes clear it is not the Policy or any of its terms about which Plaintiffs complain; instead, Plaintiffs complain of State Farm’s claim decisions, over which Welty had no control. The only discovery relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims are (1) what Welty specifically said to Plaintiffs about the Policy; and (2) whether any such representations, as reflected by the terms of the Policy, are true. Indeed, Plaintiffs concede the “four corners” of the Policy was a full replacement cost policy, with the crux of their claims being that State Farm made the wrong claim decisions under the Policy—which no agent has control over. And Oklahoma law recognizes a claim for negligent procurement only if “by the agent’s fault, insurance is not procured as promised and the insured suffers a loss” as a result. Swickey v. Silvey Cos., 1999 OK CIV APP 48, ¥ 13, 979 P.2d 266, 269 (emphasis added)."}, {"d": 98, "p": 155, "t": "Moreover, Plaintiffs’ requests relating to purported wind/hail training of agents and discussions with “Agency Leadership” regarding wind/hail topics are irrelevant because, beyond sometimes taking in the initial report of a claim and communicating such to State Farm, agents have no role in claim handling. Nor does Plaintiffs’ Petition allege that Welty was involved in any aspect of the claim handling at issue. And, the Agency Training Requests regarding underwriting/sale/binding of the Policy cannot be relevant, as there is no real dispute over whether the Policy issued or provided sufficient coverage for full replacement of the Plaintiffs’ house— especially not the roof which is the claim Plaintiffs make. Petition, f] 27, 29; Miller v. Farmers Ins. Grp., No. CIIV-10-466-F, 2012 WL 8017244, at *14 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 22, 2012) (“[T]he Oklahoma Supreme Court has concluded that ‘the conduct of the insurer and the agent in selling and issuing the policy cannot give rise to the tort of bad faith breach of an insurance contract.’”)® D. Haag Requests (Rogs 15-17; RFPs 8-12, 31, and 34) Plaintiffs have a laundry list of requests relating to State Farm’s relationship and utilization of global engineering and consulting company Haag, and its subsidiaries, including State Farm’s: (a) relationship with Haag, including any indemnity agreements; (b) communications with and payments to Haag from 2012 onward; (c) a moratorium on using Haag after unrelated verdicts from 1997 and 2006; (d) internal investigations into Haag’s potential bias following unrelated cases and events from over two decades ago; and (e) use of Haag training, including Haag’s Hail and Wind Assessment Video Series (the “Haag Requests”). The Haag Requests are irrelevant and 5 Additionally, “binding” authority “refers[s] to the insurance industry concept of an insurance agent’s ability to temporarily ‘bind’ coverage, which occurs prior to the insurer’s issuance of a policy.” Peerless Ins. Co. v. MA.S.S. Servs., No. 806- CV-250T-27TGW, 2007 WL 2916386, at *7 n.11 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 5, 2007). Even if binding were at issue here—which it is not—an agent’s act of “binding” a policy could only serve as a representation to State Farm— not the insured—that based on the information gathered from the insured, the property is worthy of consideration for coverage. “Binding authority” does not mean the agent had any authority to “bind” (require) State Farm to issue a policy or carry it out in a particular way. Thus, nothing about “binding” bears on the merits of Plaintiffs’ negligent procurement or fraud claims against Welty, which rest on allegations of misrepresentations to Plaintiffs (not State Farm) about the Policy’s (not the binder’s) coverage."}, {"d": 98, "p": 156, "t": "disproportionate to the needs of this case because State Farm did not use Haag’s engineering services—or any engineering services for that matter—to assess Plaintiffs’ claim. Moreover, with limited exceptions, State Farm has not used Haag to assess policyholder claims since 2006. Rather, State Farm only uses Haag training materials (which have nothing to do with Haag’s engineering services). Thus, Plaintiffs’ broadly written requests regarding State Farm’s utilization of Haag are a fishing expedition for information they know does not further the resolution of the merits of their claims. See In re Hanover Lloyds Ins. Co., No. 05-17-00608-CV, 2018 WL 1127436, at *3 (Tex. App. Mar. 2, 2018) (Finding inquiry into Hanover’s use of Haag engineering reports on claims of unrelated third parties was not relevant to the issues in the case and rejecting plaintiff’s claim that Hanover’s overarching relationship and use of Haag training, investigation, and reports was relevant to the merits of the denial of plaintiff’s claim). In any event, while Plaintiffs are trying to distort State Farm’s use of Haag training materials into some sort of nefarious scheme to defraud insureds based solely on a moratorium imposed nearly 20 years ago on engineering services, they have provided no evidence of such intent. Details regarding State Farm’s relationship with Haag, its use of Haag training, or any reviews of Haag’s objectivity are irrelevant to any fact at issue. E. Fire Model Enhancement Requests (Rogs 6, 7, 9, 13, 28, and 29; RFPs 14, 15, 21-24, 27, 29, 33, 35-39, and 43) Numerous requests at issue concern the Fire Model Enhancement (“FME”)—an effort State Farm first undertook in 2020 to improve the accuracy and quality of claim handling, one that is neither sinister nor surprising but part of corporate responsibility (the “FME Requests”). As part of the FME, State Farm identified potential ways to improve consistency in handling wind/hail claims and to address both overpayment and underpayment of claims, including by improving file ° State Farm has already informed Plaintiffs’ counsel of Haag’s position that these videos constitute Haag’s intellectual property. Absent a protective order and notice to Haag, State Farm does not have the authority to produce Haag’s proprietary materials in litigation. 10"}, {"d": 98, "p": 157, "t": "documentation, conducting additional training, and increasing management involvement.'® The FME prepared guidelines in 2020 and 2021 (the “Wind/Hail Guidelines”), which State Farm incorporated into Operation Guide (“OG”) 75-160 by February 2022, more than one-and-a-halfyears before Plaintiffs’ purported dates of losses. Upon the entry of an approved protective order, State Farm is willing to produce the versions of OG 75-160 and relevant claim handling guidelines that were in place as of Plaintiffs’ dates of losses. While not in effect on the dates of losses, State Farm is also willing to produce the Wind/Hail Guidelines for the years 2020 and 2021. Plaintiffs’ additional FME-related requests amount to nothing more than a fishing expedition into matters for which they have failed to articulate a connection to the purported conduct that led to the claims decision they challenge. Specifically, they seek years’ worth of information about FME and wind/hail-related initiatives and teams, employees and third parties involved in the FME, nationwide information dissemination, and descriptions of the creation, implementation, and analyses of these initiatives in Texas, Oklahoma, and nationwide, as well as purported tracking of metrics such as roof replacement ratios and approval percentages, indemnity savings, and payment volumes for wind/hail claims. Plaintiffs also seek communications of employees not even involved in the handling of their claims.'! The FME Requests lack any coherent or logical connection to the merits of this lawsuit. As a threshold matter, Plaintiffs’ characterization of the FME is replete with incorrect assumptions, misstatements, and a conflation with issues. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contentions, State Farm handles each claim on its own merits and never attempts to arbitrarily reduce total roof replacements or indemnity payments to meet industry standards; and State Farm rejects any suggestion that it is 1 In particular, claim file data indicated that State Farm may have been replacing roofs where significant damage was not expected, primarily due to the small hail and light wind events associated with the date of loss. \"| Specifically, Plaintiffs seek documents and communications of Nicole Manduca, Tom Moss, Susan Maynard, and Sharon Arnold—none of whom were involved in any way in the handling or adjustment of Plaintiffs’ claim. 11"}, {"d": 98, "p": 158, "t": "undertaking any “illegal analysis” that results in a “uniform” approach to evaluating wind/hail claims. Mot. at 5. Rather, State Farm always adjusts claims pursuant to its Commitment to Policyholders, including by diligently and objectively investigating the facts and circumstances of each claim, dealing fairly with policyholders, and paying amounts owed under each policy. At the core of their allegations, Plaintiffs take issue with State Farm’s claims decision with respect to alleged at a single property. roof damage information regarding the FME’s implementation, Pet., 40(c}H{1). Sweeping requests for tracking of metrics relating to total roof replacements, internal communications relating to the development of the FME, and managerial review of total roof replacement recommendations,'? have no bearing on these issues absent a logical, coherent articulation of how the FME impacted the specific claim handling decisions that led to their purported harm in this case. To date, Plaintiffs have not articulated any such connection. The claims here involve a dispute as to whether and to what extent a part of Plaintiff's’ house was damaged, and nothing in Plaintiffs’ Petition—or any correspondence or statements to date— explains how the FME discovery they seek is probative of the reasonableness of State Farm’s claim handling and decision under the facts of this case, or whether Plaintiffs’ property, and which parts, were in fact damaged information regarding by wind claims and/or hail. Further, to the extent the of other insureds, arising under different FME Requests seek facts, circumstances, policies, and dates; relating to insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their claims at issue in this litigation; and involving information about individuals other than the claims personnel who adjusted the Plaintiffs claim, such requests are overly broad and irrelevant. See City Nat. Bank, 1990 OK CIV APP 89, § 18, 804 P.2d 463. Discovery on the FME Requests should be denied because they are not relevant or 2 Indeed, this is not a case where an adjuster recommended or proposed an estimate for totaling a roof—or contemplated doing so—and the estimate was thus never subject to mandatory managerial review. 12"}, {"d": 98, "p": 159, "t": "proportional to the needs of the case. Responding to these requests would require State Farm to search for documents nationwide across the enterprise from 2010 or 2019 (depending on the request)—predating the dates of losses by 4 to 13 years—and is unduly burdensome. Moreover, the personnel involved in handling Plaintiffs’ claims—including JR Phillips, Mark Wood, and Conrad Feller—were not involved in the FME. BK Manager Approval (Rogs 21, 28, and 29; RFPs 22, 25, 26, 36(vi), 38(vi), and 43(vi)) Plaintiffs do not explain why the discovery they seek regarding the requirement for managerial approval of total roof replacements in certain circumstances, or the tracking or costbenefit analysis of full roof replacement approval percentages, is relevant. Rather, their Motion lists these requests next to a myriad of others on varying and different topics, without any argument or articulation regarding their relevance to the merits of this case. As a threshold matter, Plaintiffs falsely assert that “State Farm implemented a policy that claims adjusters could not issue a full roof replacement without Team Manager approval,” when their counsel is well aware that OG 75160—the authoritative rule—requires managerial approval for total roof replacements only in a certain subset of claims—i.e., when a claim involves low intensity weather events with conditions of hail less than one inch in diameter and wind speeds below 50 mph. Plaintiffs also do not, because they cannot, explain how any managerial review requirement impacted the adjustment of their specific claims. No claims handler ever found or recommended that a total roof replacement was warranted. Plaintiffs point to nothing in the already-produced Claim File indicating that totaling Plaintiffs’ roof was contemplated or subject to management approval.!3 As such, even if these documents could be relevant to issues in another claim that is the basis for another lawsuit, '3 As shown in the claim file, it is routine and expected for Team Managers to review files and provide guidance to Claim Specialists. This is a standard managerial responsibility and suggesting it is nefarious is unwarranted. 13"}, {"d": 99, "p": 1, "t": "FILED IN DISTRICT COUR T TARRAIRUN | 11 pisrracr court oF oxzasiona comRRAROMA COUNTY TE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY OCT - 2 2006 RICK HURSH, Wz, courr PARREN 108 Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., D. Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S AMENDED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICE OF MICHAEL KEATING AND COUNTER MOTION FOR RULE 4 ORDER"}, {"d": 99, "p": 2, "t": "COME NOW Plaintiffs, Billy and Lacy Hursh (“Plaintiffs”), and respond to Defendant State Farm’s Amended Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Deposition Notice of Michael Keating (Defendant’s “Motion” or “Mot.”). Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter an order denying State Farm’s Motion and compelling Defendant’s production of Michael Keating for deposition. Plaintiffs respectfully request a ruling on the briefs under District Court Rule 4(h). 12 O.S. Chapter 2, Rule 4(h) (“Motions may be decided by the court without a hearing, and where this is done, the court shall notify the parties of its ruling in writing by mail or email.”). In support, Plaintiffs state as follows: I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs allege a broad-reaching and pervasive Scheme by State Farm to pre-textually deny wind and hail damage claims warranting total roof replacements through the development, implementation, and refinement of various bad faith claims-handling tactics. After the WHMET created these tactics, the Fix Profit Task Force—formerly known as the “Keating Quality Deck” (see Ex. 1, 2023.10.10 Rose Email)'—continued to develop and implement these tactics across windshail, fire, and water losses across the country. Accordingly, Plaintiffs properly noticed the deposition of an individual with unique knowledge as to the bad faith tactics State Farm implemented on wind and hail claims targeted at reducing indemnity payouts by denying full roof replacement claims, just like the Plaintiffs. Keating’s involvement as a fact witness who was essential in the implementation of the tactics to reduce coverage on wind/hail claims cuts against State Farm’s false claims that the deposition ' Exhibits 1 & 7 attached hereto are documents recently entered into the public record as an exhibit to the plaintiffs’ Resp. to Not. of Mtn. to Consolidate Depositions & Countermotion for Rule 4 Order in West v. State Farm, No. CJ-2025-135 (Comanche Cnty. Dist. Ct.) (Aug. 21, 2026)."}, {"d": 99, "p": 3, "t": "notice is a fishing expedition. State Farm’s Motion rehashes its tired attempt to misdirect the Court away from its Scheme and paint Plaintiffs’ Petion as a single, isolated claim dispute. To the contrary, Keating has knowledge of the exact facts alleged here. Pet. at § 3, 4(b) (“Defendants employ a systematic and pervasive Scheme throughout Oklahoma, whereby State Farm wrongfully denies its insureds‘ claims for damage to their covered property caused by wind and/or hail [and] State Farm's claim denials on wind and hailstorm claims are unreasonable, lack true justification and are pre-determined” and “State Farm agents know about yet fail to disclose State Farm’s other bad faith claims handling tactics inherent to the Scheme.”). Simply put, State Farm’s insistence that Keating had nothing to do with the adjustment of Plaintiffs’ Claims is both false and misleading. While it is true Plaintiffs do not allege Keating performed specific adjusting tasks on Plaintiffs’ Claims, he directly and materially contributed to the implementation and oversight of State Farm’s Scheme tactics to reduce indemnity payments on roof claims that resulted in the denial of Plaintiffs’ Claims. And, because the denials of Plaintiffs’ Claims are a direct result of the Scheme, Keating had as much to do with Plaintiffs’ harm as the adjusters, managers, and/or supervisors that adjusted the claim. Thus, Keating’s deposition is warranted. State Farm has no right to dictate the order in which Plaintiffs notice relevant depositions in this matter. Nevertheless, State Farm advances a tired, myopic view of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit in demanding Keating’s deposition be off-limits or delayed. It flippantly insists that any inquiry beyond the four-corners of an individual claim file is equal parts irrelevant and impermissible. Plaintiffs have alleged, and this Court (as well as others) found a pervasive weaponization of State Farm’s claims department to the detriment of its insureds including Plaintiffs. Keating was directly"}, {"d": 99, "p": 4, "t": "involved in the development and oversight of the WHMET’s tactics and further development of those tactics in the Profit Task Force. He can answer for it. Il. LEGAL STANDARD Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1). Discovery is intentionally broad. Liberal discovery will minimize the possibility of bad faith litigation, stating “the strongest argument against discovery is more one of tactics, than of actual prejudice.” Tuller vy. Shallcross, 1994 OK 133, 4 10, 886 P.2d 481,484. The crux of State Farm’s objections hinge largely upon its unilateral opinions of what is relevant to the needs of this case. But proportionality has nothing to do with the litigation strategy State Farm believes Plaintiffs should adopt. Nor does proportionality entail State Farm's opinions as to the value of Plaintiffs’ claim or its unilateral contentions regarding Keating’s knowledge of and involvement in the Scheme that caused State Farm’s wrongful denials of Plaintiffs’ Claims. An action in bad faith is not confined to the four-corners of the insurance claim. As the Oklahoma Supreme Court has stated, “the essence [of a bad faith cause of action] is the failure to deal fairly and in good faith with an insured as such, the jury may be shown the entire course of contact between the parties.” Timmons v. World Globe, 1982 OK 97, J 18, 653 P.2d 907, 917. Relevance is broadly defined, and evidence need not be admissible to be relevant and discoverable. See 12 O.S. §3226(B)(I)(a); see also Scott v. Peterson, 2005 OK 84, § 6, 126 P.3d 1232, 1234; Reibert v. CSAA Fire & Cas. Ins. Co, 2018 WL 279348 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 3, 2018) at *3 & 6 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 3, 2018). “Irrelevancy” is not an enumerated ground for a protective order under § 3226(C), and it is insufficient to simply recite boilerplate objections such as overbroad, burdensome, oppressive or"}, {"d": 99, "p": 5, "t": "irrelevant. Reibert, supra. Rather, State Farm must demonstrate specific facts to warrant a protective order. Crest Infiniti, I, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, § 17, 174 P.3d 996, 1004; YWCA of Oklahoma City v. Melson, 1997 OK 81, J 15, 944 P.2d 304, 308-09. Accordingly, “[i]f the basis for an objection is lack of relevance, ‘the party resisting the discovery has the burden to establish the lack of relevance by demonstrating that the requested discovery is of such marginal relevance that the potential harm occasioned by discovery would outweigh the ordinary presumption in favor of broad disclosure.’ ” Fed. Ins. Co. v. Indeck Power Equip. Co., 2016 WL 5173402, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 21, 2016) (citation omitted). Thus, numerous courts have held the party opposing a deposition carries a “heavy burden” to justify its prohibition, and such prohibition shall only be granted upon a showing of “extraordinary circumstances” that warrant such relief. Kulp Minerals, LLC v. Apache Corp., 2025 WL 872531, at *3 (D.N.M. Mar. 20, 2025) (“A party seeking to prevent a deposition ... carries a heavy burden to show why discovery should be denied—and absent extraordinary circumstances—it is very unusual for a court to prohibit the taking of a deposition.”); Halley v. State of Oklahoma, 2016 WL 4995393, at *1 (E.D. Okla. Sept. 19, 2016) (“A party seeking to quash a deposition has a ‘heavy burden of demonstrating good cause’ that the deposition should not be taken. ... The party seeking to prevent a deposition must show ‘extraordinary circumstances that present a particular and compelling need for such relief.’ ”) (citation omitted). Indeed, as noted, the complete prohibition of a deposition is viewed as an aberration only to be granted in rare circumstances.? Denson v. Corp. of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2 See Kulp Minerals, supra (citing Salter v. Upjohn Co., 593 F.2d 649, 651 (Sth Cir. 1979) (“It is very unusual for a court to prohibit the taking of a deposition altogether and absent extraordinary circumstances, such an order would likely be in error.”); Jennings v. Family Mgmt., 201 F.R.D. 272, 275 (D.D.C. 2001); Naftchi v. New York Univ. Med, Ctr., 172 F.R.D. 130, 132 (S.D.N.Y. 1997); Frideres v. Schiltz, 150 F.R.D. 153, 156 (S.D. Iowa 1993); Rolscreen v. Pella Prods, of St."}, {"d": 99, "p": 6, "t": "2018 WL 10247390, at *1 (D. Utah Dec. 4, 2018) (“/CJourts regard the complete prohibition of a deposition as an extraordinary measure which should be resorted to only in rare occasions. ... It is very unusual for a court to prohibit the taking of a deposition altogether and absent extraordinary circumstances, such an order would likely be in error. ... [I]t is exceedingly difficult to demonstrate an appropriate basis for an order barring the taking of a deposition. ... Protective orders prohibiting depositions are rarely granted.”) (emphasis added, internal citations omitted); see also Roberts v. Cnty. of Riverside, 2021 WL 5993528, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2021) (“Absent extraordinary circumstances, it is rare for a court to disallow the taking of a deposition. .. [Aj strong showing is required before a party will be denied entirely the right to take a deposition. ... A party seeking to prevent a deposition carries a heavy burden to show why discovery should be denied. ... [I]t is very unusual for a court to prohibit the taking of a deposition altogether absent extraordinary circumstances.”) (emphasis added, internal citations and quotations omitted). Indeed, “[c]ourts allow depositions to go forward unless it is clear that the information sought has no relevance to a claim or defense.” Tri Minh Huynh v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 2019 WL 4645724, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2019)(citation omitted). And, “courts routinely reject the reasons proffered for preventing depositions such as the examination would cause undue labor, expense, and delay, that the examination would be premature, or that the examining party was offered stipulations.” Louis, Inc., 145 Kulp Minerals, 2025 WL 872531, at *3 (emphasis added, citation omitted). F.R.D. 92, 96 (S.D. Iowa 1992); Motsinger v. Flynt, 119 F.R.D. 373, 378 (M.D.N.C. 1988); in re McCorhill Publ'g, Inc., 91 B.R. 223, 225 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)). 3 These decisions in accord with the standard for a protective order under § 3226. See Crest Infiniti, supra."}, {"d": 99, "p": 7, "t": "In short, it is State Farm’s burden, as the party objecting to the deposition, to show that the requested deposition would not come within the scope of relevancy. Under this framework, State Farm’s Motion fails. IH. State Farm’s Motion ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES fails on the merits. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the importance of pattern and practice evidence, the very assertion being made by the Plaintiffs with respect to the treatment of State Farm insureds due to its Wind/Hail Scheme tactics weaponized against first-party insureds in Oklahoma, including Plaintiffs. See Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co. v. Honorable Lara Russell, 2025 OK 79. The Oklahoma Supreme Court denied Petitioner Allstate’s efforts to redact the claim files the trial court ordered requiring production of numerous claim files regarding wind/hail on property damage claims. In doing so, the Court cited Oklahoma’s long-standing recognition of pattern and practice bad faith evidence. See id. at *1 (emphasis added); see also Barnes v. Okla. Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co., 2000 OK 55, 11 P.3d 162, 170 (“insurer’s unreasonable treatment of Barnes was not an isolated incident, but the same or similar tactic was used by insurer repeatedly with other insureds”; awarding actual and punitive damages) (emphasis added); Magellan v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2017 WL 3579209, at *2 (N.D Okla. Aug. 18, 2017) (compelling request for production of 85 other claim files where claimant was an employee of named insured and claimant’s policy had similar language to plaintiffs’ policy based on relevance to pattern and practice theory and punitive damages); Reibert v. CSAA Fire & Cas. Ins. Co, 2018 WL 279348, at * 6 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 3, 2018) (finding pattern and practice to be permitted under Oklahoma law and citing the string of cases which agree); Vining v. Enter. Fin. Group, 148 F.3d 1206, 1218 (10th Cir. 1998) (finding that, where plaintiff sought to prove a pattern and practice of bad-faith conduct by insured, evidence regarding other insureds was relevant to"}, {"d": 99, "p": 8, "t": "show defendant “acted in this case under Federal Rule of Evidence 406 (habit)” and that prejudice of evidence did not outweigh relevance of inquiry into defendant's “general business practices”); Metzger v. Am. Fid. Assur. Co., 2007 WL 4342082, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 7, 2007) (same). A. Michael Keating Possesses Unique Knowledge Relevant and Proportional to the needs of Plaintiffs’ case. State Farm attaches as exhibit 5 to its Motion the Declaration of Michael Keating (“Keating”), which State Farm self-servingly recites to form the bases of its primary argument: that Keating is not involved in property damage claims and had no involvement with the WHMET. See Mot. at 5, 12-13; see also id. at exhibit 5. Both contentions are false, and Keating’s role as a fact witness in this case is evident by the production in this case, testimony provided by Wensley Herbert, and Keating’s own testimony before Congress. On May State Farm limitation 13, 2025, Keating testified before the United States Senate about his role with in the specific context of property damage claims and without any reference or to auto claims. Ex. 2, Excerpt of Transcript of 2025.05.13 Hearing of Senate Subcommittee on Disaster Management (Keating testimony).* Keating joined State Farm in 1993 as a Homeowners Claim Representative. See id., at 70:24-71:2. Keating testified that as Operations Vice President, he oversees and provides instruction on State Farm claims-handling and has more than thirty years of experience on the subject. /d. at 71:1-6 (“Currently, I serve in the role of Operations Vice President where I help lead State Farm’s claim process. How I work and how I lead my team are direct reflections on those experiences over three decades and the values of customer service integrity.”) (emphasis added). Keating further testified that under his guidance, claims personnel are “to understand the scope of the damage, identify the cause, and 4 Compare id. at 69:25-70:12 and 71:23-72:13, with Mot. at 5, 12-13, and exhibit 5."}, {"d": 99, "p": 9, "t": "determine what we may owe [under the terms of the policy]. This is how I’ve instructed my teams to approach claims.” Jd. at 72:17-19. That Keating was presented to Congress to testify on State Farm’s handling of property damage claims makes sense, as the leader of claims-handling for the largest property insurance company in the United States assuredly has personal knowledge of how his company handles such claims. State Farm’s empty assertion that Keating lacks sufficient knowledge to testify is farcical. State Farm has produced countless documents in this case that show State Farm’s corporate leadership (including Keating) developed a pattern and practice of reducing claims on roof losses, yet wants to shield its fact witness executives without any legal basis for doing so. Indeed, Keating oversees wind and hail roof damage claims and plays a leadership role in State Farm’s roof-specific Scheme tactics. See Ex. 3, 2023.10.04 Emails Between Keating & John Christensen re: Quality Play — Hail Review Team; Ex. 4, December 2023 Email Chain re: Next Gear QA Assist — Meeting Recap. In a September 30, 2025 email to various WHMET members, Keating scheduled a meeting a” Ex. 5. September 30, 2025 Email re: Fire Executive — Quality Pillar. Keating elaborated that the meeting vo” to ‘See acl iter“ ene” id® On October 3, 2023, Keating led a team meeting on State Farm’s strategies for ‘]” on wind/hail claims, which included guidance on tactics targeting roof repair versus replacement calls, ‘xy. ‘2d Manduca. 2nd to ‘See Ex. 6, October 2-3 Emails Between Keating & In an email to Nicole Manduca leading up to this meeting, Keating identified his 5 State Farm knew its tactics to achieve “target” goals on roof claims constituted bad faith, as evidenced by their leadership’s recommending that “any reference to ‘targets’ need replaced [sic] with ‘selections.’” See Ex. 1."}, {"d": 99, "p": 10, "t": "knowledge of State Farm’s strategies/tactics and advised he was comfortable with ‘x a Keating is also included in many high-level discussions among State Farm leadership regarding a variety of topics relating to the Wind/Hail Focus Initiative, such as Haag training, Roof Skills Review,® Fire Claims Quality review, and others. HUR00201749; HUR00005957; HUR00033403. Various members of the WHMET reported Scheme-driven findings to Keating, including wind/hail claims data, roof replacement rates/ratios, and WHMET metrics data. See Ex. 8, July 25-26 Emails Between Keating and Manduca; Ex. 9, June 14-15 Emails Between Keating and Ress; Ex. 10, February 8, 2021 Email to Keating. Mr. Keating spoke as a ‘x’ speaker in high-level discussions within State Farm addressing the recent increase in claim disputes, including the ‘MS’ that was crafted by State Farm to creatively explain to State Farm insureds why their claims were getting denied as a result of the fallout from the Wind/Hail Focus Initiative. See Ex. 11, 2022.04.20 Email re: Huddle Notes. He was even a lead speaker at State Farm’s November 2024 Executive Showcase strategies 12, 2024 on roof damage claims. Ex. November discussing Verisk State Farm’s Executive Showcase PowerPoint. These documents alone defeat State Farm’s Motion and prove the need to depose Keating in this case. WHMET member Wensley Herbert’s testimony in this case additionally exposes Keating’s direct knowledge of and involvement in the handling of State Farm property claims. Herbert ® The Roof Skills Review (State Farm’s program gauging claim handlers’ and team managers’ decisions on wind/hail roof damage claims) is a fundamental component of State Farm’s Scheme discussed within its “Wind/Hail Playbook,” and the WHMET used its results to inform its Wind/Hail FME Guidelines and to implement key Scheme tactics like its internal policy of mandating team manager reviews for full roof replacements. See Ex. 7, 2021 PowerPoint. FME Wind/Hail"}, {"d": 99, "p": 11, "t": "identified Keating as the State Farm executive who ‘x .” Ex. 13, Excerpts from 2026.08.26 Herbert Deposition, at 23:16-20 (emphasis added). Herbert further testified that Keating asked fellow VPO John Christensen to provide information about hail claim- rani LS” 2c \"Je. a a ” 21 354:12-355:24. Through all this discovery, Keating consistently demonstrates his knowledge of property (and, specifically, roof) claims, and not once does he indicate his role is limited to auto claims. There is no doubt Keating has knowledge relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and thus his deposition is both relevant and proportional to the needs of this case. This evidence goes to the heart of Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim and request for punitive damages. Keating’s anticipated testimony meets the requisite proportionality factors. First, under 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(2)(c)(1), Keating’s testimony regarding his fact knowledge and involvement with the development of the WHMET tactics intended to pre-textually deny wind/hail claims relates to State Farm’s pattern and practice of bad faith conduct, is not cumulative or duplicative, and cannot be obtained by another source which is less burdensome or less expensive. As mentioned herein, Keating is a fact witness with unique knowledge pertaining to the Scheme Plaintiffs plead and seek to prove at trial. Because Plaintiffs’ bad faith pattern theory regarding the Scheme (including Keating’s knowledge and involvement therein) informs how Plaintiffs’ specific claim was adjusted and denied, Keating’s deposition testimony is not outside the scope contemplated by 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1)(a). Moreover, this is the first opportunity for Plaintiffs to seek this discovery. Moving onto the requirements of 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1)(a) that the Court must consider, Plaintiffs further prevail for the following reasons: (1) the discovery is not privileged; moreover, this Court entered a Protective Order, which alleviates any confidentiality concerns; (2) the pattern 10"}, {"d": 99, "p": 12, "t": "and practice discovery is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim because the Scheme crafted and refined under Keating’s leadership was used to deny Plaintiffs’ and thousands of other insureds’ claims both in Oklahoma and nationwide; (3) discovery regarding pattern and practice evidence is necessary and proportional to the needs of Plaintiffs’ case given that Plaintiffs have alleged their claim denial was a direct result of State Farm’s Wind/Hail Scheme tactics; (4) with regard to the importance of the claim and the amount in controversy, it is often said that a man’s home is his castle and having a home that is functional is essential for peace of mind that State Farm’s replacement cost homeowners policy was supposed to provide. Further, this matter involves claims where the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000, including but not limited to punitive damages based on Plaintiffs’ pattern and practice Scheme allegations; (5) with respect to access to relevant information, there is a disparity because State Farm is the only entity Plaintiffs can seek this discovery from regarding State Farm’s pattern and practice of bad faith conduct by way of the Wind/Hail Focus Initiative; (6) in evaluating each party’s resources, State Farm’s parent company has a net income in 2024 of $5.3 billion with billions of dollars in assets. On the other hand, Plaintiffs have experienced significant financial struggles recently and State Farm’s denial of their claims exacerbated these struggles. For example, Plaintiffs had to take out a HELOC in order to afford the full replacement of their roof that State Farm wrongfully denied; (7) it is important to expose State Farm’s improper pattern and practice of bad faith conduct on wind/hail claims because it has happening to thousands of insureds, including Plaintiffs, in Oklahoma and nationwide. This can go to both actual and punitive damages. Pattern and practice evidence is an explicit factor that the jury can consider when determining an award of punitive damages. See 23 O.S. § 9.1; and (8) there is little to no burden or expense in producing Keating for deposition because Plaintiffs are willing to bear the costs of traveling to 11"}, {"d": 99, "p": 13, "t": "Keating for his deposition. Moreover, State Farm has been able to produce numerous executives for their depositions in this case. Plaintiffs would be deeply prejudiced deposition testimony, and State Farm would argument that the Scheme-related in prosecuting their claims without Keating’s love nothing more than to continue its rejected documents and key State Farm personnel are not relevant/proportional to the Scheme denial of the Plaintiffs’ claims in order to deprive Plaintiffs of the most significant evidence needed ahead of the fast-approaching trial date in this case. Therefore, the need for Keating’s deposition is urgent, relevant, and proportional to the needs of Plaintiffs’ case as demonstrated herein. B. State Farm’s Attempt to Limit Discovery through an “Apex” Doctrine Fails. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has plainly “decline{d] to adopt the apex doctrine.” Crest Infiniti, 2007 OK 77, § 17. Specifically, the Court refused to adopt the doctrine because it would “shift(] [the] burden to the party seeking discovery” in contradiction to both the spirit and letter of Oklahoma’s Discovery Code. Jd. Thus, whether Plaintiffs have yet deposed low-level adjusters or claims handlers involved in Plaintiffs’ case has no effect on Plaintiffs’ ability to depose the architects of State Farm’s Scheme, including but not limited to Mr. Keating. State Farm “should not be allowed to rely solely on the blanket statement that these witnesses lack any information relevant to the issues in this case.” Crest Infiniti, 2007 OK 77 at J 18. As discussed supra, Oklahoma law is clear that this heavy burden is on State Farm, not Plaintiffs: We agree that petitioners must show more than these blanket statements to satisfy their burden for a protective order. Petitioners did not explain why the corporate official, as such, would not have knowledge of information relating to plaintiffs' causes of action. They did not explain why the particular information sought by plaintiffs would inflict annoyance, harassment, embarrassment, oppression or undue delay, burden or expense sufficient for issuance of a protective order when 12"}, {"d": 99, "p": 14, "t": "that information was sought from this particular individual. Petitioners did not explain and identify [. . .] the more appropriate corporate official to provide the information sought by plaintiffs. Id.; see also Reed v. Illinois, 318 F.R.D. 77, 81 (N.D. Ill. 2016). State Farm also vastly overstates and fails to explain the supposed burden and expense it would suffer from producing Keating. In addition to being a corporation worth billions of dollars, State Farm fails to acknowledge that Plaintiffs are willing to travel to Keating to eliminate burden of State Farm. There is simply no burden State Farm can articulate that rises to the heavy burden State Farm carries in seeking to quash. Nor has State Farm provided any facts supporting its blanket statement that Keating’s deposition notice was designed to harass State Farm. See, e.g., Mot. at 14. In sum, State Farm has provided nothing to substantiate Keating’s supposed lack of relevant knowledge beyond its usual unsupported rhetoric. As shown by the evidence provided herein, Keating has specific and specialized knowledge of the Scheme at issue that makes his testimony relevant and proportional to the needs of Plaintiffs’ case. State Farm cannot meet its burden, especially when Plaintiffs have demonstrated Keating’s personal knowledge and the relevance of same tactics used to deny Plaintiffs’ claims in bad faith. Additionally, any confidentiality concerns State Farm asserts in its Motion are cured through the Protective Order this Court entered in this case. This is yet another tactic by State Farm to deny, delay, and deflect at any cost and must not be rewarded. IV. WHEREFORE, CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF for the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court deny State Farm’s Motion for Protective Order and to Quash and/or Stay Deposition Notice of Michael Keating in its entirety and, under 12 O.S. Chapter 2, Rule 4(h) enter an order to the same. 13"}, {"d": 99, "p": 15, "t": "Respectfully submitted, /s Blake Sonne Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com & Patrick F. Collogan, OBA #30529 Biby Law Firm 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 918-574-8458 888-572-8263 (fax) pat@bibylaw.com & R. Ryan Deligans, OBA #19793 Andrew M. Gunn, OBA #19470 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102-2610 Telephone: (405)235-9584 Facsimile: (405)235-055 1 rdeligan@dlb.net agunn@dlb.net ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 14"}, {"d": 99, "p": 16, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of October, 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110.N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) emeneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com -andLance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS /s Blake Sonne"}, {"d": 99, "p": 17, "t": "West. Neil, et al. From: Sent: To: cc: BCC: Subject: Attachments: v. SFF&CC, et al. Kimberly Rose [/O=STATEFARM/OU=EAST/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=NVBV] 10/10/2023 2:56:56 PM Jordan Coad [jordan.coad.p3dv@statefarm.com); Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.iok2 @statefarm.com]); Scott Welsh [scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com) Bruce Aldrich [bruce.aldrich.coxm@statefarm.com]; Phani Aytam [phani.aytam.qik2@statefarm.com]}; john Christensen [john.christensen.ghu1@statefarm.com],; Wendy Hopping [wendy.hopping.cw2l@statefarm.com); Heather Burns [heather.burns.mbgy@statefarm.com); HOME CLMS-CA-EXEC-FIRE-RPT {home.clms-ca-exec-firerpt.243028@statefarm.com) Kimberly Rose [kimberty.rose.nv8v@statefarm.com); Jordan Coad [jordan.coad.p3dv@statefarm.com]; Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.tok2@statefarm.com]; Scott Welsh [scott.welsh.cx30@ statefarm.com]; Bruce Aldrich [bruce.aldrich.coxm@statefarm.com]; Phani Aytam [phani.aytam.qik2@statefarm.com]; John Christensen [john.christensen.ghu1 @statefarm.com] 10/9/2023 Meeting Recap - Quality Slide Decks Fix Profit Task Force Quality Claim Handling Draft.pptx; ORAFT Quality Early Monitoring Plan September 2023 Data FULL DECK_ 10.9 (002) - Read-Only.pptx Good morning! Thank you for providing input to simplify the suite of Quality Slide Decks to align them with your current needs during our call yesterday. We accomplished a lot in a small amount of time. As we wait for our Business Partners to provide data we need to finalize the decks (Reinspection Results and Financial data, Performance Teams NTHO PPTs), we have made the preliminary changes and attached draft | versions below for any input. HIGHLEVEL OVERVIEW: ° October will have 2 slide decks rather than the 5 we collectively created last month. . The Quality Early Monitoring Plan Slide Deck was condensed from 21 slides to 8. . The Sizing and Scoping has been deck paused for now. . The “Simplified Deck”, “Keating Quality Deck” and Average Estimate Value Deck were consolidated into one new deck named Fix Profit Task Force Deck” that will serve several meetings by adding and deleting slides as needed. ACTION: We have listed the changes made to the slide decks below. If this is not what you recall or if there are any additional changes needed, please let us know by noon, Thursday, October 12%. 1. - Ouatity Eurty Monttoring Piew Stite Beck | Kept 8/Deleted 13 slides. Slide 1-2 Kept - NTHO Severity Slides with Mark Holcomb’s comments in the notes. Slide 3: | . Took off Execution level control section, . Changed Target to Selection . One line per Finding Frequency. . Take off dash line but kept %s. . Removed selection % where applicable. EXHIBIT ° Take key strategies and match Fix Profit Task Force. 1 5 Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00020078 | | |"}, {"d": 99, "p": 18, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v SFF&CC, et al Slide 4: Keep. Removed glide path and baseline on graph. Slide 5: Keep. Changed footer to advise which states are reflected in months. Slide 6: Keep. Same modifications as slide 3. In the note section, added the % of Overturned calls to total Roof. Slide 7 and 8: Kept. Added baseline to title for clarity, UPDATED WITH SEPTEMBER DATA 2. Sizing and Scoping Slide Deck - Pausing 3. Simplified Slide Deck — will combine with other decks to create the Fix Profit Task Force Slide Deck. 4. Deck. Keating Quality Slide Deck - wil! combine with other decks to create the Fix Profit Task Force Slidc 5. Average Estimate Value Deck - will combine with other decks to creatc the Fix Profit Task Force Slide Deck. Fix Profit Task Force Slide Desk (NEW) ° Moving 5 of 6 slides from the Simplified Slide Deck . Moving 3 of 3 slides from the Keating Quality Slide Deck (Eventually replacing the first slide with a . Moving 3 of 3 slides from the Average Estimate Value deck. . Slide I: Placeholder for new slide focusing on opportunity - Estimatics opportunities — OSS will Partner ° Slide 2-3 unchanged from Keating Quality Slide Deck Slide 4-6 Quality Lcads summarics. When updated, Scott advised that any reference to “targets” need replaced with “selections”. . Slide 7-8 NTHO Monitoring and Attribution Summary . Slide 9-14 Appendix: NTHO Severity Monitoring and Avcrage Estimate Valuc - UPDATED SEPTEMBER WITH DATA Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00020079"}, {"d": 99, "p": 19, "t": "5/13/2025 Page HEARING OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF EXAMINING THE COURT DISASTER COLUMBIA, INSURANCE FOLLOWING LOCATION: ON AND MAY SENATE DIRKSEN REPORTER: CLAIMS NATURAL DATE: 13, AND PRACTICES DISASTERS 2025 BUILDING, Suzanna INDY DISTRICT CENSUS INDUSTRY'S RECENT MANAGEMENT, K. SD-342 Cable DEPOSITIONS LLC 8777 Purdue Road Suite 101 Indianapolis, IN 46268 (317) 450-6218 www.indydepositions.com Email: depositions@att.net Indy Depositions, (317) 450-6218 LLC 1"}, {"d": 99, "p": 20, "t": "5/13/2025 Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 Whereupon: SENATOR HAWLEY: Order. Today's hearing entitled examining the insurance industry's claims and practices following recent natural disasters. This is the first hearing of the subcommittee on disaster management, and | am delighted to work on Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 other end of the country in California, brutal wildfires have bummed entire communities to the ground. And these disasters have done more than cause property damage, though that is quite significant, they have done more than cause inconvenience, though that can be harrowing. They 7 this committee with my colleague, the ranking member, 7 have destroyed the lives of people. We're not 8 Senator Kim. 8 talking here about minor inconveniences. 9 10 11 12 13 14 This has been a great, a great start to 3 We're our, what I hope will be a great collaboration. And 1 want to say a special thank you to our witnesses who are in the room. We'll have a chance to hear from each of you in just a moment. I'm going to introduce each of you, give you the opportunity to make an opening statement, and then we'll have some 9 10 11 12 13 14 talking about moms who've had to haul five-gallon buckets of water because the pipes are gone. We're talking about grandparents who've had to sleep in their cars because their there's no roof over their heads. We're talking about families who are maxing out their credit cards because their insurance 15 rounds of questioning. Before we start that, let me 15 companies won't pay out any damage claims, and that's 16 17 just say a word about what brings us here and the significance of this hearing. In the last year 16 17 what brings us to today's hearing. Where do Americans turn after catastrophes like the ones we've 18 alone, disasters have devastated communities across 18 experienced just in the last calendar year? The 19 our country. In the State of Missouri, where I'm 19 answer is they turn to their insurance companies, and 20 from, tornadoes have ripped across the state, leaving 20 they don't tum to their insurance companies for a 21 thousands without power, leaving homes damaged, in 21 handout. 22 some cases leaving families without loved ones. 22 about. They tum to their insurance companies 23 Hurricanes Milton and Helene have cut a brutal path 23 because they pay premiums to those insurance 24 through the southeast, uprooting trees, destroying 24 companies. 25 roads, turning family lives into a nightmare. 25 required in law. Americans are required to purchase, On the Page This isn't charity that we're talking {t's a contract and, by the way, it’s 4 Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Property owners are required to purchase insurance, And so they do so dutifully in every state in the union and they pay their premiums dutifully in every state in the union, And unfortunately, time after time, they find when disaster strikes in their moment of utmost need, the insurance companies come back to them, and they delay, and they deny, and they offer excuses, and they serid out two adjusters and three adjusters and 15 adjusters and 25 adjusters, and they constantly change the estimates, and at the end of the day, they just won't pay what is due, what is required, what is just. And it’s not a one-off situation. It's not like it's happened to just one family. It is a deliberate strategy to maximize 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 change your estimates. You need to change what's in the report, and they adjust arbitrarily the award down, down, down, down, and the policyholder never knows. And the policyholder gets no say in the process, and the policyholder is left to try and put back together her life as these insurance companies take billions and billions of dollars in profits. We're going to hear about it for the witnesses who are here today. And I will just say that even before today's hearing, committee staff, my staff, working with Senator Kim, has done a thorough investigation that we will continue. We will be submitting into the record evidence today that we have gathered that will corroborate the testimony that you are about to 15 profits. We're going to hear about it today. We're 15 hear. This is a system that we're talking about 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to hear about it on this panel. Let me just give a brief overview of how it works. It goes something basically like this. When a disaster destroys, let's say, your home, the insurance companies send out an adjuster, often a third-party adjuster. That person writes up a report, often in good faith, doing their best to estimate the damages. And then what happens? Then the insurance company intervenes. Then the insurance company says you need to change the facts that you found. You need to 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 here. This is a system that promises homeowners that they are in good hands, that they will watch over them like a good neighbor, and after billions and billions of dollars in premiums are collected and pocketed by these insurance companies, the people who are left holding the bag are the policyholders, American citizens, at their moment of maximum despair. There's something wrong with that system. There needs to be some accountability, and we're going to do our best to start getting it today. With 2 Indy Depositions, (317) 450-6218 LLC (Pages 2 to 5)"}, {"d": 99, "p": 21, "t": "5/13/2025 Page 1 2 3 66 Page well from your experience? Did you feel like there were some that were abiding very differently and very much focused on the consumer, or do you feel like 1 2 3 you are taking when it comes to your career, your work, | just want you to know that's incredibly powerful to hear and it just lends added gravity to 4 this is a problem that you see across the industry no 4 your testimony, to your answers today. And | want 5 matter which insurance company that you are working 5 you to know, you know, this is not some just check 6 with? Mr. Schroeder? 7 8 3 MR. SCHROEDER: {[ would say | work for many different insurance companies. I kind of spread myself out that way for the purpose of getting 67 6 the box thing that the Chairman and I are engaged on. 7 You know, we want to make sure that we are invested 8 9 in the follow-up to make sure that it's worth the risk that you took. And to, you know, Ms. Migal, Mr. 10 different exposure and experience. And I do see this 10 Quinn, Mr. Vertel, you know, just the just hearing 11 as a systematic general consensus, a way, a standard 11 about the impact this has had on you all, your 12 13 for practice amongst all insurance companies. Some, though, are better than others. And, you know, 12 13 family, your kids. I just, you know, as a father of a 7-year-old and 9-year-old and hearing from families 14 there's a couple standouts that I would say are 14 across New Jersey that years later still, you know, 15 really fair and for the most part all the rest are in 15 they were saying that, I mean, you may very well 16 the same group of consistently denying, unfairly, 16 agree, but people I talked to in New Jersey, they're 17 claims that are where there's owed damage. 17 saying like the storm was in some ways the easier 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SENATOR KIM: Mr. Millikan, anything to add here? MR. MILLIKAN: No, sir, I've worked exclusively for Allstate for the most part, so 1 only can speak to that. SENATOR KIM: Okay, thank you. Well, look, 1 just want to say first ofall what you were saying, both Mr. Schroeder, Mr. Millikan, about the risk that 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 part, That was, you know, they thought that was going to be the worst of it. They didn’t expect all the, you know, and I'll exclude the words that people use, but all the other stuff that comes later. They didn't expect that that would be so damn difficult, and I just think that that's something | think the American people really need to understand. Like why is it that, you know, in your time of greatest need, Page 68 Page 1 not only are you not able to rely upon those that are 1 2 3 supposed to help you, but they're actually making things worse. And I just think that that's something 2 3 panel of the day. It is our practice, witnesses, as I said to the first panel, It's our practice in this 4 that just eats away. 4 committee and in the subcommittee to swear our 5 6 7 8 to hear your stories, and I'm sorry for what you all have gone through, and the fact that you're sharing it, it's for the betterment and hopefully we can save this to help fix and make it easier for other 5 6 7 a witnesses before we begin. So let me ask youto rise, and raise your right hand, and repeat after me, ifyou would. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and i) families in the future to be able to go through this. 10 | mean, it just hurts so much SENATOR HAWLEY: 9 SENATOR HAWLEY: We now will welcome our second nothing but the truth, so help you God? I want to thank all of the 10 11 12 13 witnesses for being here today on this panel. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for being willing to share with us your stories, your 11 12 13 SENATOR HAWLEY: Very good. And now we will hear from each of the witnesses in an opening starement, We'll start with Mr. Michael Keating 14 expertise, your knowledge of this industry. 14 Mr. Keating is the operations vice president at State 15 to say again, I'm sorry for what you've had to go 15 Farm. Mr. Keating, floor is yours. 16 through. 16 17 Vertel. And we'll continue to do everything we can 17 Chairman Hawley, Ranking Member Kim, distinguished 18 on this committee to get the facts, and you've helped 18 membess of the subcommittee, thank you for the 19 us a lot with that today, and to get some 19 invitation to appear before you today. | appreciate 20 accountability. 20 the subcommittee's interest in insurance claim 21 22 23 break here, and the Committee will stand in recess while we change the panels, and we will reconvene in about five minutes, subject to the Call of the Chair. 21 22 23 handling, and 1am grateful for the opportunity to provide insight regarding State Farm's approach to helping our policyholders after disaster strikes. 24 But before I begin my formal statement, | do want to. 25 address the difficult situation I heard with Mr. Particularly you, Ms. Migal. 1 want You, Mr. We're going to take a five-minute 24 HEARING 25 HEARING RECONVENED RECESSED ALL WITNESSES PRESENT ANSWER AUDIBLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE MR. KEATING: -- do that, My apologies. 18 Indy Depositions, (317) 69 450-6218 LLC (Pages 66 to 69)"}, {"d": 99, "p": 22, "t": "5/13/2025 Page 70 Page 71 1 Vertel's testimony. State Farm is made up of 66,000 1 Claim Representative. Currently, I serve in the role 2 employees, and we're human-beings. 2 of Operations Vice President where I help lead State 3 4 I listened to Mr. Vertel's testimony and it, quite frankly, was difficult to hear, We made mistakes in 3 4 Farms’ claim process. How I work and howI lead my team are direct reflections on those experiences over 5 the handling of this claim Asa 30-year employee of 5 three decades and the values of customer service 6 7 8 9 this company, I know the actions did not reflect the values of State Farm On behalf of State Farm, I want to sincerely apologize to Mr. And Mrs. Vertel, their famity and, again, we're not satisfied with how 6 7 8 9 integrity. They are what we hold dear at State Farm. From my first day at State Farm, I've had the privilege of helping people put their lives back together after the unexpected. It has shaped my role 10 this claim was handled, and we're going to work hard 10 and howI lead others to fulfill State Farm's 11 12 13 with them and are already working hard with them to get this resolved. And if] may, I'd like to acknowledge Mr. Vertel. So, I'll continue. State 11 12 13 commitment to our policyholders to ensure that we pay policyholders what we owe under the terms of their policy promptly, courteously, and efficiently. Our We make mistakes. 14 Farm is the largest provider of personal home and 14 commitment to our policyholders navigate some of the 15 auto insurance in the United States. Headquartered 15 most difficult moments of their lives. That is 16 in Bloomington, Illinois, our mission for over 100 16 especially critical in light of the recent 17 years has been to help our policyholders manage the 17 devastation caused by natural disasters across the 18 risk of everyday life and recover from the 18 country. 19 unexpected. As a mutual insurance company, State 19 families and communities impacted by these events. 20 Farm operates for the benefit of our policyholders. 20 At State Farm, our policyholders are also often our 21 State Farm has no shareholders seeking a quarterly 21 neighbors, and as the largest claims force in the 22 23 Teturm, So our organization is able to focus on the long-term interests of our policyholder group as a 22 23 industry, we take seriously our role to help communities recover and rebuild. In the Southeast, We share the subcommittee's concern for the 24 whole and deliver on the promises we make to them I 24 damage from Hurricanes Helene and Milton resulted in 25 joined State Farm nearly 32 years ago as a Homeowners 25 approximately 129,600 property claims, and State Farm Page 72 Page 1 has already paid out nearly $1.28 billion under those 1 when a claim is particularly complex or requires 2 claims. 2 special expertise, we may use engineers to help us 3 received one or more policyholder complaints. In 3 resolve it, In such cases, we require that engineers 4 California, as of May 6th of this year, State Farm 4 are appropriately licensed, mdependent and objective Of these claims, less than | percent have 5 Companies have handled approximately 12,600 wildfire- 5 and base their analysis on facts. So thank you again 6 related claims and have paid out more than $3.4 6 to the subcommittee for havingme here today, and 1 7 billion. In the wake of these natural disasters, 7 do look forward to answering your questions. 8 State Farm is hard at work on the ground so 8 9 policyholders can return to their communities and to 9 SENATOR HAWLEY: Thank you very much. Our next witness is Mike Fiato of Allstate. Mr. Fiato is the 10 their homes. To put this into further context, State 10 Executive Vice President and Chief Claims Officer of 11 Farm receives approximately 30,000 claims every li the Allstate Corporation. 12 single day, and we understand behind every claimis a 12 yours. 13 person, a family, or a small business, who needs our 13 14 help. No two disasters are the same and each claim 14 Mr. Fiato, the floor is MR. FIATO: Chairman Hawley, Ranking Member Kim, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 15 is different, just as each individual submitting that 18 inviting Allstate to share how we help customers 16 claim is different. 16 recover when disaster strikes. My name is Mike Our goel in claims handling is 17 to understand the scope of the damage, identify the 17 Fiato. | am the Executive Vice President for Claims 18 cause, and determine what we may owe. This is how 18 at Allstate, leading a team of 23,000 claims 19 T've instructed my teams to approach claims. Listen 19 professionals, who help customers when they have 20 carefully, show empathy, investigate thoroughly, and 20 fender benders or when their home burns to the 21 pay what is owed under the terms of the policy. Now, 21 ground. 22 we try to respond to most of the claims handling work 22 ago after having spent more than three decades 23 ourselves, but sometimes we need to work with 23 leading claims organizations at several other leading 24 external independent adjusters to help us process a 24 insurers. [n my opinion, Allstate is among the 25 large volume of claims in a timely way. 25 finest in the industry and is exceptional when it Similarly, I joined Allstate about a year and a half 19 Indy 73 LLC Depositions, (317) 450-6218 (Pages 70 to 73)"}, {"d": 99, "p": 23, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HUROG006500"}, {"d": 99, "p": 24, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HUROO0006501"}, {"d": 99, "p": 25, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HUROO0006502"}, {"d": 99, "p": 26, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al 4 Confidentia! Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HURO0020128"}, {"d": 99, "p": 27, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HUR00020129"}, {"d": 99, "p": 28, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al EXHIBIT <) Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HUR00024239"}, {"d": 99, "p": 29, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HUR00024240"}, {"d": 99, "p": 30, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HUROO114011"}, {"d": 99, "p": 31, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HURO01 14012"}, {"d": 99, "p": 32, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HURO0114013"}, {"d": 99, "p": 33, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Hosier, Gary, ef al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Fire Model Enhancement — Water & Wind/Hail && State Farm CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER HOSIERGAROO74406PROD_Exh. 13 WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000121"}, {"d": 99, "p": 34, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFFACC, at al. Water - Overview Enterprise New Items Scaled - Skill Development - Estimatics - Reconciliation Begar Der - Frontend handling - Targeted Management Reviews - Cabinet and Wood Flooring Focus |- Skitts Review and Development |- Updated QFC | Template - Estimatics Resource Guide T hy ert rere ite 08 28 Cree emi ne ny ns mena en ae em wm mare CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER lieratior Ant 2 HOSIERGARO074406PROD.0001_ Exh. 13 WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000122"}, {"d": 99, "p": 35, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Water — Next Steps Lessons Learned o Coverage and Scope opportunities o Timing of Management Reviews Additional Testing in Progress o SFPSP with HO-6 Claims o Estimatics and Reconciliation strategies with Fire Proximity Future Updates/Deliverables o Florida Vendor Test o & Increase and Enhancements to Accelerated Management Reviews rare ome van oa an a ee CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 3 HOSIERGAR0074408PROD.0002_Exh. 13 WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000123"}, {"d": 99, "p": 36, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFFACC, et at. Water — Measurements Accelerated Management Reviews Fire Water Coverage we Tasks mTasks Worked 3 = 1593 - DEC. JAN 5LG. MAR. AFR. MAY. a ay Pal ray at saa 1163 x 145) z 497 nas OE 1227 2 te MAY. 20 JUN20 a 3 it JUL. 20 AUG. 20 SEOT 2020 OCT«20 ‘note, Merch end Aprit 2021 figures approximate a rere tame set nae | CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 4 HOSIERGAR0074406PROD.0003_Exh. 13 WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000124"}, {"d": 99, "p": 37, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Wind/Hail — Initial Analysis & Prioritized Tactics “+ Claim Handling ; Hygiene Wad Small Hail (< 1°) & Light Wind (2 50 mph} : Hall — i BASEN woclnteerans gece tonto aw deen RR ‘Unneceseay Fact = em oe ‘5 Fall Raat Reayiacoment (FREQ on Sevedty 3 Mal RUSTY 510% 90% 510% © tate Acietyete: Bil Wes, J ate Laden (08 eal in Og IT + an: Anas ef S-yor ta vealed Fa wase pu of 7% cues fe Svesy 9 Wied ant 00% Sgunnry fr Sova » Early Team OU Grane ee esas TLE FH: Had Em Soper Sealey a he lly epee yap 8 or invol ve ment On DeTNAt ATATE rae UO cme Fw by Dae meneame aaa ae mete CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER HOSIERGARO074408PROD.0004_Exh. 13 WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000125"}, {"d": 99, "p": 38, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary. et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Wind/Hail — Playbook Fundamentals * Roof Sktie Review ‘ « TM reviews on toot replacement 2 so mph and Age + HAAG Refresher + Wind aeons Overview ese ;« Aitof the . Fire Data Accuracy Live Plays at Condition Calibration * Age & Condition reviews in all states * ITEL, vendor eohtion shingle Enhanced emphasis avelabiity gion Eagle Beer View Connect ** Use of Sxruchred | adoption Phrases to measure ' + Policy Endorsement * Weekly Monitoring & , Surveying * Targeted Reinspections CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER HOSIERGAR0074406PROD.0005_Exh. 13 WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000126"}, {"d": 99, "p": 39, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Wind/Hail - February 2021 vs June 2021 AccuWeather QFc +60. Phrase Usage % oe Documented (2.3%' 18.7% —\" poy Scope Sheet X Documented% aa 19.5%; er ‘vag? > Full Root Replace TM Review - Approval T@ wee Om Wed es | apt Wires Onty Comored at Onty 80.9% 73.8% 54.8% |) aD | | | | | 427%' 45.8%| 49.3% Bu, ome = Lvw Hon Seren ATATE rates me Ona Sere Had Ory dha a = he | aie ain ee = | any oat CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER HOSIERGAR0074406PROD.0008_Exh. 13 WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000127"}, {"d": 99, "p": 40, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Wind/Hail Total Roof to Partial Roof Replacement Ratio hore EY Cemetery tau Nn Arena Monte BHCC te ate il em rateg RN rag Corot Fate pe Laem LNA Leney Le hens HA ne ng 5 TIA Peet Carts © TR a (Aon ru BATE Y6fet va Oba Y Coeur trains A Oy tbe am ms a Fre re EAR CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER HOSIERGARO074406PROD.0007_Exh. 13 WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000128"}, {"d": 99, "p": 41, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, etal. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFF&CC, ot al. Wind/Hail — Continuous Improvement + Wind/hall perd NPI increased +61.496 (+45.3%) YOY yet Gecreased -$74.0M {-1.5%) in the past three months. Jurisdictions wath YOY increases graater than +$90M were Lousiana, lows, Alabema, Texas, anc Georgia: Colorado. noad the largest (-$110.9M) \"1 yet increased counts decreased YOY (-16,108 )} in the past three montha (+6.212) Total Homeowners OA Weir Corey aid ss00 + $300.0 ad too ones see? 1002 nee s1e86 sae sisa8 STATE Nan Ut Ome *Our quality focus and claim handling are guided by and in support of Our Commitment to Our Policyholders Wind/Hail Peril (including Catastrophe) Trends by Jurisdiction 7% 2% ae Ts, Orel et eo 1 a AK oon ee \"28m oreon. 405 zw Ore 4038 132% ee ee ay yo ce et CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER HOSIERGAR0074406PROD.0008_Exh. 13 WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000129"}, {"d": 99, "p": 42, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et ai. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Wind/Hail — Law of Recency f iL HYPOTHE Sts Wind ee Hail Unnecessary tepecomer nha Mi IRC BASELINE Fall Roe! Replecemont FRAY on Sev 9 Fa INPUNERY 63% 540% 90% 5.10% BEAT darnages (1° hall or emailer) + Duta Set Anatyode: Tones, Al Winppeh Lonege (Cat ead Moe-Caly 2017-2010 * Sein, Ara tyr tii PO win fe 0 sit Seyi ‘Seat alanis t loge mic, fe ely 89, in i ial epi i ny presi Om SOTO \" id si aia en bias han LATE Fora 08 Oot Cartare man Poy he Md sen ht tn cent groan gp igo. sete «npc ras Ite Fer vane meter CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER HOSIERGAR0074406PROD.0009_Exh. 13 WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000130"}, {"d": 99, "p": 43, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Questions? CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER HOSIERGAR0074408PROD.0010_Exh. 13 WEST-RFP44- Sub, Prod.000131"}, {"d": 99, "p": 44, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HURO0020434"}, {"d": 99, "p": 45, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HURO00131597"}, {"d": 99, "p": 46, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HURO0131598"}, {"d": 99, "p": 47, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HURO0165534"}, {"d": 99, "p": 48, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HUR00330807"}, {"d": 99, "p": 49, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HUR00330808"}, {"d": 99, "p": 50, "t": "Hursh, Billy, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HURO0034118"}, {"d": 100, "p": 1, "t": "FILED IN DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY ~ NRENNBN OCT -2 202 ISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA 107 BILLY & LACY HURSH, RICK 026 COURT epee Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CJ-2025-2626 STATE FARM FIRE AND Honorable Amy Palumbo CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK OD. INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., WELTY Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(2), 51 O.S. §§ 24A.29 and 24A.30, Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh, respectfully submit their Application for Leave to file an unredacted copy of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Re-Production of Electronically Stored Information in the Form Defendant State Farm Elected, and Brief in Support, under seal. In support of this Application, Plaintiffs state: 1. Plaintiffs seek to file their Motion and confidential exhibits thereto under seal. Plaintiffs’ Motion relies upon and references documents regarding the Defendants’ discovery production. 2. Plaintiffs’ request leave to file under seal an unredacted copy of their Motion with a confidential Exhibits. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh, respectfully request the Court enter an order granting Plaintiffs’ permission to file under seal an unredacted copy of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Re-Production of Electronically Stored Information in the , ee"}, {"d": 100, "p": 2, "t": "Form Defendant State Farm Elected, and Brief in Support, in support of their Motion. A proposed order will be submitted herewith. Respectfully submitted, Bhike Sonne Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 Whitten Burrage 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com -and- Patrick F. Collogan, OBA #30529 Biby Law Firm 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 918-574-8458 888-572-8263 (fax) pat@bibylaw.com -and- R. Ryan Deligans, OBA #19793 Andrew M. Gunn, OBA #19470 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102-2610 Telephone: (405)235-9584 Facsimile: (405)235-0551 rdeligan@dlb.net agunn@dlb.net ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS"}, {"d": 100, "p": 3, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 2, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was delivered, via hand-delivery to all counsel of record for Defendants. Carrie McNeer Lance Leffel Grant A. Fitz Ashlyn M. Smith GableGotwals GableGotwals 110N. Elgin Ave., Ste. 200 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Ste. 2200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 cmcneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com asmith@gablelaw.com Blake Sonne"}, {"d": 101, "p": 1, "t": "22% HUORUWMITL ss cecomronemtanmacanns FILED IN DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA C/*'INTY v. Case No. CJ-2025-2626 STATE FARM FIRE AND Honorable Amy Palumbo CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO F This matter having come on for consideration this Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh, Application for Leave to File Under Seal and the Court having reviewed said Application, finds that good cause exists therefore. 12 O.S. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED § 3226(C)(2), §§ 24A.29 and 24A.30, the Court hereby determines that it is 51 O.S. AND DECREED that pursuant to necessary in the interests of justice to permit the filing of the requested materials under seal to prevent the materials from being public record. Plaintiffs shall be and hereby are granted leave to file an unredacted copy of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Re-Production of Electronically Stored Information in the Form Defendant State Farm Elected, and Brief in Support,, thereto under seal, and they shall remain confidential until further order of the Court. Plaintiffs are ordered to place the protected material in a sealed manila envelope clearly marked with the caption and case number and clearly marked with the word” CONFIDENTIAL” and stating the date the Order was entered and the name of the Judge entering the Order. A redacted version of the same filing may be filed publicly in this matter."}, {"d": 101, "p": 2, "t": "IT IS SO ORDERED! ODGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVED AS TO FORM: Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 Whitten Burrage 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs"}, {"d": 102, "p": 1, "t": "STONE 69071% they are not relevant to the issues in Plaintiffs’ claims or this lawsuit. Despite the lack of relevance and proportionality, upon entry of an approved protective order, State Farm will produce OG 75-160, which describes the small subset of wind/hail claims under specific low recommendations intensity weather is required. Any conditions additional managerial in which production of information review of total roof in response to the Managerial Approval Requests is neither relevant nor proportional. G. State Farm’s Enterprise Rules (RFP 25) Plaintiffs’ actual RFP No. 25 seeks documents “memorializing any enterprise-wide rule ... regarding the need for any managerial approval of full roof replacements on wind/hail claims,” which is addressed in Section II(F) above. Plaintiffs’ Motion, however, seeks an entirely different category of information under this request relating to personal and program rules—features within XactAnalysis, a third-party reporting software related to the platform State Farm uses to assist its adjusters in estimating covered payments for covered damage. Mot. at 13-14. Tellingly, however, the Petition is devoid of any reference to Xactimate or software “rules” State Farm allegedly uses to contro! adjuster behavior. This alone requires denying the Motion relating to RFP No. 25. While State Farm is willing to provide information on any personal rules (described below) that were triggered in the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim, logic alone dictates that rules beyond those actually triggered cannot be relevant. See City Nat. Bank, 1990 OK CIV APP 89, § 18, 804 P.2d 463. Personal and program rules are specific features available in XactAnalysis. Managerial level employees can create “personal rules” that “set up notifications to inform [users] when events occur within a specified dataset and category.”'* Personal rules that were created but not “triggered” for Plaintiffs’ claims are not relevant because the triggering event(s) did not occur. '4 XactAnalysis, Personal Rules Notifications, https://xactanalysis.helpdocs.io/l/enGB/article/r466mg37b2-personalrule-notifications-en-gb. 14"}, {"d": 102, "p": 2, "t": "Further, State Farm does not track personal rules that were created but not triggered, so producing a witness to testify regarding this topic would not only be unduly burdensome and disproportionate ons related to to the needs of the case, but also fruitless.'5 In contrast, program rules are notificati to claim assignments and service providers, which allow administrators “to set up notifications its diligent inform [them] of issues with service providers and internal programs.”'® Based on not have investigation to date, State Farm does not and has not used program rules and, thus, does State any information or documents responsive to RFP No. 25 on program rules. In any event, Farm has no capability to provide a report of all options for program rules in XactAnalysis. Moreover, even if State Farm could create a document listing all personal or program also rules—which it cannot—compelling it to do so is contrary to not only Oklahoma case law, but not a bedrock principle of discovery that parties have no obligation to create documents that do a exist in the normal course of business. As numerous courts in this state have explained, “[i]f Hahn y. Ohio responsive document truly does not exist, [a party] has no obligation to create one.” 27, 2023); Sec. Ins. Co., No. 22-CV-00369-GKF-SH, 2023 WL 4824919, at *4 (N.D. Okla. July see also Terry v. Health Care Serv. Corp., No. CIV-18-0415-C, 2019 WL 1781420, at *4 (W.D. does Okla. Apr. 23, 2019) (“Indeed, the Court cannot compe! Plaintiffs to produce information that not exist or that is not in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control.”).'7 H. Quality Plans (RFPs 26, 32, and 41) of Plaintiffs’ REPs Nos. 26, 32, and 41 (the “Quality Plans Requests”) seek 6 years’ worth historically created, whether '5 State Farm cannot produce a report of all personal rules that State Farm users have ns of selections from dropcombinatio specific are themselves those Rules were triggered or untriggered. The rules rule. a create simply they when ns notificatio receive not down menus, and users do -programrticle/t| p5bmSg4m '6 XactAnalysis, Program Rules Notifications, https://xactanalysis.helpdocs.io//enUS/a rule-notifications. 789140, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 24, 7 Bridgeway Church, Inc. v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., No. CIV-14-234-D, 2015 WL No. CIV-15-13782015) (“The Court cannot compel production of a report that does not exist.”); Hugler v, Maranto, D, 2017 WL 1380615, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 17, 2017) (same). 15"}, {"d": 102, "p": 3, "t": "’ claims were documents completely unrelated to the Quality Plan in effect at the time Plaintiffs Plan that was in determined. State Farm is willing to produce a State Farm’s Fire Property Quality any State effect on the dates of losses, upon entry of an approved protective order; but, simply put, nted after Farm plan that was either obsolete before Plaintiffs’ claims were processed, or impleme ’ claims. As such, the the claims were resolved, is irrelevant to how State Farm handled Plaintiffs of this case in Quality Plan Requests are overbroad, irrelevant, and disproportionate to the needs contravention of 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1)(a), and do not warrant a compelling order. 1 Indemnity Requests (Rogs 11, 12, 14, 20, 21, 24-27; RFPs 7, 13, 16-20, 28) to alleged The requests encompass a range of broad and vaguely defined subjects related efforts by State Farm to implement a “scheme” aimed at reducing indemnity payments on Analyses,” data wind/hail claims. Mot. at 15. Plaintiffs seek information concerning “Cost/Benefit tracking, and other analyses that State Farm purportedly conducted, either in Oklahoma or of wind-and/or nationwide, from 2010 or 2019 to the present, regarding (a) adjustment or handling hailstorm claims; hailstorm claims (b) use of engineering services, including Haag, in wind-and/or s also and (c) targeting full roof replacements related to wind-and/or hailstorm claims. Plaintiff ent percentages, seek information regarding State Farm’s purported tracking of full roof replacem Roof Payment total to partial roof replacement ratios, and other ill-defined metrics such as “Total Requests”). volumes” on all wind/hail claims in Oklahoma since 2019 (the “Indemnity shows that In support, Plaintiffs misleadingly reference a 13-year-old document they allege ly paying State Farm is engaged in a scheme to improperly lower indemnity payments by knowing this document less than is owed on claims. But Plaintiffs’ counsel is aware from prior litigation that has nothing to do with claims handling or indemnity payments. As State Farm has repeatedly this memo in explained (and as the produced metadata confirms), Analyst Gina Prine authored March 2012 while in Claim Automation & Procedures, addressing possible acquisition and 16"}, {"d": 102, "p": 4, "t": "adjustment expense savings tied to purchasing Xactware’s Service Pack 27.5 (for collecting roof (Ex. 2, Oct. 5, 2023, L. Leffel Ltr. at dimensions), a product State Farm ultimately did not adopt. 2). Plaintiffs’ counsel is also aware of deposition testimony where State Farm Team Manager Jacqueline Draper, after familiarizing herself with the document, explained that the document discusses “adjustment expenses. These are not true indemnity,” and that “indemnity, in the true nature, is policyholder payments ... none of them reference anything to do with the policyholder payment.” (Ex. 3, Tr. of Deposition of J. Draper, Hosier v. State Farm, at 395:6-22). Yet Plaintiffs continually attempt to mislead courts, including this Court, by knowingly mischaracterizing this document as evidence of a scheme to improperly lower indemnity payments. Setting aside that State Farm never attempts to improperly withhold payments owed to insureds and never incentivizes employees to do so, and that there is nothing wrong with improving quality to avoid overpayments, Plaintiffs’ speculative, cookie-cutter purported “scheme” do not justify discovery into company allegations regarding a policies or “tracking” of total roof replacements nationwide for a period of 6 to 15 years. Willis, 2021 WL 8446071, at *2; Ross, 2015 WL 13622518, at *1. Indeed, “[mJere speculation that information might be useful will not suffice; litigants seeking to compel discovery must describe with a reasonable degree of specificity, the information they hope to obtain and its importance to their case.” Schultz v. Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd. Time, No. 4:15-CV-04160-LLP, 2016 WL 3149686, at *3 (D.S.D. June 3, 2016), citing Cervantes v. Inc., 464 F.2d 986, 994 (8th Cir. 1972). Here, Plaintiffs have not explained Aow the Indemnity Requests relate to State Farm’s conduct on their claims, and nothing in the facts they plead demonstrates any such connection. This is fatal to their requests. Nor have Plaintiffs explained how their broad requests for metrics regarding total or partial roof replacements and nationwide “tracking” of total roof payment 17"}, {"d": 102, "p": 5, "t": "case, or the volumes and ratios, would shed light on Defendants’ purported wrongdoings in this analyses alleged “scheme” that purportedly led to the claim decision they challenge. Finally, any above, relating to State Farm’s use of engineering services cannot be relevant because, as explained State Farm did not use any engineering services to assess Plaintiffs’ claims. Other Claims Requests (Rogs 3, 22, and 23) J. Plaintiffs Information related to other claims has no connection to the alleged harm across the state of suffered. Yet, Plaintiffs insist that State Farm identify, for the past 6 years which a total roof Oklahoma: (a) every wind and hail claim, and all corresponding civil cases, in (b) the number of replacement was denied but later approved after the filing of a lawsuit; and to the roof's homeowners’ wind/hail claims in which State Farm determined that damage occurred or found that there soft metals, yet the cost to repair the damages did not exceed the deductible Requests”). was not enough damage to justify a total roof replacement (the “Other Claims explained This case involves only Plaintiffs’ claims with State Farm. Plaintiffs have not (nor can they explain) how other claims involving different policies, coverages, terms, to the issues in this case. endorsements, and individuals, as well as different properties, are relevant s argue the requested See City Nat. Bank, 1990 OK C1V APP 89, § 18, 804 P.2d 463. While Plaintiff hing allegations— discovery relates to the “scheme” they alleged in the Petition, such far-reac discovery here which they have copied in identical fashion in every case—do not justify broad Plaintiffs’ claims. absent a logical, coherent showing that a purported scheme had an impact on citing Cervantes, Plaintiffs have not made such a showing. See Schultz, 2016 WL 3149686, at *3, claims has any 464 F.2d at 994. (8th Cir. 1972). Even if information regarding other insureds’ do not match relevance to this case, the specific categories of claims in the Other Claims Requests d. the alleged facts of this specific case where a total roof replacement was not warrante 18"}, {"d": 102, "p": 6, "t": "Productions in Other Lawsuits (RFP 44) K. ma In perhaps the most far-reaching and egregious attempt to end-run around the Oklaho Discovery Code, produced—or Plaintiffs demand that State Farm a court ordered it produce—in produce every six separate unrelated document it previously lawsuits their counsel ory fashion that previously initiated against State Farm. (RF P No. 44). Plaintiffs argue in a conclus ing the same the arguments raised and findings made in those unrelated cases warrant compell r request for discovery here, Mot. at 17-19, but RFP No. 44 is nothing more than an imprope in another matter “cloned discovery,” which courts disfavor. “[A]sking for all documents produced 53, 2020 WL is not generally proper.” TravelPass Grp., LLC v. Caesars Ent. Corp., No. 18-CV-1 duplicates of 698538, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2020) (Holding that a request for “wholesale is improper, as discovery produced in other litigation” merely due to “overlap between the issues” it fails to satisfy the relevance requirement.); citing Goro v. Flowers Foods, Inc., No. 17-CV- must make direct 02580-JLS-JLB, 2019 WL 6252499, at *18 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2019). Plaintiffs similarities with requests that specifically identify the categories of documents sought, and any from the other other cases are not enough to require a carte blanche production of all documents , 2011 WL 3438491, at *3 cases. King County v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., No. C10-1156-RSM d or received (W.D. Wash. Aug. 5, 2011) (“*Cloned discovery,’ requesting all documents produce that particular during other litigation or investigations, is irrelevant and immaterial unless the fact of the subject documents were produced or received by a party is relevant to the subject matter 690-C-Y/G, 2000 WL case.” (quoting Midwest Gas Servs., Inc. v. Indiana Gas Co., No. 1P99-0 and Goro: 760700, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 7, 2000)). As explained in TravelPass Grp., LLC, If relevant and proportional documents exist in the custody or control of the responding party, the appropriate thing to do is to request those documents. The fact that the documents were or were not produced in other litigation is irrelevant. Moreover, compelling a responding party to do duplicate searches—one for responsive 19"}, {"d": 102, "p": 7, "t": "documents in their custody and control and one for all documents in their custody and contro! that were previously produced in other litigation—is definitionally unduly burdensome, as it would consume resources without providing any additional benefit to the propounding party. Jd. its overbreadth, from Aside and irrelevance, disproportionality, No. RFP also 44 arise from distinct improperly seeks documents related to the claims of other insureds—claims that not put their claims, or any facts, circumstances, and policies, and pertain to individuals who have . Moreover, personal, sensitive information about their homes and policies, at issue in this litigation d the disclosure RFP No. 44 represents a disguised attempt to bypass protective orders that safeguar ents applicable to of confidential information in other cases and ignores the relevance requirem each separate lawsuit. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel regarding RFP No. 44 should be denied. State Farm’s Objections Are Proper L. the court’s In their final argument—which causes Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel to exceed ns are improper, page limitations by three pages—Plaintiffs contend that State Farm’s objectio Mot. at 19-23. But confusing, and repetitive “boilerplate” objections that allegedly lack merit. most of the Plaintiffs’ repetitive objections are not prohibited, particularly in this case, where are requests clearly objectionable, characterization of State Farm’s and often objections for the same reasons. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ as a purported attempt to obstruct discovery is ns and the governing unfounded and ignores both the legitimate concerns underlying those objectio principles of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. As explained in this Response, State Farm’s y remains within the objections are properly asserted to preserve its rights and ensure that discover bounds of relevance, proportionality, and clarity required by law. Ill. CONCLUSION ’ Motion to WHEREFORE, State Farm respectively requests that this Court deny Plaintiffs Compel in its entirety. 20"}, {"d": 102, "p": 8, "t": "Respectfully submitted, Fee Fe= e Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 Fax leffel@gablelaw.com -and- Carrie B. McNeer, OBA No. 22235 Lacy B. Williamson, OBA No. 34004 GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 Fax cmcneer@gablelaw.com lwilliamson@gablelaw.com Attorneys for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 21"}, {"d": 102, "p": 9, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING copy of the above I do hereby certify that on October 23, 2025, a true, correct and exact proper postage with mail, States and foregoing document was served by placing same in the United thereon duly prepaid, to those parties as listed below: Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE Patrick F. Collogan, OBA No. 30529 BIBY LAW FIRM 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 Phone: 918-874-8458 Fax: 888-572-8263 pat@bibylaw.com 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: 405-516-7800 Fax: 405-516-7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff ed. 8 So Gar 22"}, {"d": 102, "p": 11, "t": "8 @# IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, COUNTY ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vv. ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, MARK D. WELTY, and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) Case No. CJ-2025-2626 ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm” or “Defendant”) submits the following answers and responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Discovery Requests. T ENE! Ss State Farm's Responses are based on information and documentation presently available to State Farm, and include only that information which State Farm currently understands to be material. State Farm anticipates that further investigation, research, and analysis will supply additional facts and documents, add meaning to known facts, and perhaps establish new factual conclusions, all of which may in turn lead to additions or changes to these Responses. Accordingly, State Farm reserves the right to amend these Responses as additional facts are ascertained, analyses are made, research is completed, and contentions become apparent. In addition, State Farm will fulfill its obligation to supplement these Responses pursuant to the Oklahoma Discovery Code. I TO PL Ss Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Address/Telepbone Number.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ request for “both the current business and residential address and telephone number” of natural persons on the grounds that such information constitutes personally identifiable"}, {"d": 102, "p": 12, "t": "# information sought in violation of those individuals’ right to privacy. The business addresses and business telephone numbers of natural persons is sufficient to identify and contact potential witnesses. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Claim.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim.” State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth the Oklahoma Discovery Code and seeks discovery regarding “all requests for indemnity to (State Farm].” State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Claim File.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “claim,” “document(s),” and “communication(s)” and applies each to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim file.” State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim file” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Okiahoma Discovery Code and seeks discovery regarding any “claim for indemnity under a policy of insurance coverage [State Farm has] issued.” In addition, State Farm objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. State Farm further states that it does not maintain a physical file folder with respect to most claims. Information regarding Plaintiffs’ Claim is created, stored, managed, and accessed primarily in and through the Enterprise Claims System (“ECS”), a proprietary web-based system used by State Farm claims associates. “Claim File” has a distinct meaning to State Farm based upon the portion of its Claim Procedures Guide that provides instructions on what to retrieve from ECS to generate a Claim File for"}, {"d": 102, "p": 13, "t": "g ? production outside the ECS environment. State Farm maintains the information for each claim as required by 36 Okla. Stat. § 1250.4 (“Such files shall contain all notes and work papers pertaining to a claim in such detail that pertinent events and the dates of such events can be reconstructed.”). Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—*Claims Handling Personnel.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claim” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “claims handling personnel.” In addition, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition as vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “performing work or services related to,” “receipt,” “response,” “adjustment,” “appraisal,” and “handling of formal and informal disputes.” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Communication(s).” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “communication(s).” State Farm objects to the inclusion of “oral” exchanges in Plaintiffs’ definition of “communication(s)” on the grounds that the Oklahoma Discovery Code does not require State Farm to produce “communications” that do not already exist on a medium from which information can be obtained. State Farm also objects to the inclusion of text or instant messaging system(s) and social media platform(s) in Plaintiffs’ definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to produce such materials, which are not captured by State Farm in its ordinary course of business. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Custodian(s).” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “custodian(s).” Objection and Response to Plaintiffs’ Definition —“Document(s).” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “communication(s)\" and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of document(s). Additionally, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of"}, {"d": 102, "p": 14, "t": "$ ° “document(s)” on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and to the extent Plaintiffs seek production of all identical copies of ESI. ESI is frequently duplicated and disbursed in the ordinary course of business, and discovery regarding all identical copies of ESI would be cumulative, duplicative, and impose unnecessary burdens without any benefit to the adjudication of this action. State Farm also objects to the extent that Plaintiffs seek production of ESI from sources that are not reasonably accessible, as such discovery would require extraordinary efforts that are not proportional to the scope of the matter. State Farm also objects to the extent this definition seeks discovery regarding ESI that is ephemeral in nature, such as temporary computer files, log/history files, or file fragments, as the preservation and production of such things is not proportional to the needs of the case. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and beyond the scope of permissible discovery to the extent Plaintiffs purport to include system information not created by State Farm users, such as caches, cookies, or logs, or otherwise seek to require State Farm to record and/or provide discovery regarding records and information that are not ordinarily captured and/or are overwritten in the ordinary course of operating State Farm’s computing systems. State Farm objects to the inclusion of “every copy” in Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” on the grounds that copies are not universally relevant to the claims and defenses of a case and are likely to be cumulative or duplicative. To the extent that a copy is not a business record stored in a central repository in State Farm’s ordinary course of business, discovery regarding “every copy” would not be proportional to the needs of the case. Finally, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s” to the extent it would require the production or disclosure of information protected from discovery by the attomey-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or other privileges recognized by law. Notwithstanding these"}, {"d": 102, "p": 15, "t": "objections, to the extent any responsive documents or ESI are produced, State Farm will produce reasonably accessible, relevant, non-privileged information in reasonably usable formats as set forth in State Farm’s objections to the ESI Protocol. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Employee.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “employee(s)” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code and seeks discovery from “all employees, past and present.” State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Engineering Services.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Engineering Services” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. In addition, State Farm objects to this definition as vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “any of which embraces such services or work.” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to a corporation. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” when used in reference to a “corporation, firm, or other entity” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide."}, {"d": 102, "p": 16, "t": "s 8=—s oP Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to a meeting or conference. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition o: “identify” or “identification” to the extent it seeks information about “meeting[s] or conference[s]” that is overly broad and not relevant to the claims and defenses of any party. State Farm further objects to the definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to provide such detailed information for all “meeting[s] or conference{s].” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to a telephonic conversation. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” to the extent it seeks information about “telephone communication[s]” that is overly broad and not relevant to the claims and defenses of any party. State Farm further objects to the definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to provide such detailed information for all discoverable “telephone communication{s).” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to a “writing.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” when used in reference to a “writing.” State Farm further objects that while capitalized, “Writing” is not separately defined in Plaintiffs’ First Set of Discovery Requests. In addition, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” with respect to “writings” as overly broad and not relevant to the claims and defenses of any party. State Farm further objects to the definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to provide such detailed information for all discoverable “writings.” State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ definition insofar as it seeks the “present location or custodian” of all discoverable “writings” on the grounds that the definition is overly broad and"}, {"d": 102, "p": 17, "t": "unduly burdensome and such information is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case. There are multiple ways that ESI may be held, stored, or used together by one or multiple custodians, such as on a shared or personal hard drive, in a container file, or in a database, and State Farm cannot reasonably catalogue and describe the information regarding any myriad of ways ESI may be held, stored, or used together without undue burden. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” insofar as it seeks details regarding “writings” that are “no longer [] in [State Farm’s] possession or control” on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and purports to impose obligations greater than those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. There is no basis to demand State Farm generally describe all requested information that may have existed at some time. State Farm further objects to this definition as unduly burdensome and beyond the scope of permissible discovery to the extent it purports to call for forensic investigation into computing devices or systems to determine or locate information indicating or evidencing ESI that was deleted or that is no longer accessible as active data on that device or system. State Farm further objects that ESI and/or documents that were deleted or no longer exist are not reasonably accessible, and discovery about the same would require extraordinary efforts that are not proportional to the scope of the matter. Furthermore, State Farm objects on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ definition is not limited in time or scope and State Farm had no duty to preserve relevant information prior to the time this litigation was reasonably anticipated. Finally, State Farm objects to this definition to the extent that it purports to require State Farm to provide information more properly requested via separate interrogatory. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to an “Oral Conversation.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification”"}, {"d": 102, "p": 18, "t": "to the extent it seeks information about “oral communication[s]” that is overly broad and not relevant to the claims and defenses of any party. State Farm further objects to the definition on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome to provide such detailed information for all discoverable “oral communication{s].” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Identify” or “Identification” in reference to an “individual natural person.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “identify” or “identification” when used in reference to an “individual natural Person” insofar as it seeks the “residential address” of natural persons on the grounds that such information constitutes personally identifiable information sought in violation of those individuals’ constitutional right to privacy. To the extent required to address the claims and defenses at issue in this case, the business addresses and business telephone numbers of natural persons will be sufficient to identify and contact potential witnesses. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“Relevant Time Period.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Relevant Time Period” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case or that is not reasonably available or would be unduly burdensome to provide. State Farm will not produce any documents prior to one year prior to the dates of loss or after the filing of the Petition unless otherwise stated in its responses. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Definition—“You.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “You” to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm further objects to this definition as overly broad to the extent it purports to include individuals “purporting to act on behalf” of various entities, individuals acting"}, {"d": 102, "p": 19, "t": "8 . on behalf of “any merged or acquired predecessors, successors, and/or divested facilities, division, or subsidiaries of State Farm,” and individuals “serving or having served on any governing board of any State Farm.” OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INSTRUCTIONS Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 1. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 1. State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 1 to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm will provide documents and information within its possession, custody, and control in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 2. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 2 to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm will fulfill its obligation to supplement these Responses pursuant to the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 4. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction Farm No. 4 on the grounds that it exceeds the parameters of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State will state its Objections and Responses to the Requests in accordance the Oklahoma Discovery Code and substantive law. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 5. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 5. State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 5 on the grounds that it exceeds the parameters of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm will state its Objections and Responses to the Requests in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code and substantive law."}, {"d": 102, "p": 20, "t": "# g Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 6. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 6 on the grounds that it exceeds the parameters of the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm will state its Objections and Responses to the discovery in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code and substantive law. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 7. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 7. of “no State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 7 on the grounds that the inclusion longer (] in (State Farm’s) possession or control” it is overly broad and because it imposes obligations that are unduly burdensome and greater than those set forth in the Oklahoma Discovery the Code. State Farm further objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 7 on the grounds that it exceeds parameters of the Oklahoma Discovery Code and because State Farm had no duty to preserve will relevant information prior to the time this litigation was reasonably anticipated. State Farm state its Objections and Responses to the discovery in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code and substantive law. Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8. State Farm restates and incorporates its No. 8. objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s)” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction In addition, State Farm restates and incorporates its objections to Plaintiffs’ ESI Protocol and applies them to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8. State Farm also restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 9 and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8. State Farm further objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 8 to the extent it seeks to unilaterally dictate a form of production. State Farm will produce documents and ESI in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. 10"}, {"d": 102, "p": 21, "t": "Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 9. State Farm restates and incorporates its No. 9. objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “document(s”) and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction to unilaterally In addition, State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 9 to the extent it seeks the dictate a form of production. State Farm will produce documents and ESI in accordance with Oklahoma Discovery Code. on Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 10. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instructi in the Oklahoma No. 10 to the extent it purports to impose obligations that exceed those set forth of privilege, Discovery Code. To the extent State Farm withholds any information on the basis Code. State Farm will provide a privilege log in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery n Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 11. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ Instructio is neither relevant to No. 11 as overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that of the case on the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs the grounds that it requires State Farm to provide information and documents relating to “all States of the United States in which (State Farm] conduct[s} business.” Objection to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 12. State Farm restates and incorporates its objection to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Relevant Time Period” and applies it to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 12. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ ESI PROTOCOL Objection to Plaintiffs’ “ESI Protocol.” State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ attempt to the scope of unilaterally impose an “ESI Protocol” in their Instructions and Exhibit 1 to govern does not discovery. The Oklahoma Discovery Code addresses the form of production of ESI and to unilaterally require parties to produce ESI in any particular way or allow requesting parties n dictate a form of production. Instead, it allows the requesting party to specify a form of productio il"}, {"d": 102, "p": 22, "t": "sc 0 06—ti«<P and, in response, the producing party can object and state the form of production it intends to make. ly 12 O.S. § 3234(B)(1)(c)-(d). In fact, Oklahoma law only requires that the format be “reasonab usable” and further provides that “a party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.” 12 0.8. § 3234(A)(1)(a) and § 3234(B)(2)(e). State Farm further objects to Plaintiffs’ “ESI Protocol” because it exceeds the scope of permissible discovery and imposes obligations above and beyond those set forth under the extent it Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm also objects to Plaintiffs’ ESI Protocol to the requires the production of documents or discovery of information that is not reasonably accessible not to State Farm on the ground that such discovery would require extraordinary efforts that are al., proportional to the scope of this matter. 12 O.S. § 3226(B); Werner Enter., Inc. v. Kirkland et master No. 122, 385 (Okla. Sept. 24, 2024) (“Respondent, any other assigned judge, or a special the appointed by the district court shall review the discovery requests at issue and consider proportionality facts stated in 12 O.S. Section 3226 (B)(2)(c) along with all other statutory requirements before ruling on the discovery disputes.”). State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ “ESI Discovery Protocol,” attached as Exhibit 1 for the same reasons. To the extent ESI is produced, State Farm will produce reasonably accessible, relevant, g non-privileged information in image format, accompanied by document-level text files containin searchable text (either extracted text or text created with optical character recognition (“OCR”). The information pertinent to the claims and defenses in this case can be found in the text of the basis or documents and is not generally found in metadata and Plaintiffs have not set forth any arguments to the contrary. Notwithstanding State Farm's objections and format set forth above, where applicable, metadata load files will be produced in .DAT file format and image load files in 12"}, {"d": 102, "p": 23, "t": "g ? to this .OPT format (i.e., industry standard “Concordance” formatted load files). The exceptions approach are: State Farm will produce responsive, non-privileged, and unredacted spreadsheets (e.g., Microsoft Excel files) in native format. State Farm will produce responsive, redacted Excel-file documents in near-native format with redacted text, unless doing so would be unduly burdensome or render the file(s) unusable, in which case the State Farm will seek to meet and confer with Plaintiffs on the proper redaction method. State Farm will produce responsive, non-privileged, and unredacted ESI maintained in presentation formats (e.g., Microsoft PowerPoint) in native format if relevant information exists that cannot be displayed on an image (e.g., animations or embedded audio files). State Farm will produce responsive, redacted ES! maintained in presentation formats (e.g., Microsoft PowerPoint) as image files with redacted text, unless doing so would will be unduly burdensome or render the file(s) unusable, in which case the State Farm seek to meet and confer with Plaintiffs on the proper redaction method. State Farm may choose to produce ESI that is difficult or impracticable to render in Bates stamped image format, such as video or audio files, in native format. will meet and To the extent there is a need for any deviation from the above, State Farm confer and negotiate in good faith effort to resolve the dispute with Plaintiffs’ counsel. and Objection Response to Plaintiffs’ of Definition “Electronically Stored Information.” State Farm restates and incorporates its objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “document(s)” and “communication(s),” and applies each to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Electronically Stored Information.” ’ ESI Objection to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 1. State Farm objects to Plaintiffs Production No. 1 on the grounds that the Oklahoma Discovery Code address the form of way or allow production of ESI and do not require parties to produce ESI in any particular 13"}, {"d": 102, "p": 24, "t": "requesting parties to unilaterally dictate of form of production. State Farm will produce ESI in a reasonably usable format as set forth above, which is all the Oklahoma Discovery Code require. Objection to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 2. State Farm restates and incorporates its objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “document(s),” and “communication(s),” and applies each further restates and incorporates its General to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 2. State Farm Objection to Plaintiffs’ ESI Protocol and applies it to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 2. Objection to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 3. State Farm restates and incorporates its objections to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “document(s),” and “communication(s),” and applies each to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 3. State Farm further restates and incorporates its General Objection to Plaintiffs’ ESI Protocol and applies it to Plaintiffs’ ESI Production No. 3. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ PROTECTIVE ORDER STATEMENT State Farm objects to Plaintiffs’ unilateral and self-serving statements and conclusions concerning its hugely overly broad discovery requests seeking State Farm's confidential and proprietary institutional documents that have no relevance to the Plaintiffs’ claim and are vastly disproportionate even if they were relevant. State Farm objects further because, contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, Oklahoma law expressly grants courts permission to enter protective orders protecting the use of confidential information produced during discovery. 12 Okla. Stat. § 3226(C)(g); YWCA of Oklahoma City v. Melson, 1997 OK 81, { 18, 944 P.2d 304 (1997) (holding that the need for pretrial disclosure should “be harmonized” with a party’s right of privacy,” and preventing public disclosure of sensitive information “is authorization of protective orders.”); State ex rel. Oklahoma sufficient justification State Bd. of Med. for the Licensure & Supervision v. Rivero, 2021 OK 31, 44 79, 489 P.3d 36, 64 (explaining that courts’ authority under Section 3226(c) to enter protective orders has “conceptual origins in [its] counterparts found in” 14"}, {"d": 102, "p": 25, "t": "+ | a tJ © Rule 26 of the Federal Rules.”). State Farm will thus not produce documents it deems to be Confidential until the entry of a mutually acceptable protective order unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Notwithstanding its objections, State Farm will meet and confer and negotiate in good faith on a mutual protective order with Plaintiffs’ counsel. A proposed Protective Order governing the exchange and disclosure of Confidential information in this matter is attached as Exhibit A. For purposes of its below Responses to Plaintiffs’ specific Requests, and to avoid repeating its objections stated in these introductory sections, State Farm’s above General Objections, Objections to Plaintiffs’ Definitions, Objections to Plaintiffs’ Instructions, Objections to Plaintiffs’ ESI Protocol and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Protective Order Statement shall be collectively referred to as “State Farm’s Universal Objections.” INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Provide the name, address, and job title of any Claims Handling Personnel who were involved with, adjusted, managed, supervised, investigated, worked on, reviewed, or provided any work or oversight on any aspect of Plaintiffs’ Claim or the handling thereof. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad in scope. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or documentation. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm states that information reflecting the personnel involved in adjusting the subject claims is available in the Claim File for the claim sued upon from which Plaintiffs may obtain the requested information without any greater burden than that imposed upon State Farm in identifying each person individually. Therefore, 15"}, {"d": 102, "p": 26, "t": "$ ° State Farm will produce the Claim File in conjunction with these Responses, subject to all privilege and work production objections. Additionally, State Farm would provide as follows: e CS JR Phillips e TM Mark Wood e ECR Conrad Feller NO. 2: If State Farm maintains Plaintiffs failed to comply with INTERROGATORY the terms of the Policy, please set forth (a) the facts that support such contention; (b) all persons with knowledge to support such contention; and (c) all documents or other evidence that may support such contention. ANSWER TO _INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory as overbroad because it is not limited to the time period of the handling of Plaintiffs’ property claim or to the property claim that is at issue in this litigation. Further, discovery has just begun, and all facts and history regarding the insurance policy and property, Plaintiffs’ conduct following the loss, and other issues are not fully known. State Farm will produce information regarding the insurance claim at issue in the Complaint only. State Farm additionally objects to this Interrogatory as invasive of the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine and because it improperly seeks a legal conclusion and application of law to specific facts, which is premature and is not required in the early stages of this litigation. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory because it improperly asks State Farm to marshal its evidence. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm states Plaintiffs failed to comply with the “Suits Against Us Provision” of their Policy as it relates to Claim No. 36-64D8-27T. State Farm reserves the right to supplement, amend, or revise its answer to this 16"}, {"d": 102, "p": 27, "t": "Interrogatory as discovery is ongoing. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all Wind/Hail Claims and corresponding civil cases in Oklahoma since January 1, 2019 wherein a Total or Full Roof Replacement was denied prior to a lawsuit being filed, but was subsequently approved and/or paid to an insured after the insured filed a civil lawsuit against State Farm. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO, 3; State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks information regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates; relating to insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claim at issue in this litigation; and involving information about individuals other than the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in this action, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information, or information protected by the attomey client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or other legal privileges. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Describe with specificity, in detail, and by date any and all inspection(s) conducted by any of the named defendants, or anyone acting on their behalf, of the Insured Property at the inception of replacement cost coverage being sold and upon any renewal. ANSWER TO _INTERROGATORY NO. 4: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because the condition, State Farm’s knowledge of the condition, and inspections of Plaintiffs’ 17"}, {"d": 102, "p": 28, "t": "¢ = house, in addition to any other information encompassed in the discovery request, presume obligations that do not exist and encompass information that is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case. The scope and particularities of what is requested are also vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome as written. State Farm objects to producing underwriting information on the ground that it is neither relevant nor proportional, as there is no dispute that the applicable policy was in effect on the dates of loss. Also, it must be noted that “[t]here are no Oklahoma cases which have concluded that the tort of bad faith encompasses non-claims related conduct—sales, pricing and underwriting practices . . . .” Moreover, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has concluded that “‘the conduct of the insurer and the agent in selling and issuing the policy, cannot give rise to the tort of bad faith breach of insurance 8017244, at *14 contract.’” Miller v. Farmers (W.D. Okla. Mar. 22, 2012) Ins. Grp., No. (citation omitted), CIV-10-466-F, 2012 WL Request also seeks The information which may be in the possession of persons other than State Farm, including, in some instances, Plaintiff. To the extent such information exists, it may also encompass confidential and proprietary information of State Farm or third parties and potentially information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm will produce the Policy which describes the relationship with the Plaintiffs as it relates to policy issuance and inspections and the Underwriting File for this Policy, which will reflect underwriting inspections of the property if they exist. INTERRQGATORY NO. 5: Identify all policies, procedures, guidelines, manuals and/or training materials, which You used to train any of the Claims Handling Personnel involved with the Claim in any way. 18"}, {"d": 102, "p": 29, "t": "ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO, 5: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, and overly broad with respect to the use of the terms “all policies, procedures, guidelines, manuals and/or training materials.” State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma); potentially unduly burdensome; and seeks information that is neither relevant to the claims/defenses of any party nor proportional to the needs or issues in this case. State Farm’s procedures are intended to provide guidance, but each claim is handled on its own merits. Moreover, training materials that were obsolete on the dates of loss, pertain only to other losses, and/or pertain only to other areas of the country, are not relevant to the matters at issue in this case. State Farm additionally objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce. Finally, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, and upon entry of an approved protective order, State Farm will produce the relevant parts of the claim handling procedures that may have been used to adjust claims alleged to have arisen from the weather event that occurred on the dates of loss. This includes the Estimatics and Claim Handling Practices (“ECHP”)—a compilation of claim handling procedures that State Farm prepares in connection with weather events. 19"}, {"d": 102, "p": 30, "t": "INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify all State Farm management and/or executive employees who served on the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail team and/or the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team and/or the Hail Focus Initiative team. Please include titles and job descriptions for all such employees and dates of service. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of this action. In particular, the requested information is not probative of the reasonableness of State Farm claim handling and determination under the facts of this case nor are they probative of whether Plaintiffs’ property, and which parts, were in fact damaged by wind and/or hail. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, particularly with regard to what is meant by “management,” overly broad in time, and unduly burdensome because State Farm does not maintain a historical and comprehensive list of individuals who assisted with the Wind/Hail Fire Model Enhancement and that changed over time. INTERROGATORY NO. 7; Identify all third-party entities or individuals who consulted with State Farm management and/or executive employees relating to the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail team and/or the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team and/or the Hail Focus Initiative team. Please include titles and job descriptions for all third-party entities or individuals and disclose whether there existed or exists any agreement or contract with any such entity or individual. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of this action. In particular, the requested information is not probative of the reasonableness of State Farm claim handling and determination under the facts of this case 20"}, {"d": 102, "p": 31, "t": "nor are they probative of whether Plaintiffs’ roof or other property was in fact damaged by wind and/or hail, and to what degree. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, particularly with regard to what is meant by “consulted,” overly broad in time, and unduly burdensome because State Farm does not maintain a historical and comprehensive list of individuals involved with the Fire Model Enhancement. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: If State Farm contends that damage to the Insured Property was pre-existing or unrelated to the hail damage, please set forth (a) the facts that support such contention; (b) all persons with knowledge to support such contention; and (c) all documents or any other evidence that may support such contention. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: State Farm objects to Interrogatory No. 8 because it is vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “pre-existing” damage and assumes obligations of State Farm which do not exist. Inquiries as to “pre-existing” damage seek information which is not relevant to any party’s claim or defenses or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and discovery related thereto is not proportional to the needs of the case. The Policy requires the existence of accidental direct physical loss which did not exist as to the shingles and State Farm had no obligation to determine what it was instead. Further, the requested information is overly broad and unduly burdensome generally and for the same reason. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, any assessment by State Farm of the conditions of the roof as part of its claims inspection is included in the claim files to be produced. 21"}, {"d": 102, "p": 32, "t": "INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify and describe all training, information, and/or dissemination of information provided to State Farm agents nationwide regarding the Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative from January 1, 2019 until the present time. If such training, information or dissemination is conducted or transmitted via an entity other than State Farm, please identify and describe such entity and the process of dissemination to State Farm agents. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “all training, information, or dissemination of information” and the various referenced teams and initiatives. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory as it has no relevance to the facts or handling of the claim underlying this lawsuit. The claim sued upon involves a dispute as to whether and what extent a part of the house was damaged. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information of State Farm. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NQ. 10: Identify all training You have provided to any captive agent regarding the marketing, sale, procurement, and or binding of homeowners insurance coverage in Oklahoma since January 1, 2019. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: State Farm objects to this Interrogatory as it seeks information that has no relevance to the facts or handling of the claim underlying this lawsuit or to a valid claim in the Petition. There is no question that the policy was issued and that it applies to wind and hail claims. State Farm also objects to the Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “all training . . . regarding the marketing, sale, procurement, and 22"}, {"d": 102, "p": 33, "t": "tory as or binding of homeowners insurance coverage.” State Farm further objects to this Interroga proprietary, and/or overly broad, unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is confidential, trade secret information of State Farm. INTERROGATORY 11: Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, NO. concerning Your adjustment and/or handling of wind- and/or Youconducted or commissioned hailstorm claims in Oklahoma since 2010. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on specifically with respect the grounds that it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, because this to the terms “Analyses,” “Analysis” and “commissioned.” State Farm further objects claims and defenses Interrogatory seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the tory is seeking “all” in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interroga ion for a total of with respect to a vague and potentially broad categories of documents and informat in efforts to locate, or 15 years and is thus overly broad and unduly burdensome either in volume or both. Moreover, proprietary State Farm business objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, information and/or trade secret information, and to the extent it seeks doctrine, and/or information potentially protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product of any issue other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, Haag Education, You conducted or commissioned concerning Your use of Haag Engineering, hailstorm claims in and/or any other Haag enterprise or subsidiary with regard to wind- and/or Oklahoma. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on 23"}, {"d": 102, "p": 34, "t": "the grounds that it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, specifically with respect to the terms “Analyses,” “commissioned.” and “Analysis” State Farm also objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secret information, and to the extent it seeks information potentially protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify and describe in detail the Fire Model Enhancement-Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative with a similar title. Please outline and describe how any such team or initiative was created and/or implemented and any Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, you performed regarding such implementation. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague with respect to the terms “Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative with a similar title” and “created and/or implemented” and “any Analyses.” State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of 24"}, {"d": 102, "p": 35, "t": "the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications without any time or geographic restrictions, regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates, relating to insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowners’ claims at issue in this litigation; and involving information about individuals other than the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in this action, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information, or information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, conceming Your use of Engineering Services with regard to wind- and/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma. ANSWER TQ INTERROGATORY NO. 14: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it improperly assumes facts and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms 25"}, {"d": 102, "p": 36, "t": "“Analyses” and “use of.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing privileges. attomey work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal in the Plaintiffs have not established that such information, if any exists, is probative of any issue case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY any investigation, audit, and/or review NO. 15; Identify You conducted or commissioned into HAAG following a. the jury’s verdict in Watkins v State Farm, b. the jury’s verdict in Nicolau vs State Farm; and/or c. the Mississippi Attorney General’s Investigation and/or U.S Attorney’s investigation into Your handling of claims arising from hurricanes Katrina and/or Rita. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this subject litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the (c) claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time, given the events referenced in (a) — filed; and above took place 18, 27, and 18 years ago, respectively, long before this action was ng geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, Haag Engineeri did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claims. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, especially as to the and to the terms/phrases “any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned,” 26"}, {"d": 102, "p": 37, "t": "extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. any NO, 16: Identify INTERROGATORY investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned into the following: a. HAAG'S objectivity and/or bias b. Your relationship with HAAG c. Your continued use of HAAG d. Your moratorium on Your use of HAAG ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, Haag Engineering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claims. State Farm also objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned into... objectivity ... relationship . . . continued use . . . [and] moratorium,” and to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attomey work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. 27"}, {"d": 102, "p": 38, "t": "Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Identify any date on which Your moratorium on Your use of HAAG, initiated June 5, 2006, was lifted, terminated, modified, or cancelled. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17: State Farm objects to this Request because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “use of” and “lifted, terminated, modified, or cancelled.” State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personne! who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, Haag Engineering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claim. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Identify all training materials You have utilized (whether internal or from an outside source like HAAG) to train Your Claims Handling Personnel on windand/or hailstorm claims. 28"}, {"d": 102, "p": 39, "t": "ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on is not the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that of the case. relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs on applicable to Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to informati on the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to informati to a reasonable pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited . Further, period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma) to the terms “all State Farm objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect training materials You have utilized.” on its State Farm’s procedures are intended to provide guidance, but each claim is handled loss, pertain only to own merits. Moreover, training materials that were obsolete on the dates of to the matters at other losses, and/or pertain only to other areas of the country, are not relevant issue in this case. State Farm additionally objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information to this litigation, and/or documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties ory to which State Farm is not at liberty to produce. Finally, State Farm objects to this Interrogat the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets. Plaintiffs case, or therefore, have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the discoverable. entry of an Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, and upon claim handling approved protective order, State Farm will produce the relevant provisions of the procedures that may have been used to adjust claims alleged to have arisen from the weather that occurred on the dates of loss. event This includes the Estimatics and Claim Handling Procedures 29"}, {"d": 102, "p": 40, "t": "(“ECHP”)-a compilation of claim handling procedures that State Farm prepares in connection with weather events. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Identify all Your policies, procedures, and/or practices relating to the training of State Farm adjusters and third-party adjusters on the definition of “functional damage” for roof claims, as well as any coverage limitations based on the size and severity of the hail damage and the amount of wind speeds. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it improperly assumes facts and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “all Your policies, procedures, and/or practices relating to the training.” State Farm’s procedures are intended to provide guidance, but each claim is handled on its own merits. Moreover, training materials that were obsolete on the dates of loss, pertain only to other losses, and/or pertain only to other areas of the country, are not relevant to the matters at issue in this case. State Farm additionally objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and/or documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce. Finally, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets. 30 Plaintiffs"}, {"d": 102, "p": 41, "t": "have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, and upon entry of an approved protective order, State Farm will produce the relevant provisions of the claim handling procedures that may have been used to adjust claims alleged to have arisen from the weather event that occurred on the dates of loss. This includes the Estimatics and Claim Handling Practices (“ECHP”}—a compilation of claim handling procedures that State Farm prepares in connection with weather events. For information reflecting the application of claims procedures to Plaintiffs’ claims, see the Claim Files for the claims at issue in this litigation. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, You conducted or commissioned specifically targeting full roof replacements with regard to wind- and/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma from 2010 to present. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: State Farm objects to this Interrogatory because it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, specifically with respect to the use of the terms “commissioned” and “Analyses.” State Farm also objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attomey work product and/or that is protected by the attorney 31"}, {"d": 102, "p": 42, "t": "? g client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY You conducted NO. 21: Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, or commissioned regarding State Farm adjusters’ and third-party adjusters’ authorization and/or ability to approve full roof replacements without managerial approval from 2010 to present. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague with respect to the use of the terms “commissioned” and “Analyses.” State Farm further objects because this Request seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. State Farm further objects to the extent this Interrogatory because it improperly assumes facts. Only certain claims, including those for small hail or light wind damage (i.e., hail that is less than 1” in diameter or sustained wind speed less than 50 mph), were subject to managerial approval for total roof replacements. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative discoverable. 32 of any issue in the case, or therefore,"}, {"d": 102, "p": 43, "t": "# INTERROGATORY NO. 22; Identify the total number of homeowners’ wind/hail claims from 2019-present in Oklahoma in which State Farm found damage the insured roof’s soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to exceed the policy's deductible. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claims with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different Policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. State Farm further objects because the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “found damage the insured roof’s soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to exceed the policy’s deductible.” 33"}, {"d": 102, "p": 44, "t": "NO,RY23: Identify the total number of homeowners’ wind/hail claims INTERROGATO from 2019-present in Oklahoma in which State Farm found damage the insured roof’s soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to warrant a Full or Total Roof Replacement. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claims with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different Policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). Moreover, State Farm objects because the Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “found damage the insured roof’s soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to warrant a Full or Total Roof Replacement.” 34"}, {"d": 102, "p": 45, "t": "INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Identify and Describe any policies, procedures, and/or methods to review and/or track percentages of total or full roof replacements by individual and adjusters managers adjusting or on working Oklahoma claims, wind/hail including recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking, or analysis related to total or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, which did not involve a total roof replacement. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “any” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “policies, procedures and/or methods to review” and “recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking or analysis.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attommey work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Please identify, state, and describe (whether measured quarterly, yearly, or some other way) the Wind and Hail Full Roof Replacement Percentage from January 1, 2019 to the present in Oklahoma. 35"}, {"d": 102, "p": 46, "t": "° $ ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and the burden or expense of the proposed discovery, which outweighs its likely benefit. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claims with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different Policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “Wind and Hail Full Roof Replacement Percentage.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, and because Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable 36"}, {"d": 102, "p": 47, "t": "INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Please quarterly, yearly, or some other way) identify, state, and the Total describe (whether or Full Roof Replacement measured to Partial Roof Replacement Ratio on Wind/Hail Claims from January 1, 2019 to the present in Oklahoma. ANSWER TQ INTERRO: RY NO. 26: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case or proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and the burden or expense of the proposed discovery, which outweighs its likely benefit. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claims with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different Policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. State Farm further objects because this Interrogatory is unduly burdensome and overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time).” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business 37"}, {"d": 102, "p": 48, "t": "information and/or trade secrets, and because Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Please identify, state, and describe (whether measured quarterly, yearly, or some other way) the Total Roof Payment volumes on Wind/Hail claims from January |, 2019 to the present in Oklahoma. ANSWER TQ INTERROGATORY NO. 27: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case or proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and the burden or expense of the proposed discovery, which outweighs its likely benefit. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claims with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different Policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is unduly burdensome and overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), State Farm 38"}, {"d": 102, "p": 49, "t": "use of further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the objects to the terms “Total Roof Payment volumes on Wind/Hail claims.” Moreover, State Farm trade the extent this Interrogatory seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or issue secrets, and because Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any in the case, or therefore, discoverable INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Please identify, state, and describe how the Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus until Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative from January 1, 2019 tactics the present implemented such initiatives or plans in Oklahoma, including claims handling or rules used, tracking of indemnity savings in Oklahoma, tracking of the total or full roof nt replacement to partial roof replacement ratio in Oklahoma, tracking of full roof replaceme approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims in Oklahoma. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY because it impermissibly NO. 28: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory assumes facts and is vague with respect to the terms “Fire Model ,” and Enhancement . . . and/or any hail quality focus initiative,” “implemented such initiatives that “claims handling tactics or rules.” State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and it is overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims ory is defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogat the overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding dates, relating claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and to insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowners’ claims at issue in this litigation; and involving information about and individuals other than the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim. The investigation 39"}, {"d": 102, "p": 50, "t": "evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in this action, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information, or information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work Plaintiffs have not established that such product doctrine, and/or other legal privileges. information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Please identify, state, and describe how the Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative kicked off in Texas, including how such initiatives or plans were implemented in Texas, including claims handling tactics or rules used, tracking of indemnity savings in Texas, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio in Texas, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims in Texas. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY because it impermissibly NO. 29: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory assumes facts and is vague with respect to the terms “Fire Model Enhancement . . . and/or any hail quality focus initiative,” “implemented such initiatives,” and “claims handling tactics or rules.” State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates, in different geographies, relating to insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowners’ claims at issue in this litigation, and involving information about individuals other than the claims personnel who adjusted the 40"}, {"d": 102, "p": 51, "t": "$ ° subject claim. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in this action, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information, or information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Please identify any and all duties of State Farm and/or its captive Agent(s) to keep abreast of the condition of the properties State Farm insures upon renewal, including but not limited to reducing the risk of insuring the property, maintaining the exterior of the property, reducing the risk of additional damage to the roof, replacing the toof, replacing shingles with granular loss, eligible roofing material used, and how the insured gets this information to State Farm and/or its captive Agent(s). ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO, 30: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “duties,” “keep abreast,” and “how the insured gets this information to State Farm and/or its captive Agent(s).” State Farm additionally objects to this Interrogatory as invasive of the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine and because it improperly seeks a legal conclusion. Subject to and without waiving these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm refers Plaintiffs to State Farm’s filed Answer to Plaintiffs’ Petition, all depositions that will be taken in this case, any and all discovery responses served by any party (including State Farm's discovery responses and supplemental responses), and any and all documents that will be produced by any party (including but not limited to the Claim File for the claim at issue in this 41"}, {"d": 102, "p": 52, "t": "litigation, as well as any application and underwriting correspondence pertaining to the property at issue in this case). ESTS FOR PROD IN REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Produce color copies of all Documents related to either Plaintiff, Plaintiffs’ Dwelling Policy, and/or the Claim in State Farm’s Enterprise Claims System (“ECS”), including, but not limited to the Claim File. RESPONSE TQ REQUEST NO. 1: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 1 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case to the extent it seeks information from policy periods prior to or beyond the policy period relevant to the Claim at issue. State Farm further objects to the Request insofar as it seeks production of ESI in “color” on the grounds that color does not convey meaning, is not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and is not proportional to the needs of this case. Additionally, State Farm objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad in time (not limited by any reasonable period or to the timeframe for handling of the specific insurance claim at issue in this litigation) and scope (not limited to Plaintiffs’ insurance claims at issue in this lawsuit) and due to the use of the term “all” with respect to the broad categories of documents requested. Further, due to the overly broad nature of this Request, it is a potential invasion of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm will produce the Claim File for the claims at issue in this litigation in reasonably usable format as it does in the ordinary course of business. State Farm will also produce the underwriting file for the Policy covering the property at issue herein. 42"}, {"d": 102, "p": 53, "t": "REQUEST FOR P. UCTION_NO. 2: Produce all Documents related to any inspection You conducted or arranged to be conducted of Plaintiffs’ Dwelling in relation to the Policy. This Request includes (but is not limited to) any inspection conducted by a third-party vendor at Your direction, instruction, or request. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 2 because the condition, State Farm’s knowledge of the condition, and inspections of Plaintiffs’ house, in addition to any other information encompassed in the Request, presume obligations that do not exist and encompass information that is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case. The scope and particularities of what is requested are also vague, and ambiguous as to what is meant by “inspection . . . in relation to the Policy.” It is thus also overly broad, and unduly burdensome as written. State Farm objects to producing underwriting information on the ground that it is neither relevant nor proportional, as there is no dispute that the applicable policy was in effect on the dates of loss. The Request also seeks documents which may be in the possession of persons other than State Farm, including, in some instances, Plaintiff. To the extent the documents exist, they may also encompass confidential and proprietary information of State Farm or third parties and potentially information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, in addition to the Claim File being produced in response to Request No. 1, State Farm will produce inspections of the house by third-parties as part of an underwriting review, if any. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Produce all Documents You identified, relied upon, referred to, or consulted in preparing Your response to any Discovery Request in this Action. 43"}, {"d": 102, "p": 54, "t": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 3 because it improperly asks it to marshal its evidence and amounts to at least a hundred separate Requests for Production because it requests documents relied upon in responding to “any” discovery request. State Farm further objects to the extent this Request is not limited to Plaintiffs’ insurance claims at issue in this lawsuit, seeks information that is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case, and seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Moreover, State Farm objects to the Request as overly broad, vague, and lacking specificity and as an improper omnibus discovery request because it uses the terms, “all” and “relied upon, referred to, or consulted.” Subject to these objections and its Universal Objections, State Farm will produce documents identified as responsive to any request herein, subject to entry of an approved Protective Order where applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 4: Produce all Documents containing any policies, procedures, guidelines, manuals and/or training materials, which You used to train any of the Claims Handling Personnel involved with the Claim in any way. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 4 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. The request for “all Documents containing any policies, procedures, guidelines, manuals and/or training materials” and for any individual “involved in with the Claim in any way” is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claims and/or coverages at issue in this litigation), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). State Farm’s procedures 44"}, {"d": 102, "p": 55, "t": "are intended to provide guidance, but each claim is handled on its own merits. Moreover, training materials that were obsolete on the dates of loss, pertain only to other losses, and/or pertain only to other areas of the country, are not relevant to the matters at issue in this case. State Farm additionally objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce. Finally, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secret. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections and upon execution of an approved protective order, State Farm will produce the relevant portions of the claim handling procedures that may have been used to adjust claims alleged to have arisen from the weather event that occurred on the dates of loss. This includes the Estimatics and Claim Handling Practices (“ECHP”)—a compilation of claim handling procedures that State Farm prepares in connection with weather events. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NG. 5: Produce all underwriting guidelines, binding rules, contractual agreements, and training materials which were relied upon or utilized by State Farm, and/or its captive Agent(s) with respect to selling and issuing Plaintiffs’ policy and for each renewal thereafter. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 5 because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “underwriting guidelines, binding rules, contractual agreements, and training materials . . . relied upon or utilized . . . with respect to selling and issuing Plaintiffs policy and for each renewal thereafter.” State Farm further objects to this Request on grounds the information sought is not relevant to any party’s claim or defense or 45"}, {"d": 102, "p": 56, "t": "proportional to the needs of the case. There is no question that the house satisfied State Farm’s underwriting guidelines. State Farm further objects to this Request as overly broad and to the extent it seeks privileged, confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information of State Farm. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Produce all documents You have utilized (whether internal or from an outside source like HAAG) to train Your Claims Handling Personnel on wind-and/or hailstorm claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 6 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. The request for “any training materials You have utilized . . . to train Your Claims Handling Personnel on wind- and/or hailstorm claims” is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claims and/or coverages at issue in this litigation, not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). State Farm’s procedures are intended to provide guidance, but each claim is handled on its own merits. Moreover, training materials that were obsolete on the dates of loss, pertain only to other losses, and/or pertain only to other areas of the country, are not relevant to the matters at issue in this case. State Farm additionally objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce. Finally, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative discoverable. 46 of any issue in the case, or therefore,"}, {"d": 102, "p": 57, "t": "4? e Subject to and without waiving these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections and upon entry of an approved protective order, State Farm will produce the relevant provisions of the claim handling procedures that may have been used to adjust claims alleged to have arisen from the weather event that occurred on the dates of loss. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Produce all Documents from January 1, 2019 to the present relating to any review and/or tracking of percentages of total or ful! roof replacements by individual adjusters and managers adjusting or working on Oklahoma wind/hail claims, including recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking, or analysis related to total or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TQ REQUEST NO. 7: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 7 because it improperly assumes facts, and is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “any” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “review and/or tracking,” “adjusting or working on,” and “recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking or analysis.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. 47"}, {"d": 102, "p": 58, "t": "e ¢ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Produce all Documents related to any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned into HAAG following: a. the jury’s verdict in Watkins v State Farm; b. the jury’s verdict in Nicolau vs State Farm, and/or c. the Mississippi Attorney General’s Investigation and/or U.S Attomey’s investigation into Your handling of claims arising from hurricanes Katrina and/or Rita. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 8 because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of any party’s claims or defenses nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time, given the events referenced in (a) — (c) above took place 18, 27, and 18 years ago, respectively, long before this action was filed; and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma.). Moreover, Haag Engineering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claims. State Farm also objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned.” Further, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. 48"}, {"d": 102, "p": 59, "t": "@ REQUEST FOR 9 PRODUCTION NO. 9: Produce all Documents related to any : investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned into the following a. HAAG’S objectivity and/or bias b. Your relationship with HAAG c. Your continued use of HAAG d. Your moratorium on Your use of HAAG RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 9 and defenses because it seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims in scope (not nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad coverages at issue in this limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or who adjusted the subject litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel ic area (not limited to claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geograph inspect or provide an materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, Haag Engineering did not engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs\" claims. y as to the State Farm also objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, especiall commissioned into... terms/phrases “any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or State Farm objects objectivity .. . relationship . . . continued use .. . [and] moratorium. ” Further, information and/or trade to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business protected by the attorney secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative its objections. of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on 49"}, {"d": 102, "p": 60, "t": "e UE OR ? PRODUCTION NO, 10: Produce all Documents related to Your issuance of a moratorium on Your use of HAAG, dated June 5, 2006, following the jury verdict rendered in Watkins v State Farm. RESPONSE TQ REQUEST NO, 10: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 10 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, Haag Engineering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claims. State Farm also objects to this Request because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “use of.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Produce ail Communications You sent to or received from Haag Engineering, Haag Education, or any division, subsidiary, or parent thereof (including any representative thereof) from 2012 until Present relating to any payments You made or received from any such HAAG entity or representative pursuant to any Indemnity Agreement. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 11 because it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or 50"}, {"d": 102, "p": 61, "t": "8 ? proportional to the needs of the case. The Request is also overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “any division, subsidiary, or parent” and “any payments.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attormey work product and/or that is protected by the attomey client or other legal privileges. Moreover, Haag Engineering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 12: Produce all Documents related to any Indemnity Agreement entered into between You and HAAG Engineering, HAAG Education, or any division, subsidiary, or parent thereof (including any representative thereof) from 2012 until Present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 12 because it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. The Request is also overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it impermissibly 51"}, {"d": 102, "p": 62, "t": "e ? assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “any division, subsidiary, or parent.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attomey work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Moreover, Haag Engineering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Produce all Documents related to any Cost/Benefit Analysis concerning Your adjustment and/or handling of wind- and/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma since 2010. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 13 because it improperly assumes facts and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. The Request is also overly broad in scope (seeking “any Cost/Benefit Analyses;” not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal! privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. REQUEST Model Enhancement FOR on State Farm stands on its objections. PRODUCTION Wind/Hail from NO. 14: Produce all documents related to the Fire January 52 1, 2019 until the present, including any"}, {"d": 102, "p": 63, "t": "s and 86? all presentations, memos, documents, or plans of the FME Wind/Hail, whether in draft for final format. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 14 because it impermissibly assumes facts, seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, and because it encompasses confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information of State Farm. Specifically, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. State Farm also objects to the extent the Request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Plaintiffs have not established such information is probative of any issue in the case or, therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO,_15: Produce all documents related to the implementation of any measures, program rules, tactics, claims handling procedures or policies related to the Fire Model Enhancement on Wind/Hail from January 1, 2019 until the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 15 because it impermissibly assumes facts, seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, and because it encompasses confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information of State Farm. Specifically, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the 53"}, {"d": 102, "p": 64, "t": "claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. State Farm also objects to the extent the Request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case or, therefore, discoverable, State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Produce all documents related to the Wind and Hail Full Roof Replacement Percentage from January 1, 2019 to the present, including nationwide and state specific tracking of such percentages. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 16 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claims with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different Policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. 54"}, {"d": 102, "p": 65, "t": "@ 9 State Farm further objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “Wind and Hail Full Roof Replacement Percentage” and because it is overly broad in scope (seeking “alf documents related to . . .”; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personne! who adjusted the subject claim); geographic area; and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case or, therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Produce all documents related to the Total or Full Roof Replacement to Partial Roof Replacement Ratio on Wind/Hail Claims from January 1, 2019 to the present, including nationwide and state specific tracking of such ratios. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17: State Farm objects to Request No. 17 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and the burden or expense of the proposed discovery, which outweighs its likely benefit.. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claims with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different Policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is 55"}, {"d": 102, "p": 66, "t": "? e the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. State Farm also objects to this Request as overly broad in scope (seeking “aff documents related to .. . .;” not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); geographic area; and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). case or, Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR Roof Payment volumes PRODUCTION NO, 18: Produce all documents related to the Total on Wind/Hail claims from January 1, 2019 to the present, including nationwide and state specific tracking of such ratios. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 18 because it is overly broad, improperly assumes facts, and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, considering the access importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative the to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving issues, and the burden or expense of the proposed discovery, which outweighs its likely benefit. As and other an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claims with State Farm, extent claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the to they involve different Policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or disprove what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor individual any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own 56"}, {"d": 102, "p": 67, "t": "S ? merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. State Farm further objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “Total Roof Payment volumes on Wind/Hail claims” and because it is overly broad in scope (seeking “aff documents related to . . .”; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case or, therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Produce all documents from January 1, 2019 until the present, relating to your review, monitoring, and/or tracking of the percentages of total or full roof replacements by individual adjusters and managers on wind/hail claims. - RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19; State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 19 because it is overly broad, improperly assumes facts, and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “‘all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); geographic area; and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Fann further objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “review, monitoring, and or tracking.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal 57"}, {"d": 102, "p": 68, "t": "$ ? privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ. 20: Produce any policies, procedures, and/or methods to review and/or track percentages of total or full roof replacements adjusters and managers adjusting or working on Oklahoma wind/hail by individual claims, including full recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking, or analysis related to total or roof replacements on wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 20 claims because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the broad and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly limited to in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not in this information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “recommendations, approvals, to the or similar type of review, tracking or analysis.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Produce all Documents related to the Fire Focus Model Enhancement-Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail 58"}, {"d": 102, "p": 69, "t": "a 8 in Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative for the kick off in Texas 2020. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 21: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. the 21 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this claim) litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel whe adjusted the subject and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), State Farm further objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative.” In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner's claims at issue in this litigation. in The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations to this the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Moreover, State Farm objects secrets, Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Produce all Documents related to the Fire Focus Mode! Enhancement-Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail 59"}, {"d": 102, "p": 70, "t": "Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative referencing Oklahoma from January 1, 2019 until the present, including plans to implement such initiatives or plans in Oklahoma, implementation in Oklahoma, tracking of indemnity savings in Oklahoma, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio in Oklahoma, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims in Oklahoma. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 22 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative.” This Request is also overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner's claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or 60"}, {"d": 102, "p": 71, "t": "other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Nicole Manduca from January Produce all correspondence sent to or by 1, 2019 to the present referring or relating to the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hai] Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other wind/hail quality focus initiatives. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 23: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 23 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, Nicole Manduca was not involved in the adjustment or handling of Plaintiffs’ claim. Moreover, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information 61"}, {"d": 102, "p": 72, "t": "containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Produce all Documents related to the Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives, including any presentations, metrics, claim handling tactics or rules, tracking of results, and/or Cost/Benefit Analyses You performed regarding any such initiative or program. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 24: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 24 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personne! who adjusted the subject claim) and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “initiatives, including any presentations, metrics, claim handling tactics or rules, tracking of results;” “Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail 62"}, {"d": 102, "p": 73, "t": "Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative;” and “any such initiative or program.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Produce all Documents memorializing any enterprise-wide rule You have stated, implemented, or enforced regarding the need for any management approval of full roof replacements on wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 25; State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 25 because it impermissibly assumes facts, is overly broad, and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Further, State Farm objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “enterprise-wide rule . . . stated, implemented, or enforced regarding the need.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, invades the privacy rights of policyholders who are not parties to this lawsuit, or seeks information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. State Farm further objects to the extent this Request purports to imply that State Farm implemented an enterprise-wide rule that required management approval of full roof replacements 63"}, {"d": 102, "p": 74, "t": "s = si # on all wind/hail claims. Rather, managerial approval for total roof replacements is only applicable to certain claims, including those with light wind (less than 50 mph) or smal] hail (less than 1 inch). Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR initiative(s) to reduce PRODUCTION or track indemnity NO, 26; Your Quality plan(s), program(s), and/or payments, reduce or track the total or full roof replacement to partial roof ratio, reduce or track full roof replacement approval percentages, and reduce or track nationwide total roof payment volume on wind or hail claims from January 1, 2019 to the present. RESPONSE TQ REQUEST NO. 26: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 26 because it impermissibly assumes facts and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “Quality plan(s), program(s), and/or initative(s).” State Farm also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. 64"}, {"d": 102, "p": 75, "t": ": 8=—# Subject to these and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm agrees to produce State Farm’s Fire Property Claims Quality Plan that was in effect on the dates of loss, upon entry of an approved protective order. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Your Wind/Hail claims Focus Models, including the Fire Model Enhancement — Wind/Hail, pertaining to homeowners’ claims from 2016 to present, including all presentations, internal memos, or related documents. RESPONSE TO REQUEST 27 because it improperly assumes NO. 27: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “Wind/Hail claims Focus Models” and related documents.” State Farm further objects because this Request is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner's claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. 65 attorney work Plaintiffs have not"}, {"d": 102, "p": 76, "t": "g # established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. T FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: The matrices which relate to or involve the tracking of Your financial savings (and future financial savings) tied to reduction in indemnity payments on wind/hail claims, reduction in the total or full roof replacement to partial roof ratio, nationwide total roof payment volume, and/or reduction of the full roof replacement percentage on wind or hail claims from January 1, 2019 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST 28 because it improperly assumes NO. 28: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “matrices which involve the tracking of.” State Farm further objects to this Request because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. 66"}, {"d": 102, "p": 77, "t": "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Produce way all Documents related in any to “enhanced emphasis on Claim Handling Hygiene.” RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 29: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 29 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “al? Documents related in any way”; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “related in any way” and “enhanced emphasis on Claim Handling Hygiene.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Produce all Documents related to the “Art of the Conversation.” 67"}, {"d": 102, "p": 78, "t": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 30: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 30 because it improperly assumes facts and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “afl Documents related to . . . .”; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Produce all Documents related to the “HAAG Refresher.” RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 31: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 31 because it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “all Documents related to .. . .”; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). State Farm further objects to this Request as vague, specifically with respect to the use of the term “HAAG Refresher.” 68"}, {"d": 102, "p": 79, "t": "State Farm further states that its procedures are intended to provide guidance, but each claim is handled on its own merits. Moreover, training materials that were obsolete on the dates of loss, pertain only to other losses, and/or pertain only to other areas of the country, are not relevant to the matters at issue in this case. State Farm additionally objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and/or documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce. Finally, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Produce all Documents related to the “2021 Fire Property Claims Quality Plan.” RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 32: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 32 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “aff Documents related to . . . .”; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner's claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim 69"}, {"d": 102, "p": 80, "t": "9 ©@ S is handled on its own individual facts. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Subject to these and State Farm’s Universal Objections, State Farm agrees to produce State Farm’s 2021 Fire Property Claims Quality Plan upon entry of an approved protective order. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 33: Produce full and complete copies of all communications on “MyBlock” for the last ten (10) years related to wind/hail claims, total roof replacements, and/or the Fire Model Enhancement — Wind/Hail or related Team. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 33: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 33 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “afl communications”; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner's claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Moreover, confidential, proprietary business State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. It is also unduly burdensome to search for and/or produce such information. 70 Plaintiffs have not"}, {"d": 102, "p": 81, "t": "established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. UEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Produce full and complete copies of all “HAAG Education Hail and Wind Assessment Video Series,” including but not limited to: Chapter 1 — Hail and Wind Basics contains four segments and is 1 hour and 28 minutes; Chapter 2 — Composition Shingles contains nine segments and is 2 hours and 33 minutes long. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 34: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 34 because, in requesting “full and complete copies of ‘HAAG Education Hail Assessment Video Series,” it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope because it is not limited to trainings applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation. State Farm further objects to this Request because Haag has taken the position that State Farm does not have the authority to produce these videos. According to Haag, the videos constitute its intellectual property, and State Farm’s license to use the videos “does not confer upon State Farm any authority or sufficient control over the videos to reproduce, disclose, or otherwise produce Haag’s proprietary materials in litigation.” See Exhibit B, Decl. of R. Holdhusen. As such, Plaintiffs’ request should be directed to Haag. REQUEST Documents FOR PRODUCTION or Communications pertaining NO. 35: Produce to “Claims and full and complete copies of all Weather Event Topic Agency Discussions” and any transcriptions of the following: “Claim managers will host calls with Agency leadership from mid-January 2021 through February 2021 to discuss wind/hail topics that were frequent points of discussion with Agency in 2020. These topics may include a review of 2020 71"}, {"d": 102, "p": 82, "t": "claim wind/hail volume, additional inspections, matching, roofer inspections prior to a claim being submitted to State Farm, timelines for obtaining replacement cost benefits, Roof/Exterior Inspection Assist Program, SFPSP Roofing Services Program (RSP)/Contractor Services Program (CSP), Roof Surfaces Payment Schedule Endorsement, and Metal Roof Exclusion for Hail (Section 1 — Additional Coverage: Metal Roof Endorsement).” RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 35; State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 35 because it is overly broad, improperly assumes facts, and secks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attomey work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. 72"}, {"d": 102, "p": 83, "t": "REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: Please produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or other correspondence or documents sent or received by Nicole Manduca from January 1, 2019 until the present time regarding or relating to (i) Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives, (ii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Texas; (iii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Oklahoma; (iv) claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans; (v) Fire Model Enhancement Guidelines; and/or (vi) tracking of indemnity savings, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 36: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 36 because it is duplicative of Request for Production No. 23. In addition, State Farm objects to this Request because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, Nicole Manduca was not involved in any way with the handling or adjustment of Plaintiffs’ claims. Moreover, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “any and all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable time period); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad 73"}, {"d": 102, "p": 84, "t": "and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives” and “claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans.” confidential, Moreover, proprietary business State Farm to this Request objects and/or information trade secrets, to the extent information it seeks containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Please produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or other correspondence or documents sent or received by Tom Moss from January 1, 2019 until the present time regarding or relating to (i) Fire Mode] Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives, (ii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Texas; (iii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Oklahoma; (iv) claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans; (v) Fire Model 74 Enhancement Guidelines; and/or (v)"}, {"d": 102, "p": 85, "t": "tracking of indemnity savings, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 37: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 37 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, Tom Moss was not involved in the handling or adjustment of Plaintiffs’ claims. Moreover, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “any and ail” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable time period); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives” and “claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or 75"}, {"d": 102, "p": 86, "t": "g # that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Please produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or other correspondence or documents sent or received by Susan Maynard from January 1, 2019 until the present time regarding or relating to (i) Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus [nitiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives, (ii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Texas; (iii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Oklahoma; (iv) claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans; (v) Fire Model tracking of indemnity Enhancement Guidelines; and/or (v) savings, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims. PONSE TO RE ST NO. 38: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 38 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, Susan Maynard was not involved in the handling or adjustment of Plaintiffs’ claims. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (seeking “any and all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable time period); and geographic area (not limited to 16"}, {"d": 102, "p": 87, "t": "materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner's claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives” and “claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ._ 39: Produce ail Fire Model Enhancement Guidelines for Wind/Hail. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 39: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 39 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the 77"}, {"d": 102, "p": 88, "t": "extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: Produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or other correspondence or documents duties of State Farm and/or its captive Agent(s) to keep abreast of the condition of the properties State Farm insures upon renewal, including but not limited to reducing the risk of insuring the property, maintaining the exterior of the property, reducing the risk of additional damage to the roof, replacing the roof, replacing shingles with granular loss, eligible roofing material used, and how the insured gets this information to State Farm and/or its captive Agent(s). RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 40: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 40 because it seeks information which is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case. The Request is also vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “duties,” “keep abreast,” and “how the insured gets this information to State Farm and/or its captive Agent(s).” State Farm additionally objects to this Interrogatory as invasive of the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine and because it improperly seeks a legal conclusion. The Request is also objectionable because it is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation, not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other 78 insureds, arising under different facts,"}, {"d": 102, "p": 89, "t": "circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attomey work product and/or that is protected by the attomey client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: Produce any Fire Property Claims Quality Plan from January |, 2019 until the present time. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 41: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 41 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm agrees to produce State Farm’s Fire Property Claims Quality Plan that was in effect on the dates of loss, upon entry of an approved protective order. 719"}, {"d": 102, "p": 90, "t": "RE! e f ST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: Produce any Wind/Hail Claims Guidelines from January 1, 2019 until the present time. RESP’ ST_NO. 42: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 42 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Request is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: Please produce any and all emails, letters, memos, or other correspondence or documents sent or received by Sharon Arnold from January 1, 2019 until the present time regarding or relating to (i) Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives, (ii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Texas; (iii) implementation of Fire Model Enhancement Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives in Oklahoma; (iv) claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans; (v) Fire Model Enhancement Guidelines; and/or (v) tracking of indemnity savings, tracking of the total or full roof replacement to partial roof 80"}, {"d": 102, "p": 91, "t": "replacement ratio, tracking of full roof replacement approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume on wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 43: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 43 because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, Sharon Arnold was not involved in the handling or adjustment of Plaintiffs’ overly broad claims. Moreover, the Request is in scope (seeking “any and all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim); time (not limited to a reasonable time period); and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). extent it seeks documents In addition, the Request is overly broad and irrelevant to the and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “any hail quality focus initiatives,” “claims handling tactics or rules used related to such initiatives or plans,” “total or full roof replacement to partial roof replacement ratio,” “full roof replacement approval percentages “, and “total roof payment volume.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, information containing attomey work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. 81 Plaintiffs have not established that such"}, {"d": 102, "p": 92, "t": "$ ? information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: Produce all documents previously produced and/or ordered by the respective court to be produced by You in the following cases: - Nida v. State Farm, CJ-2020-4453 (Oklahoma County) - Hosier v. State Farm, CJ-2021-1741 (Oklahoma County) - Kyger v. State Farm, CJ-2022-3990 (Oklahoma County) - McDowv. State Farm, CJ-2022-1857 (Oklahoma County) - Barnett v. State Farm, CJ-2020-141 (Grady County) - MéeNéeil v. State Farm, CJ-2021-926 (Cleveland County) RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 44: State Farm objects to Request for Production No. 44 as an improper attempt to circumvent the protective orders governing the disclosure of Confidential information in other cases and the relevance requirements for each case. State Farm further objects because this Request is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of any party’s claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, as each of the cases listed in this Request involves different insureds, policies, properties, weather events, and facts of loss. This Request is also overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; and not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and to the extent it seeks documents and communications regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates and for insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claims at issue in this litigation. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in the case, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. 82 Further, State"}, {"d": 102, "p": 93, "t": ": ? Farm objects to this Request because it is improper “cloned discovery” and to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets or information. Plaintiffs have in the case, or therefore, not established that such information is probative of any issue discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Admit REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.1: that Plaintiff notified Farm State Fire and Casualty Company of the loss pertinent to the present action as required under the Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1: Denied. Admit REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NQ.2: complied that Plaintiff that it is standard with all provisions of the policy with regard to filing a claim for loss. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2: Denied. Admit REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: practice in the insurance industry for claims departments to adjust claims in a manner that does not violate the provisions of the Oklahoma Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, 36 O.S. § 1201, et seq. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3: State Farm objects to Request for Admission No. 3 because it is vague and ambiguous, harassing, and serves no legitimate purpose. It is improper to ask State Farm to admit or deny information as to what is or is not “standard practice” of other insurers, which is how the request is framed. For that reason and others, the admission request seeks information which is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections and the Universal Objections, State Farm admits that it handles claims in accordance with the Unfair Claims Settlement Practice Act provisions that are applicable to the specific claim being handled and not prevented by circumstances outside of State Farm’s control. 83"}, {"d": 102, "p": 94, "t": "REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that State Farm Fire and Casualty Company must conduct a reasonable and prompt investigation of Plaintiff's insurance claim. NSE TO T_NQ. 4: State Farm objects to Request for Admission No. 4 because it is vague and ambiguous. What is “reasonable” and “prompt” is subject to interpretation and prevents State Farm from admitting or denying the request with precision as written. The request also improperly asks State Farm to admit or deny a legal conclusion. Subject to these objections and the Universal Objections, State Farm admits that it must conduct a reasonable and prompt investigation, the determination of which varies based upon the facts of each claim. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.5: Admit that State Farm Fire and Casualty Company must promptly pay Plaintiff all benefits owed under Plaintiff's Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5: State Farm objects to Request for Admission No. 5 because it is vague and ambiguous. What constitutes “promptly” is subject to interpretation and prevents State Farm from admitting or denying the request with precision as written. The request also improperly asks State Farm to admit or deny a legal conclusion. Subject to these objections and the Universal Objections, State Farm admits that it must pay the Plaintiffs benefits State Farm determines are owed under the Policy within a reasonable time of determining they are owed. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s claim file for Plaintiff must contain contemporaneous and detailed documentation of each action taken and all work performed on Plaintiff's claim. RESPONSE TO REQUEST because it is vague and ambiguous. NO. 6: State Farm objects to Request for Admission No. 6 What is “contemporaneous” and “detailed” is subject to interpretation and prevents State Farm from admitting or denying the request with precision as written. The request also improperly asks State Farm to admit or deny a legal conclusion. Subject 84"}, {"d": 102, "p": 95, "t": "g ? to these objections and the Universal Objections, State Farm denies the request as written. What the statute requires is that State Farm include notes and papers in the claim file “in such detail that pertinent events and the dates of such events can be reconstructed.” RE FO Ss Admit NO.7; Plaintiff's that Policy afforded coverage to Plaintiff for the structural damage to the Subject Property and that said Coverage was active at all times relevant to this lawsuit. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7: State Farm objects to Request for Admission No. 7 because it is vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “structural damage” and that “said Coverage was active.” It also assumes facts—‘structural damage”—that do not exist. Subject to these objections and the Universal Objections, the request for admission is denied because there was no “structural damage” (as it is understood by State Farm) to the “Subject Property” from an October 4, 2023 or May 21, 2024 date of loss (or otherwise based on the information known to State Farm). State Farm admits that the Policy was in force on the dates of loss. Admit that Plaintiff has paid the premiums in REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8; full on the Policy. RESPONSE TQ REQUEST NO. 8: State Farm objects to Request for Admission No. 8 because it seeks information which is not relevant, likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, or proportional to the needs of the case. State Farm is not urging any defense based on any non-payment or late-payment of premiums. State Farm admits that the policy was in force on the dates of loss. State Farm stands on its objection as to any further response to this admission request. Admit REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.9: at the time of the inception of Plaintiff's Policy, State Farm required its agents, including Agent, to inspect all new business, 85"}, {"d": 102, "p": 96, "t": "é e including rewrites to new locations. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9: Denied. Admit that State Farm utilized assumptive REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: of Plaintiff's data regarding the characteristics Dwelling in the calculation of Plaintiff's replacement cost value. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 10: State Farm objects to this Request as it is vague and ambiguous as worded, does not define the “assumptive data” referenced, does not distinguish be whether it relates to the underwriting process or the claims handling process, and appears to overly broad in time and scope, an incomplete hypothetical irrelevant to the Plaintiffs claim and/or policy, which is an improper request for admission. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit the term “hail damage” is not defined in Plaintiff's Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11: State Farm objects to this Request because it is confusing, vague and ambiguous, and therefore cannot be answered with an admission or denial without qualification. State Farm also objects that this Request improperly assumes that a policy form must define hail damage. Subject to these objections and the General Objections, State Farm’s policy states that it “will pay for accidental direct physical loss” to covered property “unless the loss is excluded or limited” in the policy and includes hail damage. State Farm otherwise admits that “hail damage” is not a defined term in the policy. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit the term “functional damage” is not defined in Plaintiff's Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12: State Farm objects to this Request because it is 86"}, {"d": 102, "p": 97, "t": "confusing, vague and ambiguous, and therefore cannot be answered with an admission or denial without qualification. State Farm also objects that this Request improperly assumes that a policy form must define functional damage. Subject to these objections and the General Objections, State Farm’s policy states that it “will pay for accidental direct physical loss” to covered property “unless the loss is excluded or limited” in the policy and includes hail damage. State Farm admits that “functional damage” is not a defined term in the policy. Admit that if there is an accidental direct REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: a physical loss sustained by Plaintiff to the insured Dwelling under the Policy, then there must be specific exclusion in the Policy to support any denial. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13: State Farm objects to this Request as an improper question of law. State Farm objects to the Request as vague and ambiguous as worded and does not define “must” or “support.” The Request is an overly broad, incomplete hypothetical, and based on the information provided, State Farm cannot truthfully admit or deny this Request without qualification. However, State Farm admits that it has a common law duty of good faith and fair dealing, as defined by Oklahoma law, to insureds during the claim handling process. State Farm denies any inference or conclusion that the subject claim was not handled appropriately. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. RE T FOR NNO. 14: Admit You do not define hail damage in Plaintiff's Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 14: State Farm objects to Request for Admission No. 14 because it is duplicative of Request for Admission No. 11. State Farm further objects to this Request because it is confusing, vague and ambiguous, and therefore cannot be answered with an admission or denial without qualification. State Farm also objects that this Request improperly 87"}, {"d": 102, "p": 98, "t": "8 ? assumes that a policy form must define hail damage. Subject to these objections and the General Objections, State Farm’s policy states that it “will pay for accidental direct physical loss” to covered property “unless the loss is excluded or limited” in the policy and includes hail damage. State Farm admits that “hail damage” is not a defined term in the policy. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit You do not define “accidental direct physical loss” in Plaintiff's Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15: State Farm objects to this Request because it is confusing, vague and ambiguous, and therefore cannot be answered with an admission or denial without qualification. State Farm also objects that this Request improperly assumes that a policy form must define accidental direct physical loss. Subject to these objections and the General Objections, State Farm’s policy states that it “will pay for accidental direct physical loss” to covered property “unless the loss is excluded or limited” in the policy, but admits that “accidental direct physical loss” is not otherwise a defined term in the policy. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: that excessive granular loss to composition Admit You train Your claims personnel shingles caused by hail is not to be considered damage under the terms and conditions of State Farm’s homeowners policies. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16: State Farm objects this Request because it is confusing, vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “not to be considered,” and therefore cannot be answered with an admission or denial without qualification. State Farm also objects that this Request seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claim or defense or proportional to the needs of the case. State Farm further states that, subject to the entry of an approved protective order, it will produce the relevant provisions of the claim handling procedures that may have been used to adjust claims alleged to have arisen from the weather event that occurred on the 88"}, {"d": 102, "p": 99, "t": "dates of loss, which provide additional guidance related to this Request. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR SION Ni the roof does not qualify for a State RESPONSE TO REQUEST ; Admit a home with construction defects to Farm homeowners policy, NO. 17: State Farm objects to this Request as vague, ambiguous, and overly broad as worded and does not define “construction defects.” Thus, as worded, State Farm cannot truthfully admit or deny this Request without qualification. Subject to these objections and State REQUEST FOR Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. ADMISSION NO.18: Admit You developed the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other initiatives or programs to apply on first-party claims to seek a reduction in the amount You spent each year on total roof replacements, lower the ratio of total or full roof replacements to partial roof replacements, lower the full roof replacement approval percentage, and/or lower nationwide total roof payment volume. INSE_TO REQU. . 18: State Farm objects to this Request because it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous and therefore cannot be answered with an admission or denial without qualification. State Farm further objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case. State Farm also objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “Hail Focus Initiative,’ “Hail Initiative,” “other initiatives or programs to apply,” and “to seek a reduction.” The Request is an overly broad, incomplete hypothetical irrelevant to the Plaintiffs’ claims and/or policy, which is an improper request for admission. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. 89"}, {"d": 102, "p": 100, "t": "FOR ADMISSION NO.19: Admit You tracked the results of the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other initiatives or programs in the amount You spent each year on total roof replacements, the ratio of total or full roof replacements to partial roof replacements, the full roof replacement approval percentage, and/or nationwide total roof payment volume. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19; State Farm objects to this Request because it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous and therefore cannot be answered with an admission or denial without qualification. State Farm further objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant the claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. State Farm also objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “Hail Focus Initiative,’ “Hail Initiative,” and “other initiatives or programs.” The Request is an overly broad, incomplete hypothetical irrelevant to the Plaintiffs’ claims and/or policy, which is an improper request for admission. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied, REQU FOR ADMISSION EST NO. 20; Admit that You targeted Oklahoma certain States to implement the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other similarly named initiatives or programs. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 20; State Farm objects to this Request because it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous and therefore cannot be answered with an admission or denial without qualification. State Farm further objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of the 90"}, {"d": 102, "p": 101, "t": "8 an x case. State Farm also objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “Hail Focus Initiative,’ ‘Hail Initiative,” “other similarly named initiatives or programs,” and “targeted Oklahoma certain States to implement.” The Request is an overly broad, incomplete hypothetical irrelevant to the Plaintiffs’ claims and/or policy, which is an improper request for admission. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 21: Admit that You started implementation of the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other similarly named initiatives or programs in Texas. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 21: State Farm objects to this Request because it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous and therefore cannot be answered with an admission or denial without qualification. State Farm further objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. State Farm also objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “Hail Focus Initiative,’ “Hail Initiative,” “other similarly named initiatives or programs,” and “started implementation.” The Request is an overly broad, incomplete hypothetical irrelevant to the Plaintiffs’ claims and/or policy, which is an improper request for admission. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: to implement the Fire Model Enhancement Admit that You targeted Oklahoma as a state - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hai! Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other similarly named initiatives or programs after implementation in Texas. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22: State Farm objects to this Request because it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous and therefore cannot be answered with an 91"}, {"d": 102, "p": 102, "t": "admission or denial without qualification. State Farm further objects to this Request because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. State Farm also objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “Hail Focus Initiative,’ “Hail Initiative,” “other similarly named initiatives or programs,” “targeted Oklahoma as a state to implement,” and “after implementation in Texas.” The Request is an overly broad, incomplete hypothetical irrelevant to the Plaintiffs’ claims and/or policy, which is an improper request for admission. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. RE ‘OR. SSION_NO. 23: Admit that you have trained and/or made known the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other similarly named initiatives or programs to State Farm captive agents since January 1, 2019, RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 23: State Farm objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Admit You developed a team management approval system wherein adjusters who recommend a full roof replacement on a wind/ hail claim must get team manager approval for such full or total roof replacement. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 24: State Farm objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Admit that You compared the industry standards on percentage of Full Roof Replacements to Your internal standard on percentage of 92"}, {"d": 102, "p": 103, "t": "Full Roof Replacements and identified an opportunity for internal quality improvement by seeking to lower Your percentage of approvals for full roof replacements to the industry standard and/or to a related benchmark. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 25: State Farm objects to this Request because it is irrelevant, improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: Admit that since January 1, 2019, You review and/or track the percentages of total or full roof replacements by individual adjusters and managers on wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 26: State Farm objects to this request because it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous and therefore cannot be answered with an admission or denial without qualification. State Farm further objects to this request because it seeks information that is not relevant, reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, or proportional to the needs of the case. and ambiguous State Farm also objects to this Request as vague as to what is meant by “percentages of total or full roof replacements” “individual adjusters and managers.” and The Request is an overly broad, incomplete hypothetical irrelevant to the Plaintiff's claims and/or policy, which is an improper request for admission. Subject to these objections and the General Objections, denied. REQUEST and/or methods FOR ADMISSION NO. 27: to review and/or track Admit that you have percentages of total or full policies, procedures, roof replacements by individual adjusters and managers adjusting or working on Oklahoma wind/hail claims, including recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking, or analysis related to total or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims. 93"}, {"d": 102, "p": 104, "t": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 27: State Farm objects to this request because it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous and therefore cannot be answered with an admission or denial without qualification. State Farm further objects to this request because it seeks information that is not relevant, reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, or proportional to the needs of the case. State Farm also objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “percentages of total or full roof replacements,” “individual adjusters and managers,” “recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking, or analysis” and “related to total or full roof replacements.” The Request is an overly broad, incomplete hypothetical irrelevant to the Plaintiff's claims and/or policy, which is an improper request for admission. Subject to these objections and the General Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28: Admit that You believe “negotiation” is an element of accurate claim handling. SPO. TO REQUEST NO. 28: State Farm objects to this request because it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous and therefore cannot be answered with an admission or denial without qualification. State Farm further objects to this request because it seeks information that is not relevant, reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, or proportional to the needs of the case. State Farm also objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “You believe,” “negotiation,” and “an element.” The Tequest is an overly broad, incomplete hypothetical, and based on the information provided, State Farm cannot truthfully admit or deny this Request without qualification. However, State Farm admits that it has a common law duty of good faith and fair dealing, as defined by Oklahoma law, to insureds during the claim handling process. State Farm denies any inference or conclusion that the subject claim was not handled appropriately. Subject to these objections and the General Objections, denied. 94"}, {"d": 102, "p": 105, "t": "REQUEST to FOR ADMISSION NO. 29: Admit You acted in direct opposition any moratorium on the use of Haag. P (@) 'T_NO. 29: State Farm objects to this request as vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “direct opposition,” and it therefore cannot be answered with an admission or denial without qualification. State Farm further objects to this request because it seeks information that is not relevant, reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, or proportional to the needs of the case. State Farm did not use Haag Engineering to evaluate the alleged damage to Plaintiff's home and therefore Haag Engineering is not at issue in this case. Subject to these objections and the General Objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30; Admit that You created and/or implemented a claims handling Playbook and/or developed claims handling Tactics as part of the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, the Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other initiatives or programs for adjusting, handling, and/or investigating wind/hail claims. RESPONSE TQ REQUEST NO. 30: State Farm objects to this request because it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous and therefore cannot be answered with an admission or denial without qualification. State Farm further objects to this request because it seeks information that is not relevant, reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, or proportional to the needs of the case. State Farm also objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “created or implemented a claims handling Playbook,” developed claims handling Tactics,” and “Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or other initiatives or programs.” The Request is an overly broad, incomplete hypothetical irrelevant to the Plaintiff's claims and/or policy, which is an improper request for admission. 95 Subject to these"}, {"d": 102, "p": 106, "t": ": objections and the General Objections, denied. Respectfully submitted, NY. (ate £2) ' dow Lafice B. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 Fax lleffel@gablelaw.com -and- Carrie B. McNeer, OBA No. 22235 GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 Fax emcneer@gablelaw.com Attorneys for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 96"}, {"d": 102, "p": 107, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I do hereby certify that on September 22, 2025, a true, correct and exact copy of the above and foregoing document was served by placing same in the United States mail, with proper postage thereon duly prepaid, to those parties as listed below: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Patrick F. Collogan BIBY LAW FIRM Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Tulsa, OK 74137 pat@bibylaw.com Blake Sonne 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 97"}, {"d": 102, "p": 108, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA ee ee (1) BILLY HURSH, and (2) LACY HURSH, (1) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Ne Nee ee COMPANY, (2) MARK D. WELTY, and (3) MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ee Vv. ee eee Plaintiffs, ee Defendants. VERIFICATION I, Carmen Richwine, being first duly sworn, state that I verify State Farm’s answers to the interrogatories in Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories, which have been assembled with the assistance of counsel; and that the facts and matters set forth herein are true and correct. — l ea (L psa,0b I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. cing Atate Date 4097-4500-0042, v. 1 tfraflas 7"}, {"d": 102, "p": 110, "t": "GABLE GOTWALS caeunset Lance E. Leffel BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Avenue Suite 2200 Direct Line: (405) 235-5578 Oklahoma City, OK 73102-7101 Heffet@gablelaw.com Telephone (405) 235-5500 Fax (405) 235-2875 www.gablelaw.com October 5, 2023 Via Email Only Jeff Marr MARR LAW FIRM 4301 Southwest Third Street, Suite 110 Oklahoma City, OK Re: 73108 Gary and Tracy Hosier v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, et al. In The District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CJ-2021-1741 Counsel, I write in response to your September 21, 2023 letter regarding the deposition conceming Topics 4 and 5 of Plaintiffs’ 3230(C)(5) Notice. First, as State Farm continues to supplement its discovery production in this case, there are e-mails and documents currently being reviewed that are responsive to document requests that are also relevant to Topics 4 and S$. State Farm is working diligently to finish reviewing these documents and to produce them by October 15, 2023 as ordered by Discovery Master Morrisey. See August 31 Order. I wanted to let you know in advance in the event that this information causes you to consider waiting to depose State Farm’s corporate representative after this production is complete. Should you so elect, we will work with you to find a mutually acceptable date for the deposition after such production is complete. We are prepared to proceed prior to the productions being complete if that is your preference, but we will not agree to re-produce State Farm’s corporate representative voluntarily for a second deposition after the document production is complete should such a request be made. Second, as to your suggestion that State Farm designate Kelly Bever as its corporate representative, I would remind you that it is State Farm, not Plaintiffs, who can choose whom to designate as a corporate witness under 12 O.S. §3230(C)(5). Moreover, Ms. Bever has not been an employee of State Farm since 2021 and, as such, will not be designated as a corporate witness. Instead, State Farm will be producing Susan Maynard virtually as its corporate representative. PRIVELLGED AND CONFIDENTLAT"}, {"d": 102, "p": 111, "t": "Jeff Marr October 5, 2023 Page 2 Finally, as to your request that State Farm produce HOSIERGAR00017280 natively, State as required Farm will comply with this request because Plaintiffs have articulated a material reason, in native by the Oklahoma Discovery Code, for why this specific document needs to be produced identify the format rather than an alternative reasonably reasonable format——an alleged inability to State Farm document’s author with an explanation for why the author’s identity is necessary. As the metadata maintains, however, that this document is irrelevant to the Hosiers’ claims. (now Prine) in Russell Gina by associated with this document reflects, this document was authored with State meeting a of March 2012. Moreover, these talking points were authored in anticipation potential acquisition of Farm’s internal Director Change Advisory Board (DCAB) regarding the Ms. Russell was Xactware’s Service Pack 27.5, which included the Aerial Sketch tool. Specifically, and the estimated asked to demonstrate the benefit of having Service Pack 27.5 in before CAT season indemnity reducing with do to nothing savings due to efficiency gains. As such, this document has Service s Xactware’ ting payments, and instead was focusing on potential cost savings by implemen did not and points to DCAB Pack 27.5. In any event, State Farm chose not to present these talking implement Service Pack 27.5. ed Gra2 nSa Regards, Lance E. Leffel LEL:ke ce: All Counsel PRIVEE EGED AND) CONFIDENTIAL"}, {"d": 102, "p": 113, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT STATE OF OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY OKLAHOMA ) ) ) ) ) ) Case Number ) CJ-2021-1741 ) ) ) ) GARY HOSIER and TRACY HOSIER, Plaintiffs, vs. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and DAVID HOFFINES, Defendant. ed VIDEO DEPOSITION TAKEN ON IN OF JACQUELINE BEHALF OKLAHOMA ON OF THE CITY, APRIL COMMENCING 19, AT ELAINE DRAPER PLAINTIFFS OKLAHOMA 2023 9:49 A.M. CERTIFIED COPY REPORTED BY: CHERYL D. RYLANT, CSR, RPR INSTASCRIPT, LLC 125 PARK AVENUE, LL OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73102 schedule@instascript.net Phone: (405) 605-6880 Fax: (405) 605-6881"}, {"d": 102, "p": 114, "t": "Jacqueline Draper Page 393 Rr 4/19/2023 A. Yes. Q. Okay. According to the first why don't you read for our jury sentence, P&C correct? damage; hail is Claims asked 12 focused 13 that A. Yeah, Q. Okay. 16 17 what jury the P&C State this to do what Claims is you I document Farm discovery. in form Objection, LEFFEL: MR. question? don't why Well, produced was is am. according on, a me asking I for read Where from? pulled from? you Are 14 15 this Q. and 11 is pulled document 10 on? Where A. this focusing what and foundation. Go ahead. highlighted The A. 18 we 20 payments 21 had 22 dollars 23 over 24 on 25 Q. an Claims is focusing to lower our indemnity to indemnity over and a last total 7 Last Roofs. related the on \"PEC do can 19 part: of years $3.5 year Billion the Enterprise is focusing roofing.\" (By Mr. Marr) So, schedule@instascript.net (405) 605-6880 instaScript P&C we Billion $16.6 for what"}, {"d": 102, "p": 115, "t": "Jacqueline Draper Page 394 4119/2023 on doing to do and you're certainly people or evaluating are payments to even worse because it's roofs; correct? to related doing; payments. Those payments indemnity Objection, LEFFEL: it's here And policyholders. MR. for people indemnity lowering is that be to supposed not promoting and, supposed not you're that thing very the form and again, foundation. can You 10 go ahead. can read I yes. that, 11 BR. 12 Q. (By Mr. Marr) this And this -- 13 this is the same -- is the same part 14 State Farm that's providing you with the 15 definition 16 hail what Give me just rest of the document Q. Okay. because it damage; A. 17 18 read 19 me. the 20 21 first 22 the what right? trying I'm second. a you that provided Well, answer my question doesn't pertain to the rest of document. was question was: A. Okay. 24 Q. My division within your What 23 25 constitutes -- of of State Farm - question? is the same Claims - where This P&C schedule@instascript.net (405) 605-6880 instaScript to"}, {"d": 102, "p": 116, "t": ". Jacqueline Draper 4/19/2023 Page 395 you 2 constitutes 3. defined policy? the in Claims. P&C 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. 6 A. Ultimately, 7 to 8 I 9 not EagleView, this these are mean, true I Q. So, P&C 11 A. This is 12 ultimately, these -- 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. -- here are Okay. 17 A. These nature, is 19 things that that Q. All right. al A. -- none with the Q. Right. 24 That's your 25 the -- you of know, I true mean, these -- them reference fact anything to payment. interpretation, the the in payments. policyholder 23 below mentioned are but, indemnity, to indemnity, -- references it -- term expenses. 20 do wrong? policyholder 18 22 it speaking adjustment Q. this got items 16 mean, are These expenses. adjustment indemnity. Sketch. Aerial to speaks this this, reading speaks 10 15 not it's though even damage, hail what to as definition the received 1 that schedule@instascript.net (405) 605-6880 InstaScript you kind have of to like file a"}, {"d": 102, "p": 118, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, COUNTY ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY, MARK D. WELTY, and MARK) D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., _) Case No. CJ-2025-2626 ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm” or “Defendant”) submits the following supplemental answers and responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Discovery Requests. State Farm submits these supplemental interrogatories answers as ordered by the Court. In so doing, State Farm understands that the Court has overruled State Farm’s objections to those responses supplemented, at least insofar as it has found the information discoverable. With respect, State Farm maintains its objections as stated in its original responses including its General Objections therein and incorporates them herein as appropriate, but does not repeat those General and Universal Objections. As is customary, State Farm does include its original answer to the supplemented interrogatory, including objections, followed by its supplemental answer. INTERROGATORIES State Farm reserves its right to supplement, amend, or revise its answer to this Interrogatory as discovery is ongoing. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all Wind/Hail Claims and corresponding civil cases in Oklahoma since January 1, 2019 wherein a Total or Full Roof Replacement was denied"}, {"d": 102, "p": 119, "t": "prior to a lawsuit being filed, but was subsequently approved and/or paid to an insured after the insured filed a civil lawsuit against State Farm. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks information regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates; relating to insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowner’s claim at issue in this litigation; and involving information about individuals other than the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in this action, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information, or information protected by the attorney client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or other legal privileges. State Farm stands on its objections. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Subject to and without waiving its original objections, State Farm states that State Farm’s review of potentially responsive claim files is ongoing. State Farm will supplement this Response in accordance with its obligations under the Oklahoma Discovery Code. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify all policies, procedures, guidelines, manuals and/or training materials, which You used to train any of the Claims Handling Personnel involved with the Claim in any way."}, {"d": 102, "p": 120, "t": "ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO, 5: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, and overly broad with respect to the use of the terms “all policies, procedures, guidelines, manuals and/or training materials.” State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma); potentially unduly burdensome; and seeks information that is neither relevant to the claims/defenses of any party nor proportional to the needs or issues in this case. State Farm’s procedures are intended to provide guidance, but each claim is handled on its own merits. Moreover, training materials that were obsolete on the dates of loss, pertain only to other losses, and/or pertain only to other areas of the country, are not relevant to the matters at issue in this case. State Farm additionally objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce. Finally, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, and upon entry of an approved protective order, State Farm will produce the relevant parts of the claim handling procedures that may have been used to adjust claims alleged to have arisen from the weather event that occurred on the dates of loss. This includes the Estimatics and Claim Handling Practices (“ECHP”)}—a compilation of claim handling procedures that State Farm prepares in connection with weather events."}, {"d": 102, "p": 121, "t": "SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Subject to and without waiving its original objections, State Farm HURSHBIL00000001PROD - directs Plaintiffs to the documents HURSHBIL00004654PROD, produced at HURSHBILO00005157PROD - HURSHBIL00005824PROD, and HUR00163065. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify all State Farm management and/or executive employees who served on the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail team and/or the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team and/or the Hail Focus Initiative team. Please include titles and job descriptions for all such employees and dates of service. ANSWER _ TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of this action. In particular, the requested information is not probative of the reasonableness of State Farm claim handling and determination under the facts of this case nor are they probative of whether Plaintiffs’ property, and which parts, were in fact damaged by wind and/or hail. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, particularly with regard to what is meant by “management,” overly broad in time, and unduly burdensome because State Farm does not maintain a historical and comprehensive list of individuals who assisted with the Wind/Hail Fire Model Enhancement and that changed over time. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Subject to and without waiving its original objections, State Farm states that Wendy Mazza (Vice President of Operations) was the executive sponsor of the Wind/Hail Fire Model Enhancement (““FME”) along with Greg Jones (Vice President of Operations). Nicole Manduca, who at the time was a State Farm Claim Manager, oversaw the day-to-day work of the FME from 2020-2022. Upon information and belief after reasonable inquiry, State Farm states that other employees who were a part of the FME"}, {"d": 102, "p": 122, "t": "include Duane Biggs (Team Manager), April Bonner (Team Manager), John Broadway (Team Manager), John Chnupa (Team Burns (Operations Vice Manager), Devin President), Katina Butler (Section Clippinger (Section Manager), Byron Manager), Galloway John (Claim Consultant), Jacqueline Gatewood (Team Manager), Stacey Harmon (Section Manager), Renee Hilliard (Process Manager), Jermaine Johnson (Section Manager), Adrian Mack (Section Manager), Katie Magwire (Claim Manager), Clint Mahan (Team Manager), Carrie Mahoney (Process Manager), Tom Moss (Claim Consultant), George Munoz (Team Manager), Melissa Otterman (Team Manager), Jason Payne (Section Manager), Denise Powell (Section Manager), Sally Rauschendorfer (Section Manager), Jessica Rich (Team Manager), Anthony Richardson (Team Manager), Greg Robinson (Section Manager), Jared Runnels (Team Manager), Brad Rushton (Claim Consultant), Tyrone Smith (Executive Sponsor), and Shyama Terry (Operations Vice President). While State Farm is identifying these individuals in a good-faith effort to comply with the Court’s Order to answer this Interrogatory, “management and/or executive employees” is vague and ambiguous, and State Farm cannot state whether these individuals fall within those categories, and the provision of these names is not an admission that any of these individuals is or was a “management and/or executive employee” under Plaintiffs’ definition of those terms. Further, a number of the individuals listed are no longer employed by State Farm. The individuals also had varying levels of involvement with the FME, and while this list attempts to be inclusive, State Farm is not stating or admitting that everyone on this list had decision-making authority with respect to the FME work, had managerial authority with respect to this project, or had the same level of involvement with the project. The FME project team was dynamic, and employees moved into and out of roles related to the work at different points in time and as their roles and responsibilities shifted. In addition, State Farm has made its best effort to identify these"}, {"d": 102, "p": 123, "t": "individuals’ titles as requested by Plaintiffs. However, some individuals have taken on new roles and responsibilities during the relevant time frame, so the titles provided may not have been their titles during the entirety of the relevant time frame. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identify all third-party entities or individuals who consulted with State Farm management and/or executive employees relating to the Fire Model Enhancement - Wind/Hail team and/or the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team and/or the Hail Focus Initiative team. Please include titles and job descriptions for all third-party entities or individuals and disclose whether there existed or exists any agreement or contract with any such entity or individual. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses or proportional to the needs of this action. In particular, the requested information is not probative of the reasonableness of State Farm claim handling and determination under the facts of this case nor are they probative of whether Plaintiffs’ roof or other property was in fact damaged by wind and/or hail, and to what degree. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, particularly with regard to what is meant by “consulted,” overly broad in time, and unduly burdensome because State Farm does not maintain a historical and comprehensive list of individuals involved with the Fire Model Enhancement. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Subject to and without waiving its original objections, State Farm states that State Farm worked with Accenture on the Wind/Hail Fire Model Enhancement in 2020. State Farm and Accenture. There is a Master Services Agreement between"}, {"d": 102, "p": 124, "t": "INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify and describe all training, information, and/or dissemination of information provided to State Farm agents nationwide regarding the Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative from January 1, 2019 until the present time. If such training, information or dissemination is conducted or transmitted via an entity other than State Farm, please identify and describe such entity and the process of dissemination to State Farm agents. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “all training, information, initiatives. or dissemination of information” and the various referenced teams and State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory as it has no relevance to the facts or handling of the claim underlying this lawsuit. The claim sued upon involves a dispute as to whether and what extent a part of the house was damaged. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information of State Farm. State Farm stands on its objections. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY waiving its original objections, State NO. 9: Subject to and without Farm states that based on a diligent investigation, no training was provided to State Farm agents regarding the Wind/Hail Fire Model Enhancement. To the extent it will State Farm identifies additional responsive information and/or documents, supplement this Response in accordance with its obligations under the Oklahoma Discovery Code. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify all training You have provided to any captive agent regarding the marketing, sale, procurement, and or binding of homeowners insurance coverage in Oklahoma since January 1, 2019."}, {"d": 102, "p": 125, "t": "ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: State Farm objects to this Interrogatory as it seeks information that has no relevance to the facts or handling of the claim underlying this lawsuit or to a valid claim in the Petition. There is no question that the policy was issued and that it applies to wind and hail claims. State Farm also objects to the Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous as to what is meant by “all training . . . regarding the marketing, sale, procurement, and or binding of homeowners insurance coverage.” State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and as seeking information that is confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information of State Farm. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Subject to and without waiving its original objections, State Farm directs Plaintiffs to the documents produced at HURSHBIL00005861 PROD INTERROGATORY - HURSHBIL00005865PROD. NO. Youconducted or commissioned 11: Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, concerning Your adjustment and/or handling of wind- and/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma since 2010. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, specifically with respect to the terms “Analyses,” “Analysis” and “commissioned.” State Farm further objects because this Interrogatory seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is seeking “all” with respect to a vague and potentially broad categories of documents and information for a total of 15 years and is thus overly broad and unduly burdensome either in volume or in efforts to locate, or both. Moreover, proprietary State Farm business objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, information and/or trade secret information, and to the extent it seeks"}, {"d": 102, "p": 126, "t": "information potentially protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO _ INTERROGATORY NO, 11: Subject to and without waiving its original objections, State Farm directs Plaintiffs to the documents produced as HURSHBIL00152244PROD- HURSHBIL00152290PROD. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, You conducted or commissioned concerning Your use of Haag Engineering, Haag Education, and/or any other Haag enterprise or subsidiary with regard to wind- and/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, specifically with respect to the terms “Analyses,” “Analysis” and “commissioned.” State Farm also objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secret information, and to the extent it seeks information potentially protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections."}, {"d": 102, "p": 127, "t": "SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER _TO_ INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Subject to and without waiving its original objections, State Farm states that based its diligent investigation to date, State Farm did not conduct any Cost/Benefit Analysis regarding the use of Haag Engineering, Haag Education, or any other Haag enterprise or subsidiary with regard to wind and/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma. documents, To the extent State Farm identifies additional responsive information and/or it will supplement this Response in accordance with its obligations under the Oklahoma Discovery Code. INTERROGATORY_NO,._13: Identify and describe in detail the Fire Model Enhancement-Wind/Hail, the Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative with a similar title. Please outline and describe how any such team or initiative was created and/or implemented and any Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, you performed regarding such implementation. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague with respect to the terms “Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative with a similar title” and “created and/or implemented” and “any Analyses.” State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents and communications without any time or geographic restrictions, regarding the claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, circumstances, policies, and dates, relating to insureds who have not placed their claims or the personal sensitive information pertaining to their homes and homeowners’ claims at issue in this litigation; and involving information about 10"}, {"d": 102, "p": 128, "t": "individuals other than the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim. The investigation and evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor disprove any allegations in this action, as each claim is handled on its own individual facts. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information, or information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Subject to and without waiving its original objections, State Farm refers Plaintiffs to the documents produced at HURO00167264 - HUR00167364 and HURSHBIL00005866PROD - HURSHBIL00006221PROD. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, concerning Your use of Engineering Services with regard to wind- and/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it improperly assumes facts and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “Analyses” and “use of.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks 11"}, {"d": 102, "p": 129, "t": "confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information, if any exists, is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Subject to and without waiving its original objections, State Farm states that based on its diligent investigation to date, it has not identified any Analysis or Cost/Benefit Analysis that State Farm conducted regarding the use of Engineering Services for wind- and/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma. To the extent it will State Farm identifies additional responsive information and/or documents, supplement this Response in accordance with its obligations under the Oklahoma Discovery Code. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify any investigation, audit, and/or review and/or U.S Attorney’s You conducted or commissioned into HAAG following a. the jury’s verdict in Watkins v State Farm, b. the jury’s verdict in Nicolau vs State Farm; and/or c. the Mississippi Attorney General’s Investigation investigation into Your handling of claims arising from hurricanes Katrina and/or Rita. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to materials applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to materials pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time, given the events referenced in (a) — (c) 12"}, {"d": 102, "p": 130, "t": "above took place 18, 27, and 18 years ago, respectively, long before this action was filed; and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, Haag Engineering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claims. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned,” and to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attomey client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY_NO._ 15: Subject to and without waiving its original objections, State Farm states that following the jury verdict entered on May 25, 2006, in Watkins v. State Farm, District Court of Grady County, Case No. CJ-2000303, and in response to ongoing and anticipated litigation, State Farm sought to assess the issues the jury in Watkins had with State Farm’s use of Haag. To maintain the objectivity required to achieve this goal, State Farm retained outside counsel, Michael Traynor of the law firm Cooley Godward, to recommend and hire a consulting expert and facilitator to lead an investigation into Haag and to conduct a “blind” “peer review.” expert and facilitator. Professor Dan Wheat was hired as the consulting State Farm commenced this investigation in June or July 2006, and a Peer Review report was completed and submitted to State Farm on June 25, 2007. State Farm’s internal investigation into Haag, including but not limited to the Peer Review, and the Peer Review report, are protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney-work product doctrine, consulting expert privilege, and other legal privileges. 13"}, {"d": 102, "p": 131, "t": "State Farm did not conduct any investigation, audit or review specifically following the verdict in Nicolau v. State Farm, a Texas lawsuit in which the Supreme Court of Texas issued an order affirming in part and reversing in part the jury verdict entered against State Farm on July 9, 1997. State Farm Lloyds v. Nicolau, 951 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex. 1997). According to a post-judgment deposition of Susan Hood, Claims Vice President, now retired, taken on November 11, 2006, in the post-judgment proceedings conducted in Watkins, State Farm was conducting a separate investigation into Haag’s handling of claims arising from the Guif Coast hurricanes. However, despite conducting a diligent and reasonable investigation into Ms. Hood’s statement at her November 2006 deposition, at this time State Farm has no further non-privileged information regarding whether State Farm conducted any investigation, audit, or review into Haag following the Mississippi Attorney General’s investigation and/or the U.S. Attorney’s investigation into its handling of claims arising from Hurricanes Katrina and/or Rita. State Farm reserves the right to supplement this answer should additional responsive information be discovered. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Identify any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned into the following: a. HAAG’S objectivity and/or bias b. Your relationship with HAAG c. Your continued use of HAAG d. Your moratorium on Your use of HAAG ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope 14"}, {"d": 102, "p": 132, "t": "(not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, Haag Engineering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claims. State Farm also objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, especially as to the terms/phrases “any investigation, audit, and/or review You conducted or commissioned into... objectivity ... relationship . . . continued use . . . [and] moratorium,” and to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attomey client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO _INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Subject to and without waiving its original objections, State Farm states that based on its diligent investigation to date, the peer review State Farm conducted following the Watkins verdict was done at the direction of outside counsel and is privileged. With respect to subparts (b), (c), and (d), State Farm has not used Haag Engineering on any new claim assignments in the State of Oklahoma since the issuance of the moratorium on new claim assignments to Haag Engineering in June 2006. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Identify any date on which Your moratorium on Your use of HAAG, initiated June 5, 2006, was lifted, terminated, modified, or cancelled. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17: State Farm objects to this Request because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “use of” and “lifted, terminated, modified, or cancelled.” State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses 15"}, {"d": 102, "p": 133, "t": "or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Moreover, Haag Engineering did not inspect or provide an engineering or other opinion on Plaintiffs’ claim. State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm stands on its objections. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Subject to and without waiving its original objections, State Farm states that the moratorium on the use of Haag Engineering services has not been lifted, terminated, modified, or cancelled. INTERROGATORY NGQ. 18: Identify all training materials You have utilized (whether internal or from an outside source like HAAG) to train Your Claims Handling Personnel on windand/or hailstorm claims. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable 16"}, {"d": 102, "p": 134, "t": "period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “all training materials You have utilized.” State Farm’s procedures are intended to provide guidance, but each claim is handled on its own merits. Moreover, training materials that were obsolete on the dates of loss, pertain only to other losses, and/or pertain only to other areas of the country, are not relevant to the matters at issue in this case. State Farm additionally objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and/or documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce. Finally, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets. have not established that such information Plaintiffs is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, and upon entry of an approved protective order, State Farm will produce the relevant provisions of the claim handling procedures that may have been used to adjust claims alleged to have arisen from the weather event that occurred on the dates of loss. This includes the Estimatics and Claim Handling Procedures (“ECHP”)-a compilation of claim handling procedures that State Farm prepares in connection with weather events. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Subject to and without waiving its original objections, State Farm directs Plaintiffs to the documents produced at PROD HURSHBIL00000001 - HURSHBIL00004654PROD, and HUR00163065. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Identify all Your policies, procedures, and/or practices relating to the training of State Farm adjusters and third-party adjusters on the definition of 17"}, {"d": 102, "p": 135, "t": "“functional damage” for roof claims, as well as any coverage limitations based on the size and severity of the hail damage and the amount of wind speeds. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO, 19: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it improperly assumes facts and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim), time (not limited to a reasonable period of time), and geographic area (not limited to materials applicable to Oklahoma). Further, State Farm objects to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “all Your policies, procedures, and/or practices relating to the training.” State Farm’s procedures are intended to provide guidance, but each claim is handled on its own merits. Moreover, training materials that were obsolete on the dates of loss, pertain only to other losses, and/or pertain only to other areas of the country, are not relevant to the matters at issue in this case. State Farm additionally objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information and/or documents authored and/or copyrighted by entities that are not parties to this litigation, which State Farm is not at liberty to produce. Finally, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets. have not established that such information Plaintiffs is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. Subject to these objections and State Farm’s Universal Objections, and upon entry of an approved protective order, State Farm will produce the relevant provisions of the claim handling procedures that may have been used to adjust claims alleged to have arisen from the weather event 18"}, {"d": 102, "p": 136, "t": "that occurred on the dates of loss. This includes the Estimatics and Claim Handling Practices n (“ECHP”}—a compilation of claim handling procedures that State Farm prepares in connectio with weather events. For information reflecting the application of claims procedures to Plaintiffs’ claims, see the Claim Files for the claims at issue in this litigation. SUPPLEMENTAL_ANSWER_TO_ INTERROGATORY_ NO. 19: Subject to and to without waiving its original objections, State Farm states that based on its diligent investigation date, it has not identified policies, procedures, and/or practices regarding training regarding the script definition of “functional damage” for roof claims. State Farm further directs Plaintiffs to the 3065, which of the Haag Hail & Wind Damage Assessment training videos, produced at HUR0016 contains the following discussion of “functional damage”: or I believe the industry also has gotten away from using the term \"functional damage,” cosmetic damage. We understand those may be defined or not defined in a policy. Hey, we're engineers. We are not adjusters. We are talking about engineering definitions here. You may have functional damage, physical damage, or some other term to find in the policy. As an engineer, | want to tell you what the hail did, what the wind did, what the windborne debris impact did, and what it didn’t do. So, it's important for me as an engineer to stick to what happened and what didn't happen as a result of weather. Talk about damage in these terms, maybe talk about cosmetic conditions and things that may also have resulted. So, again, as we just talked about there, this is the engineering perspective of damage, not a policy definition. To the extent State Farm identifies additional responsive information and/or documents, it will supplement this Response in accordance with its obligations under the Oklahoma Discovery Code. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, You conducted or commissioned specifically targeting full roof replacements with regard to wind- and/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma from 2010 ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY to present. NO. 20: State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the because it improperly assumes facts and is vague and ambiguous, specifically with respect on use of the terms “commissioned” and “Analyses.” State Farm also objects to the Interrogatory the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses 19"}, {"d": 102, "p": 137, "t": "in this case or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER Farm stands on its objections. _TO_INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Subject to and without waiving its original objections, State Farm states that based on a diligent investigation to y date, State Farm has not identified any Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, specificall targeting full roof replacements with regard to wind- and/or hailstorm claims in Oklahoma. the extent State Farm identifies additional responsive information and/or documents, To it will supplement this Response in accordance with its obligations under the Oklahoma Discovery Code. INTERROGATORY You conducted NO. 21: Identify all Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, or commissioned regarding State Farm adjusters’ and third-party adjusters’ authorization and/or ability to approve full roof replacements without managerial approval from 2010 to present. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21; State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague with respect to the use of the terms “commissioned” and “Analyses.” State Farm further objects because this Request seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the 20"}, {"d": 102, "p": 138, "t": "s of Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “all” with respect to broadly defined categorie claim and/or documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claims personnel coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the time). Moreover, who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of ry business State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprieta that is information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or the extent protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. State Farm further objects to those for this Interrogatory because it improperly assumes facts. Only certain claims, including wind speed small hail or light wind damage (i.e., hail that is less than 1” in diameter or sustained Plaintiffs have less than 50 mph), were subject to managerial approval for total roof replacements. not that established such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. SUPPLEMENTAL_ANSWER TO _INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Subject to and investigation to without waiving its original objections, State Farm states that based on a diligent g State date, State Farm has not identified any Analyses, including Cost/Benefit Analysis, regardin Farm and third-party adjusters’ without managerial approval. adjusters’ replacements authorization and/or ability to approve To the extent State Farm full roof identifies additional ce with its responsive information and/or documents, it will supplement this Response in accordan obligations under the Oklahoma Discovery Code. claims INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Identify the total number of homeowners’ wind/hail roof’s soft metals from 2019-present in Oklahoma in which State Farm found damage the insured shingles, etc.) (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake did not suffer enough damage to exceed the policy’s deductible. 21"}, {"d": 102, "p": 139, "t": "ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claims with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different Policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. State Farm further objects because the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “found damage the insured roof’s soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to exceed the policy’s deductible.” SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER _TO_ INTERROGATORY_NO. 22: Subject to and without waiving its original objections, State Farm states that State Farm’s review of potentially responsive claim files is ongoing. State Farm will supplement this Response in accordance with its obligations under the Oklahoma Discovery Code. 22"}, {"d": 102, "p": 140, "t": "INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Identify the total number of homeowners’ wind/hail claims from 2019-present in Oklahoma in which State Farm found damage the insured roof’s soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to warrant a Full or Total Roof Replacement. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23; State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, this case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claims with State Farm, and other claims are necessarily unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different Policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different properties of different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may not have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any such matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). Moreover, State Farm objects because the Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “found damage the insured roof’s soft metals (vent cap, guttering, etc.) but found the roof material itself (asphalt shingles, shake shingles, etc.) did not suffer enough damage to warrant a Full or Total Roof Replacement.” 23"}, {"d": 102, "p": 141, "t": "ANSWER_TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY_NO._ 23: to and Subject without waiving its original objections, State Farm states that State Farm’s review of potentially responsive claim files is ongoing. State Farm will supplement this Response in accordance with its obligations under the Oklahoma Discovery Code. policies, procedures, Describe any and INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Identify and/or methods to review and/or track percentages of total or full roof replacements by individual and adjusters managers adjusting or on working Oklahoma claims, wind/hail including recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking, or analysis related to total or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case, which did not involve a total roof replacement. Specifically, the Interrogatory is overly broad in scope (seeking “any” with respect to broadly defined categories of documents; not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use of the terms “policies, procedures and/or methods to review” and “recommendations, approvals, or similar type of review, tracking or analysis.” Moreover, State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, or information containing attorney work product and/or that is protected by the attorney client or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such 24"}, {"d": 102, "p": 142, "t": "stands on information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable. State Farm its objections. NO. SUPPLEMENTAL_ANSWER_TO_INTERROGATORY 24: to and Subject to without waiving its original objections, State Farm states that based on a diligent investigation individual date, State Farm does not track percentages of total or full roof replacements by course adjusters and managers adjusting or working on Oklahoma wind/hail claims in the ordinary of business. documents, To the extent State Farm it will supplement responsive identifies additional this Response in accordance with information and/or its obligations under the (whether measured Oklahoma Discovery Code. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Please identify, state, and describe from quarterly, yearly, or some other way) the Wind and Hail Full Roof Replacement Percentage January 1, 2019 to the present in Oklahoma. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses stake in the or proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at on, the parties’ action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant informati expense of resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and the burden or involves the proposed discovery, which outweighs its likely benefit. As an initial matter, this case ly unrelated to the only Plaintiffs’ insurance claims with State Farm, and other claims are necessari Policies, specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different s of different coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different propertie or may not have ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims and/or 25 defenses"}, {"d": 102, "p": 143, "t": "such matters, at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. Any herein unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm Plaintiffs is overly claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are. Specifically, the Interrogatory broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim and/or coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel Farm who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time). State of further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the use to the terms “Wind and Hail Full Roof Replacement Percentage.” Moreover, State Farm objects trade this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or issue secrets, and because Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any in the case, or therefore, discoverable SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Subject to and to without waiving its original objections, State Farm states that based on a diligent investigation state date, State Farm does not maintain Wind and Hail Full Roof Replacement Percentage in the To the extent State Farm identifies additional of Oklahoma in the normal course of business. responsive information and/or documents, it will supplement this Response in accordance with its to obligations under the Oklahoma Discovery Code. State Farm is also willing to meet and confer to discuss what other roof replacement related data exists that State Farm can produce in response this Request. INTERROGATORY quarterly, yearly, or some NO. 26: Please identify, state, and describe (whether measured other way) the Total or Full Roof Replacement to Partial Roof . Replacement Ratio on Wind/Hail Claims from January 1, 2019 to the present in Oklahoma 26"}, {"d": 102, "p": 144, "t": "ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses issues at in this case or proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the information, stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant the burden or the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and matter, this expense of the proposed discovery, which outweighs its likely benefit. As an initial ly case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claims with State Farm, and other claims are necessari unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they involve different s of Policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to different propertie not different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what may or may and/or have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any claims Any such defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. nexus to the harm matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevant. State Farm further objects because this Interrogatory is unduly burdensome and overly and/or broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific insurance policy claim coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinent to the claims personnel , who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable period of time).” Moreover State Farm objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secrets, and because Plaintiffs have not established that such information is probative of any issue in the case, or therefore, discoverable 27"}, {"d": 102, "p": 145, "t": "SUPPLEMENTAL _ANSWER_TO_INTERROGATORY 26: NO. Subject to and produced at without waiving its original objections, State Farm directs Plaintiffs to documents HUR00025429; HUR00066948. To the State extent Farm identifies additional responsive obligations information and/or documents, it will supplement this Response in accordance with its under the Oklahoma Discovery Code. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Please identify, state, and describe (whether measured l claims from quarterly, yearly, or some other way) the Total Roof Payment volumes on Wind/Hai January 1, 2019 to the present in Oklahoma. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the resolution of the claims and defenses of the issues at in this case or proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance information, stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant the burden or the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and matter, this expense of the proposed discovery, which outweighs its likely benefit. As an initial are necessarily case involves only Plaintiffs’ insurance claims with State Farm, and other claims involve different unrelated to the specific facts and issues in this case, especially to the extent they different properties of Policies, coverages, terms, endorsements, and individuals, in addition to may or may not different ages, in different conditions. The existence of other claims, and/or what claims and/or have occurred with respect to another claim, will neither prove nor disprove any Any such defenses at issue in this litigation; each claim is handled on its own individual merits. no nexus to the harm matters, unrelated to the event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have t. Plaintiffs herein claim to have sustained under the subject policy and are irrelevan 28"}, {"d": 102, "p": 146, "t": "some and overly State Farm further objects to this Interrogatory because it is unduly burden insurance policy claim and/or broad in scope (not limited to information applicable to the specific t to the claims personnel coverages at issue in this litigation; not limited to information pertinen period of time). State Farm who adjusted the subject claim) and time (not limited to a reasonable ous with respect to the use of further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague and ambigu r, State Farm objects to the terms “Total Roof Payment volumes on Wind/Hail claims.” Moreove seeks confidential, proprietary business the extent this Interrogatory information and/or trade tion is probative of any issue secrets, and because Plaintiffs have not established that such informa in the case, or therefore, discoverable ANSWER SUPPLEMENTAL TO INTERROGATORY 27: NO. Subject to and on a diligent investigation to without waiving its original objections, State Farm states that based date, State Claims in the state Farm does not maintain Total Roof Payment volumes on Wind/Hail of Oklahoma. additional responsive identifies investigation is ongoing and, to the extent State Farm State Farm’s information and/or documents, it will supplement this Response in accordance with its obligations under the Oklahoma Discovery Code. INTERROGATORY Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the NO. 28: Please identify, state, and describe how the Fire Model Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus ve from January 1, 2019 until Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiati ng claims handling tactics the present implemented such initiatives or plans in Oklahoma, includi g of the total or full roof or rules used, tracking of indemnity savings in Oklahoma, trackin g of full roof replacement replacement to partial roof replacement ratio in Oklahoma, trackin approval percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment volume Oklahoma. 29 on wind/hail claims in"}, {"d": 102, "p": 147, "t": "28: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory TO INTERROGATORY_NO. ANSWER with respect to the terms “Fire Model because it impermissibly assumes facts and is vague ive,” “implemented such initiatives,” and Enhancement . . . and/or any hail quality focus initiat s to this Interrogatory on the grounds that “claims handling tactics or rules.” State Farm also object nt to the resolution of the claims and it is overly broad and seeks information that is neither releva case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs of the and communications regarding the overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks documents circumstances, policies, and dates, relating claims of other insureds, arising under different facts, al sensitive information pertaining to to insureds who have not placed their claims or the person ation about claims at issue in this litigation; and involving inform their homes and homeowners’ the subject claim. The investigation and individuals other than the claims personnel who adjusted ve any allegations in this action, as each evaluation of other claims will neither prove nor dispro claim is handled on its own individual facts. it seeks confidential, proprietary, State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent by the attorney-client privilege, work and/or trade secret information, or information protected product doctrine, and/or other legal privileges. Plaintiffs have not established that such ore, discoverable. information is probative of any issue in the case, or theref SUPPLEMENTAL_ANSWER_ TO INTERROGATORY NO, 28: Subject to and that the Wind/Hail Guidelines developed without waiving its original objections, State Farm states d enterprise-wide in December 2020. by the Wind/Hail Fire Model Enhancement were implemente ed as HURSHBIL00005866PROD State Farm further directs Plaintiffs to the documents produc HURSHBIL00006221PROD. INTERROGATORY Enhancement -Wind/Hail, the the Fire Model NO. 29: Please identify, state, and describe how Wind and Hail 30 Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus"}, {"d": 102, "p": 148, "t": "Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiative kicked off in Texas, mented in Texas, including claims handling including how such initiatives or plans were imple gs in Texas, tracking of the total or full roof tactics or rules used, tracking of indemnity savin , tracking of full roof replacement approval replacement to partial roof replacement ratio in Texas volume on wind/hail claims in Texas. percentages, and/or tracking of total roof payment ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 29: State Farm objects to the Interrogatory vague with respect to the terms “Fire Model because it impermissibly assumes facts and is tive,” “implemented such initiatives,” and Enhancement . . . and/or any hail quality focus initia objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that “claims handling tactics or rules.” State Farm also r relevant to the resolution of the claims and it is overly broad and seeks information that is neithe of the case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is defenses in this case nor proportional to the needs documents and communications regarding the overly broad and irrelevant to the extent it seeks claims circumstances, of other insureds, arising under different facts, policies, and dates, in have not placed their claims or the personal different geographies, relating to insureds who and homeowners’ claims at issue in this litigation; sensitive information pertaining to their homes than the claims personnel who adjusted the and involving information about individuals other other claims will neither prove nor disprove any subject claim. The investigation and evaluation of on its own individual facts. allegations in this action, as each claim is handled extent it seeks confidential, proprietary, State Farm also objects to this Interrogatory to the protected by the attorney-client privilege, work and/or trade secret information, or information Plaintiffs have not established that such product doctrine, and/or other legal privileges. verable. ore, disco information is probative of any issue in the case, or theref 31"}, {"d": 102, "p": 149, "t": "SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO NO. INTERROGATORY 29: Subject to and Plaintiffs to the documents produced at without waiving its original objections, State Farm refers HURSHBIL00005980PROD, HURSHBIL00006006PROD, HURSHBIL00006032PROD, HURSHBIL00006042PROD, HURSHBIL00006088PROD, HURSHBIL00006122PROD, HURSHBIL00006130PROD, HURSHBIL00006166PROD, HUR00031244, and HUR0003 1246. Respectfully submitted, _ Artie 27 LG eo a) - ~tat } Carrie B. McNeer, OBA No. 22235 Grant A. Fitz, OBA No. 19806 Nathan A. Miramontes, OBA No. 36212 GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 Fax cmcneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com nmiramontes@gablelaw.com -andLance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 Fax lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com Attorneys for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 32"}, {"d": 102, "p": 150, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING correct and exact copy of the above I do hereby certify that on September 3, 2026, a true, in the United States mail, with proper postage and foregoing document was served by placing same thereon duly prepaid, to those parties as listed below: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com R. Ryan Deligans, Durbin, Larimore & Bialick 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rdeligans@dlb.net Patrick F. Collogan BIBY LAW FIRM 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 pat@bibylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 33"}, {"d": 103, "p": 1, "t": "DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY FILED STATE OF OKLAHOMA DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK Plaintiffs, Case Number CJ-2025-2626 Vv. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY: MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO COMPEL, NOTICE OF NONPARTY ACCENTURE LLP’S COLLATERAL PROCEEDING IN ILLINOIS, AND REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL UNDER RULE 4(H)"}, {"d": 103, "p": 2, "t": "TABLE OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Description Petition of Nonparty Accenture LLP for Protective Order Quashing or Limiting 1 Subpoena Duces Tecum, Accenture LLP v. Hursh, No. 2026-L-011400 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty., IIl., filed Sept. 23, 2026) ) Notice of Motion and Certificate of Service, No. 2026-L-011400 (filed Sept. 23, 2026) 3 4 5 Subpoena Duces Tecum to Accenture LLP (July 2, 2026) and Affidavit of Service (July 3, 2026) Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Subpoena Duces Tecum (July 17, 2026) Nonparty Petitioner Accenture LLP’s Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to Quash Subpoena and/or for a Protective Order, No. 2026-L-011400 (filed Sept. 23, 2026)"}, {"d": 103, "p": 3, "t": "Plaintiffs reply in support of their Motion to Compel Nonparty Accenture LLP’s Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum (“Motion”) and respond to Accenture’s opposition (“Resp.”). Accenture argues that this Court cannot enforce its own subpoena and, alternatively, that it need not comply because it has few responsive documents, State Farm has the rest, and the search would be burdensome. Neither holds up. Accenture was served with this Court’s process at its own Oklahoma City office and objected here under Oklahoma law, and its merits objections rest on no competent evidence. On September 23, 2026, two days before its opposition was due, Accenture also asked the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to quash this Court’s subpoena. Accenture LLP vy. Hursh, No. 2026-L-011400 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty., Ill.) (Exs. 1, 2). The Hurshes have not been served in that proceeding and object to that court’s jurisdiction. See 735 ILCS 5/2301. Plaintiffs ask the Court to rule on the Motion now, without a hearing, under Rule 4(h) of the Rules for District Courts, and to confirm that disputes over this Court’s subpoena will be resolved here. 12 O.S. Chapter 2, Rule 4(h). A. The Subpoena Is this Court’s Process, Served in Oklahoma, and Accenture Has Already Submitted Its Objections Here. Plaintiffs’ subpoena duces tecum issued from this Court on July 2, 2026, under 12 O.S. § 2004.1. It was served that day at Accenture’s Oklahoma City office and calls for production in Oklahoma City. (Ex. 3.) Accenture admits that it is registered to do business in Oklahoma, maintains an office in Oklahoma City, and has a registered agent here, and that it has documents relating to its 2020 State Farm engagement, which it says are not located in Oklahoma. (Ex. | 7-8, 17, 20.) Accenture then chose this Court. On July 17, 2026, through Oklahoma counsel, it served objections “[pJursuant to the Oklahoma Discovery Code, 12 O.S. § 3226 et seg., and 12 O.S. § 2004.1, and all applicable rules and orders of this Court.” (Ex. 4.) Once a nonparty objects,"}, {"d": 103, "p": 4, "t": "production may be had only “pursuant to an order of the court by which the subpoena was issued,” 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C)(2)(b), and that court decides whether to quash or modify the subpoena, id. § 2004.1(C)(3)(a). That court is this one. Accenture’s opposition confirms the point. It asks this Court to deny the Motion on the merits and to award Accenture its fees under 12 O.S. § 3237(A)(4) (Resp. at 10-18), and it quotes the rule that production may be had only “pursuant to an order of the court” (id. at 6-7). Accenture cannot seek a merits ruling and a fee award here while telling an Illinois court that this Court has no power to decide the same objections. Nor is this the first time. In Foster v. State Farm, after the plaintiffs moved in the District Court of Cleveland County to compel compliance with an Oklahoma deposition subpoena served at Accenture’s Oklahoma City office and on its Oklahoma registered agent, Accenture filed a second Cook County petition to quash that subpoena too. Accenture LLP v. Foster, No. 2026-L011413 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty., IIL); see Resp’ts’ Combined Mot. to Dismiss §] 4—6, id. Yet when the same plaintiffs moved to compel a document subpoena in May, Accenture argued its position in Cleveland County, obtained relief there, and filed nothing in Illinois. /d. § 9. Accenture accepts the Oklahoma courts’ authority when they rule in its favor, and disputes it only when they are asked to enforce a subpoena against it. B. The Dlinois Proceeding Is an Attempt to Relitigate this Court’s Subpoena in a Second Forum. Accenture’s IIlinois petition asserts that “[t]he Oklahoma court lacks jurisdiction to enforce a nonparty subpoena on Accenture, an Illinois company.” (Ex. 1 12.) That is a question about this Court’s power over its own process. It is for this Court to decide, and Accenture reserved it here. (Ex. 4, General Response J 8.)"}, {"d": 103, "p": 5, "t": "It is also wrong, and Accenture’s own authorities show why. In Craft v. Chopra, the plaintiff mailed an Oklahoma subpoena to a Texas hospital in Texas, and the court held that § 2004.1 “specifically permits service of subpoenas only ‘within the state.’” 1995 OK CIV APP 135, 443, 7, 907 P.2d 1109, 1110-11. Accenture’s Illinois memorandum asserts that the Texas hospital “had contacts with Oklahoma” (Ex. 5 at 6-7), but Craft says no such thing, and Plaintiffs do not rely on contacts. What Craft makes decisive is where the subpoena was served. Lovett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a forum non conveniens case on which Accenture relies (Resp. at 7, 9), repeated Craft while noting that § 2004.1 “provides that subpoenas may be served at any place in the state.” 2001 OK CIV APP 9, § 12, 18 P.3d 387, 389. The “state line” those cases describe is a limit on where a subpoena may be served, and Plaintiffs’ subpoena was served on the Oklahoma side of it. See 12 O.S. § 2004.1(A)(2). Nor does the location of Accenture’s files matter. A subpoena duces tecum reaches documents in the recipient’s “possession, custody or control,” id. § 2004.1(A)(1)(b), wherever they are kept. The out-of-state decisions Accenture cites (Ex. 5 at 6-8) do not hold otherwise, and none involved a nonparty served at its own office within the forum State. In In re National Contract Poultry Growers’ Ass'n, the subpoena was mailed to a nonparty in Louisiana that had no office in Alabama and was not qualified to do business there. 771 So. 2d 466, 466-67 (Ala. 2000). In Phillips Petroleum Co. v. OKC Ltd. Partnership, there was “no office or attendant corporate personnel residing in Louisiana on whom might be served a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum.” 634 So. 2d 1186, 1188 n.6 (La. 1994). In Quinn v. Eighth Judicial District Court, no subpoena had been served in Nevada at all. 134 Nev. 25, 410 P.3d 984, 988 n.5 (2018). And Deppa v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., a foram non conveniens case, observes only that Illinois courts have “no"}, {"d": 103, "p": 6, "t": "compulsory process to secure the attendance of unwilling third-party witnesses outside Illinois” at an Illinois trial. 2025 IL App (Ist) 241795, 4 46. Accenture will point to Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., which held that a Mississippi court “cannot subpoena a nonresident nonparty to appear and/or produce in Mississippi documents which are located outside the State of Mississippi.” 908 So. 2d 121, 129, § 16 (Miss. 2005). That holding does not apply here, for three reasons. First, Syngenta applied Mississippi law. Oklahoma’s statute limits where a subpoena may be served and where production may be required, 12 OS. § 2004.1(A)(2)-(3), not where the subpoenaed records are kept; it reaches anything in the recipient’s “possession, custody or control,” id. § 2004.1(A)(1)(b). Second, Syngenta’s nonparties had their principal places of business outside Mississippi, their only presence there was a registered agent, and they were served only through that agent. 908 So. 2d at 123, 127, ¢ 12. Accenture, by contrast, has an office and “attendant corporate personnel” here, Phillips, 634 So. 2d at 1188 n.6, and was served at that office. (Ex. 1 {{[ 7-8; Ex. 3.) Its managing director has described that office as “designed for collaboration for both clients and Accenture employees.” McNutt, “Accenture opens office in Oklahoma City”, The Journal Record (Jan. 18, 2023). Third, Accenture’s claim about where its documents are is unsworn and unexplained. The only declaration it has filed, from its outside counsel, says nothing about where they are kept (Resp. Ex. 2, Fuchs Decl.); its Illinois memorandum says only that they are “located in part in Illinois” (Ex. 5 at 5); and its counsel has offered to search Accenture’s existing “collection set” (Fuchs Decl. Ex. B). Documents Accenture has already collected and can search are within its control. Finally, the Maryland decision on which Craft relied describes a witness who “is a nonresident of and is absent from the state,” Craft, 1995 OK CIV APP 135, 4 7, 907 P.2d at 1111-12 (quoting In re Special Investigation No. 219, 52 Md. App. 17, 445 A.2d 1081, 1085 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1982)), and confirms that the authority to"}, {"d": 103, "p": 7, "t": "enforce compulsory process “rests exclusively with the court that issued it,” Special Investigation No. 219, 445 A.2d at 1086. This Court issued the subpoena; its enforcement rests here. The Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act does not change the analysis. Oklahoma’s enactment governs subpoenas issued by other states for discovery here, and its enforcement provision reaches only “a subpoena issued by a clerk of court under Section 3 of this act.” 12 O.S. § 3255; see id. § 3252. Illinois’s enactment is the same. 735 ILCS 35/3, 35/6. The Act is an optional mechanism for obtaining process in another state; it does not restrict this Court’s authority over an entity present and served in Oklahoma. No Illinois subpoena exists here, and a court in the discovery state has no authority to quash a foreign subpoena that was never domesticated there. AO Alfa-Bank v. Doe, 171 N.E.3d 1018, 1023 (Ind. Ct. App.) (vacating as void an order quashing an undomesticated Florida subpoena; “[t]he lack of domestication is a jurisdictional threshold”), reaff’d on reh’g, 171 N.E.3d 1024 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). Illinois law, too, treats a subpoena as the process of the court that issued it: a subpoena duces tecum “is a judicial process,” and subpoenaed documents go to the court, “which then determines the relevancy of the documents and whether they are privileged, as well as whether the subpoena is unreasonable or oppressive.” People v. Sauls, 2022 IL 127732, § 33. This Court’s subpoena is the only one at issue. C. Service at Accenture’s Oklahoma City Office Was Effective. Accenture’s only other threshold objection is that the subpoena was handed to an administrative assistant. (Ex. 4, General Objection No. 2; Resp. at 3.) Oklahoma law requires only that a subpoena be served “by delivering or mailing a copy thereof to such person.” 12 O.S. § 2004.1(B)(1). Plaintiffs delivered it to Accenture at its own Oklahoma City office (Ex. 3), which Accenture opened in 2023 as its first “permanent presence” in Oklahoma and “a destination for Accenture employees to work side-by-side with clients.” McNutt, supra. The subpoena reached"}, {"d": 103, "p": 8, "t": "the right people: within eight days Accenture’s counsel was conferring with Plaintiffs’ counsel, and within fifteen days Accenture had served objections and responses through Oklahoma counsel. (Resp. Ex. 2, Fuchs Decl. §] 3; Ex. 4.) Accenture claims neither lack of notice nor prejudice. Having received the subpoena, objected to it under § 2004.1, and litigated its scope for nearly three months, Accenture cannot avoid compliance by faulting the employee who accepted it. D. Accenture’s Objections on the Merits Fail on Their Own Terms. Accenture says it has no documents responsive to Requests 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 because it did not “collect or assemble industry data, studies, methodology, or any other information relating to an industry best benchmark.” (Resp. at 10-11 & Ex. 1.) Its counsel’s own email says otherwise: Accenture “provided information that was incorporated in certain PowerPoint presentations relating to the frequency of full roof replacement resulting from hail damage.” (Resp. Ex. 2, Fuchs Decl. Ex. B.) That is what Requests 1 and 3 seek: the benchmarks on full roof replacements that Accenture “relied on and/or produced and/or utilized” in its State Farm work. (Resp. Ex. 1.) And counsel’s declaration says Accenture “does not have much of the underlying industry material” (Fuchs Decl. § 4(a)), not that it has none. What Accenture has, it must produce. Accenture next argues that Plaintiffs must first obtain the documents from State Farm, relying on Barlow v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. CIV-25-44-R, 2026 WL 1295782 (W.D. Okla. May 12, 2026), and a docket entry in Foster. (Resp. at 5—6, 13-15.) Barlow did not question any court’s authority over Accenture. It granted a party’s motion under the federal rules, on a record in which the plaintiffs did “not dispute that much of the material sought from Accenture overlaps with material that it is already seeking from State Farm,” and it sequenced that discovery rather than barring it: “Plaintiffs should first seek the information from State Farm. The Court will then be in a better position to evaluate any remaining disputes about obtaining the requested documents, either from State Farm or from a third-party.” /d. at *7. Plaintiffs here have done that,"}, {"d": 103, "p": 9, "t": "and State Farm has objected that it is not at liberty to produce documents authored by nonparties. (See Resp. at 14-15.) Barlow also held that discovery into State Farm’s Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team and Hail Focus Initiative is relevant and proportional. /d. at *4—5. Foster is to the same effect. Accenture does not attach the entry and describes it inconsistently (Resp. at 5-6, 14), but by the Foster plaintiffs’ account the court required State Farm to produce first and granted Accenture’s request on that basis. Resp’ts’ Combined Mot. to Dismiss §] 9, Accenture LLP v. Foster, supra. Both decisions sequenced discovery; neither excused Accenture from it. And both came from courts sitting in Oklahoma, ruling on Oklahoma subpoenas to Accenture. Accenture’s premise that State Farm holds “the vast majority, if not all” of its work (Resp. at 14) rests on one line in its counsel’s declaration recounting that Accenture “works in the electronic system of its clients.” (Fuchs Decl. § 4(c).) Yet Accenture has its own “collection set” that it is willing to search. (/d. Ex. B.) Documents in Accenture’s files are not in State Farm’s. Accenture’s burden objection is equally unsupported. A party resisting discovery “may not rely on boilerplate, generalized, conclusory, or speculative arguments,” Barlow, 2026 WL 1295782, at *2 (quoting Pruess v. Presbyterian Health Plan, Inc., 579 F. Supp. 3d 1235, 1240 (D.N.M. 2022)), and must offer “specific examples and articulated reasoning,” Pruess, 579 F. Supp. 3d at 1240 (citation omitted). Barlow credited State Farm’s burden objection only on an affidavit explaining the limits of its claim-file systems and estimating more than 40,000 hours of review. 2026 WL 1295782, at *6. Accenture offers one sentence from outside counsel estimating “several hundred thousand dollars,” without identifying a single custodian, data source, volume, search term, or hour. (Fuchs Decl. {| 7.) Finally, Accenture objects to the subpoena’s time period and proposes to limit it to January through July 2020. (Resp. at 16-18; Fuchs Decl. § 5(d).) Accenture itself acknowledges that State"}, {"d": 103, "p": 10, "t": "Farm “may have referenced [Accenture’s] work in 2021 (or even later).” (Resp. at 17.) Material showing how State Farm used Accenture’s work after July 2020, including as the initiative moved into Oklahoma, is central to Plaintiffs’ claims. E. The Court Should Rule Without a Hearing. Rule 4(h) provides that “[m]otions may be decided by the court without a hearing.” Rule 4(h), Rules for District Courts of Oklahoma, 12 O.S. ch. 2, app. The Motion is fully briefed, the questions are legal, and the record is documentary, so a hearing would add nothing. Delay, on the other hand, carries real cost while Accenture asks an Illinois court to act on this Court’s subpoena. A prompt ruling from the issuing court, which Oklahoma law designates to decide these objections, 12 O.S. § 2004.1(C)(2)(b), (C)(3)(a), is the surest way to avoid inconsistent orders on this Court’s own process. F. Requested Relief. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully request that the Court: (a) rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel immediately and without a hearing under Rule A4(h), or, if the Court prefers to hear argument, set a hearing at its earliest availability; (b) determine that Accenture, having been served in Oklahoma, is subject to this Court’s subpoena and that disputes concerning the subpoena are to be resolved by this Court; (c) overrule Accenture’s objections and order production within fourteen days, subject to the existing protective order in this action addressing Accenture’s confidentiality concerns; and (d) grant such further relief as the Court deems just. Respectfully submitted, /s Blake Sonne Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576"}, {"d": 103, "p": 11, "t": "Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS"}, {"d": 103, "p": 12, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 2\"! day of October, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was emailed and/or mailed to: Carrie McNeer and Grant A. Fitz, GableGotwals, 110 N. Elgin Avenue, Suite 200, Tulsa, OK 74120 (cmcneer@gablelaw.com; gfitz@gablelaw.com); Lance E. Leffel, GableGotwals, 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (lleffel@gablelaw.com), Attorneys for Defendants; Amy Sherry Fischer, Foliart, Huff, Ottaway & Bottom, 201 Robert S. Kerr Avenue, 12th Floor, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com), Attorneys for Non-Party Accenture LLP; and Nancy A. Temple, Katten & Temple, LLP, 33 N. Dearborn St., (ntemple@kattentemple.com). /s Blake Sonne Blake Sonne 10 Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60602"}, {"d": 103, "p": 13, "t": "VERIFICATION Pursuant to Rule 4(c) of the Rules for District Courts of Oklahoma and 12 O.S. § 426, I, Blake Sonne, state as follows: 1. Tam an attorney with Whitten Burrage, counsel of record for Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated below, and I am competent to testify to them. 2. On July 2, 2026, I issued the Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to Accenture LLP at 525 NW 11th Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73103. It was served that day at that address, as reflected in the Affidavit of Service. True and correct copies of the Subpoena and the Affidavit of Service are attached as Exhibit 3. 3. On July 17, 2026, Accenture, through its Oklahoma counsel, served Non-Party Accenture LLP’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Subpoena Duces Tecum. A true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit 4. 4. Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel on September 10, 2026. Accenture’s response was due September 25, 2026. Accenture filed a response on September 25, 2026. 5. On September 23, 2026, Accenture filed a Petition for Protective Order Quashing or Limiting Subpoena Duces Tecum and a supporting memorandum in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, No. 2026-L-011400, and noticed its motion for presentment on October 1, 2026. True and correct copies of the Petition, the Notice of Motion and Certificate of Service, and the memorandum, as filed, are attached as Exhibits 1, 2, and 5. 6. No subpoena has been issued to Accenture by any Illinois clerk of court at Plaintiffs’ request. 11"}, {"d": 103, "p": 14, "t": "I state under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: October 2, 2026 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma /s Blake Sonne Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 12"}, {"d": 103, "p": 15, "t": "Law Division Motion Section Initial Case Management Dates for CALENDARS (A,B,C,D,E,F,H,R,X,Z) will be heard In Person. All other Law Division Initial Case Management Dates will be heard via Zoom For more information and Zoom Meeting IDs go to https./Avww.cookcountycourt,org/HOME?Zoom-Links?Agg4906_SelectTab/12 Court Date: 11/19/2026 9:30 AM FILED 9/23/2026 9:59 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS Maryan OL Spyropoulos COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION COOK COUNTY. IL 3 2026L011400 = Calendar, Q g ACCENTURE LLP, an Illinois ) a limited liability partnership, ) z ) 6 Petitioner, g g 40132419 ) ) Vv. ) 3 2026L011400 Case No. ) BILLY AND LACY HURSH, ) ) Qa : ~ Respondents/ ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) v. STATE FARM FIRE AND ) CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. PETITION OF NONPARTY ACCENTURE LLP FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER QUASHING OR LIMITING SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Petitioner Accenture LLP, an Illinois limited liability partnership, by and through its attorneys Katten & Temple, LLP, pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Deposition and Discovery Act 735 ILCS 35/1, et seg., and Supreme Court Rule 201, petitions this Court for a protective order quashing or limiting the subpoena duces tecum issued by plaintiffs in the underlying foreign lawsuit pending in Oklahoma state court captioned above. The grounds supporting this Petition are set forth below and in the accompanying memorandum. 1. Accenture LLP is an I]linois limited liability partnership."}, {"d": 103, "p": 16, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 2. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a Certificate of Good Standing for Accenture LLP, dated as of Sept. 21, 2026, issued by the Illinois Secretary of State. 3. Accenture’s principal corporate office is located at 500 West Madison, 21st Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60661. 4, Accenture’s registered agent for service of process is Corporate Creations Network Inc., 1320 Tower Road, Schaumburg, IL 60178. 5. Billy and Lacy Hursh (“Plaintiffs”) are plaintiffs in a lawsuit pending against defendants State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Mark D. Welty and Mark D. Welty Insurance Agency, Inc., in the district court for Oklahoma county in the State of Oklahoma, Case No. CJ-2025-2626. The underlying lawsuit arises out of homeowners’ property damage claims made by plaintiffs on their State Farm policy in or about 2024. 6. Accenture is a nonparty to the underlying lawsuit in Oklahoma. 7. Accenture is registered as a foreign company with the Oklahoma Secretary of State. 8. Accenture has an office in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 9. On or about July 2, 2026, Plaintiffs’ counsel delivered a copy of a subpoena duces tecum to Accenture’s Oklahoma office. A true and correct copy of the subpoena duces tecum is attached as Exhibit 2. 10. On September 9, 2026, Plaintiffs’ counsel in the underlying lawsuit mailed to defense counsel a notice of deposition of Accenture’s corporate"}, {"d": 103, "p": 17, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 representative who is “most knowledgeable” to testify regarding 25 different topics on October 16, 2026. A true and correct copy of that subpoena is attached as Exhibit 3. Accenture has not been served yet with a subpoena for this deposition. 11. Plaintiffs’ counsel in the underlying lawsuit have filed a motion to compel with respect to the subpoena duces tecum in the underlying lawsuit in Oklahoma state court. The deadline to file a response to the motion to compel is September 25, 2026. 12. The Oklahoma court lacks jurisdiction to enforce a nonparty subpoena on Accenture, an Illinois company. 13. Pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Deposition and Discovery Act, adopted in Illinois and Oklahoma, the proper procedure is to obtain a subpoena from the Illinois court under that statute and serve on Accenture in Illinois pursuant to that statute and Illinois law. 14, Accenture provides a variety of consulting services to its clients. In or about 2020 Accenture provided certain consulting services to State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (the “2020 State Farm Engagement”). 15. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company is an Illinois mutual insurance company with its principal place of business in Bloomington, Illinois. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the certificate of registration of State Farm Fire and Casualty Company with the Illinois Department. of Insurance."}, {"d": 103, "p": 18, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 16. Mike Massa is a Managing Director of Accenture located in Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Massa performed services in connection with the 2020 State Farm Engagement. 17. Accenture’s documents relating to the 2020 State Farm Engagement are not in Oklahoma. Accenture has documents relating to the 2020 State Farm Engagement in Illinois. 18. Mr. Massa is the Accenture employee with the most knowledge of the 2020 State Farm Engagement. 19. Accenture’s Oklahoma office has no documents or personnel relating to Accenture’s 2020 State Farm Engagement. The services in the 2020 State Farm Engagement did not involve Oklahoma property owners’ policies or claims. 20. Because Accenture, as an Illinois company, conducts business activities in Oklahoma, Accenture is properly registered in the State of Oklahoma as a foreign company. Its registered agent in Oklahoma is Corporate Creations Network Inc. 21. Corporate Creations delivers documents received as registered agent to Accenture’s principal corporate office in Chicago, Illinois. For example, a subpoena in another Oklahoma lawsuit, Foster v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al., Case No. CJ-2023-1426, Cleveland County District Court, Oklahoma, was delivered to Corporate Creations in Oklahoma, which in turn delivered the subpoena to Accenture in Illinois by sending it to Robert F. Goldman, Accenture LLP, 500 W Madison Street Chicago IL 60661."}, {"d": 103, "p": 19, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 22. The subpoena duces tecum in the underlying lawsuit should be quashed because it was not properly issued and served on nonparty Accenture, an Illinois company. Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to comply with the UIDDA and service on a branch office in Oklahoma is defective to force Accenture, an Illinois company, to comply with the subpoena. Under the UIDDA, Illinois law applies to the subpoena duces tecum and issues regarding enforcement, such as a motion for a protective order to quash or limit the subpoena, because Accenture is an Illinois company and a nonparty to the Oklahoma lawsuit. 23. Alternatively, the subpoena duces tecum should be quashed because it is not proportional, it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, and it seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of the action. Many of the requested documents are already in Plaintiffs’ counsel’s possession because they have been produced by State Farm. 24, Ata minimum, the Court should enter a protective order limiting the subpoena duces tecum to a reasonable scope. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Accenture LLP respectfully requests that the Court quash the subpoena duces tecum. Alternatively, Accenture LLP requests that the Court enter a protective order limiting the scope to a reasonable scope. September 23, 2026 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Nancy A. Temple One of the Attorneys for Accenture LLP Nancy A. Temple Brandon D. Lawniczak"}, {"d": 103, "p": 20, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM Katten & Temple, LLP 33 N. Dearborn St., Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 663-0800 ntemple@kattentemple.com blawniczak@kattentemple.com Of Counsel: Douglas Fuchs Brenna Gibbs Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 S. Grand Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197"}, {"d": 103, "p": 21, "t": "000-622 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 File Number To all to whom these Presents Shall Come, Greeting: I, Alexi Giannoulias, Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, do hereby certify that I am the keeper of the records of the Department of Business Services. I certify that ACCENTURE LLP, HAVING FILED A STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATION IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ON OCTOBER 23, 2001, APPEARS TO HAVE COMPLIED WITH ALL PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFORM PARTNERSHIP ACT (1997) OF THIS STATE, AND AS OF THIS DATE IS IN GOOD STANDING AS A DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, HAVING FULFILLED ALL REQUIREMENTS OF SAID ACT. In Testimony Whereof, I hereto set my hand and cause to be affixed the Great Seal of the State of Illinois, this 21ST day of SEPTEMBER A.D. 2026 RSS Authentication #: 2626402898 verifiable until 09/21/2027 Aly. ft Authenticate at: https://(www.ilsos.gov SECRETARY OF STATE yA PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 1"}, {"d": 103, "p": 22, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, yy, Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO: ACCENTURE, LLP 525 NW 11th St. Oklahoma City, OK 73103 YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and produce for inspection and copying of all documents and tangible things in your possession, custody and control, as described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto on or before July 17, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. You may produce the requested documents via mail to Whitten Burrage, 512 N. Broadway Avenue, Suite 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 or via email to Blake Sonne at bsonne/@whittenburragelaw.com. The reasonable cost of reproduction will be reimbursed to you promptly upon your submission of an invoice for the same. In order to allow objections to the production of documents and things to be filed, you should not produce them until the date specified in this Subpoena, and if an objection is filed, until the Court rules on the objection. PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 2"}, {"d": 103, "p": 23, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM HEREOF FAIL NOT UNDER PENALTY OF LAW. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, | have hereunto set my hand as an officer of the District Court of said County this 2™ day of July, 2026. Respectfully submitted, Bhihee. Donia Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 Bradley W. Beskin, OBA No. 35314 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburrazelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com bbeskin/@whittenburragelaw.com isanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF A-2"}, {"d": 103, "p": 24, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM * oge 2 . The term “Document” or “Documents” means any written, typed, recorded, pictorial, graphic or printed matter, or electronically-stored matter, in its entirety, including any addenda, supplements, amendments, revisions, exhibits and appendices thereto, in its original form and copies thereof bearing notations and all earlier drafts, memoranda or other written information not on the original including but not limited to email and attachments thereto, books, pamphlets, notebooks, correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, interoffice and intraoffice communications, studies, analyses, results of investigations, reviews, agreements, working papers, statistical records, desk calendars, appointment books, time sheets, graphic or aural representations of any kind (including without limitation, photographs, charts, microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures, plans, drawings, surveys), and electronic, mechanical, magnetic, optical or electric records or representations of any kind (including without limitation, computer files and programs, tapes, cassettes, discs, recordings), including metadata, computer input data, computer output data, computer ryns, computer-stored information (whether printed or not) and computer programs necessary therefor, computer, work sheets or work papers or other materials, including all such defined Documents submitted to accountants or attorneys or others, or submitted by accountants or others to you, or matter or things similar to any of the foregoing. Requests for documents (and communications and correspondence) “Accenture” shall include their respective employees and agents. from “Communication” includes emails, text messages, and all other types of communication regardless of format. A-3"}, {"d": 103, "p": 25, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM B. Production of Documents: . Produce the documents and correspondence of the industry standards and/or other standards or benchmarks on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims that You (Accenture LLP and any of your affiliates) relied on and/or produced and/or utilized in any way with respect to the work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence of Your work on State Farm's Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, State Farm’s Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce Your files, including reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements with thirdparties, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis regarding the industry standards on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims You relied on and/or produced and/or utilized with respect to the work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence received or produced by You for consulting or other work on industry standards or benchmarks on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including but not limited to reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis by You and/or any other third party from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence of State Farm’s performance on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims in relation to the industry standards outlined in Topics 1-4, including internal quality improvement and/or lowering State Farm’s percentage of approvals for full roof replacements to the industry standard and/or to a related benchmark and/or the ratio of full roof replacements to partial roof replacements on wind/hail claims from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence ensuring that any industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims identified in Topics 1-5 were accurate, vetted, and otherwise reflected actual claims and reliable data with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January |, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents, reports, data used, models, output relied upon, and other documentation that State Farm supplied to You, and/or any other third party for any consulting or other work on the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents, reports, data used, models, and other documentation on Your derivation of the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the contracts, agreements, and/or scopes of work between State Farm and Accenture (or any of its affiliates) that include work on wind/hail claims and/or full roof A-4"}, {"d": 103, "p": 26, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM replacements on wind/hail claims with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. 10. Produce the documents referring to full roof replacements as the biggest bucket of opportunity for State Farm and/or the FME Wind/Hail from January 1, 2018 until the present. 11. Produce the documents on indemnity and/or potential reductions in indemnity on full roof replacements on Wind/Hail claims on State Farm’s Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail from January 1, 2018 until the present. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE & NOTICE OF SUBPOENA I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of July, 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Carrie McNeer Grant A, Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) cmeneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com -andLance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com ( 405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Blake Sonne A-5"}, {"d": 103, "p": 27, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY BILLY & LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. TO: ACCENTURE, LLP 525 NW 11th St. Oklahoma City, OK 73103 Please take notice that pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230(C)(5) of the Oklahoma Discovery Code, the Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh will take the deposition upon oral examination of the corporate representative of Accenture Limited Liability Partnership (hereinafter, “Accenture”), by and through its designated representative(s), on the 12th day of October 2026 before an officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the State at the following location: PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 511 Couch Drive, #100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic and videotape means. The deposition(s) will commence at 9:00 a.m., until such deposition(s) are completed. Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230(C)(5), Accenture shall designate and produce for deposition one or more officers, directors, managing agents, or other persons who are most knowledgeable and prepared to speak authoritatively on its behalf regarding each of the topics set forth in the attached Exhibit “A” and PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT ! 3"}, {"d": 103, "p": 28, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 Defendant shall also produce the documents and/or other materials identified in the attached Exhibit “B” to counsel for Plaintiffs at said date, time and location. Counsel for Defendant are invited to attend and cross-examine. DEFINITIONS FOR VIDEO DEPOSITION OF ACCENTURE’S CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE TAKEN PURSUANT TO 12 OS. § 3230(C)(5) OF THE OKLAHOMA DISCOVERY CODE ATTATCHED TO AND MADE PART OF THE NOTICE TO TAKE VIDEO DEPOSITION The following definitions shall apply to the Topics designated herein: 1. “Action” means the above-styled and cause numbered litigation. 2. “Address/Telephone Number” means both the current business and residential address and telephone number Person(s) referred to in the specific Discovery Request. 3. “Agent” Insurance Agency, shall collectively mean Mark D. Welty and Mark D. Welty Inc. and his/its agents (s), investigator(s), agent(s), or any other representative(s). All information is to be divulged which is in the possession, custody, or control of each individual or corporate party, including all information that is reasonably available to them. 4. “Claim” shall collectively mean and refer to all requests for indemnity to State Farm (along with Documents supportive thereof), as described in the Action, arising from the Dwelling and/or Policy. 5. “Claim File” shall mean the Documents State Farm keeps and maintains with respect to a claim for indemnity under a policy of insurance coverage, which include (but are not limited to): a. Communications between State Farm and insured; b. claim diary or log;"}, {"d": 103, "p": 29, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM C. witness statements; d. adjuster’s file; e. field file and/or notes; f. scope file and/or notes; g. supervisor’s file; h. settlement summaries i. internal policies, procedures, and/or manuals State Farm used, referenced, or relied upon in adjusting or paying the claim; and j. all Documents presented for authority requests or review requests. 6. “Claims Handling Personnel” means State Farm Employees or independent contractors performing work or services related to the receipt, response, adjustment, appraisal, handling of formal and informal disputes, and/or settlement homeowners claims in Oklahoma. It shall include (but not be limited to) YOUR adjusters, claims handlers, supervisors, and consultants 7. “CLUE” shall refer to the Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange. 8. “Communication(s)” shall refer to any message sent or received orally, in writing, or via technology (including but not limited to telephone, text or instant messaging system(s), social media platform(s), e-mail(s), and/or facsimile). It shall include any attachments and/or metadata included in said message. 9. Cost/Benefit Analysis means any cost/benefit analysis, return-on- investment analysis, financial impact analysis, requests for proposal, return-on-investment analysis, or any other similarly named or synonymous type of documentary analysis that compares the cost of an initiative to the value of its outcome."}, {"d": 103, "p": 30, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 10. “Custodian(s)” refers to the Person(s) having possession, custody, or control of the Document or information requested in the specific Discovery Request. 11. “Document(s)” shall have the same meaning assigned to it in 12 O.S. § 3234(A)(1) and shall include (but is not limited to) all materials described in the definition of “writing” as set forth herein as well as any form of electronic communication, however generated or stored, such as e-mail, which is capable of being copied. The term “Document” includes, but is not limited to the following: every original (and every copy of any original or copy which differs in any way from any original) of every writing of every kind or description, whether handwritten, typed, drawn, sketched, printed or recorded, by any physical, mechanical, or electronic means, including but not limited to accounting records, affidavits, bills, books, calendars, checks, check stubs, contracts, including all policies of insurance and draft policies, diaries, notes, photographs, receipts, reports, tape recordings, tax returns, telephone bills, and all materials within or upon which appear any writing or utterance, whether handwritten, typewritten, printed, transcribed, taped, recorded, filmed, punched, or produced by any other mechanical or electronic system of reproduction, and shall include each Document known to Defendant, its attorneys, and its agents. 12. “Dwelling” shall refer to a residence, home, house, dwelling, and/or other structures. 13. “Employee” shall refer to all employees, past and present, affiliated in any way with any Defendant. 14. “Engineering Services” shall mean any service or creative work, the adequate performance of which requires engineering education, training and experience in"}, {"d": 103, "p": 31, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such services or creative work as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning and design of engineering works and systems, planning the engineering use of land and water, teaching of advanced engineering subjects or courses related thereto, engineering research, engineering surveys, engineering studies, and the inspection or review of construction for the purposes of assuring compliance with drawings and specifications; any of which embraces such services or work, either public or private, in connection with any utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, work systems, projects, and industrial or consumer products or equipment of a mechanical, electrical, chemical, environmental, hydraulic, pneumatic or thermal nature, insofar as they involve safeguarding life, health or property, and including such other professional services as may be necessary to the design review and integration of a multidiscipline work, planning, progress and completion of any engineering services. 15. “Indemnity Agreement” shall mean any contractual agreement under which any Person or entity agrees to compensate You for a loss, or under which You agree to compensate any Person or entity for a loss. 16. “Party” shall mean collectively or individually any “Plaintiff,” “Defendant,” and/or “Agent,” as those terms are defined herein. 17. “Person” shall refer to any natural person, firm, association, partnership, corporation, or other form of legal business entity. 18. “Petition” shall refer the Petition filed in this Action. 19. “Plaintiff(s)” or shall refer to the named Plaintiffs in this action. 20. “Relating to” a subject shall mean any documents constituting or"}, {"d": 103, "p": 32, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 comprising that subject, and any document identifying, referring to, dealing with, commenting upon, describing, summarizing, analyzing, explaining, detailing, outlining, defining, interpreting, or pertaining to that subject. 21. “Relevant Time Period” shall mean the time period from 2010 to the date Discovery Requests are answered or supplemented. 22. “You,” “Your,” and “Yourself” shall refer to Accenture, as well as: a. all Persons acting on behalf of or purporting to act on behalf of Accenture (including but not limited to agents, Employees, representatives, attorneys, insurance carriers, experts, and consultants); b. all Persons acting on behalf of or purporting to act on behalf of any subsidiary of Accenture; C. all Persons acting on behalf of or purporting to act on behalf of any merged or acquired predecessors, successors, and/or divested facilities, divisions, or subsidiaries of Accenture; and d. all Persons serving or having served on any governing board of Accenture."}, {"d": 103, "p": 33, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 EXHIBIT A The matters on which examination of Accenture is requested are itemized below. Accenture must designate persons to testify as to each of the following topics. The designation must be delivered to Plaintiffs prior to the commencement of taking the deposition. See 12 O.S. § 3230(C)(5). 1. The full nature, scope, and history of Accenture's engagement(s) with State Farm relating in any way to claims and/or industry standards or benchmarks relating to the same, including but not limited to: a. Industry standards on wind; b. Industry standards on hail; c. Industry standards on water; d. Industry standards on fire; e. Industry standards on total roof replacements; f. Industry standards on partial roof replacements; g. Outcome-based claim handling; h. Industry standards on claim payments. The identity, terms, and scope of all contracts, master service agreements, statements of work, engagement letters, and/or purchase orders between Accenture and State Farm. The identity of every Accenture employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent who performed work, analysis, research, or consulting for State Farm relating to claims industry standards and/or full roof replacement benchmarks, including but not limited to each such person's role and dates of involvement. The methodology, data sources, sample sizes, geographic scope, and time periods Accenture used or relied upon to identify, develop, calculate, or derive any \"industry standard,\" benchmark, or comparable metric relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacement rates. The identity of the insurance carrier(s) or industry sources whose claims data, loss data, or"}, {"d": 103, "p": 34, "t": "claim-handling data Accenture used, analyzed, or relied upon in developing any industry 2026L011400 standard or benchmark relating to claims or full roof replacements, including but not limited to how that data was obtained. FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM All reports, analyses, presentations, dashboards, models, and other deliverables Accenture prepared for or provided to State Farm relating to wind/hail claims, full roof replacements, and/or industry standards, including but not limited to the September 10, 2020 Executive Summary PowerPoint and the June 24, 2021 presentation titled \"Fire Model Enhancement — Water & Wind/Hail.\" The process by which Accenture vetted, validated, tested, or otherwise ensured that any industry standard or benchmark it developed, produced, or provided to State Farm was accurate and reflected actual, reliable claims data. Accenture's communications with members of WHMET, including but not limited to Nicole Manduca and Kathy Ress, regarding industry standards, benchmarks, or targets for full roof replacement approval rates or ratios on wind/hail claims. Accenture's role, if any, in recommending, calculating, or setting any target, goal, benchmark, or acceptable percentage or ratio for full roof replacement approvals on wind/hail claims, including but not limited to Accenture’s role in defining full roof replacement as State Farm’s “biggest bucket of opportunity.” 10. Accenture's role, if any, in the development, planning, or execution of the Wind/Hail Initiative \"Kick Off\" in Dallas, Texas in 2020 and its subsequent rollout or introduction into Oklahoma by December of 2020. 11. Accenture's knowledge and understanding of how State Farm intended to use, implement, or apply any industry standard or benchmark Accenture developed or provided, including whether Accenture knew or understood such standards would be used to evaluate, guide, or restrict individual claim-handling decisions, including but not limited to Accenture employee’s participation in the implementation of strategies aimed at reducing total roof replacements and/or claim payments on wind and hail."}, {"d": 103, "p": 35, "t": "12. Any communications, presentations, or documents in which full roof replacements were FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 characterized, described, or identified as a \"bucket of opportunity,\" a source of potential indemnity savings, or similar characterization, and Accenture's role in creating, contributing to, or receiving such characterizations. 13. Accenture’s engagements, work, or consulting for any other property and casualty insurance carrier(s) relating to wind/hail claims, industry standards, benchmarks, or full roof replacement rates. 14. Accenture's professional qualifications, (including any engineers, licensed credentials, roofing and subject-matter expertise consultants, meteorologists, or claims professionals) relied upon in performing the wind/hail industry-standards work for State Farm. 15. The compensation, fees, and billing arrangements between Accenture and State Farm for consulting, research, or analytical work relating to wind/hail claims, full roof replacements, and/or industry standards. 16. Any caveats, limitations, disclaimers, or warnings Accenture communicated to State Farm regarding the appropriate use, scope, or limitations of any industry standard or benchmark it developed, including whether such standards were appropriate for use in adjudicating individual insurance claims. 17. Accenture's document retention, recordkeeping, and email/data retention policies and practices applicable to its engagement(s) with State Farm on wind/hail claims and industry standards, and any destruction or loss of responsive documents. 18. The steps Accenture took to search for, identify, collect, and produce documents in response to the Subpoena Duces Tecum served in this action, including the custodians, systems, and repositories searched and the date ranges applied. 19. The corporate and organizational structure of Accenture LLP and any parent, subsidiary, or affiliated entity that performed, supervised, or had knowledge of the wind/hail industrystandards work for State Farm."}, {"d": 103, "p": 36, "t": "20. Accenture's actual findings, conclusions, and underlying data regarding wind/hail claims FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 and full roof replacement rates, including any comparison between State Farm's historical claim-handling data and the industry standards or benchmarks Accenture identified. 21. Any internal Accenture quality assurance, peer review, or sign-off process applicable to the industry-standards work product Accenture delivered to State Farm. 22. The complete timeline of Accenture's engagement with State Farm and/or WHMET on wind/hail claims and industry standards, including the dates work began, any renewals or expansions of scope, and the date (if any) the engagement ended. 23. Accenture's actions since learning of State Farm’s usage of its industry standards to lower indemnity payments on wind and hail claims. 24. Accenture's knowledge of, and any role in, State Farm's claim-handling policies restricting field adjusters’ authority to approve full roof replacements without Team Manager approval while permitting denial of full roof replacements without such approval. 25. Accenture's understanding of, and any communications concerning, the relationship between the industry standards or benchmarks it produced and State Farm's actual claimpayment outcomes, indemnity reduction, or cost-savings on wind/hail claims following implementation of the Scheme. 10"}, {"d": 103, "p": 37, "t": "lL. All documents referred to in Exhibit “A” and reviewed and/or relied upon in preparation for responding to this 12 O.S. § 3230(C)(5) deposition notice. FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 EXHIBIT “B” 11"}, {"d": 103, "p": 38, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 Respectfully submitted, Duaie Wh Hin Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah E. Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com ~and~ Patrick F. Collogan, OBA #30529 Biby Law Firm 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 918-574-8458 888-572-8263 (fax) pat@bibylaw.com ~and~ R. Ryan Deligans, OBA #19793 Andrew M. Gunn, OBA #19470 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102-2610 Telephone: (405)235-9584 Facsimile: (405)235-0551 rdeligan@dlb.net agunn@dlb.net ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 12"}, {"d": 103, "p": 39, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that on the 9\" day of September 2026, the above and foregoing was emailed and/or mailed, by certified mail, return receipt requested to: Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) cmcneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com -andLance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com ( 405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Wn Réggie Whitten 13 Wh fin"}, {"d": 103, "p": 40, "t": "9/19/26, 3:50 PM llinois Department of Insurance - Company Search FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 »DOI ONS DEPARTIMENT | Legal Name: STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY Company Type: P&C Domestic Stock Domicile: Bloomington, Illinois Parent Company: State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co Status: Active FEIN: 37-0533080 NAIC Code: 176 25143 Incorporated Date: 6/12/1935 Addresses Administrative Mailing Corporate Home One State Farm Plaza One State Farm Plaza Bloomington, IL Bloomington, IL 64710 64710 Phone Numbers Business (309) 766-2311 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4 ntips://insurance ilinois.gov/applications/RegEn‘Portal/ViewEntityDetailsasox?en=8346008s=Activet=INS"}, {"d": 103, "p": 41, "t": "9/19/26, 3:50 PM llinois Department of Insurance - Company Search FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 9:59 AM 2026L011400 <++ Back to Search Results ntips://insurance ilinois.gov/applications/RegEn‘Portal/ViewEntityDetailsasox?en=8346008s=Activet=INS"}, {"d": 103, "p": 42, "t": "Hearing Date: No hearing scheduled Location: <<CourtRoomNumber>> Judge: Calendar, Q FILED 9/23/2026 11:14 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIM@\"yana T. Spyropoulos COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION CIRCUIT CLERK COOK COUNTY. IL 3 2026L011400 5 Calendar, Q © a ACCENTURE LLP, an Illinois limited liability partnership, ) ) Z ) Petitioner, © 8 ) ) v. ) S in 40135432 Case No. 2026-L-011400 ) BILLY AND LACY HURSH, ) A ) a uw Respondents/ Plaintiffs, ) ) V. ) ) STATE FARM FIRE AND ) CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. NOTICE OF MOTION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on, October 1, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., the undersigned shall appear via Zoom before the Honorable Stephen Swedlow, or any judge sitting in his stead,and at that time shall present Nonparty Petitioner Accenture, LLP’s Motion to Quash Subpoena and/or For A Protective Order, a copy of which is served upon you. Judge Swedlow’s Zoom information is as follows: Zoom Meeting ID: 994 2739 7392 Zoom Passcode: 2007 Dial-in Phone Number: (312) 626-6799 Dated: September 23, 2026 ACCENTURE, LLP Respectfully submitted, /s/ Nancy A. Temple One of the Attorneys for Accenture LLP"}, {"d": 103, "p": 43, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:14 AM 2026L011400 Nancy A. Temple Brandon D. Lawniczak Katten & Temple, LLP 33 N. Dearborn St., Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 663-0800 Firm No: 44583 ntemple@kattentemple.com blawniczak@kattentemple.com Of Counsel: Douglas Fuchs Brenna Gibbs Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 S. Grand Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197"}, {"d": 103, "p": 44, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:14 AM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 23, 2026, I caused a copy of the foregoing Notice of Motion and Nonparty Petitioner Accenture, LLP’s Motion to Quash Subpoena and/or For A Protective Order to be served by U.S. Mail and personal delivery to the below party: Billy Hursh Lacy Hursh 1901 S Dogwood PL, Broken Arrow, OK 74102 /s/ Nancy A. Temple Nancy A. Temple Brandon D. Lawniczak Katten & Temple, LLP 33 N. Dearborn St., Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60602 (812) 663-0800 ntemple@kattentemple.com blawniczak@kattentemple.com Of Counsel: Douglas Fuchs Brenna Gibbs Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 8. Grand Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197"}, {"d": 103, "p": 45, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO: ACCENTURE, LLP 525 NW 11th St. Oklahoma City, OK 73103 YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and produce for inspection and copying of all documents and tangible things in your possession, custody and control, as described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto on or before July 17, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. You may produce the requested documents via mail to Whitten Burrage, 512 N. Broadway Avenue, Suite 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 or via email to Blake Sonne at bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com. The reasonable cost of reproduction will be reimbursed to you promptly upon your submission of an invoice for the same. In order to allow objections to the production of documents and things to be filed, you should not produce them until the date specified in this Subpoena, and if an objection is filed, until the Court rules on the objection."}, {"d": 103, "p": 46, "t": "HEREOF FAIL NOT UNDER PENALTY OF LAW. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, | have hereunto set my hand as an officer of the District Court of said County this 2\"4 day of July, 2026. Respectfully submitted, Pbafie Doune Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 Bradley W. Beskin, OBA No. 35314 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten(@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com bbeskin@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders(@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF"}, {"d": 103, "p": 47, "t": "EXHIBIT “A” I ; L Definitions: I. The term “Document” or “Documents” means any written, typed, recorded, pictorial, graphic or printed matter, or electronically-stored matter, in its entirety, including any addenda, supplements, amendments, revisions, exhibits and appendices thereto, in its original form and copies thereof bearing notations and all earlier drafts, memoranda or other written information not on the original including but not limited to email and attachments thereto, books, pamphlets, notebooks, correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, interoffice and intraoffice communications, studies, analyses, results of investigations, reviews, agreements, working papers, statistical records, desk calendars, appointment books, time sheets, graphic or aural representations of any kind (including without limitation, photographs, charts, microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures, plans, drawings, surveys), and _ electronic, mechanical, magnetic, optical or electric records or representations of any kind (including without limitation, computer files and programs, tapes, cassettes, discs, recordings), including metadata, computer input data, computer output data, computer runs, computer-stored information (whether printed or not) and computer programs necessary therefor, computer, work sheets or work papers or other materials, including all such defined Documents submitted to accountants or attorneys or others, or submitted by accountants or others to you, or matter or things similar to any of the foregoing. 2. Requests for documents (and communications and correspondence) “Accenture” shall include their respective employees and agents. 3. “Communication” includes emails, text messages, communication regardless of format. A-3 from and all other types of"}, {"d": 103, "p": 48, "t": "B. Production of Documents: . Produce the documents and correspondence of the industry standards and/or other standards or benchmarks on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims that You (Accenture LLP and any of your affiliates) relied on and/or produced and/or utilized in any way with respect to the work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence of Your work on State Farm’s Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, State Farm’s Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce Your files, including reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements with thirdparties, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis regarding the industry standards on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims You relied on and/or produced and/or utilized with respect to the work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence received or produced by You for consulting or other work on industry standards or benchmarks on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including but not limited to reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis by You and/or any other third party from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence of State Farm’s performance on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims in relation to the industry standards outlined in Topics 1-4, including internal quality improvement and/or lowering State Farm’s percentage of approvals for full roof replacements to the industry standard and/or to a related benchmark and/or the ratio of full roof replacements to partial roof replacements on wind/hail claims from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence ensuring that any industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims identified in Topics 1-5 were accurate, vetted, and otherwise reflected actual claims and reliable data with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents, reports, data used, models, output relied upon, and other documentation that State Farm supplied to You, and/or any other third party for any consulting or other work on the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents, reports, data used, models, and other documentation on Your derivation of the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the contracts, agreements, and/or scopes of work between State Farm and Accenture (or any of its affiliates) that include work on wind/hail claims and/or full roof"}, {"d": 103, "p": 49, "t": "replacements on wind/hail claims with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. 10. Produce the documents referring to full roof replacements as the biggest bucket of opportunity for State Farm and/or the FME Wind/Hail from January 1, 2018 until the present. 11. Produce the documents on indemnity and/or potential reductions in indemnity on full roof replacements on Wind/Hail claims on State Farm’s Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail from January 1, 2018 until the present. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE & NOTICE OF SUBPOENA I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of July, 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) cmeneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com -and- Lance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com ( 405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Plike A-5 Donne"}, {"d": 103, "p": 50, "t": "Bryan Smith and Associates, Inc. INVOICE: 1732 Southwest Bivd Suite 100 issued: 16281319 jul 3, 2026 Tulsa, OK 74107 WHITTEN BURRAGE LAW PAY TO: Karen Stratton Bryan Smith and Associates, inc. 572 N BROADWAY STE 300 1732 Southwest Blvd Suite 100 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 Case: Cj-2025-2626 Job: 16281319 Tulsa, OK 74107 Plaintiff / Petitioner: Defendant / Respondent: BILLY & LACY HURSH STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY: MARK D, WELTY; AND MARK D, WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. Item Description RUSH RUSH FEE $50.00 1 $50.00 Process Service Fee ACCENTURE, LLP Agent for Service $150.00 1 $150.00 Total: $200.00 Cost | Quantity Total PERSON AUTHORIZED 525 NORTHWEST 117TH STREET OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73103 Thank you for your business. PLEASE PAY BALANCE DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS OF RECEIPT, TAX 1D: 73-1426539 Bryan Smith and Associates, Inc, « 1732 Southwest Blvd Suite 100, Tulsa, OK 74107 Call: 918-582-5353 + Email: bsai799@aol.com Amount Paid: ($0.00) Balance Due: $200.00"}, {"d": 103, "p": 51, "t": "AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Case: Cj-2025- 2626 Job: County: Court: | IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY 16281319 OK OKLAHOMA, STATE OF OKLAHOMA Plaintiff / Petitioner: CY HURSH PLY RTA Defendant / Respondent: STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, MARK D. WELTY: AND MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, ING Received by: Oklahoma AccuServe For: Bryan Smith and Associates, inc. To be served upon: ACCENTURE, LLP i, Chad Schulthels, being duly sworn, depose and say: | am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action, and that within the boundaries of the state where service was effected, | was authorized by law to make service of the documents and informed said person of the contents herein Recipient Name / Address: DEBBIE SHAY, 525 NORTHWEST 11TH STREET, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73103 Manner of Service: Corporation, Jul 2, 2026, 3:51 pm CDT Documents: SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM, EXHIBIT “A” (Received ful 2, 2026 at 1:35pm COT) Additional Comments: i) Successful Attempt:Jul 2, 2026, 3:51 pm CDT at 525 NORTHWEST 11TH STREET, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73103 received by DEBBIE SHAY, Age: 20'S, Ethnicity: Caucasian; Gender: Female; Weight: 190-200; Height: 5°S\"; Hair: Blond; Other: GLASSES.; Subscribed and swarn to befare me by the affiant who is personally known to me. 07/03/2026 Chad Schultheis PSS-2024-11 Oklahoma AccuServe 705 S Mustang Rd Ste 294 Yukon, OK 73099 Date = Ao wf tea Notaly Publie* 12S ata - La won CA SIE SCHULTHEIs ! / 4 NOTARY PteRiog Expire P Ane STATE OF OKLAHOMA Be a ey ’"}, {"d": 103, "p": 52, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY BILLY & LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, Case No. CJ-2025-2626 i VS. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. NON-PARTY ACCENTURE LLP’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Pursuant to the Oklahoma Discovery Code, 12 O.S. § 3226 et seq., and 12 O.S. § 2004.1, and all applicable rules and orders of this Court, Non-Party Accenture LLP (“Accenture”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby objects and responds to Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh’s (“Plaintiffs”) July 2, 2026 Subpoena Duces Tecum Requests collectively the “Subpoena”) served pursuant to Hursh v. State for Production (“Requests,” Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al. (the “Action’). General Response: 1. Non-Party Accenture’s responses to the Requests are made to the best of its current knowledge, information, and belief. Non-Party Accenture reserves the right to supplement or amend any of its responses should future investigation indicate that such supplementation or amendment is necessary. 2. Non-Party Accenture’s responses to the Requests are confidential and made solely for the purposes of and in relation to this Action. Each response is given subject to all appropriate"}, {"d": 103, "p": 53, "t": "objections (including, but not limited to, objections concerning privilege, competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety, and admissibility). any time. All objections are reserved and may be interposed at Non-Party Accenture will only produce documents subject to a protective order that fully covers Non-Party Accenture’s confidentiality interests in this matter. 3, Non-Party Accenture’s responses are based on its understanding that Plaintiffs seek only information and documents that are within Non-Party Accenture’s possession, custody, and control. 4. Any production of documents that Non-Party Accenture may make 1s made without waiving, or intending to waive, any privilege or other applicable protection or any future grounds for objection concerning the use or admissibility of the documents. Nor shall the inadvertent production of any privileged document be deemed to be a waiver of any applicable privilege or protection with respect to that document, any other document, or with respect to the subject matter of such document. 5. Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth into each and every Specific Response. repeat a General Objection. From time to time, a Specific Response may The failure to include a General Objection in any Specific Response shall not be interpreted as a waiver of any General Objection to that response. 6. Nothing contained in these Responses and Objections or provided in response to the Requests consists of, or should be construed as, an admission relating to the accuracy, relevance, existence, or nonexistence of any alleged facts, information, or documents referenced in any Request."}, {"d": 103, "p": 54, "t": "7. Subject to Non-Party Accenture’s objections set forth herein, and without waiving them, Non-Party Accenture reserves the right to produce documents with certain confidential, privileged, or immaterial and unnecessary information redacted. 8. Non-Party Accenture reserves the right to raise challenges regarding the jurisdictional limits of the Oklahoma courts, including limits on the ability of the Court to order out-of-state non-party discovery by Non-Party Accenture. Oklahoma Courts have held that they do not have jurisdiction of enforce out-of-state subpoenas. See Craft v. Chopra, 1995 OK CIV APP 135, §] 8, 907 P.2d 1109, 1112; Lovett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2001 OK CIV APP 9, ¥ 12, 18 P.3d 387, 389 (finding that “the subpoena powers of Oklahoma courts stop at the state line.”). The Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act—adopted by Oklahoma in 2021 (12 O.S. § 3250 et seq.) and adopted in Illinois -- the home state of Non-Party Accenture (Illinois Public Act 099-0079, effective 1/1/2016) -- states that the law of the discovery state is controlling because of its authority to protect its own citizens. Non-Party Accenture is an Illinois resident and NonParty to this Action and the Court does not have jurisdiction to compel Non-Party Accenture's compliance with an out-of-state subpoena. General Objections: Non-Party Accenture makes the following General Objections to Plaintiffs’ Requests. Each of these General Objections is incorporated into the Specific Objections and Responses set forth below, whether or not separately set forth therein. 1. Non-Party Accenture objects to the Requests, including each specific Request therein, to the extent they seek to impose obligations that exceed the scope of permissible discovery under Oklahoma law, the Local Rules, and all applicable rules and orders of this Court."}, {"d": 103, "p": 55, "t": "2. Non-Party Accenture objects to the Subpoena in its entirety on the grounds that effective service on Non-Party Accenture has not occurred. 3. Accenture is a non-party to this litigation and objects to each Request to the extent that it seeks documents that can equally or more readily be obtained from Defendant State Farm, or to the extent the documents sought are unduly cumulative or duplicative of documents or information already requested or produced in this Action. There is no need for Non-Party Accenture to search for and, if located in Accenture’s possession, produce documents that can be obtained from Defendant State Farm. This is particularly true as Non-Party Accenture understands that document requests have already been served on Defendant State Farm that seek the same information sought from Accenture. See e.g., 12 O.S. §2004.1(C)(1)(“A party or an attorney responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena.”). The Supreme Court of Oklahoma has set forth that “the duty to avoid undue burden or expense on a person subject to a subpoena exists in all situations—and that the duty is higher when the subpoena is directed to a non-party.” Young v. Macy, 2001 OK 4, § 13, 21 P.3d 44, 47, as corrected (Jan. 23, 2001) (emphasis added). The burden is particularly undue given that Non-Party Accenture did not perform any work regarding the homeowner claim at issue, Non-Party Accenture did not perform any work related to this Action in Oklahoma, no information responsive to the Requests is located in Oklahoma, and any work necessary to assess whether Non-Party Accenture is in possession of responsive material would not take place in Oklahoma. Any resulting burden prior to the resolution of this motion is premature, may be rendered unnecessary, and is therefore unduly burdensome."}, {"d": 103, "p": 56, "t": "4, Non-Party Accenture objects to the Requests and each specific Request therein, to the extent they: (i) seek documents or information that are not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses in this action; (ii) impose a burden disproportionate to the needs of the case; (iii) seek documents or information beyond the scope of permissible discovery; (iv) are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative; or (v) seek information that is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. 5. Non-Party Accenture objects to the Requests, including each specific Request therein, to the extent they seek documents or information (1) not within the possession, custody, or control of Non-Party Accenture; (ii) not obtainable at this time after reasonable investigation or diligent inquiry; (iti) not reasonably accessible to Non-Party Accenture or no longer in Non-Party Accenture’s possession, custody or control and under which Accenture has no obligation to maintain; (iv) as readily available to Plaintiff or Defendant State Farm as to Non-Party Accenture, (v) already produced by or requested from the parties in this action; (v1) already produced by or requested from other non-parties in this action; or (vii) that is public, on the grounds that such Requests are unduly burdensome. 6. Non-Party Accenture objects to each Request to the extent it purports to impose upon Non-Party Accenture a duty to provide or ascertain information in the possession of third parties on the grounds that such information is not within Non-Party Accenture’s possession, custody, or control. 7. Non-Party Accenture objects to each Request to the extent it is argumentative, lacks foundation, or incorporates allegations and assertions that are disputed or erroneous. By responding and objecting to the Request, Non-Party Accenture does not admit the correctness of such assertions."}, {"d": 103, "p": 57, "t": "8. Non-Party Accenture objects to the Requests and each specific Request therein, to the extent they are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and/or unduly burdensome. 9. Non-Party Accenture objects to the Requests, including each specific Request therein, to the extent they purport to impose an obligation to conduct anything beyond a reasonable and diligent search of readily accessible files (including electronic files) where responsive documents reasonably would be expected to be found. Any Requests that seek to require Non- Party Accenture to go beyond a reasonable search of readily accessible centrally located files of individuals whom it reasonably believes may have relevant documents are overbroad and unduly burdensome. 10. | Non-Party Accenture objects to the Requests to the extent that they are redundant or duplicative of other specific Requests. 11. Non-Party Accenture objects to the Requests to the extent that any of them require Accenture to produce entire documents where only a portion of a document would contain relevant information, or that requires Accenture to produce proprietary information or information that is subject to a right of privacy and/or privilege. 12. Non-Party Accenture reserves the right to withhold documents that are subject to a protective order, or that were filed under seal in any proceeding, pending court orders permitting their production. 13. Non-Party Accenture objects to the Requests to the extent they seek information, documents, and/or materials protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the workproduct doctrine, the common-interest privilege, and/or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or protection. Specific objections on the grounds of privilege are provided for emphasis and clarity only, and the absence of a specific objection should not be interpreted as evidence that Non-Party"}, {"d": 103, "p": 58, "t": "Accenture does not object to a Request on the basis of an applicable privilege. The inadvertent disclosure of any documents subject to such privilege or protection is not intended to relinquish any privilege or protection and shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any applicable privilege or protection. Non-Party Accenture reserves the right to demand that Plaintiff return to it any document inadvertently produced. Plaintiff shall, upon the request of Non-Party Accenture, immediately return or destroy any such documents inadvertently produced. Further, upon Plaintiff's discovery of what may be a privileged document produced by Non-Party Accenture, Plaintiff shall immediately inform Non-Party Accenture in writing. 14. Non-Party Accenture objects to each Request to the extent it calls for a legal opinion or conclusion. 15. Non-Party Accenture objects to the Requests to the extent that none of the terms are defined and certain words or phrases may have more than one commonly understood meaning, or Non-Party Accenture cannot reasonably ascertain the meaning of the Request. 16. | Non-Party Accenture objects to the Requests and each specific Request therein, to the extent they seek confidential commercial, business, financial, or competitively sensitive information, trade secrets, or any other proprietary information to Non-Party Accenture, its respective employees, its clients, and its business partners, including information subject to confidentiality agreements with third parties. Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Requests and each specific Request therein, to the extent that they seek to require Non-Party Accenture to produce any document containing the private, confidential, or privileged information of nonparties, including, but not limited to, third-party business or technical information and/or user or consumer personal information, which Non-Party Accenture is under an obligation not to disclose."}, {"d": 103, "p": 59, "t": "17. Non-Party Accenture’s responses to the Requests are made solely for the purpose of, and in relation to, the above-captioned action. presently known to Non-Party Accenture These Responses are based on information following a reasonably diligent and good-faith investigation. This diligent and good-faith investigation is continuing, and Non-Party Accenture’s responses contained herein are subject to clarification, modification, or amendment as additional facts are ascertained. Specific Objections and Responses: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Produce the documents and correspondence of the industry standards and/or other standards or benchmarks on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims that You (Accenture LLP and any of your affiliates) relied on and/or produced and/or utilized in any way with respect to the work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference its General Objections. Non-Party Accenture objects to this Request because the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action. Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to its use of the phrase “the documents and correspondence of the industry standards” and undefined terms “industry standards and/or other standards or benchmarks.” NonParty Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or proportionate to the needs of the case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly burdensome"}, {"d": 103, "p": 60, "t": "and oppressive, particularly on a non-party, as the Request seeks discovery outside the State of Oklahoma and spans an overbroad and effectively unlimited period from January 1, 2018 through “the present” that bears no relationship to the claims or defenses at issue, as the Request seeks “‘the documents and correspondence” 39 66 “of the industry standards and/or other standards or benchmarks” that Non-Party Accenture “relied on and/or produced and/or utilized in any way” with respect to work performed for or on behalf of State Farm, which is not reasonably related to Plaintiff's insurance claim or any Oklahoma claims and is not limited to State Farm claims handling in Oklahoma (emphasis added). Non-Party Accenture is willing to meet and confer regarding this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Produce the documents and correspondence of Your work on State Farm’s Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, State Farm’s Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives from January 1, 2018 until the present. RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference its General Objections. Non-Party Accenture objects to this Request because the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action. Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to its use of the ambiguous phrase “[p]roduce the documents and correspondence of Your work” and undefined, but capitalized terms “State Farm’s Fire Model EnhancementWind/Hail,” “the “Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team,” “Hail Focus Initiative,” and “Hail Initiative,” as well as undefined term “any hail quality focus initiatives.” Non-Party"}, {"d": 103, "p": 61, "t": "Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or proportionate to the needs of the case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly burdensome and oppressive, particularly on a non-party, as the Request seeks discovery outside the State of Oklahoma and spans an overbroad and effectively unlimited period from January 1, 2018 through “the present” that bears no relationship to the claims or defenses at issue, as the Request seeks “the documents and correspondence” relating to work related to fire, wind, or hail insurance policies, which is not reasonably related to Plaintiffs insurance claim or any Oklahoma claims and is not limited to State Farm claims handling in Oklahoma. Non-Party Accenture is willing to meet and confer regarding this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Produce Your files, including reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements with thirdparties, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis regarding the industry standards on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims You relied on and/or produced and/or utilized with respect to the work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference its General Objections. Non-Party Accenture objects to this Request because the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action. Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to its use of the terms “analyses,” 39 66 “analytics and data,” 99 66 “results and/or analysis” “utilized” and further undefined terms “industry standards on wind/hail claims.” 10 Non-Party"}, {"d": 103, "p": 62, "t": "Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or proportionate to the needs of the case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly burdensome and oppressive, particularly on a non-party, as the Request seeks discovery outside the State of Oklahoma and spans an overbroad and effectively unlimited period from January 1, 2018 through “the present” that bears no relationship to the claims or defenses at issue, as the Request seeks any and all “files” “regarding the industry standards on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims” Accenture LLP “relied on and/or produced and/or utilized” with respect to “the work” performed for or on behalf of State Farm, which is not reasonably related to Plaintiff's insurance claim or any Oklahoma claims and is not limited to State Farm claims handling in Oklahoma. Non-Party Accenture is willing to meet and confer regarding this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Produce the documents and correspondence received or produced by You for consulting or other work on industry standards or benchmarks on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including but not limited to reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis by You and/or any other third party from January 1, 2018 until the present. RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference its General Objections. Non-Party Accenture objects to this Request because the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action. 11"}, {"d": 103, "p": 63, "t": "Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to its use of the words and phrases “for consulting or other work” and undefined terms “industry standards or benchmarks on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims.” Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or proportionate to the needs of the case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly burdensome and oppressive, particularly on a non-party, as the Request seeks discovery outside the State of Oklahoma and spans an overbroad and effectively unlimited period from January 1, 2018 through “the present” that bears no relationship to the claims or defenses at issue, as the Request seeks “the documents and correspondence” 99 66 “received or produced by You for consulting or other work” on “industry standards or benchmarks” with no connection to State Farm or work implicated by the Plaintiffs’ claims, including documents relating to “reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis by You and/or any other third party,” which are not reasonably related to Plaintiff's insurance claim or any Oklahoma claims and are not limited to State Farm claims handling in Oklahoma. Non-Party Accenture is willing to meet and confer regarding this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Produce the documents and correspondence of State Farm’s performance on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims in relation to the industry standards outlined in Topics 1-4, including internal quality improvement and/or lowering State Farm’s percentage of approvals for full roof replacements to the industry standard and/or to a related benchmark and/or the ratio of full roof replacements to partial roof replacements on wind/hail claims from January 1, 2018 until the present. 12"}, {"d": 103, "p": 64, "t": "RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference its General Objections. Non-Party Accenture objects to this Request because the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action. Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request to the extent it is duplicative of Requests 1 through 4. Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to its use of the ambiguous words and phrases “State Farm’s performance,” “industry standards outlined in Topics 1-4,” “internal quality improvement,” and “industry standard and/or to a related benchmark,” and “the ratio of full roof replacements to partial roof replacements.” Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or proportionate to the needs of the case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly burdensome and oppressive, particularly on a non-party, as the Request seeks discovery outside the state of Oklahoma and spans an overbroad and effectively unlimited period from January 1, 2018 through “the present” that bears no relationship to the claims or defenses at issue, as the Request seeks “the documents and correspondence” of “State Farm’s performance” on various claims in relation to “the industry standard and/or to a related benchmark,” which is not reasonably related to Plaintiff's insurance claim or any Oklahoma claims and is not limited to State Farm claims handling in Oklahoma. Non-Party Accenture is willing to meet and confer regarding this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Produce the documents and correspondence ensuring that any industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims identified in Topics 1-5 were 13"}, {"d": 103, "p": 65, "t": "accurate, vetted, and otherwise reflected actual claims and reliable data with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference its General Objections. Non-Party Accenture objects to this Request because the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action. Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request to the extent it is duplicative of Requests 1 through 5. Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to its use of the words and phrases “ensuring that any industry standards” related to “claims identified in Topics 1-5” were “accurate, vetted and otherwise reflected actual claims and reliable data.” ” Non-Party Accenture further objects to the phase “accurate vetted, and otherwise reflected actual claims and reliable data” to the extent that it is argumentative, lacks foundation, or incorporates allegations and assertions that are disputed or erroneous. Non-Party Accenture further objects to the request to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the common interest privilege, and/or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or protection. Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or proportionate to the needs of the case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly burdensome and oppressive, particularly on a non-party, as the Request seeks discovery outside the State of Oklahoma and spans an overbroad and effectively unlimited period from January 1, 2018 through “the present” that bears no relationship to the claims or defenses at issue, as the Request seeks “the 14"}, {"d": 103, "p": 66, "t": "documents and correspondence,” which is not reasonably related to Plaintiff's insurance claim or any Oklahoma claims and is not limited to State Farm claims handling in Oklahoma. Non-Party Accenture is willing to meet and confer regarding this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Produce the documents, reports, data used, models, output relied upon, and other documentation that State Farm supplied to You, and/or any other third party for any consulting or other work on the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims from January 1, 2018 until the present. RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference its General Objections. Non-Party Accenture objects to this Request because the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action. Materials Defendant shared with Non-Party Accenture are in the possession, custody, and control of Defendant State Farm and should be sought therefrom. Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Request to the extent that documents State Farm supplied to “any other third party for any consulting or other work on the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims” are not in the possession, custody, and control of Non- Party Accenture and should be sought from Defendant State Farm or “any other third party.” Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to its use of the ambiguous words and phrases including “output relied upon,” “other documentation,” 99 66 “any consulting or other work,” and undefined terms “industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims.” Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant 15"}, {"d": 103, "p": 67, "t": "to the subject matter of this litigation or proportionate to the needs of the case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly burdensome and oppressive, particularly on a non-party, as the Request seeks discovery outside the State of Oklahoma and spans an overbroad and effectively unlimited period from January 1, 2018 through “the present” that bears no relationship to the claims or defenses at issue, as the Request seeks “the documents” provided by State Farm in connection with “consulting or other work” related to certain industry standards, which is not reasonably related to Plaintiff's insurance claim or any Oklahoma claims and is not limited to State Farm claims handling in Oklahoma. Non-Party Accenture is willing to meet and confer regarding this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Produce the documents, reports, data used, models, and other documentation on Your derivation of the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference its General Objections. Non-Party Accenture objects to this Request because the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action. Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to its use of the phrase “Your derivation of the industry standards” and undefined terms “industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacement on wind/hail claims.” Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that “Your derivation of the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail 16"}, {"d": 103, "p": 68, "t": "claims” is argumentative, lacks foundation, or incorporates allegations and assertions that are disputed or erroneous. Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or proportionate to the needs of the case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly burdensome and oppressive, particularly on a non-party, as the Request seeks discovery outside the State of Oklahoma and spans an overbroad and effectively unlimited period from January 1, 2018 through “the present” that bears no relationship to the claims or defenses at issue, as Request seeks “the documents” and “other documentation” 99 66 “on” “Your derivation of the industry standards,” which is not reasonably related to Plaintiff's insurance claim or any Oklahoma claims and is not limited to State Farm claims handling in Oklahoma. Non-Party Accenture is willing to meet and confer regarding this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Produce the contracts, agreements, and/or scopes of work between State Farm and Accenture (or any of its affiliates) that include work on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference its General Objections. Non-Party Accenture objects to this Request because the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action. Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to its use of the phrase “that include work on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims.” Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Request on the 17"}, {"d": 103, "p": 69, "t": "grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or proportionate to the needs of the case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly burdensome and oppressive, particularly on a non-party, as the Request seeks discovery outside the State of Oklahoma and spans an overbroad and effectively unlimited period from January 1, 2018 through “the present” that bears no relationship to the claims or defenses at issue, as the Request seeks “the contracts,” agreements, and/or scopes of work that purportedly “include work on” the wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements referenced above, which is not reasonably related to Plaintiff's insurance claim or any Oklahoma claims and is not limited to State Farm claims handling in Oklahoma. Non-Party Accenture is willing to meet and confer regarding this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Produce the documents referring to full roof replacements as the biggest bucket of opportunity for State Farm and/or the FME Wind/Hail from January 1, 2018 until the present. RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference its General Objections. Non-Party Accenture objects to this Request because the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action. Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to its use of the words and phrases “referring to,” “the biggest bucket of opportunity,” and the undefined term “FME Wind/Hail.” Non-Party Accenture further objects to the phrase “the biggest bucket of opportunity” to the extent that it is argumentative, lacks foundation, or incorporates allegations and assertions that are disputed or erroneous. By responding and objecting to this Request, Non-Party Accenture does not admit the correctness of 18"}, {"d": 103, "p": 70, "t": "any such assertions. Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or proportionate to the needs of the case, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly burdensome and oppressive, particularly on a non-party, as the Request seeks discovery outside the State of Oklahoma and spans an overbroad and effectively unlimited period from January 1, 2018 through “the present” that bears no relationship to the claims or defenses at issue, as the Request seeks documents “referring to full roof replacements as the biggest bucket of opportunity” for State Farm and/or the “FME Wind/Hail,” which is not reasonably related to Plaintiffs insurance claim or any Oklahoma claims and is not limited to State Farm claims handling in Oklahoma. Non-Party Accenture is willing to meet and confer regarding this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Produce the documents on indemnity and/or potential reductions in indemnity on full roof replacements on Wind/Hail claims on State Farm’s Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail from January 1, 2018 until the present. RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Non-Party Accenture incorporates by reference its General Objections. Non-Party Accenture objects to this Request because the information requested should, in the first instance, be sought from Defendant in this action. Non-Party Accenture further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to its use of the words and phrases “documents on indemnity,” 99 66 “potential reductions in indemnity,” and the undefined, but capitalized term “Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail.” Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that “indemnity or potential 19"}, {"d": 103, "p": 71, "t": "reductions in indemnity on full roof replacements” is argumentative, lacks foundation, or incorporates allegations and assertions that are disputed or erroneous. Non-Party Accenture further objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or proportionate to the needs of the case, 1s not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is unduly burdensome and oppressive, particularly on a non-party, as the Request seeks discovery outside the State of Oklahoma and spans an overbroad and effectively unlimited period from January 1, 2018 through “the present” that bears no relationship to the claims or defenses at issue, as the Request seeks “documents on indemnity and/or potential reductions in indemnity” related to ““Wind/Hail claims on State Farm’s Fire Model Enhancement — Wind/Hail,” which is not reasonably related to Plaintiff's insurance claim or any Oklahoma claims and is not limited to State Farm claims handling in Oklahoma. Non-Party Accenture is willing to meet and confer regarding this Request. 20"}, {"d": 103, "p": 72, "t": "FOLIART, HUFF, OTTAWAY & BOTTOM Amy Sherfy Fischer-OBA# 16651 201 Robert S. Kerr Avenue, 12th Floor Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Telephone: (405) 232-4633 Fax: (405) 232-3462 amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com ATTORNEYS FOR NON-PARTY ACCENTURE LLP 21"}, {"d": 103, "p": 73, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on this 17\" day of July, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was emailed and/or mailed as follows: Reggie N. Whitten Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue, Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) emeneer@ gablelaw.com efitz@gablelaw.com Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten Bradley W. Beskin John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com rburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com bbeskin@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne(@whittenburragelaw.com -and- Lance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel(@gablelaw.com (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Defendants mu dhony Pob1 Amy Shenty Fischer 22"}, {"d": 103, "p": 74, "t": "Hearing Date: 10/1/2026 10:00 AM - 10:05 AM Location: <<CourtRoomNumber>> Judge: Calendar, Q FILED 9/23/2026 11:10 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS Mariyana T. Spyropoulos COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION CIRCUIT CLERK COOK COUNTY IL 3 2026L011400 = Calendar, Q g ACCENTURE LLP, an Illinois ) a limited liability partnership, ) Z ) Petitioner, © 8 N i 40135326 ) ) v. ) BILLY AND LACY HURSH, Case No. 2026-L-011400 ) ¢ QO a Respondents/ ) rs Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) STATE FARM FIRE AND ) CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) NONPARTY PETITIONER ACCENTURE LLP’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND/OR FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Nonparty petitioner Accenture LLP, an Illinois limited liability partnership, by and through its attorneys Katten & Temple, LLP, pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Deposition and Discovery Act 735 ILCS 35/1, et seg., and Supreme Court Rule 201, respectfully submits this memorandum in support of its petition to quash and/or for a protective order with respect to a subpoena duces tecum issued by respondents and plaintiffs in the underlying foreign action pending in Oklahoma state court."}, {"d": 103, "p": 75, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM 2026L011400 Procedural History Accenture LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership. See Exhibit 1 hereto (Illinois Secretary of State Certificate of Good Standing for Accenture LLP, dated as of Sept. 21, 2026). Its principal corporate office is located at 500 West Madison, 21st Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60661. Jd. Accenture’s registered agent for service of process is Corporate Creations Network Inc., 1320 Tower Road, Schaumburg, IL 60173. Jd. Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh are plaintiffs in a lawsuit pending against defendants State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Mark D. Welty and Mark D. Welty Insurance Agency, Inc., in the district court for Oklahoma county in the State of Oklahoma, Case No. CJ-2025-2626. The underlying lawsuit arises out of homeowners’ property damage claims made by plaintiffs on their State Farm policy in or about 2024. Although Accenture is a nonparty and foreign to Oklahoma, plaintiffs’ counsel in the underlying lawsuit delivered a copy of a subpoena duces tecum to an office Accenture has in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on July 2, 2026. A true and correct copy of the subpoena is attached as Exhibit 2.. Accenture understands there are more than 140 actions brought by more than 30 plaintiffs’ firms against State Farm in Oklahoma, alleging similar claims. Each of those actions could potentially involve depositions of Accenture witnesses. It follows that Accenture faces a potential onslaught of time consuming, distracting and expensive nonparty discovery, and not merely a single deposition and document subpoena."}, {"d": 103, "p": 76, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM 2026L011400 Accenture has attempted informally to resolve the subpoena duces tecum, which includes 11 broad requests for documents from 2018 to present, including documents already in plaintiffs’ counsel’s possession from the defendant State Farm. Specifically, after plaintiffs’ counsel served the subpoena duces tecum on July 2, 2026, Accenture met and conferred with plaintiffs’ counsel on July 10, to no avail. Accenture then served its responses and objections to the subpoena on July 17, once again offering to meet and confer concerning each of the document requests in the subpoena. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not take Accenture up on its offer and instead filed its motion to compel enforcement of the subpoena without modification on September 10, 2026. The next day, Accenture met with plaintiffs’ counsel, again attempting to raise concerns about the scope of the subpoena and the burden imposed by the subpoena. Plaintiffs’ counsel again refused to modify the subpoena. On September 21, 2026, Accenture sent plaintiffs’ counsel a lengthy email, explaining (1) Accenture did not have documents responsive to several requests; (2) plaintiffs’ counsel should obtain documents for certain requests directly from State Farm, which is in possession of the requested information; and (3) Accenture needed clarification to understand certain requests. Accenture further proposed a revised time period of January 1, 2020, through the end of July 2020, the period of the engagement at issue. Accenture agreed it would consider searching for responsive documents if plaintiffs’ counsel explained what it was seeking that it had not already obtained from State Farm or could not obtain from State Farm. To date, Accenture has received no response from plaintiffs’ counsel."}, {"d": 103, "p": 77, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM Accenture has explained that it does not have any responsive documents for many of the requests in the subpoena. It has also agreed to conduct to search for documents in the relevant time period in 2020, for specific documents that Plaintiffs have not been able to obtain from State Farm. However, Accenture’s efforts have been unsuccessful to date as plaintiffs’ counsel has refused any compromise, and Accenture therefore petitions this Court for a protective order quashing the subpoena or limiting the scope. On September 9, 2026, plaintiffs’ counsel in the underlying lawsuit mailed to defense counsel a notice of deposition of Accenture’s corporate representative who is “most knowledgeable” to testify regarding 25 different topics on October 16, 2026. Ex. 3. The notice of deposition purports to require Accenture to produce a witness to testify concerning these overly broad and irrelevant topics in Oklahoma. Accenture has not been served yet with a subpoena for this deposition, but anticipates issues concerning the overly broad scope of the subpoena and notes that any such deposition should necessarily occur in Chicago, Illinois. Plaintiffs’ counsel in the underlying lawsuit filed a motion to compel with respect to the subpoena duces tecum in the underlying lawsuit in Oklahoma state court. The deadline to file an opposition to that motion is September 25, 2026, and Accenture intends to file an opposition in order to preserve its arguments that the Oklahoma court lacks jurisdiction to compel Accenture to produce documents in response to the nonparty subpoena duces tecum."}, {"d": 103, "p": 78, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM 2026L011400 Facts Accenture provides a variety of consulting services to its clients. approximately April to From July 2020 Accenture provided certain consulting services to State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, an Illinois mutual insurance company with its principal place of business in Bloomington, Illinois. Ex. 4, Illnois Dept. of Insurance certificate of registration. Mike Massa, Managing Director of Accenture located in Chicago, Illinois, performed services in connection with Accenture’s 2020 engagement for State Farm (the “2020 State Farm Engagement”). The documents relating to those services are located in part in Illinois, and the documents are not located in Oklahoma. Mr. Massa is the Accenture employee with the most knowledge of the 2020 State Farm Engagement and thus the person “most knowledgeable,” that Plaintiffs apparently intend to seek to testify on behalf of Accenture. Accenture’s Oklahoma office has no documents or personnel relating to Accenture’s 2020 State Farm Engagement and was not involved in Accenture’s provision of service to State Farm at issue here. The 2020 State Farm Engagement also did not involve Oklahoma property owners’ policies or claims. Because Accenture, as an Illinois company, conducts business activities in Oklahoma, Accenture is properly registered in the State of Oklahoma as a foreign company. Its registered agent in Oklahoma is Corporate Creations Network Inc. Corporate Creations delivers documents received as registered agent to Accenture’s principal corporate office in Chicago, Illinois. For example, a subpoena in another"}, {"d": 103, "p": 79, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM 2026L011400 Oklahoma lawsuit, Foster v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al., Case No. CJ-2023-1426, Cleveland County District Court, Oklahoma, was delivered to Corporate Creations in Oklahoma, which in turn delivered the subpoena to Accenture in Illinois by sending it to Robert F. Goldman, Accenture LLP, 500 W Madison Street Chicago IL 60661. Ex. 7. Argument Legal Standard. It is well established that one state does not have jurisdiction over, or the power to order, a nonparty person or entity located in another state to appear in the first state for discovery or trial. See, e.g., Deppa v. Abbott Lab’ys, Inc., 2025 IL App (1st) 241795, § 46 (there is no compulsory process over nonparties outside Illinois); Quinn v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. in & for Cnty. of Clark, 410 P.3d 984, 987-88 (Nev. 2018) (citing cases); accord Craft v. Chopra, 907 P.2d 1109, 1111 (Okla. App. Ct. 1995) (Oklahoma state court did not have jurisdiction to enforce subpoena served on nonparty hospital located in Texas even though the hospital had contacts with Oklahoma). Courts have consistently made clear that even if a foreign corporate entity registered to do business in a state may have sufficient contacts with that state to satisfy due process requirements to exercise jurisdiction over that foreign corporation as a “party defendant,” that state lacks jurisdiction to compel a nonparty, foreign corporation to produce documents or testify as a “witness” in that state. Craft v. Chopra, 907 P.2d at 1111 (original emphasis: applying Oklahoma law); accord In re National Contract Poultry Growers' Ass'n, 771 So. 2d 466, 469"}, {"d": 103, "p": 80, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM 2026L011400 (Ala. 2000) (“[t]he underlying concepts of personal jurisdiction and subpoena power are entirely different.”); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. OKC Ltd. Partnership, 634 So. 2d 1186, 1187 (La. 1994) (“The concepts, and/or underlying purposes, of personal jurisdiction and subpoena power are simply different.”); see also Ryan W. Scott, Minimum Contacts, No Dog: Evaluating Personal Jurisdiction for Nonparty Discovery, 88 Minn. L. Rev. 968, 984 (2004) (“Most states retain strict limits on the reach of the subpoena power, holding that subpoena service cannot reach nonparties found outside the state.”). This territorial restriction on state courts’ subpoena powers “reflects the traditional concept of states as sovereign powers, exercising plenary jurisdiction within their territories but largely powerless beyond state lines.” Scott, supra, at 984. In short, the mere facts of owning property, having a branch office, and having a registered agent as a foreign entity authorized to conduct business in a particular state do not give the state authority over that nonparty foreign entity to compel compliance with a subpoena to testify as a witness or produce documents. See Craft, 907 P.2d at 1111; In re National Contract Poultry Growers’ Ass‘n, 771 So. 2d at 469. The Uniform Interstate Deposition and Discovery Act (““UIDDA”), 735 ILCS 35/1, et seqg., recognizes these jurisdictional limits of each state court. Under the UIDDA, a valid subpoena of a nonparty located in Illinois may be obtained from the clerk of the Circuit Court and enforced in Illinois courts. See 735 ILCS 35/3, 35/6."}, {"d": 103, "p": 81, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM 2026L011400 Oklahoma likewise has adopted the UIDDA, codified at 12 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 3251, et seq. Thus, only a subpoena issued by a court where the nonparty is located is valid to be enforced against that nonparty. See, e.g., Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 908 So. 2d 121, 128 (Miss. 2005) (Mississippi court lacked authority to subpoena documents from nonresident nonparty corporations, even if they did business in Mississippi); supra, pp. 5-6. And only a court located where a valid subpoena is issued has authority to enforce such a subpoena. See 735 ILCS 35/6; Cascade Builders Corp. v. Rugar, 2021 IL App (1st) 192410 7 12-14 cf 12 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 3235. I. The Nonparty Subpoena Duces Tecum Should Be Quashed. A. Service on Accenture’s office in Oklahoma was ineffective. The subpoena duces tecum should be quashed because it was not properly issued and served. Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to comply with the UIDDA and service on a branch office in Oklahoma is defective to force Accenture, an Illinois company, to comply with the subpoena. See Craft v. Chopra, 907 P.2d at 1111; supra, pp. 5-7. B. Alternatively, the Subpoena Duces Tecum Should Be Quashed Because It Is Not Proportional, It Is Overly Broad and Unduly Burdensome, and It Seeks Information Not Relevant to the Subject Matter of the Action. Even if the subpoena had been properly served, it should be quashed. Under Illinois law, a nonparty subpoena for documents is issued pursuant to Ilinois Supreme Court Rule 204(a)(1), which provides that the subpoena must comply with discovery rules, subject to limitations imposed under Rule 201(c), which permits"}, {"d": 103, "p": 82, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM 2026L011400 protective orders. Rule 201(c)(1) provides that the trial court “may at any time on its own initiative, or on motion of any party or witness, make a protective order as justice requires, denying, limiting, conditioning, or regulating discover to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or oppression.” Rule 201(c)(3) provides: “Proportionality. When making an order under this Section, the court may determine whether the likely burden or expense of the proposed discovery, including electronically stored information, outweighs the likely benefit, taking into account the amount in controversy, the resources of the parties, the importance of the issues in the litigation, and the importance of the requested discovery in resolving the issues.” 1. The Subpoena is Not Proportional and Imposes an Undue Burden on Accenture. Even if the information sought in the subpoena is relevant, which is denied, it need not be produced if the benefits of producing it do not outweigh the burden. Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 201(c)(3); Burdess v. Cottrell, Inc., 2020 IL App (5th) 190279, 1476, 77. In Burdress, the appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a nonparty insurer to produce documents without conducting a balancing test on proportionality and found that the burden on the nonparty to collect, review, and produce the requested materials outweighed any anticipated benefit. See id. Moreover, when the documents have been produced by a party, the benefit of compelling a nonparty to reproduce the same materials is minimal, while the burden on the nonparty is significant, weighing in favor of quashing or limiting the subpoena."}, {"d": 103, "p": 83, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM 2026L011400 Here, Accenture’s services were performed for a limited period from April to July 2020, but Plaintiffs unreasonably seek production of documents for an 8-year period from 2018 to present. Accenture also performed its services within State Farm's data systems and thus State Farm, and not Accenture (a nonparty), is in the best position to produce documents responsive to plaintiffs’ requests. Forcing Accenture to collect, search and review documents over an 8-year period would impose a massive burden on Accenture in terms of internal resources and legal fees, all while yielding very little, if any relevant information, that either has already been obtained from State Farm or could more properly be obtained from State Farm, the defendant in the underlying litigation. 2. Alternatively, the Court Should Enter a Protective Order Limiting the Subpoena to a Reasonable Scope. Trial courts have wide discretion to determine whether and to what extent a protective order is necessary. Payne v. Hall, 2013 IL App (1st) 113519, ¥ 12; Willeford v. Toys ‘R’ Us-Delaware, Inc., 385 Ill. App. 3d 265, 272-78 (5th Dist. 2008). If the subpoena is not quashed entirely, it should be limited to a reasonable scope, proportional to the needs in the underlying lawsuit, without imposing an undue burden on Accenture. Plaintiffs are not entitled to a fishing expedition or to duplicate information already provided by a party. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Accenture LLP respectfully requests that the Court enter a protective order quashing the subpoena duces tecum. Alternatively, 10"}, {"d": 103, "p": 84, "t": "FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM 2026L011400 Accenture LLP requests that the Court enter a protective order limiting the scope to a reasonable scope. September 28, 2026 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Nancy A. Temple One of the Attorneys for Accenture LLP Nancy A. Temple Brandon D. Lawniczak Katten & Temple, LLP 33 N. Dearborn St., Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 663-0800 ntemple@kattentemple.com blawniczak@kattentemple.com Of Counsel: Douglas Fuchs Brenna Gibbs Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 S. Grand Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 ll"}, {"d": 103, "p": 85, "t": "000-622 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM 2026L011400 File Number To all to whom these Presents Shall Come, Greeting: I, Alexi Giannoulias, Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, do hereby certify that I am the keeper of the records of the Department of Business Services. I certify that ACCENTURE LLP, HAVING FILED A STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATION IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ON OCTOBER 23, 2001, APPEARS TO HAVE COMPLIED WITH ALL PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFORM PARTNERSHIP ACT (1997) OF THIS STATE, AND AS OF THIS DATE IS IN GOOD STANDING AS A DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, HAVING FULFILLED ALL REQUIREMENTS OF SAID ACT. In Testimony Whereof, I hereto set my hand and cause to be affixed the Great Seal of the State of Illinois, this 21ST day of SEPTEMBER A.D. 2026 RSS Authentication #: 2626402898 verifiable until 09/21/2027 Aly. ft Authenticate at: https://(www.ilsos.gov SECRETARY OF STATE yA PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 1"}, {"d": 103, "p": 86, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, y. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo Defendants. SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO: ACCENTURE, LLP §25 NW 11th St. Oklahoma City, OK 73103 YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and produce for inspection and copying of all documents and tangible things in your possession, custody and control, as described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto on or before July 17, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. You may produce the requested documents via mail to Whitten Burrage, 512 N. Broadway Avenue, Suite 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 or via email to Blake Sonne at bsonne/@whittenburragelaw.com. The reasonable cost of reproduction will be reimbursed to you promptly upon your submission of an invoice for the same. In order to allow objections to the production of documents and things to be filed, you should not produce them until the date specified in this Subpoena, and if an objection is filed, until the Court rules on the objection. PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 2"}, {"d": 103, "p": 87, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM HEREOF FAIL NOT UNDER PENALTY OF LAW. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, | have hereunto set my hand as an officer of the District Court of said County this 2™ day of July, 2026. Respectfully submitted, Bhihee. Donia Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 Bradley W. Beskin, OBA No. 35314 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburrazelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com bbeskin/@whittenburragelaw.com isanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF A-2"}, {"d": 103, "p": 88, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM * oge 2 . The term “Document” or “Documents” means any written, typed, recorded, pictorial, graphic or printed matter, or electronically-stored matter, in its entirety, including any addenda, supplements, amendments, revisions, exhibits and appendices thereto, in its original form and copies thereof bearing notations and all earlier drafts, memoranda or other written information not on the original including but not limited to email and attachments thereto, books, pamphlets, notebooks, correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, interoffice and intraoffice communications, studies, analyses, results of investigations, reviews, agreements, working papers, statistical records, desk calendars, appointment books, time sheets, graphic or aural representations of any kind (including without limitation, photographs, charts, microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures, plans, drawings, surveys), and electronic, mechanical, magnetic, optical or electric records or representations of any kind (including without limitation, computer files and programs, tapes, cassettes, discs, recordings), including metadata, computer input data, computer output data, computer ryns, computer-stored information (whether printed or not) and computer programs necessary therefor, computer, work sheets or work papers or other materials, including all such defined Documents submitted to accountants or attorneys or others, or submitted by accountants or others to you, or matter or things similar to any of the foregoing. Requests for documents (and communications and correspondence) “Accenture” shall include their respective employees and agents. from “Communication” includes emails, text messages, and all other types of communication regardless of format. A-3"}, {"d": 103, "p": 89, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM B. Production of Documents: . Produce the documents and correspondence of the industry standards and/or other standards or benchmarks on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims that You (Accenture LLP and any of your affiliates) relied on and/or produced and/or utilized in any way with respect to the work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence of Your work on State Farm's Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail, State Farm’s Wind and Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team, Hail Focus Initiative and/or Hail Initiative and/or any hail quality focus initiatives from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce Your files, including reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements with thirdparties, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis regarding the industry standards on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims You relied on and/or produced and/or utilized with respect to the work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence received or produced by You for consulting or other work on industry standards or benchmarks on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims, including but not limited to reports, analyses, analytics and data, agreements, scopes of work, correspondence, and results and/or analysis by You and/or any other third party from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence of State Farm’s performance on wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims in relation to the industry standards outlined in Topics 1-4, including internal quality improvement and/or lowering State Farm’s percentage of approvals for full roof replacements to the industry standard and/or to a related benchmark and/or the ratio of full roof replacements to partial roof replacements on wind/hail claims from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents and correspondence ensuring that any industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims identified in Topics 1-5 were accurate, vetted, and otherwise reflected actual claims and reliable data with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January |, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents, reports, data used, models, output relied upon, and other documentation that State Farm supplied to You, and/or any other third party for any consulting or other work on the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the documents, reports, data used, models, and other documentation on Your derivation of the industry standards relating to wind/hail claims and/or full roof replacements on wind/hail claims with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. . Produce the contracts, agreements, and/or scopes of work between State Farm and Accenture (or any of its affiliates) that include work on wind/hail claims and/or full roof A-4"}, {"d": 103, "p": 90, "t": "2026L011400 FILED DATE: 9/23/2026 11:10 AM replacements on wind/hail claims with respect to work You performed for or on behalf of State Farm from January 1, 2018 until the present. 10. Produce the documents referring to full roof replacements as the biggest bucket of opportunity for State Farm and/or the FME Wind/Hail from January 1, 2018 until the present. 11. Produce the documents on indemnity and/or potential reductions in indemnity on full roof replacements on Wind/Hail claims on State Farm’s Fire Model Enhancement -Wind/Hail from January 1, 2018 until the present. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE & NOTICE OF SUBPOENA I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of July, 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Carrie McNeer Grant A, Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) cmeneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com -andLance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com ( 405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Blake Sonne A-5"}, {"d": 104, "p": 1, "t": "a ITERNENEORAY -. BR IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA cous COUNTYOCT - 5 2026 RICK WARREN 136 COURT CLERK BILLY & LACY HURSH, TT ete, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. CJ-2025-2626 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. MOTION TO ASSOCIATE COUNSEL Third-Party, Accenture LLP. hereby moves the Court for an Order permitting Douglas Fuchs to practice in the above styled and numbered cause pursuant to the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association, 5 O.S. Ch. 1, App.1, Art. Il. This motion is supported by the attached “Signed Application” (Exhibit A), “Certificate(s) of Good Standing (Exhibit B), and the “Certificate of Compliance” from the Oklahoma Bar Association (Exhibit C). FOLIART, HUFF, OTTAWAY & BOTTOM Amy Sherry Fischer-OBA# 16651 Peyton S. McMillin-OBA#34721 201 Robert S. Kerr Avenue, 12th Floor Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Telephone: (405) 232-4633 Fax: (405) 232-3462 amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com peytonmemillin@oklahomacounsel.com -and-"}, {"d": 104, "p": 2, "t": "Douglas Fuchs (Pro Hac Vice forthcoming) GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: 213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 DFuchs@gibsondunn.com ATTORNEYS FOR NON-PARTY ACCENTURE LLP CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on this 5\" day of October, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was emailed as follows: Reggie Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 T: (405) 516-7800 F: (405) 516-7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com Patrick F. Collogan BIBY LAW FIRM 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 T: (918) 574-8458 F: (888) 572-8263 Carrie B. McNeer Grant A. Fitz Nathan A. Miramontes Lisa T. Silvestri GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120 T: (918) 595-4800 F: (918) 595-4990 cmeneer@gablelaw.com nmiramontes@gablelaw.com Isilvestri@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com Lance E. Leffel David R. Herber GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 pat@bibylaw.com Oklahoma City, OK 73102 T: (405) 235-5500 F: (405) 235-2875 lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com R. Ryan Deligans Diane Lee McGimsey (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) DURBIN, LARIMORE & BIALICK 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102-2610 SULLIVAN & CROMWELL 1888 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067"}, {"d": 104, "p": 3, "t": "T: (405) 235-9584 T: (310) 712-6600 F: (405) 235-0551 Rdeligans@dib.net megimseyd@sullcrom.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs REDGRAVE Eric B. Zolner (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) LLP 230 West Monroe Street, Suite 210 Chicago, IL 60606 T: (773) 720-9169 ezolner@redgravellp.com Tiffany Lynne Powers (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) ALSTON & BIRD, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street NW Atlanta, GA 30308 T: (404) 881-7000 Tiffany.powers@alston.com Samuel J. Park (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Kathy J. Huang (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) ALSTON & BIRD, LLP 350 S. Grand Ave., 1° Floor Los Angeles, C 90071 T: (213) 576-1000 F: (213) 576-1100 samuel park @alston.com kathy. huang@alston.com Aitorneys for Defendants State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Mark D. Welty, and Mark D. Welty Insurance Agency, Inc. ae Amy Sherry Fischer"}, {"d": 104, "p": 4, "t": "APPLICATION OUT OF STATE ATTORNEY REGISTRATION Douglas Michael Fuchs _, Applicant, respectfully represents: First Name Middle Name Last Name 1. Applicant is an attorney at law and a member of the law firm of Gibson, & Crutcher, Dunn LLP Applicant's mailing address is _333 S Grand Avenue., Mailing Address Loa Angeles _, Los Angeles City County , CA , 90071-3197 State 213-229-7000_, 213-229-7605 Telephone(Firm) Telephone (Applicant's Direct Dial) , ; Zip Code 816-421-5547, Fax (Applicant) DFuchs@gibsondunn.com E-mail Address (Applicant) 2. Applicant is admitted to practice and is a member in good standing (certificates of good standing attached) of the bar(s) of the highest state court(s) of the following state(s): State Date of Admission California New York August 13, 1998 First Admitted October 17, 1994: Reinstated March 8, 2018 3. Applicant is admitted to practice before the following United States District Courts, United States Circuit Courts of Appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States, and/or other tribunals on the dates indicated for each, and is presently a member in good standing of the bars of said courts: Tribunat Date of Admission United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 08/13/1998 United States District Court for C.D. Cal 09/02/1998 EXHIBIT"}, {"d": 104, "p": 5, "t": "4. Have you ever been suspended or disbarred in any court except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars, e.g. court, jurisdiction, date): no 5. Are you currently subject to any pending disciplinary proceedings by any organization with authority to discipline attorneys at law except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. court, discipline authority, date, status): no 6. Have you ever received public discipline including, but not limited to, suspension or disbarment, by any organization with authority to discipline attorneys at law except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. court, discipline authority, type of discipline, date, status):__no 7. Have you ever had any certificate or privilege to appear and practice before any regulatory or administrative body suspended or revoked except as hereinafter provided (Give particulars; e.g. administrative body, date, status of suspension or reinstatement): no 8. Applicant seeks admission to practice in the State of Oklahoma in the following matter (give particulars; e.g. caption of case, court or agency, type of matter, party to be represented): Note - A separate application is to be submitted for each matter in which the applicant seeks admission! Applicant seeks admission in Billy and Lacy Hursh v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et ai. Civil Action No. CJ-2025-2626, pending before the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, representing Non-Party Accenture LLP, in connection with its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and participation in an upcoming hearing, and any related appearances. 9. The Oklahoma Bar Association member who is counsel of record for Applicant in this matter is: Amy Sherry Fischer 16651 First Name Middle Name Last Name O.B.A. Number 201 Robert S. KerrAve. , Oklahoma City ,OK_, 73102 '"}, {"d": 104, "p": 6, "t": "Mailing Address (405) City 232-4633 , Telephone Number (405) 232-3462, State Zip Code amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com Fax Number E-mail Address 10. The following accurately represents the names of each party in this matter and the names and addresses of each counsel of record who appear for that party: Party Name Counsel Name Address of Counsel -Lacy and Billy Hursh Reggie Whitten, Blake Sonne 512 N BROADWAY Ave, Site 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 And Ryan R. Deligans 920 North Harvey, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 And_ Patrick F. Collogan 6305 E. 120th Ct. Suite F, Tulsa, OK 74137 -Mark D. Welty Avenue, Insurance Agency, Inc. Carrie B. McNeer 110 N Elgin Suite 200, Tulsa,OK 74120 -Mark D. Welty Carrie B. McNeer _ 110 N ELGIN AVENUE, SUITE 200, Tulsa, OK 74120 And Blake Sonne _512 N BROADWAY Ave, Site 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 -State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Lisa T. Silvestri, Carrie B. McNeer 110 N Elgin Avenue, Suite 200, Tulsa,OK 74120 11. Applicant certifies that he/she shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and disciplinary governing the boards conduct of this state of attorneys with respect to the same to the extent flaws as a of this member state of the Oklahoma Bar Association. 12. Applicant understands and shall comply with the standards of professional conduct required of members of the Oklahoma Bar Association. 13. Applicant admitted has to practice representation. disclosed in writing to the client that the Applicant in this jurisdiction and the client has consented is not to such"}, {"d": 104, "p": 7, "t": "|, Douglas Fuchs , do hereby swear/affirm under penalty of perjury that the assertions of this application are true: ! am the Applicant in the above referenced matter; | have read the foregoing and Know the contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge except as to those matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to those matters | believe them to be true. | further certify that | am subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts and disciplinary boards of this state with respect to the law of this state governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association; | understand and shall comply with the standards of professional conduct required by members of the Oklahoma Bar Association; and that | am subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Bar Association with respect to any of my actions occurring in the course of such appearance. DATED this 7?Aay of Septem be-_, LZ 2026 pplicant 7 Mail with check or money order (payable to the OBA) to: Out-of-State Attorney Registration Oklahoma Bar Association P.O. Box 53036 Oklahoma City, OK Form 200B 73152-3036 /"}, {"d": 104, "p": 8, "t": "cELSIO™ Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York First Judicial Department I, Susanna M. Rojas, Clerk of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Judicial Department, do hereby certify that Douglas Michael Fuchs was duly licensed and admitted to practice as an Attorney and Counselor at Law in all the courts of this State on October 17, 1994, has duly taken and subscribed the oath of office prescribed by law, has been enrolled in the Roll of Attorneys and Counselors at Law on file in this office, is duly registered with the Office of Court Administration, and according to the records of this Court is currently in good standing as an Attorney and Counselor-at-Law. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand in the City of New September 28, 2026. Sauna Clerk of the Court EXHIBIT CertID-00310035 } BR York on"}, {"d": 104, "p": 9, "t": "if 1 Supreme Court of the State of Mew Work Appellate Division, First Department Apreeawen MARGARET SOWAH DEPUTY CLERKOF THE COURT DIANNE T. RENWICK PRESIDING JUSTICE SUSANNA MOLINA ROJAS DOUGLAS CLERK OF THE COURT DEPUTY C, SULLIVAN CLERK OF THE COURT To Whom It May Concern An attorney admitted to practice by this Court may request a certificate of good standing, which is the only official document this Court issues certifying to an attorney's admission and good standing. An attomey's registration status, date of admission and disciplinary history may be viewed through the attorney search feature on the website of the Unified Court System. New York State does not register attorneys as active or inactive. An attorney may request a disciplinary history letter from the Attorney Grievance Committee of the First Judicial Department. Bar examination history is available from the New York State Board of Law Examiners. Instructions, forms and links are available on this Court's website. Susanna Rojas Clerk of the Court Revised October 2020 27 MADISON AVENUE TEL.: (212) 340 0400 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10010-2201 INTERNET: WWW.NYCOURTS.GOV/COURTS/AD1/"}, {"d": 104, "p": 10, "t": "Supreme Court of California JORGE E. NAVARRETE Chek and Executive Otter of the Suprom Cant CERTIFICATE OF THE CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DOUGLAS MICHAEL FUCHS 1, JORGE E. NAVARRETE, Clerk/Executive Officer of the Supreme Court of the State of California, do hereby certify that Douglas Michael Fuchs # 196371, was on the 13th day of August 1998, duly admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law in all the courts of this state, and is now listed on the Roll of Attorneys as a member of the bar of this state in good standing. Witness my hand and the seal of the court on the 23rd day of September 2026. JORGE E. NAVARRETE Clerk/Executive Officer of the Supreme:Court ; By: We LL Michael Ffallisy, Deputy ia"}, {"d": 104, "p": 11, "t": "Certificate of Compliance Oblahboma Bar Association 1901 North Lincoln Boulevard Vast Office Box 33036 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152-3036 The Oklahoma Bar Association, in response to the application of out-ofstate attorney, submits the following certificate pursuant to 5 O.S. Ch.1 App.1, Art. Il 1. Applicant has submitted a signed application of out-of-state attorneys, certificate(s) of good standing, and the non-refundable application fee pursuant to Association, the Rules 5 O.S. Ch. Creating 1, App. and Controlling the Oklahoma 1, Art. Il. Date of Application: September 30, 2026 Application Number: 2026-620 Applying Attorney: Douglas Michael Fuchs Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher , LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 The Application was: GRANTED Dated this 30 day of September, 2026. Whoo ina Hendryx, General Counsel Oklahoma Bar Association EXHIBIT Form 400C : CC. Bar"}, {"d": 105, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA RICK WARREN, Case No. CJ-2025-2626 DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT PROTECTIONS TO HUR00158701-19 4915-3677-1030, v. 5 COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-2626 ll Defendants. COUNTY, OKLAHOMA October 5, 2026 4:43 PM Plaintiffs, STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INS. AGENCY, INC., FILED DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA BILLY and LACY HURSH, V. COUNTY"}, {"d": 105, "p": 2, "t": "This dispute concerns limited redactions in a group of emails and drafts totaling 19 pages. State Farm has produced the underlying Senior Executive Offsite Memo (the “SEO Memo”) and all nonprivileged portions of the related documents. It seeks to protect only confidential communications requesting or providing legal advice and counsel’s protected work product. The Court can resolve the dispute by answering three straightforward questions. First, do the redactions reveal confidential requests for legal advice or legal advice provided by State Farm’s attorneys? They do. Second, do the attorneys’ comments reflect work performed in anticipation of litigation? They do. Third, did State Farm waive those protections by inadvertently producing versions with incomplete redactions? Under 12 O.S. § 2502(E), it did not. Plaintiffs invoke the crime-fraud exception to try to vitiate the privilege, but that exception applies only when a client seeks or obtains a lawyer’s services to help commit or plan a crime or fraud. Plaintiffs offer no evidence that State Farm sought legal advice for that purpose, which of course it did not. The 19 pages contain two email chains and two versions of the same draft SEO Memo. One version shows attorneys Tim Marron’s and Mark Cavanaugh’s comments primarily in comment bubbles and tracked changes. The other is a later draft circulated by State Farm employee Scott Welsh. The disputed redactions cover the lawyers’ advice, Welsh’s requests for that advice, and internal communications relaying the advice. memorandum, which State Farm has produced. squarely privileged. They do not conceal the underlying These limited attorney communications are Yet, Plaintiffs have capitalized on inadvertently missed redactions, using those inadvertently produced versions in depositions and court filings even after State Farm properly clawed them back pursuant to 12 O.S. §§ 3226(B)(5)(b) & 2502(E). State Farm respectfully requests an Order from this Court: (1) upholding State Farm’s privilege over redacted portions of HUR00158701-19; (2) striking references in this case and in"}, {"d": 105, "p": 3, "t": "depositions to the versions of those documents with incomplete redactions; and (3) ordering Plaintiffs’ counsel to (a) return, sequester, or destroy all copies of HUR00158702-09 and HUR00158712-19 (which have been clawed back) in their possession, custody, or control, and (b) cease further use or disclosure of the privileged information contained in these documents. If the Court finds that any redacted portion of HUR00158701-19 is not privileged, State Farm requests a stay of any such ruling to prevent further dissemination of State Farm’s privileged materials and allow State Farm a meaningful opportunity to seek Supreme Court review. RELEVANT BACKGROUND Scott Welsh is a Director of P&C Claims Consulting at State Farm. See Ex. 1, Dec. of Scott Welsh (“Welsh Dec.”) § 2. Mark Cavanaugh is an in-house attorney employed by State Farm and Tim Marron is a retired in-house attorney who was employed by State Farm at the relevant time. On October 22, 2021, Welsh sent a draft Senior Executive Offsite memo to attorney Marron for legal review and advice. See Ex. 2, Dec. of Mark Cavanaugh (“Cavanaugh Dec.”) §] 6; Ex. 1, Welsh Dec. 93. At that time, litigation concerning State Farm’s handling of wind or hail claims was pending, and other potential litigation was reasonably anticipated. See Ex. 2, Cavanaugh Dec. 47. Against that backdrop, Welsh asked the Law Department to review the draft and provide legal advice concerning the legal implications of language in the Memo. Ex. 1, Welsh Dec. 4 5-6. On October 26, 2021, attorney Marron emailed the draft SEO Memo back to Welsh, cc’ing attorney Cavanaugh, with comments from both attorneys under a cover email marked “Privileged and confidential Attorney client communication.” See HUR00158711. Attorney comments were added using Microsoft Word comment bubbles, Microsoft track changes, and also were inserted in the text of the memo. Later that day, Scott Welsh sent a revised version of the draft SEO Memo back to attorneys Marron and Cavanaugh to obtain more legal advice. See Ex. 2, Cavanaugh Dec. 4915-3677-1030, v. 5"}, {"d": 105, "p": 4, "t": "49. Cavanaugh responded to Welsh with an email conveying legal advice that he marked “PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL[,] ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION[,] ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT.” See HUR00158710; id. Welsh then forwarded the email from Cavanaugh back to himself, attaching the draft SEO Memo that contained the attorneys’ comments reflecting legal advice. See HUR00158712-191; see also Ex. 1, Welsh Dec. {[{ 7-9. The same day, Welsh emailed four peers regarding the SEO Memo. See HUR00158701 (cover email). Welsh attached the following: (a) a revised version of the draft SEO Memo which still included certain legal advice and explicit comments from the attorneys (HUR00158702-09); and (b) the email that Welsh forwarded to himself attaching the attorneys’ legal comments and revisions (HUR00158710-19). Welsh’s email to his peers specifies that the draft SEO Memo he attached contained recommendations from State Farm’s Law Department. See HUR00158701 (cover email). Welsh’s revised draft memo incorporating the legal advice he received still shows a legal comment directly left by attorney Cavanaugh (deleted but still visible through track changes), notations using colored and stricken text to show what the attorneys specifically advised, bracketed comments written by the attorneys, and a margin comment conveying what the “Law Department recommends.” (HUR00158712-19). See Ex. 1, Welsh Dec. {ff 10-11. State Farm has produced over 117,000 documents in this case, in addition to more than 600,000 documents that State Farm reproduced from prior cases that settled. Ex.3, Declaration of Laura Siff (“Consilio Dec.”) {§ 4, 6. To do so, State Farm devoted substantial resources to conducting a large-scale document review to determine responsiveness and privilege. State Farm’s review procedures included a first-level attorney review performed by contract attorneys, a secondlevel attorney review performed by State Farm’s outside counsel, and quality-control procedures to audit the first and second level attorney reviews. /d. {| 4-5. State Farm gave reviewing attorneys 4915-3677-1030, v. 5"}, {"d": 105, "p": 5, "t": "detailed instructions on how to identify privileged communications and attorney work product, including examples of privileged materials, and instructed them to apply redactions narrowly and produce non-privileged portions where practicable. Reviewers used an electronic review platform, and State Farm’s vendor programmed the platform to highlight attorney names and terms commonly associated with privileged material to assist in the review. Jd. {| 5. State Farm learned that it inadvertently produced two versions of the draft SEO Memo (HUR00158702-09 and HUR00158712-19) with incomplete privilege redactions. State Farm learned of its inadvertent disclosure of privileged information in the context of another case, West v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CJ-2025-135 (Comanche Cty.) (“West”), where State Farm produced the same documents (labeled WEST00158702-09 and WEST00158712-19 in that case). Specifically, on September 17, 2026, Plaintiffs’ counsel in West—the same counsel who represent Plaintiffs in this case—marked WEST00158701-09 as Exhibit 133 during their deposition of Wensley Herbert in West. During the deposition, State Farm’s counsel promptly notified Plaintiffs’ counsel that Exhibit 133 might contain inadvertently disclosed privileged communications and information, and that State Farm was investigating further. W. Herbert Tr. (West) 310:22-311:7. The very next day, Plaintiffs’ counsel attached WEST00158702-09 as an exhibit to a court filing wholly unrelated to the document. West, 9/18/2026 Reply to Mot. to Compel. Following Mr. Herbert’s deposition, State Farm investigated whether it had inadvertently disclosed privileged information and confirmed that it did. State Farm also determined that it had inadvertently produced the incorrectly redacted documents in this case as HUR00158702-09 and HURO00158712-19. On September 22, 2026, State Farm sent Plaintiffs’ lead counsel, Reggie Whitten, a letter notifying Whitten that State Farm inadvertently produced two draft SEO Memos (WEST00158702-09 4915-3677-1030, v. 5 and WEST00158712-19) with unredacted privileged content, and that"}, {"d": 105, "p": 6, "t": "Whitten and his firm had an obligation pursuant to 12 O.S. §§ 3226(B)(5)(b) and 2502(E) to destroy all copies thereof. Pls. Not. Ex. 24. State Farm also asked Whitten to voluntarily strike portions of Herbert’s deposition testimony regarding the privileged material. State Farm told Whitten that it would correct the redactions and reproduce the documents. Plaintiffs did not comply with § 3226(B)(5)(b) or State Farm’s clawback request. Instead, the next day, on September 23, 2026, in this case, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed HUR00158701-19 as Exhibit 14 to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to DeDesignate (“Notice”), purportedly to support their efforts to de-designate certain documents that State Farm produced as confidential. Not only did Plaintiffs attach a clawed-back document to their filing, but they also quoted Mr. Herbert’s deposition testimony in West discussing the privileged information and even pasted into their brief portions of HUR00158702-09. See Pls. Not. at 7, 9-10. Then, on September 29, 2026, Plaintiffs’ counsel used HUR00158701-09 again in this case as an exhibit while deposing State Farm corporate representative Wayne Stewart. Plaintiffs ask the Court to find that none of the information or communications in HUR0015870119 are protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. Plaintiffs are wrong. The Court has allowed State Farm to file this brief, substantiating its privilege claims. ARGUMENT 1. The Attorney-Client Privilege Protects the Redacted Material from Disclosure Section 2502(B) protects confidential communications made for the purpose of obtaining or providing professional legal services. The privilege shields the client’s confidential disclosures and attorney advice. Sims v. Travelers Ins. Co., 2000 OK CIV APP 145, § 8, 16 P.3d 468, 470. These protections encompass confidential communications relaying privileged advice among nonattorney employees of a company. 4915-3677-1030, v. 5 See Moffatt v. Wazana Bros. Int’l, No. CIV.A. 14-1881, 2014"}, {"d": 105, "p": 7, "t": "WL 5410201 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2014) (“The intra corporate distribution of legal advice received from counsel does not vitiate the privilege’). To sustain its assertion of privilege, State Farm must prove that the conditions necessary for the privilege are more probably true than not. § 2105(B). 12 O.S. As explained below, the documents and declarations establish that the redacted material consists of confidential communications seeking, providing, and conveying legal advice. “The attorney-client privilege is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law.” Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981). “Its purpose is to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice.” Jd. Unlike individuals, corporations “constantly go to lawyers to find out how to obey the law,” and respecting privilege in the corporate setting encourages “the valuable efforts of corporate counsel to ensure their client’s compliance with the law.” /d. at 392. On October 22, 2021, Welsh asked State Farm’s Law Department to provide legal advice concerning the draft SEO Memo. See Ex. 2, Cavanaugh Dec. 4 6; Ex. 1, Welsh Dec. § 3. In light of litigation challenging State Farm’s handling of wind and hail claims, Welsh asked counsel to evaluate the legal implications of language used in the draft to describe those practices. Ex. 2, Cavanaugh Dec. § 7; Ex. 1, Welsh Dec. §{§ 5-6. The business personnel responsible for the SEO Memo remained responsible for the underlying practices and the SEO Memo’s factual and business substance. Ex. 1, Welsh Dec. {{ 4, 7-9. Cavanaugh and Marron responded in their capacities as attorneys through confidential emails and comments in the draft. Their comments applied legal judgment to language in the SEO Memo and conveyed counsel’s resulting legal analysis and recommendations. /d.. {J 8-0; Ex. 2, Cavanaugh Dec. {| 8-9. They were shared only with State Farm employees responsible for requesting, receiving, or acting on that advice. 4915-3677-1030, v. 5 The privilege"}, {"d": 105, "p": 8, "t": "protects each step in that process. It protects Welsh’s request for legal advice, Cavanaugh’s and Marron’s responses, the attorneys’ comments embedded in the draft, and Welsh’s confidential communication of their recommendations to the State Farm employees responsible for the SEO Memo. The fact that counsel provided advice See 12 O.S. § 2502(A)(4)-(5), (B)(1), (B)(4).. through comments and proposed revisions to a draft does not make the advice any less privileged. Motley v. Marathon Oil Co., 71 F.3d 1547 (10th Cir. 1995), is directly analogous. There, in-house counsel advised a corporation through a draft internal memorandum reduction in force. concerning a The plaintiff argued that the documents reflected ordinary business activity rather than legal advice. The Tenth Circuit upheld the privilege because counsel established that the draft contained legal advice, related materials were prepared for counsel’s use in giving that advice, and the documents were maintained as confidential. /d. at 1550-51. Likewise here, the documents and the Cavanaugh Declaration establish that Welsh requested legal advice, Cavanaugh and Marron responded as attorneys, and the resulting communications were treated as confidential. Nor does the presence of business information in the draft deprive counsel’s communications of protection. In Sustainable Journalism Found. v. State ex rel. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the privilege for reports that included factual information and investigative results together with counsel’s legal analysis, opinions, advice, and mental impressions. 2026 OK 2, §§ 13-14. The relevant question is whether the withheld communications were made to obtain or provide legal advice—not whether the document in which they appear also addresses business matters. The particular redactions satisfy that standard. The original redactions to HUR0015871011 protect Welsh’s communications with Cavanaugh and Marron. HUR00158701 4915-3677-1030, v. 5 protect Welsh’s confidential communication The original redactions to of their recommendations to the"}, {"d": 105, "p": 9, "t": "employees responsible for considering them. The corrected redactions to HUR00158712-19 and HUR00158702-09 protect counsel’s comments embedded in the draft SEO Memo. State Farm has produced the remainder of the documents, including the SEO Memo’s underlying discussion of State Farm’s claim-handling practices. Because its original and corrected redactions are limited to communications seeking, providing, or conveying legal advice, the Court should uphold them. IL. The Work Product Doctrine Protects the Redacted Material from Disclosure The work product doctrine, codified under Oklahoma law, protects “documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial,” with heightened protection for “the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of a party’s attorney.” 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(3)(a)-(b). “For the anticipation of litigation threshold to be met, the primary motivating purpose behind creation of a document or investigative report must be in aid of possible future litigation, although litigation need not be imminent at the time of the document’s creation.” Heffron v. Dist. Ct. Oklahoma Cnty., 2003 OK 75, 77 P.3d 1069 (citation omitted). Parties may obtain work product materials where the materials “are otherwise discoverable” and “the party shows that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.” 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(3)(a). However, “the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of a party’s attorney.” 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(3)(b). Here, setting aside Plaintiffs’ failure to show a substantial need for the redacted information, counsel’s redacted comments reflect “mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories,” such that the Court “shall protect against disclosure” of this information. As set forth in the Cavanaugh Declaration, attorneys Cavanaugh and Marron reviewed the draft SEO Memo 4915-3677-1030, v. 5 and provided advice (redacted portions of HURO0158712-19 and"}, {"d": 105, "p": 10, "t": "HURO00158702-09) in anticipation of pending and reasonably anticipated litigation. By October 2021, wind and hail litigation was pending and reasonably anticipated. See Ex. 2, Cavanaugh Dec. 4] 7; Ex. 1, Welsh Dec. 9 5-6. The redacted advice reflect the attorneys’ mental impressions and legal analysis concerning issues implicated by that litigation. comment from Cavanaugh). (HUR00158710.) Cavanaugh See e.g., HUR00158713 (redline also cited work product protection in his email. Because the redacted comments reveal counsel’s litigation-related mental impressions and legal analysis, they are work product under 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(3)(b). Il. The Crime-Fraud Exception Does Not Apply The crime-fraud exception is a narrow exception to the attorney-client privilege that applies when a client seeks or obtains a lawyer’s services to help commit or plan conduct that the client knew or reasonably should have known was a crime or fraud. 12 O.S. § 2502(D)(1). A client may seek legal advice, but may not use a lawyer to help carry out a crime or fraud. The central question is why the client sought the lawyer’s services. Allegations of fraud alone cannot pierce the attorney-client privilege. Cooper v. State, 1983 OK CR 154, § 4, 671 P.2d 1168, 1172. Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving the exception. Under Oklahoma law, “[a] person claiming an exception to a privilege must prove that the conditions prerequisite to the applicability of the exception are more probably true than not.” 12 O.S. § 2105(B); Sustainable Journalism Found. v. State ex rel. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 2026 OK 2, § 17 n.3. Specifically, to establish the crime-fraud exception here, Plaintiffs must prove that: (1) State Farm was committing or planning specific conduct constituting a crime or fraud; (2) State Farm knew or reasonably should have known that the conduct was a crime or fraud; and (3) State Farm sought or obtained the attorneys’ services to enable or aid that conduct. Each fact must be more likely true than false. Failure to prove any one defeats the exception. Plaintiffs have not met their burden because their 4915-3677-1030, v. 5"}, {"d": 105, "p": 11, "t": "bad faith and constructive fraud claims are only allegations, the existence of which does not prove, more probably than not, that State Farm committed or planned a crime or fraud. The Court need not decide that issue, however, because Plaintiffs’ argument independently fails the third element. Even if the Court assumes for purposes of this privilege dispute that the conduct Plaintiffs challenge could constitute fraud, Plaintiffs must still prove that State Farm sought the attorneys’ services to enable or aid that fraud. Two Oklahoma decisions illustrate the evidence required to satisfy this requirement. In Keller v. State, the exception applied because the client sought advice about “getting rid of’ the victim, including asking whether he should bring in a former employee—whom the attorney identified as a “hit man out of Chicago”—to handle the matter. 1982 OK CR 159, 49 5-7, 14-16, 651 P.2d 1339, statements directly connected the contemplated 1341-42. Those contemporaneous crime to the client’s purpose in seeking the attorney’s advice. In Cooper v. State, by contrast, the exception did not apply where the only asserted connection was an allegation that the client committed perjury thirteen years after consulting an attorney. 1983 OK CR 154, 7 4, 671 P.2d 1168, 1172. That later alleged wrongdoing did not show that the client had consulted the attorney to enable or aid a crime or fraud. This case lacks the connection present in Keller. Plaintiffs identify no communication in which Welsh asked Cavanaugh or Marron to make a false statement, conceal a fact, or assist in unlawful claim-handling practices. They rely instead on the fact that the SEO Memo discusses practices they challenge and that attorneys commented on its language. But an allegation that the client engaged in wrongful conduct, even when coupled with legal advice concerning the same general subject, does not establish that the client sought the advice to enable or aid that conduct. And advice about a document that Plaintiffs (wrongly) contend discussed allegedly wrongful conduct is not the same as advice sought to enable or aid that conduct. 10 4915-3677-1030, v. 5 Thus, as in Cooper,"}, {"d": 105, "p": 12, "t": "Plaintiffs’ failure to establish the client’s intent in seeking legal advice and to connect the legal advice to any alleged crime or fraud is fatal to Plaintiffs’ crime-fraud arguments. 1983 OK CR 154, § 4 (evidence that client consulted attorney and subsequently committed perjury was insufficient to establish applicability of crime-fraud exception); see Action Performance Co., Inc. v. Bohbot, 420 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (“[T]he [proponent] must also establish a reasonable relationship between the fraud and the attorney-client communication.”). Plaintiffs’ reliance on Oklahoma Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6 does not alter that conclusion. Oklahoma Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6, which explains when a lawyer “can reveal information relating to the representation of a client” is not relevant because it addresses attorney ethical obligations, not crime-fraud exception standards, and addresses when an attorney can disclose a client’s confidential information, not on whether an attorney must disclose confidential information in response to a discovery request.! IV. State Farm’s Inadvertent Disclosures Should Not Result in Privilege Waiver “A disclosure of a communication or information covered by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine does not operate as a waiver if: 1. The disclosure was inadvertent; 2. The holder of the privilege took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure; and 3. The holder of the privilege took reasonable steps to rectify the error including, but not limited to, [work product materials].” 12 O.S. § 2502(E). For context, in any document review of the scale at issue here, it is possible—and in fact probable—that the review team will make mistakes, hence the need for ' Plaintiffs cite no Oklahoma cases establishing that an insurer’s alleged bad faith claim handling qualifies as a fraud under the crime-fraud exception and State Farm has not found any Oklahoma cases addressing this issue. Several courts have held, however, that bad faith denial of an insurance claim does not qualify as a “fraud” for purposes of the crime-fraud exception. See, e.g., State ex rel. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Montana Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 783 P.2d 911 (Mont. 1989); Kujawa v. Manhattan Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 541 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 1989); Freedom Trust v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 38 F. Supp. 2d 1170, 1173 (C.D. Cal. 1999). 1 4915-3677-1030, v. 5"}, {"d": 105, "p": 13, "t": "statutes like 12 O.S. § 2502(E). See, e.g., Malone v. Kantner Ingredients, Inc., No. 4:12CV3190, 2015 WL 1470334, at *3 (D. Neb. Mar. 31, 2015) (“[H]uman error is common when attorneys are tasked with personally reviewing voluminous electronically stored information.”) (citing Sedona Conference Best Practices Commentary on the Use of Search and Information Retrieval Methods in E-Discovery, Public Comment Version, 8 Sedona Conf. J. 189, 204 (August 2007)); Jn re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litig., 235 F.R.D. 407, 417 (N.D. IIl.), supplemented, 432 F. Supp. 2d 794 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (“Where discovery is extensive, mistakes are inevitable and claims of inadvertence are properly honored so long as appropriate precautions are taken.”) (citing Golden Valley Microwave Foods, Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co., Inc., 132 F.R.D. 204, 207 (N.D.Ind.1990)). Section 2502(E) recognizes that an inadvertent error does not waive privilege when the producing party used reasonable precautions and acted reasonably to correct the error. As explained below, State Farm satisfies all three statutory requirements. A. Disclosure of Privileged Information in HUR00158712-19 and HUR0015870209 Was Inadvertent As set forth above, reviewers inadvertently failed to redact privileged portions of HUR00158702-09 and HUR00158712-19. Their deficient redactions are understandable. First, with respect to HUR00158702-09 (the version of the SEO Memo containing attorney comments that Welsh forwarded to his peers on 10/26/21 at 5:43 pm), that document viewed in isolation does not clearly attribute the legal advice to an attorney because Welsh had edited the document, deleting Marron’s comment bubbles and deleting most of Cavanaugh’s in-line comments. However, some attorney comments remained. For example, in one instance, Welsh deleted an inline comment from an attorney with track changes on, such that Cavanaugh’s comment remained visible but appeared to be struck through by Welsh. Accordingly, a reviewer could have mistaken the deleted comments as having been made by non-attorney 12 4915-3677-1030, v. 5 Welsh, who had forwarded"}, {"d": 105, "p": 14, "t": "HURO00158702-09 to his peers. Only by reviewing the full family of documents together, particularly HUR00158710-11 (the emails exchanged among Welsh and attorneys Cavanaugh and Marron, where the attorneys provided their legal advice to Welsh) and HUR00158712-19 (the version of the draft SEO Memo that the attorneys emailed to Welsh on 10/26/2021 at 11:39 am, which Welsh then forwarded to himself at 5:33 pm the same day), does it become clear that the deleted comments visible in track changes were actually privileged legal advice from attorney Cavanaugh. Although reviewers are instructed to consult full families of documents to inform privilege calls, their failure to recognize Cavanaugh’s comments in HUR00158702-09 as privileged was understandable and inadvertent. In reviewing HUR00158702-09 to confirm whether State Farm had inadvertently disclosed privileged content, State Farm determined that redactions to the draft SEO Memo (produced at HURO00158712-19) containing comments from the attorneys that Cavanaugh sent to Welsh, and Welsh subsequently forwarded to himself, also required revisions. In particular, the reviewers for this document applied potentially overbroad redactions, which State Farm wanted to correct. Also, while reviewers redacted 17 attorney comments throughout HUR00158712-19, they missed one comment on the bottom of HUR00158712 and one comment near the top of HUR00158713 that should have been redacted. State Farm thus clawed back HUR00158712-19 to more narrowly tailor the redactions, and to add two redactions to privileged material. redact two attorney comments in an eight-page document The reviewers’ failure to containing attorney comments throughout was inadvertent and not an intentional waiver of State Farm’s privilege, particularly given the magnitude of the review that State Farm undertook. Courts routinely find that reviewers’ mistakes are inadvertent in similar circumstances. In Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Devine, the court found that an attorney took 13 4915-3677-1030, v. 5"}, {"d": 105, "p": 15, "t": "reasonable precautions to prevent inadvertent disclosure and produced documents inadvertently where “it [wa]s not readily apparent from the face of the documents that they [we]re privileged or confidential—only a more thorough examination with the documents explained in their proper context demonstrate[d] the privileged nature of the documents.” 262 F. Supp. 3d 1312, 1325 (MLD. Fla. 2017). As in Absolute, the source of the legal advice in the draft SEO Memo produced as HURO00158702-09 is not readily apparent from the face of the document, and the privileged nature of certain comments therein is apparent only upon a more thorough examination of its context. Also, in In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litig., the court found that a document was inadvertently unredacted where the producing party had previously redacted the material on four occasions. 235 F.R.D. at 417 (“The 1994 report was produced on four previous occasions, with pages 9-11 redacted. Obviously, the production of the single unredacted copy was inadvertent.’’) (citing Dellwood Farms, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 128 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (7th Cir. 1997)). Likewise, here, in in HUR00158712-19, State Farm redacted the content that reviewers inadvertently failed to redact in HUR00158702-09, establishing State Farm’s intent to assert privilege.” More generally, courts routinely recognize that reviewers make mistakes in large-scale document reviews, and that such mistakes do not constitute waiver of privilege. E.g., Kaneka Corp. v. Cocrystal Tech. (Jiaxing) Co., 801 F. Supp. 3d 164, 172 (E.D.N.Y. 2025) (“Even if one focuses only on the size of the 300-page production in which the Disputed Documents were produced, the dozen privileged pages among 300 pages of documents is an error that might occur in any modern civil litigation.”); In re Nat. Gas Commodity Litig., 229 F.R.D. 82, 89 (S.D.NLY. 2005) (“Courts have routinely found that where a large number of documents are involved, there ? State Farm also redacted this same content in three versions of the SEO Memo produced in Foster v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CJ 2023-1425 (Cleveland Cty.), among other matters. 14 4915-3677-1030, v. 5"}, {"d": 105, "p": 16, "t": "is more likely to be an inadvertent disclosure rather than a knowing waiver.”). As courts recognize, “it is virtually impossible to avoid any error whatsoever in dealing with large volumes of discovery material.” Jn re Nat. Gas Commodity Litig., 229 F.R.D. at 89 (quoting United States v. Rigas, 281 F.Supp.2d 733, 741 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)). In this case, State Farm has reviewed more than 600,000 documents (excluding claim files and prior productions). The small number of mistakes identified to date in relation to the large volume of the review and production weighs heavily in favor of finding inadvertence. /d. The Court should find that State Farm’s production of HUR0015870209 and HUR00158712-19 with incomplete redactions was inadvertent. B. State Farm Took Reasonable Steps to Prevent Disclosure Courts have long recognized that “[a] two-layer system of pre-production review—in which relatively ministerial determinations are made by employees of the producing party or by clerks, paralegals, or inexperienced associates employed by a law firm, and in which the final decision about what documents should or should not be produced is made by experienced in-house or outside lawyers” constitutes reasonable steps to prevent inadvertent disclosures. Bagley v. U.S. ex rel. TRW, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 170, 179 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (“Punishing defendant for adopting this common, reasonable, and cost-effective strategy would not make sense. It also would unwisely discourage other litigants from adopting an economical procedure in the future.”); United States v. United Health Grp., Inc., No. CV 16-8697 FMO (SSX), 2020 WL 10731257, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2020) (reasonable steps were taken where producing party conducted “eyes-on” privilege review and more limited review during a compressed, court-ordered re-review). not conduct the two-level review that State Even where parties do Farm did here, courts have found precautions were reasonable when “proper quality assurance testing” was used. Rhoads Indus., Inc. v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 254 F.R.D. 216, 224 (E.D. Pa.), clar’d by, 254 F.R.D. 238 (E.D. Pa. 2008). 15 4915-3677-1030, v. 5"}, {"d": 105, "p": 17, "t": "In this case, State Farm employed at least two levels of attorney review, and indeed, multiple attorneys reviewed HUR00158702-09 and HUR00158712-19 prior to their production. Ex.3, Consilio Dec. {9 4-5. In addition, State Farm performed layers of quality control to ensure its privilege claims could be as accurate as possible, including running targeted searches for key legal personnel, performing audits and consistency checks both within the Hursh production as well as other matters with similar productions, and performing an additional level of review before logging documents on its privilege log. Jd. Under modern standards for document review and production, State Farm undeniably took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure of the privileged material at issue. C. State Farm Took Reasonable Steps to Rectify the Error Courts find that parties have taken reasonable steps to rectify inadvertent disclosures when they promptly notify opposing counsel. In re EpiPen MDL, 2021 WL 2875514 (D. Kan. 2021) (clawback was timely where notice was sent two days after privilege issue arose during deposition in related case); Laethem Equipment Co. v. Deere & Co., 261 F.R.D. 127 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (party diligently rectified inadvertent disclosure notwithstanding three-week delay attributable to awaiting a court order); Southampton, Ltd. v. Salalati, No. CIV-14-852-M, 2016 WL 6693562 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 14, 2016) (four-day demand for return constituted reasonable steps to rectify). State Farm learned that it had possibly disclosed privileged information on September 17, 2026, when Plaintiffs’ counsel marked the version of HUR00158701-09 Exhibit 133 at the Herbert deposition in West. produced in West as For the reasons described above, looking at this document in isolation at the deposition, State Farm’s counsel could not immediately determine the author of the potentially privileged comments to definitively assert that they were privileged. Nevertheless, State Farm advised counsel for the West plaintiffs—the same counsel who represent 16 4915-3677-1030, v. 5"}, {"d": 105, "p": 18, "t": "Plaintiffs in this case—on the record, that the version of HUR00158701-09 produced in West may contain inadvertently disclosed privileged content. State Farm promptly investigated the document and, upon reviewing it in its full context, determined that it indeed contained privileged content that had been inadvertently disclosed. State Farm also reviewed its productions in cases dating back to 2021, as well as deposition transcripts from 2024 to present, to determine the extent of the inadvertent disclosure to assess potential waiver.? Outside counsel for State Farm additionally consulted with in-house counsel for State Farm (the holder of the privilege) to ensure that the inadvertently disclosed comments—as well as other redacted comments—were made for the purpose of obtaining/providing legal advice and/or in anticipation of litigation, and were therefore protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. On September 22, 2026, State Farm sent a letter to lead counsel in this case, Reggie Whitten, notifying counsel that State Farm had inadvertently disclosed privileged information and communications and was clawing back these two versions of the draft SEO Memo. Under the circumstances, State Farm acted as expediently as possible and took reasonable steps to rectify the error.* V. The Court Should Strike References to Privileged Content in This Case Attorneys notified of an inadvertent disclosure of privileged information have a legal obligation to return or destroy the documents subject to a claim of privilege and to stop using the documents. Specifically, Oklahoma law expressly provides that: If information produced in discovery is subject to a claim of privilege or of 3 As set forth above, State Farm determined at that time that it had also inadvertently disclosed privileged content in its production of the version of HUR00158712-19 that it produced in West. * The formal claw back letter in this case was sent on September 29, 2026. However, as Plaintiffs’ counsel concede in their Notice, they are well aware that HUR00158702-09 and WEST0015870209 are the same document, as are HUR00158712-19 and WEST00158712-19, and that State Farm invoked the protections afforded by 12 O.S. §§ 3226(B)(5)(b) and 2502(E) with respect to both documents, requiring Whitten Burrage to destroy all copies, which they did not do. Pls. Not. at 6 (“State Farm now seeks to claw back Exhibit 133... .”) and Ex. 24. 17 4915-3677-1030, v. 5"}, {"d": 105, "p": 19, "t": "protection as trial preparation material, the party making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party shall promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies the party has; shall not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; shall take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party has disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(5)(b) (emphasis added). As the law states, a party “shall not use or disclose the information until the claim [of privilege] is resolved,” regardless of whether they believe the claim is invalid. See Raymond vy. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., No. 16-1282-JTM, 2017 WL 2831485, at *15 (D. Kan. June 30, 2017) (faced with a claw-back request, “[i]t was not Plaintiffs’ prerogative to unilaterally determine whether the information received anonymously was truly proprietary, confidential, privileged, or some combination of those labels, and use the information it deemed appropriate”) (quoting Radiance Aluminum Fence, Inc. v. Marquis Metal Material, Inc., 335 F.R.D. 371, 377 (E.D. Mich. 2020)); McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. Superior Court, 10 Cal. App. 5th 1083 (2017) (affirming disqualification of counsel who used inadvertently disclosed privileged material without notifying the privilege holder). When counsel ignore their obligations regarding privileged materials, courts strike improperly filed materials and order counsel to return or destroy any copies of the material remaining in their possession. See Radiance Aluminum Fence, Inc. v. Marquis Metal Material, Inc., 335 F.R.D. 371, 377 (E.D. Mich. 2020). Plaintiffs’ improper use of State Farm’s inadvertently disclosed privileged documents is egregious. Once notified that a document contains privileged information, counsel cannot even review the document, much less continue to file it and bring copies of it to a deposition. Greater New York Taxi Ass'n v. City of New York, No. 13-CV-3089(VSB)(RWL), 2018 WL 2316629, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2018) (“Upon being notified that the documents were privileged, Plaintiffs should have immediately ceased their review of the clawed back documents.”). Despite receiving 18 4915-3677-1030, v. 5"}, {"d": 105, "p": 20, "t": "State Farm’s notice of inadvertent disclosure, Plaintiffs filed a copy of HUR00158702-09 on the record, pasted portions of it within the body of their Notice, and marked it as an exhibit at Stewart’s deposition on September 29, 2026.° Counsel’s use of HUR00158702-09 was not for the allowed purpose of presenting the information under seal to the Court for a determination of the privilege claim. See 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(5)(b). Counsel’s conduct plainly violates § 3226(B)(5)(b). VI. Alternatively, the Court Should Stay Its Ruling to Allow State Farm Time to Seek Supreme Court Review Should the Court determine that any redacted portions of HUR00158701-19 are not privileged, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court simultaneously stay the effectiveness of its ruling to permit State Farm an opportunity to seek Supreme Court review. Farmers’ & Merchants’ Bank, 1932 OK 55, § 14, 8 P.2d 665, 667. See also Howe v. The Court may consider, in granting such stay, the “likelihood of success on appeal,” the “threat of irreparable harm to [the] moving party if relief is not granted,” any “potential harm to the opposing party,” and any “risk of harm to the public.” Okla. Sup. Ct. R. 1.15(c)(2). For the reasons set forth above, State Farm has a likelihood of success on the merits of its privilege claims. If Plaintiffs continue using the documents, State Farm faces an imminent threat of irreparable harm because public disclosure cannot be undone, and State Farm will be deprived of a meaningful opportunity to obtain appellate review. Conversely, there is little risk of harm to Plaintiffs. State Farm is not seeking to claw back entire documents without reproducing them. It only seeks to claw back the documents so it can correctly redact portions reflecting substantive attorney advice, and State Farm’s attorneys’ legal > While the Court ultimately permitted use of the document at the Wayne Stewart deposition with the understanding that the material would be excised from the record should the Court uphold State Farm’s privilege claims, under Oklahoma law, Plaintiffs’ counsel should not have attempted to use the document, let alone put the Court in the position of having to make a decision on how it could be used before privilege was decided. 19 4915-3677-1030, v. 5"}, {"d": 105, "p": 21, "t": "opinions are not admissible at trial. Finally, the risk of harm to the public increases if the Court denies State Farm a stay. In particular, an Order requiring production of these privileged materials and depriving State Farm of an opportunity for meaningful review would impair State Farm's attorney-client privilege and chill the full and frank communications that the Supreme Court recognized are necessary. Upjohn Co., 449 U.S. at 389. CONCLUSION The Court should find that HUR00158701-19 contains information and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine and that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2502(E), State Farm’s inadvertent disclosure of privileged information and communications in the produced versions of HUR00158702-09 and HUR00158712-19 does not result in a waiver of State Farm’s privilege claims. Accordingly, State Farm requests that the Court: (1) uphold the original redactions applied to HUR00158701 and HUR00158710-11; (2) uphold the corrected redactions applied to HUR00158702-09 and HUR00158712-19°; (3) strike Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority and require Plaintiffs to refile tt without references to the privileged information and communications; (4) strike both the portion of Wayne Stewart’s September 29, 2026 deposition testimony regarding the privileged and the exhibit itself; and (5) order Plaintiffs and their counsel to return or destroy all copies of the documents produced at HUR00158702-09 and HUR00158712-19. Finally, to the extent the Court finds that any redacted portion of HURO00158701-19 is not privileged, State Farm requests a stay of any such ruling to allow State Farm a meaningful opportunity to consider and seek interlocutory review. ° At the Court’s direction, on September 30, 2026, State Farm provided unredacted versions of HURO00158701-19 for in camera review (In_Camera_001-19). With this filing, State Farm is also delivering to the Court HUR00158701-19 in unredacted form for in camera review which, in open boxes, show State Farm’s original redactions outlined in blue and, for HUR00158702-09 and HURO00158712-19, also show State Farm’s corrected redactions in yellow highlighting. 20 4915-3677-1030, v. 5"}, {"d": 105, "p": 22, "t": "Respectfully submitted, a Noe Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 PH: (405) 235-5500 FAX:: (405) 235-2875 lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com -andCarrie B. McNeer, OBA No. 22235 Grant A. Fitz, OBA No. 19806 Nathan A. Miramontes, OBA No. 36212 GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Ave., Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 PH: (918) 595-4800 FAX: (918) 595-4990 cmeneer@gablelaw.com efitz@gablelaw.com nmiramontes@gablelaw.com Diane Lee McGimsey -Admitted Pro Hac Vice SULLIVAN & CROMWELL 1888 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, CA 90067 PH: 310-712-6600 megimseyd@sullcrom.com Erica B. Zolner -Admitted Pro Hac Vice REDGRAVE LLP 230 West Monroe Street, Suite 210, Chicago, IL 60606 PH: 773-720-9169 ezolner@redgravellp.com 21 4915-3677-1030, v. 5"}, {"d": 105, "p": 23, "t": "Tiffany Lynne Powers -Admitted Pro Hac Vice ALSTON & BIRD, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Atlanta, GA 30308 PH: 404-881-7000 Tiffany.pwers@alston.com Attorneys for Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 22 4915-3677-1030, v. 5"}, {"d": 105, "p": 24, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I do hereby certify that on October 5, 2026, a true, correct and exact copy of the above and foregoing document was served by placing same in the United States mail, with proper postage thereon duly prepaid, to those parties as listed below: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com R. Ryan Deligans, Durbin, Larimore & Bialick 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rdeligans@dlb.net Patrick F. Collogan BIBY LAW FIRM 6305 E. 120\" Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 pat@bibylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs = David R. Herber 23 4915-3677-1030, v. 5 bh"}, {"d": 105, "p": 26, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA BILLY and LACY HURSH, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. CJ-2025-2626 STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INS. AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) Defendants. DECLARATION OF SCOTT WELSH I, Scott Welsh, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the following is true and correct: lL. I am over the age of 21 years, of sound mind, legally capable of making this Declaration, and have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Declaration. 2. Iam employed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm Mutual”) as Director of P&C Claims Consulting Services. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm”) is a subsidiary of State Farm Mutual. In October 2021, I served in the same role and was involved in preparing a memorandum titled “P&C Fire Claims Roofs — Quality & Service; October 26, 2021,” for a Senior Executive Offsite meeting (the “SEO Memo”). 3. I have reviewed documents produced in the above-referenced case at Bates numbers HUR00158701-19, which includes an email I sent Gregory E. Jones and Kathy Ress, copying Nicole Manduca and Tom Moss, on October 26, 2021 (HUR00158701), an email thread in which attorneys Tim Marron and Mark Cavanaugh responded to my requests for legal advice and in which I requested legal advice (HUR00158710-11), and two copies of the SEO Memo containing comments reflecting attorney legal advice HURO00158712-HUR00158719). Page 1 of 3 (HUR00158702-HUR00158709 and"}, {"d": 105, "p": 27, "t": "4. The SEO Memo addressed State Farm’s handling of wind and hail claims. The business personnel involved in preparing the Memo were responsible for its description of State Farm’s claim-handling practices and its underlying factual and business content. 5. At the time, State Farm was defending pending litigation challenging aspects of its handling of wind and hail claims, and similar litigation was reasonably anticipated. Against that backdrop, on October 22, 2021, I sent the draft SEO Memo to State Farm attorney Tim Marron and asked the Law Department to review the draft and provide legal advice. 6. I requested legal review because I wanted counsel’s advice concerning the legal meaning and implications of language used in the draft. I understood that this required counsel to apply legal judgment informed by the applicable legal standards and the issues raised in pending and reasonably anticipated litigation. 7. I did not ask Marron or Cavanaugh to establish or change State Farm’s underlying claim-handling practices or to make business decisions concerning those practices. The business personnel responsible for the SEO Memo remained responsible for its factual and business substance. I asked the attorneys to provide legal advice concerning language in the draft. 8. In response to my requests for legal advice, I recetved emails (HUR00158710-11) and an annotated draft SEO Memo containing comments from Marron and Cavanaugh (HUR00158712-19). I understood those communications and comments to be the legal advice I had requested. I subsequently asked the attorneys a follow-up question and received additional advice from Cavanaugh (see HUR00158710-11). 9, I intended my communications with Marron and Cavanaugh, and the advice they provided in response, to remain confidential within State Farm. I did not intend for those communications or the attorneys’ comments to be disclosed outside State Farm or to employees Page 2 of 3"}, {"d": 105, "p": 28, "t": "who were not involved in requesting, receiving, considering, or acting on the legal advice. 10. Later on October 26, 2021, I sent an email concerning the SEO Memo to Gregory Jones and Kathy Ress, copying Nicole Manduca and Tom Moss (HUR00158701-19, including attachments). Each recipient was involved in preparing, reviewing, or approving the SEO Memo and needed to receive or consider the Law Department’s advice in performing that responsibility. My email communicated recommendations I had received from the Law Department, and I intended that communication to remain confidential within that group. 11. T implemented the Law Department’s legal advice to reinforce and more accurately describe within the SEO Memo claim handling expectations and State Farm standards. The attorney communications concerned counsel’s legal review of particular language used in the Memo. I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. October 5, 2026. Cedar City, Utah. Scott Welsh (Date and Place) (Signature) Page 3 of 3"}, {"d": 105, "p": 30, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) v. ) Case No. CJ-2025-2626 ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; ) MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY ) INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) DECLARATION OF MARK CAVANAUGH I, Mark Cavanaugh, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the following is true and correct: 1. I am over the age of 21 years, of sound mind, legally capable of making this Declaration, and have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Declaration. 2. J am an attorney admitted to practice law in Illinois and a member of good standing of the Hlinois Bar. I am employed as a Vice President - Counsel at State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm Mutual”). In my role, I provide legal advice to subsidiaries of my employer, including State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm”), a defendant in the above-referenced case. 3. In making this declaration, I do not intend to—and I am not authorized to—waive any applicable privilege or protection from discovery, including the attorney-client privilege and the work product protection. 4. I have reviewed documents produced in the above-referenced case at Bates numbers HUR00158701-19. The document family consists of four documents, a cover email and three related attachments: Page 1 of 6"}, {"d": 105, "p": 31, "t": "a. HUR00158701: This document is an email from Scott Welsh to Gregory E. Jones and Kathy Ress, copying Nicole Manduca and Tom Moss, sent October 26, 2021, with the subject line “SEO Fire Claims Service & Quality Update” with the following three attachments. i, HURO00158702-HUR00158709: This document is a draft memorandum titled “P&C Fire Claims Roofs — Quality & Service; October 26, 2021” and was attached to HUR00158701. ii. HUR00158710-HUR00158711: This document is an email thread attached to HUR00158701 from Scott Welsh to himself, dated October 26, 2021 with the subject line “Law Department Feedback.” The firstin-time email in the thread is an email from State Farm in-house counsel Tim Marron to Scott Welsh, copying me, dated October 26, 2021, with the subject line “10.26.21 SEO Fire Claims Service & Quality Update.” The second-in-time email in the thread is an email from Scott Welsh to Attorney Marron and me. The third-in-time email in the email thread is an email from me to Scott Welsh and Attorney Tim Marron, dated October 26, 2021, with the subject line “10.26.21 SEO Fire Claims Service & Quality Update.” iii. HUR00158712-HUR00158719: This document is a draft memorandum titled “P&C Fire Claims Roofs — Quality & Service; October 26, 2021” and was attached to the email Scott Welsh forwarded to himself at HUR00158710. 5. I have an understanding of the chain of events reflected in HUR058701-19, as described below in paragraphs 6 through 13, because I participated in email communications among Scott Welsh, Tim Marron, and myself to provide legal advice regarding the draft memorandum, which are documents included in HUR058701-19, and because Tim Marron and I both reviewed the draft memorandum and provided our legal advice within the memorandum itself as comments in Word comment bubbles, Word track changes, and as in-line comments primarily in brackets. At the time, attorney Tim Marron reported to me. Tim Marron has retired from State Farm Mutual as of on or about December 31, 2025. Page 2 of 6"}, {"d": 105, "p": 32, "t": "6. Scott Welsh is a non-attorney employee of State Farm Mutual. On Friday, October 22, 2021, Welsh sent an email to Attorney Marron asking the Law Department to review and provide attorney comments on a draft document titled “P&C Fire Claims Roofs — Quality & Service; October 26, 2021,” which addresses State Farm’s handling of wind and hail claims (the “Senior Executive Offsite Memo” or “SEO Memo”). In light of litigation then challenging State Farm’s handling of wind and hail claims, I understood Welsh’s request to seek legal advice concerning the legal implications of language used in the draft to describe those practices, Attorney Marron subsequently requested that I assist in that legal review of the draft SEO Memo. 7. At the time Attorney Marron asked me to assist with the legal review of the draft SEO Memo in October 2021, Attorney Marron and I were aware of ongoing and reasonably anticipated litigation against State Farm challenging State Farm’s handling of wind or hail claims. That litigation provided the legal context for our review. Neither Attorney Marron nor I was responsible for establishing the underlying claim handling practices or determining the Memo’s business objectives. Our role was to apply legal judgment to particular language used in the draft. 8, During the period of October 22 to October 26, 2021, both Attorney Marron and I reviewed the draft SEO Memo and provided comments regarding its contents. We evaluated the legal meaning and implications of particular language in the draft based on our legal training, applicable claim handling standards, and the legal issues implicated by pending and reasonably anticipated litigation. The comments covered by State Farm’s original and corrected redactions reflect that legal analysis and advice. They do not establish or direct the underlying claim handling practices. Certain comments also reflect our legal impressions and analysis concerning issues implicated by the pending and reasonably anticipated litigation. Attorney Marron provided his comments to the draft SEO Memo in Microsoft Word comment bubbles, whereas I provided my Page 3 of 6"}, {"d": 105, "p": 33, "t": "comments primarily in Microsoft Word track changes and as in-line comments that I bracketed and put in red. 9. On October 26, 2021 at 10:33 am, Attorney Marron sent an email to Welsh, cc\"ing me (HUR00158711) which attached our privileged comments (HUR00158712-19), to the draft SEO document Attorney Marron’s cover email itself also contains legal advice to Welsh regarding the draft SEO Memo, as well as attorney impressions, legal theories, opinions, and conclusions. The same day, at 11:24 am, Welsh responded to attorney Marron and me and sought additional legal advice (HUR00158710). (with a header PRIVILEGED Just 15 minutes later, I responded to Welsh by email AND CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT), and provided more legal advice and attorney impressions, legal theories, opinions, and conclusions. (/d.) 10. Based on my review of HUR00158701-19, 1 understand that on October 26, 2021 at 5:33 pm, Welsh forwarded to himself my 11:39 am email which, in turn, attached the draft SEO Memo with comments from Attorney Marron and me included in Word comment bubbles, track changes, and in red bracketed text. I have reviewed the document attached to Welsh’s 5:33 pm email—HUR00158712-19—and confirmed that both Attorney Marron and I made the comments visible in track changes on pages HUR00158712-19 and Attorney Marron made the comments visible in the comment bubbles. Inline comments on HUR00158712 include legal advice from both Attorney Marron and myself. 11, Based on my review of HUR00158701-19, I understand that it is comprised of an email that Welsh sent to his peers, including Gregory E. Jones and Kathy Ress, October 26, 2021 at 5:43 pm (HUR00158701) which attached: (a) a revised version of the draft SEO memo that Welsh prepared after receiving feedback from Attorney Marron and myself which still included Page 4 of 6"}, {"d": 105, "p": 34, "t": "certain legal advice and work product we provided (HUR00158702-09); and (b) the email that Welsh forwarded to himself at 5:33 pm on 10/26/21 (HUR00158710-11), which attached the draft SEO memo with all the comments from attorney Marron and me in comment bubbles, redline, and in-line text (HUR00158712-19). By comparing the two versions of the draft SEO Memo with the version containing the original comments and tracked changes, I was able to identify the comments that originated with Attorney Marron or me. State Farm’s original and corrected redactions are limited to those attorney comments and communications that reveal the legal advice reflected in them. In particular, the revised version of the draft SEO memo that Welsh prepared after receiving feedback from Attorney Marron and myself that he sent at 5:43 pm contains comments that ] made which are visible as text and no longer visible as track changes (suggesting Welsh “accepted” the track changes). (E.g., compare bracketed legal comment under “Learn and Adapt” section on HUR158718 which appears as a track change that J entered to same bracketed legal comment on HUR158708 which appears as text.) There is also an instance in the version of the draft SEO memo that Welsh prepared after receiving attorney feedback that he sent at 5:43 pm, specifically at the top of HUR00158707, where the legal advice I had initially provided to Welsh in brackets in track changes (HUR00158717) appears to have been deleted by Welsh but is visible through track changes showing Welsh deleted the comment (HUR00158718). There is also a comment bubble on the first page with a comment from Welsh reflecting Attorney Marron and my legal advice (HUR00158702). 12, Comments that I made, as reflected in HUR00158712-19, appear in the revised version of the draft SEO memo that Welsh prepared HUR00158702-09. These comments include: (1) the bracketed last sentence of the third bullet point from the bottom of page HUR00158703; (2) the bracketed second sentence in the first full paragraph on page HURO0158704; (3) the Page 5 of 6"}, {"d": 105, "p": 35, "t": "bracketed second sentence under the second heading on page HUR00158704; (4) the bracketed second sentence of the last paragraph on page HUR00158704: (5) the bracketed first full sentence appearing on page HUR00158705; (6) the bracketed material in the last sentence in the second paragraph of page HUR00158705; (7) the bracketed material that appears struck through at the end of the second paragraph on page HUR00158707; and (8) the bracketed material appearing before the third to last paragraph on page HURO0158708. SEO 13. The comments and advice that Attorney Marron and I provided through the draft Memos (HUR00158702-09 and HURO00158712-19) and the accompanying emails (HUR00158710-11) were not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than those to whom disclosure was made in furtherance of the rendition of professional legal services to the client. I never intended to, nor have I, revealed the comments and advice that Attorney Marron and I provided to Welsh regarding the draft SEO Memo to any third-party. 14. The comments and accompanying emails contain Attorney Marron and my core thoughts, legal analysis, opinions, and mental impressions concerning the issues described above. We provided that analysis in response to Welsh’s request for legal advice. The comments for which State Farm has asserted work product protections also reflect our analysis of legal issues implicated by pending and reasonably anticipated wind and hail litigation. I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. SIGNED this 5th day of October, 2026 in Bloomington, Illinois. CA Mark Cavanaugh Page 6 of 6"}, {"d": 105, "p": 37, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA BILLY and LACY HURSH, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK WELTY INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. D. Case No. CJ-2025-2626 ) ) ) DECLARATION OF LAURA SIFF I, Laura Siff, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the following is true and correct: 1. I am over the age of 21 years, of sound mind, legally capable of making this Declaration, and have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Declaration. 2. I am employed as a Senior Project Manager at Consilio LLC. Consilio is a legal services and technology provider. I have worked at Consilio in the project management role for over four years and lead a variety of projects, including being the main point of contact for State Farm matters. I have personal knowledge regarding the costs associated with processing State Farm data as well as experience preparing cost estimates for State Farm’s various e-discovery projects. 3. I have personal knowledge regarding the costs associated with reviewing State Farm data as well as experience preparing cost estimates for State Farm’s various managed review projects. From my work for State Farm, I am familiar with the resources and costs associated with reviewing documents produced in the above-referenced case. 4. In making this declaration, I do not intend to—and am not authorized to—waive any applicable privilege or protection from discovery, including the attorney-client privilege and Page 1 of 2"}, {"d": 106, "p": 1, "t": "DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY FILED DISTRICT COURT BILLY HURSH and LACY HURSH, OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA October 6, 2026 3:11 PM Plaintiffs, RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-2626 Vv. Ca8¢ No. C4-2025-2626 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY | Honorable Amy Palumbo COMPANY: MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Lloyd “Trey” Duck and Andrew Pate of Nix Patterson, LLP, hereby enter their appearance as counsel of record for Plaintiffs, Billy and Lacy Hursh, in the above captioned case. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Trey Duck Lloyd “Trey” Duck, OBA No. 33347 tduck@nixlaw.com Andrew Pate, OBA No. 34600 dpate@nixlaw.com NIX PATTERSON, LLP 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 200 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Office: 405.516.7800"}, {"d": 106, "p": 2, "t": "WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that on 6 day of October 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by placing same in the U.S. Mail, with proper postage prepaid, to those parties listed below: Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS Lance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 110 N. Elgin Avenue 499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Suite 200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 /s/ Trey Duck"}, {"d": 107, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY and LACY HURSH, _ piste fer eouRe OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA October 6, 2026 2:04 PM RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK § § Plaintiffs, Case Number CJ-2025-2626 Vv. § Case No.: CJ-2025-2626 § STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, § § INC.,§ § § Defendants. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA AND SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Please take notice, pursuant to 12 O.S. §§ 2004.1 and 3230, Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh, will take the deposition of Mark Caylao, upon oral examination at Professional Reporters, 20 E Sth St #720, Tulsa, OK 74103, on October 20, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. The deposition will be recorded stenographically before an officer authorized by the law to take depositions and administer oaths and may be videotaped. You are invited to attend and cross-examine. A copy of the Deposition Subpoena and Subpoena Duces Tecum is attached. Respectfully submitted, \\ y / | Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com"}, {"d": 107, "p": 2, "t": "mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 7, 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 918.595.4800 918.595-4990 cmeneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com -and- Lance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com 405.235.5500 405.235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS"}, {"d": 107, "p": 3, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, v, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo Defendants. DEPOSITION SUBPOENA AND SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO: MARK CAYLAO 228 S COLLEGE AVE TULSA, OK 74104-2122 GREETINGS: Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1, YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and give testimony in the above-captioned matter on October 20, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. at the offices of Professional Reporters, 20 E 5th St #720, Tulsa, OK 74103. The deposition will be recorded stenographically before an officer authorized by the law to take depositions and administer oaths. The deposition may be recorded by a videographer. The deposition will continue from business day to business day, until completed. You are also commanded to bring with you to the deposition and make available for copying and inspection all documents listed in Exhibit A attached hereto. HEREOF FAIL NOT, UNDER PENALTY OF LAW. Issued by the undersigned attorney as an authorized officer of the Court:"}, {"d": 107, "p": 4, "t": "Respectfully submitted, dhs sd Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs"}, {"d": 107, "p": 5, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of October 2026, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing pleading was mailed, postage prepaid, to the following, to-wit: Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue, Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) emcneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com -and- Lance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS ‘J L i i : MAN"}, {"d": 107, "p": 6, "t": "EXHIBIT A Your entire file pertaining to Billy and Lacy Hursh (“Plaintiffs”), including but not limited to notes, interviews, memoranda, and other materials reviewed, considered or relied upon in preparing your expert report and opinions submitted in support of the captioned lawsuit, and any other non-privileged and discoverable documents in your file for this case; All reports authored by you, or any of your employees or agents, pertaining to Plaintiffs; All billing records, time sheets, invoices, receipts, costs, and payments relating to your work in this matter; All documents relating to any contract between you and Defendant State Farm, and/or State Farm’s counsel relating to your work in this matter; Any exhibits or demonstratives you intend to use to support or illustrate your opinions or testimony; and All communications with Defendant State Farm and/or State Farm’s attorneys regarding: (1) compensation for your study or testimony; (2) identification of facts or data that State Farm’s attorney or State Farm provided and that you considered in forming the opinions to be expressed; or (3) identification of assumptions that State Farm’s attorney or State Farm provided and that you relied upon in forming the opinions to be expressed."}, {"d": 108, "p": 1, "t": ". | e FILED IN DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY TITNUNINYLLY = HE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY BILLY & LACY HURSH, 1 Ree age 6__________——- Plaintiffs, 4 v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(2), 51 O.S. §§ 24A.29 and 24A.30, Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh, respectfully submit their Unopposed Application for Leave to file an unredacted copy of Plaintiffs’ Supplement to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Re-Production of Electronically Stored Information in the Form Defendant State Farm Elected, under seal. In support of this Application, Plaintiffs state: 1. Plaintiffs’ Plaintiffs seek to file their Supplement and confidential exhibits thereto under seal. Supplement relies upon and references several exhibits that are currently deemed confidential. 2. Plaintiffs’ request leave to file under seal an unredacted copy of their Supplement with confidential Exhibits in support thereof. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh, respectfully request the Court enter an order granting Plaintiffs’ permission to file under seal an unredacted copy of Plaintiffs’ Supplement to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Re-Production of Electronically"}, {"d": 108, "p": 2, "t": "Stored Information in the Form Defendant State Farm Elected, in support of their Motion. A proposed order will be submitted herewith. Respectfully submitted, thane AC. Pee ReggieN. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE $12 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS"}, {"d": 108, "p": 3, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 7, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was delivered, via hand-delivery to all counsel of record for Defendants. Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) cmeneer@gablelaw.com Lance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave. Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) gfitz@gablelaw.com LE Hannah Whitten LIKI"}, {"d": 109, "p": 1, "t": ". Y Tn FILED IN DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY OCT RICK BILLY & LACY HURSH, =8 2026 WARREN 36 COURT CLERK Plaintiffs, Vv. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; Case No. CJ-2025-2626 MARK Honorable Amy Palumbo D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RE-PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION IN THE FORM DEFENDANT STATE FARM ELECTED"}, {"d": 109, "p": 2, "t": "EXHIBITS Continuing from Motion Exhibit 15: Supplemental Affidavit of Lance E. Watson, Chief Operating Officer, Avansic, Inc. Exhibit 16: Comparison of Redactions Applied to HUR00158702-709 and HUR00158712-719 Exhibit 17: HUR00039527-HUR00039534 (Gia a) Exhibit 18: HUR00158701-HUR00158709 (ees ee) Exhibit 19: HUR00158710-HUR00158719 (aa ey Exhibit 20: WEST00037726-WEST00037733 (same documents as Exhibit 17, West production) Exhibit 21: WEST00158701-WEST00158709 (same documents as Exhibit 18, West production)"}, {"d": 109, "p": 3, "t": "A. The Supplemental Record. Plaintiffs file this supplement to provide the Court evidence that did not exist in examinable form when Information Plaintiffs filed their Motion in the Form to Compel Re-Production Defendant State Farm Elected. of Electronically Stored For background, Metadata is the information a computer system keeps about a document — who made it, who sent it, who received it, when, and what was attached — recorded separately from the words the document contains. Plaintiffs specifically requested this Court do an in-camera review of Exhibit 133 for the purposes of finding that the document is not attorney-client privileged and seeking an order dedesignating of confidentiality of such document. See 9/23/2026 Plaintiffs’ Supplement to Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate!. Thereafter, we discovered that the Metadata to Exhibit 133 was missing, like 90% of the rest of the production. See 10/2/2026 Plaintiffs’ Mot. to Compel ESI. Plaintiffs assert that this Court’s determination of the confidentiality of Ex. 133, which this Court is currently reviewing in camera, should not be delayed by any Metadata issue. Plaintiffs urgently need Court guidance on Exhibit 133 because Plaintiffs intend to use such in the deposition of Jon Farney on October 19, 2026, as well as other important depositions to take place before trial in this case. However, because Metadata was also lacking on this key exhibit, Plaintiffs assert that Metadata related to Exhibit 133 must be produced by State Farm to Plaintiffs and this Court, as required by Oklahoma law. This supplement is aimed at the Metadata missing from Ex. 133 specifically. Plaintiffs retained Avansic, Inc. to examine twenty-three produced renderings of a single October 2021 email family? — the same family the motion already identifies at Motion Exhibit 9. Ex. 18 ' Plaintiffs incorporate and adopt the arguments outline in Plaintiffs’ September 23, 2026 Supplement to Plaintiffs’ Motion to De-Designate as if set out herein verbatim. 2 An ‘email family’ is the email and all of its attachments treated as one related group. The metadata preserves that relationship, allowing us to identify which attachments came with which email."}, {"d": 109, "p": 4, "t": "(HURO00158701); Ex. 15 17. The results are set out in the Supplemental Affidavit of Lance E. Watson, Ex. 15, which supplements the declaration filed as Motion Exhibit 8. Plaintiffs’ motion argues State Farm’s production of flattened images defeats the uses for which electronically stored information is produced. As a critical example of State Farm’s production deficiencies, State Farm produced the same single email, which es. (© Plaintiffs under five separate production identifiers. Those renderings were not created in the same way and the redactions to such documents were not consistent. The application metadata embedded in them identifies at least three distinct, identifiable processing programs (or “toolchains”). Every PDF carries a hidden stamp recording which program made it — like the imprint on the back of a photograph saying which lab developed it. The software writes it automatically; nobody chooses to include it. Plaintiffs, through their expert, read the stamps. The copies do not match. In fact, one of them lists a different set of recipients than the others. But because State Farm flattened the production and failed to produce meaningful metadata, there is no way to tell which copy came out of whose mailbox, which one is faithful to the original, or why they differ. B. State Farm Produced One Message Through Multiple Processing Pipelines, in Five Bates Ranges, With Nothing to Reconcile Them. State Farm produced the same single email, which [a Gs. to ‘Plaintiffs under five separate production identifiers: HUR00039527, WEST00037726, WESTNEI00136281PROD, WEST-RFP44-Sub. Prod. 000274, and a vendor export bearing the internal number 000000_Original023602. The single email Scott Welsh sent on October 26, 2021 at 5:43:48 p.m. has been produced under HUROO158701, WEST00158701, HOSIERGAR0075574PROD, and HURPROD-00051762. Exs. 17, 18, 20, 21; Ex. 15921."}, {"d": 109, "p": 5, "t": "Those renderings were not created in the same way. The application metadata embedded in them identifies at least three distinct, identifiable processing toolchains.? State Farm’s production has been haphazard and confusing, as evidenced by State Farm producing this one email at least five separate times. The stamps show it used at least three different programs to do it. One of them, OmniPage, does not copy text at all — it looks at a picture and guesses what the letters are, and we can see where it guessed wrong. Another, Aspose, is not document-review software; rather, it is a programming tool someone used to build a custom conversion. The copies do not match. One of them lists a different set of recipients than the others. And because State Farm served no index file with the production, there is no way to tell which copy came out of whose mailbox, which one is faithful to the original, or why they differ. State Farm told this Court in writing which single format it would use. It then used three. The original emails, if produced, would answer every one of these questions in about a minute. This ts the concrete answer to the position State Farm took in objecting to the ESI Protocol. Section 3234(B)(2)(d) required State Farm, having objected, to “state the form or forms it intends to use,” and it did: images with document-level searchable text, a Concordance-format .DAT metadata load file, and an .OPT image load file. Motion Ex. | at 12-13. It then produced the same message through at least three different tools and under five different production identifiers, and 3 State Farm used PDF Tron PDFNet V10.2082 for most of the production files; Aspose.PDF for Java 22.6 for the copy at HOSIERGAR0075574PROD and HURPROD-0005 1762; and OmniPage CSDK 20 with iText 7.1.1 for the copy at WESTNEI00136281PROD, which shows visible optical-character-recognition errors. Several further files, including the copy at WEST-RFP44Sub. Prod. 000274, carry no application metadata at all. Jd. § 22. The resulting images are not consistent: the copy produced at HOSIERGAR0075574PROD and HURPROD-00051762 renders a different recipient line than the copies produced at HUR00158701 and WEST00158701, which are themselves identical to one another. Exs. 18, 21; Ex. 15 19 23, 26, 47."}, {"d": 109, "p": 6, "t": "served neither load file. The one-form rule State Farm invoked in the same objection, § 3234(B)(2)(e)(3), is a rule it has not itself observed. The consequence is material: a .DAT load file carries the custodian, the source path, the family relationship, the message identifier and the deduplication record. With those fields, counsel reading five renderings of one message knows which mailbox each came from and which copies were suppressed. Without them — and no load file was served — the five renderings are five unexplained documents, and the discrepancies among them cannot be investigated, let alone resolved. Ex. 15 24. This is discovery conduct is unsupported by Oklahoma’s liberal discovery code, aimed at eliminating trial by ambush. Cc. State Farm Produced the Same Document Twice in This Case and Redacted It Two Different Ways. The TE attached a revised version of the SEO summary. Ex. 18 (HUR0015870 | ). meee the Law Department’s (HUR00158710). feedback to himself with the same summary forwarded attached. Ex. 19 State Farm produced both attachments: HUR00158702-HUR00158709 and HUR00158712-HUR00158719. Exs. 18, 19. Its processing system exported them FY Eee TC on July 10, 2026. Ex. 15919. Plaintiff's expert, Mr. Watson, compared the two renderings page by page. They differ on each of their first seven pages, across approximately seven percent of the pixels on each page. The differences are redactions, and the redactions do not match. Ex. 15 4] 33-36; Ex. 16. At HUR00158702 “Redacted — AC,” with (Ex. 18) the following bullet is covered by a box bearing the legend an adjacent comment Department recommends,” itself redacted: balloon reading “Commented [SW1]: Law"}, {"d": 109, "p": 7, "t": "Industry Best: Industry Best FRR on light wind and small hail averages a 5-10% frequency, therefore an internal quality improvement opportunity of 53-58% for light wind and 80-85% for small hail (Source: Accenture Consulting Services). That bullet is produced in full and unredacted at HUR00158712 (Ex. 19), ten Bates numbers later in the same production, together with a Law Department comment discussing it. It is also produced in full and unredacted in the earlier version of the same document, at HUR00039528 and at WEST00037727. Exs. 17, 20; Ex. 16. The asymmetry runs in both directions and through the whole document, Nine comment passages produced in the clear at HUR00158703, HUR00158704, HUR00158705, HUR00158707 and HUR00158708 HURO0158713, are covered by “Redacted - AC” boxes at the corresponding locations in HURO0158714, HUR00158715, HUR00158717 and HURO00158718; and material produced in the clear at HUR00158712-713, including an entire narrative paragraph, is redacted at HUR00158702-703. Exs. 18, 19; Ex. 16. Read together, the two productions disclose most of what each withholds separately. Redactions applied to a flattened image are applied to a picture; they carry no document identifier, no redaction code, no reason field, and no link to a log. There is no mechanism in a production of this kind by which a party, or a court, can test whether the same material has been treated consistently. Plaintiffs found this only because they happened to receive two renderings of one document and had them compared machine to machine. In a production of 156,748 files, Plaintiffs are swimming in discovery issues related to white box redactions, deficient privilege logs which do not log any of the attorney client redactions subject to Exhibit 133, failures to comply with discovery orders, and now have to request this Court order State Farm to produce the metadata they should have produced months ago. It is why the Court should, respectfully, grant the relief the Motion requests. A .DAT load file keyed to document identifiers, served with a production in the form State Farm elected, would"}, {"d": 109, "p": 8, "t": "have surfaced this inconsistency immediately and made it correctable. A production of images cannot be audited and cannot be fixed. D. The Produced Images Establish State Farm Held the Metadata It Declined to Produce. State Farm’s stated ground for withholding metadata was the information pertinent to the claims and defenses “can be found in the text of the documents and is not generally found in metadata.” Motion Ex. | at 12. The produced images refute the premise on their face. An electronic mail message is not merely a page of text. It is a record composed of separately labeled fields that the mail system maintains apart from the words the author typed. Those fields record the account from which the message was sent, the accounts to which it was delivered, the date and time of sending, and the name of each file attached to it. Those fields are the metadata at issue on this motion. A message becomes a page only when software reads those fields and prints them. The header appearing at the top of each produced image is therefore not text that any State Farm employee typed into the message. It is a printout of the underlying fields, generated by State Farm's own processing software at the moment it created the image. The sender line of each message does not render an internet address. It renders the message’s Exchange directory name: [/O=STATEFARM/OU=HOME/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=HE8J],” “Scott Welsh “Kathy Ex. 17 (HUR00039527); [/O=STATEFARM/OU=HOME/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=CX30],” (HUR00158710); and “Scott Welsh Ress Ex. 19 [/O=STATEFARM/OU=EX TERNAL (FYDIBOHF25SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=5D99B0B083A F4638BBA0385827DECFB9},” Ex. 18 (HUR00158701). during processing. Ex. 15 Those values are read out of the message’s own addressing properties 44, 46. A party whose processing system prints them has them."}, {"d": 109, "p": 9, "t": "The same is true of the attachment lines. “10.26.21 SEO Fire Claims Service & Quality Update.docx,” “10.26.21 SEO Fire Claims Service Quality Update.docx” and “10.26.21 SEO Fire Claims Service Quality Updated.docx” are rendered on the face of three different transmittals — Exs. 17, 19 and 18 respectively — because State Farm’s processing system read them out of each message’s attachment table. /d. | 42. That system captured the custodian-level fields, used them to build the pictures it produced, and then produced only the pictures. The two October 26 messages render the same sender two different ways — one an onpremises directory name, the other the Exchange Online form. Ex. 15 { 45. That ordinarily indicates collection from different stores, or from one mailbox at different points in a migration. It is the kind of question the custodian and source-path fields answer in a line, and that no image can answer at all. It leaves Plaintiffs in the dark related to where this discovery came from, who originally sent and received it, and leaves Plaintiffs in a position where the discovery State Farm has produced is deficient on its face. E. The Relief Already Requested by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs submit this supplement regarding oral arguments in front of this Court related to missing metadata from Exhibit 133. First, Plaintiffs are seeking an order that Exhibit 133 is not subject to confidentiality protection of the Protective Order, striking confidentiality, and ruling that Exhibit 133 is not attorney-client privileged. Second, Plaintiffs request re-production in the proper format, with document-level text, a Concordance-format .DAT metadata load file and an .OPT image load file; discrete Bates numbers and BegAttach and EndAttach values for attachments; native form for electronic mail and calendar records; the native October 26, 2021 family, Exs. 18 and 19; and a declaration from the person or vendor responsible for collection and processing — this relief would resolve every deficiency identified in this supplement."}, {"d": 109, "p": 10, "t": "Plaintiffs ask that the order make explicit two things the examination has shown to be necessary. First, that the re-production include, for each document, the deduplication record identifying every custodian whose copy was suppressed, so that five renderings of one message can be accounted for. Second, that any material withheld or redacted be identified on a log keyed to the document identifier in the load file, so that the same material cannot be withheld in one place and produced in another without either being visible on the face of the production. An evasive or incomplete answer is treated as a failure to answer. 12 O.S. § 3237(A)(3). State Farm produced one message five ways, redacted one document two ways, and served no load file by which either could be detected. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this court issue an Order: 1. De-designating Exhibit 133, and ruling it is not attorney-client privileged; 2. Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel ESI, requiring State Farm to re-produce metadata as stated above. 3. And for any further relief this Court deems appropriate and necessary. Respectfully ae ~\"Reggie N. Whitten,-OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com bbeskin@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com"}, {"d": 109, "p": 11, "t": "jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com -andPatrick F. Collogan, OBA No. 30529 Biby Law Firm 6305 E. 120th Ct., Suite F Tulsa, OK 74137 918-574-8458 888-572-8263 (fax) pat@bibylaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS"}, {"d": 109, "p": 12, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the gh day of October, 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document GABLEGOTWALS, was emailed and/or mailed to Lance E. Leffel and David R. Herber, BOK Park Plaza, 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, and Carrie B. McNeer, Grant A. Fitz, and Nathan A. Miramontes, GABLEGOTWALS, 110N. Elgin Avenue, Suite 200, Tulsa, OK 74120-1490, Attorneys for Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company; and R. Ryan Deligans, DURBIN, LARIMORE & BIALICK, 920 North Harvey, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Attorneys for Defendants Mark D. Welty and Mark D. Welty Insurance Agency, Inc. flake Sonne 10"}, {"d": 110, "p": 1, "t": "FILED IN DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY... g oy75 STATE OF OKLAHOMA CT -8 RICK BILLY & LACY HURSH, WARREN ; COURT CLERK 3 Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO F LE UNDER SEAL This matter having come on for consideration this day of October, 2026, upon Plaintiffs Billy and Lacy Hursh, Unopposed Application for Leave to File Under Seal and the Court having reviewed said Application, finds that good cause exists therefore. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(2), 51 O.S. §§ 24A.29 and 24A.30, the Court hereby determines that it is necessary in the interests of justice to permit the filing of the requested materials under seal to prevent the materials from being public record. Plaintiffs shall be and hereby are granted leave to file an unredacted copy of Plaintiffs’ Supplement to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Re-Production of Electronically Stored Information in the Form Defendant State Farm Elected, thereto under seal, and they shall remain confidential until further order of the Court. Plaintiffs are ordered to place the protected material in a sealed manila envelope clearly marked with the caption and case number and clearly marked with the word” CONFIDENTIAL” and stating the date the Order was entered and the name of the Judge entering the Order. A redacted version of the same filing may be filed publicly in this matter."}, {"d": 110, "p": 2, "t": "IT IS SO ORDERED! JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT ABPRPVED a !AS TO FORM: NDYSALAA Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 Whitten Burrage 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com"}, {"d": 111, "p": 1, "t": "FILED DISTRICT COURT AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA October 8, 2026 10:58 AM Case: C)-2025-2626 Court: County: Job; RICK WARREN, COURT GLERK DISTRICT OKLAHOMA 1701 1 3ah° Number CJ-2025-2526 Plaintiff / Petitioner: Defendant / Respondent: BILLY & LACY HURSH STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, ET AL Received by: West Way LLC For: WHITTEN BURRAGE To be served upon: MARK CAYLAO |, Laquita Bollinger Pss-2026-20, being duly sworn, depose and say: | am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action, and that within the boundaries of the state where service was effected, | was authorized by law to make service of the documents and informed said person of the contents herein Recipient Name / Address: MARK CAYLAO, 228 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE, TULSA, OK 74104 Manner of Service: Personal/Individual, Oct 5, 2026, 6:30 pm CDT Documents: DEPOSITION SUBPOENA AND SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Additional Comments: Date Lu t+ Notary Public Commission Expires MU s Gear, 5 fw2eooszss: 2 ZBo, iexr ose; oy Oo; Ny, c oO . ni? Date a Laquita Bollinger Pss-2026-20 10/6/2026 SQ~S - Subscribed and sworn to before me by the affiant who is personally known to me. OX Tete” & ="}, {"d": 111, "p": 2, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BILLY & LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D, WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Case No. CJ-2025-2626 Honorable Amy Palumbo Defendants. DEPOSITION SUBPOENA AND SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO: MARK CAYLAO 228 S COLLEGE AVE TULSA, OK 74104-2122 GREETINGS: Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004.1, YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and give testimony in the above-captioned matter on October 20, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. at the offices of Professional Reporters, 20 E Sth St #720, Tulsa, OK 74103. The deposition will be recorded stenographically before an officer authorized by the law to take depositions and administer oaths. The deposition may be recorded by a videographer. The deposition will continue from business day to business day, until completed. You are also commanded to bring with you to the deposition and make available for copying and inspection all documents listed in Exhibit A attached hereto. HEREOF FAIL NOT, UNDER PENALTY OF LAW. Issued by the undersigned attorney as an authorized officer of the Court:"}, {"d": 111, "p": 3, "t": "Respectfully submitted, Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs"}, {"d": 111, "p": 4, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of October 2026, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing pleading was mailed, postage prepaid, to the following, to-wit: Carrie McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLEGOTWALS 110.N. Elgin Avenue, Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 (918) 595-4800 (918) 595-4990 (fax) cmcneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com ~and. Lance E. Leffel GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499'W. Sheridan Ave., Suite. 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 See er et eter ect white erin tie OMnCECTe a! j angler ee ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS / 2 anti (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) Nie Ag lleffel@gablelaw.com"}, {"d": 111, "p": 5, "t": "pW fle Mg 1 EXHIBIT A Your entire file pertaining to Billy and Lacy Hursh (“Plaintiffs”), including but not limited to notes, interviews, memoranda, and other materials reviewed, considered or relied upon in preparing your expert report and opinions submitted in support of the captioned lawsuit, and any other non-privileged and discoverable documents in your file for this case; All reports authored by you, or any of your employees or agents, pertaining to Plaintiffs; All billing records, time sheets, invoices, receipts, costs, and payments relating to your work in this matter; All documents relating to any contract between you and Defendant State Farm, and/or State Farm’s counsel relating to your work in this matter; Any exhibits or demonstratives you intend to use to support or illustrate your opinions or testimony; and All communications with Defendant State Farm and/or State Farm’s attomeys regarding: (1) compensation for your study or testimony; (2) identification of facts or data that State Farm’s attorney or State Farm provided and that you considered in forming the opinions to be expressed; or (3) identification of assumptions that State Farm’s attorney or State Farm provided and that you relied upon in forming the opinions to be expressed."}, {"d": 112, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CLEVELAND COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED DISTRICT COURT CLEVELAND COUNTY, OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex. rel. GENTNER DRUMMOND, OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY ) ) GENERAL, ) July 22, 2026 4:28 PM ) MARILYN WILLIAMS, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2026- 1066 Plaintiff. ) V. ) Case No. CJ-2026-1066 ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) NOTICE OF HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Motion to Dismiss the Attorney General’s Petition has been set for hearing before Judge Jeff Virgin on September 28, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. at the Cleveland County Courthouse, located at 200 S. Peters Ave., Norman, OK 73069. Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102-7101 Telephone: 405-235-5500 Facsimile: Email: 405-235-2875 lleffel(@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com"}, {"d": 112, "p": 2, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Lhereby certify that on this 22\" day of July, 2026, I mailed a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument via U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following counsel of record: Gentner Drummond, OBA No. 16645 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA Garry M. Gaskins, I, OBA No. 20212 Cameron R. Capps, OBA No. 32742 Christopher J. Campbell, OBA No. 33649 313 NE 21\" Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Phone: 405-522-1260 Fax: 405-521-3921 garry.gaskins@oag.ok.gov cameron.capps(@oag.ok.gov chris.campbell@oag.ok.gov a) Moe David R. Herber 4935-2994-9887, v. 3"}, {"d": 113, "p": 1, "t": "- OHO IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CLEVELAND STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY “STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. GENTNER DRUMMOND, OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL, CL Plaintiff, v. Case No.: STATE FARM COMPANY, FIRE AND . CASUALTY CJ-2026-1066 Court ATEO OK SVELAND ta Ss, LE JUL oem ll the off 026 Mt Clerk MARILYN Whe,-LIAMS Defendant. Judge Jeff Virgin UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMES NOW Plaintiff State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Gentner Drummond, Attorney General of Oklahoma (the “Attorney General”), by and through its counsel of record, and moves this Court for an order extending the deadline for the Attorney General to respond to State Farm’s Motion to Dismiss the Attorney General’s Petition up to and including August 13, 2026. In support of this Joint Motion, the parties state as follows: 1. The Attorney General commenced this action on June 24, 2026, by filing the State of Oklahoma’s Petition against State Farm in this Court. 2. On July 15, 2026, State Farm filed Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Motion to Dismiss the Attorney General’s Petition (the “Motion to Dismiss”). 3. The parties have agreed, subject to the approval of this Court, that the Attorney General’s response to the Motion to Dismiss shall be due on or before August 13, 2026. This Motion is filed before the expiration of the time period originally prescribed for that response. 4. The Motion to Dismiss raises threshold questions concerning the constitutional and statutory authority of the Attorney General, as well as separate challenges to the legal sufficiency of each of the Attorney General’s causes of action under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act,"}, {"d": 113, "p": 2, "t": "the Oklahoma Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and Oklahoma common law. The requested extension will permit the Attorney General to prepare a complete response and will assist the Court by ensuring that these issues are fully briefed. 5. Counsel for the parties have conferred. State Farm agrees to the requested extension and does not object to the relief sought. Okla. Dist. Ct. R. 4(d). 6. Because this Motion is a motion for an extension of time made before expiration of the time period originally prescribed, no brief or list of authorities is required. Okla. Dist. Ct. R. 4(c)(1). A proposed Agreed Order granting the relief requested accompanies this Joint Motion. 7. This is the first extension of time sought with respect to the Motion to Dismiss. The requested extension is sought in good faith and not for the purpose of delay, and no party will be prejudiced by the extension. The hearing on the Motion to Dismiss is set for September 28, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. The extension of the Attorney General’s Response deadline to August 13, 2026, will not necessitate modification of the set hearing date. 8. Because the relief requested is agreed and no party objects, the parties respectfully request that the Court rule upon this Motion without a hearing and enter the accompanying Agreed Order. Okla. Dist. Ct. R. 4(h); Rules of the Twenty-First Judicial District, R. 16(H), (L). WHEREFORE, the Attorney General respectfully requests that this Court grant this Unopposed Motion and enter the accompanying Agreed Order providing that the Attorney General’s response to State Farm’s Motion to Dismiss shall be due on or before August 13, 2026, and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper."}, {"d": 113, "p": 3, "t": "Respectfully submitted, GENTNER DRUMMOND OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL ’ f a o l p L e t i e n L, Lo y Gentner Drummond, OBA No. 16645 Attorney General of/Oklahoma Garry M. Gaskins, . TI, OBA No. 20212. Solicitor General Cameron R. Capps, OBA No. 32742 Deputy Attorney General Christopher J. Campbell, OBA No. 33649 Assistant Attorney General ; 313 NE 21st Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 Telephone: (405) 522-1260 Facsimile: (405) 521-3921 Email: Garry.Gaskins@oag.ok.gov Cameron.Capps@oag.ok.gov Chris. Campbell@oag.ok.gov ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. GENTNER DRUMMOND, OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL 4904-1336-1090, v. 1"}, {"d": 114, "p": 1, "t": "7 ISN IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CLEVELAND STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY CLEVEAND COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA. ex rel. GENTNER DRUMMOND, OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY FIL oe In the office of the Court Clerk MARILYN WILLIAMS Case No.: FIRE AND ; Plaintiff. v. STATE FARM COMPANY, fo CJ-2026-1066 CASUALTY Defendant. Judge Jeff Virgin AGREED ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS NOW ON THIS JS day consideration the Unopposed Motion of ad for Extension . 2026, of Time for there Plaintiff to comes on for Respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed by Plaintiff State of Oklahoma, ex re/, Gentner Drummond, Attorney General of Oklahoma (the “Attorney General”). The Court. having reviewed the Motion, having noted that the relief requested is agreed and that no party objects, and being fully advised in the premises, finds that the Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the deadline for the Attorney General to file his response to State Farm’s Motion to Dismiss the Attorney General's Petition is extended up to and including August 13, 2026. IT IS SO ORDERED. tin fle THE HONORABLE JEFF VIRGIN JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT"}, {"d": 114, "p": 2, "t": "APPROVED: GENTNER DRUMMOND OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL, uv ) vA Lf a cot 7) (tn Kg Gentner Drummond, aos “ eg ( 6BA N& 16645 Attorney General of Oklahoma Garry M. Gaskins, II], OBA No. 20212 Solicitor General Cameron R. Capps, OBA No. 32742 Deputy Attorney General Christopher J. Campbell, OBA No. 33649 Assistant Attorney General 313 NE 21st Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 Telephone: Facsimile: (405) 522-1260 (405) 521-3921 Email: Garry.Gaskins@oag.ok.gov Cameron.Capps@oag.ok.gov Chris.Campbell@oag.ok.gov ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. GENTNER DRUMMOND, OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102-7101 Telephone: (405) 235-5500 Facsimile: Email: (405) 235-2875 lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 115, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CLEVELAND COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED DISTRICT COURT CLEVELAND COUNTY, OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DRUMMOND, ex rel, GENTNER OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Plaintiff, ) August 5, 2026 9:36 AM ) MARILYN WILLIAMS, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2026-1066 ) V. ) Case No. CJ-2026-1066 ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY, ) Defendant. Hon. Judge Jeff Virgin ) ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Reggie Whitten, Michael Burrage, Blake Sonne and Hannah Whitten hereby enter their appearance as counsel of record for Plaintiff State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Gentner Drummond, Oklahoma Attorney General, in the above captioned case. Respectfully submitted, Dyaie W hittin Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage(@ whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF"}, {"d": 115, "p": 2, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on August 5, 2026, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was mailed via USPS to the following: Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102-7101 Telephone: 405-235-5500 Facsimile: 405-235-2875 Email: lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com aie Whitin"}, {"d": 116, "p": 1, "t": "Socom 287705 STATEOf IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CLEVELAND COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILE AUG 29 2026 Court *rk MARILYN iti of ype STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. ILLIAMS GENTNER DRUMMOND, OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Plaintiff, V. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY Defendant. CASE NO. CJ-2026-1066 PLAINTIFF STATE OF OKLAHOMA’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS GENTNER DRUMMOND, OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL Garry M. Gaskins, II Cameron R. Capps Christopher J. Campbell 313 NE 21 Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 405-522-3060 405-521-3921 (fax) Cameron.capps@oag.ok. gov Chris.campbell@oag.ok.gov -and- Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 Whitten Burrage 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com —"}, {"d": 116, "p": 2, "t": "I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND. On December 4, 2025, the State of Oklahoma filed a Motion Alternative, Grant Access to Protected Discovery in Hursh v. State Farm, to Intervene or in the et al, CJ-2025-2626! (“Hursh Matter”). State Farm objected. On December 30, 2025, Judge Palumbo granted the State of Oklahoma’s Motion to Intervene. Thereafter, on January 8, 2026, the State of Oklahoma filed its Petition for Intervention in the Hursh Matter. On January 16, 2026, State Farm filed an Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction (“Hursh Intervention Writ”), alleging Judge Palumbo exceeded her jurisdiction by allowing the State of Oklahoma to intervene in the Hursh Matter. State Farm filed its Motion to Dismiss the State of Oklahoma’s Petition for Intervention on January 20, 2026. Oni March 3, 2026, Judge Palumbo denied State Farm’s Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. On March 23, 2026, State Farm submitted its Answer to the State of Oklahoma’s Petition for Intervention in the Hursh Matter. On June 23, 2026, after an en banc oral hearing on the Hursh Intervention Writ on April 27, 2026, the Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction. See Ex. 1, State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palumbo, 2026 OK 51. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held, in relevant part: The proper recourse could be for the Attorney General to bring his claims in a separate, independent lawsuit, which avoids the restraints of Gettler on intervention. Likewise, State Farm could fully litigate its remaining arguments at that time before the district court, which are not addressed in this order. Indeed, the Attorney General admits his intent to file such an action. Maintaining these as distinct proceedings ensures that the State's broad interests are addressed in the correct forum while preserving the integrity of this private litigation. ' Plaintiff references filings from the Hursh Matter for a full procedural history but is not attaching these filings as exhibits because they are voluminous. All filings and orders not attached can be found at https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=oklahoma&number=CJ-20252626&cmid=4427141 (last visited August 11, 2026). * Plaintiff also references filings from the Hursh Intervention Writ for a full procedural history but is not attaching the filings as exhibits due to size. All filings not attached can be found at https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123739 (last visited August 11, 2026)."}, {"d": 116, "p": 3, "t": "See Ex. 1, State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palumbo, 2026 OK 51, at 4 7. The Oklahoma Supreme Court denied the State of Oklahoma’s intervention because the claims asserted on behalf of the _ State would expand the original issues in the Hursh Matter. See id. However, importantly, the Oklahoma Supreme Court expressly identified a separate, independent lawsuit as the proper procedural vehicle for the State through the Attorney General to refile these claims in a stand-alone action, which he did in this action, one day later on June 24, 2026, asserting the following claims: (1) Violations of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act (“OCPA”), (2) Violations of the Oklahoma Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“ORICO”), (3) Civil Conspiracy, and (4) Unjust Enrichment. See 6/24/2026 Petition. State Farm now seeks to dismiss these claims the Oklahoma Supreme Court welcomed the Attorney General to file, but State Farm fails to meet the heavy burden under the Motion to Dismiss standard and the law applicable thereto. As such, State Farm’s Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) must be denied. Il. STANDARD The OF REVIEW. “foundational principle of ‘notice pleading’” is “firmly rooted in Oklahoma jurisprudence.” Orthman v. Premiere Pediatrics, PLLC, 2024 OK CIV APP 7,9 1, 545 P.3d 214, 128. All that is required for notice pleading is that the petition give fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. Gens v. Casady School, 2008 OK 5, 4 9, 177 P.3d 565, 569; see also Oil Valley Petroleum, LLC v. Moore, 2023 OK 90, { 74, 536 P.3d 556, 575, as corrected (Oct. 3, 2023). “A [petition] should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears the plaintiff could prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Powell v. Seay, 1976 OK 22, 553 P.2d 161, 167 (emphasis added); Nestle Food Co. v. Crews, 2000 OK 58, § 17, 11 P.3d 205, 211 (“[A] petition must not be dismissed for failure to state a legally"}, {"d": 116, "p": 4, "t": "cognizable claim unless the allegations indicate beyond any doubt that the pleader can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief.”) (internal citations omitted; emphasis added). When evaluating a motion to dismiss, the court “must take as true the challenged pleading’s allegations together with all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from them.” Wilson v. State ex rel. State Election Bd., 2012 OK 2, J 4, 270 P.3d 155, 157 (internal citations omitted). Motions to dismiss are generally viewed with disfavor under this liberal standard, and to withstand a motion to dismiss it is not necessary for a plaintiff to either identify a specific theory of recovery or set out the correct remedy or relief to which he/she may be entitled. Pryor v. Findley, 1997 OK CIV APP 74, § 2, 949 P.2d 1218, 1219. Further, the burden to show the legal insufficiency of the petition is on the party moving for dismissal. See Nichols v. Pray, Walker, Jackman, Williamson & Marler, P.C., 2006 OK CIV APP 155, § 2, 144 P.3d 907, 909. Moreover, statutory consumer protection claims premised on unfair practices must only meet the pleading standard of 12 O.S. § 2008. See Windy City Metal Fabricators & Supply v. CIT Technology Fin. Serv., 536 F.3d 663, 669-670 (7th Cir. 2008). Even if 12 O.S. § 2009(B) is applied, the Oklahoma Supreme Court repeatedly explains “particularity” under § 2009(B) is a notice-based requirement designed to enable a meaningful response, not an evidentiary burden at the courthouse door. Gay v. Akin, 1988 OK 150, ff 8, 15-18 (recognizing that “[p]articularity does not mean the plaintiff has to plead detailed evidentiary matters” (internal quotation omitted)). State Farm repeatedly invokes 12 O.S. § 2009(B) to demand individualized, claim file level specificity at the pleading stage. Oklahoma law does not impose that burden even where 2009(B) is applicable. The Court should apply the governing standard consistently throughout the Motion’s, rather than allowing the same heightened pleading theory to reappear under different labels. Il. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS UNIQUE POWERS TO PROSECUTE THE CLAIMS AT ISSUE."}, {"d": 116, "p": 5, "t": "The premise the State Farm must overcome is the breadth of the office of the State’s chief law officer, 74 O.S. § 18b(A), who holds “powers are as broad as the common law unless restricted or modified by statute.” State ex rel. Derryberry v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 1973 OK 132, { 27; accord Cherokee Nation v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 2025 OK 4, § 35 (quoting Derryberry). His authority is not confined to the powers a statute expressly enumerates. As the chief legal officer, he holds the common-law powers traditionally incident to the office except where the Legislature has clearly restricted or modified them, including authority to represent and protect the sovereign interests of the State, to institute proceedings to vindicate public rights, and to enforce laws enacted for the public benefit. Derryberry, 1973 OK. 132, | 20, 27; Sarkeys v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 40, 1979 OK 42, V 11, 23. The Legislature has charged the Attorney General with enforcing the OCPA and the ORICO, and it has specifically directed him to protect insurance consumers and to investigate and prosecute insurance fraud. The Oklahoma Legislature empowered the Attorney General: “To represent and protect the collective interests of insurance consumers of this state in rate-related proceedings before the Insurance Commissioner or in any other state or federal judicial or administrative proceeding,” 74 O.S. § 18b(A)(22). Furthermore, under 74 O.S. § 18b(A)(3), the Attorney General has broad authority: “To initiate or appear in any action in which the interests of the state or the people of the state are at issue.” This Court should reject State Farm’s attempt to insulate itself from scrutiny based on concocted legal arguments and permit the Attorney General to fulfil his duties to protect the collective interests of insurance consumers. The Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized the same breadth of authority at the hearing before deciding on State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palumbo, 2026 OK 51. At the en banc hearing"}, {"d": 116, "p": 6, "t": "on the Attorney General’s intervention, which took place on April 27, 2026, several of the Justices focused their questions on the fact that only the Attorney General can bring ORICO claims.? That an industry has a dedicated regulator does not subtract from that breadth of authority, because overlap is the design of Oklahoma’s executive, not a defect in it. In fact, the Commissioner issued a letter to the Attorney General, wherein he stated, in relevant part: “I request that you, as Oklahoma’s chief legal officer, partner with my office to continue your investigation, intervention, and prosecution in Hursh v. State Farm, et al., CJ-25-2626, in the District Court of Oklahoma County, as well as any appeals or writs related to that action.” See Ex. 2, Mulready Letter. Far from encroaching on the Commissioner’s jurisdiction, the Commissioner welcomed the Attorney General to investigate and prosecute State Farn. The Constitution does not place executive power in one set of hands; it distributes that power among several independently elected officers, the Attorney General and the Insurance Commissioner among them, who together make up the executive department. Okla. Const. art. VI, § 1. The executive department “comprehends and includes several separate and distinct departments,” each “given certain specified powers and charged with certain specified duties,” and each “endowed with a limited independence and held directly responsible to the electorate.” Bynum v. Strain, 1923 OK 596, { 17. Because both officers are elected and answer to the voters, neither is subordinate to the other, and neither concentrates unaccountable power. A plural ° There is no formal en banc transcript but the entire arguments were recorded and posted by OSCN at https://vimeo.com/1187108887?fl=pl&fe=sh (last visited August 17, 2026). The majority of the questions from the Justices pertained to the sole powers of the Attorney General, which the Commissioner has no jurisdiction over. For example, Justice Kuehn asked at 8 minutes and 10 seconds: “Then comes our quandary, right? Because we have statutes on the books like OCPA, ORICO, ODTPA, whatever acronym we're going to throw out there, that says only the attorney general can file those types of claims, I believe. And how do you explain 18BA22 that says the attorney general can represent insurance companies in raterelated proceedings before the insurance commissioner or any state or other judicial proceeding, which we could read as if someone's doing something that violates the OCPA. How does this court balance the statutory right of the attorney general to bring those types of claims?”"}, {"d": 116, "p": 7, "t": "executive of that kind necessarily produces overlapping authority. The Banking Department supervises state banks, yet the Attorney General may investigate a bank’s dealings with consumers. The question is therefore never whether two officers’ authority touches the same regulated party. The question is whether one officer holds the authority exclusively. No statute has done that here, and State Farm identifies none. State Farm’s contention that only the Insurance Commissioner (“Commissioner”) may act against insurers rests on an overreading of Article 6, Section 22, of the Oklahoma Constitution and Title 36 of Oklahoma statutes. State Farm disregards the Legislature’s later, specific assignment of consumer-protection responsibilities to the Attorney General. State Farm’s expansive reading of Article 6, Section 22, of the Oklahoma Constitution creates a direct conflict between the directives in Title 75 and the Oklahoma Constitution’s grant of power to the Attorney General under Article 6, Section 1. This construction would render 74 O.S. § 18b(22) and 74 O.S. 18n-1 meaningless, as the Attorney General would not be able to protect the interests of all insurance consumers in any proceeding because he would be powerless to protect those interests without enforcement mechanisms. The Commissioner has authority to regulate insurers and enforce Title 36, but nothing in that title states such authority is exclusive or that it repeals the Attorney General’s separate mandate to protect insurance consumers and investigate fraud. See 74 O.S. § 18b(A)(22)-(23); 74 O.S. § 18n-1. State Farm’s reliance on Oklahoma Benefit Life Association v. Bird, 1943 OK 103, is therefore misplaced. Motion at p. 4. Bird, decided more than eighty years ago, addressed the appointment of a receiver for an insolvent insurer, a narrow regulatory solvency question, and predated § 18b(A)(22) by decades. 1987 Okla. Sess. Law., Ch. 39, § 1 (eff. Nov. 1, 1987). It did not, and could not, nullify a statutory mandate that did not yet exist. Bird held only that a single"}, {"d": 116, "p": 8, "t": "policyholder could not displace the Commissioner in a receivership, said nothing about enforcement of generally applicable law, and predates the modern enactment of § 18b(A)(22). Its actual rule helps the Attorney General: where the Legislature has designated an officer to prosecute a class of cases, “such cases cannot be maintained by any other person.” 1943 OK 103, ff 5-6. (citing State ex rel. Murray y. Pure Oil Co., 1934 OK 514). The Commissioner is designated to administer Title 36; the Attorney General is designated to enforce the OCPA and the ORICO. Those designations coexist, and the Legislature exempted insurers from neither. At most, State Farm complains that dual oversight is inconvenient. Inconvenience is not irreconcilability. Rather, where two statutes may coexist, each should be given effect. See Strong v. Laubach, 2004 OK 21, {5 (stating that legislative acts “should be construed in such a way as to reconcile the provisions and render them consistent and harmonious, giving force and effect to each. This is known as the rule of in pari materia.”’). Accordingly, a statute granting the Insurance Commissioner authority to administer and enforce the Insurance Code should not be construed to impliedly repeal the Attorney General’s independent authority to enforce separate statutes of general applicability unless the Legislature has clearly expressed such an intent. No such intent has been expressed. These statutes can be read harmoniously: the Commissioner administers Title 36, and the Attorney General vindicates broader public interest through general judicial enforcement of statewide laws governing competition, fraud, or consumer protection, which the legislature has specifically directed him to do under 74 O.S. § 18b(A)(3), (22). State Farm treats the recent decision in Cherokee Nation, as if it were a cutback on the Attorney General’s powers. Motion at p. 6. Cherokee Nation v. United States Dep’t of the Interior, 2025 OK 4. Instead, Cherokee Nation reaffirms the Attorney General’s status as the State’s “chief law officer,” recognizes that his statutory authority under 74 O.S. § 18b grants “broad authority”,"}, {"d": 116, "p": 9, "t": "and holds only that this authority must be harmonized with independent constitutional powers of another officer when both are before the court speaking for the State in the same case. 2025 OK 4, 1 23, 29-32. Cherokee Nation does not say, and cannot be read to say, that the Attorney General is barred from appearing to protect the collective interests of insurance consumers. The Oklahoma Legislature has assigned the Attorney General the duty to protect “the collective interests of insurance consumers” in “any” judicial proceeding. 74 O.S. § 18b(A)(22). State Farm cannot rely on implied repeals, distinguishable separation-of-powers cases, or irrelevant out-of-state authority to override the Oklahoma Legislature’s clear command. 74 O.S. § 18b(A)(22) mandates that the Attorney General protect the “collective interests of insurance consumers” in “any” judicial proceeding. This litigation implicates those interests directly. IV. THE COMMISSIONER’S ADMINISTRATIVE, AND DOES CONSTITUTIONAL NOT CARVE STATE CHARGE FARM OUT IS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S AUTHORITY Unable to point to any statute withdrawing the Attorney General’s enforcement power to bring the claims State Farm seeks to dismiss, State Farm manufactures one out of the Commissioner’s constitutional charge. Motion at p. 7. The Constitution charges the Insurance Department “with the execution of all laws . . . in relation to insurance and insurance companies,” Okla. Const. art. VI, § 22, and the Commissioner carries it out by administering Title 36, the approval of rates and forms, licensing, examinations, and solvency. Reading this provision of Constitution and 36 OS § 307 to give exclusive authority to execute all laws in relation to insurance companies is simply unworkable and leads to absurd results: the Secretary of State, OTC, Workers Compensation Court, EEOC, and many other state entities all have law in relation to insurance companies and exclusive authority cannot be read into these provisions. To “execute” the"}, {"d": 116, "p": 10, "t": "insurance laws means to administer them. It does not mean to displace every other officer’s authority over every statute in the Oklahoma Statutes that happens to touch an insurer. State Farm’s contrary reading has no limiting principle and produces results Oklahoma courts will not adopt. Taken seriously, it would mean that no officer of the State could pursue a licensed insurer for fraud, conspiracy, or any other generally applicable violation, because all of it would belong to the Commissioner alone. And the Constitution uses parallel language to charge the Department of Mines with “the execution of all laws . . . in relation to mining activities and corporations engaged in mining activities,” Okla. Const. art. VI, § 25, so if § 22 makes the Commissioner the sole enforcer of every law touching an insurer, the identical words make the Department of Mines the sole enforcer of every law touching a mining company. Courts do not read the Constitution or a statute to produce results that absurd, or to open enforcement gaps the text does not require. Ledbetter v. Okla. Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enf’t Comm’n, 1988 OK 117, § 7; Taylor v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 1999 OK 44, 4 19. The only feature that might set insurance apart is the constitutional nature of the charge to the Insurance Department to execute the insurance laws. But as shown, that charge is administrative, not a grant of exclusive enforcement, and the identical charge to the Department of Mines confirms as much. Sections 22 and 25 describe administrative missions. Neither hands an industry immunity from the generally applicable laws the Attorney General enforces. State Farm’s constitutional framing also obscures the real character of the authority it invokes. The Commissioner’s power to review rates against the standard of excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory rates is not itself constitutional, it is conferred by the Insurance Code. Even then, the Commissioner lacks the power to bring OCPA and the ORICO actions. See e.g. 22 O.S. § 1404(C) (“No person shall institute any proceedings, civil or criminal, pursuant to the"}, {"d": 116, "p": 11, "t": "provisions of this act, except the Attorney General, any district attorney or any district attorney appointed under the provisions of Section 215.9 of Title 19 of the Oklahoma Statutes.”). The Legislature could not have been plainer. ORICO permits no private enforcement at all, and it names the only officers who may bring an action under it: the Attorney General and district attorneys. 22 O.S. § 1404(C). The Commissioner is neither. No Oklahoma court has granted State Farm the immunity it seeks, because if the Attorney General cannot bring ORICO claims against insurance companies, no one in Oklahoma can. Under the rules of statutory construction, the OCPA exemption under 15 O.S. § 754 does not prohibit the Attorney General from bringing OCPA claims against State Farm related to its unfair and deceptive scheme. The Attorney General is bringing this action, not on behalf of individuals personally aggrieved by State Farms violations in an individual transaction, but rather, in his role as chief legal officer to protect the public interest from State Farm’s unfair, and deceptive trade practices. The OCPA exemption does not prohibit these claims because they do not involve transactions that are regulated. Rather, the claims involve an overarching scheme that harms Oklahomans. When the OCPA statutory language is viewed in its entirety and in conjunction with the Attorney General’s statutory authority, it is evident the alleged unfair and deceptive scheme implemented by State Farm is exactly the type of conduct for which the Attorney General is authorized to pursue remedies under the OCPA. When State Farm pressed the very contentions advanced here, that Article VI and the Insurance Code vest exclusive authority in the Commissioner and that the OCPA does not reach ‘insurers, the Oklahoma Supreme Court declined to adopt its position, resolving the matter on a procedural intervention ground and expressly leaving open the Attorney General’s authority and the reach of the OCPA. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palumbo, 2026 OK 51, 10 73. State Farm thus"}, {"d": 116, "p": 12, "t": "draw no support from that decision. What the Court did say fits the Attorney General’s position: it pointed not to the Commissioner’s rate process but to “a separate, independent lawsuit” as the avenue for “the State’s broad interests.” Jd. 7. The decision leaves his authority unencumbered and forecloses any argument that the State’s interests may be pursued only as an adjunct to the Commissioner’s rate process. At a minimum, Palumbo grants no immunity, and its recognition that those interests belong in a forum of the Attorney General’s own cuts against State Farm. V. THE OCPA’S REMEDIAL PURPOSE REQUIRES A NARROW READING OF § 754(2) THAT PRESERVES PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT AGAINST UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES State Farm confuses the Commissioner’s regulatory power with the Attorney General’s power to seek damages for those aggrieved in District Court on behalf of the State under the OCPA, ORICO, and unjust enrichment claims. The Legislature gave the Attorney General his investigative authority directly, and nothing in Title 36 takes it away. Contrary to the insurance companies’ assertion, nothing in the Oklahoma Constitution or Title 36 gives the Insurance Commissioner exclusive authority to enforce all laws applicable to insurers, nor does the Code expressly prohibit the Attorney General from enforcing. generally applicable statutes against insurance companies. Exercising that authority does not offend the separation of powers. In fact, it avoids the concentration of power. And it infringes on none of the Commissioner’ s constitutional duties. The Commissioner’s authority over the insurance laws and the Attorney General’s authority to enforce the State’s generally applicable laws coexist. The former does not deprive the Attorney General of the latter. The language State Farm seeks to broadly read to shield itself from OCPA‘ liability is under 4 The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and follow the Legislature’s intention. See Fulsom v. Fulsom, 2003 OK. 96. Courts seek to avoid a construction that defeats clear legislative intent. McNeill v. City of Tulsa, 1998 OK 2, | 9. Additionally, courts will “look to each part of the statute, to other statutes upon the same or relative subjects, to the evils and mischiefs to be remedied, and to the natural or 11"}, {"d": 116, "p": 13, "t": "15 O.S. § 754(2), which states the OCPA shall not apply to “[a]ctions or transactions regulated under laws administered by the Corporation Commission or any other regulatory body or officer acting under statutory authority of this state or the United States.” But the Legislature enacted the OCPA to expand, rather than contract, consumer protection against deceptive practices. In 1972, Oklahoma enacted the OCPA. Oklahoma and almost every other “state[] began to enact consumer protection laws designed to parallel and supplement Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1), which Congress adopted to protect citizens against unfair trade practices.” Patterson, 2000 OK 92, 427. The FTC “strongly encouraged these state-level activities, recognizing that enforcement of the Act's broad section 5 proscription against ‘unfair or deceptive acts or practices’ could not possibly be accomplished without extra agency assistance.” See Leaffer and Lipson, Consumer Actions Against Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices: The Private Uses of Federal Trade Commission Jurisprudence, 48 Geo. Wash. L.Rev. 521, 522 (1980). Specifically, the purpose of consumer protection legislation was “to prevent fraud and deception in consumer transactions.” James v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2012 OK 21, § 25 (emphasis added). Traditional common-law fraud claims provided an inadequate remedy, and UDAP statutes were intended to relegate the elements of common-law fraud.° Read against that backdrop, the intent of the OCPA is clear: to provide the Attorney General with broad authority to protect consumers from fraud and deception. The OCPA exemption must be liberally construed to effectuate this purpose. absurd consequences of any particular interpretation.” Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, J 20. “Because the OCPA is remedial in nature it is to be liberally construed to effectuate its underlying purpose.” Patterson v. Beall, 2000 OK 92, { 28 (emphasis added). ° See Slaney v. Westwood Auto, Inc., 366 Mass. 688, 703-04, 322 N.E.2d 768, 779 (1975): “As numerous FTC cases have made clear, the definition of an actionable ‘unfair or deceptive act or practice’ goes far beyond the scope of the common law action for fraud and deceit. To cite only a few distinctions, in the statutory action proof of actual reliance by the plaintiff on a representation is not required, United States Retail Credit Assn. Inc. v. Federal Trade Commn., 300 F.2d 212, 221 (4th Cir. 1962), and it is not necessary to establish that the defendant knew that the representation was false, Montgomery Ward & Co., v. Federal Trade Commn., 379 F.2d 666, 670 (7th Cir. 1967).” 12"}, {"d": 116, "p": 14, "t": "Further, the alleged State Farm scheme is not a regulated claims-adjustment process; it is an alleged scheme using concealed, extra-contractual standards to deny benefits State Farm was contractually obligated to pay while representing otherwise to policyholders. Fraud is not a “transaction regulated” under the Insurance Code because no regulatory framework governs it— fraud is instead prohibited by laws of general application that the Attorney General enforces. Finally, the limits of administrative insurance regulation underscore why § 754(2) cannot be read as an immunity provision. The Oklahoma Insurance Department is given authority over certain types of unfair methods of competition under 36 O.S. § 1204, but none of the defined categories govern the enterprise-level conduct and business practices alleged here. Consistent with this mismatch, State Farm fails to identify any specific regulation that would be violated pursuant to the AG’s theory. Additionally, no action under Title 36 supplies an administrative mechanism capable of redressing the statewide harm alleged. As such, claims in this case do not relate to “actions or transactions” regulated within the meaning of § 754(2). Under Section 754, the OCPA exemption only applies to those transactions regulated under laws administered by a regulatory body. Here, the AG’s claims focus on State Farm’s unfair and deceptive conduct in designing and implementing the hail initiative, conduct that is not itself a regulated consumer transaction administered by a regulatory agency. Rather, the alleged conduct is a broad unfair trade practice substantially likely to harm consumers when they enter a consumer transaction in the future. Title 15 O.S. § 754(2) exempts only “actions or transactions” regulated under laws administered by any regulatory body. “Actions” is not defined. Consumer transactions are defined as “the advertising, offering for sale or purchase, sale, purchase, or distribution of any services or any property, tangible or intangible, real, personal, or mixed, or any other article, commodity, or thing of value wherever located, for purposes that are personal, household, or 13 “TT"}, {"d": 116, "p": 15, "t": "business oriented.” Here, State Farm’s offering of an insurance policy to a consumer would be a consumer transaction. “Actions and transactions” must be read together in context. Under settled canons of construction, including noscitur a sociis®, the word “actions” derives its meaning from the accompanying term “transactions.” Thus, “actions” must be limited to conduct within a consumer transaction. Otherwise, “transactions” does no work and would be superfluous, which courts seek to avoid. See State, ex rel., Pruitt v. Steidley, 2015 OK CR 6, J 12, 349 P.3d 554, 558. Therefore, the exemption must be read to apply only to conduct occurring within consumer transactions that are affirmatively regulated elsewhere—not to governmental enforcement actions seeking to hold violators liable for conduct that broadly harms Oklahoma insurance consumers. Where claims by, or on behalf, of individuals will necessarily arise out of the consumer transaction, this is not always the case when the Attorney General is bringing claims in the public’s interest. See 15 O.S. § 761.1. Here, the crux of the OCPA allegations against State Farm is it deceptively and unfairly designed and implemented the hail focus initiative to reduce claim payments in violation of 15 O.S. § 753(21). The allegations are categorically broader than any individual transaction and focus on State Farm’s overarching behavior that is likely to harm consumers when entering a consumer transaction. The OCPA confirms this breadth by defining “unfair trade practice” and “deceptive trade practice” without confining them to the moment of the transaction. An unfair trade practice is defined as “any practice which offends established public policy or if the practice is immoral, ° See Sullins v. Am. Med. Response of Oklahoma, Inc., 2001 OK 20, § 19. By contrast, in relation to the argument made by State Farm in its pending extraordinary writ, the canon has no application to the 74 O.S. 18b(A)(22) phrase “any other state or federal judicial or administrative proceeding,” which is introduced disjunctively, framed as a residual grant of authority, and intended to expand, not limit, the forums in which insurance consumers may be represented. Applying noscitur a sociis there would contradict the text, render key language surplusage, and invert the statute’s structure. 14"}, {"d": 116, "p": 16, "t": "unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.” 15 O.S. § 752(14). Further, a deceptive trade practice “may occur before, during or after a consumer transaction is entered into and may be written or oral.” 15 O.S. § 752(16). In this suit, the Attorney General in his parens patriae capacity alleges State Farm committed unfair and deceptive trade practices by implementing a statewide scheme that is substantially injurious to consumers. The focus of this claim is not individual transactions between State Farm and an individual consumer. Rather, the focus of the claim is State Farm’s scheme coordinated with their captive agents’ in the state that injures Oklahoma consumers, which does not pertain to an action or transaction that is regulated by some other entity. There are no Oklahoma published opinions holding the OCPA exemption applies to the Attorney General or even analyzed how the exemption would apply to public-interest enforcement actions. All Oklahoma court opinions discussing the OCPA exemption have done so in the context of private consumer lawsuits to determine whether those particular transactions fell within the scope of the OCPA’s exemption. For example, in Estate of Hicks ex rel. Summers v. Urban East Inc., the court explained the Act “exempts transactions regulated under laws administered by any regulatory body acting under statutory authority of the state or United States.” 2004 OK 36, § 32. It then held the exemption barred the private claim because the “action or transaction” involved representations about services and level of care regulated by the Oklahoma Department of Health. Id. However, these cases are inapplicable because each of these cases only evaluated whether an aggrieved consumer was barred from pursuing OCPA claims when the actions in the underlying consumer transaction were regulated. They did not evaluate a claim by the Attorney General on 7 State Farm argues the civil conspiracy claim fails because they are foreclosed by the OCPA’s business exception. Motion at p. 13. Since that argument fails, as shown in this brief, and State Farm does not allege any pleading deficiencies in the civil conspiracy claim, Plaintiff does not address how the civil conspiracy claim is properly plead. 15"}, {"d": 116, "p": 17, "t": "behalf of the public interest for schemes that broadly affect insurance consumers. The Oklahoma Supreme Court recently held the OCPA exemption barred an individual from seeking OCPA remedies against a mortgage servicer who filed a foreclosure petition. See U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n as trustee for Sasco Mortg. Loan Tr. 2004-GEL2 Mortg. Backed Notes, Series 2004-GEL2 v. Hill, 2023 OK 86, § 26. The Court held the OCPA exemption applied to bar the consumer OCPA claims because the offending transaction was regulated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), an agency created in 2010 and tasked with “extensive consumer protection and enforcement regarding the type of actions and transaction that occurred in the present case.” Jd. at { 27. But that reasoning cannot be extended to bar the Attorney General from pursuing OCPA violations on behalf of the public interest without creating an absurd result. The CFPB was never intended to supplement State AG consumer protection authority. The CFPB’s governing laws make it clear state AGs and the CFPB have concurrent jurisdiction to enforce the Consumer Financial Protection Act, supplementing the State’s authority to enforce consumer laws. See Authority of States to Enforce the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, 87 Fed. Reg. 6311 (Feb. 4, 2022) (to be codified at 12 C.F.R. ch. X). Specifically, 12 U.S.C. § 5552(a)(3) states: No provision of this title shall be construed as modifying, limiting, or superseding the operation of any provision of an enumerated consumer law that relates to the authority of a State attorney general or State regulator to enforce such Federal law. The Attorney General’s transaction-based exemption interpretation avoids an absurd result by recognizing the limitations of the OCPA exemption. The OCPA exemption is not intended to restrict the Attorney General’s power to act in the public interest to deter widespread deceptive and unfair trade practices. 16"}, {"d": 116, "p": 18, "t": "State Farm’s similar federal insurance/OCPA decisions State Farm cases do not control. Bayro, Conatzer, Ruffin’, cites involved private insureds and the attempting to convert individual policy-sale or claim-handling disputes into private OCPA claims. Motion at 13, 16. Those courts considered whether a particular insured’s transaction with an insurer, or a particular claim-adjustment dispute, was already regulated by the insurance code. This case is different. The Attorney General does not sue as a private policyholder seeking individualized contract or badfaith relief arising from a single claim transaction. He sues in his sovereign and public-enforcement capacity to address an alleged statewide course of unfair and deceptive conduct directed at Oklahoma insurance consumers as a class. None of State Farm’s cited insurance/OCPA cases addressed whether § 754(2) bars the Attorney General from invoking the OCPA’s public- enforcement provisions to challenge an scheme that allegedly uses concealed, extra-contractual standards and coordinated conduct to injure consumers statewide. Reading those private-dispute cases as a categorical immunity rule for insurers would extend them far beyond their facts, nullify the Attorney General’s express consumer-protection role, and transform § 754(2) from a transaction-based exemption into industry-wide immunity the Legislature did not enact.” Whereas, the Attorney General, when acting to benefit the public, has independent authority to investigate, seek injunctive relief, restitution, and civil penalties (up to $10,000 per violation) under §761.1(C) and §756.1 from “[a]ny person... found to be in violation of the” OCPA in a civil action. Oklahoma strengthened §761.1 in 1994 to provide the Attorney General with meaningful public remedies aimed at deterrence, not merely compensation, reflecting a policy choice that systemic deceptive conduct warrants systemic relief. See May Dep't Stores Co. v. State 8 Bayro v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-14-1084-D, 2015 WL 4717166 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 7, 2015); Ruffin v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CTV-14-1071-F, 2014 WL 12730326 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 16, 2014); Conatzer v. Am. Mercury Ins. Co., Inc., 2000 OK CIV APP 17 141, 15 P.3d 1252."}, {"d": 116, "p": 19, "t": "ex rel. Woodard, 863 P.2d 967, 972 (Colo. 1993) (stating “CCPA's civil penalty requirement is intended to punish and deter the wrongdoer and not to compensate the injured party”). Simply, the OCPA provides the Attorney General with broad tools to address and stop widespread conduct harming Oklahoma consumers, including criminal prosecution. Administrative violations are not substitutes for criminal violations; therefore, it defies logic a violator could escape criminal prosecution under the exemption simply because-some aspects of the business are regulated. Finally, under § 756.1(C)(5), the Attorney General even has the authority to request the court to “revoke any license or certificate authorizing that person to engage in business in this state.” (emphasis added) The Legislature could not have intended § 754(2) to categorically bar OCPA enforcement whenever the violator is “regulated.” Any licensee is regulated. Those tools would be largely nullified if § 754(2) were construed as a blanket exemption whenever a business is subject to some regulatory oversight. VI. STATE LAW. FARM’S ORICO DISMISSAL THEORY FAILS AS A MATTER OF To state a civil ORICO claim, the Attorney General must allege: (1) the existence of an “enterprise,” (2) that the defendant was employed by or associated with the enterprise, (3) that the defendant conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the enterprise’s affairs, (4) through a “pattern of racketeering activity,” and (5) injury caused by the violation for which ORICO authorizes civil relief. 22 O.S. §§ 1403, 1408-1409. The Petition satisfies each element. It pleads an association-in-fact enterprise, State Farm’s association with and direction of that enterprise, and State Farm’s participation in the conduct of the enterprise’s affairs through standardized mechanisms and coordinated actors. (Pet. f] 29-31, 41-42, 50-61.) The Petition further alleges a pattern of related and non-isolated racketeering acts carried out over time through uniform methods rather than isolated claim decisions. (Pet. f] 32-47, 60-67.) These allegations 18"}, {"d": 116, "p": 20, "t": "describe resulting statewide economic harm to Oklahoma policyholders and the insurance marketplace. (Pet. J 48-51.) ORICO expressly authorizes civil enforcement by the AG to restrain and remedy racketeering activity, including injunctive and equitable relief aimed at ongoing and systemic ~ misconduct. 22 O.S. §§ 1408-1409. Where ORICO tracks federal ORICO, Oklahoma courts may consult and follow federal courts’ construction of parallel provisions. 22 O.S. § 1419. Federal ORICO, in turn, is to be “liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes.” Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 183-84 (1993). ORICO defines a “pattern of racketeering activity” as two or more related, non-isolated occasions connected to the enterprise’s affairs. 22 O.S. § 1402(5). That concept tracks federal ORICO’s settled pattern framework, which turns on relatedness.and continuity, not on pleading every affected transaction as a separate narrative unit. HJ. Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 239-43 (1989). The statute requires allegations showing relatedness, continuity, and non-isolation. The Petition does so. The Petition alleges a centrally directed, multi-year initiative applied across Oklahoma through standardized methods rather than isolated claim handling decisions. (Pet. J] 1-44, 48-55, 66-76). It pleads repeated occasions implementing the same undisclosed internal standards and standardized rationales to suppress indemnity payments, with continuity across storms, claims, and time. See id. Those allegations describe repeated racketeering occasions tied to the affairs of a single enterprise, not a single event or a one-off dispute. Unjust enrichment is an equitable restitution doctrine designed to prevent a wrongdoer from retaining benefits that, in good conscience, should not be kept. Oklahoma recognizes restitutionary relief as a core equitable tool, including in public enforcement actions seeking to deprive defendants of ill-gotten gains. Okla. Dep’t of Sec. ex rel. Faught v. Blair, 2010 OK 16, f§ 15-23. The Petition alleges enrichment 19"}, {"d": 116, "p": 21, "t": "through retention of amounts that should have been paid on covered losses and a corresponding deprivation accomplished through the alleged program’s uniform mechanics. (Pet. J] 77-80.). 12 O.S. § 2009(B) is a notice rule. It requires particularity as to the circumstances constituting fraud so a defendant can meaningfully respond. It does not require the AG, at filing, to plead the internal proof, computer logs, or claim-file specifics that State Farm insists upon. Oklahoma courts also treat FRCP 9(b) decisions as instructive in applying § 2009(B) because the text tracks Rule 9(b). Gay v. Akin, 1988 OK 150, 94 8-11. Federal ORICO cases applying Rule 9(b) confirm that the rule “must be read in conjunction with Rule 8,” and that its purpose is “to afford a defendant fair notice of a plaintiff’ s claim and the factual ground supporting these claims,” not to require a plaintiff to plead facts that are uniquely within the defendant’s control. George v. Urban Settlement Servs., 833 F.3d 1242, 1255—56 (10th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation omitted). In George, the Tenth Circuit emphasized that Rule 9(b) does not demand pleading every alleged misrepresentation but instead requires that allegations be evaluated in light of the complaint as a whole. Jd. at 1257. The court further recognized that Rule 9(b) does not require “omniscience” at the pleading stage and permits allegations on information and belief where “the facts are peculiarly within the opposing party’s knowledge.” Jd. VI. IF THE COURT FINDS ANY DEFICIENCY, ATTORNEY GENERAL RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS LEAVE TO AMEND, AS REQUIRED. Should the Court find any portion of the Attorney General’s Petition insufficient, he would request leave to amend to remedy any deficiency. Under 12 O.S. § 2012(G), ifa motion to dismiss is granted for failure to state a claim, the court must grant leave to amend and set a deadline for doing so; dismissal with prejudice may occur only if no amended pleading is timely filed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that it is an abuse of discretion to dismiss with prejudice at the pleading stage where a potentially curable defect exists. 20 Fanning v. Brown, 2004 OK 7, { 23."}, {"d": 116, "p": 22, "t": "WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, the Attorney General respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant State Farm’s Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. In the alternative, to the extent the Court determines that any claim or theory is insufficiently pleaded but the defect can be remedied, the Attorney General requests that the Court grant leave to amend. Respectfully submitted, kha Lilt GENTNER DRUMMOND, OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL Garry M. Gaskins, II Cameron R. Capps Christopher J. Campbell 313 NE 21\" Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 405-522-3060 405-521-3921 (fax) Cameron.capps@oag.ok.gov Chris.campbell@oag.ok.gov -and- Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 Whitten Burrage 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 21"}, {"d": 116, "p": 23, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certified that on August 20%, 2026, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was served by placing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Lance E. Leffel David Herber GABLE GOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com dherbert@gablelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 22"}, {"d": 116, "p": 24, "t": "2026 OK 51 suerte STATE OF OKLAH IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Sea” See” See” See” STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, See Petitioner, Sager? Sener! See” “eit” Sue Vv. THE HONORABLE AMY PALUMBO, Oklahoma County District Judge, HURSH, FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION his official me and Ngee! Sep Real Parties in Interest, GENTNER DRUMMOND in No. 123,739 Seep” Sine” Nee and LACY CLERK Semel! Sage” Se” and BILLY HURSH N23 2m SELDEN JONES Moet” “eee Respondent, OMA Sere Nemes nage Capacity as Attorney General of Oklahoma, eee Real Party in Interest. ORDER {1 Original jurisdiction is assumed. Okla. Const. art. VII, § 4. The Court will assume original jurisdiction and grant extraordinary relief when the district court has exceeded its authority. Murrell v. Cox, 2009 OK 93, J 23, 226 P.3d 692, 697. Petitioner State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm”) has shown, for the reasons stated herein, that the district court exercised judicial power unauthorized by law, and no adequate remedy at law exists. Cannon v. Lane, 1993 OK 40, J 12, EXHIBIT 1"}, {"d": 116, "p": 25, "t": "867 P.2d 1235, 1239. A writ of prohibition is issued to Oklahoma County District - Court Judge Amy Paiumbo, or any other assigned judge, in Billy & Lacy Hursh v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, No. CJ-2025-2626 (Oklahoma County), barring the enforcement of the December 30, 2025 order that granted intervention by the Attorney General. 12 On April 17, 2025, Billy Hursh and Lacy Hursh (“Hurshes’) filed a petition against State Farm alleging breach of contract, bad faith, constructive fraud, and negligent misrepresentation following a dispute over hailstorm loss coverage. The district court later granted the Attorney General's motion to intervene, allowing the State to assert claims for injunctive relief and damages Consumer Protection Act (“OCPA’), under the Oklahoma 15 0.S.2021, §§ 751-764.1, the Oklahoma Racketeer-influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 22 0.S.2021, §§ 1401-1419, and the Oklahoma Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 78 O.S.2021, §§ 51-56, as well as claims for civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment. State Farm now seeks a writ regarding that intervention order, and this Court heard oral arguments on April 27, 2026. DISCUSSION 13 | The Court must determine whether the district court abused its discretion by permitting the Attorney General’s request to intervene in the underlying litigation. Here, allowing intervention would impermissibly expand the scope of the underlying litigation, violating a fundamental procedural rule for intervention. Since"}, {"d": 116, "p": 26, "t": "the Court finds intervention was improper procedurally, we need not address the grounds for intervention or the remaining arguments raised by State Farm. {4 = It is a fundamental procedural rule in Oklahoma that an intervenor must take the case as they find it; they are not permitted “to enlarge the issues or compel an alteration of the proceedings, or to include matters not germane to the issues presented.” Geitlerv. Cities Serv. Co., 1987 OK 57, F 9, 739 P.2d 515, 518. Indeed, an intervenor “is admitted to the proceeding as it stands,” and cannot be allowed to expand the litigation beyond its original scope or character. Franklin v. Margay Oil Corp., 1944 OK 316, J 49, 153 P.2d 486, 497. Because the Attorney General’s claims introduce issues foreign to the underlying contract dispute, intervention would violate these established procedural limits. {5 The underlying litigation is a private contract dispute centered on a specific bad faith claim against State Farm Attorney General's intervention statewide proceeding. for hail damage transforms By merging numerous this to a single property. The narrow action into a broad, generalized claims with a single, concrete dispute in Oklahoma County, the nature of the litigation is fundamentally altered. Such an expansion forces the original parties to litigate issues untethered to the Hurshes’ actual loss, effectively overwhelming the specific merits of the private claim with matters far exceeding the scope of the original petition. 76 The applicable law in the Attorney General's proposed claims diverges from the underlying bad faith action. The Hurshes’ claims are governed by established principles of contract law and the duty of good faith. In contrast, the Attorney 3"}, {"d": 116, "p": 27, "t": "General’s pursuit of RICO allegations introduce quasi-criminal elements that would not only impermissibly broaden the scope of this civil contract dispute but also the nature of the remedies like fundamentally recovery sought. The Attorney General injunctive relief, civil penalties, and different from the Hurshes’ seeks public-interest disgorgement, private contract damages. which are Such an expansion is impermissible under Oklahoma law. {7 a The proper recourse could be for the Attorney General to bring his claims in separate, independent lawsuit, which avoids the restraints of Geitler on intervention. Likewise, State Farm could fully litigate its remaining arguments at that time before the district court, which are not addressed in this order. Indeed, the Attorney General admits his intent to file such an action. Maintaining these as distinct proceedings ensures that the State’s broad interests are addressed in the correct forum while preserving the integrity of this private litigation. {8 Accordingly, we issue a writ of prohibition, barring the enforcement of the December 30, 2025 order that permitted the Attorney General to intervene in the underlying suit brought by the Hurshes. DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THE 23\" DAY OF JUNE, 2026. CHIEF JUSTICE CONCUR: Rowe, C.J., Kuehn, V.C.J., and Edmondson, Combs JJ.,and Downing and Huber, $.JJ. CONCUR IN RESULT: Winchester (by separate writing) and Darby, JJ. RECUSED: Kane and Jett, Ju. 4 and Gurich,"}, {"d": 116, "p": 28, "t": "INSURANCE COMMISSIONER GLEN MULREABY DEPARTMENT 400 NE 50\" Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73105 January 29, 2026 Via E-mail The Honorable Gentner Drummond ’ Attorney General of Oklahoma 313 N.E. 21st St. . Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Dear Attorney General Drummond: I share your vision of doing anything we can within our authority to reduce Oklahoma homeowners’ premiums and ensuring their rights and interests are protected. To this end, I request that you, as Oklahoma’s chief legal officer; partner with my office to continue your investigation, intervention and prosecution in Hursh v. State Farm, et al., CJ-25-2626 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, as well as any appeals or writs related to that action. I look forward to hearing from you and advancing our collaborative work in the best interests of the people of Oklahoma. Please ensure your office communicates with my office before adding my name or the Oklahoma Insurance Department to this case as a party. Each of our offices is vested with separate regulatory powers and authority to protect and advance the interests of Oklahomans. Together, we must invoke our individual constitutional and statutory authority to protect Oklahoma insurance consumers and enforce the Oklahoma Insurance Code under title 36 of the Oklahoma Statutes, as well as the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, 15 O.S. §§ 751—764.1, and the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act, 79 O.S. §§ 201— 212. See e.g., Okla. Const. art. VI, §§ 1, 22-23; 36 O.S. §§ 305, 307, 322-323, 332; 74 O.S. § 18b. My office stands ready to collaborate and engage with your office on future efforts to redress and prevent unfair trade and claims handling practices by homeowner’s insurance companies in Oklahoma. Please contact me if you have any questions or want to discuss anything further. Respectfully, Me GLEN MULREADY Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner ~~ 2 EXHIBIT"}, {"d": 117, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CLEVELAND COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. GENTNER DRUMMOND, OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL, FILED DISTRICT COURT CLEVELAND COUNTY, OKLAHOMA September 18, 2026 4:28 PM MARILYN WILLIAMS, COURT CLERK Plaintiff, Case Number CJ-2026-1066 Case No. CJ-2026-1066 Vv. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. MOTION TO DISQUALIFY WHITTEN BURRAGE AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF In State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Palumbo, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the Oklahoma Attorney General (“AG”) could not intervene in a private contract dispute brought by Whitten Burrage against State Farm. 2026 OK 51, 593 P.3d 104. While the AG could attempt to bring his own lawsuit, such “distinct proceedings ensures that the State’s broad interests are addressed in the correct forum while preserving the integrity of this private litigation.” Jd. 47. But the AG now seeks once again to undermine the integrity of litigation by simply reversing roles, retaining Whitten Burrage to represent the State. So, escalating from intervening in a private contract dispute, the AG has now unlawfully granted the private law firm that filed the contract dispute the powers and weight of the State’s chief legal officer to prosecute this quasi-criminal action against the same defendant. The issue is complicated further by the fact that the firm in question currently has numerous other pending contingency fee cases against State Farm. Their ability to inappropriately leverage their prosecution of this case for their own financial gain is a textbook example of the arrangements the State’s conflicts of interest rules are designed to prohibit. As Justice Winchester, joined by Justice Darby, stated in his concurrence, “the [S]tate cannot lend"}, {"d": 117, "p": 2, "t": "the power of its name, or assume the cause of one private citizen against another, for the purpose of settling rights or titles in controversy between them.” /d. 4 5 (Winchester, J., concurring (quoting Savoy Oil Co. v. Emery, 1928 OK 572, § 27, 277 P. 1029, 1035). The AG’s delegation violates due process, principles of fundamental fairness, and Oklahoma sunshine laws. The Court should not permit it. First, Whitten Burrage’s engagement in this quasi-criminal action would irreparably violate State Farm’s Due Process rights by vesting the State’s prosecutorial power in an interested party—a tactic explicitly proscribed by the U.S. Supreme Court, see Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton et Fils §.A., 481 U.S. 787, 794-814 (1987). As Justice Winchester highlighted in Palumbo, the AG is asserting quasi-criminal claims against State Farm. To prove his ORICO claim, the AG will have to establish that State Farm committed two or more enumerated felonies. But it is well-settled that the retention of private lawyers to try criminal or quasi-criminal actions violates due process because such lawyers have different incentives and ethical obligations than those of government prosecutors. See Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 249-50 (1980) (“A scheme injecting a personal interest, financial or otherwise, into the enforcement process may bring irrelevant or impermissible factors into the prosecutorial decision and in some contexts raise serious constitutional questions.”). And that is especially true here, where those private lawyers have other pending contingency fee cases against State Farm, and they can enhance that leverage with their prosecution of this case. As those very lawyers have admitted: “[They] have a stake in this fight.” Whitten Burrage’s incentive here is not justice, it is to continue the case irrespective of its merit and thus increase their chances of victory (and payment) in their private cases, which would ' Reggie Whitten, Whitten: Standing between Oklahoma families and the insurance giants, JOURNAL RECORD (Sept. 1, 2026), https://journalrecord.com/2026/09/01/reggie-whittenoklahoma-state-farm-allstate-insurance-lawsuit/. 4903-6771-9885, v. 14"}, {"d": 117, "p": 3, "t": "increase cost pressures on premiums for families statewide. The Constitution forbids that arrangement, so they must be disqualified. Second, the State’s retention of Whitten Burrage in a quasi-criminal suit would violate confidentiality provisions intended to protect the integrity of the prosecutorial process. Under Oklahoma law, only two offices may bring an ORICO claim: the AG and a district attorney. 74 O.S. § 1404. The reason is obvious: ORICO is a criminal statute with a limited quasi-criminal civil cause of action. And given the magnitude of the accusations levied in an ORICO suit, the AG or district attorney prosecuting such a claim is bound by unique duties of confidentiality. E.g., 22 O.S § 1415(B). Even assuming an ORICO claim is viable in this case, the AG’s retention of State Farm’s frequent—and very public—opponent in private litigation to conduct a quasi-criminal investigation in which confidential documents will likely be compelled to be produced contradicts the Legislature’s intent to limit who can bring an ORICO claim and attempts to evade the duties imposed upon such persons. The Court should prohibit this engagement. Third, Oklahoma law requires public disclosure following the State’s hiring of a private law firm. See 74 O.S. § 201. The AG has not complied with those laws in this case. Oklahomans— more specifically, the taxpayers funding this litigation—simply don’t know the terms of Whitten Burrage’s contract in this case, including how much Whitten Burrage will be paid if the State prevails. This is further relevant given the robust donations from Whitten Burrage lawyers to the AG’s gubernatorial campaign shortly before entering their appearances in this case. Either way, the failure to comply with Oklahoma’s sunshine laws renders the agreement illegal, and therefore, void. The Court should strike Whitten Burrage’s illegal appearance on behalf of the State. For the foregoing reasons, and as detailed below, this Court should disqualify Whitten Burrage. 4903-6771-9885, v. 14"}, {"d": 117, "p": 4, "t": "ARGUMENT The same firm that serves as plaintiffs’ counsel in numerous other private actions against State Farm—including the litigation in which the Oklahoma Supreme Court barred the AG’s intervention—attempts to improperly represent the State itself in an action against the same defendant. For numerous reasons, this Court should disqualify that firm from doing so. I. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S HIRING OF WHITTEN BURRAGE TO PURSUE AN ORICO CLAIM TO WHICH IT HAS A VESTED INTEREST IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that prosecution of a criminal claim by a party with a vested financial interest in the outcome violates the Constitution’s Due Process clause. Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 794-814 (1987). Courts have applied a similar rule in civil cases that have criminal underpinnings. People ex rel. Clancy v. Superior Court, 39 Cal. 3d 740, 749, 705 P.2d 347, 353 (1985). Here, “the Attorney General’s pursuit of RICO allegations introduce[s] quasi-criminal elements” into this lawsuit. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palumbo, 2026 OK 51, § 6, 593 P.3d 104, 105. The AG’s hiring of private counsel that stands to benefit in its private litigation against State Farm violates the Due Process clause. A. Supreme Court precedent instructs that Whitten Burrage may not serve as counsel for the State due to its quasi-criminal ORICO allegations. Government prosecutors are tasked with a different duty than counsel acting for a private litigant. An attorney general: [I]s the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. . . . It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one. Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935); see also McCarty v. State, 1988 OK CR 271, 49 17-18, 765 P.2d 1215, 1222 (applying Berger and holding that the right to a fair trial can by 4903-6771-9885, v. 14"}, {"d": 117, "p": 5, "t": "compromised by “an overzealous prosecutor’). “A scheme injecting a personal interest, financial or otherwise, into the enforcement process may bring irrelevant or impermissible factors into the prosecutorial decision and in some contexts raise serious constitutional questions.” Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 249-50 (1980). That duty to “fairness” also extends to the government’s civil lawyers. Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. v. FERC, 962 F.2d 45, 47 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he principle [applies] with equal force to the government’s civil lawyers” who are held “to higher standards than private lawyers” and “have ‘the responsibility to seek justice’” (citations omitted)). Given these different obligations, the U.S. Supreme Court has prohibited the use of a private attorney possessing a vested financial interest in a criminal contempt proceeding. See Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 794-814 (1987). In Young, the U.S. Supreme Court “establish[ed] a categorical rule against the appointment of an interested prosecutor, adherence to which requires no subtle calculations of judgment.” Young., 481 U.S. at 814. The Court further held that “we must have assurance that those who would wield this power will be guided solely by their sense of public responsibility for the attainment of justice. A prosecutor of a contempt action who represents the private beneficiary of the court order allegedly violated cannot provide such assurance, for such an attorney is required by the very standards of the profession to serve two masters.” Jd. Courts have also applied this standard where a civil action could “trigger a criminal prosecution.” People ex rel. Clancy v. Superior Court, 39 Cal. 3d 740, 749, 705 P.2d 347, 353 (1985) (“A suit to abate a public nuisance can trigger a criminal prosecution of the owner of the property. This connection between the civil and criminal aspects of public nuisance law further supports the need for a neutral prosecuting attorney.”). “When a government attorney has a 4903-6771-9885, v. 14"}, {"d": 117, "p": 6, "t": "personal interest in the litigation, the neutrality so essential to the system 1s violated.” Clancy, 39 Cal. 3d 740, 746, 705 P.2d 347, 351 (1985). Here, the State’s AG centers his lawsuit on a purported ORICO claim. Pet. 9 64-71. And while State Farm vehemently denies the validity of any such claim, to prove his claim the AG will have to show the commission of two or more enumerated felonies. See 22 O.S. § 1402(10) (defining “[rJacketeering activity” as “engaging in, . . . or soliciting, coercing, or intimidating another person to engage in any conduct which is chargeable or indictable as constituting a felony violation of one or more of the following provisions of the Oklahoma Statutes . . . .”).” In essence, the AG must conduct a criminal investigation in order to prosecute his suit against State Farm. But Whitten Burrage is not a disinterested prosecutor with an obligation to seek justice. See OK ST RPC Rule 3.8 cmt. 1 (“A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate.”). Rather, Whitten Burrage has a vested interest in pursuing ORICO claims to lend credence to their plaintiffs’ lawsuits, for which they have a significant financial interest. What’s more, they have repeatedly relied on the AG’s actions to lend credence to their claims in their own independent lawsuits. See, e.g., Petition { 5(a), John Randolph v. State Farm et al., No. CJ-2026-1190 (Feb. 17, 2026), Exhibit 1 (citing the AG’s intervention and claims in Hursh). In essence, even if the evidence shows that no criminal wrongdoing has occurred, Whitten Burrage has a vested interest in continuing this lawsuit because they claim that it supports the validity of their separate private party suits. And dismissing the ORICO claim might have the * The AG has also threatened a criminal prosecution. See Laura Jarrett and Abigail Brooks, Oklahoma Lawsuit Alleges State Farm Cheats Homeowners, NBC News (Mar. 11, 2026), https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/lawsuit-alleges-state-farm-cheats-homeownersrcna262814 (“There may be a scheme inside of State Farm’s leadership to intentionally defraud Oklahomans, and if that can be proven,’ Drummond told NBC News, ‘that RICO will cross into the criminal world.””). 4903-6771-9885, v. 14"}, {"d": 117, "p": 7, "t": "opposing effect of undercutting their allegations. Whitten Burrage is disincentivized from making a fair, honest, and just evaluation of the validity of the AG’s quasi-criminal claims and their proper, measured prosecution. That is the exact opposite of the duty that the code of ethics and Constitution require of a government attorney. B. Whitten Burrage’s Engagement Offends Principles of Fairness and Neutrality. As an officer of the state, the AG is bound by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 25 (1960); see also McCarty v. State, 1988 OK CR 271, 4 17 (concluding in a state criminal case where “the prosecutor is a state official” that “we deal with an aspect of a fair trial which is implicit in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). The Due Process Clause guarantees “fundamental fairness in the prosecutor’s trial conduct.” Solis v. Standifird, No. CIV-10-621-HE, 2011 WL 2144604, at *7 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 7, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, No. CIV-10-0621-HE, 2011 WL 2143663 (W.D. Okla. May 31, 2011). The Young Court not only considered whether private attorneys appointed as special prosecutors fulfilled the “unique responsibility” of a public prosecutor to “seek justice, not merely to convict,” but also evaluated how those duties would clash with its separate duties to its privateparty clients. 481 U.S. 787, 803-04 (1987). The Court acknowledged that “representation of other clients may compromise the prosecutor’s pursuit of the Government’s interest” because “a prosecutor would owe an ethical duty to those other clients.” /d. at 803-04. At base, “the attorney could not discharge the obligation of undivided loyalty to both clients where both have a direct interest.” Jd. at 805. The problem does not depend on proof that the lawyer actually acted improperly: the dual role itself creates a structural opportunity for private interests to affect decisions about litigation scope, evidence, settlement, and the use of coercive governmental tools. 4903-6771-9885, v. 14"}, {"d": 117, "p": 8, "t": "Whitten Burrage’s retention in the AG’s case against State Farm represents the exact kind of “inherent conflict” the U.S. Supreme Court found offensive to the interest of justice. That contrast is irreconcilable under Oklahoma law. “An attorney must be able to advocate his client’s cause untrammeled by a conflicting loyalty to another.” State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Andre, 1998 OK 29, ¥ 8. “[C]onflict rules are designed to protect a client from a lawyer unable to undertake effective advocacy because of loyalty to some adverse or conflicting interest.” /d.; see also Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7(a)(2). Whitten Burrage’s loyalty is divided between the State of Oklahoma and portfolio of other private litigants, to each of whom the firm owes independent fiduciary duties. The firm cannot advocate the State’s regulatory and enforcement interests in an unbiased manner “untrammeled” by its conflicting loyalty to private clients who seek individual monetary recoveries from the same defendant. Whitten Burrage’s financial interest in its private litigation portfolio against State Farm is equally disqualifying. The firm stands to benefit financially from the very enforcement action in which it purports to represent the State that has an ethical duty to be a disinterested enforcer of the law. Nor is the risk of material limitation theoretical. Whitten Burrage’s divided loyalties would distort the State’s enforcement choices in concrete ways. The firm might resist a settlement that includes broad injunctive relief but limited monetary damages—even though such a result would serve the public interest—because it would provide no benefit to its private clients. It might prioritize discovery channels that advance its private case theories rather than the State’s enforcement objectives. This is precisely the “real harm to the integrity of the judicial process” that the Oklahoma Supreme Court held warrants disqualification. Phillips, 2007 OK 78, {§ 13, 17. Whitten Burrage aims to maximize the number of individual litigants it represents and enlarge the possible recovery in their total pool of cases to increase settlement leverage. Whitten Burrage’s 4903-6771-9885, v. 14"}, {"d": 117, "p": 9, "t": "loyalty is thus to the individual litigants in its private actions. This pecuniary interest stands in contrast to the broader regulatory interest the AG purports to have. Here, the AG’s choice of counsel must yield to the public’s paramount interest in the integrity of a quasi-criminal enforcement proceeding—an interest that cannot be preserved when the State’s own attorneys stand to reap private financial rewards from the action they prosecute. C. The Oklahoma Supreme Court rejected a similar arrangement mere months ago. The Oklahoma Supreme Court similarly struck down the AG’s previous attempt to unfairly benefit this exact law firm, in this exact lawsuit (albeit filed in a different county). Cf Palumbo, 2026 OK 51, § 8, 593 P.3d at 105. In Palumbo, Whitten Burrage’s private clients brought a contract-based claim against State Farm. Jd. § 2. But when the AG tried to put the weight of his office on the side of Whitten Burrage’s clients, the court “grant[ed] extraordinary relief’ and forbade his intervention in Whitten Burrage’s lawsuit. /d. | 1. Justice Winchester wrote separately to emphasize that the “Court long ago established, ‘the [S]tate cannot lend the power of its name, or assume the cause of one private citizen against another, for the purpose of settling rights or titles in controversy between them.” Palumbo, 2026 OK 51, 4 5, 593 P.3d at 107 (Winchester, J. concurring) (alterations in original) (quoting Savoy Oil Co. v. Emery, 1928 OK 572, 4 27, 277 P. 1029, 1035). Justice Winchester further reasoned that permitting the AG to combine his lawsuit with Whitten Burrage’s private plaintiffs “subjects State Farm (or any similarly situated party) to prejudice by forcing it to defend a routine hail damage claim against the combined resources of the private plaintiffs and the State.” /d. § 7 (emphasis in original). The AG now attempts to flip the order of operations to do here what the Supreme Court previously denied and would not permit him to do in Palumbo. Instead of throwing his weight behind Whitten Burrage and their clients in a single private lawsuit, the AG allows them to run this official lawsuit 4903-6771-9885, v. 14 and thus leverage his weight in all their private lawsuits. Because the"}, {"d": 117, "p": 10, "t": "Supreme Court would not permit the AG to join Whitten Burrage’s lawsuit, he now invites them to join his own to achieve the same result. In algebra, A + B equals the same thing as B+ A. So too here. If the AG’s attempt to benefit his private law firm allies was impermissible before, it remains impermissible now in this inverse form. Il. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S HIRING OF WHITTEN BURRAGE VIOLATES OKLAHOMA STATUTES GOVERNING ENGAGEMENTS WITH OUTSIDE COUNSEL. Not only does the AG again stretch the bounds of required Constitutional protections against the abuse of state power, but he also does so through a backroom deal that violates Oklahoma sunshine laws. Generally, hiring private counsel is only authorized where (A) it is otherwise authorized by law or (B) “the Attorney General is unable” to proceed himself either because (1) he is conflicted, (11) he lacks adequate personnel, or (111) he lacks expertise “to provide the specific representation required .. . .” 74 O.S. § 201(A)(1)}H(3); see also id. § 18c(A)(1) (“Except as otherwise provided by this subsection, no state officer, board or commission shall have authority to employ or appoint attorneys to advise or represent said officer, board or commission in any matter.”). And when an executive branch official contracts with a private attorney, it must generally select from a list of attorneys or firms who has “filed a schedule of fees for services with and on a form approved by the Attorney General.” 74 O.S. § 20i(B). An official may only obtain representation by an attorney or law firm who is not on the list “when there is no attorney or firm on the list capable of providing the specific representation . . . .” /d. Additionally, the AG “shall,” after approving a contract for legal services with private attorneys or firms, “make available to the public on the Attorney General’s website the information required pursuant to” 74 O.S. §§ 20i(1)(1)-(8) (including the nature and scope of the representation, the reason for not utilizing the AG’s own attorneys, the anticipated cost of the representation, an estimate of the anticipated duration of the contract, the past or present relationship between the attorney and the agency, and 10 4903-6771-9885, v. 14"}, {"d": 117, "p": 11, "t": "justification showing that the decision was made based on whether the private firm was the most economical and competent). 74 O.S. § 20i(J). When the agreement with private counsel is under a contingency fee arrangement, copies “shall be posted on the Attorney General’s website for public inspection within five (5) business days after the date the contract is executed and shall remain posted on the website for the duration of the contingency fee contract... .” 74 O.S. § 20i(G).° A. The Attorney General has not publicly disclosed his legal engagement with Whitten Burrage as is required by Oklahoma law. The legislature amended § 201 to prevent under-the-table deals such as the one at issue here. In 2021, the Oklahoma Legislature passed legislation to control the use of private, contingency fee lawyers by the AG, a practice that had become increasingly common over the past two decades.’ The bill empowered state agencies to retain private attorneys only by adhering to enumerated limitations, including (1) capping contingency fees based on recovery, (2) requiring the AG to “develop a standard clause . . . providing for government attorneys to retain control of the case,” (3) requiring the AG to “publish all contingency fee contracts on its website within 5 business days after the date the contract is executed,” and (4) providing the Legislative Office of 3 Where the official “has reason to believe that the total cost of the case, transaction or matter including fees and expenses will equal or exceed One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00),” said official “shall initiate a request for proposal from at least three qualified private attorneys or firms, when possible, engaged in providing such services.” 74 O.S. § 20i(K)(2). The notice “shall be published on the Attorney General’s website” and “solicit an hourly rate, . . . specify[ing] the importance of price, quality, ability and experience.” /d. The selection, then, “shall be based on the response to the request which is the most economical and provides the most competent service which furthers the best interests of the state.” Jd. * In fact, when Mr. Drummond’s predecessor gave out such a contract to this law firm, he called it an “objectionable . . . back-room deal.” Letter from Gentner Drummond, Oklahoma Attorney General, to Michael Burrage and Reggie Whitten (Feb. 14, 2023), https://nondoc.com/wpcontent/uploads/2024/01/Drummond-to-Whitten-Burrage-23-ORA-24-producttion-bates. pdf. 11 4903-6771-9885, v. 14"}, {"d": 117, "p": 12, "t": "Fiscal Transparency and Contingency Review Board “reasons for not obtaining representation from an attorney employed by the agency.” Most obviously, AG Drummond and Whitten Burrage have not complied with Section 201(G), which mandates that a contingency fee contract “shall be posted on the Attorney General’s website for public inspection within five (5) business days after the date the contract is executed.” 74 O.S. § 20i(G) (emphasis added).° They further fail to comply with the provision requiring the AG to make publicly available the nature and scope of the representation, the reasons for engaging private counsel, the fee arrangement, and the relationship between the contracting firm and the State. 74 O.S. § 201(I)(1)-(8), (J). As of this filing, the AG’s office has posted nothing related to the retention of Whitten Burrage. His website discloses no legal services agreement with Whitten Burrage, no information about the engagement, and no indication that any such contract exists.’ That public silence continues even though the AG has produced the engagement contract with Whitten Burrage in response to an Open Records Request. Whitten Burrage entered its appearance on August 5, 2026—more than a month ago. The five-business-day posting deadline has long since expired. Given the engagement letter exists and is readily available, there is no justification for the AG’s failure to comply with public disclosure requirements. > Bill Summary for SB 984, Okla. State Legis. (April 7, 2021), https://tinyurl.com/SB984Info . ° The Legislature’s use of “shall” is mandatory. See, e.g., Thurston v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2020 OK 105, § 18 (“Generally, the term [‘]shall[’] signifies a mandatory directive or command.”). j See Legal Services Agreement, Oklahoma Attorney General, https://oklahoma.gov/oag/resources/legal-services-agreements.html (last accessed Aug. 22, 2026). 8 See Exhibit 2, ORR No. 26-356 (requesting “[a]ll contracts . . . between the State of Oklahoma . . . and Whitten Burrage entered between November 1, 2025 and August 24, 2026”); Exhibit 3 (September 11, 2026 response to ORR No. 26-356) at 17-30. 12 4903-6771-9885, v. 14"}, {"d": 117, "p": 13, "t": "a. AG Drummond’ noncompliance voids his agreement with Whitten Burrage. AG Drummond’s failure to disclose the engagement letter with Whitten Burrage is dispositive. Sections 18c and 201 establish a clear statutory architecture. Because the AG possesses no inherent power to retain private counsel, Section 20i’s requirements are not post-hoc reporting obligations. They are prerequisites to the lawful exercise of contracting authority. A contract executed without satisfying these prerequisites is void ab initio. See, e.g., Kincaid v. Black Angus Motel, Inc., 1999 OK 54, 4 7 (‘A contract made in violation of a statute is void.”); Smith v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 1960 OK 27, 4 34 (“[G]enerally an agreement in violation of positive legislation is illegal and void.”). Because Section 201 was recently amended while Drummond’s predecessor was in office, there is a dearth of relevant Oklahoma appellate law. But many other states have enacted similar safeguards, and courts in those other states have voided legal services agreements due to the same violations found here. In White v. Jernigan Copeland Attorneys, PLLC, the Mississippi Supreme Court held “null and void” a contingency fee retention agreement between the State Auditor and a private law firm. 346 So. 3d 887 (Miss. 2022). The court voided the contract because the parties failed to comply with Mississippi Code Section 7-5-39—a statute closely analogous to Oklahoma’s Sections 18c and 201. Jd. at 899-900. Like Oklahoma, Mississippi law requires the AG to act as counsel for state officers and permits retention of outside counsel only upon the AG’s declination and with oversight commission approval. See Miss. Code Ann. § 7-5-39(1), (3)(b)(i). The State Auditor in White satisfied none of these prerequisites. The court voided the agreement outright: “[G]overnment agencies have only such powers that are expressly granted to them, or necessarily implied in their grant of authority. Any acts which are not so authorized are void.” Id. at 896 (quoting Farrish Gravel Co. v. Miss. State Highway Comm’n, 458 So. 2d 1066, 1068 13 4903-6771-9885, v. 14"}, {"d": 117, "p": 14, "t": "(Miss. 1984)). The court further held that “where a particular manner of contracting is prescribed, the manner is the measure of power and must be followed to create a valid contract,” and that “Ta]bsent statutory compliance, the parties had no legal capacity to make a contract.” Jd. at 896, 899 (quoting Am. Book Co. v. Vandiver, 178 So. 598, 600 (Miss. 1938)). The New Jersey Appellate Division applied the same principle in Kress v. LaVilla, 335 N.J. Super. 400 (App. Div. 2000). There, a municipality contracted with private attorneys for legal services without adopting the required resolution or publishing the required notice. The court held that the municipality simply “did not and could not enter into a contract with plaintiffs” because “[a|ny exercise of a delegated power by a municipality in a manner not within the purview of the governing statute is capricious and ultra vires.” /d. at 409-10 (quoting Giannone v. Carlin, 20 NJ. 511, 517 (1956)). The AG’s position here is weaker still. Unlike the Mississippi Auditor in White, who possessed arguable independent statutory authority to pursue recovery of public funds, the Oklahoma AG has no inherent power to retain outside counsel. See 74 O.S. § 18c(A)(1). His authority exists only by virtue of Section 201. Noncompliance is therefore not a procedural defect—it 1s a complete absence of legal authority. Likewise, Whitten Burrage is “charged with notice of limitations imposed by law upon the exercise of that power.” Kress, 335 N.J. Super. at 409 (citation omitted). The legal services agreement here 1s void as a matter of law. Whitten Burrage’s appearance rests on no valid contractual authority. The Court should disqualify Whitten Burrage and strike its Entry of Appearance. 14 4903-6771-9885, v. 14"}, {"d": 117, "p": 15, "t": "b. AG Drummond has previously condemned the hiring of Whitten Burrage under similar circumstances. The AG hides his retention of Whitten Burrage, just a few years after condemning his predecessor for teaming up with the same firm in a similar State action/private litigation collaboration against an insurance company. AG Drummond strongly criticized the then-AG’s intervention in 2020 private litigation filed by Whitten Burrage against Farmers Insurance. In connection with that Farmers suit, then-AG Mike Hunter sent a letter to Farmers seeking confidential, sealed documents and threatened to subpoena the company if it did not comply.’ Drummond condemned Hunter’s actions, stating: “It’s clear the weight of the attorney general was used in a threatening way to an insurance company to produce documents to a political ally. J would judge that as abuse of the office.”'° Drummond Whitten Burrage, also specifically including Hunter’s denounced the retention of the relationship firm in between lawsuits Hunter against and opioid manufacturers. Within a month of taking office in 2023, Drummond “expressly terminate[d]” Whitten Burrage from that lawsuit, describing the representation as “enriching [Whitten Burrage] far beyond what [it] deserve[s].”!! AG Drummond accused Whitten Burrage of “profiting from an ” Letter from Mike Hunter, Oklahoma Attorney General, to Jeffrey Dailey, Chief Executive Officer, Farmers Group Inc. (July 25, 2020), https://nondoc.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Farmerscorrespondence-22-ORA-32-Production-Supp-bates. pdf. '0 Tres Savage, Major Edmond Earthquakes Jostle Odd Oklahoma History on Regulation, Litigation, NonDoc (Jan. 13, 2024), https://nondoc.com/2024/01/13/major-edmond-earthquakesjostle-odd-oklahoma-history/. '! See Letter from Gentner Drummond, Oklahoma Attorney General, to Michael Burrage and Reggie Whitten (Feb. 14, 2023), https://nondoc.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Drummond-toWhitten-Burrage-23-ORA-24-producttion-bates.pdf. 15 4903-6771-9885, v. 14"}, {"d": 117, "p": 16, "t": "opioid crisis” and “personally benefit[ing] from the excessively profitable payment provisions of the Contract”.!” AG Drummond also described how Whitten Burrage’s “Contract was executed outside of an open bidding process that would have resulted in lower fees,” how “such a lucrative no-bid, nocap contract was executed mere weeks after [Michael Burrage, Reggie Whitten] and [their] spouses donated the maximum legal amount to the campaign of the man who signed the Contract.”!? He concluded: “This Contract, and the profit it allows you to amass, undermines the duties I must uphold as Attorney General, and I will not tolerate such agreements.” AG Drummond cited favorably Section 201, which he now flouts, pointing out that the “Legislature and Governor wisely took action to ensure that such a back-room deal could not be struck again” by passing legislation to institute fee caps and a public bidding process.'° AG Drummond’s retention of Whitten Burrage is the exact back-room deal he sought publicly to eliminate.'® Despite having previously condemned Whitten Burrage’s business practices in connection with its representation of the State—going so far as to accuse the firm of “enriching” itself at Oklahomans’ expense!’—AG Drummond now seeks to capitalize on Whitten Burrage’s private homeowner lawsuits for his political benefit. The AG’s chosen lawyers in this case again donated the maximum amount allowable by law, mere weeks before AG Drummond engaged them on this 2 Td. 8 Td. '4 Td. (emphasis added). 'S 1d, 16 Td. at 2. \"Td. 16 4903-6771-9885, v. 14"}, {"d": 117, "p": 17, "t": "matter.'® The Court should hold AG Drummond to his principles—and to Oklahoma disclosure requirements—by disqualifying Whitten Burrage. B. The Contract would permit the violation of state confidentiality provisions. As shown above, an ORICO action may only be originated by the AG or a district attorney. Knight v. Mooring Capital Fund, LLC, 749 F.3d 1180, 1185 (10th Cir. 2014) (citing 74 O.S. §§ § 1409(A), 1419); see also 74 O.S. § 1404 (‘No person shall institute any proceedings, civil or criminal, pursuant to the provisions of this act, except the Attorney General, any district attorney or any district attorney appointed under the provisions of Section 215.9 of Title 19 of the Oklahoma Statutes.”). Moreover, ORICO specifically provides certain confidentiality protections. For instance, “no business papers or records or transcripts or oral testimony, or copies of it, subpoenaed by the Attorney General or district attorney shall be available for examination by an individual other than another law enforcement official without the consent of the person who produced the business papers or records or transcript.” 22 O.S § 1415(B). This is consistent with laws governing other investigations that would be required as part of the AG’s ORICO investigation. “Any law enforcement agency or public safety entity .. . conducting a criminal investigation shall be prohibited from disclosing information about the investigation unless the disclosure is necessary to gather information and evidence related to the investigation.” 21 O.S. § 465(A). Similarly, the Open Records Act provides that “the Attorney '8 Spencer Humphre, Lawyers Suing State Farm Donated to Drummond, State Farm Agents Donated to Mazzei, Oklahoma’s News 4 (Aug. 20, 2026), https://kfor.com/news/oklahoma- legislature/lawyers-suing-state-farm-donated-to-drummond-state-farm-agents-donated-tomazzei/. Further, Mike Burrage made a public endorsement around the same time, a step that he admitted he “do[es] not often” do. Michael Burrage, My Opinion About the Oklahoma Governor’s Race, McAlester News-Capital (Aug. 17, 2026), https://www.mcalesternews.com/opinion/guestviews-my-opinion-about-the-oklahoma-governors-race/article_cc42ab34-df9d-46cb-8 1 0a78a7a55682c7 html. 17 4903-6771-9885, v. 14"}, {"d": 117, "p": 18, "t": "General of the State of Oklahoma . . . may keep its litigation files and investigatory reports confidential.” 51 O.S. § 24A.12. Here, Whitten Burrage would otherwise be prohibited under Oklahoma law from seeing, obtaining, or otherwise having access to the investigatory file that the AG will necessarily obtain as part of his ORICO investigation. And these aren’t just State Farm’s documents; third parties that may be subject to a subpoena would also have their information turned over to Whitten Burrage. These protections were put in place by the legislature for a reason, and the AG and Whitten Burrage should not be allowed to circumvent these protections. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should disqualify Whitten Burrage. Dated: September 18, 2026 Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102-7101 Telephone: 405-235-5500 Facsimile: Email: 18 4903-6771-9885, v. 14 405-235-2875 lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com"}, {"d": 117, "p": 19, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 18\" day of September, 2026, I mailed a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument via U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following counsel of record: Gentner Drummond, OBA No. 16645 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA Garry M. Gaskins, II, OBA No. 20212 Cameron R. Capps, OBA No. 32742 Christopher J. Campbell, OBA No. 33649 313 NE 21\" Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Phone: 405-522-1260 Fax: 405-521-3921 garry.gaskins@oag.ok.gov cameron.capps@oag.ok.gov chris.campbell@oag.ok.gov Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Ave., Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: 405-516-7800 Fax: 405-516-7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Plaintiff at David R. Herber 19 4903-6771-9885, v. 14 NO"}, {"d": 117, "p": 21, "t": "._ @ muna hn e C3.20006- 1190 falun0 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMAFILED IN DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY JOHN RANDOLPH, FEB 172026 Plaintiff, {Court Oty v. STATE FARM CASE Ok FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; GARY BACCUS; and GARY BACCUS INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, Defendants. PETITION 2020 - 5 0"}, {"d": 117, "p": 22, "t": "I. 1. INTRODUCTION This Petition alleges a systematic and pervasive Scheme on the part of (a) Defendants State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) and (b) State Farm’s Agent Gary Baccus and agency Gary Baccus Insurance Agency, Inc. (hereafter referred to in the singular as “Agent”).! Defendants’ Scheme in the present case takes two forms which go by different names: the Water Initiative and the Wind/Hail Focus Initiative (collectively, the “Initiatives”). Both involve a pattern and practice of bad faith tactics to effectuate pre-textual, wrongful deprivations of coverage for State Farm’s insureds for the sole purpose of reducing State Farm’s indemnity spending. By and through these Initiatives, Defendants caused substantial harm to Plaintiff. 2. State Farm is a household name—it holds itself out as a premier provider of insurance products under the slogan “Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there.” State Farm’s marketing lures insureds with customer-focused messaging designed to build trust among a diverse target audience. State Farm’s website brags about “keeping promises” and that its success “is built on a foundation of shared values—quality service and relationships, integrity and financial strength.” 3. Despite their hollow “good neighbor” promises, Defendants employ their systematic and pervasive Initiatives intentionally, knowingly, and purposefully, for profit and in bad faith. 4. State Farm instituted the Water Initiative (or “Water Forum”) which employed various tactics to reduce its claims expenses and indemnity on water losses, including but not limited to the following: ' This Petition refers to both State Farm and Agent collectively as “Defendants.”"}, {"d": 117, "p": 23, "t": "a. State Farm dramatically reduced the authority of adjusters handling water losses to ensure additional scrutiny of larger losses by senior adjusters and managers; b. State Farm held Water Initiative seminars to reinforce its coverage positions and to encourage aggressive application of policy exclusions relating to water losses; c. State Farm trains its adjuster and managers to aggressively and improperly apply policy exclusions that apply to water losses; d. State Farm discourages its adjusters and managers from hiring competent licensed building professionals to investigate water losses to determine the true cause of loss; e. When it hires experts, State Farm repeatedly relies on the same small group of experts and vendors who can be relied upon to provide State Farm cover for its improper and unjustified claim denials; f. State Farm knowingly, deliberately, and routinely denies covered water losses without justification based on improper and inapplicable interpretation of exclusions in its property policies; and g. State Farm engages in an intentional, institutional, and unlawful pattern and practice’ of failing to competently investigate water losses and unreasonably and maliciously denying water loss claims it knows to be covered. 5. Defendants’ Wind/Hail Focus Initiative operates as follows: a. Plaintiff's individual roof claim was wrongfully denied as part of a larger pattern and practice Wind/Hail Focus Initiative implemented by State Farm. There has been ? State Farm has acknowledged the Water Initiative by name and identified numerous documents detailing its systemic implementation, such as State Farm’s “Water Forum PowerPoint,” “Water Forum Coverage Mini Session” and “’ Water Initiative’ PowerPoint(s) or other presentation materials.” See Exhibit 1 attached hereto, Wise v. State Farm, CIV2023-163-HSG, ECF No. 45 Plaintiffs’ Amended Discovery Letter at 1-5, 60-61 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2023)."}, {"d": 117, "p": 24, "t": "scrutiny on State Farm’s Wind/Hail Focus Initiative in the press recently due to the Oklahoma Attorney General’s filing a petition for intervention (“Attorney General’s Petition”) in another of Plaintiff's counsels’ cases against State Farm, CJ-2025-2626. See AG Pet. for Intervention; see also https://oklahomawatch.org/2025/12/04/ag-intervenes- in-state-farm-lawsuit/. The Attorney General’s Petition states, in relevant part: The Attorney General alleges that State Farm, acting through its officers, employees, computer systems, and a network of captive agents, and associated entities as unnamed co-conspirators, implemented an internal program, commonly referred to as the “Hail Focus Initiative” to drastically reduce aggregate roof indemnity payments in Oklahoma. Rather than adjust claims according to coverage language in its policies, State Farm secretly substituted restrictive, extra-contractual standards and used those hidden standards to deny or minimize payment of legitimate covered losses. Captive agents knew, or at minimum had reason to know, that State Farm was tightening internal claim standards and increasingly denying hail claims that would previously have been paid. Despite this knowledge or reason to know, captive agents continued to sell and renew policies without disclosing that State Farm was internally adopting extra-contractual restrictive hail-damage standards and_ limiting roof replacements. Agents remained silent about the internal Hail Focus Initiative and did not warn customers that their ability to obtain roof replacement coverage had materially changed. AG Pet. for Intervention at {4 1, 28 (emphasis added). b. Attorney The Wind/Hai! Focus Initiative as alleged by Plaintiff and the Oklahoma General works as follows: Department (“P&CCD”) is State State Farm’s Property and Casualty Claims Farm’s homeowners insurance coverage division, which issued a memorandum identifying that State Farm’s goal was to lower indemnity payments related to roof payments: P&C Claims is focusing on what we can do to lower our indemnity payments related to Roofs. Last year we had an indemnity over"}, {"d": 117, "p": 25, "t": "$3.5 Billion dollars and a total of $16.6 Billion over the last 7 years for the Enterprise on roofing. Xactware has enhanced their Aerial Sketch tool to help our Claim partners in writing estimates for roofs. Listed below are some facts in supporting the 27.5 Service Pack. See Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Discovery Order of November 23, 2021 and Motion for Sanctions, Barnett v. State Farm, CJ-2020-141 (Grady Co. Okla. April 8, 2024) (citing production produced unprotected in Misner v. State Farm, CJ-2013-1050 (Cleveland County)). c. Barnett addressed the same Wind/Hail Focus Initiative and pattern and practice of bad faith tactics at issue here. d. State Farm’s P&CCD began developing bad faith initiatives to reduce indemnity payments on roof claims to lower State Farm’s roof spend and pad its bottom line at the expense of Oklahoma first-party insureds. State Farm employed Accenture (formerly Andersen Consulting), a Fortune Global 500 international consulting firm with a market capitalization of over $150 billion, to develop ways to achieve this indemnity reduction. State Farm created its Wind & Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team (“WHMET’”) to develop, implement, monitor, and assess the Wind/Hail Focus Initiative. The WHMET is a star chamber consisting of approximately ten (10) internal State Farm property claims experts charged with executing the Wind/Hail Initiative. Nicole Manduca was the leader of the WHMET? €. The WHMET worked with Accenture at length, who provided State Farm with alleged “industry standards” on full roof replacements on Wind/Hail insurance claims > A copy of Manduca’s deposition taken in April 2024 along with exhibits was recently ordered to be produced by Judge Jeff Virgin in Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma, Case No. CJ-2024-183, Lyle v. State Farm. In Nida v. State Farm, CJ-2020-4453 (Oklahoma County), State Farm produced a privilege log with multiple emails involving Manduca and the draft of the Wind/Hail playbook with in-house counsel. See Nida, CJ-2020-4453, Plaintiffs’ Challenge to State Farm’s Privilege Log and Request for In Camera Review (Oklahoma County, June 21, 2024)."}, {"d": 117, "p": 26, "t": "nationwide. State Farm and the WHMET secretly worked with Accenture to develop its Wind/Hail Focus Initiative to implement bad faith illegal tactics to reduce its internal performance measures on percentages of full roof replacements to the alleged much lower industry standards. State Farm implemented claim handling practices which lowered claim payments on losses that had not yet occurred; this can never happen in good faith, as each insurance claim must be handled on its individual merits in consideration of the date(s) of loss, the severity of the storm, and countless other individual factors. State Farm found its golden opportunity and determined it could substantially reduce its indemnity payouts by lowering its percentage of approval for full roof replacements on Wind/Hail claims, regardless of the amount of damage an investigation into each claim would reveal. Thus, State Farm’s practice of arbitrarily lowering claim payments before losses even occurred became the WHMET’s primary instruction to effectuate its goal of universally reducing indemnity spending on roof claims. This is the Wind/Hail Focus Initiative to which Plaintiff was subjected. f. State Farm implemented a Wind/Hail playbook and developed bad faith tactics aimed at drastically reducing the number of full roof replacements, instead adjusting Wind/Hail claims by offering insureds much lower amounts for “repairs” to the roof, very often right below or above the policy deductible. State Farm expects its insureds to believe that the hail miraculously missed all the shingles and only hit the metals on the roof. State Farm primarily damage/conditions, uses “age/condition” of the roof wear and tear, and deterioration, and alleged preexisting along with arbitrary, hidden definitions of what constitutes “hail damage” not located in the Policy, to deny full roof replacements on claims involving totaled roofs. A primary tactic used by State Farm to"}, {"d": 117, "p": 27, "t": "achieve this lowered metric of full roof replacements was taking away its field adjusters’ ability to total a roof on a wind/hail claim. State Farm implemented a policy that claims adjusters could not issue a full roof replacement without Team Manager approval but could deny a total roof replacement without Team Manager approval. g. Thus, the same adjusters who had previous authority to approve a roof replacement for decades were now robbed of their ability to approve a full roof replacement. The natural consequence of forcing an adjuster to ask their manager to approve a total roof replacement payment (the same manager who impacts their performance evaluations and bonus payments) is that the adjuster will not fight to ensure the Claim is paid in full, regardless of the amount of damage realized by the adjuster. The obvious ramifications of this tactic achieved immediate and significant results for State Farm. Plaintiff has requested discovery into tracking the percentages employed by State Farm’s Team Managers on full roof replacements, performance data and metrics, evaluation data, and similar measurements. h. The wealth of evidence here, as well as what Plaintiff knows will be revealed through discovery, establishes a sinister Wind/Hail Focus Initiative by State Farm to defraud insureds such as Plaintiff. i. State Farm’s captive agents (including Agent here) market, sell, procure, and bind (whether upon inception and/or at renewal)* State Farm full replacement cost insurance coverage to the insured at the insured’s behest to cover the insured’s home. In doing so, State Farm’s agent (like Agent here) expressly and/or impliedly represents (i) the *Under Oklahoma law, each annual issuance of the policy at issue involves each of these acts, whether it be the inception of full replacement cost coverage in the first instance or the subsequent renewal thereof. Therefore, even an agent who renews full replacement cost coverage initially procured by another agent engages in these acts."}, {"d": 117, "p": 28, "t": "property to be insured meets State Farm’s underwriting rules, guidelines, and requirements for the full replacement cost coverage purportedly bound, and (ii) the replacement cost value (and resultant full replacement cost coverage limit) State Farm’s agent calculated for the insured is an accurate reflection of (at least) 100% of the property’s insured value—that is, all components of the insured property are fully covered. je The agent can only make these representations in good faith—with the requisite care, skill, and diligence required of the agent under Oklahoma law—if the agent verifies the quality and condition of the property to be insured. While this would require the agent’s physical inspection of the property or procurement of an inspection, such inspection practically never occurs. Nevertheless, State Farm’s agents market, sell, procure, and bind State Farm full replacement cost coverage (just as Agent did for Plaintiff) without verifying the home’s condition. While these acts represent to the insured in each instance that the property in question qualifies for the insurance to be bound and meets the underwriting guidelines governing State Farm full replacement cost coverage, in almost every instance of the Wind/Hail Focus Initiative, the agent lacks all practical bases to make such representations in good faith. Here, Agent lacked all reasonable bases to represent to Plaintiff the Insured Property fully qualified for “full replacement cost coverage.” k. Nevertheless, and almost always without verification, the captive agent effectively certifies to State Farm and to the insured that the property in question meets State Farm’s underwriting guidelines, criteria, and rules despite having no reasonable basis to do so and without knowing if the same is actually true. Here, Agent bound Plaintiff's Policy without such a reasonable basis or knowledge."}, {"d": 117, "p": 29, "t": "1. State Farm’s captive agents (like Agent) are aware State Farm achieves the goals of the Wind/Hail Focus Initiative through an array of bad faith tactics. These include State Farm’s use of an undisclosed, narrow, and limited definition of what constitutes covered hail damage. This secret full replacement cost coverage limitation, which is derivative of the Wind/Hail Focus Initiative and inherent to the Wind/Hail Focus Initiative, is wholly absent from the insured’s policy and never otherwise disclosed to the insured. That is, the policy does not specifically define or limit when hail damage is covered under the policy, even though State Farm defines and limits the same internally for the purposes of claims handling. State Farm uses this definition to dictate whether an insured is entitled to payment under the policy upon the filing of a valid storm damage claim, yet it never discloses this material information to insureds. State Farm agents further the Wind/Hail Focus Initiative by refusing to disclose this material, narrow, and limited definition of hail damage when marketing, selling, procuring, and/or binding State Farm full replacement cost coverage—even though the limitation effectively undermines the “full replacement cost” nature of the full replacement cost coverage the insured believed they purchased. m. investigation The Wind/Hail Focus into its indemnity Initiative resulted losses vis-a-vis wind from State Farm’s internal and hail and claims the recommendations it developed to curb that spend. The Initiative set out to reduce State Farm’s indemnity losses on wind- and hailstorm claims—most critically, total roof replacements. Non-confidential documents in the public record, such as Exhibit 6 attached to the August 14, 2023 response pleading in CJ-2021-1741,° evidence the Wind/Hail Focus Initiative in action. In that case, State Farm adjuster testified under oath to how the agent’s *Available at https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaselnformation.aspx ?db=oklahoma&number=CJ-2021- 1741&cmid=3968060 (last visited Dec. 30, 2025)."}, {"d": 117, "p": 30, "t": "determination of the condition of the roof at inception or renewal and subsequent denial for “wear and tear” or pre-existing damage are essential in State Farm’s denial of full roof replacements. The captive agent is a critical player in the Wind/Hail Focus Initiative via its assessment of the property’s conformity to State Farm’s underwriting guidelines, inspection (or lack thereof) at policy inception and renewal, determination of eligibility for replacement cost, determination of the amount of such replacement cost, and the assessment of the condition of the roof and premises. That State Farm adjuster admitted under oath as follows: everyone on our team did not have any authority anymore to total roofs because we were paying for too many roof claims ... when I was told that it is not hail or it’s not new hail, to call it wear and tear to deny a claim, I felt —I felt bad ... I legitimately felt like there was some damage from hail, from new hail that I felt that the roof should be totaled, that I was told to deny the whole thing, and that — that was difficult. n. Discovery from State Farm filed in the public record reveals that State Farm captive agents are well aware of how hail claims are being adjusted. In Exhibit 6 to the June 14, 2023 pleading, a State Farm captive agent, David Hoffhines, sent the following email: I understand that you are not able to find hail on the date my insured has cell phone pics on? Can we discuss this please?? How do I tell my client that the hail damage marks that were uploaded to the file from contractor are invisible to claims reps and supervisors?? | know the growing trend is for SF to deny hail claims, I’m just curious how do I word this?? 0. State Fam’s Wind/Hail Focus Initiative is under national scrutiny. Recently, the Senate Homeland Security Committee held a hearing on the Insurance Industry’s Natural Disaster Practices.° Other recent testimony provided to the Senate Homeland ° Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs2VKoQPvxY (last visited Sept. 22, 2025)."}, {"d": 117, "p": 31, "t": "Security Committee further demonstrates the far-reaching impact State Farm’s pattern and practice of bad faith has had on insureds across the country.’ These testimonies further reveal the precise bad faith tactics described herein have been adopted by other heavy hitters in the insurance industry. State Farm and Allstate licensed adjuster Nick Schroeder testified to internal directives from Allstate which exemplify the exact bad faith claims handling practices alleged here (thereby demonstrating industry-wide knowledge and the pervasive, market-tested nature of such practices): More commonly, these changes were simply excluding haildamaged shingles due to age or wear. In one case involving policyholders Susan and Dennis Carter, I was instructed to deny shingle damage as wear and tear despite visible hail impact marks consistent _with adjacent dented metal. Although I provided a hail report confirming activity near the property on the reported date of loss, the claim was reassigned after I refused to amend the estimate to exclude hail damage. See id. (located at “Panel 1 NICK SCHROEDER.”). p. Through State Farm’s Wind/Hail Focus Initiative, State Farm’s Property and Casualty Claims Division/Department (“P&CCD”) established State Farm’s corporate goal of reducing its indemnity payments by denying full replacement cost coverage to policyholders like Plaintiff on valid wind and hail claims. Consequently, State Farm preordained such claim denials. This decision reflects simple greed: maximizing profits for State Farm at the expense of its insureds. q. To achieve this end, State Farm assembled its Wind-Hail Model Enhancement Team (“WHMET”) under the leadership of Nichole Manduca to knowingly ’ “Examining the Insurance Industry’s Claims Practices Following Recent Natural Disasters - Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs,” available at https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/dmdcc/hearings/examining-the-insurance-industrys-claims-practicesfollowing-recent-natural-disasters/ (last visited Oct. 23, 2025). 10"}, {"d": 117, "p": 32, "t": "developed and implemented its enterprise-wide, pervasive, and systematic Wind/Hail Focus Initiative. In fact, Manduca’s Linked-in profile boasts her achievement in reducing State Farm’s spend on total roof replacements by “over 50%.”: Nicole Manduca, ChFC she/Her - 3ra Senior Leader / Director of P&C Operations, Insurance & Financial Services: Transformational Leader | Operations Excellence | Change Leadership | Innovation | Diversity-Equity-Inclusion | Executive Catastrophe Response Achievements: - Led enterprise effort in Fortune 50 company improving quality results by over 50% and significant reduction in operational expenses over 12 months This specifically refers to Manduca’s work on State Farm’s WHMET at the expense of policyholders like Plaintiff. 6. All the while, State Farm’s captive agents (like Agent) are aware of the Initiatives. They are aware of the practical improbability that State Farm will pay full replacement cost coverage on valid Claims involving substantial losses. They are aware that, pursuant to the Initiatives, State Farm will drum up a justification for outright denial of the claim or for depressing the payment to an amount under the deductible. In fact, State Farm provides training to its captive agency personnel on key aspects of its Initiatives. a. Further, State Farm agents (like Agent) are aware of (and fail to disclose) other bad faith claims handling tactics inherent to State Farm’s Initiatives. These tactics are material to an insured when purchasing an insurance policy; they include State Farm’s pre-ordained attribution of covered damage to roofs to some non-covered cause (e.g., wear 8 Linked-In Profile for Nicole Manduca, available at https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicolemanduca/ (last visited Sept. 24, 2025). I]"}, {"d": 117, "p": 33, "t": "and tear, granular loss, deterioration, or defect; State Farm also often erroneously blames water losses on “water below the surface of the ground,” and “continuous,” “intermittent,” 99 a68 or “gradual” leakage). These non-covered causes, when actually present, either plague the home from its construction or accrue progressively over time. For example, wear and tear does not accrue instantaneously. That is, when truly present, these defects should almost always be identifiable at the most recent renewal of the policy—a new contract through with the Agent and State Farm again represent the home to fully qualify for full replacement cost coverage. So, if actually present, these defects should warrant some reduction in the full replacement cost coverage written on the home and its relative insurance-to-value, OR the home remains fully insured despite them. b. Additionally, State Farm agents (like Agent) are aware of (and fail to disclose) the ways State Farm adjusters further the Initiatives on State Farm’s behalf. This includes drafting sham estimates blaming patent covered losses to non-covered causes (see, e.g., supra at § 6(a)) to avoid paying full replacement cost coverage. In other instances, State Farm adjusters manipulate the insured’s date of loss to reflect dates on which the affected area would have sustained little or no damage. State Farm’s agents (like Agent) are fully aware of these bad faith tactics (e.g., from repeated customer complaints and cross-agent back chatter), yet they fail to disclose this (and other) material information about State Farm’s Initiatives in violation of duties owed to the insured. c. State Farm’s agents (like Agent) are motivated to further the Initiatives by carrot and stick. On information and belief, the carrot lies in State Farm’s agents’ compensation, which is based in some part on the ratio of losses deriving from policies the specific agent marketed, procured, sold, bound, and renewed. Thus, any corporate 12"}, {"d": 117, "p": 34, "t": "initiative designed to improve that loss ratio—e.g., State Farm’s Initiatives to reduce indemnity spending—serves to increase the captive agents’ compensation. To this end, State Farm provides its captive agents (like Agent) comprehensive training in skillsets that help them advance the Initiatives. d. On the Agent’s certification that the property meets State Farm’s underwriting guidelines, State Farm issues a policy purporting to convey full replacement cost coverage for the insured’s home. State Farm, through both the policy itself and its captive agents, expressly and/or impliedly represents the policy covers losses arising from windstorms, hailstorms, and water losses. e. The insured incurs a covered loss to the insured property and timely files a claim. f. State Farm then denies the claim as part of its pursuant to its Initiatives. In each instance, State Farm does whatever it can to avoid providing full replacement cost coverage. It does so using an array of bad faith tactics rigged against the insured. It denies the claim either outright or, in many cases, by depressing the amount it agrees to pay below the policy deductible, thereby avoiding payment. In limited instances, it may cover cheap repairs of certain negligible or even irreparable property damage that exceeds the deductible. But, in each case, to minimize its payments, State Farm manipulates its damage estimate to ignore patent storm damage to the insured property, ostensibly blaming it on some non-covered cause of loss. g. When deprived of proper coverage as a result of the Initiatives, an insured has no choice but to file suit to recover benefits State Farm owes under the policy. To this end, part of State Farm’s strategy includes forcing insureds to hire counsel to obtain 13"}, {"d": 117, "p": 35, "t": "benefits rightly owed under the Policy, as State Farm knows only a small fraction of its insureds will know its conduct is actionable. State Farm’s treatment of Plaintiff (including bad faith claims handling tactics and material misrepresentations and/or omissions by State Farm and Agent) exemplifies these Initiatives in action, as the Petition sets forth in Section III, below. h. During the course of litigation, State Farm continually attempts to separate its captive agents’ conduct from its Initiatives-driven Scheme by asserting a blanket disclaimer of its captive agents’ underwriting duties and stating its agents are not required to inform insureds about the condition of their home and adjust their full replacement cost coverage accordingly. These assertions are wholly contradicted by State Farm’s own underwriting guidelines and corporate designees: The agent is our front line underwriter. In addition to assisting the agent with gathering information for use of the Xactware tool, the personal inspection is also the agent’s opportunity to obtain photographs required elsewhere in this guide to ensure the property is properly maintained and meets all property and liability insurance underwriting requirements. Improperly maintained roofs increase the potential for loss. Risks with damaged or deteriorated roofs are unacceptable. A visual inspection will allow assessment of the roof condition? [Mr. Marr]: My question was simply, does State Farm consider its agents front line underwriters? * Excerpts from Underwriting Guidance — Homeowners — Underwriting Basics at 1-2 (located in the public record as Exhibit 10 to the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand in Vance v. State Farm, 24-CIV-449-SLP, ECF No. 7-10 (W.D. Okla. May 29, 2024) (emphasis added)); see also Inspection Process at | -2 (“Before binding new Fire business, an inspection of the property is necessary. The inspection serves two purposes. Since our agents are the front line underwriters, an inspection provides an opportunity for the agent to see the property before we provide coverage. During the inspection, the agent should verify that the property meets our underwriting eligibility guidelines. The inspection also provides an opportunity to obtain or verify building characteristics used for estimating the replacement cost of the property.” During the “Inspection Process,” it is “critical” for agents to identify a roof’s risk, including wear and “{plrior unrepaired damage or deterioration” to the roof.) (located in the public record as Exhibit 13 to the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand in Vance, 24-CIV-449-SLP, ECF No. 7-13 (W.D. Okla. May 29, 2024) (emphasis added), 14"}, {"d": 117, "p": 36, "t": "(Mr. Hsuing]: Per se, yes. They are our front line underwriters.\" [Mr. Kwok]: The agents do have a role in kind of what we consider to be a front-line underwriter, where they will take a look at the risks to see if there are any glaring issues. If the house is dilapidated and getting ready to fall over, we expect the agent to use their position with the company to not write that risk.'! Thus, State Farm’s downplaying of agent underwriting duties is a smokescreen. II. 7. Plaintiff Dr. PARTIES John Randolph owns the Insured Property located at 436 Northwest 14\" Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73103. Plaintiff entered into a contract of insurance with State Farm to provide full replacement cost coverage for the Insured Property, dwelling insurance policy no. 36BV38116 (the “Policy”) through Agent’s offices. The Policy was in force and effect at the time of the loss in question. The Insured Property was damaged in approximately spring of 2021 and December 26-27, 2022. Plaintiff timely filed claims for indemnity under the Policy for damage to the Insured Property.! 8. Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) is a foreign insurer licensed to do business in the State of Oklahoma. State Farm may be found and served via its statutory service agent the Oklahoma Insurance Department in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 9. Defendant Agent owns and operates a captive State Farm agency at 16145 North May Avenue, Suite A, Edmond, Oklahoma 73013. Agent was at all relevant times an agent and/or ° Tr. Excerpt of August 9, 2022 Deposition of State Farm Corporate Designee Hsuing, at 66:17-21, from Stelling v. State Farm, et al., No. CJ-2020-329 (Rogers Cnty. Aug 9, 2022) (located in the public record as Exhibit 2 to the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand in Neph v. State Farm, 24-CIV-774-SLP, ECF No. 13-2 (W.D. Okla. August 8, 2025) (emphasis added)). \" Tr. Excerpt of July 2, 2015 Deposition of Corporate Representative Kwok, at 80:1-6, from Neill v. State Farm, et al., 13-CIV-627-D (W.D. Okla. July 2, 2015) (located in the public record as Exhibit 12 to the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand in Vance, 24-CIV-449-SLP, ECF No. 7-12 (W.D. Okla. May 29, 2024) (emphasis added)). The 2021 claim, claim no. 36-19P1-72K (the “Roof Claim”), and the 2022 claim, claim no. 36-44K7-35L (the “Water Claim’) (collectively, “Plaintiff’s Claims”). 15"}, {"d": 117, "p": 37, "t": "ostensible agent of Defendant State Farm. Upon information and belief, Agent may be served with process at 16145 North May Avenue, Suite A, Edmond, Oklahoma 73013 or, alternatively and on information and belief, through Agent’s registered agent Debee Clark & Weber PLLC at 1200 Northwest 63rd Street, Suite #5000, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73116. 10. Agent is a properly joined defendant to this action, as recently held in at least forty remanded cases against State Farm and its agents in Oklahoma federal courts alleging substantially the same claims. See e.g., Coover v. State Farm, No. CIV-25-674-PRW, Dkt. 24 Order, at 8 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 3, 2025) (order consolidating and granting remand in seven cases involving substantially similar allegations as here); Snow v. State Farm, No. CIV-25-1262-J, Dkt. 14 Order (W.D. Okla. Dec. 16, 2025); Varner v. State Farm, CIV-25-892-J, ECF No. 9 Order, at 4-5 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 29, 2025); Gabel v. State Farm, 25-CIV-430-D, ECF No. 23 Order (W.D. Okla., Oct. 16, 2025) (DeGiusti, C.D.J.); Willard v. State Farm, 2025 WL 2419274 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 21, 2025) (Palk, D.J.) (order consolidating and granting remand in eleven cases involving substantially similar allegations as here); Maher v. State Farm, 2025 WL 1909507 (W.D. Okla. July 10, 2025) (Wyrick, D.J.); Adair y. State Farm, 2025 WL 1263128, at *1 (W.D. Okla. May 1, 2025) (Dishman, D.J.); Pruitt v. State Farm, 2025 WL 1030353 (W.D. Okla. April 7, 2025) (DeGiusti, C.D.J.). Moreover, every Oklahoma state court judge to consider the allegations against Agent detailed herein has held such allegations sufficient to state claims of negligent procurement and constructive fraud/negligent misrepresentation. See West v. State Farm, (Comanche Cnty. Dist. Ct.) (Journal Entry filed Oct. 24, 2025); Pruitt v. State No. CJ-2025-135 Farm, No. CJ-2024- 7828 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct.) (docket sheet identifying Order dated July 9, 2025); Adair v. State Farm, No. CJ-2023-6121 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct.) (Journal Entry filed Nov. 24, 2025); Davis v. State Farm, et al., No. CJ-2025-2883 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct.) (Journal Entry filed Oct. 30, 2025); Riley 16"}, {"d": 117, "p": 38, "t": "vy. State Farm, No. CJ-2025-1328 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct.) (docket sheet identifying Order dated November 24, 2025). As Agent is a citizen of the forum-state, removal of this action would be improper. 11. Venue is proper pursuant to 12 O.S. § 137. II. 12. FACTUAL BACKGROUND State Farm implements the Initiatives throughout the country using a variety of bad faith tactics and training at every level of State Farm. State Farm captive agents anchor the Initiatives on the front end of the transaction. State Farm reinforces the role of its captive agents (like Agent) through training, compensation, and other incentives. State Farm then utilizes biased third-party adjusters and/or engineers, who further the Initiatives by consistently writing reports and estimates to deny full roof replacements on valid wind and hail claims. State Farm weaponizes these various undisclosed tactics against first-party insureds like Plaintiff. State Farm implements a series of rules (e.g., program and personal rules) in its Xactware software platforms that limit its adjusters’ ability to pay roof claims without approval. This allows State Farm team managers to override adjusters’ decisions to pay roof claims and then penalize or retrain them for failing to implement the Initiatives. On information and belief, State Farm tracks in detail the impact of the Initiatives—the reduction in State Farm’s indemnity losses on roof and water loss claims by state and region, as well as its return on investment derived from the training and other tactics involved. This includes its ratios of replacement and repair, and the financial impacts thereof. 13. This case exemplifies the Initiatives-driven Scheme in action. State Farm’s treatment of Plaintiff demonstrates each step leading to State Farm’s intended outcome. A. State Farm’s Captive Agents Anchor the Scheme 14. In each instance, State Farm’s Scheme begins with its captive agents (including Agent), who sell a State Farm form insurance policy to the insured at the insured’s behest. 17"}, {"d": 117, "p": 39, "t": "1. State Farm Agent’s Duties in Procuring Coverage 15. State Farm captive agents solicit and market what they tout as a replacement cost homeowners insurance coverage to prospective insureds. State Farm uses a form insurance policy to issue homeowner’s coverage; while the amount of coverage (and premiums charged therefor) differ from insured to insured, the scope of full replacement cost coverage is in large part materially the same for all insureds. 16. State Farm considers its agents to be the first line of its underwriting division. State Farm’s Agent plays a crucial role in the sale of State Farm’s insurance policy to the insured. This role creates key legal duties, which State a. Farm’s Agent owes to the insured:!° State Farm’s agents must use reasonable care, skill, and diligence to procure full replacement cost coverage as the insured requested that meets the insured’s stated needs; b. State Farm’s agents who undertake the calculation of replacement costs for the insured must use reasonable care, skill, and diligence to do so; c. State Farm agents have a duty to speak and to fully disclose all material information to an insured about State Farm’s bad faith claims handling tactics, its reliance on undisclosed definitions, coverage limitations, and standards outside of the Policy, internal and external complaints about State Farm’s handling of windstorm, hailstorm, and 3 Under Oklahoma law, a duty to speak may arise from a partial disclosure. Thrifty Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Brown Flight Rental One Corp., 24 F.3d 1190, 1195 (10th Cir. 1994) (the law imposes a duty to speak from a partial disclosure because “the speaker is under a duty to say nothing or to tell the whole truth” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Uptegraft v. Dome Petroleum Corp., 764 P.2d 1350,1353-54 (Okla. 1988) (“Although a party may keep absolute silence and violate no rule of equity, yet, if he volunteers to speak and to convey information which may influence the conduct of the other party, he is bound to disclose the whole truth.”); see also Ervin v. Herb Weaver Ins. Agency, Inc., 2022 WL 22839581 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 28, 2022) (Palk, D.J.) 18"}, {"d": 117, "p": 40, "t": "water loss claims, and other material information any insured would deem reasonable in making a purchasing decision; d. When State Farm’s agents speak, they owe a duty to do so accurately and truthfully. 17. Industry standards, as well as agents’ legal duty of reasonable skill, care, and diligence in the procurement of insurance, require State Farm’s agents to act in accordance with the training and contractual requirements State Farm imposes upon them. These requirements and training exist to ensure policyholders receive the specific full replacement cost coverage they request, and agents bind such coverage in accordance with their representations to the insured and State Farm’s internal guidelines. This is what occurred here. 18. Agent markets as much on Agent’s and State Farm’s websites: lomeowners Insurance rotect your largest investment from unexpected events life may throw your way with State arm® Homeowners Insurance in Edmond, OK. So, what's covered?! Your home insurance nsures you Can repair or replace your home, as well as the items you value. Personal property is covered even if you're on vacation, running errands or holding items in storage. More homeowners choose State Farm as their home insurance company over any other insurer.” Gary Baccus in Edmond, OK will help you get started after you complete a homeowners insurance online quote. It's fast and easy! |. Please refer to your actual policy for a complete list of covered property and covered losses. 2. Dats provided by S&P Globel Market intelligence and State Farm Archive. Start your homeowners insurance quote. It’s fast and easy! 19"}, {"d": 117, "p": 41, "t": "A good neighbor helps you insure your home with State Farm. Apply for homeowners insurance with State Farm Protect Your Home Sweet Home Gary Baccus will help you feel right at home by getting you set up with secure insurance that fits your needs. State Farm's homeowners insurance not only covers the structure of your home, but can also protect precious items like your pictures, It's always the right move to get State Farm's homeowners insurance. Then, you won't have to worry about the unexpected ice storm damage to your property. Contact Gary Baccus today to learn more about your options or ask how to bundle and save! Have More Questions About Homeowners Insurance? Call Gary at (405) 844-6300 or visit our FAQ page. 19. 14 State Farm agents should meet these duties by inter alia performing or arranging an in-person inspection of the Insured Property prior to the inception of coverage and routinely thereafter to verify the condition and attributes of the Insured Property for the purposes of (a) the agent’s accurate calculation of replacement cost and (b) the agent’s accurate representation that the Insured Property qualifies for full replacement cost coverage under State Farm’s guidelines. Indeed, not all homes automatically qualify for State Farm’s homeowners’ policies—only those which meet its internal guidelines and thus constitute a “good risk” for State Farm to insure. 20. The policy is a contract—one that obligates State Farm to indemnify its insured upon the occurrence of a covered loss. State Farm’s issuance of an insurance policy to an insured contains certain critical representations: namely, that the property identified in the policy declarations meets the criteria for the full replacement cost coverage prescribed at the time of * Available at https://www.statefarm.com/agent/us/ok/edmond/gary-baccus-g72p9 lys000 (last visited Nov. 3, 2025) and https://garybaccus.com/insurance/homeowners (last visited on Nov. 3, 2025). 20"}, {"d": 117, "p": 42, "t": "inception or renewal.'° The agent further expressly and/or inherently represents that no condition, pre-existing damage, deterioration, wear-and-tear, or other defect negates the property’s eligibility for full replacement cost coverage under the policy. 21. State Farm’s agent must inspect the property to determine this eligibility for full replacement cost coverage under State Farm’s internal underwriting requirements. There is no other way for the agent to gather the information it needs to accurately relay to State Farm (and the insured) whether the property rightfully meets the criteria for full replacement cost coverage. 22. Most captive State Farm agents have binding authority. That means they instruct State Farm to issue the full replacement cost coverage. In doing so, the agent represents to both State Farm and the insured that the property meets certain criteria and is eligible for full replacement cost coverage. This representation is repeated each time the policy renews, such that the agent represents the property’s eligibility (and, thereby, the absence of any condition that would negate that eligibility), each policy year upon renewal. 23. In the event State Farm’s agent finds the property fails to quality for full replacement cost coverage (e.g., its condition is affected by pre-existing damage/defects), State Farm’s agent owes an independent duty to report the same to both the insured and to State Farm. This should result in reduction, denial, or cancellation of coverage. Of course, this determination would first require a physical inspection of the home. 24. Ultimately, State Farm’s agent binds coverage for the property on behalf of State Farm. State Farm then issues a resultant homeowners insurance policy only when all binding criteria are met. Remarkably, State Farm’s agents almost never perform or acquire an in-person inspection of the property to be insured. This means they represent the property’s eligibility to ' This must be true, for the issuance of full replacement cost coverage upon a property that does not qualify at the time would constitute an illusory coverage violation. 21"}, {"d": 117, "p": 43, "t": "both State Farm and the insured recklessly and blindly, without ever verifying whether that representation is true, in almost every instance of the Scheme. 25. This consistent misrepresentation is a necessary furtherance of the Scheme in each instance; State Farm’s agents cannot bind a policy without first representing the property qualifies for full replacement cost coverage. Agent thus relies on the same training to make the same or similar representations that each Insured Property is eligible for the full replacement cost coverage sought under the same underwriting guidelines. This uniformity allows State Farm to effectuate its Initiatives with consistency. 2. Agent’s Treatment Exemplifies the Scheme 26. Agent’s treatment of Plaintiff exemplifies the Initiatives-driven Scheme in action: a. Plaintiff contacted Agent to procure full replacement cost homeowners insurance coverage from State Farm. Plaintiff requested Agent obtain a replacement cost policy that would provide full replacement cost coverage’® for the Insured Property in the event of a loss. b. The home featured a custom-built clay tile roof and fixtures, which in-turn required a specialized policy capable of providing sufficient coverage to pay for full replacement of such unique structures. . Plaintiff expressly and/or inherently disclosed concerns and insurance needs to Agent. Above all, given Oklahoma’s extreme weather, Agent is aware that the Plaintiff needs full replacement cost coverage under a policy that would fully replace the Insured Property’s specialized roof (and other structures) in the event of a loss, without exclusion 16 See Rains v. CSAA Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2020 WL 6729085, at *6 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 16, 2020) (“Unlike requests for “full” or “adequate” coverage, a specific request for “replacement” coverage could qualify as a “need[ ] ... disclosed by the insureds” that would trigger an agent's duty to provide such coverage if promised. Rotan, 83 P.3d at 895. The term “replacement coverage” is a term that connotes a specific type of coverage.). 22"}, {"d": 117, "p": 44, "t": "of any weather-related losses. Agent assured Plaintiff that the Policy provided the broadest form of coverage available and, therefore, was an outstanding value for his insurance dollars. d. Moreover, Agent specifically assured Plaintiff that State Farm would cover any out-of-pocket expenses Plaintiff incurred on repairs/replacements of damage caused by a valid loss. e. In reality, Agent procured a generic Policy which was worthless on its face. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time, State Farm’s Policy would never provide full replacement cost coverage for a valid loss to Plaintiff's home. f. By virtue of the act of marketing, selling, procuring, and binding full replacement cost coverage under the Policy (whether at inception or renewal, and without any limitation for damage caused by windstorm, hailstorm, or freeze/water loss), Agent independently established, calculated, and set the Policy’s replacement cost value and resultant policy full replacement cost coverage limits. Neither Agent nor State Farm required or otherwise asked Plaintiff to calculate or request a specific amount of full replacement cost coverage for the Insured Property. Instead, Agent took on that responsibility and thereby incurred the duty to do so accurately and with the requisite skill, knowledge, and expertise. Given Agent’s touted expertise, he should have first verified the condition of the home, via survey/inspection or otherwise. g. By virtue of the act of marketing, procuring, selling, and binding purported full replacement cost coverage under the Policy (without limitation), agent independently selected and calculated full replacement cost coverage and expressly and/or inherently conveyed that such coverage and corresponding policy limits were accurate, correct, 23"}, {"d": 117, "p": 45, "t": "commensurate with actual reconstruction costs, and represented at least 100% of the Insured Property’s insurance to value. Agent thereby represented to Plaintiff that the property met State Farm’s underwriting guidelines and qualified for the full replacement cost coverage Agent bound. h. Both Agent and State Farm thereby either knew or should have known of any material defect, pre-existing damage, or other condition(s) that would exclude the Insured Property from full replacement cost coverage in violation of State Farm’s underwriting guidelines, rules, and criteria, if any such condition was actually present. i. Both Agent and State Farm knew State Farm purposefully uses hidden definitions of wind- and/or hailstorm damage to deny claims, along with other hidden coverage limitations and bad faith tactics described herein, but failed to include them in the Policy or disclose these to Plaintiff at any point prior to claims adjustment. 27. In furtherance of the Initiatives, Agent committed the following strategic and material omissions: a. On information and believe, neither Agent nor State Farm ever inspected the Insured Property or procured such an inspection from a third party. b. On information and belief, neither Agent nor State Farm ever verified the Insured Property’s condition, characteristics, attributes, etc. - whether at Policy inception or upon each subsequent annual renewal of the Policy. c. Regardless of whether an inspection occurred, neither Agent nor State Farm ever disclosed to Plaintiff that the Insured Property was ineligible under State Farm’s underwriting guidelines for the requested full replacement cost coverage for any reason. 24"}, {"d": 117, "p": 46, "t": "d. Regardless of whether an inspection occurred, neither Agent nor State Farm took reasonable care, skill, and diligence in maintaining a current understanding of the Insured Property’s condition throughout the course of renewals. €. Neither Agent nor State Farm ever advised Plaintiff that the Insured Property had any defect, pre-existing damage, or other conditions that would preclude it from full replacement cost coverage.'” f. Neither Agent nor State Farm ever advised Plaintiff of State Farm’s Initiatives and material information thereabout, including but not limited to State Farm’s internal and hidden coverage limitations or that State Farm often mischaracterizes damage. g. Neither Agent nor State Farm required or otherwise asked Plaintiff to calculate or request a specific amount of full replacement cost coverage for the Insured Property—rather, Agent assumed this duty, and thereby assumed the duty to do so accurately, with requisite skill, knowledge, and expertise, and in a way commensurate with his duties. These obligations necessitated a physical inspection of the Insured Property, which would have disclosed any defect, pre-existing damage, or full-replacement-costcoverage-negating condition. h. Neither Agent nor State Farm disclosed to Plaintiff that the value Agent calculated for the Insured Property and resultant full replacement cost coverage limits did not in fact represent 100% insurance to value because State Farm had already pre-ordained the denial of any claim. '7 As explained above, had Agent identified any such condition, Agent would have been required to report the same to both Plaintiff and State Farm and adjust full replacement cost coverage accordingly. 25"}, {"d": 117, "p": 47, "t": "i. Neither Agent nor State Farm disclosed to Plaintiff that State Farm would not hire, train, or contract with professionals qualified to fully evaluate the replacement costs for any and all complex damage to Plaintiff's home in the event of a covered loss. 28. Nevertheless, and under the cover of Agent’s strategic and material omissions, Agent marketed, sold, procured, and bound full replacement cost coverage without limitation. State Farm issued the Policy. Agent, by virtue of these acts, represented that Plaintiff was covered under the Policy for all fortuitous losses, including all weather-related damage. 29. Given Agent’s purported expertise and specialized knowledge of insurance policies, Plaintiff reasonably relied on Agent for the same. B. State Farm Uses a Form Policy to Perpetuate the Scheme 30. State Farm uses a form replacement cost policy to issue homeowners insurance coverage in Oklahoma.'® This form policy is integral to the Initiatives-driven Scheme: the scope of coverage for each insured State Farm subjects to its Initiatives is effectively and materially the same, notwithstanding differences in coverage amounts or premiums paid or endorsements added to bolster or strip away full replacement cost coverage. 31. State Farm and its agents (like Agent) represent the form policy to be a replacement cost policy. Just as with any subject property insured under a form policy, the coverage limit for the Insured Property is keyed to its replacement cost value, such that the Policy should afford an amount of coverage that represents the full amount needed to replace the Insured Property in the event ofa loss. State Farm, through its agents, voluntarily assumes the responsibility of calculating both the replacement cost value and the resultant coverage limit for the insured. '§ Plaintiff does not assail the rates State Farm charges (i.e., premiums) for full replacement cost coverage. Plaintiff does not allege the terms of State Farm’s form policy to be unlawful, but rather that State Farm and Agent’s conduct is an unlawful breach that is inconsistent with the four comers of the Policy and Agent’s representations thereto. Plaintiff disclaims any invocation of the filed rate doctrine. 26"}, {"d": 117, "p": 48, "t": "32. State Farm’s replacement cost policy functions like an “all risk” policy: that is, if the policy does not expressly exclude a loss, then the policy should afford full replacement cost coverage for the loss pursuant to the loss clause. The policy speaks only to “accidental direct physical loss” therefrom, with no other limitation or definition disclosed. COVERAGE A - DWELLING We wil pay for accidental direct physical loss fo the property described in Coverage A, unless the loss is excluded or imited in SECTION | - LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. However, loss does not include and we will not pay forg any diminution in value. 33. The policy does not define, limit, or otherwise mitigate full replacement cost coverage for tornado, wind- and/or hail-storm damage outside of “accidental direct physical loss” therefrom, and merely restricts coverage on water losses under very limited, specific conditions (which are not present here).!” The policy does not provide any limitations on how or when such full replacement cost coverage will apply. It does not specify, condition, define, or limit full replacement cost coverage in any way. However, these very real limitations exist in State Farm claims handling procedures, which lie obscured beyond the view and understanding of the insured until the insured files a claim and confronts the Initiatives. 34. Onits face, State Farm’s policy merely purports to provide the insured the broadest form of full replacement cost coverage available today. State Farm’s policy cover page (and, therefore, Plaintiff's Policy’s cover page) states as follows: ' The Policy purports to restrict coverage on water claims attributed to “water below the surface of the ground” and non-sudden (“continuous,” “intermittent,” or “gradual”) leakage; otherwise, where the loss is caused by a freeze, the Policy will not cover damage resulting from the insured’s failure to use reasonable care in either (i) maintaining the heat of the home at fifty-five degrees Fahrenheit, or (ii) draining water systems. None of these conditions are present here. 27"}, {"d": 117, "p": 49, "t": "a & Statefarm —EEE—————————— This policy is one of the broadest forms available today. and provides you with outstanding value for your In- surance dollars. However, we want to point out that every policy contains limitations and exclusions. Please read your policy carefully, especially “Losses Not insured” and sii exclusions. State Farme® Homeowners Policy C. State Farm Employs an Array of Bad Fath Claims Handling Tactics to Perpetuate the Scheme 35. State Farm’s Scheme then turns on a series of bad-faith claims handling tactics, which help State Farm justify its denial of valid claims. These tactics, along with State Farm’s agent’s complicity (described above), are all part of State Farm’s Initiatives—enterprise-wide programs State Farm implemented through its property and casualty claims department to reduce its indemnity losses on valid roof and water claims. The Initiatives included an array of claims handling practices that are wholly absent from the policy and any withheld from the insured (until, of course, State Farm ambushes the insured with a denial). These practices include, but are not limited to, the following: 36. State Farm employs a narrow and limited definitions and qualifications (as well as restrictive claims handling protocols) for covered losses. This allows State Farm adjusters to deny claims even when their loss inspection clearly shows what the insured believes to be a covered loss under the Policy (i.e., hail damage to the insured roof, or water pouring from the ceiling). State Farm’s narrow and limited definitions/qualifications are absent from the four corners of the policy and hidden from the insured until State Farm uses them to deny a valid claim. State Farm’s captive agents (including Agent here) are fully aware of the narrow and limited 28"}, {"d": 117, "p": 50, "t": "definitions/qualifications; however, this critical disclosure is concealed and State Farm’s insureds are wholly unaware of coverage limitations until they suffer a loss, file a claim, and receive a denial. It is only when the insured becomes the latest victim of State Farm’s Initiatives that the insured learns of State Farm’s internal limitations to its coverage. 37. State Farm’s adjusters misattribute damage to non-covered causes of loss. State Farm’s adjusters find damage to the insured property but attribute that damage to a noncovered cause of loss—most commonly, “wear and tear,” “pre-existing damage,” or “manufacturer defect.” State Farm often misclassifies wind/hail damage to roof shingles as “granular loss,” and water damage as “water below the surface of the ground,” or “continuous,” “intermittent,” or “gradual” leakage. These mischaracterizations fly in the face of Defendants’ representations and/or material omissions, which are inherent to the act of procuring, binding, and renewing full replacement cost coverage. In many instances, this is stated plainly on State Farm’s denial letter. In other instances (particularly where the Policy does not allow for dismissing the damage as noncovered, pre-existing damage, as with Plaintiff's Water Claim), the adjuster simply and deliberately fails to acknowledge the damage at all. Yet there is, indeed, patent damage such that the insured was compelled to file the claim. The adjuster simply fails to record it as a covered cause of loss—thereby implying that the damage was caused by some other, non-covered cause. Critically, Defendants expressly and/or impliedly represent that the Insured Property qualifies for the full replacement cost coverage bound by virtue of the act of binding the full replacement cost coverage. Thus, if any part of the home suffered from a design defect, pre-existing damage, or substantial wear and tear, that part may not qualify for full replacement cost coverage (whether at inception or annual renewal). This should be detected by the Agent’s inspection and inform some change in full replacement cost coverage. These defects cannot accrue or appear by fiat in the mere 29"}, {"d": 117, "p": 51, "t": "months between the most recent policy renewal and the date of loss. It is, at best, duplicitous for Defendants to, on one hand, tell the insured that the property fully qualifies under State Farm’s underwriting rules for the full replacement cost coverage bound and then, with the other, tell the insured that it in fact did not. This is exemplary ambush claims-handling and prima facie bad faith. 38. State Farm adjusters misstate the date of loss. If the insured is unable to pinpoint the exact date of loss, State Farm’s adjuster uses the opportunity to further the Initiatives and justify State Farm’s pre-ordained denial of the claim. In these instances, State Farm adjusters review the Accuweather data and choose a date of loss that shows insufficient hail occurred to constitute a covered claim under its clandestine rules. If the insured pinpoints a date certain for the date of loss, State Farm may still use Accuweather to justify its wrongful denial of the insured’s hail damage claim. 39. State Farm frustrates and delays claimants’ efforts to dispute its claim denials. State Farm employs its bad faith Initiatives with the understanding that the vast majority of its victims have neither the contracting expertise to identify, nor the bargaining power to challenge, the fraudulent and bad faith nature of its claim denials. Typically, State Farm’s victims are left clueless about State Farm’s wrongful conduct. When an insured does question State Farm on its wrongful denial of a claim, State Farm employs any combination of bad faith delay tactics with two goals: (a) to misdirect insureds from ascertaining its actionable conduct, and (b) to wear down insureds with the hope they would not diligently pursue every cent State Farm owes them. 40. In addition, State Farm subjects its insureds to arbitrary limits on the time to file claims, manipulates damage findings to ensure losses fall under the policy deductible, and even employs its hand-chosen engineering firms (who are dependent on State Farm for business) to drum up sham reports that rubber-stamp its adjusters’ misrepresentations. 30"}, {"d": 117, "p": 52, "t": "41. Each of these aforementioned bad-faith claims handling tactics perpetuates State Farm’s Initiatives and allows State Farm to deny valid property insurance claims. State Farm trains its claims handling personnel to implement these tactics. State Farm trains its captive agents (like Agent) to market, sell, and bind full replacement cost coverage in a way that allows the Scheme to carry forward undetected. D. Defendants Subjected Plaintiff to the Initiatives-Driven Scheme 42. The manner in which State Farm handled Plaintiff's Claims illustrates Defendants’ bad faith conduct: Plaintiff's Roof Claim a. The Insured Property was damaged during a significant wind- and hailstorm which ravaged numerous properties throughout Oklahoma County in approximately spring of 2021. The Insured Property sustained severe wind and hail damage across a substantial portion of its custom-made clay tile roof, requiring substantial, costly replacements. The storm—which was powerful enough to thrust a tree into the property—shattered and scattered large portions of the clay roofing across the Insured Property. The storm also destroyed valuable decorative items on the Insured Property, including a driveway pedestal and hand-crafted sculptures. b. Due to the unique nature of the damaged structures, Plaintiff retained the professional custom home services of Gumerson Blake Design Build and Goodman Construction, LLC to inspect the Insured Property. The companies identified and photographed vast damage caused by the storm and estimated tens of thousands of dollars in replacement costs for such damage. C. Plaintiff properly and timely submitted the Roof Claim to State Farm for the wind and hail damage after the storm. 31"}, {"d": 117, "p": 53, "t": "d. State Farm sent an adjuster and/or a third-party inspector to inspect the Insured Property pursuant to the Roof Claim. State Farm’s adjuster conducted an inadequate inspection and failed to report the vast majority of valid damage to the Insured Property as a covered loss. e. Following State Farm’s fraudulent inspection, State Farm wrongfully denied Plaintiffs Roof Claim. State Farm’s wrongful denial forced Plaintiff to incur substantial out-of-pocket expenses for the repair/replacement of the valid storm damage. Plaintiff’s Water Claim f. On information and belief, on December 26-27, 2022, the Insured Property’s above-ground pipes burst throughout the home. g. The burst pipes caused immense flooding throughout the entirety of Plaintiff's home: ground floor, second floor, basement, and even exterior areas such as the porch. The damage was catastrophic. Water accumulation collapsed many ceilings, walls, and light fixtures, and scattered waves of debris throughout the home: 32"}, {"d": 117, "p": 56, "t": "h. Water rained from the ceilings and poured from ground-level entries and exits for days. Plaintiff's floorings were completely destroyed. Weather exposure caused standing water to freeze. Electrical hubs, fixtures, and outlets were flooded, creating significantly hazardous conditions. i. The loss left the entire home utterly destroyed and with unimaginable restoration costs. j. To make matters worse, Plaintiff was not even home during the disaster — he had just left town on vacation to attend a college football game.”” He was notified of the situation by his neighbor, who sent him a video of water rushing out of the home and down its driveway. k. Immediately following the loss, Plaintiff, through Agent, submitted the Water Claim to State Farm and—based on Agent’s advising that State Farm would reimburse for the costs of restorations and repairs—began paying out-of-pocket for such restorations and repairs. l. On or about March 7, 2023—ten weeks after the loss—State Farm sent an inspector to the Insured Property. The inspector was woefully underqualified to properly assess the complex and variable types of damage involved in the loss, which spanned various locations and systems throughout the home. m. On information and belief, Ted Wade with Gumerson Blake Design Build was present for the inspection. However, Mr. Wade’s presence did not deter State Farm’s adjuster from his marching orders; just as with the Roof Claim, the inspector massively 0 Prior to leaving town, Plaintiff ensured the home was left heated above 55 degrees Fahrenheit, and no water systems/appliances were left running or undrained. 35"}, {"d": 117, "p": 57, "t": "underreported the home’s damage and spent little if any time ascertaining appropriate replacement costs. n. In demonstration of the pre-textual nature of State Farm’s decision on the Water Claim, State Farm issued its damage estimate to Plaintiff the same day the home was inspected—an unbelievable feat considering the vast, varying damage and sophistication required to accurately assess such damage. Of course, this estimate reflected fraudulent, underreported damage nowhere near the replacement cost of damage to Plaintiff's home. o. In total, State Farm’s estimate provided a cost of $6,466.54 for the damage, which fell far short of the home’s $53,925.00 deductible and thereby resulted in a complete denial of the Claim. p. As Plaintiff would later discover through various, ongoing restoration efforts, State Farm’s denial of the Water Claim was wrongful, fraudulent, pre-textual, in bad faith, and in violation of the terms of the Policy, as the true replacement cost for such damage was, on information and belief, more than fifty times higher than the amount State Farm reported. On information and belief, the only way State Farm could ignore such a large amount of patent damage is by dismissing it as a non-covered loss, i.e., “water below the surface of the ground,” and “continuous,” “intermittent,” or “gradual” leakage. Of course, neither is a plausible explanation for the damage. q. On information and belief, when Plaintiff submitted invoices, receipts, etc., for repairs and replacements to damage caused by the loss, State Farm—in direct violation of its contractual obligations as well as its duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to 36"}, {"d": 117, "p": 58, "t": "Plaintiff—simply disregarded such evidence of the replacement cost of such damage and refused to provide proper coverage to Plaintiff. Defendants’ Failures r. On information and belief, in furtherance of the Initiatives, Agent never inspected the Insured Property and otherwise failed to verify the condition of the Insured Property at any time, yet Agent sold and renewed full replacement cost coverage recklessly and blindly. This signaled to Plaintiff that the Insured Property continually satisfied State Farm’s underwriting guidelines and qualified for 100% full replacement cost coverage without any adjustments or depreciation for age, condition, etc. However, this tuned out to be untrue once State Farm wrongfully denied the Claims based on pre-existing, noncovered causes of loss that negated Plaintiff's full replacement cost coverage. Indeed, Agent failed to disclose to Plaintiff any defects and pre-existing damage/defect that would preclude full replacement cost coverage despite being required to in accordance with State Farm’s underwriting guidelines. S. Any pre-existing damage or conditions should have been identified by Agent at Policy inception and renewals and disclosed to Plaintiff and State Farm as such that would disqualify Plaintiff from full replacement cost coverage. Instead, Agent failed to verify whether any other pre-existing, non-covered cause of loss existed. Agent’s failed underwriting duties and failure to disclose crucial information affecting the Insured Property’s eligibility for replacement cost coverage allowed State Farm to ambush Plaintiff with a Claim denial. Plaintiff was subjected to the Initiatives. t. Additionally, Agent’s representation to Plaintiff that State Farm would pay for any restorations/repairs on the Water Claim if Plaintiff provided receipts for 37"}, {"d": 117, "p": 59, "t": "such efforts was a blatant misrepresentation of the Policy’s coverage, as demonstrated by State Farm’s absolute refusals to do so. u. Moreover, State Farm’s conduct in handling the Water Claim demonstrates egregious bad faith. State Farm put forth no effort to fully, fairly, or timely investigate the Water Claim, and its fraudulent estimate sharply reflected such failures. When presented with evidence (i.e., damage assessments, invoices, receipts, etc.) demonstrating the replacement costs of the damage associated with the Water Claim were far, far higher than what State Farm asserted, rather than correct its decision, State Farm instead doubled down and again refused to provide coverage owed to Plaintiff. V. To date, State Farm wrongfully withheld the full replacement cost benefits to which Plaintiff is rightfully entitled to under the Policy. State Farm left Plaintiff with no other option but to retain counsel and file the present lawsuit in order to recover the full replacement cost benefits rightfully owed to him. As such, State Farm’s conduct constitutes a violation of the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act. 36 O.S. § 1250.13 “Compelling, without just cause, policyholders to institute suits to_ recover amounts due _ under its insurance policies or insurance contracts by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in suits brought by them, when the policyholders have made claims for amounts reasonably similar to the amounts ultimately recovered.”) (emphasis added). Ww. State Farm has established a pattern and practice of forcing insureds to file lawsuits to obtain their full replacement cost benefits. This is due to State Farm’s costbenefit analysis that led to its decision to create the Initiatives and resultant Scheme. The Initiatives are premised on the notion that most insureds will simply accept State Farm’s bad faith investigation and evaluation of their claims and will not pursue a lawsuit. This is 38"}, {"d": 117, "p": 60, "t": "bad faith, and any post-litigation claim payments should have been issued early on in the claims when the degree of covered damage was evident. X. State Farm ultimately stood on its initial decisions on both claims and made no efforts to reassess the claims—or even entertain evidence clearly demonstrating its mishandling the claims—and provide Plaintiff coverage as he requested and as Agent specifically, affirmatively promised. To date, Defendants’ conducts have cost Plaintiff hundreds of thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses, with additional out-of-pocket expenses being incurred as Plaintiff continues to repair and replace damage from the water loss. IV. 43. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT Allallegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Petition are fully incorporated as if each were fully set forth herein. 44. Fraudulent concealment and/or the discovery rule tolls the statute of limitations on each of Plaintiff's Claims and precludes State Farm from asserting a limitations defense. Morgan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2021 OK 27, J 3, 488 P.3d 743, 745 (fraudulent concealment applies to breach of contract actions); F.D.L.C. v. UMIC, Inc., 136 F.3d 1375, 1380 (10th Cir. 1998) (fraudulent concealment applies to claims for negligence); Smith v. Baptist Foundation of Okla., 2002 OK 57, § 8, 50 P.3d 1132, 1138 (discovery rule applies to constructive fraud); see also N.C. Corff Partnership, Ltd. y. OXY USA, Inc., 1996 OK CIV APP 92, 929 P.2d 288 (applying the discovery rule to cause of action, in part, alleging unjust enrichment). 45. “Ifa defendant fraudulently conceals material facts and thereby prevents a plaintiff from discovering his wrong or the fact that a cause of action has accrued against him, the limitations period is tolled.” Morgan, 488 P.3d at 753 (citing Masquat v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 2008 OK 67, 4 18, 195 P.3d 48, 55) (inner quotations omitted); see also Masquat, supra (tolling 39"}, {"d": 117, "p": 61, "t": "under fraudulent concealment is supported where one had no means of ascertaining knowledge of the cause of action through the exercise of ordinary prudence; “[W]hen there is some actual artifice or some affirmative act of concealment, or some misrepresentation which induces the other party to inaction, or to forgo inquiry, the guilty party may not cover up the harm he has thus wrought by aid of the statute of limitations.”) (citation omitted). 46. The Initiatives are an artifice State Farm designed to be hidden from its insureds’ discovery. To wit, the inherent nature of State Farm’s “good neighbor” promises—the duty of good faith and fair dealing State Farm owes its insureds—makes the artifice appear reliable. Insureds of ordinary prudence have no means of discovering the Initiatives-driven Scheme or their right to pursue recovery under the law. 47. Throughout the life of Plaintiff's Claims, Defendants engaged in affirmative acts to conceal State Farm’s Scheme-dictated breach of contract, pattern and practice of bad faith claims-handling tactics, and constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation such that Plaintiff had no way of reasonably ascertaining such claims against it. Defendants’ repeatedly selling Plaintiff an insurance policy which would never actually provide coverage, while representing to Plaintiff that such policy would, in fact, allow for coverage, all while withholding material information about State Farm’s bad-faith tactics to deprive coverage on valid claims, left Plaintiff clueless as to the actionable nature of Defendants’ conducts. 48. It was not until years later, as State Farm would fail to reimburse Plaintiff for repairs/replacements for the damage, that Plaintiff was able to discover the malicious nature of Defendants’ conducts. 49. Agent actively concealed State Farm’s misconduct and the illusory nature of the Policy by insisting to Plaintiff that State Farm would eventually provide proper coverage if 40"}, {"d": 117, "p": 62, "t": "Plaintiff continued to pay out-of-pocket for repairs. As a diligent homeowner, Plaintiff paid (and continues to pay) for such repairs and submitted this information to State Farm, yet State Farm has yet to provide the promised coverage. At this point, Plaintiff realizes State Farm will not, nor did it ever intend to, provide Plaintiff with proper coverage. 50. Defendants’ affirmative and active concealment of their actionable misconduct tolls any applicable limitations period. Vv. COUNTS COUNT ONE: BREACH OF CONTRACT Against Defendant State Farm 51. Allallegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Petition are fully incorporated as if each were fully set forth herein. 52. Plaintiff entered into a contract of insurance (the Policy) with State Farm to provide homeowner’s insurance for the Insured Property. The Policy was in full force and effect at all material times hereto. 53. Plaintiff provided proper and timely notice to State Farm of Plaintiff's Claims for substantial damage to the Insured Property. 54. The Policy purports to cover all fortuitous losses—which necessarily and specifically includes damage sustained by wind/hail and water loss. The Policy language does not define, distinguish, or limit wind and/or hail damage in any fashion, and merely restricts coverage on water losses under very specific conditions (none of which are present here, see supra at n.19). 55. Plaintiff complied in all material ways with the terms and conditions of the Policy. 56. State Farm breached its contractual obligations under the terms and conditions of Policy by failing to pay Plaintiff all benefits owed under the terms and conditions of the Policy and for wrongfully underpaying and denying the Claims. 41"}, {"d": 117, "p": 63, "t": "57. Consistent with State Farm’s pervasive, systemic, fraudulent Initiatives described in detail throughout this Petition, State Farm actively, intentionally, and fraudulently concealed its Scheme to deny valid claims from Plaintiff. See supra at [§ 44-50. This concealment is an inherent and important aspect of State Farm’s Scheme, as State Farm knows its Initiatives would work only if kept secret. 58. Asaresult of State Farm’s breach of contract and other wrongful conduct, Plaintiff incurred damages. COUNT II: BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (“Bad Faith”) Against Defendant State Farm 59, Allallegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Petition are fully incorporated as if each were fully set forth herein. Farm owed Plaintiff a duty of good faith and fair 60. Atall relevant times hereto, State 61. State Farm knowingly, intentionally, purposefully, wrongfully, and repeatedly dealing. breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith by engaging in at least the following acts and omissions: a. knowingly engaging in a pattern and practice of i. denial-oriented investigations and claims-handling practices; ii. arbitrary and capricious claims handling; iii. denying and/or underpaying indemnity payments owed to its firstparty insureds , including Plaintiff, on valid claims; iv. withholding pertinent benefits, coverages, and other provisions owed to Plaintiff in violation of the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, 36 O.S. §§1250.1-1250.16; 42"}, {"d": 117, "p": 64, "t": "Vv. limiting and/or denying rights inherent to Plaintiff; Vi. recklessly disregarding said rights; Vii. forcing Plaintiff to retain counsel to recover insurance benefits owed under the terms and conditions of the Policy; Vili. manipulating claims to ensure damages fall below the policy deductible; ix. ignoring valid damage; engaging in the pattern and practice of denying full roof replacement claims by asserting pre-existing damages or defects without a preinception property inspection and/or without reasonably updated knowledge of the pre-loss condition of the subject property; Xi. implementing the Wind/Hail Focus Initiative with the goal of reducing indemnity payments and denying full roof replacements to policyholders like the Plaintiff on valid wind and hail claims; Xii. implementing the Water Initiative to wrongfully preclude coverage on valid water losses, like Plaintiff's Water Claim; xiii. utilizing biased third-party adjusters and/or engineers who advance State Farm’s Initiatives outlined herein by consistently writing reports and estimates to deny valid claims; b. knowingly and purposely failing to i. maintain current information as to the condition of the Insured Property prior to the loss; 43"}, {"d": 117, "p": 65, "t": "ii. notify Plaintiff, both prior to and at the inception and renewal of the Policy, of any pre-existing damage and other conditions it may have been aware of that would limit full replacement cost coverage if a claim was made; lil. communicate all coverages and benefits applicable to the Claims, iv. perform a proper, timely, fair, and objective investigation of the Claims; pay the full and fair amount for the hail damage sustained to the Insured Property in accordance with the Policy’s terms and conditions; Vi. base its denial of the Claims on valid, accurate, and reasonable grounds; Vil. disclose the Initiatives and related bad faith tactics to Plaintiff; Vili. disclose State Farm’s lack of compliance with its own underwriting guidelines, policies, and procedures in denying full replacement cost coverage to Plaintiff; and ix. hire, train, or contract with personnel qualified to fully assess and determine full replacement costs of complex water losses. 62. State Farm’s conduct, as described above, constitutes bad faith and is a material breach of the terms and conditions of the Policy and its underlying insurance contract between the parties. State Farm has no reasonable basis in its refusal to recognize and pay Plaintiff the agreed replacement cost as per the Policy for damages caused by the damage to the Insured Property. 44"}, {"d": 117, "p": 66, "t": "63. | Asaconsequence of State Farm’s breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff sustained damages, including deprivation of monies rightfully belonging to Plaintiff, and ordinary or garden variety harm of anger, stress, worry, physical and emotional suffering that naturally results from an insurance failure. 64. State Farm’s conduct was intentional, willful, malicious, and/or in reckless disregard of the rights of others. State Farm’s actions during the handling of the Claims demonstrate it acted intentionally and with malice and breached its duty to deal fairly and in good faith. State Farm’s actions were consistent with an overall collective corporate goal of decreasing indemnity losses and thereby increasing profits through the systematic underpayment and denial of high-value claims. The Initiatives are sufficiently egregious in nature so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. 65. State Farm’s Initiatives demonstrate an enterprise-wide “pattern” theory of bad- faith conduct, liability for which is cognizable under Oklahoma law. See 12 Okla. Stat. § 2406, Vining v. Enter. Fin. Group, 148 F.3d 1206, 1218 (10th Cir. 1998) (where Plaintiffs sought to prove insured’s pattern and practice of bad faith conduct, evidence regarding other insureds was relevant to show defendant “acted in this case under Federal Rule of Evidence 406 (habit)”); see also Metzger v. Am. Fid. Assur. Co., 2007 WL 4342082, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 7, 2007); Markham v. National States Ins. Co., 122 Fed. Appx. 392 (10th Cir. 2004) (evidence of nationwide rescission practice supported bad faith); Barnes v. Okla. Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co., 2000 OK 55, 11 P.3d 162, 170 (“insurer’s unreasonable treatment of Barnes was not an isolated incident, but the same or similar tactic was used by insurer repeatedly with other insureds”; awarding actual and punitive damages); Copeland v. Tela Corp., 2003 OK CIV APP 98, § 3, 79 P.3d 1128 (confirming no abuse of discretion in allowing evidence of habit evidence under 12 O.S. § 2406 45"}, {"d": 117, "p": 67, "t": "to show pattern and practice conduct.); Jones v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 2012 WL 12863976 (W.D. Okla) (court holds that similar claims are relevant to Plaintiffs’ contract claim and the Claim of bad faith in that they may show a pattern and practice). 66. State Farm acted in bad faith by implementing the Initiatives which resulted in its wrongful denial of Plaintiff's Claims. These denials achieved by the Initiatives were entirely predetermined and executed in bad faith. 67. State Farm recklessly disregarded and/or intentionally and maliciously breached its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith entitling Plaintiff to recover punitive damages. 68. State Farm enjoyed increased financial benefits and ill-gotten gains as a direct result of the wrongful conduct described herein. 69. As a result of State Farm’s conduct, Plaintiff sustained damages, including deprivation of monies rightfully belonging to Plaintiff, and ordinary or garden variety harm of anger, stress, worry, physical and emotional suffering. COUNT II: NEGLIGENT PROCUREMENT OF INSURANCE Against Agent 70. Allallegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Petition are fully incorporated as if each were fully set forth herein. 71. At all material times hereto, Agent acted as State Farm’s agent and/or employee. State Farm is thereby vicariously liable for the Agent’s conduct. 72. In procuring the Policy, Agent had a duty to: a. use reasonable care, skill, and diligence to procure full replacement cost coverage as the insured requested that meets the insured’s stated needs; b. use reasonable care, skill, and diligence in undertaking the calculation of replacement cost for the insured; 46"}, {"d": 117, "p": 68, "t": "speak accurately and truthfully by informing Plaintiff of all full replacement C. cost coverages, advising Plaintiff of the benefits, risks, limitations and exclusions thereof, and perform a reasonable inspection of the Insured Property prior to procuring the full replacement cost coverage and thereafter upon renewal to ensure no changes to the Policy were necessary or required; and disclose all material facts with respect to the Initiatives and their coverage- d. precluding effects as outlined within this Petition. 73. Agent breached Agent’s duty owed to Plaintiff by: a. Knowingly and purposefully procuring and renewing i. _ illegitimate full replacement cost coverage (in that all fortuitous losses are not covered under the Policy); ii. a policy which deviated substantially and materially from the full replacement cost coverage Plaintiff requested and Agent’s own representations as to coverage under the Policy; iii. a Policy that did not accurately reflect the replacement cost of the Insured Property (i.e., an amount that was 100% insurance to value as represented); iv. a Policy that, as written, did not provide full replacement cost coverage to fully restore the Insured Property back to its pre-loss condition; b. Failing to i. follow and abide by State Farm’s underwriting policies/guidelines; ii. perform or arrange for all necessary inspections of the Insured Property; 47"}, {"d": 117, "p": 69, "t": "lil. confirm the accuracy of the pre-filled information provided by State Farm’s replacement cost estimating tool; iv. disclose pre-existing damage to the Insured Property; verify whether its inherent representation to State Farm and Plaintiff that the Insured Property (including the roof) was in good condition was accurate; Vi. verify its promise that State Farm would cover all out-of-pocket expenses Plaintiff spent on repair/replacement of valid damage, and thereafter convey to Plaintiff that this was untrue; Vii. procure and renew a policy that provided the requested full replacement cost coverage for all fortuitous losses; and Vill. disclose all material facts of the Initiatives as outlined within this Petition. 74. Plaintiff relied on Agent’s representations (including that State Farm would fully cover all out-of-pocket expenses on repairs/replacement) and omissions to his substantial detriment. 75. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff sustained damages, including deprivation of monies rightfully belonging to Plaintiff, and ordinary or garden variety harm of anger, stress, worry, physical and emotional suffering. 76. Defendants’ conduct was intentional, willful, malicious and in reckless disregard of the rights of others and is sufficiently egregious in nature so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. Defendants acted intentionally and maliciously, and breached duties owed to 48"}, {"d": 117, "p": 70, "t": "Plaintiff. Defendants’ actions were consistent with their overall collective corporate goal of increasing profits through the systematic underpayment and denial of claims. COUNT IV: CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION Against All Defendants 77. Allallegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Petition are fully incorporated as if each were fully set forth herein. 78. Defendants owed Plaintiff a legal and/or equitable duty to disclose all material facts that may arise out of their relationship as insurer and insured. Croslin v. Enerlex, Inc., 2013 OK 34, 9 17, 308 P.3d 1041. 79. The concealment of a material fact which substantially affects another person constitutes fraud. Patel v. OMH Medical Center, Inc., 1999 OK 33, § 34; Sutton v. David Stanley Chevrolet, 2020 OK 87, 475 P.3d 847. Fraudulent representations may consist of half-truths ‘calculated to deceive, and a representation literally true is actionable if used to create an impression substantially false. Sutton, 475 P.3d at 15. Where the peculiar circumstances give rise to a duty on the part of one of the parties to a contract to disclose material facts and the party remains silent to his or her benefit and to the other party's detriment, the failure to speak constitutes fraud. Id. (citing Croslin, 80. 417) (emphasis added). “[A] variety of facts and circumstances [] will give rise to a duty to disclose material facts.” The Sutton Court reiterated that it has “consistently found the existence of the requisite circumstances, i.¢., that which is necessary to create a duty to disclose, when the offending party created a false impression concerning material facts that was relied upon by the other party to his detriment and to the benefit of the offending party.” Jd. at 15. 81. A negligent or innocent misrepresentation or concealment for constructive fraud occurs when one who, in the course of his business, profession, or employment, or in any other 49"}, {"d": 117, "p": 71, "t": "transaction in which he has a pecuniary interest, supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions, is subject to liability for pecuniary loss caused to them by their justifiable reliance upon the information, if he fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information. Negligent misrepresentation can also be based on a material omission. See Lopez v. Rollins, 2013 OK CIV APP 43, 303 P.3d 911; Sutton v. David Stanley Chevrolet, 2020 OK 87; Stroud v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 2001 OK 76, 37 P.3d 783; Ragland v. Shattuck Nat’! Bank, 36 F.3d 983, 992 (10th Cir. 1994) (applying Oklahoma law). 82. Defendants owed specific duties to Plaintiff. These duties are encompassed in State Farm’s duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to its insureds, as well as specific duties Agent owed Plaintiff—a duty to exercise reasonable diligence and skill in obtaining and accurately notifying of the nature and character of the insurance procured, the duty in undertaking the calculation of replacement cost for the insured to use reasonable care, skill, and diligence to do so, the duty to speak accurately and truthfully, and the duty to disclose all material facts relating to the Initiatives as outlined within this Petition. 83. Defendants breached this duty by misrepresenting, concealing, or omitting pertinent material facts from Plaintiff, including (but not limited to) the following: a. Defendants misrepresented the Insured Property met all underwriting requirements, that all property inspections had occurred, and that the replacement cost values it calculated were accurate and commensurate with reconstruction costs such that the full replacement cost coverage would fully restore, replace and/or repair the Insured Property in the event of a loss by a covered event. b. Defendants misrepresented that the Insured Property (and, specifically, its roof) was eligible for the comprehensive full replacement cost coverage (rather than ACV). 50"}, {"d": 117, "p": 72, "t": "C. Defendants failed to disclose that pre-existing issues with the Insured Property would either prevent issuance of or limit the full replacement cost coverage for any damage during the Policy period. d. Agent the misrepresented procurement of the comprehensive full replacement cost coverage Plaintiff requested. €. Agent misrepresented that State Farm would cover all out-of-pocket expenses Plaintiff incurred for repair/replacement of valid damage to his home. f. Defendants misrepresented that the Policy covered all fortuitous losses and that weather-related damage (even cosmetic)—big or small—was fully covered under the Policy. g. Defendants failed to disclose all material information to an insured about State Farm’s bad faith claims handling tactics, its reliance on undisclosed definitions and standards outside of the Policy, internal and external complaints about State Farm’s handling of valid homeowners insurance claims, and other material information any insured would deem reasonable in making a purchasing decision. h. Defendants failed to disclose to Plaintiff any of the above misrepresentations and/or omissions, any facts underlying these misrepresentations, or any material facts regarding the Initiatives implemented with the goal of reducing insurance payments to policyholders like the Plaintiff on valid property claims or State Farm’s use of biased third-party adjusters and/or engineers who further implement the Initiatives outlined herein by consistently writing fraudulent reports and estimates to effectuate State Farm’s wrongful claim denials. 51"}, {"d": 117, "p": 73, "t": "84. Nevertheless, Agent procured, bound, sold, and—together with State Farm— renewed, illusory full replacement cost coverage to Plaintiff knowing such representations were untrue. 85. As a result of both State Farm and Agent’s breaches of duty, each gained an advantage by misleading Plaintiff to substantial detriment and prejudice. These breaches of duty induced Plaintiff to accept, purchase, and renew the Policy. 86. State Farm and Agent’s misrepresentations constitute constructive fraud. 87. Atall relevant times, Agent was State Farm’s employee and/or agent. 88. As a result of the Defendants’ constructive fraud, Plaintiff sustained damages, including deprivation of monies rightfully belonging to Plaintiff, and ordinary or garden variety harm of anger, stress, worry, physical and emotional suffering. 89. Defendants’ conduct was intentional, willful, malicious, and in reckless disregard of the rights of others, and/or was grossly negligent, and is sufficiently egregious in nature so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. VI. WHEREFORE, PRAYER FOR RELIEF this Court should enter judgment on behalf of Plaintiff against all Defendants for: (a) Actual damages in an amount in excess of $75,000; (b) Punitive damages under Oklahoma law; (c) Disgorgement of the increased financial benefits derived by any and/or all of the Defendants as a direct result of the Defendants’ wrongful conduct; and (d) Prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. 52"}, {"d": 117, "p": 74, "t": "Respectfully submitted, Danie waitin Réggid W. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS’ LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 53"}, {"d": 117, "p": 75, "t": "Case 4:23-cv-00@B-HSG Document 45 Filed 12/3 Kel SCHAFFER KERLEY Page 1 of 68 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 900 LLP Oakland, California 94612 t 510.379.5801 | £510.228.0350 December 27, 2023 Honorable Alex G. Tse United States Magistrate Judge Oakland Courthouse, Courtroom A — 15\" Floor 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Re: Wise et al. v. State Farm General Ins. Co. United States District Court Case No. 23-cv-00163-HSG-AGT Dear Judge Tse: The Parties submit the following joint letter regarding a discovery dispute. Plaintiffs’ Position In January 2022, the Wise family suffered damage to the first floor of their home when a plumbing fixture below their kitchen sink failed, flooding the home. State Farm never inspected the house, or hired a plumber, contractor, engineer, or construction forensic expert to investigate. Instead, State Farm assigned a fraud investigator who had never investigated a water loss to conduct its coverage inquiry. After its brief investigation State Farm denied the loss, asserting it was excluded under the policy. The Wise loss was denied based on two exclusions in the policy relating to (a) seepage and leakage of water over a period of time and (b) wear and tear of the plumbing fixture. That in mind, in September 2023, Plaintiff served requests for production which sought guidelines and training materials relating to the investigate and adjusting of water losses specifically aimed at understanding how State Farm investigates and decides coverage. . Such documents are indisputably relevant and discoverable in an insurance bad faith case, without regard for whether the personnel at issue in any given claim reviewed or relied on the materials during the Wise claim.” Plaintiffs also sought training transcripts for the relevant claims handlers and supervisors.’ On October 30, 2023, State Farm responded with boilerplate objections, but promised to produce “the relevant 1 Exhibit A (requests 20-24); State Farm’s responses are Exhibit B. ? Miranda y. First Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL 2441762, at *4 (N.D.Cal.,2011); Zewdu v. Citigroup Long Term Disability Plan, 264 F.R.D. 622, 628 (N.D. Cal., 2010); McCurdy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 2007 WL 915177, *4 (E.D. Cal. March 23, 2007); Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1118 (1997). 7 Exhibit A, Requests 28-35."}, {"d": 117, "p": 76, "t": "Case 4:23-cv-04@B-HSG Document 45 Filed 12/@P3 Page 2 of 68 sections of the Operation Guides along with the Standard Claim Processes applicable and in effect on the date of loss.”* State Farm gave Plaintiffs no reason to conclude that the documents described in the State Farm responses were not the sum of documents responsive to the requests. State Farm waited until November 27, 2023, twenty-eight days, to produce portions of its Operation Guides, along with the training transcripts. The transcript for Mackey Campbell, the claim manager responsible for the denial, included a reference to a course called “Water Skill Review.” State Farm did not produce any documents relating to the course itself. We immediately sought production of documents relating to the “Skill Review” course. Over the next several weeks, through November and December, in multiple emails, we reminded State Farm of the request. State Farm’s counsel never objected or argued that the “Skill Review” documents are not discoverable; rather, it sat on its hands. Finally, with the key Rule 30(b)(6) depositions set for the last two days of the | discovery period (December 28 and 29), on December 21, 2023, State Farm produced a 10-page Water Loss Skills Review, a test given to participants in the Water Skill Review course. The next day, Friday December 22, 2023, in the late afternoon before the | Christmas break, State Farm produced the study guide upon which the test relies, with | the heading “Water Loss Skill Review Answer Key and Resources” (Answer Key). The Answer Key contains myriad references to other “resources” available to claims staff to assist them to investigate and estimate water losses, analyze coverage, and apply the exclusions at issue, i.e., precisely the training/guidelines Plaintiffs had | ! sought months earlier. A list of the withheld materials is attached as Exhibit C, Documents 1-30. I Relatedly, but entirely distinct from the categories of documents described in the prior paragraph, in December we discovered that in very recent depositions in other suits, State Farm employees described the existence of what is known at State Farm as the “Water Loss Initiative.” In one case, the carrier described the initiative as an “effort[] in California beginning in or around 2017 to help ensure consistency in the handling of water claims in California. Claims handling personnel were provided fraining that focused on reinforcing existing principles relating to proper investigation and documentation of water loss claims. Topics included the quality first contact, gathering the facts of loss, plumbing issues, additional investigation, determining coverage, | estimates, and damage evaluation. In 2020, the settlement authority of claims handlers on water loss claims was temporarily reduced. During that period, team managers reviewed claims specialists’ water loss claims for conformance with quality claim handling expectations.” In that case, State Farm also described a large number of ‘ Exhibit B, Responses to Requests 20-24. | | | | > Jacobs v. State Farm General Insurance Company, Case No. 22STCV23445, Los Angeles Superior Court (responses to interrogatories)."}, {"d": 117, "p": 77, "t": "Case 4:23-cv-0@B-HSG Document 45 Filed 12/3 Page 3 of 68 documents relating to the Water Initiative and related training. A list of those documents, also withheld in this lawsuit, is attached as Exhibit C, Documents 31-40. Although Plaintiffs’ document requests nos. 20-24 plainly encompass the training materials related to the “Water Initiative,” State Farm has produced nothing. Its counsel and witnesses have remained silent, never mentioning the Water Loss Initiative. Plaintiffs only became aware of the names and/or categories of documents relating to State Farm’s “Water Initiative” in the last week through State Farm’s own description of the documents in its responses to interrogatories in the Jacobs matter. Those are also listed in Exhibit C. As appears, State Farm has been for months engaged in discovery abuse. In response to the requests for discoverable training and guidelines, State Farm agreed to a production which left Plaintiffs to conclude the carrier had searched for and would produce responsive documents. State Farm dragged its feet for weeks and finally made its initial production, which revealed the existence of the “Water Skills” course. Plaintiffs immediately sought production of the Skills course, and followed up multiple times over many weeks, but it was not until December 21 and 22, respectively, that State Farm produced the test and Answer Key. But far more troubling, State Farm’s delay in producing those documents now seem to have been intended to conceal the existence of myriad guidelines and training materials referenced in the Answer key. To be clear, none of these seem to be related to the Water Initiative. Of course, State Farm has also withheld all of the Water Initiativerelated documents it identified in the Jacobs case (Exhibit C, Documents 31-40). As a result of this concealment, Plaintiffs have been deprived of the opportunity to review and consider the documents, question multiple witnesses about the substance of the documents that bear on the primary issue in the case or to provide the documents to their experts. Plaintiffs have been deprived of the opportunity to examine company witnesses meaningfully and fully on topics in the concealed training, guidelines and the Water Loss Initiative documents. Given State Farm’s expansive and well-known obligations as relates to discovery requests, responses, and the production of documents, Plaintiffs request that the Court impose the following orders, or in the alternative set this matter for an evidentiary hearing after providing Plaintiffs an opportunity to question company witnesses about the search for and production of documents: e Order production within ten days of documents on Exhibit C; e Extend the discovery deadline for 60 days to permit Plaintiffs an opportunity to: o reopen three relevant depositions of claims personnel: Thiago Desouza, Mackey Campbell, and Tyria Veras; o after Plaintiffs have reviewed the documents, allow two additional depositions, including Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses on (a) the preservation,"}, {"d": 117, "p": 78, "t": "Case 4:23-cv-00QR-HSG Document 45 Filed 12/43 Page 4 of 68 search for, and production of documents responsive to the requests at issue o here and (b) the substance of the documents themselves; and litigate further disputes relating to the foregoing issues considering State Farm’s delay and concealment of the Exhibit C materials. State Farm’s Position At a few minutes before 5 p.m. on the Friday before the Christmas Holiday, plaintiffs’ counsel sent State Farm’s counsel an email advising that they would be moving to reopen discovery and demanding production of an additional 42 groups of documents identified without dates or references. Counsel followed up this email with a joint discovery letter sent on Christmas Eve demanding State Farm’s counsel respond by noon on Tuesday, December 26\", As requested, State Farm’s counsel (who has been out of the office since Friday) has done so. This appears to have been prompted by another State Farm litigation matter—not one this firm is handling. Nor were any specifics about the other suit provided—including when the loss occurred and what the time frame was for the handling of that claim. That is important because State Farm’s homeowners policy for California was revised in 2020. Moreover, State Farm claim handling training is regularly updated. Notably, the only time reference provided in Plaintiffs’ discussion of the “water initiative” is to 2017—five years before the claim at issue here which occurred in January 2022. Moreover, the list attached as Exhibit C is not part of a discovery response. The list of 40 new categories of “documents” was compiled by Plaintiffs’ counsel. The list contains no time references or explanations of why the purported documents are relevant. The scope of these documents is also extremely overbroad, including topics not connected to this claim in any way. (See #11, 17-19, 25 etc.). Many of the descriptions are also extremely vague and encompass a wide range of potentially responsive documents. (See #7, #17, 28). Most importantly, this last- minute request for additional documents deprives State Farm of the opportunity to object or even meet and confer regarding these newly requested documents. In this matter, State 27, 2023. Farm produced 2,736 pages of institutional documents on November Those included various reference materials available to claims personnel as well as the training transcripts of the State Farm personnel involved in this claim. From those transcripts, plaintiffs’ counsel identified just three training courses for which they wanted documents. Those are the subject of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production, Set Three— whose response is due on December 29th. (Attached as Exhibit D). Despite the still pending due date, State Farm has already provided the documents it located for those three courses. Moreover, plaintiffs have had the opportunity to depose the individuals who handled this claim—including Mr. Jerrell Campbell Mackey; Mr. Thiago Glora Desouza, and Ms. Tyria Veras. Those depositions were not restricted in any way, and questions regarding handling of water claims—including training, claims approaches or other subjects were all topics that counsel did or could have covered."}, {"d": 117, "p": 79, "t": "Case 4:23-cv-00QB-HSG Document 45 Filed 12/3 Page 5 of 68 Waiting until this late date to make a demand to retake depositions and for a large number of vaguely described documents without serving a request for documents is not consistent with the discovery rules. State Farm opposes plaintiffs’ attempt to end-run the discovery requirements and asks that the Court decline plaintiffs’ various proposed orders.® Date: December 26, 2023 Kerley Schaffer LLP /S/ Dylan Schaffer Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: December 27, 2023 Pacific Law Partners, LLP /S/ Sandra E. Stone Counsel for Defendant ® State Farm notes that Judge Tse has already made clear that he cannot extend the discovery cut-off."}, {"d": 117, "p": 80, "t": "Case 4:23-cv-00@-Hsc Document 45‘ EXHIBIT Filed 121°20@ Page 60 of 68 C EXHIBIT C"}, {"d": 117, "p": 81, "t": "Case 4:23-cv-00@HSG Document 45 Filed 12/2@e Page 61 of 68 EXHIBIT C Each of the courses, videos, guidelines, and other related documents listed below are named by State Farm as resources for its claims staff in the “Answer Key” recently produced by State Farm (1-30), by State Farm in the Jacobs case, in response to interrogatories, as documents pertaining to the carrier’s “Water Initiative” (30-40). or wer e identified TSE PNOORHWH > Water Damage Coverage Analysis (HW-2100 Series) Workday Water Damage Coverage Analysis (HW-2100 Series) course in Workday Water Coverage Introduction and QFC VOD Water Coverage Investigation VOD Introduction to Water Losses VOD Water Coverage - Plumbing TIPP Water Loss Scenarios course in Workday Fill-Up Water Loss VOD . Water Classes and Categories Job Aid . Quality First Contact Guide — Fire [Note: At State Farm, “Fire” is a reference to non-auto policies, including those like the policy at issue here which cover some water losses] 12. Water Mitigation- Xactimate Codes and Pricing VOD 13. Water Mitigation- Drying Equipment Catculations VOD 14. FAQs on Water Mitigation Summary Report Workflow 15. Fire Property Water Mitigation Training Support Guide -JA 16. Water Mitigation Estimate Review Job Aid 17. Estimating Topics - All 18. Xactimate- Changing a Component Price Job Aid 19. Reparability of Solid Wood Floor Coverings- Video on Demand 20. Water mitigation claim Handling Refresher 21. Water mitigation Job Aid 22. Water Category and Class 23. Wood Floor Damage Job Aid 24. Flooring Course in Workday 25. Masking Job Aid 26. Drywall/Paint/Insulation/Trim/Cabinets/Countertops in Workday 27. Water Claim Handling Estimatics Considerations 28, Xactimate - All Topics 29. Fire Property Water Mitigation Training Support Guide — JA 30. Residential Interior Floor Coverings course in Workday 31. “Water Initiative” Power Point(s) or other presentation materials. 32. California Fire Claims Discussion Resources 33. Claim Folder Claim Level- Claim Details - all topics 34. Quality Claim Handling Expectations — all topics 35. Plumbing System Fill-ups and Sewer Backups ~ Defined; 36. Homeowners Policy, Section | Property, Coverage Model; 37. California Fire Claims Discussion Agenda; 38. Q4 2021 Water Estimate Writing and Reconciliation; 39. Water Forum Coverage Mini Session; 40. Water Forum PowerPoint."}, {"d": 117, "p": 83, "t": "> Request 26-356 30f4 Request Received August 25, 2026 via web Requester All contracts, agreements, and modifications or amendments to all contracts and agreements between the State of Oklahoma, including but not limited to, the Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General, and Whitten Burrage entered between November 1, 2025 and August 24, 2026. Timeline Documents 4 Message to requester “ YU cevans@gablelaw.com OK, 73102 This message acknowledges your request for records in accordance with Oklahoma's Open Records Act, Okla Stat. tit. 91, §8 24a, 1-244.40, The Act provides individuals with access to records while authorizing an agency to Q mploy reasonable procedures to protect the integrity and organization of the records and to prevent excessive disruption of the agency’s essential functions, Okla, Stat, tit. 51, § 244.5(5), = 2S = oe = = DEE Eno eed == FS Sremcd “= c= coe a) &S = = YL a 4 Sey, cS «a = ~ Fs ried SB 4 oo Bo 7S — ow = <= Fsos SF 656 =2 DR [og . Ss oS = es GS Ee wm OO = &= YS = & S& = Ss = —& 2Boe@££ oe A oe = SB £4 © 2 oo So Su Se ee oO Pos’ = SS = gam om co Stee = BS wr a Pod a4 & = ce So a << See S a ww x © ces Ls Sl 2 = eo S&S vw eo a rS = 2B > {Oe Sa Ce Oo a-_ SS co ee inet Additional information 2 S&S = © @ <io ai aaaae =Lt as] as i” © a = =a << & ‘Val a as cD oS =< Ss 2&2. [| ww ee aw © 2 S = vay w= lS L£& =— B a AS GS = oA OSss me ES ee wD ety nl S&S a a Sood =< <a intake, records search, legal review, and reda Open Records Act generally presumes thatal take the office additional time to review and fulfill your records request. Type of requestor Law firm/Attorney & Request opened Anyone with access to this request"}, {"d": 117, "p": 85, "t": "FEE AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES s+ This Fee Agreement entered into this S| day of July, 2026, between Gentner Drummond in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma (“AG”) and Whitten Burrage, LLP (“WB”). There is a certain action pending entitled “Before the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Oklahoma, In Re: Hearing Pursuant to 36 O.S. § 984 As to Whether the Oklahoma Homeowners Insurance Market is Noncompetitive, Case No. 26-0820-TRN.” (the “Action”). The AG of the State of Oklahoma is entitled to participate in the Action pursuant to 74 O.S. § 186(22) to represent and protect the collective interests of insurance consumers of the State on rate-related proceeding before the Insurance Commissioner. The AG retains the law firm of WB, as special counsel to the Office of Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma in the above Action to act on behalf of the AG and the insurance consumers of the State of Oklahoma. WB Fee and expenses will be as follows: (1) $350.00 per hour for partners of the firm, Reggie Whitten and Michael Burrage; (2) $285.00 per hour for associates of the WB firm; (3) $75.00 per hour for legal assistants of the WB firm; (4) WB will be reimbursed for expenses in the Action such as any filing fees, deposition costs, transcript costs, experts needed for the Action and any other expenses approved by the AG. The legal services to be provided to the AG pursuant to this Agreement will be preparing any pleadings or legal documents to be filed in the Action, preparing witness and experts necessary for the Action, attending and conducting any hearings or proceedings in the Action, consulting with the AG with regard to all aspects of the Action. The AG retains control over the Action and will have the final decisions over all issues and proceedings in the Action. This Agreement can be terminated by either party upon fifteen (15) days written notice. Any attorney fee and expenses will be paid that are due and owing as of the termination date of this Agreement. This Agreement will be subject to Oklahoma law. 26 ORA 356 Evans000001"}, {"d": 117, "p": 86, "t": "Gentner Dfummond, Attorney General for The State of Oklahoma Whitten Burrage, LLP By: Ve Partner 2 26 ORA 356 Evans000002 fy: tbe"}, {"d": 117, "p": 87, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 1 OF 14 Office of the Oklahoma Attorney General CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES BILLABLE- HOUR BASED This Contract (the “Contract”) for Legal Services is entered into and made effective this 28\" day of July, 2026, by and between the Office of the Oklahoma Attorney General (“Attorney General”), on behalf of the State of Oklahoma (“State”), and Whitten Burrage, LLP (“Law Firm”). WHEREAS, the Attorney General is the chief law officer of the State and is vested with the constitutional and statutory authority, obligation, and responsibility to represent the interests of the State and its instrumentalities and offices in any and all proceedings and matters. The Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma is entitled to participate in the Action pursuant to 74 O.S. § 186(22) to represent and protect the collective interests of insurance consumers of the State on rate-related proceeding before the Insurance Commissioner; WHEREAS, on review, the Attorney General determined that Law provided the State is the most economical and most competent; Firm’s proposal WHEREAS, Law Firm represents that it has the necessary expertise and experience to perform its obligations hereunder; and WHEREAS, the Attorney General believes it to be in the best interest of the State and/or the people of the State that the Attorney General retain and the Law Firm to assist and supplement the Attorney General’s efforts on behalf of the State relating to the matters described in Appendix A; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter contained, the parties agree as follows: SECTION I DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LAW FIRM 1. Services. Law Firm shall provide services for the Attorney General as described in Appendix A. Law Firm will perform all services in a professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with applicable professional standards and shall re-perform at no cost any work not in compliance with this warranty brought to its attention within a reasonable time after the work is performed. The Attorney General may request the replacement of any individuals assigned to this Contract in the event the Attorney General is dissatisfied with the work product or working relationship. FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY CONTRACT SLU )ans000003"}, {"d": 117, "p": 88, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES ; PAGE 2 OF 14 2. Standard of Care. Law Firm shail discharge its duties under this Contract with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent professional acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of like character and with like aims, and in accordance with the provisions of this Contract. 3. Timely Performance of Services. Law Firm shall provide timely updates for the Attorney General to participate in significant decisions regarding legal strategy. The Attorney General must be provided sufficient time to review drafts of all significant documents, including pleadings, motions, and briefs that may be provided to third parties on the State’s behalf. Law Firm shall seek and receive approval from the Attorney General for all significant documents, including pleadings, motions, and briefs before they are provided to third parties on the State’s behalf. 4. Consultation, Law Firm shall consult with and keep the State fully informed as to the progress of all matters covered by the Contract, including regular status meetings as requested by the Attorney General. Law Firm shall consult and cooperate with, and shail be responsible directly to, the Attorney General and other officials as designated by the Attorney General on all matters of strategy and tactics. The duty of Law Firm shall be to advise, counsel, and recommend actions to the State through the Attorney General, the Office of the Attorney General, or the other officials designated by the Attorney General, and to carry out its directions to the best of its ability. Law Firm will not file suit, or make any offer, settlement, or compromise without the written consent of the Attorney General. Law Firm shall offer the Attorney General or his designee(s) the opportunity to review and revise court documents and briefs prior to filing same. Law Firm shall promptly furnish the Attorney General with copies of all correspondence and all court documents and briefs prepared in connection with the services rendered under the Contract and such additional documents as may be requested by the Attorney General. Law Firm shall make its entire work product prepared in connection with the services rendered under this Contract, and other parties’ pleadings, discovery, correspondence, and other relevant documents and materials, available to the Attorney General in .pdf or other format acceptable to the Attorney General. 5. Availability of Records & Audit. Law Firm shall keep and maintain appropriate books and records reflecting the services performed and costs and expenses incurred, disbursements, charges, credits, underlying receipts and invoices, and other financial transaction documents in connection with its performance of the services for a period of five (5) years from the ending date of this Contract. All files and records created or maintained in Law Firm’s representation of the State are property of the Attorney General, though the Law Firm may retain a copy of the files and records as part of its client file. Upon reasonable notice, the Attorney General, the State Auditor & Inspector’s Office, the State Purchasing Directors, or their representatives, shall be entitled to access any books, records, and other documents and items directly pertaining to charges to the State hereunder for purpose of audit and examination, at Law Firm’s premises during normal business hours. Law Firm further agrees to provide appropriate access by the aforementioned parties to any sub-contractor’s associated records. Additionally, and as provided in Appendix B, Law Firm shall maintain detailed contemporaneous time records for the attorneys and any paralegals or legal assistants on the matter and shall promptly provide such records on request by the Attorney General. In the event any audit, litigation, or other action involving these pertinent records is started before the end of the five (5) year period, Law Firm agrees to retain these records until all issues arising out of the action are resolved or until the end of the five (5) year period, FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY CONJRARA 856'Bijans000004"}, {"d": 117, "p": 89, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 3 OF 14 whichever is later. 6. Professional Conduct Certification. Law Firm is aware of and certifies it will follow the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in Appendix 3-A of Title 5 of the Oklahoma Statutes. 7. License to Appear. Law Firm, by signing this Contract, warrants that all attorneys involved in the representation are now, or are eligible to become, duly licensed before the judicial forum, court, board, or tribunal before which they will appear on behaif of the State. SECTION II DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1. Access to Records and Availability of Staff. Unless otherwise prohibited by law, the Attorney General agrees to forward or cause to be forwarded records or information that may be necessary to perform any of Law Firm’s duties pursuant to the provisions of this Contract. The Attorney General shall make its staff available during normal business hours to answer any questions or inquiries of Law Firm provided adequate notice is given of the time, content, and requested form of response. 2. Compensation. The Attorney General agrees to compensate for the services contracted in accordance with the provisions of Appendix B of this Contract. No taxes will be billed to the Attorney General on fees and expenses incurred. 3. Invoicingin Non-contingent Fee Matters. Law Firm shall keep detailed records of the time involved in each matter and submit claims for fees for such services provided to the Attorney General. Claims or invoices should be sent at the end of each month for services performed during that month. The claim must show a detailed, itemized fee billing indicating, on a daily basis, the appropriate time, description of services performed, and hourly rate for each professional performing services on behalf of the State. In the event of any dispute with regard to a portion of an invoice, the undisputed portion shall be paid as provided herein. Payment shall be made within forty-five (45) days of receiving correct and accurate claims or invoices. Ail payments are made in arrears, and no payments shall be made in advance. 4. Reimbursement of Expenses. All out-of-pocket expenses, such as photocopies, telephone charges, on-line computer assisted legal research, and other appropriate items will be identified and charged to the State as they are incurred. No mark-up will be allowed on reimbursable charges. Law Firm agrees to limit its requests for reimbursement of any expenses incurred in travel in accordance with the provisions of the State Travel Reimbursement Act, 74 0.8.2021, § 500.1 ef seq. Law Firm may be reimbursed for travel expenses authorized by the Attorney General pursuant to the State Travel Reimbursement Act, 74 0.8.2021, §§ 500.1-500.37. Law Firm shall obtain prior approval from the Attorney General or its authorized staff person before incurring fees for investigative services and expert witness fees or before incurring any unusual or extraordinary expense, including but not limited to electronic deposition transcript costs, expedited deposition transcript costs, videotape deposition costs, real time deposition and court proceeding transcript costs, court reporter out-of-town travel expenses, court room technology costs, and travel costs FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY CONERGRA $56/E¥pns000005"}, {"d": 117, "p": 90, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 4 OF 14 related to sending more than one Law Firm representative to any witness interview, deposition, hearing, conference, or trial appearance. Law Firm shall retain, and upon the request of the Attorney General provide, all necessary documentation to support all non-labor costs incurred 5. Settlement Authority. Law Firm shall immediately communicate any settlement offer to the Attorney General. The Attorney General has exclusive authority to accept or reject any settlement offer received. 6. Control of Litigation. Law Firm agrees to the following conditions relating to the Attomey General’s control over any litigation: A. The Attorney General shall retain complete control over the course and conduct of the case; B. The Attorney General oversight of the case; or his designee shall be personally involved in C. The Attorney General or his assistants as he may authorize shall retain veto power over any decision made by Law Firm related to the case; D. The Attorney General has the right to communicate directly with any party in the case without having to confer first with Law Firm; E. The Attorney General or his designee shall attend all settlement conferences; and F. Decisions regarding settlement, as outlined in paragraph 5 directly above, shall be reserved exclusively to the discretion of the Attorney General. SECTION HI TERM AND TERMINATION 1. Term of Contract. The Contract shall commence on the day it is executed by both parties and shall continue until terminated by the parties, or until the legal matter for which Law Firm is providing representation is concluded, whichever is earlier. 2. Termination of Contract. Either party may terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon written notice to Law Firm, such termination being effective immediately upon Law Firm’s receipt of notice, provided Law Firm’s termination of the Contract shail not unduly prejudice the Attorney General. Upon any termination prior to any monetary recovery, Law Firm shall not be entitled to any payment from Attorney General. Provided, as provided in Appendix B, Law Firm shall be reimbursed for all reasonable, actual, ordinary and necessary direct non-labor costs incurred in fulfilling the terms of the Contract. Further, upon termination, Law Firm shall provide the Attorney General, upon request, with any and all records, including drafts, relating to the Law Firm’s representation of the Attorney General. The Attorney General is free to FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY CONTRARA 66645)}ans000006 CEEOL palpeertens bse pursuant to the performance of the Contract."}, {"d": 117, "p": 91, "t": ", CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 5 OF 14 terminate Law Firm’s representation of the State at any time unless judicial approval is required for Law Firm to withdraw, in which event Law Firm agrees not to oppose such withdrawal. Upon completion of the matter to which this Contract applies, or the earlier termination of the representation, the attorney-client relationship will end unless Law Firm agrees to continue the representation on other matters. Law Firm shall have no continuing obligation to advise the State on any matter unless Law Firm otherwise agrees in writing. SECTION IV GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Independent Contractor. Law Firm is an independent contractor and is not to be deemed an employee of the Attorney General. The Attomey General retains the right to exercise full control and supervision of the services and work to be provided under this Contract. 2. Attorney-Client Relationship. Execution of this Contract creates an attorney-client relationship between Law Firm and the Attorney General. All communications between the parties shall be deemed privileged, and ail work product shall be protected from disclosure. 3. Confidential Relationship. All information furnished by the Attorney General to Law Firm hereunder, including their respective agents and employees, shall be treated as confidential (“Confidential Information”) and shall not be disclosed to third parties except as required by law or authorized in writing. Any Confidential Information of the Attorney General may be used by Law Firm only in connection with the services performed pursuant to this Contract. Law Firm agrees to protect the confidentiality of any Confidential Information in the same manner that it protects the confidentiality of its own proprietary and confidential information. Access to the Confidential Information shall be restricted to those of Law Firm’s personnel engaged under this Contract. All Confidential Information made available hereunder, including copies thereof, shall be returned upon completion of services or request by the Attorney General, whichever occurs first. Law Firm, subject to its obligations of confidentiality, may retain one copy of documents containing Confidential Information for archival purposes and to defend its work product. The restrictions set forth in this section shall not apply to information that is or becomes in the public domain through no fault of Law Firm, is independently developed by Law Firm, is provided to Law Firm by a third party who is not subject to a duty of confidentiality or is required to be disclosed pursuant to law or legal process. 4. Conflicts of Interest. Law Firm certifies and represents that it does not have any interest, direct or indirect and that it shall not acquire any such interest during its tenure that would conflict with the full and complete performance of this Contract (“Conflict of Interest”). Conflict of Interest includes but is not limited to any professional relationships, friendships, family, or social relationships past or present, with an individual or company, parent or subsidiary related to the services provided under this Contract. Furthermore, unless Law Firm has told the Attorney General otherwise, Law Firm does not now represent another client in the specific matter in which the State has retained Law Firm. It is possible that Law Firm currently represents, or in the future may be asked to represent, in some other matter unrelated to the specific matter in which the State has engaged Law Firm, some person or entity whose interests are actually or potentially adverse to the State’s interests in this or other matters, including in negotiations, bankruptcy proceedings, or FORM GAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY CONBRARA 456/E¥pns000007"}, {"d": 117, "p": 92, "t": "* CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 6 OF 14 litigation. Law Firm agrees that it will not undertake any such representation if the subject of the other representation is directly adverse to the specific matter or interests in which Law Firm currently represents the State. Should Law Firm intend to engage in the representation of a client or interest that is adverse to the Attorney General, Law Firm agrees to immediately notify the Attorney General of its intention to engage in such representation. In its discretion, the Attorney General may object to Law Firm’s representation of a client or interest that is adverse to the Attorney General, and such objection may be grounds for immediate termination of this Contract. In the course of representing the State, and in order fully to satisfy Law Firm’s professional obligations, Law Firm may from time to time need to consult with the lawyers in its firm responsible for advising the firm on ethical issues, including issues that may implicate the State’s interests. The parties acknowledge and agree that, notwithstanding this potential for conflict in consideration of Law Firm’s professional obligations, Law Firm is free to consult with its own internal counsel on such matters without the State’s consent and that such consultations are privileged and confidential. 5. Inability te Perform. Law Firm agrees that if, because of death or any other occurrence beyond the control of Law Firm, it becomes impossible for any principal or principals, and in particular the principals assigned to this project, to render the services set forth in this Contract, neither Law Firm nor the surviving principals shall be relieved of their obligations to complete performance hereunder. Law Firm shall, with respect to any replacement principal proposed to be assigned to this matter, must timely consult with the Attorney General upon becoming aware of the possible need for replacement principal. The Attorney General’s consent to the proposed replacement is required but may not be withheld unreasonably. 6. Outside Communications. The parties agree that neither Law Firm, nor any partner, associate, employee, or any other person assisting with the services to be performed under this Contract, shall publish any material, including on-line publications, or speak to or otherwise communicate with any representative of a television station, radio station, newspaper, magazine, website, or any other media outlet concerning the work outlined or contemplated by this Contract without first obtaining approval of the Attorney General, the Attorney General’s Communications Director, or their designee. Law Firm shall not state or imply in any manner, including in commercial advertising, that its services are endorsed by the Attorney General. The Attorney General may not be used as a reference for Law Firm without the Attorney General’s prior approval. 7. Additional Counsel, Subcontracting, Key Personnel, Experts, and Consultants. Any retention of experts or consultants, subcontracting, or assignment of services and work covered by this Contract shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Contract, which shall apply to, and bind the party or parties to whom such work is subcontracted or assigned as fully and completely as Law Firm is hereby bound and obligated, including obligations with respect to confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and outside communications. In furtherance of the services described in Appendix A, Law Firm may recommend to the State subcontractors, experts, consultants, or assignment of services and work as Law Firm believes necessary. Law Firm, with respect io any retention, assignment, or subcontracting of any of the services provided under this FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY CONRARA $56/Eans000008"}, {"d": 117, "p": 93, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 7 OF 14 Contract and/or replacement of key personnel assigned to this matter (which shall include attorneys, paralegals, investigators, experts, and consultants) shall consult with and obtain the consent of the Attorney General. The hourly rates, fees, or other compensation to be paid to such subcontractors, consultants and/or experts shall be subject to the written approval of the Attorney General. 8. Notices. Any notice required to be given pursuant to the terms and provisions of this Contract shall be in writing, postage prepaid and shall be sent by First Class Mail or by courier or electronic transmission with delivery confirmation, to the respective party as set forth below. The notice shall be effective on the date indicated on the postmark. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Bradley Clark, General Counsel OKLAHOMA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 NE 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Bradley.Clark‘@oag.ok.gov Contracts(@oag.ok.go LAW FIRM: Reggie Whitten, Senior Managing Partner Michael Burrage, Managing Partner WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Ste 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rwhitten@ whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@ whittenburragelaw.com 9. Material Changes. Law Firm shall immediately notify the Attorney General of any of the following changes, and obtain the Attorney General’s approval to the extent approval is required, if: (a) Law Firm becomes aware that any of the representations, warranties and covenants set forth herein cease to be materially true at any time during the term of this Contract; (b) there is any material change in Law Firm’s personnel assigned to perform services under this Contract; or (c) Law Firm becomes aware of any other material change in its business organization, including, but not limited to the filing of bankruptcy relief or other legal suits or actions, 10. Indemnification. Law Firm shall indemnify and hold harmless the Attorney General, the State, its employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, liabilities, suits, costs, charges, expenses (including, but not limited to reasonable attorney fees and court costs), judgments, fines, and penalties, of any nature whatsoever, to the extent attributable to any bad faith, negligence, willful misconduct, improper or unethical practice, infringement of intellectual property rights, breach of trust, breach of confidentiality, breach of contract, or violation of any duty or requirement by Law Firm acting in connection with this Contract. This indemnification shall survive any termination or expiration of this Contract. FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY CON4RABA BHA Byans000009"}, {"d": 117, "p": 94, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 8 OF 14 11. Maintaining Insurance. For the duration of this Contract, Law Firm shall provide and maintain, at its own expense, professional liability insurance covering all negligent acts, errors and omissions as well as insurance against claims for injuries to person or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work under this Contract, including general liability coverage, automobile liability coverage, and worker’s compensation insurance. The Law Firm’s professional liability insurance is intended to indemnify, subject to certain terms, exclusions and limitations, the Law Firm in respect of any claim made by its clients by reason of alleged Law Firm act, error or omission, breach of contract for professional services, breach of duty, libel, or slander in connection with the representation of its clients, and related causes of action in connection with its representation of its clients. The Law Firm and its partners are also bound by the applicable rules of professional conduct and other legal, regulatory, and professional ’ obligations. Proof of the Law Firm’s insurance shall be provided upon request to the Attorney General. 12. Material Breach. Nothing in this Contract shall be construed to limit either party’s remedies at law or in equity in the event of a material breach of this Contract. 13. Performance Suspension. Performance may be suspended by either party for any of the following: a presidentially or gubernatorially declared emergency or disaster; inability to obtain fuel, power, labor, or transportation; national defense requirements; war, riots, fire, explosion, strike, injunction, or accident; or any cause beyond the control of such party, which prevents the performance of such party. An alleged breach of this Contract by Law Firm shal! be grounds for immediate suspension of this Contract. 14. Dispute Resolution. The Attorney General and Law Firm agree that their authorized representatives will timely meet and negotiate in good faith to resolve any problems or disputes that may arise in performance of the terms and provisions of this Contract. 15. Assignment. This Contract and any of the rights, duties or obligations of the parties hereunder shall not be assigned, transferred, or delegated by Law Firm without the express written consent and approval of the State. Any attempted assignment, transfer or delegation thereof without such consent shall be void. ; 16. Entire Agreement. This Contract, together with addenda and appendices, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto relating to the rights granted and the obligations assumed by the parties hereunder. No agent, representative, employee, or officer of either the Attorney General or the Law Firm has authority to make, or has made, any statement, agreement, oral or written, in connection with the Contract, which in any way can be deemed to modify, add to, or detract from, or otherwise change or alter its terms and conditions. No negotiations between the parties, nor any custom or usage, shall be permitted to modify or contradict any of the terms and conditions of the Contract. No modifications, alternations, changes, or waives to the Contract or any of its terms shall be valid or binding unless the Coniract is amended as described in paragraphs 17-18 below. 17. Modification or Changes. The Attorney General, with approval of Law Firm, may make FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY CONSRAGT444/25hn000010"}, {"d": 117, "p": 95, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 9 OF 14 modifications to this Contract at any time during the term of this Contract or any renewals or extensions thereof. Changes in the statement of work within the general scope of work and changes which do not increase the total reimbursement to Law Firm under this Contract may be accomplished by a letter of mutual consent signed by the Attorney General and Law Firm. A change in the scope of work or an increase in the total reimbursement under this Contract must be incorporated into a formal written amendment to the Contract, signed by the State and the Law Firm, and executed in the same manner as this original Contract and in accordance with applicable law. 18. Amendment. This Contract and the tasks and scope of the engagement may be amended at any time during the term of the Contract by mutual written consent of the parties hereto. 19. Headings. Titles of parts or sections of this Contract are inserted for convenience only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting its provisions. 20. Governing Law and Venue. This Contract shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Oklahoma, without regard to conflict of law principles. Should either party initiate a lawsuit or other dispute resolution proceeding over any matter relating to or arising out of this Contract, such lawsuit or other proceeding shail be filed and conducted in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 21. Severability. If any provision of this Contract or any portion thereof, or the application of any such provision or portion thereof, shall be held invalid, illegal, void or unenforceable in any respect by a court of competent jurisdiction or administrative authority, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof or the remaining portion thereof, and the validity of the entire Contract as a whole shall not be affected thereby. 22. Non-collusion. Pursuant to 74 O.8. § 85.22, Law Firm certifies the following: A. The undersigned representative of the Law Firm is the duly authorized agent of the Law Firm, for the purpose of certifying the facts pertaining to the existence of collusion among and between Law Firm and the Attorney General, as well as facts pertaining to the giving or offering of things of value to government personnel in return for special consideration in connection with this Contract; B. The undersigned representative of the Law Firm is fully aware of the facts and circumstances surrounding the acquisition or making of the bid to which this statement relates and has been personally and directly involved in the events leading the Contract; and C. Neither the Law Firm nor the undersigned representative of the Law Firm has been a party: FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY CONST $56/E5Ans00001 1"}, {"d": 117, "p": 96, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES 1. PAGE 10 OF 14 to any collusion among bidders or suppliers in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid or contract at a fixed price or to 2. refrain from bidding or contracting, to any collusion with any state official or employee as to quantity, quality or price in this Contract, or as to any other terms of this Contract, 3, to any discussions between bidders or suppliers and any state official concerning exchange of money or other thing of value for special consideration in connection with this Contract. D. Neither the Law Firm nor the undersigned representative of the Law Firm has paid, given, or donated or agreed to pay, give or donate to any officer or employee of this state any money or other thing of value, either directly or indirectly, in procuring this Contract. 23. Certification Required by 25 O.S. § 1313 (E-Verify). Law Firm certifies that it and all proposed subcontractors, whether known or unknown at the time of this Contract is executed or awarded, are in compliance with 25 O.S.2021, § 1313, and participate in the Status Verification System. The Status Verification System is defined in 25 O.S.2021, § 1312 and includes, but is not limited to, the free Employee Verification Program (E-Verify) available at www.e-verify.gov, 24. Certification Required by 74 O.S. § 85.42(B). The parties to this Contract certify that no person who has been involved in any manner in the development of this Contract while employed by the State of Oklahoma will be employed to fulfill any of the services provided for under this Contract. 25. Certification Required by 74 O.S. § 582. By executing this Contract, Law Firm certifies that it does not boycott goods or services from Israel and will not boycott Israel during the term of this Contract. 26. Certification Required by 74 O.S. § 12005. By executing this Contract, Law Firm certifies that it does not boycott energy companies and will not boycott energy companies during the term of this Contract. 27, Certification required under 21 O.S. Supp. 2025, § 1289.31. By executing this Contract, Recipient certifies that it does not have a practice, policy, guidance, or directive that discriminates against a firearm entity or firearm trade association and will not discriminate against a firearm entity or firearm trade associated during the term of the Contract. 28. Certification required under _74 0.8. Supp. 2025, § 85.42(B). By executing this Contract, the undersigned certifies that no known officer or employee of the Attorney General who has any direct or indirect financial, pecuniary, or other personal interest in the contract has been involved in any manner in the development, approval or negotiation of the contract through influence, decision, recommendation or otherwise. FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY COME yal geld 254ns000012"}, {"d": 117, "p": 97, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 11 OF 14 29. Execution in Counterparts. This Contract may be executed in counterparts, and a facsimile or .pdf signature shall be deemed to be, and shall have the same force and effect as, an original signature. [SIGNATURES ON THE NEXT PAGE] FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY COB BRA B551FAGns000013"}, {"d": 117, "p": 98, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 12 OF 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Attorney General and Law Firm have read and understand the foregoing terms of this Contract and do by their signatures below hereby agree to its terms. ATTORNEY GENERAL: SN J Dass{, Dore ; Signature Date Cewdnas Divan mond Printed Name Aiernsy [yrnsaed) Title LAW FIRM: Ndue Sue Signature thugul 4 2026 Date Michve| {Butte Ge Printed Name FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY CO26TQRA'B56 Iyans000014 ire Title! co"}, {"d": 117, "p": 99, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 13 OF 14 APPENDIX “A” DESCRIPTION OF LEGAL SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY LAW FIRM The Law Firm shall assist the Attorney General in There is a certain action pending entitled “Before the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Oklahoma, In Re: Hearing Pursuant to 36 O.S. § 984 As to Whether the Oklahoma Homeowners Insurance Market is Noncompetitive, Case No. 26- 0820-TRN.” (the “Action”). The legal services to be provided to the Attorney General pursuant to this Contract will be preparing any pleadings or legal documents to be filed in the Action, preparing witness and experts necessary for the Action, attending and conducting any hearings or proceedings in the Action, consulting with the Attorney General with regard to all aspects of the Action. The Attorney General retains control over the Action and will have the final decisions over all issues and proceedings in the Action. FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY CORBFRRABS$6iBans000015"}, {"d": 117, "p": 100, "t": "~~ CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 14 OF 14 APPENDIX “B” PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FEES (Billable-hour cases) Law Firm will bill on an hourly basis, to the nearest 1/10 of an hour, based on the actual time engaged in performing the services. The hourly rate reflects a discount from the usual rates charged by Law Firm for the services of the professionals performing the services. The rates for this Contract are as follows: ATTORNEY RATE PER HOUR Reggie Whitten Michael Burrage Associates $350.00 $350.00 $285.00 $ PARALEGAL OR LEGAL ASSISTANT Legal Assistants | RATE PER HOUR $75.00 $ $ $ Professionals in addition to or as substitute for those described above shall not be utilized without first obtaining written approval from the Attorney General or his designee. Total professional fees payable pursuant to this Contract shall not exceed the total sum of seventyfive thousand dollars ($200,000.00). In order to reduce the amount of attorneys’ fees paid or due to Law Firm from any judgment, upon request of the Attorney General, Law Firm will seek to recover the State attorneys’ fees from any defendant(s) pursuant to applicable statutes and legal doctrines in the event the State prevails in the litigation as described in Appendix A. In the event of a recovery by way of settlement or judgment, Law Firm shall prepare and submit to the State an itemized computation of the requested fees and costs and in a manner and form acceptable to the State in advance of any payment. Law Firm will be reimbursed for expenses in the Action such as any filing fees, deposition costs, transcript costs, experts needed for the Action and any other expenses approved by the Attomey General. FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY COB BRA BSbIEAANs000016"}, {"d": 117, "p": 101, "t": "CONTRACT FOR CONTINGENCY-FEE LEGAL SERVICES PAGE | OF 14 Office of the Oklahoma Attorney General CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED This Contract (the “Contract”) for Legal Services is entered into and made effective this 31\" day of July, 2026, by and between the Office of the Attorney General (“Attorney General”), on behalf of the State of Oklahoma (“State”), and Whitten Burrage, LLP (“Law Firm”’). WHEREAS, the Attorney General is the chief law officer of the State and is vested with the constitutional and statutory authority, obligation, and responsibility to represent the interests of the State and its instrumentalities and offices in any and all proceedings and matters; WHEREAS, on review, the Attorney General determined that Law Firm’s proposal provided the State is the most economical and most competent; WHEREAS, Law Firm represents that it has the necessary expertise and experience to perform its obligations hereunder; and WHEREAS, the Attorney General believes it to be in the best interest of the State and/or the people of the State that the Attorney General retain and hire the Law Firm to assist and supplement the Attorney General’s efforts on behalf of the State relating to the matters described in Appendix A; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter contained, the parties agree as follows: SECTION I DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LAW FIRM 1. Services. Law Firm shall provide services for the Attorney General as described in Appendix A. Law Firm will perform all services in a professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with applicable professional standards and shall re-perform at no cost any work not in compliance with this warranty brought to its attention within a reasonable time after the work is performed. The Attorney General may request the replacement of any individuals assigned to this Contract in the event the Attorney General is dissatisfied with the work product or working relationship. 2. Standard of Care. Law Firm shall discharge its duties under this Contract with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent professional acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise 26 ORA 356 Evans000017 TONER DA DPR I OTRO PD ATTN ATEN CUNT AUTO TIAN"}, {"d": 117, "p": 102, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED PAGE 2 OF 14 of like character and with like aims, and in accordance with the provisions of this Contract. 3. Timely Performance of Services. Law Firm shall provide timely updates for the Attorney General to participate in significant decisions regarding legal strategy. The Attorney General must be provided sufficient time to review drafts of all significant documents, including pleadings, motions, and briefs, that may be provided to third parties on the State’s behalf. Law Firm shall seek and receive approval from the Attorney General for all significant documents, including pleadings, motions, and briefs before they are provided to third parties on the State’s behalf. 4. Consultation. Law Firm shall consult with and keep the State fully informed as to the progress of all matters covered by the Contract, including regular status meetings as requested by the Attorney General. Law Firm shall consult and cooperate with, and shall be responsible directly to, the Attorney General and other officials as designated by the Attorney General on all matters of strategy and tactics. The duty of Law Firm shall be to advise, counsel, and recommend actions to the State through the Attorney General, the Office of the Attorney General, or the other officials designated by the Attorney General, and to carry out its directions to the best of its ability. Law Firm will not file suit, or make any offer, settlement, or compromise without the written consent of the Attorney General. Law Firm shall offer the Attorney General or his designee(s) the opportunity to review and revise court documents and briefs prior to filing same. Law Firm shall promptly furnish the Attorney General with copies of all correspondence and all court documents and briefs prepared in connection with the services rendered under the Contract and such additional documents as may be requested by the Attorney General. Law Firm shall make its entire work product prepared in connection with the services rendered under this Contract, and other parties’ pleadings, discovery, correspondence, and other relevant documents and materials, available to the Attorney General in .pdf or other format acceptable to the Attorney General. 5. Availability of Records & Audit. Law Firm shall keep and maintain appropriate books and records reflecting the services performed and costs and expenses incurred, disbursements, charges, credits, underlying receipts and invoices, and other financial transaction documents in connection with its performance of the services for a period of five (5) years from the ending date of this Contract. All files and records created or maintained in Law Firm’s representation of the State are property of the Attorney General, though Law Firm may retain a copy of the files and records as part of its client file. Upon reasonable notice, the Attorney General, the State Auditor & Inspector’s Office, the State Purchasing Directors, or their representatives, shall be entitled to access any books, records, and other documents and items directly pertaining to charges to the State hereunder for purpose of audit and examination, at Law Firm’s premises during normal business hours. Law Firm further agrees to provide appropriate access by the aforementioned parties to any sub-contractor’s associated records. In the event any audit, litigation, or other action involving these pertinent records is started before the end of the five (5) year period, Law Firm agrees to retain these records until all issues arising out of the action are resolved or until the end of the five (5) year period, whichever is later. 6. Professional Conduct Certification. Law Firm is aware of and certifies it will follow the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in Appendix 3-A of Title 5 of the Oklahoma Statutes. 26 ORA 356 Evans000018"}, {"d": 117, "p": 103, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 3 OF 14 * CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED 7. License to Appear. Law Firm, by signing this Contract, warrants that all attorneys involved in the representation are now, or are eligible to become, duly licensed before the judicial forum, court, board, or tribunal before which they will appear on behalf of the State. SECTION II DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1. Access to Records and Availability of Staff. Unless otherwise prohibited by law, the Attorney General agrees to forward or cause to be forwarded records or information that may be necessary to perform any of Law Firm’s duties pursuant to the provisions of this Contract. The Attorney General shall make its staff available during normal business hours to answer any questions or inquiries of Law Firm provided adequate notice is given of the time, content, and requested form of response. 2. Compensation. The Attorney General agrees to compensate Law Firm for the services contracted i accordance with the provisions of Appendix B of this Contract. No taxes will be billed to the Attorney General on fees and expenses incurred. 3. Reimbursement of Expenses. All out-of-pocket expenses, such as photocopies, telephone charges, on-line computer assisted legal research, and other appropriate items will be identified and charged to the State as they are incurred. No mark-up will be allowed on reimbursable charges. Law Firm may be reimbursed for travel expenses authorized by the Attorney General pursuant to the State Travel Reimbursement Act, 74 O.S.2021, §§ 500.1-500.37. Law Firm shall obtain prior approval from the Attorney General or its authorized staff person before incurring fees for investigative services and expert witness fees or before incurring any unusual or extraordinary expense, including but not limited to electronic deposition transcript costs, expedited deposition transcript costs, videotape deposition costs, real time deposition and court proceeding transcript costs, court reporter out-of-town travel expenses, court room technology costs, and travel costs related to sending more than one Law Firm representative to any witness interview, deposition, hearing, conference, or trial appearance. 4. Settlement Authority. Law Firm shall immediately communicate any settlement offer to the Attorney General. The Attorney General has exclusive authority to accept or reject any settlement offer received. 5. Control of Litigation. Law Firm agrees to the following conditions relating to the Attorney General’s control over any litigation: A. The Attorney General shall retain complete control over the course and conduct of the case; B. The Attorney General or his designee shall be personally involved in oversight of the case; C. The Attorney General or his assistants as he may authorize shall retain veto 26 ORA 356 Evans000019"}, {"d": 117, "p": 104, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES ” CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED PAGE 4 OF 14 power over any decision made by Law Firm related to the case; D. The Attorney General has the right to communicate directly with any party in the case without having to confer first with Law Firm; E. The Attorney General or his designee shall attend all settlement conferences; and F. Decisions regarding settlement, as outlined in paragraph 4 directly above, shall be reserved exclusively to the discretion of the Attorney General. SECTION Il TERM AND TERMINATION 1. Term of Contract. The Contract shall commence on the day it is executed by both parties and shall continue until terminated by the parties, or until the legal matter for which Law Firm is providing representation is concluded, whichever is earlier. 2. Termination of Contract. Either party may terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon written notice to the other, such termination being effective immediately upon receipt of notice, provided Law Firm’s termination of the Contract shall not unduly prejudice the Attorney General. Upon any termination prior to any monetary recovery, Law Firm shall not be entitled to any payment from the Attorney General. Provided, as provided in Appendix B, Law Firm shall be reimbursed for all reasonable, actual, ordinary, and necessary direct non-labor costs incurred in fulfilling the terms of the Contract. Further, upon termination, Law Firm shall provide the Attorney General, upon request, with any and all records, including drafts, relating to the Law Firm’s representation of the Attorney General. The Attorney General is free to terminate Law Firm’s representation of the State at any time unless judicial approval is required for Law Firm to withdraw, in which event Law Firm agrees not to oppose such withdrawal. Upon completion of the matter to which this Contract applies, or the earlier termination of the representation, the attorney-client relationship will end unless Law Firm agrees to continue the representation on other matters. Law Firm shall have no continuing obligation to advise the State on any matter unless Law Firm otherwise agrees in writing. SECTION IV GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Independent Contractor. Law Firm is an independent contractor and is not to be deemed an employee of the Attorney General. The Attorney General retains the right to exercise full control and supervision of the services and work to be provided under this Contract. 2. Attorney-Client Relationship. Execution of this Contract creates an attorney-client relationship between Law Firm and the Attorney General. All communications between the parties shall be deemed privileged, and all work product shall be protected from disclosure. 26 ORA 356 Evans000020"}, {"d": 117, "p": 105, "t": "* CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 5 oF 14 CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED 3. Confidential Relationship. All information furnished by the Attorney General to Law Firm hereunder, including their respective agents and employees, shall be treated as confidential (“Confidential Information”) and shall not be disclosed to third parties except as required by law or authorized in writing. Any Confidential Information of the Attorney General may be used by Law Firm only in connection with the services performed pursuant to this Contract. Law Firm agrees to protect the confidentiality of any Confidential Information in the same manner that it protects the confidentiality of its own proprietary and confidential information. Access to the Confidential Information shall be restricted to those of Law Firm’s personnel engaged under this Contract. All Confidential Information made available hereunder, including copies thereof, shall be returned upon completion of services or request by the Attorney General, whichever occurs first. Law Firm, subject to its obligations of confidentiality, may retain one copy of documents containing Confidential Information for archival purposes and to defend its work product. The restrictions set forth in this section shall not apply to information that is or becomes in the public domain through no fault of Law Firm, is independently developed by Law Firm, is provided to Law Firm by a third party who is not subject to a duty of confidentiality or is required to be disclosed pursuant to law or legal process. 4. Conflicts of Interest. Law Firm certifies and represents that it does not have any interest, direct or indirect and that it shall not acquire any such interest during its tenure that would conflict with the full and complete performance of this Contract (“Conflict of Interest”). Conflict of Interest includes but is not limited to any professional relationships, friendships, family, or social relationships past or present, with an individual or company, parent or subsidiary related to the services provided under this Contract. Furthermore, unless Law Firm has told the Attorney General otherwise, Law Firm does not now represent another client in the specific matter in which the State has retained Law Firm. It is possible that Law Firm currently represents, or in the future may be asked to represent, in some other matter unrelated to the specific matter in which the State has engaged Law Firm, some person or entity whose interests are actually or potentially adverse to the State’s interests in this or other matters, including in negotiations, bankruptcy proceedings, or litigation. Law Firm agrees that it will not undertake any such representation if the subject of the other representation is directly adverse to the specific matter or interests in which Law Firm currently represents the State. Should Law Firm intend to engage in the representation of a client or interest that is adverse to the Attorney General, Law Firm agrees to immediately notify the Attorney General of its intention to engage in such representation. In its discretion, the Attorney General may object to Law Firm’s representation of a client or interest that is adverse to the Attorney General, and such objection may be grounds for immediate termination of this Contract. In the course of representing the State, and in order fully to satisfy Law Firm’s professional obligations, Law Firm may from time to time need to consult with the lawyers in its firm responsible for advising the firm on ethical issues, including issues that may implicate the State’s interests. The parties acknowledge and agree that, notwithstanding this potential for conflict in consideration of Law Firm’s professional obligations, Law Firm is free to consult with its own internal counsel on such matters without the State’s consent and that such consultations are privileged and confidential. 26 ORA 356 Evans000021"}, {"d": 117, "p": 106, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED PAGE 6 OF 14 5. Inability to Perform. Law Firm agrees that if, because of death or any other occurrence beyond the control of Law Firm, it becomes impossible for any principal or principals, and in particular the principals assigned to this project, to render the services set forth in this Contract, neither Law Firm nor the surviving principals shall be relieved of their obligations to complete performance hereunder. Law Firm shall, with respect to any replacement principal proposed to be assigned to this matter, must timely consult with the Attorney General upon becoming aware of the possible need for replacement principal. The Attorney General’s consent to the proposed replacement is required but may not be withheld unreasonably. 6. Outside Communications. The parties agree that neither Law Firm, nor any partner, associate, employee, or any other person assisting with the services to be performed under this Contract, shall publish any material, including on-line publications, or speak to or otherwise communicate with any representative of a television station, radio station, newspaper, magazine, website, or any other media outlet concerning the work outlined or contemplated by this Contract without first obtaining approval of the Attorney General, the Attorney General’s Communications Director, or their designee. Law Firm shall not state or imply in any manner, including in commercial advertising, that its services are endorsed by the Attorney General. The Attorney General may not be used as a reference for Law Firm without the Attorney General’s prior approval. 7. Additional Counsel, Subcontracting, Key Personnel, Experts, and Consultants. Any retention of experts or consultants, subcontracting, or assignment of services and work covered by this Contract shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Contract, which shall apply to, and bind the party or parties to whom such work is subcontracted or assigned as fully and completely as Law Firm is hereby bound and obligated, including obligations with respect to confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and outside communications. In furtherance of the services described in Appendix A, Law Firm may recommend to the State subcontractors, experts, consultants, or assignment of services and work as Law Firm believes necessary. Law Firm, with respect to any retention, assignment, or subcontracting of any of the services provided under this Contract and/or replacement of key personnel assigned to this matter (which shall include attorneys, paralegals, investigators, experts, and consultants) shall consult with and obtain the consent of the Attorney General. The hourly rates, fees, or other compensation to be paid to such subcontractors, consultants and/or experts shall be subject to the written approval of the Attorriey General. 8. Notices. Any notice required to be given pursuant to the terms and provisions of this Contract shall be in writing, postage prepaid, and shall be sent by First Class Mail or by courier or electronic transmission with delivery confirmation, to the respective party as set forth below. The notice shall be effective on the date indicated on the postmark. ATTORNEY GENERAL: 26 ORA 356 Evans000022"}, {"d": 117, "p": 107, "t": "~ CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED PAGE 7 OF 14 Bradley Clark, General Counsel OKLAHOMA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 NE 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Bradley.Clark(@oag.ok.gov Contracts(@oag.ok.gov LAW FIRM: Reggie Whitten, Senior Managing Partner Michael Burrage, Managing Partner WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Ste 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com 9. Material Changes. Law Firm shall immediately notify the Attorney General of any of the following changes, and obtain the Attorney General’s approval to the extent approval is required, if: (a) Law Firm becomes aware that any of the representations, warranties and covenants set forth herein cease to be materially true at any time during the term of this Contract; (b) there is any material change in Law Firm’s personnel assigned to perform services under this Contract; or (c) Law Firm becomes aware of any other material change in its business organization, including, but not limited to the filing of bankruptcy relief or other legal suits or actions. 10. Indemnification. Law Firm shall indemnify and hold harmless the Attorney General, the State, its employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, liabilities, suits, costs, charges, expenses (including, but not limited to reasonable attorney fees and court costs), judgments, fines, and penalties, of any nature whatsoever, to the extent attributable to any bad faith, negligence, willful misconduct, improper or unethical practice, infringement of intellectual property rights, breach of trust, breach of confidentiality, breach of contract, or violation of any duty or requirement by Law Firm acting in connection with this Contract. This indemnification shall survive any termination or expiration of this Contract. 11. Maintaining Insurance. For the duration of this Contract, Law Firm shall provide and maintain, at its own expense, professional liability insurance covering all negligent acts, errors and omissions as well as insurance against claims for injuries to person or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work under this Contract, including general liability coverage, automobile liability coverage, and worker’s compensation insurance. The Law Firm’s professional liability insurance is intended to indemnify, subject to certain terms, exclusions and limitations, the Law Firm in respect of any claim made by its clients by reason of alleged Law Firm act, error or omission, breach of contract for professional services, breach of duty, libel or slander in connection with the representation of its clients, and related causes of action in connection with its representation of its clients. The Law Firm and its partners are also 26 ORA 356 Evans000023"}, {"d": 117, "p": 108, "t": "” CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED PAGE 8 OF 14 bound by the applicable rules of professional conduct and other legal, regulatory, and professional obligations. Proof of the Law Firm’s insurance shall be provided upon request to the Attorney General. 12. Material Breach. Nothing in this Contract shall be construed to limit either party’s remedies at law or in equity in the event of a material breach of this Contract. 13, Performance Suspension. Performance may be suspended by either party for any of the following: a presidentially or gubernatorially declared emergency or disaster; inability to obtain fuel, power, labor, or transportation; national defense requirements; war, riots, fire, explosion, strike, injunction, or accident; or any cause beyond the control of such party, which prevents the performance of such party. An alleged breach of this Contract by Law Firm shall be grounds for immediate suspension of this Contract. 14. Dispute Resolution. The Attorney General and Law Firm agree that their authorized representatives will timely meet and negotiate in good faith to resolve any problems or disputes that may arise in performance of the terms and provisions of this Contract. 15. Assignment. This Contract and any of the rights, duties or obligations of the parties hereunder shall not be assigned, transferred, or delegated by Law Firm without the express written consent and approval of the State. Any attempted assignment, transfer, or delegation thereof without such consent shall be void. 16. Entire Agreement. This Contract, together with addenda and appendices, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto relating to the rights granted and the obligations assumed by the parties hereunder. No agent, representative, employee, or officer of either the Attorney General or the Law Firm has authority to make, or has made, any statement, agreement, oral or written, in connection with the Contract, which in any way can be deemed to modify, add to, or detract from, or otherwise change or alter its terms and conditions. No negotiations between the parties, nor any custom or usage, shall be permitted to modify or contradict any of the terms and conditions of the Contract. No modifications, alternations, changes, or waives to the Contract or any of its terms shall be valid or binding unless the Contract is amended as described in paragraphs 17-18 below. 17. Modification or Changes. The Attorney General, with approval of Law Firm, may make modifications to this Contract at any time during the term of this Contract or any renewals or extensions thereof. Changes in the statement of work within the general scope of work and changes which do not increase the total reimbursement to Law Firm under this Contract may be accomplished by a letter of mutual consent signed by the Attorney General and Law Firm. A change in the scope of work or an increase in the total reimbursement under this Contract must be incorporated into a formal written amendment to the Contract, signed by the Attorney General and the Law Firm, and executed in the same manner as this original Contract and in accordance with applicable law. 26 ORA 356 Evans000024"}, {"d": 117, "p": 109, "t": "” CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 9 oF 14 CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED 18. Amendment. This Contract and the tasks and scope of the engagement may be amended at any time during the term of the Contract by mutual written consent of the parties hereto. 19. Headings. Titles of parts or sections of this Contract are inserted for convenience only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting its provisions. 20. Governing Law and Venue. This Contract shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Oklahoma, without regard to conflict of law principles. Should either party initiate a lawsuit or other dispute resolution proceeding over any matter relating to or arising out of this Contract, such lawsuit or other proceeding shall be filed and conducted in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 21. Severability. If any provision of this Contract or any portion thereof, or the application of any such provision or portion thereof, shall be held invalid, illegal, void or unenforceable in any respect by a court of competent jurisdiction or administrative authority, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof or the remaining portion thereof, and the validity of the entire Contract as a whole shall not be affected thereby. 22. Non-collusion. Pursuant to 74 O.S. § 85.22, Law Firm certifies the following: A. The undersigned representative of the Law Firm is the duly authorized agent of the Law Firm, for the purpose of certifying the facts pertaining to the existence of collusion among and between Law Firm and the Attorney General, as well as facts pertaining to the giving or offering of things of value to government personnel in return for special consideration in connection with this Contract; B. The undersigned representative of the Law Firm is fully aware of the facts and circumstances surrounding the acquisition or making of the bid to which this statement relates and has been personally and directly involved in the events leading the Contract; and C. Neither the Law Firm nor the undersigned representative of the Law Firm has been a party: 1. 2. to any collusion among bidders or suppliers in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid or contract at a fixed price or to refrain from bidding or contracting, to any collusion with any state official or employee as to quantity, quality, or price in this Contract, or as to any other terms of this Contract, 3. to any discussions between bidders or suppliers and any state official concerning exchange of money or other thing of value for special consideration in connection with this Contract. 26 ORA 356 Evans000025"}, {"d": 117, "p": 110, "t": "* CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 10 OF 14 CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED D. Neither the Law Firm nor the undersigned representative of the Law Firm has paid, given, or donated or agreed to pay, give, or donate to any officer or employee of this state any money or other thing of value, either directly or indirectly, in procuring this Contract. 23. Certification Required by 25 O.S. § 1313 (E-Verify). Law Firm certifies that it and all proposed subcontractors, whether known or unknown at the time of this contract is executed or awarded, are in compliance with 25 O.S.2021, § 1313, and participate in the Status Verification System. The Status Verification System is defined in 25 O.S.2021, § 1312 and includes, but is not limited to, the free Employee Verification Program (E-Verify) available at www.e-verify. gov. 24. Certification Required by 74 O.S. § 85.42(B). The parties to this Contract certify that no person who has been involved in any manner in the development of this Contract while employed by the State of Oklahoma will be employed to fulfill any of the services provided for under this Contract. 25. Certification Required by 74 O.S. § 582. By executing this Contract, Law Firm certifies that it does not boycott goods or services from Israel and will not boycott Israel during the term of this Contract. 26. Certification Required by 74 O.S. § 12005. By executing this Contract, Law Firm certifies that it does not boycott energy companies and will not boycott energy companies during the term of this Contract. 27. Certification required under 21 O.S. Supp. 2025, § 1289.31. By executing this Contract, Recipient certifies that he does not have a practice, policy, guidance, or directive that discriminates against a firearm entity or firearm trade association and will not discriminate against a firearm entity or firearm trade associated during the term of the Contract. 28. Certification required _under_74 O.S. Supp. 2025, § 85.42(B). By executing this Contract, the undersigned certifies no known officer or employee of the Attorney General who has any direct or indirect financial, pecuniary, or other personal interest in the contract has been involved in any manner in the development, approval or negotiation of the contract through influence, decision, recommendation or otherwise. 28. Execution in Counterparts. This Contract may be executed in counterparts, and a facsimile or .pdf signature shall be deemed to be, and shall have the same force and effect as, an original signature. [SIGNATURES ON THE NEXT PAGE] 26 ORA 356 Evans000026"}, {"d": 117, "p": 111, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 11 OF 14 CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Attorney General and Law Firm have read and understand the foregoing terms of this Contract and do by their signatures below hereby agree to its terms. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Aus £, 2p2le Signature Date Die mina nel Au ane Printed Name @ Norns Crna) Title LAW FIRM: Ke hie 9-4-2 ee Signature im CHA te Date Wh AtEY Printed Name’ * fa thd ce Title 26 ORA 356 Evans000027 U"}, {"d": 117, "p": 112, "t": "* CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 12 oF 14 CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED APPENDIX “A” DESCRIPTION OF LEGAL SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY LAW FIRM The Law Firm shall assist the Attorney General in the Investigation and litigation into State Farm’s Insurance Company’s Storm Claims Handling Practices Defrauding Oklahoman Insureds. Specifically, the Law Firms shall; 1. Investigation planning and evidence assessment. Develop a prioritized investigative plan; identify factual gaps; organize existing evidence; and recommend the sequence of records requests, witness examinations, data analysis, expert work, and third-party discovery. 2. Civil investigative demands and compulsory process. Draft targeted demands for documents, interrogatory responses, testimony, and other evidence; assist in negotiating compliance; evaluate objections and privilege claims; and support enforcement proceedings. Where the statutory predicates are satisfied, this work may include civil investigative demands authorized by Oklahoma Statutes. 3. Witness and corporate discovery. Identify and prepare examinations of current and former State Farm personnel, affiliated-company personnel, adjusters, reviewers, vendors, engineers, inspectors, and other participants with knowledge of the relevant practices. 4. Claims-data and damages analysis. Work with the Office and approved experts to identify affected claims, test recurring patterns, quantify consumer harm and unjust gains, and develop defensible methodologies for restitution, disgorgement, penalties, and other relief. 5. Pleadings, motion practice, and trial preparation. Draft and revise pleadings, discovery, motions, briefs, expert materials, demonstratives, and trial examinations; preserve a clear evidentiary record; and prosecute authorized claims in the forum selected by the Attorney General. 6. Resolution and consumer relief. Evaluate settlement proposals, structure potential restitution and injunctive terms, and provide recommendations to the Attorney General, while recognizing that the Attorney General retains exclusive authority over settlement and the course of the litigation 26 ORA 356 Evans000028"}, {"d": 117, "p": 113, "t": "ad CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED PAGE 13 OF 14 APPENDIX “B” COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT FOR SERVICES 1. The State has determined that hiring private counsel on a contingency fee basis is in the best interests of the State to ensure adequate resources and expertise in the subject matter are available to prosecute any cases or claims falling within the provisions of Appendix A. The State has also determined that Law Firm is on the list of private attorneys under 74 O.S.2021, § 201 and that Law Firm has met the requirements for being retained as private counsel under section 20i. Law Firm shall be paid a contingency fee based on recovery obtained by the State through settlement or judgment from any action or matter contemplated by this contract. Pursuant to 74 O.S.Supp.2022, § 201(D), the contingency fee shall not exceed as follows: Recovery Percentage Less than $10,000,000.00 20% $10,000,000.01-$15,000,000.00 | Plus 16% of any amount in this range $15,000,000.01-$20,000,000.00 | Plus 12% of any amount in this range $20,000,000.01-$25,000,000.00 | Plus 8% of any amount in this range $25,000,000.01 or more Plus 4% of any amount in this range Notwithstanding the above recovery fee schedule, the total contingency fee payable shall not exceed $50,000,000.00, excluding any costs and expenses provided by the contract and actually incurred by Law Firm, and regardless of the number of actions or proceedings or number of retained attorneys involved. 2. Law Firm agrees to limit its requests for reimbursement of any expenses incurred in travel in accordance with the provisions of the State Travel Reimbursement Act, 74 O.S.2021, § 500.1 et seq. 3. In order to reduce the amount of attorneys’ fees due to Law Firm from any judgment, Law Firm will seek to recover the State attorneys’ fees from any defendant(s) pursuant to applicable statutes and legal doctrines in the event the State prevails in the litigation as described in Appendix A. If the State receives such an award of fees from the defendant(s), any amount awarded shall be deducted from any fees otherwise due to Law Firm under paragraph 1 of this Appendix. , 4. Law Firm shall receive no compensation or cost reimbursement if there is no recovery. Nor shall Law Firm receive additional compensation for any legal action taken or other services rendered to accomplish the collection of any recovery. The Attorney General, in his sole discretion, may agree to settlement of the Litigation that provides only for non-monetary relief. If such a settlement is obtained, the Attorney General agrees to make reasonable efforts to recover an award of attorneys’ fees and costs but is in no way obligated to condition settlement 26 ORA 356 Evans000029"}, {"d": 117, "p": 114, "t": "e a - * CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED PAGE 14 OF 14 upon payment of costs, fees, or any other monetary recovery. The Attorney General shall have sole discretion as to the amount of fees sought and his decision in that regard will be final. \" The State and Law Firm will make reasonable efforts to petition the court where the litigation is pending for an order requiring that Law Firm’s costs, including non-labor, experts, consultants, and other reimbursable costs, be paid by the defendant(s). Should such an order not be issued, Law Firm’s costs shall be reimbursed from the recovery obtained by the State. If no settlement or award is obtained, whether it be due to dismissal at the direction of the State, a settlement based on non-monetary relief or an adverse result at trial, Law Firm will not be entitled to reimbursement for costs of any kind, except in accordance with this Appendix. In no event shall the State be responsible to advance any of the costs or expenses of the Litigation. 5. Law Firm shall advance, and subject to the limitations of this Appendix, shall be reimbursed for all reasonable, actual, ordinary, and necessary direct non-labor costs incurred in fulfilling the terms of the Contract. Non-labor costs include, but are not limited to, costs associated with photocopies, telephone charges, on-line computer assisted legal research, courier delivery services, facsimiles, mileage, transportation costs, court filing fees, service of process fees, deposition costs, and witness fees. No mark-up will be allowed for non-labor costs. Law Firm shall retain, and upon the request of the Attorney General provide, all necessary documentation to support all non-labor costs incurred pursuant to the performance of the Contract. 6. Reimbursement of costs and expenses of another law firm retained by Law Firm shall be the responsibility of Law Firm and not the State. Law Firm agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the State against any claim for reimbursement of costs or expenses asserted by other law firm(s) retained by Law Firm. 7. The State shall not be liable to reimburse Law Firm for any costs or expenses advanced or incurred by Law Firm in fulfilling the terms of the Contract unless there is a recovery as described in this Appendix from which such reimbursement may be made or in the event the Attorney General recovers expenses and/or costs as part of any non-monetary relief as described in this Appendix. The State shall not be responsible to advance any of the costs or expenses of the Litigation. 8. Inthe event ofa recovery by way of settlement or judgment, Law Firm shall prepare and submit to the State an itemized computation of the requested fees and costs and in a manner and form acceptable to the State in advance of any payment. 26 ORA 356 Evans000030"}, {"d": 118, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CLEVELAND COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex. rel. GENTNER _) DISTRICT COURT DRUMMOND, ) CLEVELAND COUNTY, OKLAHOMA ) September 21, 2026 4:05 PM ) MARILYN WILLIAMS, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2026-1066 OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Plaintiff, ) V. ) Case No. CJ-2026-1066 ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, ) ) ) Defendant. ) STATE FARM’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102-7101 Telephone: 405-235-5500 Facsimile: Email: 405-235-2875 lleffel@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com Attorneys for Defendant, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company 4897-7212-0784, v. 12"}, {"d": 118, "p": 2, "t": "I. The OCPA exempts conduct already regulated by another executive officer, such as the business of insurance. The AG relies on the OCPA for its suit against State Farm, but that statute clearly exempts the conduct at issue here from its coverage. Under the plain language of the OCPA (and as recognized by courts interpreting the exemption), because the same conduct alleged by the AG already is comprehensively regulated by the Insurance Commissioner under the Insurance Code, the OCPA simply does not apply. See 15 O.S. § 754(2).! Indeed, just weeks ago, Judge Mai ruled that the AG lacked authority under the OCPA to investigate State Farm for similar conduct, because it was regulated by the Insurance Code and therefore exempt from the OCPA. See Tr. of Proceedings, 61:11-20, Exhibit 1 (finding that “under the OCPA the specific conduct falls within its exemption”). For example, the Insurance Code regulates deceptive or misleading advertising, compare 15 O.S. §§ (9), (13) with 36 O.S. §§ 1204(1)-(2), and deceptive or unfair practices, compare 15 O.S. §§ (21), (12), (13) with 36 O.S. §§ 1250.5(1)-(2), but the AG ignores this. The AG’s contrary interpretation of the OCPA has no basis in statute or case law and should be summarily rejected. First, the AG takes the remarkable position that the Insurance Code does not regulate “an alleged scheme” based on fraud in the insurance industry. Resp. at 13. Yet he cites no authority in support because no such authority exists. Indeed, the plain language of the Insurance Code flatly contradicts this argument. See, e.g., 36 O.S. §§ 1204, 1250.5, 361. Second, the AG argues that the overwhelming case law finding that the OCPA does not apply to the business of insurance 1s distinguishable because the AG is not an individual consumer. But the OCPA exemption is based on the conduct—not the litigant. As explained in Conatzer, the ' Because the AG’s ORICO and civil conspiracy claims are both predicated on his OCPA claim, State Farm focuses this portion of the Reply on the OCPA. The futility of the AG’s OCPA claim also renders his ORICO and civil conspiracy claims legally infirm. 1 4897-7212-0784, v. 12"}, {"d": 118, "p": 3, "t": "simple fact that a defendant is an insurer does not automatically bring it within the § 754(2) exemption. Conatzer vy. Am. Mercury Ins. Co., Inc., 2000 OK CIV APP 141, § 9, 15 P.3d 1252, 1255. Instead, the alleged conduct must be of the type regulated by another regulatory body or officer. /d. Thus, the focus of the OCPA is neither the party asserting the claim nor the party being accused: it is the conduct at issue.” And contrary to the AG’s misrepresentation in his Response, State Farm has identified parallel provisions of the Insurance Code addressing the exact conduct underlying the AG’s OCPA claim. Mtn. to Dismiss at 9-12. At bottom, the § 754(2) exemption plainly applies here because the conduct alleged (1) implicates the business of insurance and (2) is expressly and specifically regulated by the Insurance Commissioner. Finally, the AG argues that application of the § 754(2) exemption would contradict the OCPA’s remedial purpose. Not so. Read in conjunction with the other provisions of the OCPA, § 754(2) fully comports with the Legislature’s intent in enacting the OCPA. While the OCPA prohibits broad and general categories of conduct and grants the AG authority to prosecute these general prohibitions where no other regulatory body is empowered to regulate the conduct at issue, it also carefully avoids dual regulation. Put another way, the OCPA is a safety net to ensure that consumers are protected in the absence of a regulatory body charged with oversight of the specific conduct alleged. No such absence exists here. The Insurance Code addresses the specific consumer protection concerns alleged in the AG’s Petition, see 36 O.S. §§ 1204(1)-(2), 1250.5(1)-(2), and empowers the Insurance Commissioner with enforcement of those provisions, see 36 O.S. §§ 1205, 1207, 1250.13-1250.14, 307. Through § 754(2), the Legislature plainly considered such conduct- ° This stands in contrast to the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, which provides the Insurance Commissioner with certain administrative remedies but confers no private right of action on a private party. See, e.g., Beers v. Hillory, 2010 OK CIV APP 99, § 30, 241 P.3d 285, 293. 2 4897-7212-0784, v. 12"}, {"d": 118, "p": 4, "t": "specific oversight to sufficiently ensure consumer protection, hence the presence of the exemption. Thus, the § 754(2) exemption carries out the OCPA’s purpose and should be applied here. Il. Under the Oklahoma Constitution and caselaw, the Insurance Commissioner’s specific and exclusive authority to regulate the business of insurance trumps and precludes the AG’s limited general authority. According to the AG, State Farm must “overcome...the breadth of the office of the State’s chief law officer...” Resp. at 4. However, it is beside the point that the AG can generally assert “complete dominion” over lawsuits implicating the State’s interests absent “explicit legislative or constitutional expression to the contrary.” Cherokee Nation v. U.S. Dep t of the Interior, 2025 OK 4, | 36, 564 P.3d 58, 70 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). While the AG is generally empowered to enforce the OCPA and ORICO, where the Framers of the Oklahoma Constitution and the Oklahoma Legislature specifically empower another executive officer to enforce laws governing a specific class of conduct, the AG’s general grant of authority recedes. Such a specific and contrary expression exists here, and it deprives the AG of standing to bring this action. The Oklahoma Constitution charges the Insurance Commissioner with “the execution of all laws now in force, or which shall hereafter be passed, in relation to insurance and insurance companies doing business in the State.” OKLA. CONST. art. VI, §§ 22-23. Through the Insurance Code, the Legislature expressed its intention that the Insurance Commissioner would “be charged with the duty of administration and enforcement of the provisions of the Oklahoma Insurance Code, of any requirements placed on an insurance company pursuant to the Oklahoma Statutes.” 36 O.S. § 307.3 Moreover, the Insurance Code supplies the Insurance Commissioner with > The AG makes the insupportable argument that the Insurance Commissioner’s authority is exclusively regulatory and that he lacks enforcement powers. This argument defies the plain language of both the Oklahoma Constitution and the Insurance Code. By way of example, “[t]he Insurance Department shall retain the authority to initiate and prosecute any administrative or civil action it deems necessary or advisable” upon a finding of insurance fraud. 36 O.S. § 361(B). 3 4897-7212-0784, v. 12"}, {"d": 118, "p": 5, "t": "comprehensive powers to regulate the business of insurance and to enforce laws specifically tailored to conduct implicating the business of insurance, including the conduct alleged in the Petition. See, e.g., 36 O.S. §§ 1201-1219; 1250.1-1250.17. The AG’s authority to enforce laws of general application such as the OCPA and ORICO is subordinate to the Insurance Commissioner’s specific and explicit legislative and constitutional authority over the industry. Under Bird—which remains good law—the Insurance Commissioner’s specific authority is held to the exclusion of the AG. See Oklahoma Ben. Life Ass’n v. Bird, 1943 OK 103, { 6, 135 P.2d 994, 996 (“where the Legislature has declared that certain classes of cases shall be prosecuted in the name of the state by designated persons or officers, such cases cannot be maintained by any other person.”). Likewise, to the extent there is a conflict between 74 O.S. § 18b(A)(3) and the specific provisions of the Insurance Code granting the Insurance Commissioner specific authority over the conduct alleged in the AG’s Petition, Cherokee Nation dictates that the relevant provisions of the Insurance Code control. 2025 OK 4, 7 33, 564 P.3d at 69 (“when there is a conflict between two statutes, one specific... and one general, the statute enacted for the purpose of dealing with the subject matter controls over the general statute.”). This lawsuit unquestionably implicates the “business of insurance” and no serious argument can be made to the contrary.t Both the Oklahoma Constitution and the Oklahoma Statutes have specifically granted the Insurance Commissioner the authority to regulate the conduct at issue under the Insurance Code. Those grants of power are exclusive in the context of insurance and foreclose the AG’s ability to assert parallel claims under laws of general application. For example, the AG brings claims under the OCPA asserting misconduct relating to the manner + The “business of insurance is \"the manner of competition of an insurance company in gaining its business, and the manner of actually dealing with its insureds, including payment of claims.” Conatzer, 2000 OK CIV APP 141, 9 9, 15 P.3d at 1255. 4 4897-7212-0784, v. 12"}, {"d": 118, "p": 6, "t": "in which State Farm purportedly advertises and procures insurance policies. See Petition, {J 28, 32-33, 43-45, 49(a), 58, 73, 78. The OCPA addresses general consumer protection concerns. But the Legislature specifically granted the Insurance Commissioner authority to address this alleged conduct under the Insurance Code. 36 O.S. §§ 1204(1)-(2). Likewise, the AG asserts violations of the OCPA based on State Farm’s insurance claims handling. See Petition, {| 58-59, 69, 73-74. Again, this alleged conduct is specifically addressed in the Insurance Code and enforced by the Insurance Commissioner. 36 O.S. §§ 1250.5(1)-(2). Cherokee Nation directs that in a conflict between the general OCPA prohibitions and the specific provisions of the Insurance Code addressing parallel conduct, the Insurance Code governs. 2025 OK 4, § 33, 564 P.3d at 69. Likewise, where the Oklahoma Constitution and Oklahoma Legislature specifically confers authority to another executive officer, that authority trumps the AG’s general authority. /d., 4 36, 564 P.3d at 70. Thus, under the plain language of the Oklahoma Constitution as interpreted by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the Insurance Commissioner—not the AG—has the exclusive authority to regulate the conduct at issue here.° In sum, the AG’s Petition should be dismissed. > The AG also seemingly relies on 74 O.S. § 18b(A)(22) as a source of authority. But § 18b(A)(22) grants the AG (1) representattve—not initiative—powers (2) in rate-related proceedings. This is not a “rate-related proceeding.” Compare Exhibit 2, Retention Agreement No. | (asserting authority under § 18b(A)(22) for a rate-related proceeding before the Insurance Commissioner) with Exhibit 3, Retention Agreement No. 2 (not citing § 18b(A)(22) as a source of authority for this action). And the AG is acting in an initiative rather than representative capacity in bringing this lawsuit. 4897-7212-0784, v. 12"}, {"d": 118, "p": 7, "t": "Respectfully submitted, Ne at Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102-7101 Telephone: 405-235-5500 Facsimile: Email: 405-235-2875 lleffel(@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com Attorneys for Defendant, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 21“ day of September, 2026, I mailed a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument via U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following counsel of record: Gentner Drummond, OBA No. 16645 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA Garry M. Gaskins, I, OBA No. 20212 Cameron R. Capps, OBA No. 32742 Christopher J. Campbell, OBA No. 33649 313 NE 21\" Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Phone: 405-522-1260 Fax: 405-521-3921 garry.gaskins@oag.ok.gov cameron.capps@oag.ok.gov chris.campbell@oag.ok.gov Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Ave., Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: 405-516-7800 Fax: 405-516-7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Plaintiff David R. Herber 4897-7212-0784, v. 12"}, {"d": 118, "p": 9, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT STATE COURT OF OKLAHOMA OF OKLAHOMA ) ) Vv. ) CASE GENTNER DRUMMOND, IN HIS CAPACITY ) AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE ) OF OKLAHOMA, ) Defendant, ) ) FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, COUNTY INC., Plaintiff, 10 NO. CV-2025-2975 NO. CV-2026-243 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY, ) Intervenor Plaintiff, ) Vv. ) GENTNER DRUMMOND, IN HIS CAPACITY ) AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE ) OF OKLAHOMA, ) Defendant. ) 11 * *x * * * 12 14 15 OKLAHOMA, OKLAHOMA GENERAL, Plaintiff, Vv. STATE FARM FIRE EX REL GENTNER ATTORNEY AND ee OF DRUMMOND, CASUALTY COMPANY , 16 AND FARMERS 17 INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Defendants. eee ee a STATE 13 CASE 18 * 19 BEFORE 22 23 24 25 * * * SEVENTH 20 21 * JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS HAD ON THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 THE HONORABLE NATALIE MAI, DISTRICT JUDGE * * * * * Reported By: Regina Garnett, CSR, RPR, Official Court Reporter 321 Park Avenue Suite 706 Oklahoma City, (405) 713-7116 OKLAHOMA Oklahoma COUNTY CRR 73102 DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT"}, {"d": 118, "p": 10, "t": "APPEARANCES FOR FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.: MR. PHIL R. RICHARDS MR. TYLER AMES MS. KIRSTEN A. PFEIFFER Attorneys at Law MCAFEE & TAFT Williams Center Tower 2 West 2nd Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 FOR STATE FARM FIRE & II CASUALTY COMPANY: 10 MR. DAVID R. HERBER 12 MR. LANCE MR. JACOB Attorneys E. C. at LEFFEL SWANSON Law 13 BOK 14 499 West Sheridan Suite 2200 11 GABLE GOTWALS Park Oklahoma Plaza City, Avenue Oklahoma 73102 15 16 FOR THE GENTNER DRUMMOND, IN STATE OF OKLAHOMA: HIS CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL 17 MR. 18 CAMERON Deputy R. CAPPS Attorney General MR. CHRISTOPHER CAMPBELL 19 MS. KRISTIN 20 Assistant Attorneys General 313 Northeast 21st Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 SIEGEL 21 22 23 24 25 OKLAHOMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF"}, {"d": 118, "p": 11, "t": "61 That that stated I is the the general. you -- if they would authority So Insurance to the as Even was an claims Supreme Court in Pireno, that's the 458 case. But COURT: the And yeah. under the type -- as here as issuance of these CIDs as against under OCPA that the specific is within the basis for 14 State Farm and Farmers, that 15 conduct falls within exemption, 16 authority or the business And so under the its is of OCPA, I find that insurance I find that the it basis that the attorney for the specific conduct 19 CID, it doesn't fall outside of 20 company for OCPA to apply allow for On the other under OARA, the not there's a good faith that the 22 relates or 23 reasonable 24 anti-competition and 25 the it's suspicion that's to hand, whether alleged the for as the business general grounds for of an insurance issuance of a specific basis conduct falls under -- falls squarely which a companies. 18 COUNTY -- claimed faith OKLAHOMA so is being good that statute So 13 conduct Life right. is whether law. RULING that to the have All of 21 they has also Act. insurance that Labor 119, DOJ businesses, under Union the the arguing U.S. McCarran-Ferguson 12 17 between those COURT'S conduct issue with versus and they're proceed U.S. FTC though one the THE -- first 10 11 federal the held well, there the be Company specifically clear that attorney guarantee companies, something allowed under OARA. DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL the the CID. conduct or a issue within TRANSCRIPT of"}, {"d": 118, "p": 13, "t": "FEE AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES s+ This Fee Agreement entered into this S| day of July, 2026, between Gentner Drummond in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma (“AG”) and Whitten Burrage, LLP (“WB”). There is a certain action pending entitled “Before the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Oklahoma, In Re: Hearing Pursuant to 36 O.S. § 984 As to Whether the Oklahoma Homeowners Insurance Market is Noncompetitive, Case No. 26-0820-TRN.” (the “Action”). The AG of the State of Oklahoma is entitled to participate in the Action pursuant to 74 O.S. § 186(22) to represent and protect the collective interests of insurance consumers of the State on rate-related proceeding before the Insurance Commissioner. The AG retains the law firm of WB, as special counsel to the Office of Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma in the above Action to act on behalf of the AG and the insurance consumers of the State of Oklahoma. WB Fee and expenses will be as follows: (1) $350.00 per hour for partners of the firm, Reggie Whitten and Michael Burrage; (2) $285.00 per hour for associates of the WB firm; (3) $75.00 per hour for legal assistants of the WB firm; (4) WB will be reimbursed for expenses in the Action such as any filing fees, deposition costs, transcript costs, experts needed for the Action and any other expenses approved by the AG. The legal services to be provided to the AG pursuant to this Agreement will be preparing any pleadings or legal documents to be filed in the Action, preparing witness and experts necessary for the Action, attending and conducting any hearings or proceedings in the Action, consulting with the AG with regard to all aspects of the Action. The AG retains control over the Action and will have the final decisions over all issues and proceedings in the Action. This Agreement can be terminated by either party upon fifteen (15) days written notice. Any attorney fee and expenses will be paid that are due and owing as of the termination date of this Agreement. This Agreement will be subject to Oklahoma law. 26 ORA 356 Evans000001"}, {"d": 118, "p": 14, "t": "Gentner Dfummond, Attorney General for The State of Oklahoma Whitten Burrage, LLP By: Ve Partner 2 26 ORA 356 Evans000002 fy: tbe"}, {"d": 118, "p": 15, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 1 OF 14 Office of the Oklahoma Attorney General CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES BILLABLE- HOUR BASED This Contract (the “Contract”) for Legal Services is entered into and made effective this 28\" day of July, 2026, by and between the Office of the Oklahoma Attorney General (“Attorney General”), on behalf of the State of Oklahoma (“State”), and Whitten Burrage, LLP (“Law Firm”). WHEREAS, the Attorney General is the chief law officer of the State and is vested with the constitutional and statutory authority, obligation, and responsibility to represent the interests of the State and its instrumentalities and offices in any and all proceedings and matters. The Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma is entitled to participate in the Action pursuant to 74 O.S. § 186(22) to represent and protect the collective interests of insurance consumers of the State on rate-related proceeding before the Insurance Commissioner; WHEREAS, on review, the Attorney General determined that Law provided the State is the most economical and most competent; Firm’s proposal WHEREAS, Law Firm represents that it has the necessary expertise and experience to perform its obligations hereunder; and WHEREAS, the Attorney General believes it to be in the best interest of the State and/or the people of the State that the Attorney General retain and the Law Firm to assist and supplement the Attorney General’s efforts on behalf of the State relating to the matters described in Appendix A; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter contained, the parties agree as follows: SECTION I DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LAW FIRM 1. Services. Law Firm shall provide services for the Attorney General as described in Appendix A. Law Firm will perform all services in a professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with applicable professional standards and shall re-perform at no cost any work not in compliance with this warranty brought to its attention within a reasonable time after the work is performed. The Attorney General may request the replacement of any individuals assigned to this Contract in the event the Attorney General is dissatisfied with the work product or working relationship. FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY CONTRACT SLU )ans000003"}, {"d": 118, "p": 16, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES ; PAGE 2 OF 14 2. Standard of Care. Law Firm shail discharge its duties under this Contract with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent professional acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of like character and with like aims, and in accordance with the provisions of this Contract. 3. Timely Performance of Services. Law Firm shall provide timely updates for the Attorney General to participate in significant decisions regarding legal strategy. The Attorney General must be provided sufficient time to review drafts of all significant documents, including pleadings, motions, and briefs that may be provided to third parties on the State’s behalf. Law Firm shall seek and receive approval from the Attorney General for all significant documents, including pleadings, motions, and briefs before they are provided to third parties on the State’s behalf. 4. Consultation, Law Firm shall consult with and keep the State fully informed as to the progress of all matters covered by the Contract, including regular status meetings as requested by the Attorney General. Law Firm shall consult and cooperate with, and shail be responsible directly to, the Attorney General and other officials as designated by the Attorney General on all matters of strategy and tactics. The duty of Law Firm shall be to advise, counsel, and recommend actions to the State through the Attorney General, the Office of the Attorney General, or the other officials designated by the Attorney General, and to carry out its directions to the best of its ability. Law Firm will not file suit, or make any offer, settlement, or compromise without the written consent of the Attorney General. Law Firm shall offer the Attorney General or his designee(s) the opportunity to review and revise court documents and briefs prior to filing same. Law Firm shall promptly furnish the Attorney General with copies of all correspondence and all court documents and briefs prepared in connection with the services rendered under the Contract and such additional documents as may be requested by the Attorney General. Law Firm shall make its entire work product prepared in connection with the services rendered under this Contract, and other parties’ pleadings, discovery, correspondence, and other relevant documents and materials, available to the Attorney General in .pdf or other format acceptable to the Attorney General. 5. Availability of Records & Audit. Law Firm shall keep and maintain appropriate books and records reflecting the services performed and costs and expenses incurred, disbursements, charges, credits, underlying receipts and invoices, and other financial transaction documents in connection with its performance of the services for a period of five (5) years from the ending date of this Contract. All files and records created or maintained in Law Firm’s representation of the State are property of the Attorney General, though the Law Firm may retain a copy of the files and records as part of its client file. Upon reasonable notice, the Attorney General, the State Auditor & Inspector’s Office, the State Purchasing Directors, or their representatives, shall be entitled to access any books, records, and other documents and items directly pertaining to charges to the State hereunder for purpose of audit and examination, at Law Firm’s premises during normal business hours. Law Firm further agrees to provide appropriate access by the aforementioned parties to any sub-contractor’s associated records. Additionally, and as provided in Appendix B, Law Firm shall maintain detailed contemporaneous time records for the attorneys and any paralegals or legal assistants on the matter and shall promptly provide such records on request by the Attorney General. In the event any audit, litigation, or other action involving these pertinent records is started before the end of the five (5) year period, Law Firm agrees to retain these records until all issues arising out of the action are resolved or until the end of the five (5) year period, FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY CONJRARA 856'Bijans000004"}, {"d": 118, "p": 17, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 3 OF 14 whichever is later. 6. Professional Conduct Certification. Law Firm is aware of and certifies it will follow the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in Appendix 3-A of Title 5 of the Oklahoma Statutes. 7. License to Appear. Law Firm, by signing this Contract, warrants that all attorneys involved in the representation are now, or are eligible to become, duly licensed before the judicial forum, court, board, or tribunal before which they will appear on behaif of the State. SECTION II DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1. Access to Records and Availability of Staff. Unless otherwise prohibited by law, the Attorney General agrees to forward or cause to be forwarded records or information that may be necessary to perform any of Law Firm’s duties pursuant to the provisions of this Contract. The Attorney General shall make its staff available during normal business hours to answer any questions or inquiries of Law Firm provided adequate notice is given of the time, content, and requested form of response. 2. Compensation. The Attorney General agrees to compensate for the services contracted in accordance with the provisions of Appendix B of this Contract. No taxes will be billed to the Attorney General on fees and expenses incurred. 3. Invoicingin Non-contingent Fee Matters. Law Firm shall keep detailed records of the time involved in each matter and submit claims for fees for such services provided to the Attorney General. Claims or invoices should be sent at the end of each month for services performed during that month. The claim must show a detailed, itemized fee billing indicating, on a daily basis, the appropriate time, description of services performed, and hourly rate for each professional performing services on behalf of the State. In the event of any dispute with regard to a portion of an invoice, the undisputed portion shall be paid as provided herein. Payment shall be made within forty-five (45) days of receiving correct and accurate claims or invoices. Ail payments are made in arrears, and no payments shall be made in advance. 4. Reimbursement of Expenses. All out-of-pocket expenses, such as photocopies, telephone charges, on-line computer assisted legal research, and other appropriate items will be identified and charged to the State as they are incurred. No mark-up will be allowed on reimbursable charges. Law Firm agrees to limit its requests for reimbursement of any expenses incurred in travel in accordance with the provisions of the State Travel Reimbursement Act, 74 0.8.2021, § 500.1 ef seq. Law Firm may be reimbursed for travel expenses authorized by the Attorney General pursuant to the State Travel Reimbursement Act, 74 0.8.2021, §§ 500.1-500.37. Law Firm shall obtain prior approval from the Attorney General or its authorized staff person before incurring fees for investigative services and expert witness fees or before incurring any unusual or extraordinary expense, including but not limited to electronic deposition transcript costs, expedited deposition transcript costs, videotape deposition costs, real time deposition and court proceeding transcript costs, court reporter out-of-town travel expenses, court room technology costs, and travel costs FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY CONERGRA $56/E¥pns000005"}, {"d": 118, "p": 18, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 4 OF 14 related to sending more than one Law Firm representative to any witness interview, deposition, hearing, conference, or trial appearance. Law Firm shall retain, and upon the request of the Attorney General provide, all necessary documentation to support all non-labor costs incurred 5. Settlement Authority. Law Firm shall immediately communicate any settlement offer to the Attorney General. The Attorney General has exclusive authority to accept or reject any settlement offer received. 6. Control of Litigation. Law Firm agrees to the following conditions relating to the Attomey General’s control over any litigation: A. The Attorney General shall retain complete control over the course and conduct of the case; B. The Attorney General oversight of the case; or his designee shall be personally involved in C. The Attorney General or his assistants as he may authorize shall retain veto power over any decision made by Law Firm related to the case; D. The Attorney General has the right to communicate directly with any party in the case without having to confer first with Law Firm; E. The Attorney General or his designee shall attend all settlement conferences; and F. Decisions regarding settlement, as outlined in paragraph 5 directly above, shall be reserved exclusively to the discretion of the Attorney General. SECTION HI TERM AND TERMINATION 1. Term of Contract. The Contract shall commence on the day it is executed by both parties and shall continue until terminated by the parties, or until the legal matter for which Law Firm is providing representation is concluded, whichever is earlier. 2. Termination of Contract. Either party may terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon written notice to Law Firm, such termination being effective immediately upon Law Firm’s receipt of notice, provided Law Firm’s termination of the Contract shail not unduly prejudice the Attorney General. Upon any termination prior to any monetary recovery, Law Firm shall not be entitled to any payment from Attorney General. Provided, as provided in Appendix B, Law Firm shall be reimbursed for all reasonable, actual, ordinary and necessary direct non-labor costs incurred in fulfilling the terms of the Contract. Further, upon termination, Law Firm shall provide the Attorney General, upon request, with any and all records, including drafts, relating to the Law Firm’s representation of the Attorney General. The Attorney General is free to FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY CONTRARA 66645)}ans000006 CEEOL palpeertens bse pursuant to the performance of the Contract."}, {"d": 118, "p": 19, "t": ", CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 5 OF 14 terminate Law Firm’s representation of the State at any time unless judicial approval is required for Law Firm to withdraw, in which event Law Firm agrees not to oppose such withdrawal. Upon completion of the matter to which this Contract applies, or the earlier termination of the representation, the attorney-client relationship will end unless Law Firm agrees to continue the representation on other matters. Law Firm shall have no continuing obligation to advise the State on any matter unless Law Firm otherwise agrees in writing. SECTION IV GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Independent Contractor. Law Firm is an independent contractor and is not to be deemed an employee of the Attorney General. The Attomey General retains the right to exercise full control and supervision of the services and work to be provided under this Contract. 2. Attorney-Client Relationship. Execution of this Contract creates an attorney-client relationship between Law Firm and the Attorney General. All communications between the parties shall be deemed privileged, and ail work product shall be protected from disclosure. 3. Confidential Relationship. All information furnished by the Attorney General to Law Firm hereunder, including their respective agents and employees, shall be treated as confidential (“Confidential Information”) and shall not be disclosed to third parties except as required by law or authorized in writing. Any Confidential Information of the Attorney General may be used by Law Firm only in connection with the services performed pursuant to this Contract. Law Firm agrees to protect the confidentiality of any Confidential Information in the same manner that it protects the confidentiality of its own proprietary and confidential information. Access to the Confidential Information shall be restricted to those of Law Firm’s personnel engaged under this Contract. All Confidential Information made available hereunder, including copies thereof, shall be returned upon completion of services or request by the Attorney General, whichever occurs first. Law Firm, subject to its obligations of confidentiality, may retain one copy of documents containing Confidential Information for archival purposes and to defend its work product. The restrictions set forth in this section shall not apply to information that is or becomes in the public domain through no fault of Law Firm, is independently developed by Law Firm, is provided to Law Firm by a third party who is not subject to a duty of confidentiality or is required to be disclosed pursuant to law or legal process. 4. Conflicts of Interest. Law Firm certifies and represents that it does not have any interest, direct or indirect and that it shall not acquire any such interest during its tenure that would conflict with the full and complete performance of this Contract (“Conflict of Interest”). Conflict of Interest includes but is not limited to any professional relationships, friendships, family, or social relationships past or present, with an individual or company, parent or subsidiary related to the services provided under this Contract. Furthermore, unless Law Firm has told the Attorney General otherwise, Law Firm does not now represent another client in the specific matter in which the State has retained Law Firm. It is possible that Law Firm currently represents, or in the future may be asked to represent, in some other matter unrelated to the specific matter in which the State has engaged Law Firm, some person or entity whose interests are actually or potentially adverse to the State’s interests in this or other matters, including in negotiations, bankruptcy proceedings, or FORM GAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY CONBRARA 456/E¥pns000007"}, {"d": 118, "p": 20, "t": "* CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 6 OF 14 litigation. Law Firm agrees that it will not undertake any such representation if the subject of the other representation is directly adverse to the specific matter or interests in which Law Firm currently represents the State. Should Law Firm intend to engage in the representation of a client or interest that is adverse to the Attorney General, Law Firm agrees to immediately notify the Attorney General of its intention to engage in such representation. In its discretion, the Attorney General may object to Law Firm’s representation of a client or interest that is adverse to the Attorney General, and such objection may be grounds for immediate termination of this Contract. In the course of representing the State, and in order fully to satisfy Law Firm’s professional obligations, Law Firm may from time to time need to consult with the lawyers in its firm responsible for advising the firm on ethical issues, including issues that may implicate the State’s interests. The parties acknowledge and agree that, notwithstanding this potential for conflict in consideration of Law Firm’s professional obligations, Law Firm is free to consult with its own internal counsel on such matters without the State’s consent and that such consultations are privileged and confidential. 5. Inability te Perform. Law Firm agrees that if, because of death or any other occurrence beyond the control of Law Firm, it becomes impossible for any principal or principals, and in particular the principals assigned to this project, to render the services set forth in this Contract, neither Law Firm nor the surviving principals shall be relieved of their obligations to complete performance hereunder. Law Firm shall, with respect to any replacement principal proposed to be assigned to this matter, must timely consult with the Attorney General upon becoming aware of the possible need for replacement principal. The Attorney General’s consent to the proposed replacement is required but may not be withheld unreasonably. 6. Outside Communications. The parties agree that neither Law Firm, nor any partner, associate, employee, or any other person assisting with the services to be performed under this Contract, shall publish any material, including on-line publications, or speak to or otherwise communicate with any representative of a television station, radio station, newspaper, magazine, website, or any other media outlet concerning the work outlined or contemplated by this Contract without first obtaining approval of the Attorney General, the Attorney General’s Communications Director, or their designee. Law Firm shall not state or imply in any manner, including in commercial advertising, that its services are endorsed by the Attorney General. The Attorney General may not be used as a reference for Law Firm without the Attorney General’s prior approval. 7. Additional Counsel, Subcontracting, Key Personnel, Experts, and Consultants. Any retention of experts or consultants, subcontracting, or assignment of services and work covered by this Contract shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Contract, which shall apply to, and bind the party or parties to whom such work is subcontracted or assigned as fully and completely as Law Firm is hereby bound and obligated, including obligations with respect to confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and outside communications. In furtherance of the services described in Appendix A, Law Firm may recommend to the State subcontractors, experts, consultants, or assignment of services and work as Law Firm believes necessary. Law Firm, with respect io any retention, assignment, or subcontracting of any of the services provided under this FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY CONRARA $56/Eans000008"}, {"d": 118, "p": 21, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 7 OF 14 Contract and/or replacement of key personnel assigned to this matter (which shall include attorneys, paralegals, investigators, experts, and consultants) shall consult with and obtain the consent of the Attorney General. The hourly rates, fees, or other compensation to be paid to such subcontractors, consultants and/or experts shall be subject to the written approval of the Attorney General. 8. Notices. Any notice required to be given pursuant to the terms and provisions of this Contract shall be in writing, postage prepaid and shall be sent by First Class Mail or by courier or electronic transmission with delivery confirmation, to the respective party as set forth below. The notice shall be effective on the date indicated on the postmark. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Bradley Clark, General Counsel OKLAHOMA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 NE 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Bradley.Clark‘@oag.ok.gov Contracts(@oag.ok.go LAW FIRM: Reggie Whitten, Senior Managing Partner Michael Burrage, Managing Partner WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Ste 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rwhitten@ whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@ whittenburragelaw.com 9. Material Changes. Law Firm shall immediately notify the Attorney General of any of the following changes, and obtain the Attorney General’s approval to the extent approval is required, if: (a) Law Firm becomes aware that any of the representations, warranties and covenants set forth herein cease to be materially true at any time during the term of this Contract; (b) there is any material change in Law Firm’s personnel assigned to perform services under this Contract; or (c) Law Firm becomes aware of any other material change in its business organization, including, but not limited to the filing of bankruptcy relief or other legal suits or actions, 10. Indemnification. Law Firm shall indemnify and hold harmless the Attorney General, the State, its employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, liabilities, suits, costs, charges, expenses (including, but not limited to reasonable attorney fees and court costs), judgments, fines, and penalties, of any nature whatsoever, to the extent attributable to any bad faith, negligence, willful misconduct, improper or unethical practice, infringement of intellectual property rights, breach of trust, breach of confidentiality, breach of contract, or violation of any duty or requirement by Law Firm acting in connection with this Contract. This indemnification shall survive any termination or expiration of this Contract. FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY CON4RABA BHA Byans000009"}, {"d": 118, "p": 22, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 8 OF 14 11. Maintaining Insurance. For the duration of this Contract, Law Firm shall provide and maintain, at its own expense, professional liability insurance covering all negligent acts, errors and omissions as well as insurance against claims for injuries to person or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work under this Contract, including general liability coverage, automobile liability coverage, and worker’s compensation insurance. The Law Firm’s professional liability insurance is intended to indemnify, subject to certain terms, exclusions and limitations, the Law Firm in respect of any claim made by its clients by reason of alleged Law Firm act, error or omission, breach of contract for professional services, breach of duty, libel, or slander in connection with the representation of its clients, and related causes of action in connection with its representation of its clients. The Law Firm and its partners are also bound by the applicable rules of professional conduct and other legal, regulatory, and professional ’ obligations. Proof of the Law Firm’s insurance shall be provided upon request to the Attorney General. 12. Material Breach. Nothing in this Contract shall be construed to limit either party’s remedies at law or in equity in the event of a material breach of this Contract. 13. Performance Suspension. Performance may be suspended by either party for any of the following: a presidentially or gubernatorially declared emergency or disaster; inability to obtain fuel, power, labor, or transportation; national defense requirements; war, riots, fire, explosion, strike, injunction, or accident; or any cause beyond the control of such party, which prevents the performance of such party. An alleged breach of this Contract by Law Firm shal! be grounds for immediate suspension of this Contract. 14. Dispute Resolution. The Attorney General and Law Firm agree that their authorized representatives will timely meet and negotiate in good faith to resolve any problems or disputes that may arise in performance of the terms and provisions of this Contract. 15. Assignment. This Contract and any of the rights, duties or obligations of the parties hereunder shall not be assigned, transferred, or delegated by Law Firm without the express written consent and approval of the State. Any attempted assignment, transfer or delegation thereof without such consent shall be void. ; 16. Entire Agreement. This Contract, together with addenda and appendices, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto relating to the rights granted and the obligations assumed by the parties hereunder. No agent, representative, employee, or officer of either the Attorney General or the Law Firm has authority to make, or has made, any statement, agreement, oral or written, in connection with the Contract, which in any way can be deemed to modify, add to, or detract from, or otherwise change or alter its terms and conditions. No negotiations between the parties, nor any custom or usage, shall be permitted to modify or contradict any of the terms and conditions of the Contract. No modifications, alternations, changes, or waives to the Contract or any of its terms shall be valid or binding unless the Coniract is amended as described in paragraphs 17-18 below. 17. Modification or Changes. The Attorney General, with approval of Law Firm, may make FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY CONSRAGT444/25hn000010"}, {"d": 118, "p": 23, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 9 OF 14 modifications to this Contract at any time during the term of this Contract or any renewals or extensions thereof. Changes in the statement of work within the general scope of work and changes which do not increase the total reimbursement to Law Firm under this Contract may be accomplished by a letter of mutual consent signed by the Attorney General and Law Firm. A change in the scope of work or an increase in the total reimbursement under this Contract must be incorporated into a formal written amendment to the Contract, signed by the State and the Law Firm, and executed in the same manner as this original Contract and in accordance with applicable law. 18. Amendment. This Contract and the tasks and scope of the engagement may be amended at any time during the term of the Contract by mutual written consent of the parties hereto. 19. Headings. Titles of parts or sections of this Contract are inserted for convenience only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting its provisions. 20. Governing Law and Venue. This Contract shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Oklahoma, without regard to conflict of law principles. Should either party initiate a lawsuit or other dispute resolution proceeding over any matter relating to or arising out of this Contract, such lawsuit or other proceeding shail be filed and conducted in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 21. Severability. If any provision of this Contract or any portion thereof, or the application of any such provision or portion thereof, shall be held invalid, illegal, void or unenforceable in any respect by a court of competent jurisdiction or administrative authority, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof or the remaining portion thereof, and the validity of the entire Contract as a whole shall not be affected thereby. 22. Non-collusion. Pursuant to 74 O.8. § 85.22, Law Firm certifies the following: A. The undersigned representative of the Law Firm is the duly authorized agent of the Law Firm, for the purpose of certifying the facts pertaining to the existence of collusion among and between Law Firm and the Attorney General, as well as facts pertaining to the giving or offering of things of value to government personnel in return for special consideration in connection with this Contract; B. The undersigned representative of the Law Firm is fully aware of the facts and circumstances surrounding the acquisition or making of the bid to which this statement relates and has been personally and directly involved in the events leading the Contract; and C. Neither the Law Firm nor the undersigned representative of the Law Firm has been a party: FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY CONST $56/E5Ans00001 1"}, {"d": 118, "p": 24, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES 1. PAGE 10 OF 14 to any collusion among bidders or suppliers in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid or contract at a fixed price or to 2. refrain from bidding or contracting, to any collusion with any state official or employee as to quantity, quality or price in this Contract, or as to any other terms of this Contract, 3, to any discussions between bidders or suppliers and any state official concerning exchange of money or other thing of value for special consideration in connection with this Contract. D. Neither the Law Firm nor the undersigned representative of the Law Firm has paid, given, or donated or agreed to pay, give or donate to any officer or employee of this state any money or other thing of value, either directly or indirectly, in procuring this Contract. 23. Certification Required by 25 O.S. § 1313 (E-Verify). Law Firm certifies that it and all proposed subcontractors, whether known or unknown at the time of this Contract is executed or awarded, are in compliance with 25 O.S.2021, § 1313, and participate in the Status Verification System. The Status Verification System is defined in 25 O.S.2021, § 1312 and includes, but is not limited to, the free Employee Verification Program (E-Verify) available at www.e-verify.gov, 24. Certification Required by 74 O.S. § 85.42(B). The parties to this Contract certify that no person who has been involved in any manner in the development of this Contract while employed by the State of Oklahoma will be employed to fulfill any of the services provided for under this Contract. 25. Certification Required by 74 O.S. § 582. By executing this Contract, Law Firm certifies that it does not boycott goods or services from Israel and will not boycott Israel during the term of this Contract. 26. Certification Required by 74 O.S. § 12005. By executing this Contract, Law Firm certifies that it does not boycott energy companies and will not boycott energy companies during the term of this Contract. 27, Certification required under 21 O.S. Supp. 2025, § 1289.31. By executing this Contract, Recipient certifies that it does not have a practice, policy, guidance, or directive that discriminates against a firearm entity or firearm trade association and will not discriminate against a firearm entity or firearm trade associated during the term of the Contract. 28. Certification required under _74 0.8. Supp. 2025, § 85.42(B). By executing this Contract, the undersigned certifies that no known officer or employee of the Attorney General who has any direct or indirect financial, pecuniary, or other personal interest in the contract has been involved in any manner in the development, approval or negotiation of the contract through influence, decision, recommendation or otherwise. FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY COME yal geld 254ns000012"}, {"d": 118, "p": 25, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 11 OF 14 29. Execution in Counterparts. This Contract may be executed in counterparts, and a facsimile or .pdf signature shall be deemed to be, and shall have the same force and effect as, an original signature. [SIGNATURES ON THE NEXT PAGE] FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY COB BRA B551FAGns000013"}, {"d": 118, "p": 26, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 12 OF 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Attorney General and Law Firm have read and understand the foregoing terms of this Contract and do by their signatures below hereby agree to its terms. ATTORNEY GENERAL: SN J Dass{, Dore ; Signature Date Cewdnas Divan mond Printed Name Aiernsy [yrnsaed) Title LAW FIRM: Ndue Sue Signature thugul 4 2026 Date Michve| {Butte Ge Printed Name FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY CO26TQRA'B56 Iyans000014 ire Title! co"}, {"d": 118, "p": 27, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 13 OF 14 APPENDIX “A” DESCRIPTION OF LEGAL SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY LAW FIRM The Law Firm shall assist the Attorney General in There is a certain action pending entitled “Before the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Oklahoma, In Re: Hearing Pursuant to 36 O.S. § 984 As to Whether the Oklahoma Homeowners Insurance Market is Noncompetitive, Case No. 26- 0820-TRN.” (the “Action”). The legal services to be provided to the Attorney General pursuant to this Contract will be preparing any pleadings or legal documents to be filed in the Action, preparing witness and experts necessary for the Action, attending and conducting any hearings or proceedings in the Action, consulting with the Attorney General with regard to all aspects of the Action. The Attorney General retains control over the Action and will have the final decisions over all issues and proceedings in the Action. FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY CORBFRRABS$6iBans000015"}, {"d": 118, "p": 28, "t": "~~ CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 14 OF 14 APPENDIX “B” PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FEES (Billable-hour cases) Law Firm will bill on an hourly basis, to the nearest 1/10 of an hour, based on the actual time engaged in performing the services. The hourly rate reflects a discount from the usual rates charged by Law Firm for the services of the professionals performing the services. The rates for this Contract are as follows: ATTORNEY RATE PER HOUR Reggie Whitten Michael Burrage Associates $350.00 $350.00 $285.00 $ PARALEGAL OR LEGAL ASSISTANT Legal Assistants | RATE PER HOUR $75.00 $ $ $ Professionals in addition to or as substitute for those described above shall not be utilized without first obtaining written approval from the Attorney General or his designee. Total professional fees payable pursuant to this Contract shall not exceed the total sum of seventyfive thousand dollars ($200,000.00). In order to reduce the amount of attorneys’ fees paid or due to Law Firm from any judgment, upon request of the Attorney General, Law Firm will seek to recover the State attorneys’ fees from any defendant(s) pursuant to applicable statutes and legal doctrines in the event the State prevails in the litigation as described in Appendix A. In the event of a recovery by way of settlement or judgment, Law Firm shall prepare and submit to the State an itemized computation of the requested fees and costs and in a manner and form acceptable to the State in advance of any payment. Law Firm will be reimbursed for expenses in the Action such as any filing fees, deposition costs, transcript costs, experts needed for the Action and any other expenses approved by the Attomey General. FORM OAG BILLABLE HOUR ATTORNEY COB BRA BSbIEAANs000016"}, {"d": 118, "p": 30, "t": "CONTRACT FOR CONTINGENCY-FEE LEGAL SERVICES PAGE | OF 14 Office of the Oklahoma Attorney General CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED This Contract (the “Contract”) for Legal Services is entered into and made effective this 31\" day of July, 2026, by and between the Office of the Attorney General (“Attorney General”), on behalf of the State of Oklahoma (“State”), and Whitten Burrage, LLP (“Law Firm”’). WHEREAS, the Attorney General is the chief law officer of the State and is vested with the constitutional and statutory authority, obligation, and responsibility to represent the interests of the State and its instrumentalities and offices in any and all proceedings and matters; WHEREAS, on review, the Attorney General determined that Law Firm’s proposal provided the State is the most economical and most competent; WHEREAS, Law Firm represents that it has the necessary expertise and experience to perform its obligations hereunder; and WHEREAS, the Attorney General believes it to be in the best interest of the State and/or the people of the State that the Attorney General retain and hire the Law Firm to assist and supplement the Attorney General’s efforts on behalf of the State relating to the matters described in Appendix A; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter contained, the parties agree as follows: SECTION I DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LAW FIRM 1. Services. Law Firm shall provide services for the Attorney General as described in Appendix A. Law Firm will perform all services in a professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with applicable professional standards and shall re-perform at no cost any work not in compliance with this warranty brought to its attention within a reasonable time after the work is performed. The Attorney General may request the replacement of any individuals assigned to this Contract in the event the Attorney General is dissatisfied with the work product or working relationship. 2. Standard of Care. Law Firm shall discharge its duties under this Contract with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent professional acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise 26 ORA 356 Evans000017 TONER DA DPR I OTRO PD ATTN ATEN CUNT AUTO TIAN"}, {"d": 118, "p": 31, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED PAGE 2 OF 14 of like character and with like aims, and in accordance with the provisions of this Contract. 3. Timely Performance of Services. Law Firm shall provide timely updates for the Attorney General to participate in significant decisions regarding legal strategy. The Attorney General must be provided sufficient time to review drafts of all significant documents, including pleadings, motions, and briefs, that may be provided to third parties on the State’s behalf. Law Firm shall seek and receive approval from the Attorney General for all significant documents, including pleadings, motions, and briefs before they are provided to third parties on the State’s behalf. 4. Consultation. Law Firm shall consult with and keep the State fully informed as to the progress of all matters covered by the Contract, including regular status meetings as requested by the Attorney General. Law Firm shall consult and cooperate with, and shall be responsible directly to, the Attorney General and other officials as designated by the Attorney General on all matters of strategy and tactics. The duty of Law Firm shall be to advise, counsel, and recommend actions to the State through the Attorney General, the Office of the Attorney General, or the other officials designated by the Attorney General, and to carry out its directions to the best of its ability. Law Firm will not file suit, or make any offer, settlement, or compromise without the written consent of the Attorney General. Law Firm shall offer the Attorney General or his designee(s) the opportunity to review and revise court documents and briefs prior to filing same. Law Firm shall promptly furnish the Attorney General with copies of all correspondence and all court documents and briefs prepared in connection with the services rendered under the Contract and such additional documents as may be requested by the Attorney General. Law Firm shall make its entire work product prepared in connection with the services rendered under this Contract, and other parties’ pleadings, discovery, correspondence, and other relevant documents and materials, available to the Attorney General in .pdf or other format acceptable to the Attorney General. 5. Availability of Records & Audit. Law Firm shall keep and maintain appropriate books and records reflecting the services performed and costs and expenses incurred, disbursements, charges, credits, underlying receipts and invoices, and other financial transaction documents in connection with its performance of the services for a period of five (5) years from the ending date of this Contract. All files and records created or maintained in Law Firm’s representation of the State are property of the Attorney General, though Law Firm may retain a copy of the files and records as part of its client file. Upon reasonable notice, the Attorney General, the State Auditor & Inspector’s Office, the State Purchasing Directors, or their representatives, shall be entitled to access any books, records, and other documents and items directly pertaining to charges to the State hereunder for purpose of audit and examination, at Law Firm’s premises during normal business hours. Law Firm further agrees to provide appropriate access by the aforementioned parties to any sub-contractor’s associated records. In the event any audit, litigation, or other action involving these pertinent records is started before the end of the five (5) year period, Law Firm agrees to retain these records until all issues arising out of the action are resolved or until the end of the five (5) year period, whichever is later. 6. Professional Conduct Certification. Law Firm is aware of and certifies it will follow the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in Appendix 3-A of Title 5 of the Oklahoma Statutes. 26 ORA 356 Evans000018"}, {"d": 118, "p": 32, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 3 OF 14 * CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED 7. License to Appear. Law Firm, by signing this Contract, warrants that all attorneys involved in the representation are now, or are eligible to become, duly licensed before the judicial forum, court, board, or tribunal before which they will appear on behalf of the State. SECTION II DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1. Access to Records and Availability of Staff. Unless otherwise prohibited by law, the Attorney General agrees to forward or cause to be forwarded records or information that may be necessary to perform any of Law Firm’s duties pursuant to the provisions of this Contract. The Attorney General shall make its staff available during normal business hours to answer any questions or inquiries of Law Firm provided adequate notice is given of the time, content, and requested form of response. 2. Compensation. The Attorney General agrees to compensate Law Firm for the services contracted i accordance with the provisions of Appendix B of this Contract. No taxes will be billed to the Attorney General on fees and expenses incurred. 3. Reimbursement of Expenses. All out-of-pocket expenses, such as photocopies, telephone charges, on-line computer assisted legal research, and other appropriate items will be identified and charged to the State as they are incurred. No mark-up will be allowed on reimbursable charges. Law Firm may be reimbursed for travel expenses authorized by the Attorney General pursuant to the State Travel Reimbursement Act, 74 O.S.2021, §§ 500.1-500.37. Law Firm shall obtain prior approval from the Attorney General or its authorized staff person before incurring fees for investigative services and expert witness fees or before incurring any unusual or extraordinary expense, including but not limited to electronic deposition transcript costs, expedited deposition transcript costs, videotape deposition costs, real time deposition and court proceeding transcript costs, court reporter out-of-town travel expenses, court room technology costs, and travel costs related to sending more than one Law Firm representative to any witness interview, deposition, hearing, conference, or trial appearance. 4. Settlement Authority. Law Firm shall immediately communicate any settlement offer to the Attorney General. The Attorney General has exclusive authority to accept or reject any settlement offer received. 5. Control of Litigation. Law Firm agrees to the following conditions relating to the Attorney General’s control over any litigation: A. The Attorney General shall retain complete control over the course and conduct of the case; B. The Attorney General or his designee shall be personally involved in oversight of the case; C. The Attorney General or his assistants as he may authorize shall retain veto 26 ORA 356 Evans000019"}, {"d": 118, "p": 33, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES ” CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED PAGE 4 OF 14 power over any decision made by Law Firm related to the case; D. The Attorney General has the right to communicate directly with any party in the case without having to confer first with Law Firm; E. The Attorney General or his designee shall attend all settlement conferences; and F. Decisions regarding settlement, as outlined in paragraph 4 directly above, shall be reserved exclusively to the discretion of the Attorney General. SECTION Il TERM AND TERMINATION 1. Term of Contract. The Contract shall commence on the day it is executed by both parties and shall continue until terminated by the parties, or until the legal matter for which Law Firm is providing representation is concluded, whichever is earlier. 2. Termination of Contract. Either party may terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon written notice to the other, such termination being effective immediately upon receipt of notice, provided Law Firm’s termination of the Contract shall not unduly prejudice the Attorney General. Upon any termination prior to any monetary recovery, Law Firm shall not be entitled to any payment from the Attorney General. Provided, as provided in Appendix B, Law Firm shall be reimbursed for all reasonable, actual, ordinary, and necessary direct non-labor costs incurred in fulfilling the terms of the Contract. Further, upon termination, Law Firm shall provide the Attorney General, upon request, with any and all records, including drafts, relating to the Law Firm’s representation of the Attorney General. The Attorney General is free to terminate Law Firm’s representation of the State at any time unless judicial approval is required for Law Firm to withdraw, in which event Law Firm agrees not to oppose such withdrawal. Upon completion of the matter to which this Contract applies, or the earlier termination of the representation, the attorney-client relationship will end unless Law Firm agrees to continue the representation on other matters. Law Firm shall have no continuing obligation to advise the State on any matter unless Law Firm otherwise agrees in writing. SECTION IV GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Independent Contractor. Law Firm is an independent contractor and is not to be deemed an employee of the Attorney General. The Attorney General retains the right to exercise full control and supervision of the services and work to be provided under this Contract. 2. Attorney-Client Relationship. Execution of this Contract creates an attorney-client relationship between Law Firm and the Attorney General. All communications between the parties shall be deemed privileged, and all work product shall be protected from disclosure. 26 ORA 356 Evans000020"}, {"d": 118, "p": 34, "t": "* CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 5 oF 14 CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED 3. Confidential Relationship. All information furnished by the Attorney General to Law Firm hereunder, including their respective agents and employees, shall be treated as confidential (“Confidential Information”) and shall not be disclosed to third parties except as required by law or authorized in writing. Any Confidential Information of the Attorney General may be used by Law Firm only in connection with the services performed pursuant to this Contract. Law Firm agrees to protect the confidentiality of any Confidential Information in the same manner that it protects the confidentiality of its own proprietary and confidential information. Access to the Confidential Information shall be restricted to those of Law Firm’s personnel engaged under this Contract. All Confidential Information made available hereunder, including copies thereof, shall be returned upon completion of services or request by the Attorney General, whichever occurs first. Law Firm, subject to its obligations of confidentiality, may retain one copy of documents containing Confidential Information for archival purposes and to defend its work product. The restrictions set forth in this section shall not apply to information that is or becomes in the public domain through no fault of Law Firm, is independently developed by Law Firm, is provided to Law Firm by a third party who is not subject to a duty of confidentiality or is required to be disclosed pursuant to law or legal process. 4. Conflicts of Interest. Law Firm certifies and represents that it does not have any interest, direct or indirect and that it shall not acquire any such interest during its tenure that would conflict with the full and complete performance of this Contract (“Conflict of Interest”). Conflict of Interest includes but is not limited to any professional relationships, friendships, family, or social relationships past or present, with an individual or company, parent or subsidiary related to the services provided under this Contract. Furthermore, unless Law Firm has told the Attorney General otherwise, Law Firm does not now represent another client in the specific matter in which the State has retained Law Firm. It is possible that Law Firm currently represents, or in the future may be asked to represent, in some other matter unrelated to the specific matter in which the State has engaged Law Firm, some person or entity whose interests are actually or potentially adverse to the State’s interests in this or other matters, including in negotiations, bankruptcy proceedings, or litigation. Law Firm agrees that it will not undertake any such representation if the subject of the other representation is directly adverse to the specific matter or interests in which Law Firm currently represents the State. Should Law Firm intend to engage in the representation of a client or interest that is adverse to the Attorney General, Law Firm agrees to immediately notify the Attorney General of its intention to engage in such representation. In its discretion, the Attorney General may object to Law Firm’s representation of a client or interest that is adverse to the Attorney General, and such objection may be grounds for immediate termination of this Contract. In the course of representing the State, and in order fully to satisfy Law Firm’s professional obligations, Law Firm may from time to time need to consult with the lawyers in its firm responsible for advising the firm on ethical issues, including issues that may implicate the State’s interests. The parties acknowledge and agree that, notwithstanding this potential for conflict in consideration of Law Firm’s professional obligations, Law Firm is free to consult with its own internal counsel on such matters without the State’s consent and that such consultations are privileged and confidential. 26 ORA 356 Evans000021"}, {"d": 118, "p": 35, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED PAGE 6 OF 14 5. Inability to Perform. Law Firm agrees that if, because of death or any other occurrence beyond the control of Law Firm, it becomes impossible for any principal or principals, and in particular the principals assigned to this project, to render the services set forth in this Contract, neither Law Firm nor the surviving principals shall be relieved of their obligations to complete performance hereunder. Law Firm shall, with respect to any replacement principal proposed to be assigned to this matter, must timely consult with the Attorney General upon becoming aware of the possible need for replacement principal. The Attorney General’s consent to the proposed replacement is required but may not be withheld unreasonably. 6. Outside Communications. The parties agree that neither Law Firm, nor any partner, associate, employee, or any other person assisting with the services to be performed under this Contract, shall publish any material, including on-line publications, or speak to or otherwise communicate with any representative of a television station, radio station, newspaper, magazine, website, or any other media outlet concerning the work outlined or contemplated by this Contract without first obtaining approval of the Attorney General, the Attorney General’s Communications Director, or their designee. Law Firm shall not state or imply in any manner, including in commercial advertising, that its services are endorsed by the Attorney General. The Attorney General may not be used as a reference for Law Firm without the Attorney General’s prior approval. 7. Additional Counsel, Subcontracting, Key Personnel, Experts, and Consultants. Any retention of experts or consultants, subcontracting, or assignment of services and work covered by this Contract shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Contract, which shall apply to, and bind the party or parties to whom such work is subcontracted or assigned as fully and completely as Law Firm is hereby bound and obligated, including obligations with respect to confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and outside communications. In furtherance of the services described in Appendix A, Law Firm may recommend to the State subcontractors, experts, consultants, or assignment of services and work as Law Firm believes necessary. Law Firm, with respect to any retention, assignment, or subcontracting of any of the services provided under this Contract and/or replacement of key personnel assigned to this matter (which shall include attorneys, paralegals, investigators, experts, and consultants) shall consult with and obtain the consent of the Attorney General. The hourly rates, fees, or other compensation to be paid to such subcontractors, consultants and/or experts shall be subject to the written approval of the Attorriey General. 8. Notices. Any notice required to be given pursuant to the terms and provisions of this Contract shall be in writing, postage prepaid, and shall be sent by First Class Mail or by courier or electronic transmission with delivery confirmation, to the respective party as set forth below. The notice shall be effective on the date indicated on the postmark. ATTORNEY GENERAL: 26 ORA 356 Evans000022"}, {"d": 118, "p": 36, "t": "~ CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED PAGE 7 OF 14 Bradley Clark, General Counsel OKLAHOMA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 NE 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Bradley.Clark(@oag.ok.gov Contracts(@oag.ok.gov LAW FIRM: Reggie Whitten, Senior Managing Partner Michael Burrage, Managing Partner WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Ste 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com 9. Material Changes. Law Firm shall immediately notify the Attorney General of any of the following changes, and obtain the Attorney General’s approval to the extent approval is required, if: (a) Law Firm becomes aware that any of the representations, warranties and covenants set forth herein cease to be materially true at any time during the term of this Contract; (b) there is any material change in Law Firm’s personnel assigned to perform services under this Contract; or (c) Law Firm becomes aware of any other material change in its business organization, including, but not limited to the filing of bankruptcy relief or other legal suits or actions. 10. Indemnification. Law Firm shall indemnify and hold harmless the Attorney General, the State, its employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, liabilities, suits, costs, charges, expenses (including, but not limited to reasonable attorney fees and court costs), judgments, fines, and penalties, of any nature whatsoever, to the extent attributable to any bad faith, negligence, willful misconduct, improper or unethical practice, infringement of intellectual property rights, breach of trust, breach of confidentiality, breach of contract, or violation of any duty or requirement by Law Firm acting in connection with this Contract. This indemnification shall survive any termination or expiration of this Contract. 11. Maintaining Insurance. For the duration of this Contract, Law Firm shall provide and maintain, at its own expense, professional liability insurance covering all negligent acts, errors and omissions as well as insurance against claims for injuries to person or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work under this Contract, including general liability coverage, automobile liability coverage, and worker’s compensation insurance. The Law Firm’s professional liability insurance is intended to indemnify, subject to certain terms, exclusions and limitations, the Law Firm in respect of any claim made by its clients by reason of alleged Law Firm act, error or omission, breach of contract for professional services, breach of duty, libel or slander in connection with the representation of its clients, and related causes of action in connection with its representation of its clients. The Law Firm and its partners are also 26 ORA 356 Evans000023"}, {"d": 118, "p": 37, "t": "” CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED PAGE 8 OF 14 bound by the applicable rules of professional conduct and other legal, regulatory, and professional obligations. Proof of the Law Firm’s insurance shall be provided upon request to the Attorney General. 12. Material Breach. Nothing in this Contract shall be construed to limit either party’s remedies at law or in equity in the event of a material breach of this Contract. 13, Performance Suspension. Performance may be suspended by either party for any of the following: a presidentially or gubernatorially declared emergency or disaster; inability to obtain fuel, power, labor, or transportation; national defense requirements; war, riots, fire, explosion, strike, injunction, or accident; or any cause beyond the control of such party, which prevents the performance of such party. An alleged breach of this Contract by Law Firm shall be grounds for immediate suspension of this Contract. 14. Dispute Resolution. The Attorney General and Law Firm agree that their authorized representatives will timely meet and negotiate in good faith to resolve any problems or disputes that may arise in performance of the terms and provisions of this Contract. 15. Assignment. This Contract and any of the rights, duties or obligations of the parties hereunder shall not be assigned, transferred, or delegated by Law Firm without the express written consent and approval of the State. Any attempted assignment, transfer, or delegation thereof without such consent shall be void. 16. Entire Agreement. This Contract, together with addenda and appendices, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto relating to the rights granted and the obligations assumed by the parties hereunder. No agent, representative, employee, or officer of either the Attorney General or the Law Firm has authority to make, or has made, any statement, agreement, oral or written, in connection with the Contract, which in any way can be deemed to modify, add to, or detract from, or otherwise change or alter its terms and conditions. No negotiations between the parties, nor any custom or usage, shall be permitted to modify or contradict any of the terms and conditions of the Contract. No modifications, alternations, changes, or waives to the Contract or any of its terms shall be valid or binding unless the Contract is amended as described in paragraphs 17-18 below. 17. Modification or Changes. The Attorney General, with approval of Law Firm, may make modifications to this Contract at any time during the term of this Contract or any renewals or extensions thereof. Changes in the statement of work within the general scope of work and changes which do not increase the total reimbursement to Law Firm under this Contract may be accomplished by a letter of mutual consent signed by the Attorney General and Law Firm. A change in the scope of work or an increase in the total reimbursement under this Contract must be incorporated into a formal written amendment to the Contract, signed by the Attorney General and the Law Firm, and executed in the same manner as this original Contract and in accordance with applicable law. 26 ORA 356 Evans000024"}, {"d": 118, "p": 38, "t": "” CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 9 oF 14 CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED 18. Amendment. This Contract and the tasks and scope of the engagement may be amended at any time during the term of the Contract by mutual written consent of the parties hereto. 19. Headings. Titles of parts or sections of this Contract are inserted for convenience only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting its provisions. 20. Governing Law and Venue. This Contract shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Oklahoma, without regard to conflict of law principles. Should either party initiate a lawsuit or other dispute resolution proceeding over any matter relating to or arising out of this Contract, such lawsuit or other proceeding shall be filed and conducted in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 21. Severability. If any provision of this Contract or any portion thereof, or the application of any such provision or portion thereof, shall be held invalid, illegal, void or unenforceable in any respect by a court of competent jurisdiction or administrative authority, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof or the remaining portion thereof, and the validity of the entire Contract as a whole shall not be affected thereby. 22. Non-collusion. Pursuant to 74 O.S. § 85.22, Law Firm certifies the following: A. The undersigned representative of the Law Firm is the duly authorized agent of the Law Firm, for the purpose of certifying the facts pertaining to the existence of collusion among and between Law Firm and the Attorney General, as well as facts pertaining to the giving or offering of things of value to government personnel in return for special consideration in connection with this Contract; B. The undersigned representative of the Law Firm is fully aware of the facts and circumstances surrounding the acquisition or making of the bid to which this statement relates and has been personally and directly involved in the events leading the Contract; and C. Neither the Law Firm nor the undersigned representative of the Law Firm has been a party: 1. 2. to any collusion among bidders or suppliers in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid or contract at a fixed price or to refrain from bidding or contracting, to any collusion with any state official or employee as to quantity, quality, or price in this Contract, or as to any other terms of this Contract, 3. to any discussions between bidders or suppliers and any state official concerning exchange of money or other thing of value for special consideration in connection with this Contract. 26 ORA 356 Evans000025"}, {"d": 118, "p": 39, "t": "* CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 10 OF 14 CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED D. Neither the Law Firm nor the undersigned representative of the Law Firm has paid, given, or donated or agreed to pay, give, or donate to any officer or employee of this state any money or other thing of value, either directly or indirectly, in procuring this Contract. 23. Certification Required by 25 O.S. § 1313 (E-Verify). Law Firm certifies that it and all proposed subcontractors, whether known or unknown at the time of this contract is executed or awarded, are in compliance with 25 O.S.2021, § 1313, and participate in the Status Verification System. The Status Verification System is defined in 25 O.S.2021, § 1312 and includes, but is not limited to, the free Employee Verification Program (E-Verify) available at www.e-verify. gov. 24. Certification Required by 74 O.S. § 85.42(B). The parties to this Contract certify that no person who has been involved in any manner in the development of this Contract while employed by the State of Oklahoma will be employed to fulfill any of the services provided for under this Contract. 25. Certification Required by 74 O.S. § 582. By executing this Contract, Law Firm certifies that it does not boycott goods or services from Israel and will not boycott Israel during the term of this Contract. 26. Certification Required by 74 O.S. § 12005. By executing this Contract, Law Firm certifies that it does not boycott energy companies and will not boycott energy companies during the term of this Contract. 27. Certification required under 21 O.S. Supp. 2025, § 1289.31. By executing this Contract, Recipient certifies that he does not have a practice, policy, guidance, or directive that discriminates against a firearm entity or firearm trade association and will not discriminate against a firearm entity or firearm trade associated during the term of the Contract. 28. Certification required _under_74 O.S. Supp. 2025, § 85.42(B). By executing this Contract, the undersigned certifies no known officer or employee of the Attorney General who has any direct or indirect financial, pecuniary, or other personal interest in the contract has been involved in any manner in the development, approval or negotiation of the contract through influence, decision, recommendation or otherwise. 28. Execution in Counterparts. This Contract may be executed in counterparts, and a facsimile or .pdf signature shall be deemed to be, and shall have the same force and effect as, an original signature. [SIGNATURES ON THE NEXT PAGE] 26 ORA 356 Evans000026"}, {"d": 118, "p": 40, "t": "CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 11 OF 14 CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Attorney General and Law Firm have read and understand the foregoing terms of this Contract and do by their signatures below hereby agree to its terms. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Aus £, 2p2le Signature Date Die mina nel Au ane Printed Name @ Norns Crna) Title LAW FIRM: Ke hie 9-4-2 ee Signature im CHA te Date Wh AtEY Printed Name’ * fa thd ce Title 26 ORA 356 Evans000027 U"}, {"d": 118, "p": 41, "t": "* CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PAGE 12 oF 14 CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED APPENDIX “A” DESCRIPTION OF LEGAL SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY LAW FIRM The Law Firm shall assist the Attorney General in the Investigation and litigation into State Farm’s Insurance Company’s Storm Claims Handling Practices Defrauding Oklahoman Insureds. Specifically, the Law Firms shall; 1. Investigation planning and evidence assessment. Develop a prioritized investigative plan; identify factual gaps; organize existing evidence; and recommend the sequence of records requests, witness examinations, data analysis, expert work, and third-party discovery. 2. Civil investigative demands and compulsory process. Draft targeted demands for documents, interrogatory responses, testimony, and other evidence; assist in negotiating compliance; evaluate objections and privilege claims; and support enforcement proceedings. Where the statutory predicates are satisfied, this work may include civil investigative demands authorized by Oklahoma Statutes. 3. Witness and corporate discovery. Identify and prepare examinations of current and former State Farm personnel, affiliated-company personnel, adjusters, reviewers, vendors, engineers, inspectors, and other participants with knowledge of the relevant practices. 4. Claims-data and damages analysis. Work with the Office and approved experts to identify affected claims, test recurring patterns, quantify consumer harm and unjust gains, and develop defensible methodologies for restitution, disgorgement, penalties, and other relief. 5. Pleadings, motion practice, and trial preparation. Draft and revise pleadings, discovery, motions, briefs, expert materials, demonstratives, and trial examinations; preserve a clear evidentiary record; and prosecute authorized claims in the forum selected by the Attorney General. 6. Resolution and consumer relief. Evaluate settlement proposals, structure potential restitution and injunctive terms, and provide recommendations to the Attorney General, while recognizing that the Attorney General retains exclusive authority over settlement and the course of the litigation 26 ORA 356 Evans000028"}, {"d": 118, "p": 42, "t": "ad CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED PAGE 13 OF 14 APPENDIX “B” COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT FOR SERVICES 1. The State has determined that hiring private counsel on a contingency fee basis is in the best interests of the State to ensure adequate resources and expertise in the subject matter are available to prosecute any cases or claims falling within the provisions of Appendix A. The State has also determined that Law Firm is on the list of private attorneys under 74 O.S.2021, § 201 and that Law Firm has met the requirements for being retained as private counsel under section 20i. Law Firm shall be paid a contingency fee based on recovery obtained by the State through settlement or judgment from any action or matter contemplated by this contract. Pursuant to 74 O.S.Supp.2022, § 201(D), the contingency fee shall not exceed as follows: Recovery Percentage Less than $10,000,000.00 20% $10,000,000.01-$15,000,000.00 | Plus 16% of any amount in this range $15,000,000.01-$20,000,000.00 | Plus 12% of any amount in this range $20,000,000.01-$25,000,000.00 | Plus 8% of any amount in this range $25,000,000.01 or more Plus 4% of any amount in this range Notwithstanding the above recovery fee schedule, the total contingency fee payable shall not exceed $50,000,000.00, excluding any costs and expenses provided by the contract and actually incurred by Law Firm, and regardless of the number of actions or proceedings or number of retained attorneys involved. 2. Law Firm agrees to limit its requests for reimbursement of any expenses incurred in travel in accordance with the provisions of the State Travel Reimbursement Act, 74 O.S.2021, § 500.1 et seq. 3. In order to reduce the amount of attorneys’ fees due to Law Firm from any judgment, Law Firm will seek to recover the State attorneys’ fees from any defendant(s) pursuant to applicable statutes and legal doctrines in the event the State prevails in the litigation as described in Appendix A. If the State receives such an award of fees from the defendant(s), any amount awarded shall be deducted from any fees otherwise due to Law Firm under paragraph 1 of this Appendix. , 4. Law Firm shall receive no compensation or cost reimbursement if there is no recovery. Nor shall Law Firm receive additional compensation for any legal action taken or other services rendered to accomplish the collection of any recovery. The Attorney General, in his sole discretion, may agree to settlement of the Litigation that provides only for non-monetary relief. If such a settlement is obtained, the Attorney General agrees to make reasonable efforts to recover an award of attorneys’ fees and costs but is in no way obligated to condition settlement 26 ORA 356 Evans000029"}, {"d": 118, "p": 43, "t": "e a - * CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES CONTINGENCY-FEE BASED PAGE 14 OF 14 upon payment of costs, fees, or any other monetary recovery. The Attorney General shall have sole discretion as to the amount of fees sought and his decision in that regard will be final. \" The State and Law Firm will make reasonable efforts to petition the court where the litigation is pending for an order requiring that Law Firm’s costs, including non-labor, experts, consultants, and other reimbursable costs, be paid by the defendant(s). Should such an order not be issued, Law Firm’s costs shall be reimbursed from the recovery obtained by the State. If no settlement or award is obtained, whether it be due to dismissal at the direction of the State, a settlement based on non-monetary relief or an adverse result at trial, Law Firm will not be entitled to reimbursement for costs of any kind, except in accordance with this Appendix. In no event shall the State be responsible to advance any of the costs or expenses of the Litigation. 5. Law Firm shall advance, and subject to the limitations of this Appendix, shall be reimbursed for all reasonable, actual, ordinary, and necessary direct non-labor costs incurred in fulfilling the terms of the Contract. Non-labor costs include, but are not limited to, costs associated with photocopies, telephone charges, on-line computer assisted legal research, courier delivery services, facsimiles, mileage, transportation costs, court filing fees, service of process fees, deposition costs, and witness fees. No mark-up will be allowed for non-labor costs. Law Firm shall retain, and upon the request of the Attorney General provide, all necessary documentation to support all non-labor costs incurred pursuant to the performance of the Contract. 6. Reimbursement of costs and expenses of another law firm retained by Law Firm shall be the responsibility of Law Firm and not the State. Law Firm agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the State against any claim for reimbursement of costs or expenses asserted by other law firm(s) retained by Law Firm. 7. The State shall not be liable to reimburse Law Firm for any costs or expenses advanced or incurred by Law Firm in fulfilling the terms of the Contract unless there is a recovery as described in this Appendix from which such reimbursement may be made or in the event the Attorney General recovers expenses and/or costs as part of any non-monetary relief as described in this Appendix. The State shall not be responsible to advance any of the costs or expenses of the Litigation. 8. Inthe event ofa recovery by way of settlement or judgment, Law Firm shall prepare and submit to the State an itemized computation of the requested fees and costs and in a manner and form acceptable to the State in advance of any payment. 26 ORA 356 Evans000030"}, {"d": 119, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CLEVELAND COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex. rel, GENTNER DRUMMOND, OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL, DISTRICT COURT CLEVELAND COUNTY, OKLAHOMA September 22, 2026 10:29 AM MARILYN WILLIAMS, COURT CLERK |) Case No. CJ-2026-1066 Plaintiff, Case Number CJ-2026-1066 V. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOTICE OF HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Motion to Disqualify Whitten Burrage as Counsel for Plaintiff has been set for hearing before Judge Jeff Virgin on November 9, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. at the Cleveland County Courthouse, located at 200 S. Peters Ave., Norman, OK 73069. Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 David R. Herber, OBA No. 33527 GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102-7101 Telephone: 405-235-5500 Facsimile: Email: 405-235-2875 lleffel(@gablelaw.com dherber@gablelaw.com"}, {"d": 119, "p": 2, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE [hereby certify that on this 22\" day of September, 2026, I mailed a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument via U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following counsel of record: Gentner Drummond, OBA No. 16645 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA Garry M. Gaskins, I, OBA No. 20212 Cameron R. Capps, OBA No. 32742 Christopher J. Campbell, OBA No. 33649 313 NE 21\" Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Phone: 405-522-1260 Fax: 405-521-3921 garry.gaskins@oag.ok.gov cameron.capps(@oag.ok.gov chris.campbell@oag.ok.gov Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Ave., Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: 405-516-7800 Fax: 405-516-7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Plaintiff at David R. Herber 4937-2794-1842, v. 3 Noe"}, {"d": 120, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CLEVELAND COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. GENTNER DRUMMOND, OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY STATE OF OKLAHOMA} SS. are Tee “FILED GENERAL, JUN 7 4 2026 In the office of the Court Clerk MARILYN WILLIAMS Plaintiff, ah V. Case No. STATE FARM COMPANY, FIRE AND CASUALTY] CV AOS\" 1966 \\fying ¢ WON Defendant. STATE OF OKLAHOMA’S PETITION Plaintiff State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Gentner Drummond, Attorney General (“Attorney General”), for its causes of action against Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”), alleges and states as follows: I. NATURE OF THE ACTION le The Attorney General alleges that State Farm, acting through its officers, employees, computer systems, and a network of captive agents and associated entities as unnamed co-conspirators, implemented an internal program, commonly referred to as the “Hail Focus Initiative” to drastically reduce aggregate roof indemnity payments in Oklahoma. Rather than adjust claims according to coverage language in its policies, State Farm secretly substituted restrictive, extra-contractual standards and used those hidden standards to deny or minimize payment of legitimate covered losses. 2. underwriters, At the point of sale and renewal, State Farm and its captive agents, as frontline marketed and sold homeowners policies as providing “full replacement cost” coverage for storm-related roof damage, including wind and hail, and cultivated a “good neighbor” image designed to induce reliance and trust. In reality, rather than evaluating each claim on its"}, {"d": 120, "p": 2, "t": "merits, State Farm adopted internal directives requiring reduced roof replacement approvals, effectively predetermining outcomes to satisfy a corporate objective of lowering indemnity payments for roof claims. 3. The Attorney General brings this action to: (a) enforce Oklahoma’s consumer- protection and anti-racketeering laws to halt a systematic fraudulent scheme harming Oklahoma homeowners; (b) obtain civil penalties and other relief authorized by the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act (“OCPA”) and Oklahoma Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“ORICO”); (c) obtain structural injunctive relief to dismantle the Hail Focus Initiative; (d) compel the disgorgement of illicit profits, which may be distributed as restitution as an ancillary remedy, to prevent State Farm’s unjust enrichment. II. PARTIES A, State Farm is a foreign insurance corporation licensed to do business in Oklahoma. At all relevant times, State Farm insurance policies in Oklahoma, has marketed, sold, underwritten, and adjusted homeowners including policies providing replacement cost coverage for dwellings and roofs for covered losses. State Farm acts through its officers, employees, and adjusters and is legally responsible for their acts and omissions within the scope of their authority. 5. Numerous State Farm captive agents and their incorporated agencies are non-party co-conspirators and associated persons for purposes of the enterprise and civil conspiracy alleged herein. These agents and agencies are legally distinct entities from State Farm, generally organized as separate corporations or business entities under Oklahoma law, but contractually obligated to sell State Farm insurance products. State Farm created underwriting duties which must be followed by its agents to properly determine the risk of insuring a property."}, {"d": 120, "p": 3, "t": "6. The Attorney General is the chief law officer of the State of Oklahoma, authorized by law to enforce the ORICO, 22 O.S. §§ 1401-1419, and the OCPA, 15 O.S. §§ 751-764.1, including by seeking injunctive relief, civil penalties, disgorgement, damages, and restitution on behalf of Oklahoma consumers. 7. The Attorney General is also expressly authorized by 74 O.S. § 18b(A)(22) to “represent and protect the collective interests of insurance consumers of this state in rate-related proceedings before the Insurance Commissioner or in any other state or federal judicial or administrative proceeding,” and by 74 O.S. § 18b(A)(3) to “initiate or appear in any action in which the interests of the state or the people of the state are at issue.” This action falls squarely within both grants of authority. 8. Moreover, this public enforcement action is brought by the Attorney General to protect Oklahoma homeowners and the integrity of the Oklahoma insurance marketplace. The Attorney General brings this action in his official capacity to enforce public rights and protect the health, safety, and economic well-being of Oklahoma homeowners policies and were subjected to State residents who purchased State Farm Farm’s systematic misrepresentations and unfair claim denials. The injuries alleged are not confined to a handful of private disputes; they are widespread, market-wide harms that individual lawsuits cannot adequately address. 9. The State’s sovereign and quasi-sovereign interests are directly implicated. The State has a sovereign interest in the integrity of its insurance marketplace, a quasi-sovereign interest in the economic well-being of its residents as a class, and an interest in deterring and remedying systemic violations of laws of general application enacted to protect Oklahoma consumers. This is not an action by which the State assumes the cause of one private citizen against"}, {"d": 120, "p": 4, "t": "another; it is an action by which the State enforces its own laws, in its own name, to redress harms to the public at large. O.S. I. JURISDICTION, VENUE, AUTHORITY, AND PUBLIC INTEREST 10. This Court has jurisdiction over this civil enforcement proceeding pursuant to 22 § 1409(A), which authorizes the Attorney General to institute civil proceedings in an appropriate district court against any person for relief from conduct constituting a violation of ORICO. 11. This Court also has jurisdiction under the OCPA, including for actions brought pursuant to 15 O.S. § 761.1, which authorizes the Attorney General to bring actions in district court to enjoin unlawful practices, obtain restitution, and damages, and recover civil penalties and costs. 12. This Court further has jurisdiction over the Attorney General’s common-law claims for civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment under the general civil jurisdiction of the district courts of this State. Okla. Const. art. VII, § 7. 13. Venue is proper in Cleveland County. State Farm transacts business in Cleveland County through licensed captive agents and agencies operating in Norman and other Cleveland County communities. State Farm marketed, sold, and renewed homeowners insurance policies to Cleveland County residents during the relevant period, including replacement cost coverage for and wind damage on policyholders submitted claims hail for hail and wind damage policies dwellings. that were promising Cleveland adjudicated full County under the concealed, extra-contractual standards of the Hail Focus Initiative, and Cleveland County residents suffered economic harm as a result of those wrongful denials and underpayments. Multiple acts of racketeering activity and deceptive practices alleged herein—including misrepresentations at sale and renewal, claim denials communicated by mail and electronic means, and use of computer"}, {"d": 120, "p": 5, "t": "systems to execute the scheme—occurred in Cleveland County. ORICO expressly permits venue in any county where at least one act of racketeering activity has occurred, 22 O.S. § 1404, allowing a single district court to exercise jurisdiction over the enterprise and the pattern of conduct. 14. The pattern of racketeering and deceptive conduct alleged herein continues to the present. The Attorney General brings this action to enforce public rights and exercises the State’s sovereign police powers. The Attorney General brings this enforcement action not to vindicate individualized private claims, but to restrain an ongoing fraudulent scheme that threatens the integrity of Oklahoma’s insurance market and the economic welfare of a substantial portion of the State’s population. Moreover, Defendant’s affirmative misrepresentations and concealment of its internal Hail Focus standards and related claims-handling practices tolled any applicable limitations periods by fraudulent concealment until such time as the existence and nature of the scheme could reasonably be discovered. IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. Background: Hail Storms and State Farm’s Concern About Roof Claim 15. | Oklahoma experiences severe hail and wind storms that damage residential roofs and exteriors. In the years leading up to the events at issue, State Farm faced a significant volume of hail and wind claims from Oklahoma homeowners, many involving full roof replacement. 16. By 2022, State Farm management became concerned about the aggregate cost of roof replacements and the perceived severity of its hail and wind losses. Internal communications show that State Farm believed it was approving “too many” roof claims. 17. In response, State Farm made a corporate decision to change its approach to roof claims, with the express purpose of reducing the total number and dollar amount of roof indemnity payments in Oklahoma and other markets, rather than simply improving accuracy or fraud"}, {"d": 120, "p": 6, "t": "detection. State Farm determined, before reviewing any individual claim or making any individual coverage determination, that it would reduce overall indemnity payments for roof claims, and then implemented and tracked the scheme alleged herein in order to meet its predetermined savings targets down to the dollar. 18. Under its new approach, State Farm adjusters were instructed that they no longer had authority to authorize total roof replacements, because State Farm was paying for too many roof claims. In addition, without the knowledge of policyholders, regulators, or the public, State Farm changed its internal claim standards with the express purpose of reducing claim payments. Policies continued to be sold and renewed with State Farm continuing to offer the same written language promising coverage for losses caused by perils such as hail and wind. B. The Hail Focus Initiative and Internal Claim-Handing Changes 19. As part of its effort to reduce roof indemnity payments, State Farm developed and implemented an internal program known as the Hail Focus Initiative. The precise internal name, dates of rollout, and written directives are within State Farm’s exclusive possession, custody, and control. 20. | Upon information and belief, State Farm stripped or sharply curtailed the authority of field adjusters to approve full roof replacements. Under prior procedures, experienced adjusters in the field could determine a total roof replacement was appropriate when they observed sufficient hail or wind damage. Under the Hail Focus Initiative, State Farm required higher-level managers to approve full roof replacements, thereby creating additional layers of scrutiny and opportunities to deny, delay, and limit claims. 21. | Upon information and belief, State Farm in conjunction with co-conspirator engineering and consulting firms, created and internally adopted undisclosed, extra-contractual"}, {"d": 120, "p": 7, "t": "definitions of key claims concepts, including “hail damage,” “functional damage,” and “direct physical loss.” These internal standards were systematically more restrictive than the policy language and secretly and fraudulently withheld from policyholders. 22. | Upon information and belief, State Farm formulated, implemented, and enforced claim-handling practices and policies under which adjusters, independent inspectors, engineers, consultants, and other personnel were instructed, trained, encouraged, and otherwise induced to treat hail strikes under restrictive internal and undisclosed definitions which resulted in the increased denial of claims. 23. | Upon information and belief, State Farm formulated, implemented, and enforced claim-handling practices and policies under which adjusters, independent inspectors, engineers, consultants, and other personnel were instructed, trained, encouraged, and otherwise induced to treat hail strikes as attributed to “wear and tear,” “installation error,” “cosmetic damage,” “manufacturing defect,” or other purportedly excluded causes, even when the timing and pattern of damage indicated a recent hail event and at times without inspection of the roof prior to the covered event. 24. | Upon information and belief, State Farm required or strongly encouraged the use of third-party engineering or inspection firms known to provide reports favorable to denial or minimization of hail claims. Engineers were often deployed after a contractor, independent adjuster, or field employee observed significant hail impacts. The resulting reports frequently discounted hail as the cause of the damage and emphasized non-covered factors, thereby providing a pretext for denial. 25. Upon information and belief, State Farm used computer-based software, systems, and platforms in the contracting, adjusting and denying of Oklahoma’s homeowners insurance"}, {"d": 120, "p": 8, "t": "claims. This includes the use of computer-generated and disseminated forms and policies, the use of computer systems to submit, adjust, track, and deny claims, the use of computer systems to communicate and/or achieve communications with policyholders and State Farm’s co-conspirators and use of computer systems to conceal the enterprise. 26. The Hail Focus Initiative and associated claims-handling changes were motivated by financial considerations: reducing State Farm’s loss ratios and indemnity costs for hail and wind claims, especially total roof replacements. This initiative was designed and executed not to more faithfully apply existing policy terms, but to avoid paying claims that State Farm knew or should have known were covered under those terms. C. Role of Captive Agents and Other Participants 27. State Farm distributes its homeowners’ policies in Oklahoma through captive agents and their separate agencies. These agents and agencies are non-party co-conspirators and associated persons for purposes of the enterprise and conspiracy alleged herein. 28. At policy inception and renewal, captive agents are the local face of State Farm, marketing policies to homeowners and fostering trust through branding such as “Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there.” Agents assure customers that State Farm will take care of them if their home is damaged by hail or wind in a covered loss and emphasize that replacement cost coverage will restore the home to its pre-loss condition. 29. State Farm’s captive agents possess authority to bind coverage and issue policies on State Farm’s behalf. In many instances the agents represent to State Farm and the insured that the property meets underwriting guidelines. In some cases, agents may inspect the roof or rely on representations about its condition. In other cases, agents fail to inspect the roof entirely, failing to meet State Farm’s own underwriting requirements."}, {"d": 120, "p": 9, "t": "30. Captive agents knew, or at minimum had reason to know, that State Farm was tightening internal claim standards and increasingly denying hail claims that would previously have been paid. Despite this knowledge or reason to know, captive agents continued to sell and renew policies without disclosing that State Farm was internally adopting extra-contractual restrictive hail-damage standards and limiting roof replacements. Agents remained silent about the internal Hail Focus Initiative and did not warn customers that their ability to obtain roof replacement coverage had materially changed. 31. Third-party engineering firms and independent adjusting firms likewise participated by providing outcome-oriented reports and estimates that supported pre-determined denials or underpayments. These entities functioned as part of the same de facto enterprise, even though they are not named as defendants in this civil action. D. Misrepresentations and Deceptive Practices at Sale and Renewal 32. | Throughout the relevant period, State Farm marketed homeowners’ policies as providing full replacement cost coverage for dwelling damage, including hail and wind damage to roofs. Advertising materials and agent sales presentations created the clear impression that if a hail storm damaged a roof in a covered loss, State Farm would pay to repair or replace the roof, minus any applicable deductible, so the home could be restored to its prior condition. 33. | These marketing representations did not inform consumers that State Farm would internally redefine damage much more narrowly than the policy language, or that State Farm would treat many forms of hail impact as non-qualifying damage contrary to the purchased policy. 34. State Farm failed to disclose to consumers that its adjusters and managers would apply internal damage-assessment standards not contained in the policy and that exclusions for"}, {"d": 120, "p": 10, "t": "pre-existing conditions, wear and tear, or cosmetic damage would be invoked aggressively to limit coverage, even when the roof had performed properly until a specific hail event. 35. In some cases, State Farm allegedly covered homes and collected premiums without identifying any pre-existing roof conditions, only to later deny hail claims on the ground that the damage was pre-existing or due to age and wear. If the roof had truly been in such defective or worn condition at inception, State Farm would have declined the risk. This pattern reflects a post-hoc use of exclusions to avoid paying for hail damage that manifestly arose after policy inception. 36. By promising full replacement cost coverage while internally planning not to honor full roof replacement materially impaired claims coverage. in many circumstances, State Farm Policyholders paid premiums effectively sold illusory or based on one understanding of coverage, while State Farm secretly intended to apply a much narrower, self-serving standard. E. Fraudulent Claim Denials and Underpayments 37. | The Attorney General identifies the harm to numerous Oklahoma policyholders as proof of the “pattern of racketeering activity” required by ORICO. Their experiences demonstrate the scope and magnitude of State Farm’s enterprise-wide scheme. 38. After hail and wind storms, Oklahoma homeowners who purchased State Farm policies submitted claims for roof and related damage. As part of the Hail Focus Initiative, State Farm handled many such claims through a common set of deceptive tactics. These tactics included re-characterizing hail impacts as wear and tear, blistering, granular loss, or other non-covered conditions despite clear temporal and physical evidence of a recent storm; invoking pre-existing damage or the age of the roof to deny claims, even where the roof had not leaked or shown problems before the storm and had been treated as insurable when the policy was issued or 10"}, {"d": 120, "p": 11, "t": "renewed; and limiting repair scopes or estimates to minor components (such as spot repairs, vents, or gutters) while ignoring widespread damage that would require full replacement. 39. Claim denials and underpayments were communicated to policyholders in letters and estimates transmitted by mail or electronic means. Those communications often stated or implied that the denial was required by the policy terms or based on an objective lack of hail damage, when in truth the outcome was driven by undisclosed internal standards and financial targets. F. The Enterprise 40. At all times relevant to this Petition, State Farm, its captive insurance agents, and co-conspirator engineering and consulting firms, were members of an organization (the “Denial Enterprise”) whose members and associates engaged in, among other activities, fraud, false representation, and unfair and deceptive practices. 41. The Denial Enterprise, including its leadership, its captive agencies, and its hired vendors, constituted an “enterprise,” as defined by 22 O.S. § 1402(2) and related Oklahoma statutes, that is, a group of individuals and entities associated in fact, although not a single legal entity. The Denial Enterprise constituted an ongoing organization whose members and associates functioned as a continuing unit for a common purpose of achieving the objectives of the Enterprise. 42. State Farm was the leader of the Denial Enterprise, and directed other members and associates of the Denial Enterprise, including individual agents and distinct legal entities serving as captive agencies in carrying out unlawful and other activities in furtherance of the conduct of the Denial Enterprise's affairs. State Farm developed definitions designed to reduce indemnity claims, specifically the Hail Focus Initiative, and directed the implementation of these restrictive definitions through the Denial Enterprise. 1]"}, {"d": 120, "p": 12, "t": "G. Purpose of the Denial Enterprise 43. The purpose of the Denial Enterprise was the enrichment of the members and associates of the Denial Enterprise through, among other things, the sale of insurance policies under false pretenses and the retention of premiums that should have been paid out as indemnity. The Denial Enterprise aimed to grow, protect, and preserve the power, profits, and market share of its members and associates through the systematic denial of valid claims and the underpayment of losses. The Denial Enterprise sought to promote and enhance the activities of its members and associates by marketing coverage to consumers while internally utilizing claims-handling practices designed to minimize payouts on valid claims. H. Means and Methods of the Denial Enterprise 44. methods | Members and associates of the Denial Enterprise employed numerous means and to conduct and participate in the affairs of the Enterprise. First, they committed, conspired, and attempted to commit acts of fraud and false representation to protect and expand the Enterprise’s financial operations, including marketing homeowners insurance policies that State Farm did not intend to honor as represented. Members and associates of the Denial Enterprise committed, conspired, and attempted to commit acts of fraud and false representation to protect and expand the Denial Enterprise's financial operations, including the marketing of policies State Farm did not intend to honor as represented. 45. | Members and associates of the Enterprise functioned as distinct legal persons who ensured policy placement and consumer engagement, thereby facilitating the scheme by marketing and renewing policies under false pretenses. These actors knowingly promoted full replacement coverage while concealing that State Farm had internally standards that would dramatically limit claim payments. 12 adopted restrictive, undisclosed"}, {"d": 120, "p": 13, "t": "46. In furtherance of the scheme, members and associates of the Enterprise also utilized co-conspirator engineering firms to produce outcome-oriented reports and redefined damage criteria designed to justify the denial or reduction of indemnity claims under the “Hail Focus Initiative.” These engineered assessments provided the pretext necessary to label hail impacts as non-covered conditions such as wear, blistering, or installation defects. 47. Finally, members and associates of the Enterprise systematically denied or underpaid hail and wind claims to curtail roof claim payments regardless of actual coverage or loss. Through this coordinated course of conduct, the Denial Enterprise defrauded Oklahoma consumers, deprived them of the insurance benefits for which they paid, and generated substantial unlawful financial gains for State Farm. I. The Racketeering Violation 48. Oklahoma From at least in or about 2020, up to and including the present, in the State of and elsewhere, State Farm, being a person employed by and associated with the Enterprise, engaged in, directly and indirectly, the conduct of the affairs of that enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. 49. _ The pattern of racketeering activity, as defined in 22 O.S. § 1402(5), consisted of multiple and interrelated instances of OCPA violations and violations of the Oklahoma Computer Crimes Act, 21 O.S. § 1951. et seq., including but not limited to: a. On two or more occasions, knowingly made or caused false representations or promises regarding insurance coverage, with intent not to sell or provide it as advertised which constitutes an unlawful, chargeable, and/or indictable felony act under 15 O.S. § 753(9); and 13"}, {"d": 120, "p": 14, "t": "b. On two or more occasions, committed unfair and deceptive acts which are unlawful, chargeable and/or indictable felony acts as defined in 15 O.S. § 752(13) and prohibited under 15 O.S. § 753(21). c. On two or more occasions used of a computer, computer system, and/or computer network for the purpose of devising and executing a scheme to defraud or deceive by means of false or fraudulent pretense or representation which constitutes an unlawful, chargeable, and/or indictable felony act under 21 O.S. 1953(A). 50. These acts share the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, and methods of commission, and are not isolated events. As a direct result of the Enterprise operation, victims have suffered substantial economic harm, including unpaid insurance benefits and consequential property damage. J. Public Harm and Market Impact 51. | The Denial Enterprise has caused significant public harm to individual homeowners having been deprived of the insurance benefits for which they paid, leaving them to shoulder the cost of roof replacements and related repairs or to live under damaged, leaking roofs. 52. The Denial Enterprise has caused significant harm to the aggregate Oklahoma economy as funds that should have been injected into repairs and construction were retained by State Farm instead. 53. The Attorney General alleges that the pattern of conduct is ongoing and likely to continue absent judicial intervention, particularly in future hail and wind seasons. 54. The Attorney General brings this action on behalf of the general public and the State of Oklahoma itself, not on behalf of any individual insured, group of insureds, or putative class of private claimants. The Attorney General brings this action in the general public’s interest seeking 14"}, {"d": 120, "p": 15, "t": "to address violations of consumer laws for the benefit of the general public and the protection of the Oklahoma insurance marketplace. The State has a sovereign interest in the economic wellbeing of its residents and in the integrity and stability of its homeowners’ insurance markets. 55. The claims asserted here target the corporate-level conduct that is common to all affected policyholders—the design and concealed implementation of the Hail Focus Initiative, the use of undisclosed extra-contractual standards, the misrepresentations made at sale and renewal, and the systemic claims-handling practices the Enterprise used to deny valid claims. Adjudication of these claims does not require this Court to determine the merits of any individual policyholder’s coverage dispute. The remedies sought—injunctive relief to dismantle the scheme, civil penalties to deter future violations, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and ancillary restitution—are systemic in nature and turn on State Farm’s uniform corporate conduct, not on individualized claim-byclaim factual determinations. V. CAUSES OF ACTION Count I: Violations of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act 56. | The Attorney General re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 57. State Farm is a “person” engaged in commerce within the meaning of 15 O.S. § 752(1). Oklahoma homeowners who purchased State Farm homeowners policies for personal, family, or household purposes are “consumers” under 15 O.S. § 752(2). The marketing, sale, and administration of homeowners insurance policies constitute “consumer transactions” within the meaning of § 752(2). 58. In the course of these consumer transactions, State Farm engaged in multiple unlawful practices in violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, as detailed above. These 15"}, {"d": 120, "p": 16, "t": "practices include advertising or offering the subject of a consumer transaction with the intent not to sell or furnish it as advertised, in violation of 15 O.S. § 753(9). State Farm marketed and sold homeowners policies as providing full replacement cost coverage for hail and wind damage while internally intending not to provide such coverage and instead relying on undisclosed internal standards to deny or limit claims. 59. State Farm also committed unfair or deceptive trade practices as defined in 15 O.S. § 752(13) and prohibited by 15 O.S. § 753(21). Its conduct included deception, fraud, false pretenses, false promises, misrepresentations, and the knowing concealment and omission of material facts in connection with both the sale of insurance and the processing of claims. This deceptive conduct consisted of concealing the existence and effect of the Hail Focus Initiative and the use of extra-contractual internal criteria; misrepresenting to policyholders that hail-damaged roofs exhibited only wear and tear or other uncovered causes despite knowing or having reason to know that hail caused the loss; failing to disclose material limitations and internal standards at the time of sale and renewal while relying on those undisclosed standards to deny claims; and using outcome-oriented engineering or inspection reports to manufacture a pretext for denial or underpayment of valid claims. 60. State Farm’s unfair, deceptive, and unlawful practices were willful or, at minimum, committed with knowledge or reason to know of their deceptive nature. Management deliberately designed the Hail Focus Initiative to mislead policyholders about the scope of coverage and to reduce claim payments. 61. | These unlawful practices occurred in trade or commerce and affected the public interest. They were not isolated incidents but part of a company-wide impacting numerous Oklahoma residents. 16 and ongoing scheme"}, {"d": 120, "p": 17, "t": "62. Asaresult of State Farm’s unlawful practices, Oklahoma consumers have suffered ascertainable losses of money and property, including but not limited to: premiums paid for coverage not delivered as represented, the cost of roof repairs and replacements that should have been covered, diminished property values, and consequential damages. 63. | The Attorney General brings this claim under his enforcement authority, including the authority to act under the OCPA, to obtain injunctive relief, restitution, damages, civil penalties, and costs and attorneys’ fees. Count II: Violations of the Oklahoma Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act 64. |The Attorney General re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 65. agencies, Atall times relevant to this Petition, State Farm, together with captive agents, their third-party engineering and consulting firms, and related vendors formed an “association-in-fact” enterprise within the meaning of 22 O.S. § 1402 referred to as the Denial Enterprise. The members of the Denial Enterprise can be defined apart from the predicate acts as separate individuals or operating entities. 66. by | Thecommon purpose of the Denial Enterprise is to maximize profits for State systematically denying or underpaying valid property damage claims through Farm the implementation of the Hail Focus Initiative. This purpose is achieved by collecting premiums for coverage while adjudicating claims under restrictive, undisclosed standards, thereby depriving Oklahoma policyholders of the benefits of their insurance contracts. 67. Under 22 O.S. § 1403(A), it is unlawful for any person employed by or associated with an enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. State Farm violated this provision. 17"}, {"d": 120, "p": 18, "t": "68. State Farm is a “person” for the purpose of the Oklahoma Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act because State Farm is a corporate entity within the meaning as defined by 22 O.S. § 1402(7). 69. State Farm and other members of the Denial Enterprise conducted the affairs of the Denial Enterprise through a “pattern of racketeering activity” as defined in 22 O.S. § 1402(10), engaging in at least two acts of racketeering activity within the requisite time period. These acts are related by their common purpose, reducing indemnity severity, and method of commission, fraudulent denial of hail claims and include: willful false representations in violation of 15 O.S. § 753(9); willful unfair and deceptive practices in violation of 15 O.S. § 753(21); and knowingly and willfully used a computer, computer system, and computer network for the purpose of devising and executing the fraudulent scheme described herein, in violation of 21 O.S. § 1953(A)(2). 70. As a direct and proximate result of State Farm’s racketeering acts, numerous Oklahoma consumers have been injured in their business or property. Policyholders suffered monetary losses when valid claims were wrongfully denied or underpaid and were forced either to fund roof repairs and related damage out-of-pocket or to endure diminution in property value due to unrepaired damage. Consumers also paid premiums for coverage materially more robust than what State Farm actually intended to provide, thereby overpaying for illusory or substantially impaired coverage. 71. State Farm agreed and combined with these co-conspirators to implement the Hail Focus Initiative and related practices. Count III: Civil Conspiracy 72. The Attorney General re-alleges paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 18 and incorporates by reference all preceding"}, {"d": 120, "p": 19, "t": "73. State Farm knowingly entered into an agreement and combination with non-party captive agents, their agencies, and other associated entities to accomplish unlawful objectives or to accomplish ostensibly lawful objectives by unlawful means, including violating the OCPA through deceptive marketing and claims practices; and engaging in fraudulent claim-handling practices to avoid paying covered hail and wind claims. 74, adopting The conspirators formed and executed this agreement by, among and implementing the Hail Focus Initiative, concealing other things, internal standards, misrepresenting coverage at sale and renewal, and coordinating claim denials based on pretextual rationales. 75. Numerous overt acts were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, including each sale or renewal of a policy under false pretenses, each application of undisclosed internal standards to deny or diminish claims, and each specific claim denial or underpayment premised on false statements or material omissions. 76. State Farm is liable for the full extent of damages and equitable relief caused by the conspiracy, regardless of the degree of participation by any individual co-conspirator. Count IV: Unjust Enrichment 77. The Attorney General re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 78. By virtue of the conduct described herein, State Farm has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Oklahoma economy and the Oklahoma homeowners insurance market. State Farm collected and retained substantial premiums for homeowners insurance policies marketed as providing full replacement cost coverage for hail and wind damage, while internally intending to restrict or deny such coverage and thereafter wrongfully denying or underpaying valid claims. 19"}, {"d": 120, "p": 20, "t": "79. State Farm also retained the financial benefits affecting the Oklahoma homeowners insurance market and Oklahoma economy by reducing claim payments achieved through its deceptive Hail Focus Initiative and related claims-handling practices, including the savings from roof replacements and related repairs that should have been paid but were not. 80. | Under principles of equity, State Farm should not be permitted to retain these ill-gotten gains. Equity requires that State Farm disgorge the value of improperly retained premiums and unpaid benefits attributable to the scheme and that such funds be restored to remedy the public harm. VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Attorney General, prays for judgment in its favor and against State Farm as follows: a. A declaration that Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein violates the Oklahoma Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (22 O.S. §§ 1401-1419) and the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act (15 O.S. §§ 751-764.1), and that such conduct constitutes fraud and deceit upon Oklahoma consumers. b. A permanent injunction restraining Defendant, its officers, agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them from engaging in the unlawful practices described above. c. All appropriate orders under 22 O.S. § 1409 to dismantle the racketeering enterprise and prevent its re-occurrence. d. An award of restitution for the harm caused to the Oklahoma public and disgorgement of State Farm’s ill-gotten gains. e. An award of statutory damages as permitted by ORICO and/or OCPA. 20"}, {"d": 120, "p": 21, "t": "Imposition of civil penalties. . Anaward of reasonable attorney’s fees, investigative costs, and litigation costs incurred in this action. . Awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all monetary awards permitted by law. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, GENTNER DRUMMOND OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL VY Gentner Drummohkd, OBA No. 16645 Attorney General of Oklahoma Garry M. Gaskins, II, OBA No. 20212 Solicitor General Cameron R. Capps, OBA No. 32742 Deputy Attorney General Christopher J. Campbell, OBA No. 33649 Assistant Attorney General 313 NE 21st Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 Telephone: (405) 522-1260 Facsimile: Email: 21 (405) 521-3921 Garry.Gaskins@oag.ok.gov Cameron.Capps@oag.ok.gov Chris. Campbell@oag.ok.gov as"}, {"d": 121, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY FILED DISTRICT COURT STATE OF OKLAHOMA COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA mat! August 24, 2026 4:15 PM ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK tl NEIL and LACY WEST, mgt Case Number CJ-2025-135 aaa Plaintiffs, Defendants. Se” Nm See ee COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., CJ-2025-135 Some STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY Case No.: Se mal Vv. DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Timila S. Rother, OBA #14310 Paige Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7700 Facsimile: (405) 239-6651 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 121, "p": 2, "t": "This case arises from a dispute over the scope of alleged hail damage to Plaintiffs’ property. The undisputed record shows State Farm investigated Plaintiffs’ claim, paid for covered damage, and determined that the roof shingles were not damaged by hail. Plaintiffs’ disagreement with that conclusion presents, at most, a legitimate dispute—not bad faith—and they identify no evidence that State Farm acted unreasonably, conducted an inadequate investigation, or relied on anything other than the facts developed during the claim. While the Fire Model Enhancement initiative is not evidence of bad faith it had nothing to do with this claim anyway. Plaintiffs’ claims also fail for independent reasons. The Policy required that suit be filed within one year of the alleged loss, yet Plaintiffs did not file this action until February 28, 2025— more than a year after the alleged June 15, 2023 loss. Significantly, Plaintiffs have not repaired the roof but have had the Property evaluated twice since the alleged destruction of their roof, and neither evaluation identified damage to their roof or any decrease in the Property’s value attributable to the roof’s condition—though Plaintiffs claim more than $50,000 to replace it. Their own claim submissions further undermine their position: for example, the materials submitted to support full roof replacement included photographs that, on their face, did not depict Plaintiffs’ roof, and when State Farm requested additional information to locate the questioned rain cap, Plaintiffs’ representatives failed to respond or provide any explanation. At minimum, the record shows a legitimate dispute—not evidence from which a reasonable jury could find bad faith.! ' State Farm previously filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on May 26, 2026. After the Court reset the dispositive-motion deadline, but the parties completed additional discovery and so State Farm files this Amended Motion to present the complete summary-judgment record. This Amended Motion supersedes State Farm’s prior motion."}, {"d": 121, "p": 3, "t": "STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS (“UMF”) PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY & POLICY 1. In 2009 and 2019, Plaintiff, Neil West, submitted claims to State Farm for hail damage to his prior residence at 7710 SW Crystal Hills Place in Lawton. On both occasions, because hail damage is “accidental direct physical loss” under the Policy and because there was damage sufficient to warrant a total roof replacement, State Farm paid to replace the roof of the house. N. West Dep. at 42:23-43:3, 43:10-21, Ex. 1; Nancy Holcomb Decl., 7 3, Ex. 2. 2. Plaintiffs purchased the property located at 7 NW Briarcreek, Lawton, OK on December 28, 2021. Comanche County Assessor Records, Ex. 3. 3. On December 6, 2021, Plaintiffs applied for a policy through the Holcomb Agency to insure the property located at 7 NW Briarcreek (“House”). Application, SFF&CC/West_953 (“SF_”), Ex. 4. State Farm issued Policy No. 36-CR-X405-8 (“Policy”) effective December 29, 2021. Id. The Policy automatically renewed each year thereafter and was in effect for the period December 29, 2022—December 29, 2023. Policy Declarations (“Decl.”), SF_44, Ex. 5. 4. Neil West testified that, when procuring the Policy, he asked for replacement-cost coverage like he had on his prior residence and was told they were “covered” or “good to go.” N. West Dep. at 135:18-137:14, Ex. 1. When asked to identify the affirmative statements by Nancy Holcomb that he claimed were false, he identified no statement that State Farm or the Holcomb Agency would inspect the Property or advise Plaintiffs concerning its condition. /d.; id. at 97:1698:8, 100:9-101:1; 142:16-144:12. Lacy West testified that she had no conversations with Nancy Holcomb about procuring the Policy and that no one at the Holcomb Agency made any representations to her about the Policy or its coverage. L. West Dep. at 31:3-19, Ex. 6. 5. Plaintiffs admit the Property was insured under the Policy, subject to its terms, conditions, and exclusions. See Pls.’ Resp. to Req. for Admis. No. 1, Ex. 7. Plaintiffs also admit 2"}, {"d": 121, "p": 4, "t": "they received a copy of the Policy and kept it in their possession. Jd. Nos. 2-3. Plaintiffs did not read the Policy. L. West Dep. at 41:9-21, Ex. 6; N. West Dep. at 101:21-25, Ex. 1. 6. Plaintiffs had $309,000 in coverage for the dwelling for the period December 29, 2022—December 29, 2023. Decl., SF_45, Ex. 5. Plaintiffs’ deductible during this same period was $3,090. Id.; see Pls.’ Resp. to Req. for Admis. No. 11, Ex. 7. Plaintiffs admit the Policy provides that State Farm pays only that portion of a covered loss exceeding the deductible. Jd. at No. 12. 7. Under Plaintiffs’ Policy, State Farm agreed to “pay for accidental direct physical loss to the” House, “unless the loss [wa]s excluded or limited in SECTION I - LOSSES NOT INSURED.” Policy at SF_16, Ex. 5. Wind and hail are covered under the Policy; they were not excluded perils listed in SECTION I- LOSSES NOT INSURED. /d. at 12-22; Pet., 9 31; N. West Dep. at 104:11-16 (agreeing the Policy covers wind and hail damage), Ex. 1; Holcomb Decl., § 4, Ex. 13. “[W]ear, tear, [and] ... deterioration,” however, are excluded. Policy at SF_19, Ex. 5. 8. Plaintiffs’ Policy Declarations show their dwelling coverage is “Al Replacement Cost — Similar Construction.” Jd. at SF 45. The Policy provides that “until actual repair or replacement is completed, [State Farm] will pay only the actual cash value of the damaged part of the property, up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, not to exceed the cost to repair or replace the damaged part of the property.” Jd. at SF_22. “[W]hen the repair or replacement is actually completed, [State Farm] will pay the covered additional amount [Plaintiffs] actually and necessarily spend to repair or replace the damaged part of the property, or an amount up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, whichever is less.” Id. 9. The Policy further provides that State Farm has no obligation to “make inspections and surveys of the insured location at any time,” provide insureds with “reports on conditions,” or “recommend changes.” Jd. at SF_36; cf N. West Dep. at 101:21-25, Ex. 1."}, {"d": 121, "p": 5, "t": "10. The Policy also states under “Suit Against Us” that “[a}ny action by any party must be started within one year after the date of loss or damage.” Policy at SF 26, Ex. 5. 11. Plaintiffs’ roof, which was constructed of composition shingles, was installed in or around 2017. See 2025 Appraisal at West_713, Ex. 8; Holcomb Texts at West_580, Ex. 9. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM SUBMISSION 12. Plaintiffs submitted a claim for hail damage to their House on July 28, 2023, with a claimed date of loss of June 15, 2023 (“Claim”). Pet., 4] 5; Claim Notes, 13. Between August 6, 2023, and September 5, 2023, SF_ 86-87, Ex. 11. External Claim Resource (“ECR”) Brandi Hervey attempted multiple times to contact Plaintiffs by telephone to discuss their claim and schedule an inspection, and sent three written communications, but was unable to reach them. /d. at SF_77; Aug. 6 Ltr., Ex. 12; Aug. 24 Ltr., Ex. 13; Sept. 5 Ltr., Ex. 14. 14. State Farm finally spoke to Mr. West on September 16, 2023, at which time he reported damage to the roof, interior, exterior, and soft metals. Claim Notes at SF_76, Ex. 11. 15. State Farm’s September 28, 2023 inspection found no wind or hail damage to the roof shingles, chimney flue cap, or metal roof vents. /d. at SF_74-75; Gooch Decl., §§ 4-7, Ex. 15. State Farm did, however, identify light hail damage to gutters, downspouts, window screens, and fence stain, along with water staining on Plaintiffs’ bedroom ceiling, and prepared an estimate totaling $4,775.89. State Farm Estimate, Ex. 16. After depreciation and application of Plaintiffs’ deductible, State Farm issued payment of $918.50. Id.’ ? The claim note contains one internally inconsistent statement that the roof warranted full replacement based on the recorded shingle impacts, but Cedric Gooch testified by declaration that this was a clerical error and did not reflect his findings. Gooch Decl., 4] 13, Ex. 15. His inspection findings, scope sheet, photos, estimate, and payment determination otherwise showed no hail damage to the shingles. /d. at {§ 5-13; Claim Notes at SF_75, Ex. 9; State Farm Estimate, Ex. 16. 4"}, {"d": 121, "p": 6, "t": "16. Before State Farm’s September 28 inspection, Neil West told Bobby Odom he had “decided to go in a different direction on the roof’ and asked Odom not to attend. Odom Texts at WEST_ 000433, Ex. 17. West also told Odom, “My brother is going to do the roof,” but later testified that neither brother inspected the roof. /d.; N. West Dep. at 41:14-44:4, Ex. 1. Meanwhile, West was communicating with Derek Franklin about a second opinion. /d. at 160:20-162:7. 17. Neil West testified that Bobby Odom inspected the House and showed him photos of what Odom identified as hail damage. /d.at 17:16-19:11. West testified that Odom told him the roof had damage sufficient to require full replacement. /d. Odom testified that he sent the matter to Brandon Gold to prepare an estimate for full roof replacement and the other conditions Odom had identified as hail damage. Odom Dep. at 112:13-113:17, Ex. 18. Gold declared that he prepared an estimate based on information from others, but did not inspect the Property, determine whether any damage existed, determine the cause of any alleged damage, or provide public adjusting services in connection with Plaintiffs’ claim. Gold Decl. {§] 4-6, Ex. 19. 18. West testified that Derek Franklin also inspected the roof and told him there was enough storm damage to warrant a new roof. N. West Dep. at 67:5-21, 164:17-167:1, Ex. 1. Franklin declared that he inspected the Property once in or around September 2023 and did not recall any other inspection. Franklin Decl. {{{ 3-4, Ex. 20. Franklin confirmed he has no notes, photos, or other documentation of his inspection, but recalled observing damage only to two slopes and did not investigate or determine the date of loss for that damage. Jd. §§j 5-6. 19. Neil West emailed Kevin Miller of Brown-O’ Haver, “Adjusters for the Insured,” on November 28, 2023, after Derek Franklin gave him Miller’s contact information and West spoke with Miller about the Claim. N. West Dep. at 168:21-170:2, Ex. 1; Brown-O’ Haver Records, SUB-BrownO’ Haver 000004, Ex. 21. In his email, West identified Derek Franklin as the “good"}, {"d": 121, "p": 7, "t": "guy” contractor, “the one [he] trust[ed],” and asked Miller to review the materials and tell him whether the Claim was “worth pursuing.” /d. Miller’s intake note recorded that West reported two roofers had looked at the roof; one said it was a total loss, and the other said there was damage but “not necessarily a total replacement.” /d. at SUB-BrownO’ Haver_000008. 20. On March 30, 2024, Bobby Odom submitted Trademark’s $46,201.55 estimate for a total roof replacement. Trademark Estimate, Ex. 22. Odom also attached photos and requested a second inspection. /d. State Farm Claim Specialist Kristen Haun reviewed Trademark’s estimate, photos, and signed contract. Claim Notes at SF_73, Ex. 11. Haun revised State Farm’s estimate to add floor protection and contents reset for the interior repairs, increasing the total replacementcost value to $5,283.17, but determined the materials submitted did not reflect additional covered damage beyond what State Farm had already identified and thus did not warrant a second inspection. /d.; State Farm Supp. Est., Ex. 23. After applying Plaintiffs’ deductible, State Farm paid an additional $1,274.67 and notified Plaintiffs by letter of that determination and the Policy’s one-year suit limitation. /d.; April 10 Ltr. at SF_196—98, Ex. 24. 21. On April 24, 2024, public adjuster Coastal Claims submitted a notice that it represented Plaintiffs in connection with the Claim. Coastal Claims Notice, Ex. 25. On April 25, 2024, Coastal transmitted a $51,696.39 estimate for total roof replacement. Coastal Est., Ex. 26° 3 Coastal’s estimate and transmitting email identified John Dekker as Plaintiffs’ public adjuster. Coastal Est., Ex. 26. Dekker confirmed, however, that he was not licensed as an Oklahoma public adjuster and did not inspect the Property, review photos, prepare or assist with any estimate, or provide public-adjusting services for Plaintiffs’ claim. Dekker Decl. 4] 4-8, Ex. 27. The estimate identifies Eileen Dalton as the estimator, and the later-submitted photo report bears William Pratt’s name; neither appears in the licensing results as a licensed Oklahoma public adjuster. NAIC Licensing Results, Ex. 28; Parga Dep. at 72:15—74:18, 78:4-80:13, Ex. 29. 6"}, {"d": 121, "p": 8, "t": "22. Odom uploaded photos to JobNimbus for use in preparing or supporting the supplement and testified that Brandon Gold had access to JobNimbus and could provide those materials to Coastal Claims. Odom Dep. at 79:1-80:24, 81:10—24, Ex. 18. 23. On July 15, 2024, Jose Parga provided Coastal’s estimate with supporting photos. July 15 Email, Ex. 30. Parga testified, however, that he never physically inspected Plaintiffs’ Property, did not prepare the estimate, and did not recall preparing the photo report. Parga Dep. at 59:19-25, 72:15—74:18, 78:4-80:13, Ex. 29. Parga further testified that the photos he submitted were collected and transferred to him, he did not know who took them, and he could not guarantee they all depicted the West Property. /d. at 85:1-86:10, 139:9-18. 24. State Farm reviewed Coastal’s submission, noted that the photos attached in Coastal’s report appeared to be the same photos submitted by Plaintiffs’ contractor on March 30, and—after claim specialist and team-manager review—determined the photos did not show additional damage beyond what State Farm had already identified, but advised the Claim could be reopened with additional supporting documentation. Claim Notes at SF_70, Ex. 11. 25. Parga later sent State Farm a photo of a heavily dented rain cap and asserted State Farm had missed damage to it. Sept. 13 Email, Ex. 31. State Farm could not locate the depicted rain cap on Plaintiffs’ roof and asked Coastal by phone and email to provide a photo identifying the component’s location on the House. Claim Notes at SF_69-70, Ex. 11; Sept. 17 Email, Ex. 32. 26. After State Farm requested more information about the location of the rain cap, Parga asked Odom to obtain “better photos of the roof,” including “overviews of the entire house and close-ups of the rain caps.” Oct. 1 Email, Ex. 33. Parga and Neil West followed up with Odom multiple times regarding this request. /d.; Odom Texts at WEST_000540-545, Ex. 17."}, {"d": 121, "p": 9, "t": "27. Odom confirmed the rain cap photo and several other photos submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ Claim did not depict Plaintiffs’ roof. Odom Dep. at 203:13—205:11, Ex. 18. 28. After Odom uploaded the additional photos and repeatedly requested updates from Brandon Gold, Gold advised Odom in December 2024 that “there’s not going to be anything more that can be done” and that they did not believe there were “enough grounds,” which Odom understood to mean Coastal lacked sufficient grounds to continue pursuing the Claim. Odom Dep. at 193:1-195:25, Ex. 18; JobNimbus Notes at BobbyOdom_000009-010, Ex. 34. 29. State Farm received no additional information, including the requested information about the rain cap’s location. Claim Notes at SF_69-—70, Ex. 11; N. West Dep. at 189:1-7, Ex. 1. PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY POST-LITIGATION 30. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on February 28, 2025. See generally Pet. 31. When asked in their depositions to identify the basis for their claim against State Farm, Plaintiffs testified that their dispute with State Farm centers on its determination that the roof did not sustain hail damage and its refusal to pay to replace the roof. See N. West Dep. at 50:3-6, 90:17-25, Ex. 1; L. West Dep. at 34:24-35:5, 43:23-47:8, Ex. 6. 32. Plaintiffs have not repaired or replaced the roof of the Property since submitting their claim. N. West Dep. at 93:18—21, Ex. 1; L. West Dep. at 66:15-18, Ex. 6. 33. In December 2025, Plaintiffs’ Property was appraised by Peak Appraisal Service, LLC. 2025 Appraisal, Ex. 8. The report noted “minimal depreciation due to age/condition,” characterized the roof as in average condition and assigned the Property an “as is” market value of $340,000. /d. at West_713-14. The appraiser performed a “complete visual inspection of the interior and exterior areas,” but noted that an appraisal is not a home inspection. /d. at West_71517. The appraisal did not identify or reference storm damage to the roof. Jd. at West_713-724."}, {"d": 121, "p": 10, "t": "34. — In February 2026, a RE/MAX broker completed an interior/exterior Broker Price Opinion of the Property for Plaintiffs’ home-equity financing. Broker Price Opin. at West_747, 751, Ex. 10. The broker reported the Property was in average condition, the roof was free of leaks and temporary repairs, and no interior or exterior repairs were observed. /d. at West_748—49. The broker valued the Property at $296,300 both “as-is” and with repairs. /d. at West_751. 35. On June 24, 2026, Andrew D. Harold, M.S., S.E., P.E., evaluated Plaintiffs’ unrepaired roof, relevant exterior components, and relevant interior areas. Harold Decl. {{] 6-8, Ex. 35. Harold found no evidence of hail damage to the shingles that would warrant repair or replacement, and no storm-created openings that would allow water to enter the home. /d. ¥ 10. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES I. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE TIME-BARRED. Plaintiffs’ Policy provides that “[a]my action by any party must be started within one year after the date of loss or damage.” UMF 10 (emphasis added). This provision comports with 36 O.S. § 3617, which permits property policies “delivered or issued for delivery in Oklahoma and covering a subject of insurance resident, located, or to be performed in Oklahoma” to limit the time in which an action must be brought to a period of one year “from the date of occurrence of the event resulting in the loss.” Plaintiffs plead that their property was damaged “on or about June 15, 2023.” UMF 12; Pet., § 40(a). Plaintiffs did not file suit until February 28, 2025, despite State Farm advising them of the Policy’s “Suit Against Us” provision in its April 10, 2024 letter. UMFs 20, 30. Because the lawsuit was filed more than one year after the alleged date of loss, all claims are barred by the “Suit Against Us” provision. See Order at 2-6, Poe v. State Farm, CIV-24-1295PRW (W.D. Okla. Sept. 16, 2025), ECF No. 12, Ex. 36 (dismissing bad faith and contract claims pursuant to identical “Suit Against Us” provision because filed more than one year after the date of loss); Burwell v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 2006 OK CIV APP 97, [ff 9-16, 142 P.3d 1005, 10079"}, {"d": 121, "p": 11, "t": "09 (affirming summary judgment under a similar provision finding there was no dispute that the suit was untimely commenced more than one year after the loss.). For this reason alone, summary judgment is appropriate as to Plaintiffs’ breach of contract and bad-faith claims. The Suit Against Us provision should likewise apply to bar the constructive fraud claim against State Farm because it applies to “any action” between the parties and the fraud claim is duplicative of the contract and bad-faith claims. UMF 10. But even in absence of the contractual limitations provision, the claim is also barred by the two-year statute of limitations for torts. 12 O.S. § 95(A)(3); Grubb v. DXP Enters., Inc., No. 19-CV-0443-JH-JFJ, 2022 WL 16842309, at *5 (N.D. Okla. July 25, 2022) (applying Oklahoma law). It is based on alleged implied representations made through the mere issuance of the Policy. As explained in § III, infra, such representations do not form the basis of a constructive fraud claim and Plaintiffs testified they were not made in any event. To the extent they were, they would have been made in December 2021 when the Policy issued, more than three years before suit was filed. UMFs 2-5. II, PLAINTIFFS’ BAD FAITH CLAIM FAILS ON THE MERITS AS A MATTER OF LAW. Even if Plaintiffs’ bad-faith claim were not time-barred, summary judgment is proper. An insurer’s refusal to pay all amounts demanded does not constitute bad faith. The Oklahoma Supreme Court specifically held, when recognizing the cause of action, that a legitimate dispute between the insurer and insured as to coverage or the amount of a loss, even in the face of a “wrong” decision by the insurer, is not bad faith conduct as a matter of law. Christian v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 1977 OK 141, § 26, 577 P.2d 899, 905. “[T]here can be disagreements between insurer and insured on a variety of matters such as insurable interest, extent of coverage, cause of loss, amount of loss, or breach of policy conditions.” /d. Such disagreements do not create tort liability for bad faith. /d. Rather, “tort liability may be imposed only where there is a clear showing that the insurer unreasonably, and in bad faith, withholds payment of the claim of its msured.” Jd. 10"}, {"d": 121, "p": 12, "t": "(emphasis added).* Courts consistently hold that a legitimate dispute requires judgment as a matter of law in favor of the insurance company, regardless of whether its decision was correct.” The “question is whether the insurer had a ‘good faith belief, at the time its performance was requested, that it had justifiable reason for withholding payment under the policy.’” Buzzard v. Farmers Ins. Co., 1991 OK 127, 4 14, 824 P.2d 1105, 1109 (Okla. 1991) (citation omitted). “The fact that a reasonable jury could find in favor of the insurer based on all facts known or that should have been known by the insurer when it denied a claim 1s strong evidence that a dispute is “legitimate.” Lunday v. State Farm, CIV-20-1238-G, 2022 WL 2705263, at *5 (W.D. Okla. July 12, 2022) (quoting Shotts v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 943 F.3d 1304, 1316 (10th Cir. 2019)). Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must show a level of culpability beyond simple negligence to recover for bad faith. Badillo v. Mid Century Ins. Co., 2005 OK 48, ¢ 28, 121 P.3d 1080, 1094. Oklahoma courts apply a two-part analysis: “First, ‘the court considers whether there is a legitimate dispute between the insurer and the insured regarding coverage or the value of the claim.’ Then, if there is a legitimate dispute, the court ‘considers whether the plaintiff offered specific additional evidence to demonstrate bad faith.” Absent production of such evidence, ‘judgment as a matter of law is to be granted to the insurer.”” Lunday, 2022 WL 2705263 at *5 (quoting Shotts, 943 F.3d at 1315). The undisputed facts here show only a legitimate dispute. 4 See also Skinner v. John Deere Ins. Co., 2000 OK 18, § 16, 998 P.2d 1219, 1223 (“disagreements can arise concerning the amount of coverage, cause of loss, and breach of policy conditions|;] the tort of bad faith does not prevent the insurer from resisting payment or resorting to a judicial forum to resolve a legitimate dispute.”); Bailey v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2006 OK CIV APP 85, § 18, 137 P.3d 1260, 1264 (“Insurers are free to make legitimate business decisions (and mistakes) regarding payment, as long as they act reasonably and deal fairly and in good faith with their insureds.”). > See e.g., Manis v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 1984 OK 25, §§ 11-14, 681 P.2d 760, 762 (holding badfaith claim failed as a matter of law because insurer had legitimate dispute even though plaintiff prevailed on issue of coverage on breach of contract claim). See also Branch vy. Farmers Ins. Co., 311 F.3d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 2002) (affirming summary judgment for property insurer on ground of its “reasonable position taken in litigation of a legitimate coverage dispute”). I]"}, {"d": 121, "p": 13, "t": "A. A legitimate dispute exists regarding the scope of loss. This case is the classic legitimate dispute as to the “amount of loss”: a disagreement between Plaintiffs and State Farm regarding the scope of hail damage to Plaintiffs’ roof and thus the amount Plaintiffs are owed under the Policy. See Emmanuel Baptist Church v. State Farm, CIV-11-595-D, 2012 WL 3595093, at *9 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 21, 2012) (applying Oklahoma law and finding that a disagreement between an insurer’s inspectors and plaintiffs’ roofer and expert was insufficient to sustain a bad faith claim); Hubbell v. State Farm, 21-CV-0341-CVE-JFJ, 2022 WL 3050020, at *3 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 2, 2022) (granting summary judgment on bad-faith claim, even where parties had obtained expert testimony in support of their positions concerning the need to replace plaintiffs’ roof, and “State Farm clearly ha[d] a legitimate basis to dispute coverage”). State Farm agreed that wind and hail damaged portions of Plaintiffs’ property—an “accidental direct physical loss” under the Policy. UMFs 7, 15. Mr. Gooch inspected the Property and found no hail damage to the roof shingles, chimney flue cap, or metal roof vents, but identified limited covered damage to other components. UMF 15. He prepared a $4,775.89 estimate, and after depreciation and the $3,090 deductible, State Farm paid Plaintiffs $918.50. Jd. Plaintiffs allege State Farm refused to include hail damage to their shingles in its estimate and instead determined the damage to the shingles was “wear, tear, .. . deterioration, ... ,” which is not covered under the Policy. Pet., § 40(d)(j). Plaintiffs allege that their public adjuster “affirmed that the Insured Property sustained deep hail damage to shingles across its entire roof” and created an “estimate of over $50,000.00 to repair and/or replace [the] damage.” Pet., §§ 40(k)-(1). Plaintiffs’ own testimony confirms their dispute with State Farm centers on its determination that the roof did not sustain hail damage and its refusal to pay to replace the roof. UMF 31. Discovery confirmed the dispute’s legitimacy. Plaintiffs’ roof-replacement demand rested on materials State Farm reasonably questioned, including photos Odom later confirmed did not 12"}, {"d": 121, "p": 14, "t": "depict Plaintiffs’ roof; and neither Plaintiffs nor their representatives provided the additional information State Farm requested to evaluate the alleged rain-cap damage. UMFs 20-29. Harold’s post-litigation inspection further confirmed State Farm’s conclusion: Plaintiffs’ unrepaired roof had no hail damage to the shingles that would warrant repair or replacement. UMF 35. That is a “legitimate dispute” and not bad faith as a matter of law. See Lopez v. Farmers Ins. Co., CIV-10-0584-HE, 2011 WL 1807158, at *3 (W.D. Okla. May 6, 2011) (granting summary judgment on bad-faith claim where, as here, “[t]he crux of plaintiff's argument is that defendant disagreed with his roofer and expert regarding the cause of the damage to his roof”); Phillips v. State Farm, 640 F. Supp. 3d 1103, 1109 (N.D. Okla. 2022) (finding legitimate dispute where adjuster inspected the roof and estimated covered damage; plaintiffs’ roofer concluded the wind and hail damage necessitated replacement; and insurer reviewed contractor information and maintained its determination); Cunanan v. State Farm, 750 F. Supp. 3d 1298, 1303 (W.D. Okla. 2024) (finding legitimate dispute where insurer inspected and determined shingles had no hail impacts attributable to the date of loss); Revocable Tr. Agreement of [ ] Ellis v. State Farm, 614 F. Supp. 3d 963, 978 (N.D. Okla. 2022) (“[T]here is a legitimate dispute between plaintiffs and defendant based on the professional opinions of their [] experts.”). B. The record is devoid of evidence that State Farm acted in bad faith. “To successfully rebut [State Farm’s] defense of having a legitimate dispute as to coverage,” Plaintiffs “must present evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that [State Farm] did not have a reasonable good faith belief for withholding payment of [their] claim.” Lunday, 2022 WL 2705263 at *7 (quotations omitted). “The additional evidence required for this showing may take several forms... . a plaintiff may demonstrate bad faith by providing evidence that the insurer did not actually rely on the legitimate dispute to deny coverage, denied the claim for an illegitimate reason, or otherwise failed to treat the insured fairly. A plaintiff may also show 13"}, {"d": 121, "p": 15, "t": "bad faith by providing evidence that the insurer performed an inadequate investigation of the claim.” /d. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Absent production of such evidence, ‘judgment as a matter of law is to be granted to the insurer.’” Jd. (quoting Shotts, 943 F.3d at 1315). No such evidence exists. Generic “scheme” allegations are insufficient, particularly where the undisputed evidence demonstrates that State Farm reasonably investigated and evaluated Plaintiffs’ claim. See Revocable Tr. Agreement, 614 F. Supp. 3d at 978. The UMFs show State Farm promptly and thoroughly investigated Plaintiffs’ claim and reached a coverage decision: e State Farm repeatedly tried to contact Plaintiffs and schedule an inspection. UMFs 13-14. e An independent adjuster inspected the Property, found no wind/hail damage to the shingles, identified limited damage to other components, and prepared an estimate. UMF 15. e After Plaintiffs’ contractor submitted an estimate and photos, State Farm reviewed those materials, added minor interior-repair items, and issued a supplemental payment while maintaining its determination that the shingles were not damaged by hail. UMF 20. e State Farm reviewed Coastal’s estimate and photos and determined they did not show additional covered damage or warrant a second inspection. UMFs 21-24. e When Coastal claimed additional damage based on a photo of a heavily dented rain cap, State Farm requested information needed to identify the component and further evaluate the Claim; neither Plaintiffs nor their representatives provided it. UMFs 25-29. e Plaintiffs obtained two post-loss evaluations after the storm they claim caused more than $50,000 in damage to their (still-unrepaired) roof. Neither identified damage to the roof nor any property-value decrease attributable to the roof’s condition. UMFs 32-34. e Harold’s post-litigation inspection of Plaintiffs’ still-unrepaired roof found no hail damage to the shingles that would warrant repair or replacement. UMF 35. In contrast, Plaintiffs have not proffered evidence from which a reasonable jury could find State Farm’s determination unreasonable. The record shows State Farm inspected the Property, reviewed supplemental submissions, requested additional information when those materials raised questions, and had its determination confirmed by Plaintiffs’ post-loss evaluations and Harold’s post-litigation inspection. UMFs 13-15, 20-29, 32-35. Bad faith claims reach a jury only where “the insurer’s defense to the underlying claim [i]s so weak that a reasonable inference could be 14"}, {"d": 121, "p": 16, "t": "drawn that the insurer denied the claim in bad faith,” i.e. where the insurer has “constructed a sham defense” or “intentionally disregarded undisputed facts supporting the insured’s claim.” Oulds v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 1431, 1442 (10th Cir. 1993). There is no such evidence here. See Phillips, 640 F. Supp. 3d at 1109 (State Farm conducted an adequate investigation when it “investigated the damage, processed the claim, and reviewed plaintiffs’ supplemental information multiple times and determined that an additional inspection was not warranted”); Revocable Tr. Agreement, 614 F. Supp. 3d at 978 (same). Plaintiffs’ own claim history confirms State Farm has previously paid to replace their roofs when covered damage was identified. UMF 1. State Farm’s decision regarding the scope of damage is, at most, a legitimate dispute. Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden on either step of the bad-faith analysis. This is not a bad-faith case, and judgment should be entered in favor of State Farm on Plaintiffs’ bad-faith theory. See Evans v. Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 13-CV-0390-CVE-PJC, 2014 WL 5846730, at *10 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 12, 2014) (“The mere fact that Reliable did not pay plaintiff the full amount that plaintiff sought is not enough to show an unreasonable act.”); Price v. CSAA Gen. Ins. Co., 687 F. Supp. 3d 1179, 1185 (W.D. Okla. 2023) (entering summary judgment, reasoning “[i]n sum, there was a legitimate dispute between CSAA and Plaintiffs regarding both causation of damage and coverage under Plaintiffs’ Policy, and Plaintiffs otherwise lack evidence of CSAA’s bad faith.”). II. PLAINTIFFS’ CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD CLAIM FAILS ON THE MERITS. Plaintiffs assert constructive fraud against both State Farm and the Agent based on identical allegations found insufficient by other courts. Porter v. State Farm, CIV-25-187-R, 2025 WL 1151682, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 18, 2025). To recover, Plaintiffs must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that State Farm (1) owed a duty of full disclosure, (2) misstated a fact or failed to disclose a fact, (3) the misstatement or omission was material, (4) Plaintiffs relied on it, 15"}, {"d": 121, "p": 17, "t": "and (5) suffered damages as a result. Lillard v. Stockton, 267 F. Supp. 2d 1081, 1113 (N.D. Okla. 2003). Plaintiffs cannot establish a statement, duty, reliance, causation, or actionable falsehood. Plaintiffs allege “Defendants” made misrepresentations and/or omissions concerning calculations, coverage, underwriting, and claim handling. Pet., § 73(a)-(f). But Plaintiffs testified their dispute concerns only State Farm’s refusal to replace their roof. UMF 31. The Petition also fails to plead fraud with particularity under 12 O.S. § 2009(B). Where “fraud is alleged against multiple defendants, blanket allegations of fraud... ‘by the defendants’ are insufficient . . . , the alleged fraudulent activity of each defendant must be set forth.” Lillard, 267 F. Supp. 2d at 1112. They do not identify who made any statement, when it was made, or what was said, and impermissibly lump Defendants together. Discovery did not cure that defect: Plaintiffs still identify no actionable statement or omission distinct from State Farm’s claim determination. Their constructive fraud claim, seeking damages for State Farm’s refusal to replace their roof, is just a “breach of contract claim masquerading as something more.” Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Fiasco v. Oceanus Ins. Group, 13-CV-762-JED-PJC, 2014 WL 3891267, at *4 (N.D. Okla. 2014). “Oklahoma law does not permit the simultaneous pursuit of fraud and breach of contract claims where the two claims are not sufficiently distinct.” /d. at *5. A. Plaintiffs cannot establish a misrepresentation or duty to disclose. There is no evidence, let alone clear and convincing evidence, of any misrepresentation. At most, Neil West testified that, when procuring the Policy, he requested replacement-cost coverage like he had on his prior residence and was told they were “covered” or “good to go.” UMF 4. But Plaintiffs identify no statement by State Farm, the Holcomb Agency, or Agent Holcomb that anyone would inspect the Property, advise Plaintiffs about its condition, determine whether the roof was hail-damaged, or guarantee payment for any future roof-replacement claim. 7d. Plaintiffs must offer evidence that a misstatement was made. Lillard, 267 F. Supp. 2d at 1112. 16"}, {"d": 121, "p": 18, "t": "Constructive fraud requires a duty to speak, which “‘may arise if a party selectively discloses facts that create a false impression.”” Jd. (quoting Specialty Beverages, L.L.C. v. Pabst Brewing Co., 537 F.3d 1165, 1181 (10th Cir. 2008)). Plaintiffs allege no such disclosure. Their theory rests on assumptions—not affirmative statements—and no witness identified any disclosure creating a false impression about inspections, underwriting, claim handling, hail determinations, or future roof-replacement payments. UMF 4. Plaintiffs instead allege Defendants failed to disclose an alleged scheme relating to hail claims. See Pet., 4 73(f)-(g). But silence or implied representations are insufficient as a matter of law. Pratt v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., CIV-20-93-D, 2020 WL 4735350, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 14, 2020). Neither State Farm nor the Holcomb Agency owed a duty to disclose the matters alleged, and the claim fails on that basis alone. See id.; see also Hall v. State Farm, CIV-25-12-JD, 2025 WL 2905205, at *6 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 13, 2025) (declining to recognize constructive-fraud theory based on “an inherent or implied representation attendant to the issuance of an insurance policy”); Barlow v. State Farm, CIV-25-44-R, 2025 WL 1139489, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 17, 2025) (finding no duty where “Plaintiffs d[id] not identify any affirmative statements by [agent about | claims handling or policy interpretation”). B. Plaintiffs cannot establish reasonable reliance. Plaintiffs contend they relied on the Holcomb Agency, which is in the business of selling insurance—not inspecting roofs, to inspect their property, ensure it was in good condition, and advise of any issues. See Pet., (§] 25-28. But Plaintiffs identify no statement by the Holcomb Agency promising to inspect the Property, warrant its condition, or advise Plaintiffs of roof issues. UMF 4. After the alleged loss, Plaintiffs obtained an appraisal and a Broker Price Opinion, neither of which identified roof damage or any decrease in value attributable to the roof. UMFs 33-34. As a matter of law, an insurance company does not owe a duty to inspect or underwrite for the insured’s benefit. See e.g., Marino v. State Farm, CIV-22-885-HE, 2023 WL 11915691, at *3 17"}, {"d": 121, "p": 19, "t": "(W.D. Okla. Aug. 7, 2023); Hall, 2025 WL 2905205 at *6; Gray v. Derderian, 464 F. Supp. 2d 105, 110 (D. R.I. 2006). Underwriting exists for the insurer’s benefit, not the insured’s. See Gray, 464 F. Supp. 2d at 109. Accordingly, the Policy expressly provides that State Farm has no obligation to “make inspections and surveys of the insured location at any time,” provide insureds with “reports on conditions,” or “recommend changes.” UMF 9. Plaintiffs also cannot establish reliance because they received a copy of the Policy. UMF 5. Oklahoma law imposes a duty “to read and know the contents of the polic[y]” before they accept it, and an applicant who accepts a policy with provisions “plain, clear, and free from all ambiguity, is chargeable with knowledge of the terms and legal effect.” Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. T.M. Richardson Lumber Co., 1902 OK 7, ¥ 5, 69 P. 936, 937; see also Country Gold, Inc. v. State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., CIV-14-1398-D, 2015 WL 431638, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 2, 2015) (dismissing constructive fraud claim and rejecting reliance where plaintiff received the policy). C. Plaintiffs cannot establish causation. Plaintiffs’ only alleged injury is State Farm’s refusal to pay for a roof replacement. UMF 31. That decision was based on State Farm’s determination that hail did not damage the roof shingles—not on underwriting, inspections, or coverage limits. Plaintiffs had $309,000 in dwelling coverage, enough to pay the claimed roof estimate if covered. UMFs 6, 21. Courts reject attempts to transform scope-of-loss disputes into tort or misrepresentation claims. See, e.g., Weichbrodt v. State Farm, CIV-25-360-R, 2025 WL 1848819, at *4 (W.D. Okla. July 2, 2025) (finding coverage was not negated by the “determination that some of the clatmed damage is attributable to a non- covered cause,” but rather a dispute over “the extent of the damage and whether some of [it] was caused by wind or hail”); Hall, 2025 WL 2905205 at *6 (same principle). This case is no different: the alleged injury stems from State Farm’s claim decision, not any alleged misrepresentation. 18"}, {"d": 121, "p": 20, "t": "D. Any alleged misrepresentations were true and/or non-actionable. The House qualified for and was insured under an RCV policy covering hail. UMFs 1-8. Plaintiffs had sufficient coverage to replace their roof consistent with the contractor’s estimate. UMEFs 6, 21. And Plaintiffs admit State Farm identified and paid for covered damage; they contend it should have paid for more. UMFs 15, 31; Pet., § 40(d), (j), (1). To the extent Plaintiffs rely on alleged statements regarding claim handling or policy application, such statements are non-actionable. “[F]or a false representation to be the basis of fraud, such representation must be relative to existing facts or those which previously existed, and not as to promises as to future acts.” Citation Co. Realtors v. Lyon, 1980 OK 68, § 8, 610 P.2d 788, 790; CMI Roadbuilding v. SpecSys, No. CIV-18-1245-G, 2021 WL 2189190, at *3 (W.D. Okla. May 28, 2021) (same requirement for constructive fraud). Further, any representations about State Farm’s past claim handling decisions would convey an adjuster’s opinion. See Cupit v. Dancu Chemical Co., 1957 OK 193, 4 7, 316 P.2d 593, 596 (claim decision is an opinion and not “misrepresentation or concealment of facts”). “Fraud may not be predicated on a mere expression of opinion.” Eckert v. Flair Agency, 1995 OK CIV APP 151, 47, 909 P.2d 1201, 1204. IV. STATE FARM IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY PUNITIVE DAMAGES. JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM FOR “Even where there is evidence to support the recovery of actual damages in a bad faith action against an insurer, which there is not here, submission of the issue of punitive damages to a jury may be improper.” Perry v. Safeco Ins. Co., 18-CV-539-TCK-FHM, 2020 WL 1180726, at *7 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 11, 2020). The Oklahoma Supreme Court has emphasized that “[p]unitive damages are awarded only in the most egregious circumstances and are aimed at punishing the offending party.” Estrada v. Port City Props., Inc., 2011 OK 30, § 16, n.21, 258 P.3d 495, 502 n.21. Even where bad faith is established, punitive damages require evidence that the insurer acted 19"}, {"d": 121, "p": 21, "t": "with “oppression, malice, fraud or gross negligence or wantonness.” Buzzard v. Farmers Ins. Co., 1991 OK 127, 940, 824 P.2d at 1115.° See also Combs v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 551 F.3d 991, 1000 (10th Cir. 2008) (finding punitive-damages claim for constructive fraud required evidence defendant acted with evil intent or gross negligence before submission to the jury). Plaintiffs are not, as a matter of law, entitled to any type of punitive damages, as they can make no competent showing that State Farm acted in bad faith or engaged in constructive fraud, let alone with malice or gross negligence. Whether punitive damages may be submitted to the jury is a question of law for the Court. Estrada, 2011 OK 30, 4 20, 258 P.3d 495 at 504. There is no evidence of egregious circumstances here, no malice, no gross negligence, and no oppression or wanton or reckless disregard for the insureds’ rights. The UMFs reveal that Plaintiffs disagreed with State Farm’s conclusions, nothing more. At most, Plaintiffs might be able to show State Farm was mistaken as to the scope of covered damage to their roof, not that State Farm acted with malice or ill intent toward them or anyone else. Submission of the issue of punitive damages to the jury, therefore, “would be improper.” Combs, 551 F.3d at 1000. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, State Farm requests summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Summary judgment is appropriate where no substantial controversy exists as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Cyanostar Energy, Inc. v. Chesapeake Expl., L.L.C., 2014 OK CIV APP 7, ¥ 8, 317 P.3d 217, 219; Rules for Dist. Cts. of Okla. R. 13(e). ® Oklahoma’s punitive damages statute, 23 O.S. § 9.1, is unconstitutional because it permits, without any safeguards, consideration of harm to others in setting the amount of a punitive award. Moody v. Ford Motor Co., 506 F. Supp. 2d 823, 849 (N.D. Okla. 2007). 20"}, {"d": 121, "p": 22, "t": "i Submitted, TIMILA S. ROTHER OBA #14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA # 31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 24th day of August, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER FIRM Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 Are ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 21 LAW"}, {"d": 121, "p": 24, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Neil West 03/19/2026 DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA and LACY WEST, COUNTY ml THE naa” NEIL IN Sn Plaintiffs, gael Sma Case ge vs. Number CJ-2025-135 Nee Nett met Nt STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., VIDEO Ne Defendants. DEPOSITION OF Taken on behalf on the 19th in REPORTED of day Lawton, * BY: NEIL * SPENCER the of WEST Defendants March, 2026 Oklahoma * TAMARA * WAGGONER, Word for Word Reporting, LLC CSR 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) = EXHIBIT ——"}, {"d": 121, "p": 25, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMBE INSURANCE Page 17 Neil West 03/19/2026 got hit things like if you see that the normal see, you know, just you know, if shingle off. I mean, person would probably You know, you can -- inside your gutters looking there's -- if there's Also, when -- when some Bobby, pictures and from the roof, he things that I could saw State Farm, 14 roof from his 15 based upon those things. 16 Q Ms. Rother) 17 information 20 gutters. inspect from totalled the roofer own title is, pictures of -- of the that determine to by hail? MR. SANDERS: Object to the THE WITNESS: Sure. I -- roof, explained roof, your were now, shingles the opinions sufficient have you Did I made so And just about the by the perspective. your see. what know me showed me showed pictures similar the I don't talking in damage first 13 I'm -- that the inspector. 18. and can you hail first on a recognize. 12 (By things just I had I also then And 11 21 you You Trademark, 19 that hail. by 10 obvious know, by sign a be could damage granular form. You so when I had he showed me to me can answer. 22 23 Bobby 24 photographs 25 was. Odom And inspect and he he showed the me -- or tried what hail damage to explain where Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 121, "p": 26, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 18 Neil West 03/19/2026 He was. it that it -- it was -- damage to constitute a full roof some other significant was there explained was replacement. me showed He on I remember at least one of the two, a smaller like a single, and wide. I remember specifically the have a double I -- I had recognized 11 there when he -- I fence line 14 storm because 15 when we moved 16 for had only recently in, so it on the I say a ton, with -- with house. When big brooms one of those 21 industrial 22 out 23 granules 24 them the off And, of kind and so kind of like thing, and I would have to there, were the also, I the off sweep corners, to it, on heads hit. existence granules have big in and too, the back of saw them in because screens, then, you up fence of I the been the of that put the on pings ton a the like still storm of 20 were the back I they when the 19 only had on and 25 we saw 18 -- that I personally And because was that years it. some were there that of couple a in it. I knew and 13 17 inspected noticed and before, it garage dents decent some were there 10 I some there then 12 were as We and -- such doors. single I and that recognized, immediately pings spots know, front an sweep the push patio. front of the Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) walkway."}, {"d": 121, "p": 27, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 19 Neil West 03/19/2026 it that. A little feet bare my feet. in And I would look at them and are like sandy tan, you know. And, immediately what they were on weakened screens that saw some from -- so the Q 13 about granules, 14 from your testimony as 15 saw them was the ground? 16 A Correct. 17 Q Okay. 18 A Ground and in and on I think it the see could I I from noticed the were talking this became apparent in the I've been -- you where But continued. I that. I never assume my you And Rother) (By Ms. I wind. of underneath granules also well, out the 12 19 there. feel I knew wind. bit could mean, 11 after I some before, weeks and that 10 15th go to I like because it I knew And a little and here bit and weeks like for continued 2023, June hailstorm that after just wasn't it And as gutters yeah. 20 Q Okay. All right. 21 on you a bit. Have you 22 A I have. 23 Q Okay. 24 A Yes, ma'am. 25 Q And I know given you're an jumping a deposition attorney. before? Have Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) around you"}, {"d": 121, "p": 28, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 41 Neil West 03/19/2026 somebody who was a public Q But no one your roof; is I A there for adjuster. that true? wouldn't know. wasn't I did, they If inspected Claims Coastal from it. Q Okay. Derek Franklin, what company is he A I don't even know. I think he has his own in the text message a with? business. 10 Q I may 11 reference to 12 A 13 important 14 Q 15 roofer. seen have I think I saw that, at the time, I You indicated Has he Q Where 18 A He lives 19 Q And is 20 A Full-time 21 contractor. 22 Q Okay. 23 A But 25 years as your that your in his -- what hunter a on, wasn't it. is brother a live? Missouri. his is and a bell? ring roof? Warrenton, a retired He's days get didn't brother 17 three It does No. like too. your A 24 that inspected 16 as Does Roofing. Legacy employment? part-time fisherman, -- firefighter and so he would firefighter, you know, days off, so all of his do -- he was a four a firefighter he would Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) do"}, {"d": 121, "p": 29, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 42 Neil West 03/19/2026 contractor. did Okay. he specialize A General in or contractor general a he was And Q roofing? some does still He contractor. today. the has that you live A This one, no. @) Right. Did Crystal Lake? Do house on you house 11 A Crystal Hills. 12 Q Crystal Hills, 13 A Yeah, he 14 Q Okay. And you 15 employed with State Parm, 16 a little more detail, 17 replaced two roofs; 18 A 19 State 20 Q roof of your the on it. replaced -- while you we'll look at had have you. Thank and but they've haven't they? never been actually employed were this in paid to by Farm. I'm I Let's meant to say. period that you were replaced two roofs? 22 over. Insured is what during the 25 A Farm, it I up. State where strike question 24 know just that So don't sorry. 21 23 roof sorry. actually I've the at look he inspected now? in 10 First, ever he -- Q they've I messed and start insured Correct. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) by"}, {"d": 121, "p": 30, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 43 Neil West 03/19/2026 And Hills house? A Yes, ma'am, Q Okay. And at your Crystal what's your brother's one that we're Christopher West. -- which -- indicate that there were those of both Q -- your name? about 10 have I A many, but the -- Q Yeah. A -- is Chris -- Q Okay. And did State Farm's you 11 tell 12 was 13 then 14 Christopher, a one in I -- 20 or a total roof in think it was '19. Did both of replace Chris, A He 16 Q Okay. 17 A The 18 Q Okay. 19 A My 20 Q Okay. Is Roger 21 A He at the 22 Q Where does Roger 23 A He 25 did Christopher records replacement roof or 15 24 talking those 2009 roofs? not. 2019 he replace? the roof a roofer? roof. replaced Who brother was did one Which lives in 2009? Roger. also time. live? in Godfrey, -- is Illinois. G-O-D-F-R-E-Y. Q And has his last name West also? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) I'll and"}, {"d": 121, "p": 31, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 44 Neil West 03/19/2026 A Yes, ma'am. Q Okay. Has your inspected the roof other brothers that are any other brothers? many -- siblings do youngest of Roger West at any time? you have any have current house A No, ma'am. Q Do of roofers? A No. Q Do you A Oh, I Q Okay. 11 have? 12 A I'm 13 Q Okay. 14 A So I have four older brothers, 15 sisters. 16 Q And other than Roger and 17 you've 18 sib -- 19 or roofing? 10 20 21 the 22 with do. How the described as of your other brother A My Army Corps of inspecting how in being seven work so Engineers, a few buildings. Where does 23 Q Okay. 24 A In Lawton, 25 Q All right. Rick he older two who Christopher, in a retired is has do any your of construction engineer with his share had live? Oklahoma. Any other of you kids. roofing, siblings Rick many your immediate Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 121, "p": 32, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 50 Neit West 03/19/2026 an employee, when then And I filed this claim that came out inspector Farm State nothing. September, after Bobby telling me that, you damage. There preexisting damage. if they're And was 10 have disclosed ll yes, it's 12 like somebody 13 and that a weird to me. also know they misrepresented you. 14 Q And 15 A I deal 16 Q And you've 17 A We have. 18 Q Did you 19 personally but And there was -- so, to be able to that they let you down with for fraud? us to her sued ever call explain it? her SANDERS: Object 21 THE WITNESS: I if 23 wasn't 24 Q 25 substantive much have that. MR. know, should Nancy 20 you that -- to 22 me any think to conflict was I damage, preexisting there there tell to try to going tries claim, my that indication in think preexisting is this know, no was I submitted had the and and to the she think her ask form. called filed a claim, there just wasn't. noting that we discussion about it. There Rother) So have you had a conversation with her at all -- -- (By Ms. ask, Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) well,"}, {"d": 121, "p": 33, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page67 Neil West 03/19/2026 to consider. Consider downsizing. Q When did first A Two-ish you and two -- take 2023? the date. Q Was it prior A We did. I Q Okay. A So these are discussion. You know, trying and have going June 15, think we had one, yeah. things what are Ramsey plans and just, you know, buckling to get my to do that. all cutting back on budget 11 up. So I'm like, I 12 don't know contacted I So I ago. to 10 13 renter? years recall I'm a a half don't how on roof another roofer to get Derek -- yeah, in just I done and a second He Derek. 14 opinion, and that would be 15 came out and said, yeah, Dude, you need a new roof. tell me exactly what he said. You or you have Well, Q 16 17 need 18 roof? 19 A a new roof I don't -- 20 it's -- you 21 that it warrants remember enough a roof. And you the photos and 23 at 24 they were 25 this earlier. hail the there's Q 22 hail new were earlier seeing your but exact words, damage to talking about looking concluding that marks and damage . I'm pretty have you had But to damage any sure your I asked you on how training Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) house"}, {"d": 121, "p": 34, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 90 Neil West 03/19/2026 able insureds know. you determine what it approval from that get that the inspector in could not grant a full roof permission -- to get could deny on the spot 10 superior 11 sort. 12 There 13 attempts 14 were 15 percent 16 they 17 -- a was become to banking were And so when this -- and -- I knew to 21 thing and they didn't. my head I'm going absolutely is not denied all of make sure and 50 was a legitimate Farm to do the isn't right. right. This -- know I just everything it that this we through came I did I mean, State get storm, this. 25 situation my when so tried 25 such it. and that as challenging claim by they and not 20 damaged some Farm's State between it a of on people I could 24 out a pay that that just be and 19 23 to through all In from came with 22 approval that 18 to get denying claims the to profitable more systematically of or about read I replacements going was there if sorry. I'm roof had they damage, significant policy a change had let and had and And was. they replacement They know, -- I time Since that for, to be basically recommendation whatnot, or replacement the a make -- recommend was this and -- Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) right This roof I'm was being"}, {"d": 121, "p": 35, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 92 to A Absolutely, Q And ma'am. those allegations? A That's why we're here, Q Yeah. All right. So do things you read, many ways the allegations MR. SANDERS: 10 Q (By Ms. 11 A When 13 of 14 systematically I to the form. I those are my one of those I shouldn't was and denied -- Petition was one people that got have been. I words. know that's an allegation; And you understand that the 18 disagreement here is whether 19 damage Q And 16 A I do. 17 Q to your roof SANDERS: (By Ms. 22 MR. SANDERS: Object. 23 THE WITNESS: I are, ma'am. 21 Q 24 defenses 25 Q (By Ms. correct? fundamental or not there's to form. hail -- MR. 20 this I had you 15 in Okay. my that people. those essentially Petition? in your Rother) realization deep accounts Absolutely. I read 12 media ma'am. the Object THE WITNESS: entitled mirror they and is Farm State that agree you defend m WW N Nei! West 03/19/2026 Object Rother) Rother) -- the correct? don't know Okay. Did what all State Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) your Farm"}, {"d": 121, "p": 36, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 97 Neil West 03/19/2026 A I have not. Q So me and that's I'm glad tell from there. for the roof that you have into told me because So your and all is that you're owed storm, and the based upon should have Holcomb Ms. Farm's claim handling she caused you, but are you claiming 12 separate from the fact that 13 your and you had emotional 15 just distress 11 A Yes, ma'am. MR. SANDERS: the form. Okay. What other Q (By Ms. Rother) 17 financial injury did 18 A 19 before 20 therefore 21 anything 22 She could 23 have -- she could have said you are not ~- 24 meet our standards on this, but she did not. 25 issued it -- not by in this. she And have should have because and cause inspected the person, not She signed me me that policy. the she's now so And by up you? property not. did she in denied of Holcomb Nancy pay didn't distress? to Object damage any Farm State to practices 16 She work can from disclosed 14 and narrative, damage the earlier we now 10 claim this decision. claim State you long allegation claiming You're asking the got emotional Farm's State I was we how you -- drone, for a policy. should She saying by you don't you're good Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 121, "p": 37, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 98 Neil West 03/19/2026 to roof your guess what to come in beforehand, no. is just -- Q But that A She is negligent in those duties. of her negligence in doing that, it absolutely led to I would later you because that distress say and on walking was somebody or damage preexisting that's Now trying is somebody now happens, this. all have can you go, And develop. was my question, wondering if there that But Okay. Q 10 11 stress. I'm just 12 claiming you overpaid 13 any the claim Ms. Holcomb I pay a very nice amount you are premiums, underpaid premiums, you injury No. A 14 15 other -- have caused? money didn't total -- insurance 16 Q Right. 17 A -- to 18 Q And you have -- State if it had totalled your have your roof Object to the form. And all the other close to $300,000, you have plenty your roof. But 20 have enough coverage 21 correct? Q 23 SANDERS: (By Ms. policy 24 Your 25 contract to MR. Rother) insures damage is insured. house my keep 19 22 for of you for 50,000, so Farm you roof, for; paid Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) damage. your of"}, {"d": 121, "p": 38, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 100 Neil West 03/19/2026 Now, Okay. Q Ms. Holcomb her a Yes, she don't 0D FF We DO Okay. F Maybe Oo Are inspect older said of yours and you've known than you? talk a few you age. years. really contending that it on your roof get to obligation Holcomb's 11 you ma'am. Is Ms. -- time? A 10 Ms. a friend is long of terms in was and it? 12 MR. SANDERS: Object to 13 THE WITNESS: Ma'am, I am contending on the roof to We have great technology she or somebody 15 or put a 16 these 17 Q 18 didn't 19 A 20 discovery. 21 Q Have 22 practice in 23 knowledge about 24 insurance agent's 25 there. could it of your roof? didn't see it footage MR. this How -- you're.a area. Do but you have any personal regard you obligation to inspect to the Object it they don't lawyer with SANDERS: that in your is the inspect know law what that happened. you drone you form. do Rother) I certainly easily have Ms. (By do up drone days, get should 14 the to an property? form. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 121, "p": 39, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 101 Neil West 03/19/2026 THE WITNESS: Q (By Ms. reading, have opinions which not be do Rother) not. And in that to inspect property? Object to the THE WITNESS: That's a question of the lawyers. Ms. Rother) Okay. But my question was, do form. How is -- law to well, have you read those -- doing, have you read any decisions on that issue? SANDERS: Object to the THE WITNESS: What I have is that -- (By Ms. Rother) No, asking you federal court opinions. 10 agreed. 11 in all the 12 of the federal court 13 MR. 14 those? by and courts (By 17 fact SANDERS: ‘@) about court MR. the 16 your in agent's found by Q of federal have determined 15 all several the read you duty a have I you reading the were 18 MR. SANDERS: Object 19 THE WITNESS: The I read was to Have the actual 20 themselves, 21 Q 22 insurance policy 23 inspections are 24 MR. SANDERS: Form. 25 THE WITNESS: Not form. you read form. opinions no. (By Ms. And Rother) to what see have it you says read about required? that I know of. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) your whether"}, {"d": 121, "p": 40, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 104 Neil West 03/19/2026 saying, that's not damage. And I'm like, what what about this. No, sir, that's not and this or that's exactly what he said. And do you Q and damage covered have you policy your under understand know don't I damage. hail not damage, about then you have damage to the form. that's excluded? 10 MR. SANDERS: Object THE WITNESS: I a that's understand thing, yes. 12 because you've 13 damage, that the 14 A Yes. 15 Q And 16 A Yes. 17 Q | And 18 adjuster, 19 this is roofs two had policy but you know replaced due to hail covers hail? wind? what Gooch, Mr. covered 20 MR. SANDERS: Object 21 THE WITNESS: I name that's what like it sounds not of the was he said to you to the form. damage? Q (By Ms. Rother) you understand, sir, 22 And Okay. Rother) (By Ms. Q 11 believe that's Okay. And that 23 do 24 roof to have wear or tear 25 damage, all kinds of things, it's he still -- wasn't possible deterioration, and correct. for your preexisting have Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) hail"}, {"d": 121, "p": 41, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 135 Neil West 03/19/2026 the books, necessarily same time if that you were new house and you A Not driveway Was sidewalk. 11 Q Okay. 12 A She kind of things occur. you've that called but I driveway of the in standing described, Nancy? front yard, yes. West with you then? was around. She was not standing she was -- she So was she a -- she was not a participant my inquiry of the when I've 16 A Correct. In 17 correct. 18 Q have told 19 questions 20 Ms. Holcomb, that you think she failed 21 your property and tell you about its 22 that she failed to tell you that State 23 changed way it evaluates hail damage. 24 characterize those correctly? A You how about the You me, you think you by property. the at was conversation? 25 My Mrs. the 15 in these of said Q we're know, conversation 10 14 the me paying you -- some as The But at with not me. attention was co-existing 13 times she maybe the many mean, I but you so works -- think on just would Q way it We us. for that finances, policy, you asked damaged were to by inspect and condition, Farm did. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) had Did I"}, {"d": 121, "p": 42, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 136 Neil West 03/19/2026 affirmative make any claim are Did omissions. are those So Okay. Q you that you she statements to or are false? to the form. You can got misrepresentations MR. SANDERS: Object THE WITNESS: You know, just said we've need, and I believed answer. you covered, we've got what you her. And it turns out she didn't. (By Ms. Q this is my only chance to 11 you can -- tell me what -- 12 specifically recall her 13 MR. SANDERS: Object THE WITNESS: Yeah. 14 words you to the form. It was a conversation what using. can You answer. 15 16 What trial. before ask 10 because just So Okay. Rother) on phone. the (By Ms. Q 17 18 the conversation 19 of your new 20 A Correct. 21 Q And 22 what? 23 A I get And Rother) you where talking we're were standing you told in about yard the house? you said, Correct. called hey, coverage 24 need to 25 want replacement we're buying this house. on costs. and I made her this spec exactly house, we -- I I want -- I made Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 121, "p": 43, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 137 Neil West 03/19/2026 the storm back in 2019, I make sure that we've got the same kind of coverage that we did then. I said if we have to overinsure it to get proper valuation for today's -- I didn't say it, but in my that, you know, to of thing, she She asked know, a few questions year of the 10 house, the 11 many square feet. 12 back to me. And 13 responded 14 you're 15 up, she'll look it at some point we've got you say at some point 16 responded to. Did -- how did 17 issuing policy or -- and 18 any Yes. Sure. later on 21 don't even 22 multiple 23 the 24 know. and you were she respond, by you haven't produced So I don't recall if it was -- I just -- I so. e-mails, 20 up hooked all you get were we Well, A how bedrooms, Q 19 the many go. the of how to good year the about She'll then Yes, to. roof, kind it. got okay, said, to inflation of cost covered -- cost for replace you thinking, I'm head 25 want I said to reference same day or within if we hung up the phone conversations on the same -- time range. I -- we -- you that know same five, But at some 10 minute point, obviously, had and like Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) within I don't know,"}, {"d": 121, "p": 44, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 142 Neil West 03/19/2026 would be out don't I of pocket know that my $3,000 or 3100. your of rest the I understand question. Did State Farm A Oh, they did. Q And what was that A $1200 or so. I don't know why they look at the to payment a subsequent make Q you? 10 And, frankly, I was, oh, you here coverage that Holcomb or that said you? 14 said to Ms. 15 A I think we've 16 Q Okay. And have we 18 A Right. 19 Q And 20 claim 21 A you 24 that 25 wanted make if know, you to covered said you what it, to you ma'am. was, full coverage; right? said you made reference to I want to the 2019 -I believe 23 she a sidetracked, placing anything was, in in -- 22 notes else any on claim I get 13 sure It before minute. make it. sent But right. All 12 17 know, I don't -- don't for? go. We'll Okay. Q il payment sure roof. full that So in so, -- if we've my right. So because the point we're out a roof then I want full coverage to replace was telling her that got mind, replacement I cost. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) I"}, {"d": 121, "p": 45, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 143 Neil West 03/19/2026 your mind, you said to in Well, Q exactly what Okay. Q So you -- and I wrote you told her you wanted full best recollection and what to the form. THE WITNESS: I've said many things a 12 anything more 13 Q (By 14 understand 15 and so I need to know very 16 said and what she said to 17 the level of fraud. 18 remember? 19 A Not that 20 Q And I one that I and the only 22 with about -- sentence and can't. I than I've already said. Rother) Okay. Well, Ms. I that rises else you can anything can recall. you we've established, would have had but on your new house? you know -- State Farm in fact correct, and suing on it? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Do you're to she's conversation a policy the fraud you whether So think of what specifically see you you Holcomb Ms. accusing you're reinsert give cannot just just that 21 a take to me asking today you're I'm know, You true. 11 policy; said? Object all the that Is -- said you SANDERS: basically 25 that coverage. you 10 comma down MR. were they need her. A of know to I but Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) issued a"}, {"d": 121, "p": 46, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 144 Neil West 03/19/2026 A Yes. Yes, Q Okay. So State Farm underwriting conclude that your house was sufficient to issue coverage; A Sure. Yes, ma'am. Q And I think we've talked terms of what you claim Ms. disclose, it relates to claims evaluates hail State in Farm and 10 allegation 11 told is ma'am. if that for agreed? about this. But Holcomb failed to damage. she knew the And that handles Farm State way the did your she should I'm just have you? 12 A Agreed. 13 Q I'm 14 flipping 15 and making 16 Are 17 -- just for through your answers sure that we you claiming that your excludes weather related record, interrogatories our to anything. omitted haven't policy has -- the form. that it losses? 18 MR. SANDERS: Object 19 THE WITNESS: The one that I or the one for? The one that I signed up for signed up for, was And State Farm I signed 20 that 21 or 22 weather that I thought related losses. — Ms. Rother) (By Q 23 I up 24 for weather related 25 much as think you losses, they to they should; just got covered it did pay didn't pay right? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) as"}, {"d": 121, "p": 47, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 160 Neil West 03/19/2026 Q him tell you e-mail Mr. State Farm is coming on two; correct? then that 12 and A A text, Q Oh, between but me bottom, September I have decided roof. As time. And Thank you.\" Why did Mr. Odom? A I was going 14 I hadn't talked to him 15 second opinion as well. 16 to down, if he 17 just 18 needed 19 thing. 20 Q 21 come to talking my yet. I just a of September as to Derek Franklin? that time, A Around 23 Q So 24 September 14, 25 A Right. that's Exhibit on come not he direction down. come the were then I which just right you also yeah. 6, a brother couldn't because doing 26th, Mr. 22 if I was on the my opinion that Neil. I wanted second sure it's I wanted and make the -- could, get And so And to wanted at brother have to 13 432 a different go to decide you kids direction you that ask my \"Bobby, in a different to go and on then 1:43. at 26th I would 11 29th September that do I such, Friday. and Odom yes. Sorry. the all correct than on yes. 10 12 431 And starts 2023? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) on I"}, {"d": 121, "p": 48, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 161 Neil West 03/19/2026 Q And A to So, Mr. Odom Mr. Franklin That was part it. my brother come, I think I was yeah, off because come instead? I get could I if well. contacted Derek as get some second ask him just trying to you call Chris a I was -- I was Chris, you I wanted -- I just yeah, so, And get to wanting put have opinion. second Chris you to going were did opinions. did Q And 10 A I know 11 asking 12 fishing 13 that and 14 know, he's 15 with my 16 getting 17 just 18 I don't talked. we and I ended was like he that I heard think I think trip or a hunting trip or something as I, you know, kind of processed in Missouri, making his him. a I crew, wasn't the on your Q Okay. So back is Exhibit 19 Mr. Odom, which 20 you know, what happened 21 mind, you say my brother 22 This is September 23 A Yeah. 24 Q But -- 25 A In my 26th; head I best in you work him head my I idea. with exchange 5. When he asks what to make you change your is going to a on it, and that like up like schedule logistically think it that thought things and schedule come? to do the -- roof. correct? -- in my head I was Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) going to"}, {"d": 121, "p": 49, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 162 Neil West 03/19/2026 have to him do the roof, but Q But on September Mr. Franklin; correct? A Yeah. Q And -26th, talking you're also your brother; Yeah. not is Franklin Mr. correct? A. Correct. Q All with the question 10 back to Exhibit 11 welcome 12 context. 13 read the prior But I think if you to If always you're sure at 652 and three, you coordinate for Mr. Franklin to house. And then on from you that look trying 15 come and look at 16 September 28th there's a 17 \"State Farm day early 18 now. He 19 called out 20 or your text notice. without roof. And first guy saying no do you mean \"also basically guy,\" who are you talking the first guy is Bobby. that damage says, Here basically to no have you make were said go you to all damage to garage fence.\" 21 A Yeah. 22 Q What 23 earlier. help page 14 came will and 654, Page to you I asked 6, this I think Then right. first that 24 A So 25 Q Okay. about? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) called out"}, {"d": 121, "p": 50, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 164 Neil West 03/19/2026 tear and people when he leaves?\" on the that would A Yeah. Q Do you think of what you account I believe A so. He said that there were said these spots would have the roof. Yeah, if kind of 10 presence 11 Q So then 12 November 8th after 13 leaves?\" And he 14 on 15 then the next text 16 happened from September 17 A He came out, Derek roof and he said you got you've got a I don't the 18 the 19 you've 20 to 21 don't. 22 you 23 State be replaced. know, he knew said anything until 28th call you when he Did you talk to him September 28th and to So November 8th? storm looked damage. I here that roof his at mean, needs I words, exact a little bit policy with, I talked your who's he out, came full what 8th. remember we a I the November is remember I And about, said Farm. you I had, 24 25 -- got it. is that Because phone? processing \"sure.\" says, know, \"Can say, you day? you see don't I that was, I was how of sense on it texted, I what that's told walking people from been were he -- walking people accurate an be you I call Can roof. walking that I had know -- another I think we talked that he person, I don't know that Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) he"}, {"d": 121, "p": 51, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 165 Neil West 03/19/2026 Bobby's that he -- that need of a full in State it's know, to know left and right. says Farm, he State Farm that need You as being due to the hail. it and he goes, but, you know, about talked we roof the replacement roof I, and Derek they valued had Bobby you can -- you he says, but I think up against this, but you're -- you know, you're I'm like, well, I what else to says -- or shortly it. And 11 and so I At a certain this 12 13 if it's 14 you know, 15 adjuster, 16 I 17 appraiser 18 Claim, 19 be conversation damage do. and I don't know he says, after such a thing as a public you could -- and I'm like what's come to out and evaluate and then at the roof, whatever, advocate for myself as 21 Oklahoma City, 22 earlier in one 23 remember who 24 time 25 on getting it was a public I kind of made of my earlier ahold when that was of I was able in to that reference I answers. with. And then to the kind adjuster I spoke them. So of consumer. there recall I do a that. independent basically information, evaluator or -- roof is 20 the hill there look an he point general the get know don't on a big full a have claims can know, with you you denying just is proceed 10 -- but that, like anything or name knew reach don't I had when that I did person, Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) a hard get"}, {"d": 121, "p": 52, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 166 Neil West 03/19/2026 remember don't I again, I as me it just explained of kind he was, who you, to it explained it to you know, we had served -- you know, we see that there's actual damage, make sure there's here, and if it is then, you the best we can to advocate for the price was and I got it's haven't made a claim claim legitimate we'll do I asked what -- we'll to looked a know, you. And 10 percent if you percent if you have made a 11 you -- that we help you recover That's when 12 to anything 25 percent. I'm like, well, is Bobby, do I want to stay with I just -- at the end of the day I 14 Derek, and 15 like I had a stronger 16 you know, knew him 17 so I went back to Bobby 18 what, I'm kind of stuck Because I need to 20 longer with Bobby, and said, okay, you on this. slightly percent roof this get get then, you know, do, but I want you to know, I'm -- I'm in the wrong. 21 $50,000 roof from whatever 22 maybe that's what I 23 continue to fight. Because, 24 absolutely satisfied that we're 25 And at some I, I if done pay when and to to to know pocket have have fixed and own my of out 20 that's felt I just, I guess, relationship I do with want so that stay 13 19 and back I go So claim. 10 25 and you not point thereafter, Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) got a"}, {"d": 121, "p": 53, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 167 Neil West 03/19/2026 Bobby back on board. Did messages, it your once? roof me that he just looked to say he actually came out but I I want to say that he Q Do you know if he took A I know he -- it and to appears I want A text the from just -- Franklin Mr. Q did at again don't know. know if 11 think -- 12 just don't 13 yeah, Q Will you and ask 15 are sending a Right. 17 Q -- the house? of A Right. 20 Q When 21 State 22 A I did. 23 Q Okay. 25 had Farm point, A there was I at look question. 19 that I think a -- If time. Il second time. I some -- well, let me pause here In these text messages you some Franklin Mr. A 24 second you 16 of the remember. 14 18 photos took he 10 I don't time. first the didn't photos? water -- photos the stains from discover those interior Right. -- you did And you discussed don't there? been already and the believe after Mr. Odom interior had not, damage? so. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) to"}, {"d": 121, "p": 54, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 168 Neil West 03/19/2026 June 15th A and room moved there at there. 11 June 2023? I do know. we were In the time. already then 2022, of they were there they arose in I after shortly not they were they weren't 2022 January in that because painted We paint. on painted ceilings the for know there had we Because So after sometime 2023? A Correct. 13 Q Whether 14 A And to be are in a master 15 noticed 16 was in 17 two closets, 18 never like 19 like -- so 20 check it all 21 Q 22 group 23 Mr. Franklin, 24 inspectors.\" A not January in. 12 25 were feeling And 15, have leaving Okay. Q 10 of have didn't we those that certain you to way any do And Okay. Q of the middle -- the first ones that a bedroom. And then the second bathroom closet. I'm I once it was never in so and -- clear, out, in So just God, I West 661 in that one, and then, yeah. Okay. Will you texts. This is \"Do you have the name of And I think you mean public Right. where better my that to was oh, saw go I I've But master. there. one have actually We the I asking you're private the adjusters? Right. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 121, "p": 55, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 169 Neil West 03/19/2026 one to more comfortable take pictures If they say it's and call it good. worth 10 the roof. I having one of those guys If say they that manner contacts if read that to fix the you could send that would them, 12 correctly? 13 A You 14 Q Okay. 15 doubt 16 by about be roof.\" those I great.\" Did expressing you did. Was Mr. Franklin whether he thought roof the some was totalled hail? 17 A No. 18 Q But 19 A He was had doubts Or that State totalled by hail? Right. Oh, there Brown O'Haver. 20 that 21 it. he Q was in you know 23 something use 11 22 it's to me losses that proceed \"If evaluation. my I'll Q out come cut then Yeah. feel will I then bust, a hire can just independent an make for A I that fighting I hope and so at and to about look a take come talked you \"That Q 24 A 25 there, Kevin you at he think -- expressing that -- didn't that State Farm Farm he was would expressing pay would determine is. There it Word for Word Reporting, LLC it 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) out on that it is right"}, {"d": 121, "p": 56, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 170 Neil West 03/19/2026 Q Yes. A That was the Q Yes. And with Exhibit This MS. ROTHER: City one. that I will show you an e-mail that you I think this is also is 11. Oklahoma produced. it but from there, John. communication that's been MR. SANDERS: redacted 10 it 12 names to forwarded being 11 redacted? That would literally just be us. And so literally just the that make the -- 13 MS. ROTHER: Okay. 14 MR. SANDERS: -- 15 in sense, Timila? MS. ROTHER: Yeah. 17 MR. SANDERS: It's 18 literally 19 top. ROTHER: Q (By Ms. West, this Mr. 23 they 24 an 25 Kevin could Rother) you produce to or -- at Brown is forwarded at the Okay. is e-mail it -- nothing being message the just MS. 20 22 Does e-mail. 16 21 a privilege that Is information some there's probably like looks pre-litigation All sharing us this communication O'Haver, So right. with I think, your counsel so -- I guess it's e-mail that you had with is how you pronounce I think Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 121, "p": 57, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 189 Neil West 03/19/2026 to rain was on the roof? see any of explanation from Am Q Did you Claims about where that rain response to State Farm's question? A I didn't, no. Q Did ever complain I -- you -- I think to Ms. Coastal in roof was on the I asked you this. Did state Farm's cap about Holcomb decision? claim MR. SANDERS: Object 12 THE WITNESS: I don't think she called I 13 complained. 14 middle of it 15 we -- she noticed 16 yet. And I 17 words. no But said we hadn't checks -- that was amount of damages that we should 21 really a complaint, I guess just 22 fact. 25 ceiling? Rother) of checks the 20 damage the cashed it interior cashed remember that 24 if don't hadn't Ms. asked I satisfied (By she we wasn't Q the -- 19 23 in somewhere that -- the Have house, I that know I because sometime form. the to 11 18 that where explanation A you 10 cap an Farm State provide the exact I because we have. got the So not a statement of you repaired the the stains on the Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 121, "p": 59, "t": "- DECLARATION OF NANCY HOLCOMB I, Nancy Holcomb, hereby declare and state: 1, My name is Nancy Holcomb, 1 am a State Farm insurance agent in Lawton, Oklahoma. I own and operate the Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. 2. | have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and know each of them to be true and correct. 3, I have served as Nei] and Lacy West’s insurance agent for many years and considered them friends, I assisted Mr. West in procuring a policy to insure his house located at 7710 SW Crystal Hills Place in Lawton, Oklahoma. The policy covered “accidental direct physical loss,” which included wind and hail damage. 4. Jn 2021, the Wests bought a new house located at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive in ’ Lawton, and I assisted them in purchasing a State Farm policy to insure that house, State Farm Homeowners Policy No. 36-CR-X405-8 (“Policy”), Like the Policy insuring the Wests’ prior house, the Policy insures against “accidental direct physical loss,” which includes wind and hail damage. 5. State Farm sometimes engages third parties to conduct inspections or reviews of properties, However, State Farm did not require or request an inspection of the Wests’ house to issue the Policy in 2021. If there had been wn inspection, J would not have completed it, J do not inspect roofs as an agent, nor am J required by, State Farm to do so, I declare under penalty of perjury under the Iaws of Oklahoma that the foregoing is truo and correct pursuant to 12 0.8. § 426. i"}, {"d": 121, "p": 60, "t": "Signed this 26th day of May, 2026, in Lawton, Oklahoma, 6265356"}, {"d": 121, "p": 62, "t": "actDataScout™ 4 Parcel: O2N13W-26-1-94900-020-0003 5/1/2025 1:27:05 AM ID: 160077521 Comanche County Report Property Owner Name: Mailing Address: _ Property Information WEST, NEIL & LACY 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR Subdivision: PECAN VALLEY SOUTH . \"LAWTON, OK 73505-4213 Type: Physical Address: : (Ri) Res, Improv. Tax District: (9) CACHE RURAL 107.89 Millage Rate: 107.89 ee 0020 / 0003 $-T-R: 26-02N-13W : Fair Taxable 48,000 41,010 4614 Building | 256,713 242,330 27,262 | Totals | 304,713 283,340 31,876 | Exemptions 1,000 - Taxable $30,876 Assessed PECAN VALLEY SOUTH BLK 20 Ba\" LoT3 Ful Fair Assessed. = Cash — Land) Legal: 0.00 Taxes Cash BS cn Block/Lot: Size (Acres): Market and Assessed Values cee Note: Tax amounts are Estimated 3.331 Taxes: | 7\" estimates only. Contact the county treasurer for exact amounts. | Exemptions: | 1,000 . EXHIBIT Land Land Use '‘Size Units LOT AREA 1.00 “Lot"}, {"d": 121, "p": 63, "t": "‘Land Use ‘Size ‘Total 1.00 - Units Deed Transfers Deed Date | Book 12/28/2021 Page Deed Type \"Stamps \"Est. Sale 8967 212 JTWO 390.00 $260,000 BURNS, BILLIE D & VIOLA F 6/241997 0 Wart.Deed 0.00 624997 «0ST 0 Grantor $0 252.75 WILSON, HAROLD W & DOROTHY~A $168,500 RHEA, PETE Residential Card Residential Card 1 Details i 2 Occupancy Story Construction Total Liv | Grade “Single Family ONE Veneer,Masonry 2383 95 Age Year Built 27 1997 Condition : Beds “Very Good Exterior Wall: : Veneer, Masonry Plumbing: | Full: 2 Half: N/A Foundation: N/A Heat/Cool: | Central Year Remodeled: N/A Base Structure Item _ Label . Description “SINGLE 1/S FIRE PL \"SINGLE 1/S FIRE PL 4 2 | Slab Porch with Roof | Slab Porch with Roof | 20 3 Slab Porch with Roof Slab Porch with Roof 54 4 Open Slab Porch : Open Slab Porch 210 1 Area 3"}, {"d": 121, "p": 64, "t": "Outbuildings and Yard Improvements 7 Card # Item Size / Dim Quality Age to “SINGLE 1/S FIRE PL 1 : N/A : N/A 4 Slab Porch with Roof 30 NIA | NIA | 1 “Slab Porch with Roof | | 54 NA 4 : Open Slab Porch 210 NYA | Parcel Photos N/A LNA 10f5 Parcel Sketch 3 “oy 1h PRED 0 WOO! 40 6 LSS! OKI 6 3 il a 231 4 Atlached Garage dD 8 443 35 7) iUH ROO pw Map OS"}, {"d": 121, "p": 65, "t": "Privacy - Terms - FAQ - Help Desk - About Us - Accessibility © 2025 - DataScout, All Rights Reserved,"}, {"d": 121, "p": 67, "t": "36-CR-X%405-8 State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Homeowners Application - OK Cancel/New 42-29-2021 Effective Date: Agent: Nancy Holcomb Nancy Holcomb Ins Agcy Inc App Date: 12-06-2021 App Time: 09:14 AM Agent Code: 2175 AFO Code: 26FAF3 Birlh date CUSTOMER: Applicant. © WEST, NEIL S Co-Applicant: WEST, LACY M H-19c9 Home Phone Business Phone (580) 510-0427 H-1920 &LACY M Show name(s} on policy as: WEST, NEIL S Nailing Address: SSN 7710 SW CRYSTAL HILLS PL LAWTON, OK 73505-6431 is any applicant an existing State Farm customer: Yes if yes, State / Prov: OK Home / Auto discount: Yes if yes, State / Prov: OK Does the applicant want to replace an existing State Farm policy with this transaction: Yes Existing State Farm policy number being replaced: 36-CU-1467-1 Existing policy's cancel date: 12-29-2021 Existing policy's State / Prov; OK is the properly location for this new policy the same as the existing policy's location: No Is applicant the named Insured on the existing State Farm policy: Yes if yes, existing policy type being replaced: Homeowners Number of residents: 2 Location: Property Location: County: Territory zone: Subzone: Street: 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR City: LAWTON State / Prov: OK ZIP / Postal: 73505-9537 Comanche 20 99 is the dwelling inside city limits: No is the dwelling located within 10 road miles of a responding fire department: Yes is the dwelling accessible to fire department protection equipment year round: Yes Does the dwelling have an adequate water source available for fire protection year round: Yes Pre-eligibility: Farm/Ranch policy In the last 30 days and Has any applicant had a State Farm Homeowners, Manufactured Home, Renters, Condominium Unitowners, or qualifies for the Loyal Customer Discount: Yes if yes, Tenure Details: Enter information from the State Farm Policy that carries the oldest tenure date: From date: 12-2004 EXHIBIT To date: 12-2021 State / Prov: OK Years with State Farm: 20 Tenure policy number: 36-CU-1467-1 Tenure date: 12-19-2001 Has applicant had any losses, insured or not, in the past § years: Yes If yes, is applicant a current State Farm policyholder having a qualifying residential policy: Yes EA25400K25 Rev. 05-2021 Page 1 of 4 1000008 2018 128191 218 03-10-2020 SFF&CC/West_000953"}, {"d": 121, "p": 68, "t": "Homeowners Application - OK State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 36-CR-X405-8 Loss caused by Flood, Identity Restoration, Earthquake in California, Mine Subsidence; or was the loss a Home Systems Protection (Equipment Breakdown), Service Line, Personal Articles Policy, or Personal Liability Umbrella loss: Loss description: wind hail Date of loss: 05-28-2019 Catastrophe related: Yes Weather related: Yes Total amount of loss: 13,480 Number of homeowners rating claims: 0 No - Dwelling: Estimate number; G214-13QA-3 Estimated replacement cost source: Estimated replacement cost tool Total finished square feet: 2053 Number of stories: 1 Story Estimated replacement cost: 292,000 Date of estimate: 12-06-2021 Year built: 1997 Heating / Cooling year: Original if Updated, enter year: Electrical year: Original if Updated, enter year: Plumbing year: Original If Updated, enter year: Construction: Masonry veneer 1s there a solid fuel appliance, such as a wood or coal stove, fireplace inserl, or free-standing fireplace unit inside any dwelling or structure on the premises: No Roof Installation Year: 2019 Roof material: Composition - Architectural Shingle {s roof impact resistant: No Occupancy: Owner Number of weeks owner occupied (per calendar year): 52 Number of families: 4 Coverages: Desired coverage effective date: 12-29-2021 Estimated replacement cost: 292,000 Dwelling (Coverage A): 292,000 Rate IV: 100% Increased Dwelling - Option /D: Included Dwelling Extension: 29,200 Are there any detached structures on the premises: No Personal Property (Coverage B): 249,000 Loss Settlement: Loss Settlement Option - Dwelling: A1 - Replacement Cost - Similar Construction Loss Settlement Option - Personal Property: 81 - Limited Replacement Cost Policy deductible: 1% Personal Liability (Coverage L) each occurrence: 100,000 Medical Payments (Coverage M) each occurrence: 1,000 Adjustments: Deadbolt locks: Yes Fire extinguisher: Yes Sprinkler system: None Fire or smoke alarm: Local only Burglar alarm: Local only Options / Endorsements: Jewelry and Furs: Yes EA25400K25 Rev, 05-2024 Page 2 of4 1000009 2018 126191 218 03-10-2020 SFF&CC/West_000954"}, {"d": 121, "p": 69, "t": "Homeowners Application - OK State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 36-CR-X405-8 JF fimit: 1,800 / 2,500 Option JF included Silver/Goldware Theft - Option SG: Yes SG limit: 2,500 included Business Property - Option BP: Yes BP limit: 7,500 included Building Ordinance or Law - Option OL {% of Coverage A): Yes OL limit: 10% included Firearms - Option FA: Yes FA limit: 2,500 included Fire Department Service Charge Increased Limits: Yes Limit: 500 included Quote Resuits: CRE 5613 Quote description. 100% Replacement Cost Annual premium: 2,758.00 Monthly premium: 229.83 Estimated replacement cost: . Rate IV: 292,000 100% Construction: Territory zone: Subzone: LRF: Masonry veneer 20 99 L Coverages Dwelling (Coverage A) Increased Dwelling - Option ID Dwelling Extension Personat Property (Coverage B) Personal Liability (Coverage L} each occurrence Medical Payments (Coverage M) each occurrence Credit Card / Bank Card and Forgery Damage to Property of Others (Each Occurrence) Loss of Use Loss Settlement Provision Loss Settlement Option - Dwelling Limit Premium 292,000 58,400 29,200 219,000 400,000 1,000 4,000 4,000 87,600 5,881.00 At - Replacement Cost Similar Construction Bi - Limited Replacement Cost Loss Settlement Option - Persanai Property Deductibies Policy deductible 1% 2,920 Charges / Credits Ciaim Record Home alert Home / Auto discount Loyal customer discount (470.00) (66.00) (4,515.00) (1,082.00) Policy Options and Endorsements Jewelry and Furs 1,500 / 2,500 Option JF included 2,500 included 1,500 included 10% 29,200 2,500 included Silver/Goldware Theft - Option SG Business Property - Option BP Building Ordinance or Law - Option OL (% of Coverage A) Firearms - Option FA EA 2540 OK.25 Rav. 05-2021 Page 3 of 4 1OW0O0G 2018 128194 218 03-10-2020 SFF&CC/West_000955"}, {"d": 121, "p": 70, "t": "Hameowners Application - OK State Farm Fire and Casualty Company §00 included Fire Department Service Charge Increased Limits Additional interests: Type: Mortgagee Name: Street: Cily: State/Prov: ZIP/Postal: 36-CR-X405-8 ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA PO BOX 202070 FLORENCE SC 29502-2070 Loan number: Documents / Photos Bind: Market Assistance Program App: No Bind application: Yes Desired coverage effective date: 12-29-2021 Application taken date: 12-06-2021 Application taken time: 09:14 AM Billing / Payment: Minimum amount due: 459.66 Annual premium: 2,758.00 Payment Options: Put application on SFPP: No Annuat premium: 2,758.00 Amount paid: 0.00 Premium transfer from other policy: 0.00 Balance due: 2,758.00 Billing information: Should named insured be billed for first year’s premium: No Should named insured be billed for renewals: No If no, renewals will be billed to ihe name below: Name: ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA Should named insured be billed for endorsements: No ifno, endorsements will be billed to the name below: Name: ROCKET MORTGAGE LLC ISAOA EA 2540 OK.25 = Rev, 05-2024 Page 4 of4 1000009 2018 128194 218 03-10-2020 SFF&CC/West_000956"}, {"d": 121, "p": 72, "t": "S® StateFarm’ Certified Policy Record |, the undersigned, do hereby confirm that | am custodian of the records pertaining to the issuance of policies by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. | certify that the attached documents represent a true and accurate record of the terms and conditions of Policy Number 36-CR-X405-8 including any endorsements, if applicable, for the policy term(s) 42/29/2022 to 12/29/2023 and insuring WEST, NEIL S & LACY M based on available records. The policy was in effect on the loss date of 06/15/2023. Mile Mitchell Daugherty? Underwriting Team Manager Date: 03/17/2025 cer saci EXHIBIT § 1011493 2000 157822 200 02-09-2022 a SFF&CC/West_000001"}, {"d": 121, "p": 73, "t": "S& StateFarm This policy is one of the broadest forms available today, and provides you with outstanding value for your insurance dollars. However, we want to point out that every policy contains limitations and exclusions. Please read your policy carefully, especially “Losses Not Insured” and all exclusions. State Farm® Homeowners Policy Oklahoma HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000002"}, {"d": 121, "p": 74, "t": "HOMEOWNERS POLICY TABLE OF CONTENTS AGREEMENT .......cccssccsssssssssssesssessssesseesnee 1 DEFINITIONS... sasessennnecgesgeceesesessessetsssenes 1 DEDUCTIBLE nc INFLATION COVERAGE ........cscccccsseteeeeenens 14 SECTION I- LOSSES INSURED uuu... suse {2 cessssessssessseessseccnsescesensssnesesnsorsene 5 COVERAGE A = DWELLING. esssssesesseees 42 SECTION | - PROPERTY COVERAGES .occcccsessccsssec 5 COVERAGE B ~ PERSONAL PROPERTY............. 42 COVERAGE A— DWELLING.......ccccccccsseccssscsrsssessoe 5 SECTIONI-LOSSES NOT INSURED... 14 Dwell ..scsscsssseesecseseeescatstetsesstesnesneranenensansnensnn 5 SECTION 1-LOSS SETTLEMENT ou...eecccccceseeee 18 Other Structures... sess 5 Property Not Covered... ssscseesessseseeensees 5 COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY............... 5 Property Covered oo ecccsssesseeeesossssssssssseecsenses 5 COVERAGE A - DWELLING......sssccsssssessssrsseesnse 18 A( ~ Replacement Cost Loss Settlement — Similar CONStUCHON wc sessessssessesssenseeeeseeenete 18 A2 - Replacement Cost Loss Settlement - Special Limits of Liabllity ....csssscccsseneneseee 6 Common Gonstruction.....scrssssserenensesuse 18 Property Not Covered .....sssssusesssssssessissesee 6 COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY.......... 19 COVERAGE C- LOSS OF USE..csscssccsesssessein 8 oo Additional Livifig EXP@NSe o.....ssesesscssssesecseenesvese 8 Fait Rental Value essesroom Prohibited Use... sees vb SECTION | - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES..........0.. 8 Debris REMOVAL... ccsesscss 8 Bi ~ Limited Replacement Cost Loss Settlement ........cccseeseersseens 49 B2 — Depreciated Loss Settlement sessunounn 9 SECTION 1- CONDITIONS rs 20 insurable Interest and Limit of Liability... 20 Your Duties After Loss 20 Temporaty REpairS.....cccccssscsssssessonuseneteasin 9 Loss to a Pair or Set... 20 Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping ........ssssssssssese 9 APPraiSal.cecsssssssscsesen 21 Fire Department Service Charge... cesses 9 Property REMOVEG ........scsscseeseseeesesetenseereuerinens 9 Credit Card, Bank Fund Transfer Card, Other Insurance.. Suit Against Us...., Our OPTION 22 22 22 . .ec s esc s es tes enseone Forgery, and Counterfeit Money Loss Payment..vosscsssassssssenssstusacuaesssee 22 Power Interruption nro rere Abandonment of Propetty.......sscsssecusesnon 22 Refrigerated Products .........:csco Mortgagee Clause ) ArsOn REWAIG ccs cssecssssssnnssseeesenesssesersaeesaenee No Benefit to Bailee 93 Voloantic ACHION ee ssesrsssecsussneersienieee Recovered Property 23 COMSPSE oa cseeeeccesssecceennensceseeetseesesssnmnnnsnenesees Assignment of Claim 93 Locks and Remote Devices.....csessssrssresseessee 11 Fuel Oil Release......cccseessseneevesnee 11 Tear Out sesssssrssssnsssssssensesensessesesseesegeseresenencenss 11 Home Certification ...sesccccssssssnsssssesccnssnesserenes 11 SECTION [F- LIABILITY COVERAGES vercccsssccccccccccce 23 COVERAGE L. - PERSONAL LIABILITY........<... 3 COVERAGE M - MEDICAL PAYMENTS TO OTHERS .sessssscsscsssssssesesceseceeseccssuesessecceueesnensansceeectees 23 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000003"}, {"d": 121, "p": 75, "t": "SECTION I! - ADDITIONAL COVERAGEG............ 23 Claim EXp@nSeS ...sssssssesssssssessssssessesseensenseseecer 24 First Aid Expenses .......0.cccceessssssenisesseses 24 Damage to Property of Others .........sseene 24 SECTION fl - EXCLUSIONS. ........ccccssssssssssssssssssvssesnees 24 Death. eescssesccsstseosascsscsenssessovennesasenssseessscneseseess 34 Conformity to State LAW w.ecscssssssossssenssesersersenes 31 PREMIUM ....cccssscscssssecarstcesssearssossvesesnesnseseasessenes 34 Right to InSPeCt.. ss sssssssesseesseeccnesersessencseee 32 SECTION El — CONDITIONS 0... Joint and Individual Interests .........scsrsseccesen 32 ec esccssussssseseteessns 28 Limit Of LiaDility os asessesssssssseceesesesseseeees 28 Severability of InSUANCE 0... esseossasseseeseneses 28 Duties After LOSS ...ccsesecsscsssesssessesesereensnsssnnns 28 Coverage M Requirements ...ssusscecsssessssseass 29 Payment of Claim ~ Coverage M or Damage to Property of Others ....scvsesccsersssessnssenneses 28 Suit Against US... css 29 Bankruptcy of an Insured ..seescereosseenneees 29 Other Insurance ~ Coverage Lessee 29 SECTION | AND SECTION Il - CONDITIONS............. 29 Policy Period .......sessssssssssssesrseescsescsssnsessees 29 Concealment of Fraud... 29 Liberalization Clause 0... cssecscssssseesessernnesees 29 Waiver or Change of Policy Provisions............ 29 Cancellation ....cssscsccsecssecsecsensseresssssssinessstinens 29 Nonrenewal 30 Assignment of Policy .....ssssosssssssssssessecesseeeuee 30 Change of Policy Address ..........sssssssssessscssenees 32 Electronic Delivery... cscssssessesssseseresesenesressnses 32 Our Rights Regarding Claim Information.......... 32 Duties Regarding Claim Information................ 33 OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS... ssessseseene 33 Option Al - Additional Insured... 33 Option BP - Business Property.........sscrsseeseee 33 Option BU — Business Pursuits ....csecccrssens 33 Option FA - Firearms ......ccccessssssnssssnsessnsesssssnes 34 Option ID - increased Dwelling Limit.............. 34 Option 10 - Incidental Business .........cn00 34 Option JF — Jewelry and FurS......sscssssssssesssnssss 35 Option OL - Building Ordinance or Law........... 36 Option SG - Silverware and Goldware Theft... 37 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile fasurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000004"}, {"d": 121, "p": 76, "t": "HOMEOWNERS POLICY AGREEMENT We agree to provide the insurance described in this policy: 4. based on your payment of premium, in a form acceptable to us, for the coverages you chose; 2. based on your compliance with all applicable pravisions of this policy; and 3. based on the information you have given us and your statements in this agreement. You agree, by acceptance of this policy, that: {. you will pay premiums when due and comply with the provisions of this policy; 2. the statements in this agreement are your statements and are true; 3. we insure you on the basis your statements are true; and 4, this policy contains all of the agreements between you and us and any of our agents. Unless otherwise indicated in the application, you state that during the five years preceding the time of your application for this insurance you have not had any losses, insured or not. When you request changes to this policy, or the information or factors used to calculate the premium for this policy changes during the policy period, we may adjust the premium in accordance with the change during the policy period and you must pay any additional premium due within the time we specily. DEFINITIONS We define the following words and phrases for use throughout this policy. These definitions apply to the singular, plural, and possessive forms of these words and phrases. Defined words and phrases are printed in bold italics. 1. 2. loss of services, and death resulting therefrom. Bodily injury does not include: a. any of the following which are communicable: “actual cash value” means the value of the damaged part of the property at the time of loss, calculated as the estimated cost to repair or replace such property, less a deduction to account for pre-loss depreciation. For this calculation, all components of this estimated cost including, but not limited to: a. disease, bacteria, parasite, virus, or other organism, any of which are transmitted by any insured to any other person; b, the actual or alleged exposure to any such disease, bacteria, parasite, virus, or other organism by any insured to any other person; or c. emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, mental distress, mental injury, or any similar injury unless it arises out of actual physical injury to some person. materials, including any tax; b. _ labor, including any tax; and ¢. of the damaged part of the property. “bodily injury” means physical injury, sickness, or disease to a person. This includes required care, overhead and profit; are subject to depreciation. The depreciation deduction may include such considerations as: a age: b. condition; c. reduction in useful life; d. obsolescence; and é@ any pre-loss damage including wear, tear, or deterioration; 3. “building structure” means a structure fully enclosed with permanent walls and a roof. A permanent wall or roof does not include any kind of temporary materials including but not limited to tarps, plastic sheeting, or other similar material. A structure that is otherwise fully enclosed with permanent walls and a roof, that is undergoing repairs due fo a recent foss insured, using materials such as tarps, plastic sheeting, or other similar material, is still considered a building structure. 1 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW.2436 SFF&CC/AWest_000005"}, {"d": 121, "p": 77, "t": "the actual electrical power usage by the residence premises in the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss; or A building structure includes: a. the foundation supporting the structure, including: e. (1) slabs; (2) basement walls; “Declarations” means the policy Declarations, any amended Declarations, the most recent renewal (3} crawl space walls; (4} footings; and Declarations, an Evidence of Insurance form, or (5) gravel, stone, or sand, used as fill material any endorsement changing any of these. and located not more than 12 inches directly below a slab described in item a.(1), including water supply lines, domestic water pipes, and sewer pipes located within this fill material; and b, ownership of the residence premises by the person or organization shown in the Declarations as Additional Insured. “diminution in value” means any reduction in the value of any covered property prior fo or following repair or replacement as compared to the value of that properly immediately before the loss. “dwelling” means the building structure on the residence premises used as the primary private residence and includes structures attached to the dwelling. wall-to-wall carpeting attached to the structure. “business” means any full-time or part-time activily, trade, profession, employment, or occupation or a commercial, mercantile, or industrial undertaking of an economic nature. It does not matter whether it is continuous or reguiar, is a secondary or supplemental source of income, or is an insured's principal means of livelihood. Profit and profit motive are irrelevant. “fungus” means any type or form of fungus, including mold, mildew, mycotoxins, spores, scents, or byproducts produced or released by fungi. “insured” means: a you; Business does not include: b. your relatives; and a. c. any other person under the age of 21 in the care of a person described above, volunteer activities for a not-for-profit or nonprofit organization or public agency for which no money is received other than payment of expenses; b. incidental and infrequent personal economic activity such as a hobby, garage or yard sale, or traditional farm activities when the farm products are intended only for the personal use of the insured; c. any occasional or part-time self-employed activity by a person under 19 years of age that involves no employees or subcontracted independent contractors and is a type of activity normally performed by persons under 19 years of age, including but not limited to, child care, lawn Under Section Il, insured also means: d. out permission of the owner, is not an insured: and e. mowing, or paper delivery; d. the person or organization legally responsible for animals or watercraft to which this policy applies. However, the animal or watercraft must be owned by you or a person included in 9.b. or 9.c. above. A person or organization using or having custody of these animals or watercraft in the course of a business, or with- the ownership, maintenance, or use of systems 10. and equipment used to generate electrical power up to but not exceeding 125 percent of with respect to any vehicle fo which this policy applies, any person while engaged in your employment or the employment of a person included in 9.b. or 9.c. above. “insured location” means: a. the residence premises; 2 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutua! Automobile Inswanca Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000006"}, {"d": 121, "p": 78, "t": "the part of any other premises, other structures, and grounds used by you as a residence. This includes premises, structures, and grounds you acquire while this policy is in effect for ¢, a “recreational or utility vehicle” while off an insured location. “Recreational or utility vehicle\" means a motorized vehicle designed for recreation or utility purposes, used principally off public roads, and that is owned or leased by an insured. This includes, but is not limited to, a motorized all-terrain vehicle, side-by-side vehicle, utility work vehicle, amphibious vehicle, dune buggy, go-cart, golf cart, snowmobile, teailbike, minibike, and personal assistive mobility device. “Leased” does not include temporary rental: d. a “locomotive” while off an insured location. “Locomotive” means a self-propelled vehicie for pulling or pushing freight or passenger cars on tracks that is large enough to carry a person and is owned or leased by an insured. “Leased” does not include temporary rental; e. a bulldozer, track loader, backhoe, high-hoe, trencher, grader, crane, self-propelled scraper, excavator, pipe-ayer, cherry picker, telehandler, logging vehicle, mining vehicle, or road building vehicle that is owned or leased by an insured while off an insured location. “Leased” does not include temporary rental; and f. any vehicle while being towed or pushed by or cartied on a vehicle included in 12.a, through 12.e. above. your use as a residence; any premises used by you in connection with the premises included in 10.a. or 10.b. above; any part of a premises not owned by an insured but where an insured is temporarily residing; land owned by or rented to an insured on which a one or two family dwelling is being constructed as a residence for an insured: individual or family cemetery pilots or burial vaults owned by an insured; any part of a premises occasionally rented to an insured for purposes other than business; vacant land owned by or rented to an insured. For the purposes of this definition, vacant land does not include: (4) farm land; (2} land containing a residence; or (3) land containing fences, corrals, boat docks, tool sheds, barns, grain bins, and similar structures, unless they are used solely for the personal use of the insured; or The following are not motor vehicles: farm land {without buildings}, rented or held for rental to others, but not to exceed a total of 500 acres, regardless of the number of locations. 1. 12. “Igss insured\" means a loss as described under SECTION | - LOSSES INSURED, COVERAGE A DWELLING and SECTION I - LOSSES INSURED, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY. a, aboat, camper, home, or utility trailer not being towed or pushed by or carried on a vehicle included in 12.4. through 12.e. above: b. a motorized jand vehicle in storage on an in- sured location not intended to be operated for an extended period of time and rendered ineperable by placing the vehicle on blocks or removing parts essential for its operation; ¢. amotorized golf cart while used for golfing purposes; d. amotorized vehicle or trailer designed to assist persons with disabilities that is not designed for travel on public roads or subject to motor vehicle registration; or “motor vehicle’, when used in Section {I of this policy, means: a land motor vehicle designed for travel on public roads or subject to motor vehicle registration; a traifer or semi-trailer designed for travel on public roads and subject fo motor vehicle registration; 3 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutuat Atomobile Insurance Company, 2047 SFF&CC/West_000007"}, {"d": 121, "p": 79, "t": "e. a commercially manufactured two, three, or four wheeled personal conveyance powered only by or assisted by an unmodified motor or engine with a manufacturers power rating of no more than 1 horsepower and capable of a top speed of no more than 20 miles per hour. b. where you reside and which is shown in the Declarations. 18. bodily injury, or b. property damage, during the policy period. All bodily injury and property damage resulting from one accident, series of related accidents, or from continuous and repeated exposure to the same general conditions is considered to be one occurrence. “State Farm Companies” means one or more of the following: a. 13. “eccurrence”, when used in Section It of this pollcy, means an accident, including accidental exposure to conditions, which first resuits in: a. adoption; c. mariage; or d. civil union, domestic partnership, or other substantially similar legal relationship that is recognized and valid in the state where, and at the time when, the legal relationship was established; 19. “vacant dwelling” means: a. the one, two, three, or four family dwelling, other structures and grounds; or adwelling: (1) that has not been occupied as a residence for more than 30 consecutive days immediately before the loss; and (2) where a predominant amount of personal property has been removed or is absent such that the dwelling is not functional as a habituat place of residence. A dwelling will be considered occupied only if it is being used as a habitual place of residence with your knowledge and approval. 16. “residence employee” means an employee of an a, insurance subsidiaries or affilates of either 18.4. or 18.b. above, and who resides primarily with you. 17. “residence premises” means: Automobile c. b. insured, or an employee leased to an insured by a labor leasing firm under an agreement between an insured and the labor leasing firm, who performs duties, including household or domestic services, in connection with the maintenance or use of the residence premises. This includes employees who perform similar duties elsewhere for you. This does not include employees while performing duties in connection with the business of an insured, Mutual State Farm Fire and Casualty Company; and 15, “relative” means any person related to you by: b. Farm b, destruction of tangible property, including loss of use of this property. Theft or conversion of property by any insured is not property damage. blood; State Company; 44, “property damage” means physical damage to or a. that part of any other building structure, A dwelling that is under active construction will not be considered a vacant dwelling. A dwelling is under active construction when itis: (1) (2) being built as a new structure; (3) undergoing being repaired due to damage otherwise covered by this policy; or substantial improvements, ranovations, remodeling, or modifications; and the construction results in substantial continuing activities by persons associated with the construction project at the premises during the relevant time periods, 20. “we”, “us”, and “our” mean the Company shown in the Declarations. 21. “you” and “your” mean the person or persons shown as “Named Insured” in the Declarations. Ifa “Named insured” shown in the Declarations is a human being, then you and your include: a. aspouse of a “Named Insured”; 4 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW.2136 SFF&CC/West_000008"}, {"d": 121, "p": 80, "t": "b. aparty fo a civil union with a “Named Insured”, c. adomestic partner of a \"Named Insured”; or d. a person in a substantially similar legal relationship with a “Named insured”; if such relationship is recognized and valid in the state where, and at the time when, the legal relationship was established, so long as the person in the above relationship resides primarily with that “Named Insured”. DEDUCTIBLE Declarations. Deductibles will be applied per occurrence. Deductibles apply to specific losses as described in this policy. . in case of loss under this policy, we will pay, subject fo specified policy limits, only that part of the amount of the loss that exceeds the deductible amount shown in the SECTION | - PROPERTY COVERAGES 3. COVERAGE A - DWELLING 1. Property Not Covered. We do not cover: a, _ fand, including the fand necessary to support any Coverage A property. We also do not cover. Dwelling. We cover the dwelling and materials and supplies located on or adjacent to the residence premises for use in the construction, alteration, or repair of the dwelling or other structures on the residence premises. (1) any costs required to replace, rebuild, stabilize, or otherwise restore the land; or (2) the costs of repair techniques designed to compensate for or prevent land instability to any property, whether or not insured under Coverage A; Other Structures. We cover other structures on the residence premises, separated from the dwelling by clear space. Structures connected to the dwelling by only a fence, utility line, or similar con- b. _ trees, shrubs, live or artificial plants, lawns, or arti- nection are considered to be other structures. ficial grass, except as provided in SECTION I -ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping; or We do not cover other structures: a. not permanently attached to or otherwise forming a part of the realty; b. used either completely or in part for business purposes unless such use consists solely of office space for paperwork, computer work, or use of a telephone, and consists solely of activities that are: c. COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY (1) duties of the insured’s employment by another; and Property Covered. a. (2) performed solely by the insured; or c. We-cover personal property owned or used by an insured while it is anywhere in the work. This includes structures not permanently attached to or otherwise forming a part of the realty. At your request, we will cover personal property: rented or held for rental unless: (1) rented to a person who is a tenant of the dwelling; (1) owned by others while the property is on the part of the residence premises occupied exclusively by an insured; (2) rented for use solely as a private garage; or (3) systems and equipment used to generate electrical power exceeding 125 percent of the actual electrical power usage by the residence premises in the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss. rented either completely or in part, for exclusive use as a residence, for no more than 30 nights in the 12-month period prior (2} owned by a guest or a residence employee, while the property is in any other residence occupied by an insured; and to the date of the loss. 5 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000009"}, {"d": 121, "p": 81, "t": "and standard media or non-media equipment for use with the above devices; (3) owned by roomers, boarders, tenants, and other residents, any of whom are related to you. $1,500 on securities, checks, cashiers checks, travelers checks, money orders, gift certifi- We cover personal property usually located at an insured's residence, other than the residence premises, for up fo $1,000 or 10% of the Coverage B limit, whichever is greater. This limitation does not apply to personal prop- cates, gift cards, rechargeable debit cards, phone cards, and other negotiable instruments, accounts, deeds, evidences of debt, letters of credit, notes other than bank notes, manu- erty: scripts, passports, and tickets; (1) in a newly acquired principal residence for the first 30 days affer you start moving the property there. Ifthe residence premises is a newly acquired principal residence, personal property in your immediate past principal residence is not subject to this limitation for the first 30 days after the inception of this policy; and $1,500 on watercraft of all types and outboard (2) of a student who is an insured while located at a residence away from the residence premises. $2,500 for loss by theft of firearms; motors, including their trailers, fumishings, and equipment; $1,500 on trailers not used with watercraft; $2,500 on stamps, trading cards, and comic books, including any of these that are a part of a collection; $2,500 for loss by theff of silverware and goldware; Special Limits of Liability. These limits do not increase the Coverage B limit. The special limit for each of the following categories is the total limit for each loss for all property in that categary: $5,000 on any one article and $10,000 in the aggregate for loss by theft of any rug, carpet (except wall-to-wall carpet), tapestry, wall-hanging, or other similar article; $200 on money, coins, and medals, including $1,000 on commercially manufactured two, silver other than motor a b. three, or four wheeled personal conveyances by or assisted by an unmodified poweredor only engine with a manufacturer's power any of these that od part of a collection, gold other than goldware, bank notes, bullion, silverware, and platinum; rating of no more than 1 horsepower and capa- $1,500 on property used or intended for use in a business, including merchandise ble of a top speed of no more than 20 miles per held as hour, This does not include such conveyances samples or for sale or for delivery after sale, while on the residence premises. This cover- that are: age {s limited to $750 on such property away from the residence premises. (1) designed for assisting disabilities: Electronic data processing system equipment or the recording or storage media used with (2) with . , not designed for travelon public roads; and (3) not subjectto motor vehicle registration; and that equipment is not included under this cov- c. persons erage, and is addressed in item c. below; $1,000 for loss by theft of jewelry, watches, fur $10,000 on electronic data processing system equipment used or intended for use in a business, including but not limited to computers, tablets, mobile personal communication equipment, global positioning systems, mobile personal electronic devices used for the reproduction of sound, garments and garments trimmed with fur, and precious and semi-precious stones. 2. Property Not Covered. We do not cover: a. articles separately described and specifically insured in this or any other insurance; 6 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000010"}, {"d": 121, "p": 82, "t": "animals, birds, or fish; any engine-propelled or motor-propelled vehicle or machine, including parts, designed for movement on land, except as provided in Special Limits of Liability, item k. However, we do cover those vehicles or machines: (1) that are: (a) not designed for travel on public toads; and (b) (2) not subject to motor vehicle registralion; and that are: (a) used primarily to service the insured location; or {b) designed for assisting persons with disabilities; any electronic equipment, devices, or accesso- ries designed for the recording, reproduction, or storage of audio, video, photos, or other data that is permanently installed in or permanently fastened to an engine-propelled or motorpropelled vehicle or hard-wired directly to the vehicle’s electrical system. We also do not cover removable products that may be used with the equipment or devices described above, including but not limited to tapes, discs, videos, or memory cards while in an enginepropelled or motor-propelled vehicle; aircraft and parts. This does not apply to unmanned aircraft systems used as model aircraft and operated solely for recreational or hobby purposes; property of roomers, boarders, tenants, and other residents not related to you, property regularly rented or held for rental to others by an insured, This does not apply to property of an insured: (1) in a sleeping room when the dwelling is rented in part, for use as a permanent residence, by either one or two full-time roomers of boarders; or (2) on the residence premises if it is rented, either completely or in part, for exclusive use as a residence, for no more than 30 nights in the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss; property rented or held for rental to others away from the residence premises, any radio devices or transmitlers, global positioning systems, radar or laser detectors, antennas, and all other similar equipment that is permanently installed in or permanently fastened to an engine-propelled or motorpropelled vehicle or that is hard-wired directly to the vehicle's electrical system; books or records of accounts receivable, abstracts or other journals, architectural or technical drawings, card index systems, or other records. This does not apply to any recording or storage media for electronic data processing. We will cover the cost of blank books, cards, or other blank material plus the cost of labor you incur for transcribing or copying such records; recording or storage media for electronic data processing that cannot be replaced with property of like kind and quality on the current retail market: purchased or created audio, video, photos, or other data that cannot be replaced with like kind and quality on the current retail market and that is transferred or downloaded onto mobile communication equipment, global positioning systems, or electronic devices designed for the recording, reproduction, or storage of audio, video, photos, or other data; . contraband, or any property used in the course of illegal consumption, possession, import, export, or trade; outdoor hardscape property used for aesthetic purposes except as provided in SECTION | ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping; or electronic currency, digital currency, virtual currency, crypto-currency, and other similar mediums of exchange. 7 ©, Copyight, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2436 SFF&CC/West_00001 1"}, {"d": 121, "p": 83, "t": "if the damage had occurred to property on the residence premises; COVERAGE C - LOSS OF USE The most we will pay for the sum of all losses combined under Additional Living Expense, Fair Rental Value, and Prohibited Use is the limit of liability shown in the Declarations for Coverage C - Loss of Use. 1. b. in 3.a, above; and c. Additional Living Expense. When a /oss insured causes the residence premises to become uninhabitable, we will pay the reasonable and necessary increase in cost incurred by an insured to maintain their normal standard of living for up to 24 months. Our payment is limited to incurred costs for the shortest of: the time required for your household to settle elsewhere; or c, 24months. (1) dangerous physical conditions resulting from the continuation of the cause of loss identified in 3.a. above; , (2} dangerous physical conditions resulting from the damage caused by the cause of loss identified in 3.a. above; or (3) the need to gain free access to property damaged by the cause of loss identified in 3.a. above. We will not pay for loss or expense due to cancella- This period of time is not limited by the expiration of this policy. tion of a lease or agreement. SECTION | - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES We will not pay more than the limit of flability shown in the Declarations for Coverage C - Loss of Use. Any normal expenses that are reduced or discontinued due to a /oss insured will be subtracted from any amount owed. The following Additional Coverages are subject to all the terms, provisions, exclusions, and conditions of this policy. 1. Fair Rental Value. When a loss insured causes that part of he residence premises rented to olhers or held for rental by you to become uninhabitable, we will pay its fair rental value. Payment will be for the shortest time required to repair or replace the part of the premises rented or held for rental, but not fo exceed 12 months, This period of time is not limited by the expiration of this policy. Fair rental value will not include any expense that does not continue while that part of the residence premises rented or held for rental is uninhabitable. Debris Removal. We will pay the reasonable expenses you incur in the removal of debris of covered property damaged by a foss insured. This expense is included in the fimit applying to the damaged property. The following coverages and limits also apply: a. Prohibited Use. We will pay Additional Living Expense and Fair Rental Value, for a continuous period not to exceed two weeks, beginning when a civil authority issues an order of evacuation or prohibits your use of the residence premises, provided that: a. the action of the civil authority is taken in response to: a. _ the time required to repair or replace the premises; b. the residence premises is wilhin one mile of properly damaged by a cause of loss identified When the amount payable for the property damage plus the debris removal exceeds the fimit for damaged property, an additional 5% of that limit is available for debris removal expense. This additional amount of insurance does not apply to SECTION | ~ ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping. b. direct physical damage occurs to any property, other than covered property located on the residence premises, arising from a cause of loss that would be a foss insured under this policy We will also pay up to $1,000 total for each loss to cover the reasonable expenses you incur in the removal of tree debris and stumps from the residence premises, unless otherwise excluded. This coverage applies when: (1) the tree has caused a foss insured to Coverage A property, or 8 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000012"}, {"d": 121, "p": 84, "t": "for up to 30 days while removed, We will also pay for reasonable expenses incurred by you for the removal and return of the covered property, This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the property being removed, (2) the tree debris felled by windstorm, hail, or weight of snow or ice blocks: 2. (a) the driveway, on the residence premises, and prevents land motor vehicle access to or from the dwelfing: or (b) a ramp designed to assist persons with disabilities, on the residence premises, and prevents access to or from a building structure. Credit Card, Bank Fund Transfer Card, Forgery, and Counterfeit Money. a. (1} the legal obligation of an insured to pay because of the theft or unauthorized use of credit cards and bank fund transfer cards issued to or registered in an insured’s name. {f an insured has not complied with all terms and conditions under which the cards are issued, we will not pay for use by an insured or anyone else; Temporary Repairs, if damage is caused by a /oss insured, we will pay the reasonable and necessary cost you incur for temporary repairs fo covered property to protect the property from further immediate damage or loss. This coverage does nol increase the limit applying to the properly being repaired, Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping. We will pay for (2) loss to an insured caused by forgery or alteration of any check or negotiable instrament; and accidental direct physical loss to outdoor: a. trees, shrubs, live or arlificial plants, and lawns; b. artificial grass; and c. _hardscape property used for aesthelic purposes not permanently affixed to really; We will pay up to $4,000 for: (3) loss to an insured through acceptance in good faith of counterfeit United States or Canadian paper currency. on the residence premises, caused by the following perils: Fire or lightning, Explosion, Riot or No deductible applies to this coverage. We will not pay more than the limit stated above for forgery or alteration committed by any one person. This limit applies when the forgery or alteration involves one or more instruments in the same loss. civil commotion, Aircraft, Vehicles (not owned or operated by a resident of the residence premises), Vandalism or malicious mischief, or Theft. The timit for this coverage, including the removal of debris, will not exceed 5% of the amount shown in the Declarations for COVERAGE A ~ DWELLING. We will not pay more than $750 for any one outdoor tree, shrub, plant, or hardscape item, including debris removal expense. This coverage may increase the limit otherwise applicable. We will not pay for any loss to property grown for business purposes. b. We will not pay for loss arising out of business pursuits or dishonesty of an insured. c. Defense: (1) We may make any investigation and settle any claim or suit that we decide is appropriate. Our obligation to defend claims or suits ends when the amount we pay for Fire Department Service Charge. We will pay up to $500 per occurrence for fire department charges incurred when the fire department is called to save or protect Coverage A property from fire, lightning, or explosion. No deductible applies to this coverage. This coverage may increase the limit otherwise applicable. (2) Property Removed. We will pay for any accidental direct physical loss to covered property while being removed from a premises endangered by a /oss insured, This coverage also applies fo the property if claim is made or a suit is brought against an insured for liability under the Credit Card or Bank Fund Transfer Card coverage, we will provide a defense. This defense is at our expense by counsel of our choice. (3) We have the option to defend at our expense an insured or an insured’s bank the loss equals our limit of liability. 9 HW-2156 ©, Copyright, Slate Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000013"}, {"d": 121, "p": 85, "t": "7. All volcanic eruptions that occur within any 168-hour period will be considered one volcanic eruption. against any suit for the enforcement of payment under the Forgery coverage. Power Interruption. We will pay for accidental direct physical loss caused directly or indirectly by a change of temperature that results from power interruption that takes place on the residence premises. The power interruption must be caused by a oss insured occurring on the residence premises. The power lines off the residence premises must remain energized. This coverage does not increase the limit applying fo the damaged property. This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the damaged property, it. Collapse. We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to covered property invalving the abrupt, entire collapse of a buflding structure or any part of a building structure. a. Refrigerated Products. Coverage B is extended to cover the contents of deep freeze or refrigerated units on the residence premises for loss due to power failure or mechanical failure. {f mechanical failure or power failure is known to you, all reasonable means must be used to protect the property insured from further damage or this coverage is void. Power failure or mechanical failure does not include: a. removal of a plug from an electrical outlet; or b. turning off an electrical switch unless caused by a loss insured, This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the damaged property. Arson Reward. We will pay $1,000 for information that leads fo an arson conviction in connection with a fire loss to property covered by this policy. This coverage may increase the limit otherwise applica- Collapse means the abrupt and entire falling down, caving in, or falling into pieces of a building structure or any part of a building structure, Collapse does not include any of the following: a RO — (1) setting, cracking, crumbling, deterioration, shrinking, bulging, expansion, sagging, bowing, leaning, or bending; substantial structural impairment: mm imminent or threatened collapse; a building structure or any part of a building structure that |s in danger of falling down or caving in; or a part of a building structure that is standing even if: ble. However, the $1,000 limit will not be increased regardless of the number of persons providing information. 10. Volcanic Action. We wil pay for accidental direct physical loss to a covered buifding structure or covered property contained in a building structure b. (a) ithas separated from another part of the building structure; or (b) it shows evidence of settling, cracking, crumbling, deterioration, shrinking, bulging, expansion, sagging, bowing, leaning, or bending. The collapse must be directly and immediately caused by one or more of the following: (1) perils described in SECTION | ~ LOSSES INSURED, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY. These peris apply to building structures covered under Coverage A or Coverage B for loss insured by this Additional Coverage; resulting from the eruption of a volcano when the loss is directly and immediately caused by: a, _aitbome volcanic shock waves; b. ash, dust, or particulate matter; or c. lava flow. We will also pay for the removal of that ash, dust, or particulate matter that has caused accidental direct physical loss to a covered building structure or covered property contained in a building structure. decay or deterioration of, or damage from animals, birds, or insects to: (a) a connector; or (b} a structural member of a building Structure; 10 HW-2436 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000014"}, {"d": 121, "p": 86, "t": "This coverage includes surface clean up only. will not pay for: The decay, deterioration, or damage must be hidden from view and unknown io all insureds prior to the collapse; (3) weight of contents, equipment, animals, or people; {4) weight of ice, snow, sleet, or rain that collects on a roof, porch, or deck; or a. the cost to repair or replace the fuel oil fank, apparatus, and pipes; or b. the cost of testing, monitoring, removing, treating, or detoxifying of soil, air, or water. This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the damaged property. (5) use of defective material or methods in the construction {includes remodeling or renovation) of the building structure, if the collapse occurs during the course of the construction of the building structure. 14. Tear Out. ifa foss insured to CoverageA property is caused by water, steam, or sewage escaping from a system or appliance, we will also pay the reasonable cost you incur to tear out and replace only that particular part of ihe building structure necessary to gain access to the specific point of that system or appliance from which the water, sleam, or sewage escaped, We will not pay for the cost of repairing or replacing the system or appliance itself. This coverage does not increase the limit applying to Coverage A property. Loss to awnings, fences, patios, pavement, swimming pools, underground pipes, flues, drains, cesspools, septic tanks, foundations (including slabs, basement walls, and crawl space walls), retaining walls, bulkheads, piers, wharfs, docks, trellises, or antennas and their supporting structures is not included under items (2}, (3), and (4} immediately above unless the loss is the direct and immediate result of the collapse of a building structure or any part of a building structure. 15. Home Certification. if damage to covered properly is caused by a /oss insured, we will pay the reasonable increase in cost to repair or replace only the damaged property to maintain the dwelling’s FORTIFIED HOME or FORTIFIED FOR SAFER LIVING certification in place at the time of the loss, This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the damaged property. This coverage does not increase the limit applying to the damaged property. 12. Locks and Remote Devices. We will pay up fo $1,000 for each loss for the reasonable expenses you incur to rekey, replace, recode, program, or reprogram locks on exterior doors to the dwelling or other structures located on the residence premises when the keys or remote devices used with those doors are part of a covered theft loss. This coverage includes remote devices designed solely for locking, unlocking, opening, or closing doors, including garage doors and gates. We will not pay: No deductible applies to this coverage. 13. Fuel Oil Release. We a. any increase in cost until the repair or replacement of the property is complete; or b. for increased costs resulting from enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the construction or repair of the dwelling except as provided under OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS, Option OL ~ Building Ordinance or Law. This coverage does not apply if Loss Settlement provision A2 ~ Replacement Cost Loss SettlementCommon Construction is shown In the Dectarations. We will pay up to $10,000 for each loss for accidental direct physical loss to covered property caused by the abrupt and accidental escape of liquid fuel oil from a fixed household tank, apparatus, or pipes that are part of a heating unit for the dwelling. This includes damage to covered property resulting from an accidental spill or overflow of fuel oil in the course of filling a fixed household tank. INFLATION COVERAGE The limits of liability shown in the Declarations for Coverage A, Coverage B, and when applicable, Option iD will be increased at the same rate as the increase in the inflation Coverage Index shown in the Declarations, 4 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, Slata Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000015"}, {"d": 121, "p": 87, "t": "The limits of liability will not be reduced to less than the amounts shown in the Declarations. To find the limits on a given date: 1. _ divide the Index on that date by the Index as of the effective date of this Inflation Coverage provision; then if during the term of this policy the Coverage A limit of liability is changed at your request, the effective date of this Inflation Coverage provision is changed to coincide wilh the effective date of such change. multiply the resulting factor by the limits of liability for CoverageA, Coverage B, and Option ID separately. SECTION | - LOSSES INSURED (2) an object propelled from the tire or body of a vehicle; COVERAGE A - DWELLING We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A, unless the loss is excluded or limited in SECTION 1 ~ LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. (3) the upset or collision of a vehicle with a stationary object or other vehicle, including damage to personal property carried on the exterior of the vehicle; or However, loss does not include and we will not pay for, any diminution in value. (4) COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY This peril does not include loss: We will pay for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage B caused by the following perils, unless the loss is excluded or limited in SECTION | LOSSES NOT INSURED or otherwise excluded or limited in this policy. However, loss does not include and we will not pay for, any diminution in value. 1. Fire or lightning. 2. Windstorm or hail. This peri does not include loss to property contained in a structure caused by rain, a vehicle door or trunk lid being closed on personal property. (1) to personal property that falls off a vehicle and strikes the ground, any other surface, or any object; (2) caused by shifting of the load being carried in or on a vehicle; or (3) to the vehicle itself unless the vehicle is property covered under COVERAGE B ~ PERSONAL PROPERTY and the loss is caused by the weight, force, power, or movement of another vehicle. snow, sleet, sand, or dust. This limitation does not apply when the direct force of wind or hail damages the structure causing an opening in a roof or wall and the rain, snow, sleet, sand, or dust enters through this opening. Smoke, meaning abrupt and accidental damage from smoke. This peril includes loss to watercraft of all types and their trailers, fumishings, equipment, and outboard motors, only while inside a building structure. This peril does not include loss caused by smoke from agricultural smudging or industrial operations. Vandalism or malicious mischief, meaning only willful and malicious damage to or destruction of 3. Explosion. 4. Riot or civil commotion. property. Aircraft, including spacecraft. Theft, including attempted theft and loss of property from a known location when it is probable that the properly has been stolen. 5. self-propelled missiles and Vehicles, meaning accidental direct physical joss to covered property caused by the weight, force, power, or movement of a vehicle. a. This peril does not include: a. loss of a precious or semi-precious stone from its setting; b. loss caused by theft: This includes: (1) the impact of a vehicle; 12 HW-2196 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000016"}, {"d": 121, "p": 88, "t": "(2} watercraft of all types, including their furnishings, equipment, and outboard mo- (1) committed by an insured or by any other person regularly residing on the insured location. Property of a student who is an insured is covered while located at a res- tors; or (3) trailers and campers designed to be pulled by or carried on a vehicle. idence away from the residence premises, if the theft is committed by a person who is not an insured, if the residence premises is a newly acquired principal residence, property in the immediate past principal residence will not be considered property away from the residence premises for the first 30 days after the inception of this policy. in or to a dwelling under construction or of materials and supplies for use in the construction until the dwelling is completed and occupied; or from the part of a residence premises rented to others: (a) 10. Falling objects, This peril does not include loss to property contained in a structure unless the roof or an exterior wall of the structure is first damaged by a falling object. Damage to the falling object itself is not included. caused by a tenant, members of the tenant's household, or the tenant's employees unless the residence premises |s rented, either completely or in pari, for exclusive use as a resi- 14. Weight of ice, snow, or sleet that causes damage to property contained in a structure. dence, for no more than 30 nights in 12. Abrupt and accidental discharge or overflow of water, steam, or sewage from within a plumbing, heating, air conditioning, or automatic fire protective sprinkler system, or from within a household appliance. the 12-month period prior fo the date of the loss; of money, bank notes, bullion, gold, goldware, silver, silverware, pewler- This peril does not include loss: ware, platinum, coins, and medals; (¢) of securities, checks, cashiers checks, travelers checks, money or- ders, gift certificates, gift cards, re- a. to the system or appliance from which the water, steam, or sewage escaped; b. caused by or resulting from: (1) freezing; chargeable debit cards, phone cards, and other negotiable instruments, accounts, deeds, evidences of debt, let- (2) water or sewage from outside the residence premises plumbing system that enters through sewers or drains, or water that enters into and overflows from within a sump pump, sump pump well, or any other system designed to remove subsurface water that is drained from the foundation area; or ters of credit, notes other than bank notes, manuscripts, passports, tickets, and stamps; or (d) of jewelry, watches, fur garments and garments trimmed with fur, and precious and semi-precious stones; or c, loss caused by theft that occurs away from the residence premises of (3) (1) property while at any other residence owned, rented to, or occupied by an insured, except while an insured is temporarily residing there. Property of a student who is an insured is covered while at a residence away from the residence premises; c, the pressure from or presence of tree, shrub, or plant roots; or that occurs or develops over a period of time and is caused by or resulting from: (1) condensation or the presence of humidity, moisture, or vapor; or (2) seepage or leakage of water, steam, or sewage that is: 13 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insuranca Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000017"}, {"d": 121, "p": 89, "t": "LTD This peril does not include: co repeating; a, ob af &] continuous; gradual; freezing; or d intermitlent; e) slow; or {f} trickling. 13. Abrupt and accidental tearing asunder, cracking, burning, or bulging of a steam or hot water heating system, an air conditioning system, an automatic fire protective sprinkler system, or an appliance for healing water. This peril does not include loss: a. caused by or resulling from freezing; or b. that occurs or develops over a period of time and is caused by or resulting from: (1) condensation or the presence of humidity, moisture, or vapor; or atti, qt [=% te ty inn em (2) seepage or leakage of water or steam that is: a) continuous; ) repeating; ¢) gradual; ) intermittent; e) slow; or (f} trickling. 14, Freezing of a plumbing, heating, air conditioning, or automatic fire protective sprinkter system, or of a household appliance. loss fo a portable hot tub or portable spa unless you have used reasonable care to prevent b. loss on the residence premises unless you have used reasonable care {o: (1) maintain heat in the building structure at 55 degrees Fahrenheit or higher; or (2) shut off the water supply and drain the system and appliances of water. However, if the building structure is protected by an automatic fire protective sprinkler system, you must use reasonable care to continue the water supply and maintain heat in the building structure at 55 degrees Fahrenheit or higher for coverage to apply. 15, Abrupt and accidental damage to electrical appliances, devices, fixtures, and wiring from an increase or decrease of artificially generated electrical current. We will pay up to $3,000 under this peril for each damaged item described above. 16. Breakage of glass, meaning damage to personal property caused by breakage of glass that is a part of a structure on the residence premises. We will not pay for loss or damage to the glass. 17. Wild bears or deer, meaning damage caused by wild bears or deer to property located in a building structure. SECTION | - LOSSES NOT INSURED We will not pay for any loss to the property described in Coverage A that consists of, or is directly and immediately caused by, one or more of the perils listed in items a. through m. below, regardless of whether the foss occurs abruptly or gradually, involves isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or extemal forces, or occurs as a result of any combination of these: a. b. collapse, except as specifically provided in SECTION | - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Collapse; freezing of a plumbing, heating, air conditioning, or automatic fire protective sprinkler system or of a household appliance; or discharge, leakage, or overflow from within the system or appliance caused by freezing. This does not apply if you have used reasonable care to: (1) maintain heat in the building structure at 55 degrees Fahrenheit or higher; or (2) shut off the water supply and drain the system and appliances of water. However, if the building structure is protected by an automatic fire protective sprinkler system, you must use reasonable care to continue the water supply and maintain heat in the 14 ©, Copyright, Slate Farm Mutual Aulomobite Insurance Company, 2017 HW.-2136 SFF&CC/West_000018"}, {"d": 121, "p": 90, "t": "building structure at 55 degrees Fahrenheit or higher for coverage to apply; freezing, thawing, pressure, or weight of water, ice, snow, or sleet, whether driven by wind or not, to: (1) a swimming pool, hot tub, or spa, including their covers, filtration, and circulation systems; or (2) an awning, fence, pavement, patio, foundation {including slabs, basement waiis, crawl space walls, and footings), retaining wail, bulkhead, pier, wharf, or dock; theft in or to a dwelling under construction, or of materials and supplies for use in the construction, until the dwelling is completed and occupied; theft, vandalism, malicious mischief, or breakage of glass and safety glazing materials if the dwelling is a vacant dwelling; wear, tear, decay, marting, scratching, deterioration, inherent vice, latent defect, or mechanical breakdown; corrosion, electrolysis, or rust; wet or dry rot; contamination or pollution, meaning the presence, discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release, or escape of contaminants or pollutants at or from any source. This does not apply if the presence, discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release, or escape is itself caused by a peril described in SECTION | - LOSSES INSURED, COVERAGE B ~- PERSONAL PROPERTY. (1} Contaminants and pollutants include but are not limited to any: (a) solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal initant, including smoke from agricultural smudging or industrial operations, smog, soot, vapor, fumes, acids, al- seepage or leakage of water, steam, or sewage that occurs or develops over a period of time: kalis, chemicals, pathogens, noxious substances, asbestos, or lead; (1) andis: (a) ( b) contaminants or pollutants resulting from any natural resource extraction activities; or continuous; repeating; (c) ( ¢) gradual: (d) intermittent; {e) slow; or ( f) trickling; and (2) from a: (a) heating, air conditioning, or automatic fire protective sprinkler system, (b) (c) household appliance; or plumbing system, including from, within or around any shower stall, shower bath, tub installation, or other plumbing fixture, including their walls, ceilings, or floors. We also will not pay for losses ansing from condensation or the presence of humidity, ” moisture, or vapor that occurs or develops over a period of time; fuel oil except as specifically provided in SECTION | — ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Fue! Oi Release. We also will not pay for: (a) losses arising from contamination or pollution caused by or resulting from defective building materials, nuclear substances, and waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, re. conditioned, or reciaimed; the cost to extract contaminants or pollutants from land, water, or air, or the cost to remove, restore, or re- place contaminated or polluted land, water, or air; or the cost of testing, monitoring, cleaning, removing, containing, treating, detoxifying, neutralizing, remediating, disposing of, or assessing the effects of contaminants or pollutants; is) ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2436 SFF&CC/West_000019"}, {"d": 121, "p": 91, "t": "k, b. settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging, or expansion of pavements, patios, foundations (including slabs, basement walls, crawl space walls, and footings), walls, floors, roofs, or ceilings; |. — all animals, birds, or insects. (4) This includes: (1) earthquake; (2) landslide, mudstide, or mudflow, (a) nesting, infestation, gnawing, feeding, breeding, or discharge or release of waste products or secretions by ani- (3) sinkhole or subsidence; (4) mals, birds, or insects; (2} (a) improper compaction; (b) site selection; costs to prevent the animals, birds, or insects from returning to the property, (c)_ natural resource extraction activities; or (d) excavation; However, we will pay for: (5) erosion; (6) pressure by surface or subsurface earth or (a} losses caused by wild bears or deer, and fill; or (b) the breakage of glass or safety glaz- (7) any volcanic activity, except as specifically provided in SECTION | ~ ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Volcanic Action. ing material that is a part of a building structure, when caused animals, birds, or insects; or m. by However, we will pay for any accidental direct physical loss by fire resulting from earth movement, provided the resulting fire loss is itself a loss insured. pressure from or presence of tree, shrub, or plant roots. However, we will pay for any resulting loss from items a. through I. unless the resulting loss is itself a Loss Not Insured as described in this Section. Cc. Water, meaning: {1} flood; (2) surface water. This does not include water solely caused by the release of water from a swimming pool, spigot, sprinkler system, hose, or hydrant; We will not pay for, under any part of this policy, any loss that would not have occurred in the absence of one or more of the following excluded events. We will not pay for such loss regardless of: (a) the cause of the excluded event; or (b) other causes of the loss; or (c) whether other causes acted concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded event to produce the loss; or (d) whether the event occurs abruptly or gradually, involves isolated or widespread damage, occurs on or off the residence premises, arises from any natural or extemal forces, or occurs as a result of any combination of these: a. movement resulting from: sects from the covered property; and (b) costs to remove animals, birds, or in{c) Earth Movement, meaning the sinking, rising, shifting, expanding, or contracting of earth, all regardiess of whether combined with water, sewage, or any material carried by, or otherwise moved by the earth. Earth movement includes but is not limited fo: (3) waves (including tidal wave, tsunami, and seiche); (4) tides or tidal water, (5) overflow of any body of water (including any telease, escape, or rising of any body of water, or any water held, contained, controlled, or diverted by a dam, levee, dike, or any type of water containment, diversion, or flood contral device); (6) spray or surge from any of the items c.(1) through c.(5) described above, all whether driven by wind or nol; Ordinance or Law, meaning enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the construction, repair, or demolition of a building structure or other structure. 16 HW-2136 ®, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000020"}, {"d": 121, "p": 92, "t": "g. (7) water or sewage from outside the residence premises plumbing system that enters through sewers or drains, or water or sewage that enters into and overflows from within a sump pump, sump pump well, or any other system designed to remove subsurface water that is drained from the foundation area; (1) cost to: (a) remove the fungus from covered property or fo repair, restore, or re- place that property; or (b) tear out and replace any part of the building structure or other property as needed to gain access to the fungus; of material carried or otherwise moved by any of the water or sewage, as described in items c.(1) through c.{8} above. However, we will pay for any accidental direct physical loss by fire, explosion, or theft resulting from water, provided the resulting loss is itself a loss insured. {3} the cost of any testing or monitoring of air of property to confirm the type, absence, presence, or level of fungus, whether performed prior to, during, or after removal, repair, restoration, or replacement of covered property. Neglect, meaning neglect of the insured to use all reasonable means to save and preserve property at and after the time of a loss, or when property is endangered. intentional Losses. If any insured intentionally causes or procures a loss to property covered under this policy, we will not pay any insured for this loss. This applies regardless of whether the insured is charged with or convicted of a crime. War, including any undeclared war, civil war, insurrection, rebellion, revolution, warlike act by a military force or military personnel, destruction or seizure or use for a military purpose, and including any consequence of any of these. Discharge of a nuclear weapon will be considered a warlike act even if accidental. f, any loss of use or delay in rebuilding, repairing, or replacing covered property, including any associated cost or expense, due {to interference at the residence premises or location of the rebuilding, repair, or replacement, by fungus; (2) any remediation of fungus, including the (8) water or sewage below the surface of the ground, including water or sewage that exerts pressure on, or seeps or leaks through a building structure, sidewalk, driveway, swimming pool, or other struclure; or (9) Fungus, including: This does not apply to an insured who did not participate in, cooperate in, or contribute to causing or procuring the loss. Nuclear Hazard, meaning any nuclear reaction, radiation, or radioactive contamination, all whether controlled or uncontrolled or however caused, or any consequence of any of these. Loss caused by the nuclear hazard will not be considered loss caused by fire, explosion, or smoke, 3, We will not pay for, under any part of this policy, any loss consisting of one or more of the items below. Further, we will not pay for any loss described in paragraphs 1. and 2. immediately above regardless of whether one or more of the following: (a) directly or indirectly cause, contribute to, or aggravate the loss; or {b} occur before, at the same time, or after the loss or any other cause of the loss: However, we will pay for any accidental direct a. conduct, act, failure to act, or decision of any person, group, organization, or govemmental body whether intentional, wrongful, negligent, or without fautt; physical loss by fire resulting from the nuclear hazard, provided the resulting fire loss is itselfa loss insured. 7 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Aulomobiie Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000021"}, {"d": 121, "p": 93, "t": "b. defect, weakness, soundness in: inadequacy, (4) fault, or un- of any property (including land, structures, or improvements of any kind) whether on or off the residence premises; or (1) planning, zoning, development, surveying, ot siting; (2) design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, or compaction; (3} maintenance; c. weather conditions. However, we will pay for any resulting loss from items 3.4, 3.b., and 3.c. unless the resulting loss is itself a Loss Not insured as described in this Section. materials used in repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, or compaction; or SECTION | - LOSS SETTLEMENT the damaged part of the property within two years after the date of loss, and notify Only the Loss Settlement Provisions shown in the Declarations apply, We will settle covered property losses according to the following, However, the valuation of any covered property losses does not include, and we will not pay, any amount for diminution in value. us within 30 days after the work has been completed; and (4) COVERAGE A ~ DWELLING 1, A1~- Replacement Cost Loss Settlement - Similar Construction. We will pay the cost to repair or replace with a, similar construction and for the same use on the premises shown in the Declarations, the damaged part of the property covered under SECTION | - PROPERTY COVERAGES, COVERAGE A - DWELLING, except for wood fences, subject to the following: b. 2. (1) unti! actual repair or replacement is completed, we will pay only the actual cash value of the damaged part of the property, up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, not to exceed the cost to repair or replace the damaged part of the property; (2) when the repair or replacement is actually completed, we will pay the covered additional amount you actually and necessarily spend to repair or replace the damaged part of the property, or an amount up {fo the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, whichever is less; Wood Fences: We will pay the actual cash value for loss or damage to wood fences, not to exceed the limit of liability shown in the Declarations for COVERAGE A - Other Structures. A2 - Replacement Cost Common Construction. a. replacement cost basis, you must com- Loss Settlement - We will pay the cost to repair or replace with common construction and for the same use on the premises shown in the Declarations, the damaged part of the property covered under SECTION | - PROPERTY COVERAGES, COVERAGE A - DWELLING, except for wood fences, subject to the following: (1) (3) to receive any additional payments on a we will not pay for increased costs resulting from enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the construction, repair, or demolition of a buifding structure or other structure, except as provided under OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS, Option OL - Building Ordinance or Law. we will pay only for repair or replacement of the damaged part of the property with common construction techniques and materials commonly used by the building trades in standard new construction. We will not pay the cost to repair or replace obsolete, antique, or custom construction with like kind and quality; plete the actual repair or replacement of 18 HW-21% ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000022"}, {"d": 121, "p": 94, "t": "(4) until repair or replacement is completed, we will pay only the actual cash value of the damaged property; (2) until actual repair or replacement is completed, we will pay only the actual cash value of the damaged part of the property, up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, not to exceed the cost to repair or replace the damaged part of the property as described in a.(1} above; (2) after repair or replacement is completed, we will pay the difference between the actual cash value and the cost you have actually and necessarily spent to repair or replace the property; and (3) when the repair or replacement is actually completed as described in a.(1) above, we will pay the covered additional amount you actually and necessarily spend to repair or replace the damaged part of the property, or an amount up to the applicable limit of Hability shown in the Decfarations, whichever is jess; We will pay market value at the time of loss for: (1} antiques, fine arts, paintings, statuary, and similar articles which by their inherent nature cannot be replaced with new articles; (2) (3) TIONAL ‘POLICY PROVISIONS, Option 2. 1. B1~Limited Replacement Cost Loss Settlement. a, We will pay the cost to repair or replace property covered under SECTION | - PROPERTY COVERAGES, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, except for property listed in item b, befow, subject fo the following: pose. ({) ourcost to replace at the time of loss; (2) the full cost of repair; (3) any special limit of liability described in this policy; or (4) any applicable Coverage B limit of liability. 62-Depreciated Loss Settlement. a. tures, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY property not useful for its intended pur- However, we will not pay an amount exceeding the smallest of the following for items a. and b. above: we will not pay for increased costs resulting from enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the construction, repair, or demolition of a building structure or other structure, except as provided under OP- Wood Fences: We will pay the actual cash value for loss or damage to wood fences, not to exceed the limit of liability shown in the Decfarations for COVERAGE A - Other Struc- articles whose age or history contribute substantially to their value including, but not fimited to, memorabilia, souvenirs, and collectors items; and to receive any additional payments on a replacement cost basis, you must complete the actual repair or replacement of the damaged part of the property within two years after the date of loss, and notify us within 30 days after the work has been completed; and OL ~ Building Ordinance or Law. if property is not repaired or replaced within two years after the date of loss, we will pay only the actual cash value. b. We will pay the actual cash value for property covered under SECTION | - PROPERTY COVERAGES, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, except for property listed in item b. below. We will pay market value at the time of loss for: (1) antiques, fine arts, paintings, statuary, and similar articles which by their inherent nature cannot be replaced with new articles; (2) articles whose age or history contribute substantially to their value including, but not limited to, memorabilia, souvenirs, and collectors items; and 19 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automodlie Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000023"}, {"d": 121, "p": 95, "t": "(3) (2) the full cost of repair; property not useful forits intended purpose. However, we will not pay an amount exceeding the smallest of the following for items a. and b. above: (3) any special limit of liability described in (1) our cost to replace at the time of loss; (4} any applicable Coverage B limit of liability. this policy; or SECTION | —- CONDITIONS (3) Insurable interest and Limit of Liability. Even if more than one person has an insurable interest in the property covered, we will not be liable: a. to the insured for an amount greater than the insured’s interest; or b. for more than the applicable limit of liability. (4) Your Duties After Loss. After a loss to which this insurance may apply, you must cooperate with us in the investigation of the claim and also see that the following duties are performed: a. e. give immediate notice fo us or our agent and also nolily: (b) submit to examinations under oath; and produce employees, members of the insured’s household, or others for examination under oath to the extent itis within the insured’s power to do so; and submit to us, within 60 days after the loss, your signed, sworn proof of loss that sets forth, to the best of your knowledge and belief: vandalism, or any other criminal act; and (2) the credit card company or bank if the loss (3) other insurance that may cover the loss; (4) protect the property from furlher damage or loss and also: (5) specifications of any damaged structure and detailed estimates for repair of the damage; (6) an inventory of damaged or stolen personal property described in 2.c.; (2) keep an accurate record of repair expenses; (7) prepare an inventory of damaged or stolen personal property: (t). showing in detail the quantity, description, age, replacement cost, and amount of loss; and receipts for additional living expenses incurred and records supporting the fair rental value loss; and (8} evidence or affidavit supporting a claim under SECTION {| - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, (2) attaching all bills, receipts, and related documents that substantiate the figures in Credit Card, Bank Fund Transfer Card, Forgery, and Counterfeit Money coverage, stating the amount and cause of loss. the inventory; as often as we reasonably require: changes in title or occupancy of the prop- erty during the term of this policy; (1) make reasonable and necessary temporary repairs required to protect the property, and d. give statements; and (2) interest of the insured and all others in the property involved and all encumbrances on the property; involves a credit card or bank fund transfer card; ¢. {a} (1) the time and cause of loss; (1} the police if the loss is caused by theft, b. while notin the presence of any other insured: 3. Loss to a Pair or Set. In case of loss to a pair or (1) exhibit the damaged property, set, we may choose to: (2) provide us with any requested records and documents and allow us to make copies; a. repair or replace any part to restore the pair or set fo its value before the loss; or 2 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000024"}, {"d": 121, "p": 96, "t": "b. 4, Appraisal. If you and we fail to agree on the amount of loss, either parly can demand that the amount of the loss be set by appraisal. Only you or we may demand appraisal. A demand for appraisal must be in writing. You must comply with SECTION | - CONDITIONS, Your Duties After Loss before making a demand for appraisal. At least 10 days before demanding appraisal, the party seeking appraisal must provide the other party with written, itemized documentation of a specific dispute as to the amount of the loss, identifying separately each - {tem being disputed, a. {a) written notice of the intent to file, identifying the specific location and identity of the court at least 10 days prior to submission of the written application; and pay the difference between the depreciated value of the property before the loss and the depreciated value of the property after the loss. Each party will select a competent, disinterested appraiser and notify the other party of the ap- praiser’s identity within 20 days of receipt of the wiitten demand for appraisal. The appraisers will then attempt to set the amount of the loss of each item in dispute as specified by each party, and jointly submit to each party a written report of agreement signed by them. In all instances the written report of agreement will be itemized and state separately (b) a copy of the written application; and (3) a written report of agreement, as required in item b., signed by any two (appraisers or appraiser and umpire) will set the amount of the loss of each item in dispute. In all instances the written report of agreement will be itemized and state separately the actual cash value, replacement cost, and if applicable, the market value of each item in dispute. To qualify as an appraiser or umpire for a loss to property described in COVERAGE A DWELLING, a person must be one of the following and be licensed or certified as required by the applicable junsdiction: (1) an engineer or architect with experience and training in building construction, repair, estimating, or investigation of the type of property damage in dispute; (2) if applicable, the market value of each item in dispute. an adjuster or public adjuster with experience and fraining in estimating the type of property damage in dispute; or The written report of agreement will set the amount of the loss of each item in dispute. (3) a contractor with experience and training if the two appraisers fail to agree upon the amount of the loss within 30 days, unless the period of time is extended by mutual agreement, they will select a competent, disinterested umpire and will submit thelr differences to the umpire. If the appraisers are unable to agree upon an of the type of property damage in dispute. the actual cash value, replacement cost, and umpire within 15 days: (1) you or we may make a written application for a judge of a court of record in the same state and county (or city if the city is not within a county) where the residence premises is located to select an umpire; (2) the party requesting the selection described in item c.(1) must provide the other party: in the construction, repair, and estimating A person may not serve as an appraiser or umpire if that person, any employee of that person, that person's employer, or any employee of their employer: (1) has performed services for either party with respect to the claim at issue in the appraisal; or (2) has a financial interest in the outcome of the claim at issue in the appraisal. Each party will be responsible for the compensation of their selected appraiser. Reasonable expenses of the appraisal and the reasonable a ©, Copyright, Stale Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000025"}, {"d": 121, "p": 97, "t": "Loss Payment. We will adjust all losses with you. We will pay you unless some other person is named in the policy or is legally entitled to receive payment. Loss will be payable: compensation of the umpire will be paid equally by you and us. g. h. You and we do not waive any rights by demanding or submitting to an appraisal, and retain all contractual rights to determine if coverage applies to each item in dispute. a. (1) Appraisal is only available to determine the amount of the loss of each item in dispute. The appraisers and the umpire have no authority to decide: (1) b, any other questions of fact; 9, (3} questions of coverage; Abandonment of Property. We need not accept any property abandoned by an insured. trustee. (5} to conduct appraisal on a class-wide basis. 5. 30 days after we receive your proof of loss and there is an entry of a final judgment. 10, Mortgagee Clause. The word ‘morigagee” includes (4) other contractual issues; or j. reach agreement with you; or (2) there is a filing of an appraisal award with us; OF (2) questions of law, |. 60 days afler we receive your proof of loss and: a. Appraisal is a non-judicial proceeding and does not provide for or require arbitration. Neither party will be awarded attorney fees. The appraisal award may not be entered as a judgment in a court. fa mortgagee is named in this policy, any loss payable under Coverage A will be paid to the mortgagee and you, as interests appear. If more than one mortgagee is named, the order of payment will be the same as the order of precedence of the mortgages. A party may not demand appraisal after that party brings suit or action against the other party relating to the amount of loss. b. Other Insurance. Ifa loss covered by this policy is also covered by other insurance, we will pay only our share of the loss. Our share is the proportion of the loss that the applicable limit under this policy bears to the total amount of insurance covering the loss. Suit Against Us. No action will be brought against us unless there has been full compliance with all of the policy pravisions. Any action by any party must be started within one year after the date of loss or damage. However, if the cause of loss or damage is burglary, theft, larceny, robbery, forgery, fraud, vandalism, malicious mischief, confiscation, wrongful conversion, disposal or concealment, the action must be started within two years from the time the cause of action accrues. if we deny your claim, that denial will not apply to a valid claim of the morigagee, if the mortgagee: (1) notifies us of any change in ownership, occupancy, or substantial change in risk of which the mortgagee is aware; (2) pays on demand any premium due under this policy, if you have not paid the premium; and submits a signed, swom statement of loss within 60 days after receiving notice from us of your failure to do so. Policy conditions relating to Appraisal, Suit Against Us, and Loss Payment apply to the mortgagee. c. If we cancel this policy, the mortgagee will be notified at least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect. Proof of mailing will be proof of notice. Our Option. We may repair or replace any part of the property damaged or stolen with similar property, Any property we pay for or replace becomes our d. property. If we pay the mortgagee for any loss and deny payment to you: 22 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, Slate Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000026"}, {"d": 121, "p": 98, "t": "(1) 12. Recovered Property. If either you or we recover any property alter loss settlement, that party must give the other prompt notice. At your option, you may keep the property or we will retum it to you. Otherwise, it will become our property. [f you choose to keep the property, the loss payment will be adjusted based on the amount you received for the recovered property. we are subrogated to all the rights of the mortgagee granted under the mortgage on the property, or (2) at our option, we may pay to the mortgagee the whole principal on the mortgage plus any accrued interest. In this event, we will receive a full assignment and transfer of the mortgage and all securities held as collateral to the mortgage debt. Subrogation does not impair the right of the é. mortgagee to recover the full amount of the mortgagee’s claim. 11. No Benefit to Bailee. We will not recognize an assignment or grant coverage for the benefit of a person or organization holding, storing, or transporting property for a fee. This applies regardless of any other provision of this policy. 13. Assignment of Claim. Assignment to another party of any of your rights or duties under this policy regarding any claim, or any part of any claim, will be void and we will not recognize any such assignment, unless we give our written consent. However, once you have complied with all policy provisions, you may assign to another party, in writing, payment of claim proceeds otherwise payable to you. SECTION II — LIABILITY COVERAGES 4. COVERAGE L. ~ PERSONAL LIABILITY to a person on the insured location with the per- mission of an insured, if a claim is made or a suit is brought against an insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this coverage applies, caused by an occurrence, we will: 1. pay up to our limit of liability for the damages for which the insured is legally liable. We will not pay for criminal restitution; and to a person off the insured location, if the bodily injury. provide a defense at our expense by counsel of our choice. We may make any investigation and settle any claim or suit that we decide is appropriate. Our obligation to defend any suit ends when the amount we pay for damages, to effect settlement or satisfy a judgment resulting from the occurrence, equals our limit of liability, We will not provide a defense to any insured for criminal prosecution or proceedings. COVERAGE M - MEDICAL PAYMENTS TO OTHERS a. arises out of a condition on the insured focation or the ways immediately adjoining; b. is caused by the activities of an insured, c. is caused by a residence employee in the course of the residence employee’s employment by an insured, or d. is caused by an animal owned by or in the care of an insured: or 3. We will pay the necessary medical expenses incurred or medically ascertained within three years from the date of an accident causing bodily injury. Medical expenses means reasonable charges for medical, surgical, x-ray, dental, ambulance, hospital, professional nursing, rehabilitation, pharmaceuticals, orthopedic devices, prosthetic devices, and funeral services. This coverage applies only: to a residence employee if the occurrence causing bodily injury occurs off the insured location and arises out of or in the course of the residence employee’s employment by an insured. SECTION Il - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES The following Additional Coverages are subject to all the terms, provisions, exclusions, and conditions of this policy, We will pay for the following in addition to the limits of lability: 2 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Aulomobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000027"}, {"d": 121, "p": 99, "t": "Claim Expenses. We will pay: (1) replacement cost al the time of loss; a. (2) full cost of repair; or b, ¢. d. expenses we incur and costs taxed against an insured in suits we defend. Taxed costs do not include attorney fees; (3) the limit of liability shown in the Declarations for Damage to Property of Others for any one occurrence. premiums on bonds required in suits we defend, but not for bond amounts greater than the Coverage L limit. We are not obligated to apply for or furnish any bond; We will not pay for property damage: (1) for a loss that is recoverable under Section | of this policy. We also will not pay for any applicable deductible regardless of whether the amount of the loss exceeds reasonable expenses an insured incurs at our request. This includes actual loss of earnings (but not loss of other income) up to $250 per day for aiding us in the investigation or defense of claims or suits; the deductible; {2} interest the insured is legally liable to pay on damages payable under Coverage L above before a judgment, but only the interest on the lesser of: (3) fo property, other than a rented golf cari, owned by, or rented fo an insured, a tenant of an insured, or a resident in your household: (1) that part of the damages we pay; or (4} (2) the Coverage L limit; and e. caused intentionally by an insured 13 years of age or older; arising outof: {a} business pursuits; interest on the entire judgment that accrues after entry of the judgment and before we pay or tender, or deposit in court that part of the judgment that does not exceed the limit of liability that applies. (b} any act or omission in connection with a premises an insured owns, rents, or controls, other than the insured location; {c) First Aid Expenses. We will pay expenses for first aid to others incurred by an insured for bodily injury covered under this policy. We will not pay for first aid to you or any other insured. a condition on the insured location or the ways immediately adjoining; or (d) the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft, including airboat, air cushion, Damage to Property of Others. personal a. similar type watercraft; or b. We will pay for property damage to property of others caused by the activities of an insured. watercraft, sail board, or (5) if a payment is made under COVERAGE L~ PERSONAL LIABILITY for the same properly damage. We will not pay more than the smallest of the following amounts: SECTION Il - EXCLUSIONS Coverage L. and Coverage M do not apply to: (2) was intended by the insured; or a. (3) would have been expected by the insured based on a reasonable person standard. bodily injury or property damage that: (1) was a result of a: (b} criminal: However, exclusions a.(2) and a.(3) above do not apply to bodily injury or property damage resulting trom the use of reasonable force to act or omission of the insured; protect persons or property. (a) willful and malicious; or 24 HW-2135 @, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000028"}, {"d": 121, "p": 100, "t": "Exclusions a.(1), a.{2}, and a.(3) above apply to all bodily injury or property damage even if the: (1) bodily injury or property damage was sustained by a different person, entity, or property than was expected or intended; (2} bodily injury or property damage was of a different kind, quality, or degree than was expected or intended; (3) insured lacked the mental capacity to control his or her conduct; (4) insured was not charged with or convicted of a criminal act or omission; or (5) insured was impaired by drugs or alcohol; bodily injury or property damage arising out of business pursuits of any insured, excepl as provided in item c. below. This exclusion does not apply to activities that are ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits; bodily injury or property damage arising out of the rental of any part of any premises by any insured. This exclusion does not apply: (1} to the rental of the residence premises: (a) either completely or in part, for exclusive use as a residence, for up to 30 nights in the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss; (b) in part, for use as a permanent residence, by either one or two full-time roomers or boarders; or {c)_ in part, as an office, school, studio, or private garage; d. bodily injury or property damage arising out of the rendering or failing to render professional services; bodily injury or property damage arising out of any premises currently owned or rented to any insured which is not an insured location. This exclusion does not apply to bodffy injury to a residence employee arising out of and in the course of the residence employee’s employment by an insured; bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use, loading, or unloading of: (1} an aircraft. This exclusion does not apply to the ownership, maintenance, use, joading, or unloading of unmanned aircraft systems used as model aircraft: (a) solely for recreational or hobby pur- poses; (b) designed to be operated within the visual line of sight of the operator and operated within the visual fine of sight of the operator; and (c) weighing not more than 55 pounds at the time of operation; unless the ownership, mainienance, use, loading, or unloading of such aircraft results in: (a) property damage to any aircraft; or (b} bodily injury or property damage resulling from interference with an aircraft carrying people regardless of whether the bodily injury or property damage is sustained by people or property on the aircraft or not; (2) when the dwelling on the residence premises is a two, three, or four family dwelling and you occupy one part and rent the other part to others; (2) a motor vehicle owned or operated by or rented or loaned to any insured; or (3) to farm land (without buildings), rented to others, but not to exceed a total of 500 acres, regardless of the number of locations; or (a) owned by or rented to any /nsured if it has inboard or inboard-outdrive motor power of more han 50 horsepower, (4) to activities that are ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits; (3) a watercraft: (b) owned by or rented to any insured if it is a sailing vessel, with or without 25 ©, Copyright, State Fann Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000029"}, {"d": 121, "p": 101, "t": "meaning of part 9.a., 9.b., or 9.c. of the definition of insured to share damages with or repay someone else who may be obligated to pay damages because of the bodily injury sustained by any insured within the meaning of part 9.2, 9.b., or 9.c. of the definition of in- auxiliary power, 26 feet or more in overall length; (c} powered by one or more outboard motors with more than 25 iotal horsepower owned by any insured; (d) designated as an airboat, air cushion, or simitar type of craft; or sured, any claim made or suit brought against any insured by: (e) owned by any insured if it is a personal watercraft using a water jet pump powered by an internal combustion engine as the primary source of propulsion, (1) This exclusion does not apply to bodily injury to a residence employee arising out of and in the course of the residence employee’s employment by an insured. Exclusion £.(3) does not apply while the watercraft is on the residence premises, any person in the care of any insured because of child care services provided by or at the direction of: (a) any insured; (b) any employee of any insured, or (c) any other person actually or apparently acting on behalf of any insured; or (2) any person who makes a claim because of bodily injury to any person in the care of any insured because of child care services provided by or at the direction of: bodily injury or property damage arising out of: (1) the entrustment by any insured to any person; (2) the supervision by any insured of any person; (a) (3) any liability statutorily imposed on any insured, or (c) any insured, (b) any employee of any insured; or (4) any liability assumed through an unwritten or written agreement by any insured; any other person actually or apparently acting on behalf of any insured. This exclusion does not apply to the occasional child care services provided by any insured, or to the part-time child care services provided by any insured under 19 years of age; with regard to the ownership, maintenance, or use of any aircraft, watercraft, or motor vehicle not covered under Section II of this policy; bodily injury or property damage arising out of an insureds participation in, or preparation or practice for, any prearranged or organized race, speed or demolition contest, or similar competition involving a motorized land vehicle or motorized watercraft. This exclusion does not apply to a sailing vessel less than 26 feet in overall length with or without auxiliary power; bodily injury or property damage caused directly or indirectly by war, including undeclared war, or any. warlike: act including destruction, seizure, of use for a military purpose, or any consequence of these. Discharge of a nuclear weapon will be considered a warlike act even if accidental: bodily injury to any insured within the meaning of part 9.a., 9.b., or 9.c. of the definition of insured. bodily injury or property damage arising out of the use, sale, manufacture, distribution, de- livery, transfer, or possession, by any insured, of any substance that is illegal or is a controlled substance under either federal or state law. This exclusion also appiies to any claim made or suit brought against any insured within the Pa) HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Auiomobila insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000030"}, {"d": 121, "p": 102, "t": "(2) This exclusion does not apply to the legitimate use of legally prescribed drugs, under either federal or state law, by a person following orders of a licensed health care professional; (3) corporal punishment; by the insured: bodily injury or property damage arising out of the actual, alleged, or threatened inhalation of, ingestion of, contact with, exposure to, existence of, or presence of any fungus at or from any source or location. . bodily injury or property damage arising out of the actual, alleged, or threatened presence, discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release, escape of, or exposure to contaminants or pollutants at or from any source or location. We also do not cover any loss, cost, or ex- Contaminants and pollutants include but are not limited fo any solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal initant, including smoke ftom agricultural smudging or industrial operations, smog, soot, vapor, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, pathogens, noxious substances, fuel olf, asbestos, or lead, pense arising out of any: (1) request, demand, order, or statutory or regulatory requirement that any insured or others test for, monitor, clean up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify, neutralize, remediate, dispose of, or in any way respond to or assess the effects of fungus; or This exclusion does not apply to bodily injury of property damage arising out of smoke or fumes caused by fire or explosion. (2) claim or suit for damages because of testing for, monitoring, cleaning up, removing, containing, treating, detoxifying, neutralizing, remediating, disposing of, or in any way responding to or assessing the effects of fungus; or We also do not cover: (1) any loss, cost, or expense arising out of any request, demand, order, or statutory or regulatory requirement that any insured or others test for, monitor, clean up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify, neutralize, remediate, dispose of, or in any way re- bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of systems and equipment used to generate electrical power exceeding 125 percent of the actual electrical power usage by the residence premises in the 12-month period prior to the date of the loss. spond to or assess the effects of contaminants or pollutants; (2) any loss, cost, or expense arising out of any claim or suit by or on behalf of a governmental authority for damages because of testing for, monitoring, cleaning up, removing, containing, treating, detoxifying, neutralizing, remediating, disposing of, or in any way responding to or assessing the effects of contaminants cr pollutants; or (3) 2. Coverage L does not apply to: liability: (1) for your share of any loss assessment charged against all members of any type of association of property owners, or contamination or pollution arising out of actually or allegedly defective building materials, nuclear substances, or waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned, or reclaimed; (2) imposed on or assumed by any insured through any unwritten or written contract or agreement. This exclusion does not apply to liability for damages that the insured would have in absence of the con- bodily injury or property damage arising out of any actual, alleged, or threatened: (1) sexual harassment, sexual molestation, or sexual misconduct; physical or mental abuse; or tract or agreement; b. property damage to properly owned by any insured at the time of the occurrence; 27 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2047 HW-2436 SFF&CC/West_000031"}, {"d": 121, "p": 103, "t": "¢. d. e. f. property damage to property rented to, used or occupied by, or in the care, custody, or control of any insured at the time of the occurrence. This exclusion does not apply to property damage caused by fire, smoke, explosion, or abrupt and accidental damage from water; This exclusion also applies to any property damage to the sold or transferred real property itself. bodily injury to a person eligible to receive any benefits required to be provided or voluntarily provided by an insured under a workers’ compensation, non-occupational disability, or occupational disease law; (2) property damage arising smoke, or explosion. However, this exclusion does not apply to: (1} bodily injury arising out of fire, smoke, explosion, electrocution, or carbon monox- ide poisoning; or 3. out of fire, Coverage M does not apply to bodily injury: a. to aresidence employee if it occurs off the insured location and does not arise out of or in the course of the residence employee’s employment by an insured, b. to a person eligible to receive any benefits required to be provided or voluntarily provided under any workers’ compensation, nonoccupational disability, or occupational disease jaw, Canada, or any of their successors; c. bodily injury or property damage arising out of any real property any insured has sold or transferred. This includes but is not limited to bodily injury or property damage arising out of known, unknown, hidden, or alleged properly toa person other than a residence employee of an insured, regularly residing on any part of the insured location; or d. from nuclear reaction, radiation, or radioactive contamination, all whether controlled or uncantrolled or however caused, or any consequence of any of these, bodily injury or property damage for which an insured under this policy is also an insured under a nuclear energy liability policy or would be an insured but for its termination upon exhaustion of its limit of fiability. A nuclear energy liability policy is a policy issued by Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance Association, Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters, Nuclear Insurance Associalion of conditions, problems, or defects. SECTION i! - CONDITIONS Limit of Liability. The Coverage L limit is shown in the Declarations. This is the limit for all damages from each occurrence for the policy period in which the bodily injury or property damage first occurs, regardless of the number of insureds, claims made, or persons injured. No additional limits or coverage will be available for the occurrence under any additional policy periods while this policy remains in force. The Coverage M limit is shown in the Declarations. This is our limit for all medical expenses for bodily injury to one person as the result of one accident. Severability of Insurance. This insurance applies separately to each insured. This condition does not increase our limit of lability for any one occurrence, Duties After Loss. In case of an accident or occurrence, the insured must cooperate with us in the investigation, setllement, or defense of any claim or suit and also perform the following duties that apply. You must cooperate with us in seeing that these duties are performed: a. give written notice to us or our agent as soon as possible, which sets forth: (4) the identity of this policy and the insured, (2) reasonably avaitable information on the time, place, and circumstances of the accident or occurrence; and 2 ©, Copyright, Slate Farm Mutual Aulomobile Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West__000032"}, {"d": 121, "p": 104, "t": "(3) names and addresses of any claimants b, the injured person's submission to physical examinations by a physician selected by us when and as cften as we reasonably require; and ¢. any authorizations from the injured person as we may require. and available witnesses: b. c. immediately forward to us every notice, demand, summons, or other process relating to the accident or occurrence; at our request, assist in: (1) 5, making settlement; Property of Others. Payment under either of these is not an admission of liability by an insured or us. (2) the enforcement of any right of contribution or indemnity against a person or organization who may be Hable to an insured: Suit Against Us. No action will be brought against us unless there has been compliance with the policy provisions. (3) the conduct of suits and attend hearings and trials; and No one will have the right to join us as a party fo an (4) securing and giving evidence and obtaining action against an insured. Further, no action with the attendance of witnesses: d. respect to Coverage L will be brought against us until the obligation of the insured has been determined by final judgment on the merits, afler an actual frial or by an agreement signed by us; but we will not be lfable for damages that are not payable under the terms of this policy or that are in excess of the applicable Limit of Liability. under SECTION Il - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, Damage to Property of Others, exhibit the damaged property if wilhin the insured’s control; and e. the insured must not, except at the insured’s own cosl, voluntarily make payments, assume obligations, or incur expenses. This does not apply to expense for first aid to others at the time of the bodily injury. Bankruptcy of an Insured. Bankruptcy or insolvency of an insured will not relieve us of our obligation under this policy, Coverage M Requirements. We may require the following in regard to any Coverage M claim: a, Payment of Claim ~ Coverage M or Damage to Other Insurance - Coverage L. This insurance is excess over any other valid and collectible insurance except insurance written specifically to cover as excess over the limits of liability that apply in this policy, written proof of claim, under oath if required, as soon as possible from the injured person, or when appropriate, someone acting on behalf of that person; SECTION | AND SECTION II — CONDITIONS during the period this policy is in effect, the broadened coverage will immediately apply to this policy. Policy Period. This policy applies only to loss under Section | or bodily injury or property damage under Section II that occurs during the period this policy is in effect. Waiver or Change of Policy Provisions. A waiver or change of any provision of this policy must be in writing by us to be valid. Our request for an appraisal or examination does not waive any of our rights. Concealment or Fraud. This policy is void as to you and any other insured if you or any other insured under this policy has intentionally concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance relating to this insurance, whether before or afler a loss. Cancellation. a. Liberalization Clause. If we adopt any revision that would broaden coverage under this policy without additional premium, within 60 days prior to or You may cancel this policy at any time by giving us advance written notice of the date cancellation is to take effect. We may waive the requirement a HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Campany, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000033"}, {"d": 121, "p": 105, "t": "of the policy would place the insurer that fhe notice be in writing by confirming the date and time of cancellation to you in writing. in violation of the insurance laws of this state; or We may cancel this policy only for the reasons stated in this condition, We will notify you in writing of the date cancellation takes effect. This cancellation notice may be delivered to you, or mailed to you at your mailing address shown in the Declarations. Proof of mailing will be sufficient proof of notice: (f) We may cancel this policy by notifying you at least 30 days before the date cancellation takes effect. (1) When you have not paid the premium, we may cancel at any time by notifying you at least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect. This condition applies whelher the premium is payable to us or our agent or under any finance or credit plan. (4) When this policy is written for a period longer than one year, we may cancel for any reason at anniversary. We may cancel by notifying you at least 30 days before the date cancellation takes effect. {2} When this policy has been in effect for less than 45 business days and is not a renewal with us, we may cancel for any reason. We may cancel by notifying you at least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect. (3) When this policy has been in effect for 45 business days or more, or at any time if it is a renewal with us, we may cancel for the following reasons: c. When this policy is cancelled, the premium for the period from the date of cancellation to the expiration date will be refunded. The retum premium will be pro rata. d. The retum premium may not be refunded with the notice of cancellation or when this policy is retumed to us, In such cases, we will refund it within a reasonable time after the date cancel- lation takes effect. 6. omissions on the part of the named insured which increase any hazard insured against; Nonrenewal. We may elect not to renew this policy. if we elect not to renew, a written notice will be delivered to you, or mailed to you at your mailing address shown in the Declarations. The notice wil be mailed or delivered at least 30 days before the expiration date of this policy. Proof of mailing will be sufficient proof of notice. 7. a change in the risk which substantially increases any hazard insured against after insurance coverage has Assignment of Policy. Assignment of this policy wil be void and we will not recognize any such assignment, unless we give our written consent. 8. Subrogation and Reimbursement. (a) discovery of fraud or material misrepresentation in the procurement of the insurance or with respect fo any claims submitted thereunder; (b) discovery of willful or reckless acts or (c) conviction of the named insured of a crime having as one of its necessary elements an act increasing any hazard insured against. a, been issued or renewed; Subrogation. (1} Applicable to SECTION I: (d) violation of any local fire, health, safety, building, or construction regulation or ordinance with respect {fo any insured property or the occupancy thereof which substantially increases any hazard insured against; if any insured to or for whom we make payment under this policy has rights to recover damages from another, those rights are transferred to us to the extent of our payment. That insured must do everything necessary to secure our rights and must do nothing after loss to impair them. (e) a determination by the Insurance Commissioner that the continuation x HW-2136 ©, Copyright, Slate Farm Mutual Automobiie insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000034"}, {"d": 121, "p": 106, "t": "11. However before a loss, an insured may waive in writing all rights of recovery against any person. a, Applicable to SECTION I: If any insured has rights to recover all or part of any payment we have made under this policy, those rights are transferred to us. An insured must do nothing after loss to impair them. Subrogation does not apply under Section {I to Medical Payments to Others or Damage to Property of Others. The premium for this policy may vary based upon: Reimbursement. (1) the purchase of other products or services from the State Farm Companies; if we make payment under this policy and any insured to or for whom we make payment recovers or has recovered from another person of organization, then the insured to or for whom we make payment must {2} the purchase of products or services from an organization that has entered into an agreement or contract with the State Farm Companies. The State Farm Companies do not warrant the merchantability, fitness, or quality of any product or service offered or provided by that organi- hold in trust for us the proceeds of any recovery; and (2) reimburse us to the extent of our payment. 9. zation; or Death. If you die: a. an agreement, conceming the insurance provided by this policy, that the State Farm Companies has with an organization of which you are a member, employee, subscriber, licensee, or franchisee. we insure the legal representative of the deceased. This condition applies only with respect to the premises and property of the deceased covered under this policy at the time of death; Your purchase of this policy may allow: insured includes: (1} Unless as otherwise provided by an altemative payment plan in effect with the Stafe Farm Companies with respect to the premium for this policy, the premium is due and payable in full on or before the first day of the policy period shown in the most recently issued Declarations. The renewal premium for this policy will be based upon the rates in effect, the coverages carried, the applicable limits, deductibles, and other elements that affect the premium applicable at the time of renewal, At our request, an in- sured will bring suit or transfer those rights to us and help us enforce them. (1) Premium. (1) you to purchase or obtain certain coverages, coverage options, coverage deductibles, ° coverage limits, or coverage terms on other products from the State Farm Companies, subject to their applicable eligibility rules; or any member of your household who is an insured at the time of your death, but only while a resident of the residence premises; and (2) with respect to your property, the person having proper temporary custody of the property until appointment and qualification of a legal representative. (2) the premium or price for other products or services purchased by you, including noninsurance products or services, to vary. Such other products or services must be provided by the State Farm Companies or by an organization that has entered into an agreement or contract with the State 10. Conformity to State Law. When a policy provision is in conflict with the applicable law of the state in which this policy is issued, the law of the state wil apply. u HW-2436 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Aulomobite Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000035"}, {"d": 121, "p": 107, "t": "of mailing it or delivering it by other means. Proof of transmission will be sufficient proof of notice. Farm Companies. The State Farm Companies do not warrant the merchantability, fitness, or quality of any product or service offered or provided by that organization. 16. Our Rights Regarding Claim Information. a. 12. Right to Inspect, a, We have the right but are not obligated to per- form the following: (1) make inspections and surveys of the insured location al any time; (2} provide you with reports on conditions we find; or {3) recommend changes. ness functions. b. (1) collecting, receiving, or obtaining records, receipts, invoices, medical bills, medical records, wage information, salary information, employment information, data, and any other information; mendations relate only to insurability and the premiums to be charged. Wedo not: (2) using any of the items described in item (3) make safety inspections; (2) Subject to 16.a. above, we will not be restricted in or prohibited from: Any inspections, surveys, reports, or recom- b. We will collect, receive, obtain, use, and retain all the items described in item b.(1} below and use and retain the information described in item b.(3)(b} below, in accordance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations and consistent with the performance of our busi- b.{1} above; or undertake to perform the duty of any person or organization to provide for the health or safety of workers or the public; (3) (a) (b) any other information we have in our possession as a result of our pro- ful; or warrant that conditions comply with laws, regulations, codes, or standards. cessing, handling, or otherwise re- solving claims submitted under this policy. This condition applies to us and to any rating, advisory, rate service, or similar organization that makes insurance inspections, surveys, reports, or recommendations on our behalf. c. 13. Joint and Individual Interests. When there are two or more Named !nsureds, each acts for all to (2) 14; Change of Policy Address. We may change the Named Insured's policy address as shown in the Declarations and in our records to the most recent address provided {o us by: yous or b. the United States Postal Service. We may disclose any of the items in b.(1} above and any of the information described in item b.{3)(b) above: (1) to enable performance of our business functions; cancel or change this policy. a. any of the items in item b.(1) above; or (3) warrant that conditions are safe or health(4) retaining: to meet our reporting obligations to insurance regulators; (3) to meet our reporting obligations to insurance dala consolidators; (4) to meet other obligations required by law; and (5) 15. Electronic Delivery. With your consent, we may electronically deliver any document or notice, including a notice fo renew, nonrenew, or cancel, instead d. as otherwise permitted by law. Our rights under 16.a., 16.b., and 16.c, above will not be impaired by any: 22 HW-2126 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Aulomobile insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000036"}, {"d": 121, "p": 108, "t": "must provide us wilh any requested authorizations related fo the claim. Our rights as set forth under Our Rights Regarding Claim Information of this policy will not be impaired by any: (1} authorization related to any claim submitted under this policy; or (2) act or omission of an insured or a legal representative acting on an insured’s behalf. 17. Duties Regarding Claim Information. An insured or a legal representalive acting on an insured’s behalf a. authorization related to the claim; or b, act or omission of an insured or a legal representative acting on an insured’s behalf. OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS while acting within the scope of the above listed occupations. Each Optional Policy Provision applies only as shown in the Declarations and is subject to all the terms, provi- sions, exclusions, and conditions of this policy. 2, Option Al - Additional Insured. The definition of insured is extended to include the person or organization shown in the Declarations as an Additional Insured or whose name is on file with us, Coverage is with respect to: 4. SECTION | - Coverage A, Coverage B, or Coverage C; or 2. SECTION Il - Coverage L and Coverage M but only with respect to the residence premises. This coverage does not apply to bodily injury to an employee arising out of or in the course of the employee’s employment by the person or organization. However, no coverage is provided: a. for bodily injury or property damage arising out of a business owned or financially controlled by the insured or by a partnership of which the insured is a partner or member, b. for bodily injury or property damage atising out of the rendering of or failure to render professional services of any nature (other than teaching or school administration). This exclusion includes but is not limited to: (1} computer programming, architectural, engineering, or industrial design services; (2) medical, surgical, dental, or other services or treatment conducive to the health of persons or animals; and This option applies only with respect to the location shown in the Declarations. Option BP - Business Property. The COVERAGE B ~ PERSONAL PROPERTY, Special Limits of Liability, item b., for property used or intended for use in a business, including merchandise held as samples or for sale or for delivery after sale, is changed as follows: The $1,500 limit is replaced with the amount shown in the Declarations for this option. (3) c. beauty or barber services or treatment; for bodily injury to a fellow employee of the insured injured in the course of employment, or d. when the insured is a member of the faculty or teaching staff of a school or college: CLUSIONS, item 1.b. is modified as follows: for bodily injury or property damage arising out of the maintenance, use, loading, or unloading of: 4. Section I coverage applies to the business pursuits of an insured who is a: (a) draft or saddle animals, including ve- a. clerical office employee, salesperson, collector, messenger; or {b) b. teacher (except college, university, and profes- boats, air cushions, or personal wa- sional athletic coaches), school principal, or school administrator; powered by an internal combustion Option BU - Business Pursuits. SECTION Il ~ EX- ©, Copyright, Slate (1) hicles for use with them; or aircraft, motor vehicles, recreational motor vehicles or watercralt, airtercraft which use a water jel pump B Farm Mutual Aulomobiie Insurance Company, 2017 HW-2136 SFF&CC/West_000037"}, {"d": 121, "p": 109, "t": "3. engine as the primary source of propuision; owned, operated, or hired by or for the insured or employer of the insured or used by the insured for the purpose of instruction in the use thereof; or 4. Our limits for loss by theft are those shown in the Declarations for this option. These limits apply in lieu of the Coverage B theft limit; and Our limits for loss by any covered peril except those in items 2. and 3. above are those shown in the Declarations for this option. under Coverage M for bodily injury to a student arising out of corporal punishment administered by or at the direction of the insured. Option ID - Increased Dwelling Limit. We will settle josses to damaged building structures covered under COVERAGE A - DWELLING according to the Loss Settlement Provision shown in the Declarations. Option FA - Firearms. Firearms are covered for accidental direct physical loss or damage. if the amount you actually and necessarily spend to repair or replace damaged building structures exceeds the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations, we will pay the additional amounts not to exceed: The {imits for this option are shown in the Declarations. The first amount is the limit for any one article; the second amount is the aggregate limit for each loss. 1. The following additional provisions apply: 10% of the Option !D limit of liability to repair or replace building structures covered under COVERAGE A-~ DWELLING, Other Structures. We will not pay for any floss to the property described in this option either consisting of, or directly and immediately caused by, one or more of the following: a. mechanical breakdown, wear and tear, Report Increased Values. You must nolify us within 90 days of the start of construction on any new building structure costing $5,000 or more; or any additions to or remodeling of building structures that increase their values by $5,000 or more. You must pay any additional premium due for the increased value. We will not pay more than the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations if you fail to notify us of the increased value within 90 days. or gradual deterioration; all animals, birds, or insects, including nesting, infestation, gnawing, feeding, breeding, or discharge or release of waste products or secretions by animals, birds, or insects. However, we will pay for losses caused by wild bears or deer; Option 10 ~ Incidental Business. The coverage provided by this option applies only to that incidental business occupancy on file with us. & dampness of atmosphere or extremes of temperatures; inherent defect or faulty manufacture; = a any processof refinishing, renovating, or repairing; rust, fouling, or explosion of firearms; 4. COVERAGE A - DWELLING, Other Structures, item 2.b. is deleted, infidelity of an insured’s employees or persons to whom the insured property may be entrusted or rented; COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY is extended to include equipment, supplies, and fumishings usual and incidental to this business occupancy. This Optional Policy Provision does not include electronic data processing system equipment or the recording or storage media used with that equipment or merchandise held as samples or for sale or for delivery after sale. Our limit for loss by any Coverage B peril except theft is the limit shown in the Declarations for Coverage B, plus the aggregate limit; The Option 10 limits are shown in the Declarations. The first limit applies to property on the residence premises. The second limit applies to property a 4. the Option 1D timit of fiability shown in the Declarations to repair or replace the dwelling; or breakage, manting, scratching, tearing, or denting unless caused by fire, thieves, or accidents to conveyances; or 4 HW.2136 ©, Copyright, Stata Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000038"}, {"d": 121, "p": 110, "t": "(c) while off the residence premises, These limits are in addition to the COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, Special Limits of Liability on property used or intended for use in a business. or (2) Under Section il, the residence premises is not considered business property because an insured occupies a part of it as an incidental business. bodily injury or property damage arising out of business pursuits of any insured, except as provided in item c. below. This are ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits or to business pursuits of an insured that are necessary or incidental to the use of the residence premises as an incidental business, any employee of any insured, or any other person actually or appar- ently acting on behalf of any insured. This exclusion does not apply to the occasional child care services provided by any /nsured, or to the part-time child care services provided by any insured under 19 years of age. This insurance does not apply to: a. any insured: Coverage M does not apply to any person indicated in d.{1) and d.{2) above. exclusion does not apply to activities that 5. any person who makes a claim because of bodily injury to any person in the care of any insured because of child care services provided by or at the direction of: (a) (b) (c) SECTION ff ~ EXCLUSIONS, item 1b. is replaced with the following: b. any other person actually or apparently acting on behalf of any insured, Option JF - Jewelry and Furs. Jewelry, watches, fur garments and garments trimmed with fur, precious and semi-precious stones, gold other than goldware, silver other than silverware, and platinum are covered for accidental direct physical loss or damage. bodily injury to an employee of an insured arising out of the residence premises as an incidental business other than to a residence employee while engaged in the employee's employment by an insured; The limits for this option are shown in the Declarations. The first amount is the limit for any one article; the second amount is the aggregate limit for each loss. All provisions and exclusions of SECTION | ~ LOSSES INSURED, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, Theft apply to Option JF. bodily injury to a student arising out of corporal punishment administered by or at the direction of the insured; liability arising out of any acts, errors, or omissions of an insured, or any other person for whose acts an insured Is liable, resulting from the preparation or approval of data, plans, designs, opinions, reports, programs, specifications, supervisory inspections, or engineering services in the conduct of an insured’s incidental business involving data processing, computer consulting, or computer programming; or The following additional provisions apply: 4. We will not pay for any loss to the property described in this option either consisting of, or directly and immediately caused by, one or more of the following: a. mechanical breakdown, wear and tear, or gradual deterioration; all animals, birds or insects, including nesting, infestation, gnawing, feeding, breeding, or discharge or release of waste products or secretions by animals, birds, or insects. However, we will pay for losses caused by wild bears or deer, any claim made or suil brought against any insured by: (i) any person in the care of any insured because of child care services provided by or at the direction of. inherent vice; or (a) any insured, seizure or destruction under quarantine or customs regulations; (b) any employee of any insured; or % HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile tnsurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000039"}, {"d": 121, "p": 111, "t": "2. (2) the enforcement requires the demolition of portions of the same building structure not damaged by the same foss insured; Our limit for loss by any Coverage B peril except theft is the limit shown in the Declarations for Cov- erage B, plus the aggregate limit; (3) the ordinance or law regulates the construction or repair of the building structure, or establishes zoning or land use requirements at the described premises; and Our limits for loss by theft are those shown in the Declarations for this option. These limits apply in leu of the Coverage B theft limit; and Our limits for loss by any covered peril except those in items 2. and 3. above are those shown in the Declarations for this option. (4) the ordinance or law is in force at the time of the occurrence of the same foss insured, oF Option OL - Building Ordinance or Law. 1. c. Coverage Provided. The total limit of insurance provided by this option will not exceed an amount equal to the Option OL percentage shown in the Declarations of the Coverage A limit shown in the Declarations al the time of the loss, as adjusted by the Inflation Coverage provisions of this policy. This is an additional amount of insurance and applies to building structures on the residence premises. (1) the enforcement is directly caused by the same loss insured, (2) the requirement is in effect at the time the loss insured occurs; and Damaged Portions of Building Structure. When a building structure covered under COVERAGE A~- DWELLING is damaged by a foss insured, we will pay for the increased cost to repair or rebuild the physically damaged portion of the building structure caused by the enforcement of a building, zoning, or land use ordinance or jaw if the enforcement is directly caused by the same Joss insured and the requirement is in effect at the time the loss insured occurs. Undamaged Portions of Damaged Building Structure. When a building structure covered under COVERAGE A - DWELLING is damaged by a foss insured, we will also pay for: a. b. legally required changes to the undamaged portion of the building structure caused by the enforcement of a building, zoning, or land _ use ordinance or law, if: (3) the legally required changes are made to the undamaged portions of specific building structure features, systems, or components that have been physically damaged by the foss insured. We will not pay for legally required changes to specific building structure features, systems, or components that have not been physically damaged by the loss insured. 4. Building Ordinance or Law Coverage Limitations. a. the cost to demolish and clear the site of the undamaged portions of the building structure causedby the enforcement of a building, zoning, or land use ordinance or law if the enforcement is directly caused by the same foss insured and the requirement is in effect at the time the loss insured occurs; and We will not pay for any increased cost of construction: (4) until the building structure is actually repaired or replaced at the same or another premises in the same general vicinity, (2) unless the repairs or replacement are made as soon as reasonably possible after the loss, not fo exceed two years; and loss fo the undamaged portion of the building structure caused by enforcement of any ordinance or law if: (3) due to any original or subsequent construction, addition, modification, renovation, remodel, or repair to a building structure that did not comply wilh a building, zoning, or land use ordinance or law in effect when the (1) the enforcement is directly caused by the construction, addition, modification, renova- tion, remodel, or repair was performed. same loss insured; % HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Fann Mutual Aulomobile insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000040"}, {"d": 121, "p": 112, "t": "b. We will not pay for more than a building structure of the same height, floor area, and style on the same or similar premises as the building structure, subject to the limit provided in paragraph 1. Coverage Provided of this option. We will not pay more under this coverage than the amount you actually spend: (1) for the increased cost to repair or rebuild the building structure at the same or another premises in the same general vicinity if relocation is required by ordinance or Option SG ~ Silverware and Goldware Theft. The COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, Special Limits of Ltability, item i, for theft of silverware and goldware is increased to be the amount shown in the Declarations for this option. law; and (2) to demolish and clear the site of the undamaged portions of the building struc- ture caused by enforcement of building, zoning, or land use ordinance or law. 7 HW-2136 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2017 SFF&CC/West_000041"}, {"d": 121, "p": 113, "t": "State Farm Fire and Casualty Company A Stock Company With Home Offices in Bloomington, illinois PO Box 2356 HOMEOWNERS AVAILABLE COVERAGE NOTICE Bloomington iL. 61702-2356 AqT2 nr SS H.26-2175-FAF3 F HW SEE 001692 320: RENEWAL DECLARATIONS WEST, NEIL S & LACY M 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR LAWTON OK 73505-9537 ST 106-0000 GLE fa] gbeggyagl ages] sts ffgeg dag h leggy fond lft tdaal yey iT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU OCCASIONALLY REVIEW THE COVERAGE S AND LIMITS IN YOUR HOMEOWNERS POLICY TO BE CERTAIN YOUR NEEDS ARE BEING MET. THE FOLLOW ING INFORMATION WILL ASSIST YOU IN THE REVIEW PROCESS, THE COVERAGE LIMITS FOR COVERAGE A- DWELLING, COVERAGE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY, COVERAGE L PERSONAL LIABILITY, AND COVERAGE M - MEDICAL PAYMENTS TO OTHERS ARE LISTED ON THE ACCOMPANYING RENEWAL DECLARATIONS. PLEASE REVIEW THESE LIMITS TO DETER MINE IF THEY ARE ADEQUATE IN THE EVENT OF ALOSS. THE FOLLOWING ISA PARTIAL LIST OF THE OPTIONAL COVERAGES YOU HAVE NOT ADDED TO YOUR POLICY. THEY MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU FOR AN ADDITIONAL PREMIUM. ack-Up of Sewer or Drain (far damage caused by water from outside the plumbing system which backs up through sewers ar rains} Business Praperty (for higher limits) Business Pursuits Liability (for teachers, school administrators, sales persons, and clerical employees} Child Care Liability (for those providing child care in their home) Earthquake {for damage to buildings and personal property caused by an earthquake} Firearms {for broadened coverage and higher limits) Cyber Event, Identity Restoration, and Fraud Loss incidental Business Liability (for those with an incidental office, studio, or schoal in the home) Jewelry and Furs (for broadened coverage and higher limits) Loss Assessment {for neighborhaads with Homeowners Associations) Personal Injury {for your liabilityto others caused by certain acts of libel, slander, invasion of privacy, or false arrest) Silverware/Goldware (for broadened coverage and higher limits) Otn922Za 03-31-2017 Nurses’ Professional Liability (far those in the nursing profession) **Continued on Reverse Side*™* Prepared NOV 092022 Agent Telephone NANCY HOLCOMB INS AGCY INC (580) 536-5050 007727 420 | | N GAGB,R3,EH SFF&CC/West_000042"}, {"d": 121, "p": 114, "t": "day care in their home} Adult Day Care Liability (for those providing adult Energy Efficiency Upgrade (for replacing damaged heating unit, air conditioning unit, or water heater with equipment that is more energy efficient} Home Rental {for those who rent out their home for more than 30 nights yearly} Home Systems Protection (for covering the breakdown of permanently installed equipment} Service Line {for the cost of repairing damaged underground utility lines) increased Personal Property (for higher limits above the standard policy limit, which is a percentage o1nSzZ23a 03-31-2017 of your Coverage A-Owelling amount} to This notice contains only a general description of the co verages and is not a contract. All coverages are subject the provisions in the policy itself. Should you have a need for any of these coverages or high er limits, contact your State Farm Agent to discuss details, cost and eligibitity. IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT DAMAGE CAUSED BY FLOODING This policy does not cover damage to your property caused by flooding. You may be eligible for such coverage through the National Flood Insurance Program (\"NFIP\"), if you live in a parlicipating community. For more information, contact your State Farm? agent or visit floodsmarl.gov. SFF&CC/West_000043"}, {"d": 121, "p": 115, "t": "State Farm Fire and Casualty Company A Stock Company With Home Offices in Bloomington, illinois PO Box 2356 Bloomington il. 61702-2356 & StateFarm’ H-26-2175-FAF3 F HW west, NEIL § & Lace” 7 uy; NW BRIARCREEK LAWTON OK RENEWAL DECLARATIONS Dr 73505-9537 AMOUNT DUE: None Payment is dua by TO BE PAID BY MORTGAGEE st 0206-0000 Policy Number, — 36-CR-X405-8 Policy Period: 12 Months Effective Dates: DEC 29 2022 to DEC 29 2023 The policy period begins and ends at 12:01 am standard time at the residence premises. ; ' Policy Home owners Location of Residence Premises 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR LAWTON OK 73505-9537 Your State Farm Agent NANCY HOLCOMB INS AGCY INC 20 NW 67TH ST STEB LAWTON DK 73505-5632 Phone: {580} 536-5050 Construction: Year Built: Masonry Veneer 1997 Roof Material; Composition Shingle Roof Installation Year: 2019 Autamatic Renewal if the POLICY PERIOD is shown as 12 MONTHS, this policy will be renewed automatically subject to the premiums, rules, and forms in effect for each succeeding policy period. {f this policy is terminated, we will give you and the Mortgagee/Lienholder written notice in compliance with the policy provisions or as required by law. IMPORTANT MESSAGES NOTICE: information concerning changes in your policy language is included. Please call your agent with any questions. Caverage A has increased $17,000.00 over last year. Please help us update the data used to defermine your premium. Contact your agent with the year each of your home's utilities (heating/cooling, plumbing, or electrical} and roof were last updated. PREMIUM Annual Premium Your premium has already been adjusted by the following: Home Alert Discount Home/Auto Discount Claim Record Oiscount Loyal Customer $2,722.00 $2,722.00 Total Premium Prepared Ho-2000 NOV09 2022 007728 420 1 N GA,GB,R3,EH Page ; 7 hanks for ling us serve ya... totetOed) lof 4 + OEz016 SFF&CCAWest_000044"}, {"d": 121, "p": 116, "t": "&® StateFarm’ NAMED INSURED WEST, NEIL S & LACY M MORTGAGEE AND ADDITIONAL INTERESTS e RET MORTGAGE LLC —_——i OX apegre SECTION I - PROPERTY COVERAGES AND LIMITS Coverage A Dwelling Other Structures B Personal Property C Loss of Use C 29502-2070 Limit of Liability 309,000 $ $ $ $ Additional Coverages $1,000 Arson Reward Credit Card, Bank Fund Transfer Card, Forgery, and Counterfeit Money Debris Removal Fire Department Service Charge Fuel Oil Release Locks and Remote Devices Trees, Shrubs, and Landscaping O1FIGs1A SECTION Hl - ABILITY COVERAGES AND LIMITS 30,900 231,750 92,700 $1,000 Additional 5% available/$1,000 tree debris $500 per occurrence $10,000 $1,000 5% of Coverage A amount/$750 per item Coverage Limit of Liability L Personal Liability (Each Occurrence) Damage to the Property of Others M Medical Payments to Others (Each Person) $ $ $ NOV 69 2022 FLOREN 400,000 4,000 4,000 INFLATION Inflation Coverage Index: 308.7 DEDUCTIBLES Section | Deductible All Losses 1% Deductible Amaunt 3,090 $ LOSS SETTLEMENT PROVISIONS A1 Replacement Cost - Similar Construction B1 Limited Replacement Cost - Coverage B H0-2000 Page 2of 4 SFF&CC/West_000045"}, {"d": 121, "p": 117, "t": "& StateFarm’ 36-CR-X405-8 FORMS, OPTIONS, AND ENDORSEMENTS HW-2136 Homeowners Policy Option ID increase Dwig up to $67,800 Option OL Option JF Ordinance/Law 10%/ $30,900 Jewelry and Furs $1,500 Each HO-2310.1 *Amendatory Endorsement *New Form Altached ST0306-0800 Article/$2,500 Aggregate ADDITIONAL MESSAGES State Farm® works hard to offer you the best combination of price, service, and protection. The amount you pay for homeowners insurance is determined by many factors such as the coverages you have, the type of construction, the likefihood of future claims, and information from consumers reports. Other limits and exclusions may apply - refer to your policy Your policy consists of these Declarations, the Homeowners Policy shown above, and any other forms and endorsements that apply, including those shown above as well as those issued subsequent to the issuance of this policy. This policy is issued by the State Farm Fire and Casuaity Company. Participating Policy You are entitled to participate in a distribution of the earnings of the company as determined by our Board of Directors in accordance with the Company's Articles of Incorporation, as amended. In Witness Whereof, the State Farm Fire and Casualty Company has caused this policyte be signed by its President and Secretary at Bloomington, Illinois. Tepe: OTF 10848 Secreta 09 2022 Prepared NOV HO-2000 por72e 420 Mich BF byprer? President Page dof 4 SFF&CC/West_000046"}, {"d": 121, "p": 118, "t": "& StateFarm’ Your coverage amount... Itis up to you to choose the coverages and limits that meet your needs. We recommend that you purchase a coverage limit at least equal to the estimated replacement cost of your home. Replacement cost estimates are available from building contractors and replacement cost appraisers, or, your agent can provide an Xactware estimate using information you provide about your home, We can accept the type of estimate you choose as long as it provides a reasonable level of detail about your home. State Farm® does not guarantee that any estimate will be the actual future cost to rabulld your home. Higher limits ate available at higher premiums. Lower limits are also avatlable, which If selected may make certain coverages unavailable to you. We encourage you to periodically review your coverages oFiaaA NOV 09 2022 and limits with your agent and to notify us of any changes or additions to your home. HO-2000 Page 4of 4 SFF&CCAWest_000047"}, {"d": 121, "p": 119, "t": "36-CR-X405-8 007730 HO-2310.1 Page 1 of 3 HOMEOWNERS AMENDATORY ENDORSEMENT (Oklahoma) This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: HOMEOWNERS POLICY ESS DEFINITIONS Under the definition of “business”, item d. is replaced by the following: a. b. COVERAGE C~LOSS OF USE; SECTION |~ADDITIONAL COVERAGES, and ¢. Option OL ~ Building Ordinance or Law, only if this option is shown in the Declarations. Business does not include: ST0408-0000 d. the ownership, maintenance, or use of systems and equipment used to generate electrical power, if (4) the power generated is intended primarily for consumption on the residence premises; and (2) any resulting income is incidental, including but not limited to: {a} _ utility bill credits; or (b) incidental income; derived from sending excess power back to the electricity grid; or The definition of “occurrence” is replaced by the following: “occurrence”, when used in Section [1 of this policy, means an accident, including accidental exposure to conditions, which first results in: a. bodily injury, or b. property damage, during the policy period, All bodily injury and property damage resulting from one accident, series of related accidents, or from continuous or repeated exposure to the same general conditions is considered to be one oceurrence. SECTION }- PROPERTY COVERAGES COVERAGE A ~ DWELLING item 3.c. is replaced by the following: ¢. systems and equipment used to generate electrical power, unless: (1) the power generated is intended primarily for consumption on the residence premises, and (2) any resulting income is incidental, including but not limited to: (a) utility bill credits; or (b) incidental income; derived from sending excess power back to the electricity grid. SECTION | - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES The following is added to Volcanic Action: When applicable, the following coverages apply to a loss covered by Volcanic Action: The following is added to Collapse: When applicable, the following coverages apply to a loss covered by Collapse: a, COVERAGE C -LOSS OF USE; b. SECTION |~ADDITIONAL COVERAGES; and ¢. Option OL = Building Ordinance or Law, only if this option is shown in the Declarations. The following is added to Fuel Oil Release: When applicable, the following coverages apply to a loss covered by Fuel Oi! Release: a. COVERAGE C-LOSS OF USE; b. SECTION|-ADDITIONAL COVERAGES; and ¢, Option OL ~ Building Ordinance or Law, only if this option is shown in the Declarations. Any payments made for these coverages are included in, and not in addition to, the $10,000 limit of insurance for Fuel Oil Release. SECTION 1-- CONDITIONS Under Mortgagee Clause, paragraph 0.c. is replaced by the following: c. Ifwecancel this policy, the mortgagee will be notified at least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect. SECTION fl - LIABILITY COVERAGES SECTION Il - ADDITIONAL COVERAGES The following is added to Damage to Property of Others: d. Under SECTION Il - EXCLUSIONS, exclusion 2.c. does not applyto the coverage provided by Damage to Property of Others. SECTION lf - EXCLUSIONS Under SECTION {l ~ EXCLUSIONS, 1\\p. is replaced by the following: 4. Coverage L and Coverage M do not apply to: p. bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of systems and equipment used to generate electrical power, unless: ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 20214 SFF&CCWest_000048"}, {"d": 121, "p": 120, "t": "HO-2310.1 Page 2 of 3 (4) the power generated is intended primarily for consumption on the residence premises; and (2) any resulting income is incidental, including but not limited fo: {a) utility bill credits; or (b) incidental income; derived from sending excess power back to the electricity grid. Under SECTION Il ~ EXCLUSIONS, 2.a. and 2.c. are replaced by the following: 2. Coverage L does not apply to: a. liability: (1} for your share of any loss assessment charged against all members of any type of association of property owners; or We may cancel this policy by providing notice to a named insured shown on the Declarations. The notice will provide the date cancellation is effective. (1) When you have not paid the premium, we may cancel af any time by providing notice at least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect. This condition applies whether the premium is payable fo us or our agent or under any finance or credit plan. When this policy has been in effect for less than 45 business days and is not a renewal with us, we may cancel for anyreason. We may cancel by-providing notice at least 10 days before the date cancellation takes effect. this policy has been in effect for 45 busi(3) When ness days or more, or at any fime if it is a renewal with us, we may cancel for the following reasons: {a) discovery of fraud or material misrepresentation in the procurement of the insurance or wilh respect to any claims submitted thereunder; (b) discovery of willful or reckless acts or omissions on the part of the named insured which increase any hazard insured against, (c)_a change in the risk which substantially increases any hazard insured against after insurance coverage has been issued or re- (2) imposed on or assumed by any insured through any unwailten or writlen contract or agreement. This exclusion does not apply to: (a) liability for damages that the insured would have in absence of the contract or agreement, or (b) wilten contracts: (i) that directly relate to the ownership, maintenance, or use of any CG. newed; insured location, or (i) when the liability of others is assumed by you prior to the occurrence: unless excluded elsewhere in the policy, property damage to property rented to, used or occupied by, or in the care, custody, or control of any insured at the time of the occurrence. This exclusion does not apply to property damage caused by: (i) fire; (2) smoke; (3) explosion; (4) abrupt and accidental damage fram water, or (5) household pets, up fo $500 in excess of your security deposit; i - CONDITIONS SECTION AND { SECTION Under Cancellation, 5.b. is replaced by the following: (d) violation of any local fire, health, safety, building, or construction regulation or ordinance with respect to any insured property or the occupancy thereof which substantially increases any hazard insured against, (e) a determination by the Insurance Commissioner that the continuation of the policy would place the insurer in violation of the insurance laws of this state; or (f) (4) conviction of the named insured of a crime having as one of its necessary elements an act increasing any hazard insured against. We may cancel this policy by providing notice at least 30 days before the date cancellation takes effect. When this policy is written for a period longer than one year, we may cancel for any reason at anniversary, We may cancel by providing notice at least 30 days before the date cancellation takes effect. Nonrenewal is replaced by the following: ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Company, 2021 SFF&CCWest_000049"}, {"d": 121, "p": 121, "t": "36-CR-X405-8 007734 HO-2310.4 Page 3 of 3 Nonrenewal. if we decide not fo renew this policy, then, al least 30 days before the end of the current policy period, we will provide a nonrenewal notice lo a named in- Sie ; sured shown on the Declarations. . : ; Joint and Individual Interests is replaced by the following: Joint and Individual Interests. If you consists of more than one person or entity, then each acts for all to change or cancel this policy. repair or replace damaged building sfructures cov- ered under COVERAGE A ~ DWELLING, Other Structures exceeds the limit of liability shown in the Declarations for Other Structures, we will pay the additional amounts not to exceed 10% of the Option ID limit shown in the Declarations. Electronic Delivery is deleted. 3 2 3 be 2. not to exceed the Option ID limit shown in the Declarations. If the amount you actually and necessarily spend to OPTIONAL POLICY PROVISIONS ana : : 1) i ption ID is replaced by the following Dwelling Limit. We will settle - Increased Option to1D damaged building structures covered under losses Report Increased Values, You must notify us within 90 of construction on any new st building days of the start . structure costing $5,000 or more; or any additions to or‘ ‘ a : Temodeling of building structures that increase their COVERAGEA - DWELLING according to the Loss Set- values by $5,000 or more. You must pay any additional Ifthe amount you actually and necessarily spend to repair or teplace the damaged dwelling exceeds the fimit of liability shown in the Declarations for Coverage A~ Dwelling, we will paythe additional amounts ; ; i onsi mac Saye. ou filo nofify us of the increased value tlement Provision shown in the Declarations. 4. due for the increased value. We will not pay premium more than the applicable limit of liability shown in the —_—_Ail other policy provisions apply. HO-2310,4 ©, Copyright, State Farm Mutua! Automobile Insurance Company, 2021 SFF&CC/West_000050"}, {"d": 121, "p": 123, "t": "36-CR-X405-8 007732 553-2634.1 PREMIUM DISCOUNT AVAILABLE FOR USE OF IMPACT-RESISTIVE ROOFING PRODUCTS State Farm® offers a premium discount for homes that have qualified impact-resistive roofing materials, ST9606-0000 Underwriters Laboratories (UL} and Factory Mutual (EM) are nationally recognized testing laboratories that develop safety standards and test products to verify they meet specific performance standards. Both UL and FM have developed testing standards that measure the impact resistance of various roofing materials. The roofing products tested by UL and FM are rated from Class { to Class 4, with Class 4 providing the greatest roofing protection. State Farm offers a premium discount when qualified UL certified or FM approved Class 3 or Class 4 roofing materials have been installed on your home. The discount applies to both new and replacement roofs installed since May 1996 with UL certified products, and since July 2005 with FM approved products. Discounts are not available for wood roofs, or roofs (other than qualifying metal roofs) that have been overlaid on to existing roofing. Discounts are also subject to limitations and may not be available on all UL or FM Class 3 and 4 impact-resistant roofing products. Manufacturers continue to bring UL certified and EM approved roofing products to the consumer marketplace. You can visit our web site at http://www .statefarm,.com/insurance/other/roofinfo.asp for a list of qualifying products in your state. If you have any questions about the discounts available for installing an impact-resistive roof or to see if your roof qualifies, please contact your State Farm agent, ‘This discount program does not constitute an endorsement or any warranty of performance on the part of State Farm for any particular roofing product. Please research and determine what roofing material is best suited for your home, location and environmental conditions. 553~2634.5 (C} (42/09) 553-4157 NOTICE TO POLICYHOLDER For a comprehensive description of coverages and forms, please refer to your policy. Policy changes that you requested before the “Date Prepared” on your Renewal Declarations are effective on the renewal date of this policy unless indicated otherwise by a separate endorsement, binder or Amended Declarations Page. endorsements included with your Renewal Declarations are effective on the renewal date of this policy. Any coverage forms or Policy changes that you requested after the “Date Prepared” on your Renewal Declarations will be sent to you as an Amended Declarations Page or as an endorsement to your policy, You will be billed for any resulting premium increase later. if you have acquired any valuable property items, made any improvements to your home, or have questions about your insurance coverage, please contact your State Farm® agent. 553-4157 (C) (CONTINUED) SFF&CC/West_000052"}, {"d": 121, "p": 124, "t": "§53-4156 PREMIUM ADJUSTMENT insurance premiums have been adjusted and continue to reflect the expected cost of claims. Some policyhofders will see their premiums increase while other policyholders may see their premiums decrease or stay the same, The amount your premium the expected claim experience in your area, the coverage you have, and changed, if at all, depends on several factors including any applicable discounts or charges. The enclosed Renewal Oeclarations reflects your new premium. State Farm® works hard to offer yau the best combination of cost, protection, and service. We will continue doing our best fo make the most effective use of your premium dollars and give you superior service when you need it. if you have any questions about your premium, or policy coverages, please contact your State Farm agent. 553-4156 §53-2798.1 IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT YOUR POLICY With our Claim Record Rating Plan, your savings will typically increase the fewer claims you have and the fonger you're insured with State Farm®, We adjust premiums based on the number of claims under the rating plan. Depending on your state, claims under the plan generally include thase resulting in a paid loss and may include weatherrelated claims where permitted. In addition, any claims with your prior insurer resulting in property damage or injury may also influence your premium. Our Loyal Customer Discount provides a premium discount based on the number of years that you have been with us. For more information about whether the Claim Record Rating Plan applies in your state, the claims we consider for the plan, or whether the Loyal Customer Discount is in effect in your state, please contact your State Farm agent. §53.2798.1 SFF&CC/West_000053"}, {"d": 121, "p": 126, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Lacy West 03/20/2026 DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA and LACY WEST, COUNTY et THE et NEIL IN et Plaintiffs, gel Case Number CJ-2025-135 tl Ne Vs. eae” Neel etl Met ee STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. VIDEO DEPOSITION OF Taken on behalf on the 20th in REPORTED of day Lawton, * BY: LACY * MICHELLE the of WEST Defendants March, 2026 Oklahoma * TAMARA * WAGGONER, CSR Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) scx EXHIBIT"}, {"d": 121, "p": 127, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 31 Lacy West 03/20/2026 accident, was about the that for certain. Ms. new property? has A No. Q So would it not made any direct 10 insurance on 11 A That's 12 Q And you your current with anyone that 15 A No. 16 Q So anyone in her office? in her office representations to you about that in policy; is that A That is true. 20 Q Are you aware not 22 Briarcreek? has made the nature of that this lawsuit you have true? 19 sued the about agency Holcomb's Ms. 18 on house at any agency? but the Holcomb SANDERS: Object to the form. You THE WITNESS: Yes. (By Ms. you know why you've only State MR. Farm answer. 24 25 the one 17 or of current your covers no you nature the for talked policy to Holcomb Ms. that your correct. true 14 for house? that Have 23 statements about conversation any say say I can't -- insurance to fair is 13 21 have be you to representations you acquiring about Holcomb with I can't did -- you Have Q but Q Rother) Do Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) can"}, {"d": 121, "p": 128, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Lacy West 03/20/2026 Page 34 Q And you the said you didn't-realize policy from 2019 to policy? changes to identify any changes MR. SANDERS: Object THE WITNESS: Not the to to there were Can you 2023. the form. You can can see -- on The evidence to answer. that I the documentation provided to me personally mostly in regard on on the current Rother) And that is that position that the with 10 State is Farm Q (By Farm Ms. 11 State 12 that you all claim 13 it's not hail damage; correct? 14 MR. SANDERS: Object 15 THE WITNESS: odd that gutters, to 16 it very 17 the 18 metals 13 hail of has -- the taken the is hail they some damage, screens, soft roof. 20 That its own to 21 particularly 22 several, a 23 consider experts 24 definitely 25 maintain admit to the miraculously we had had, I don't know, know of two for sure, what lot say, of to come roof damage. They are do not hail damage have and I there's raises out a -- me after says to the we Farm will to that State damage they but have claim. But house, to dealings Correct. fence, I damage, our form. the few, to the damage on us. on found to no questions, I yes, you -- they on Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) our would still"}, {"d": 121, "p": 129, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Lacy West 03/20/2026 Page 35 roof. to Q (By Ms. Rother) there is State Farm? A State QO And two 10 roofers A Yes. Q And Farm, 13 yes. referring that you've had at in fairness, replace your you roof; Q (By Ms. State 14 was odd that 15 of some damage 16 shingles. 17 identification house? understand that because but not to you had Have to You has they the would the said form. you admitted Sorry. thought to the damage to the any training on the hail damage to roof ever talk the contractors soft metals 19 Q Did you 20 whether it's unusual for 21 evidence of hail damage 22 you ask the contractors 23 occasionally? to the whereas it presence of No. 29 the Object Farm A A are correct? Rother) 18 24 to Correct. SANDERS: ever look motivated MR. 12 referring you're like A you're experts financially 11 they the they're to The shingles? shingles to about show don't, if that happens If you could did No. MR. SANDERS: Form. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) give me"}, {"d": 121, "p": 130, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Lacy West 03/20/2026 Page 41 would have been provided? know we A I Q Yes. A -- Q Uh-huh. A I Q Have 10 A No. 11 Q And 12 about you think 13 responsibility here, 14 policy 15 between 2019 and 16 compare the policies? for produced the particular don't declarations pages years. recall if we you read your you indicated produced anything else. why was Ms. 17 A No. 18 Q Did 19 coverages you were or 2023. call you were Holcomb has some you coverage Did you Ms. do Holcomb talking that was the different anything to and ask her can answer. if different? MR. SANDERS: Form. 21 THE WITNESS: I Q (By Ms. why State Farm paid the 24 2023, if they occurred 25 and You did not. So any questions about claim in 2019 and not in have been Mr. West Rother) 23 not thought the 20 22 policy? when that different insurance it would you? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) the"}, {"d": 121, "p": 131, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Lacy West 03/20/2026 Page 43 hail damage; correct? MR. SANDERS: Form. THE WITNESS: It (By Ms. your request for found that that your Q the was also Rother) But State Farm a roof loss because total shingles weren't my understanding. has damaged by denied they have hail; is understanding? A That is. Q And you 10 responsibility 11 policy should 12 claim in believe that that because for have required Ms. Holcomb has State Farm to ahead. the that believe you some pay the 2023? 13 MR. SANDERS: Form. Go 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. And kind of 16 don't pay 17 article 18 Oklahoman, 19 that this has been trying to, you know, to get 20 State Farm to admit that, yes, we have hail damage 21 and, yes, our roof should be 22 journey we 23 similar issues. 24 The article in particular of the details recall is all over in particular, that many have -- news you discovered days. I read one it was from the know, our long process I think and, these I did it. to attention much the this 15 25 thing truthfully through replaced, people other but that I it does I don't mention Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) that having are read, Daily a --"}, {"d": 121, "p": 132, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page44 Lacy West 03/20/2026 to wind and hail damage is either trying to recoup losses increase profit margins. to routinely new scheme and how State Farm or, you know, Part of certain think the homeowners -- you know, the Q you paying read a newspaper Yes. 11 Q You 12 A I 13 Q And not proven think think it And was this Form. 16 THE WITNESS: Correct. but 19 in 20 things and 21 legal process 22 A Yes. 23 Q 24 similar 25 were process legal the And Rother) being allegations correct? SANDERS: yesterday, information Oklahoman? are those MR, 18 is Daily 15 (By Ms. they that article? the understand facts; Q insured so. you 17 a for. Rother) in -- deny coverage the (By Ms. A and is of they're that scheme percentage homeowners 14 regard with some I asked West Mr. attorney you understand a party is often accused of and then that's what the an that deny it is for; true? Now, you said that other people were having issues -- that you learned that other people having they similar issues. Is that Word for Word Reporting, LLC -- you 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) learned"}, {"d": 121, "p": 133, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Lacy West 03/20/2026 that from A Page 45 the article? It's from the article. one thing, you know, more and click on starts showing you Once -- once you on the Internet, it more of the similar things. Q Right. A So it comes across pretty that are claims are being denied. raises questions of whose 10 just 11 know, 12 an attorney, 13 so many people 14 And for us 15 similar I know, you know, it many me, you not a to people seem coincidental are suffering the same it's that a marked know Do you 17 condition of your 18 A I do not. 19 Q Do you have 20 to read and understand 21 claims, how many 22 roofs? from difference years prior. anything about the 2019 and 2023? in roof claims in comparison State 23 MR. SANDERS: Form. 24 THE WITNESS: No. (By Ms. Rother) Did the to Farm has you go a comparative have or knowledge any that situation. of a handful situation not I'm person, legal doesn't Q Q you it but 16 25 -- And, that I'm yes, mean, the denied being people number frequently, paid and you tried denied to total research Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free)"}, {"d": 121, "p": 134, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 46 Lacy West 03/20/2026 if has than newspaper articles that of dollars that State of Oklahoma on roof denying? they're I Q Have the seen you billions many how paid not. did A report roofs more for paying they're if -- there state the out in MR. SANDERS: Form. THE WITNESS: I Ms. Farm claims? think I've seen one. Have you done any 10 Q (By 11 research with 12 number of claims that 13 roofs it totals, anything 14 A No. 15 Q Do 16 that's where I was going earlier, you 17 about other people having similar issues, 18 know anybody personally 19 having 20 A I don't 21 Q Have neighborhood 22 the you similar I A 23 Rother) Department of Insurance State Farm pays, know like anybody that see the number of to the that? else personally, were would you talking do say and you are issues? think so. you ever talked about your insurance with have not personally. our 24 has. He spoke with 25 know who their policy is next with. anyone in your claim? I know my husband I neighbor. door I want to Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) say don't that"}, {"d": 121, "p": 135, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Page 47 Lacy West 03/20/2026 Neil maybe said chose not to didn't want it State claim because deal with it insurance premiums would increase, chose to pursue that. Q Is he A I don't Q Are A Yes. Q And not 11 know from 12 interior 13 leaking? 14 A file also a 10 to having that you did have you have any continued the same you know, but do 18 Q do much would be the water leaks, they're you know how it could stain your do not. 21 Q Have you area where the No. In paint over growing. prior I 25 in there A A do leaks? it 20 24 leaks? not documents weren't ceiling? just question. definitely 23 he so good 17 the and very if 22 his a measured where afraid was 16 area was that we And basically roof damage, how he having haven't or roof he But you the If and Farm. know. 15 19 was them made stains fact, so any that we I know to the some place. I to see they the storm. water got into the your roof in ceiling? repairs to are in have opted that I your evidence interior to not stays Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) even intact."}, {"d": 121, "p": 136, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE Lacy West 03/20/2026 Page 66 A My maybe his two brother-in-law. One of them. That's all Q So is of Chris A Yes. Q And other one then I brother, experience, those sure, -West? Mr. West testified that Roger West, may have some roofing Yes. Q Have you to either Chris or your roof? ever talked Roger about the condition 11 A Of the current 12 Q Yes. 13 A No. of roof? from mentioning would need to be replaced beyond that -- and that we it 15 point. 16 been 17 individually. 18 husband. 19 Q And Mr. West testified 20 having Chris come and look 21 never transpired, so is 22 understanding? But a conversation 23 A Yes. 24 Q And It -- between would but that at would some not myself and them been, you know, have at that Chris that the he roof consistent did know, you that, Aside 14 in for too? A thought I them think 10 25 of have with my considered but that with replace 2019? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) that your the roof"}, {"d": 121, "p": 138, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, Plaintiffs, ¥. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CASE NO. CJ-2025-135 and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Pursuant Statements, to the Objections Oklahoma to Discovery Defendant's Code, and subject to the Instructions and Definitions, Preliminary and Specific Objections stated below, Plaintiffs Neil and Lacy West (\"Plaintiffs\"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby submit the following responses and objections to Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s (\"Defendant\" or “State Farm\") First set of Requests for Admission to Plaintiffs. The failure of Plaintiffs to object on a particular ground to a specific Request for Admission should in no way be construed to be a waiver of Plaintiffs’ rights to object on additional grounds to supplement their objections and responses at a later time after further investigation. The following answers/responses are based upon facts and information known by Plaintiffs to the best of their recollection. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement, modify"}, {"d": 121, "p": 139, "t": "and/or amend these answers along with the objections set forth herein, in accordance with the Oklahoma Discovery Code. Plaintiffs assert the Preliminary Statements, Objections to Instructions and Definitions, as well as the general and specific objections set forth below in order to preserve their objections. Without waiving any objections, Plaintiffs' counsel intends to communicate and cooperate in good faith with Defendant's counsel to address any issues or disputes concerning Plaintiffs' answers/responses, and objections. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiffs state that, after a reasonable search. and inquiry, they have made a good faith effort to respond to these discovery requests based upon information presently available. Plaintiffs also reserve the right to amend these answers at any time additional information may become available in the future. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Each of the following answers and responses is made without waiving any objections Plaintiffs may have with respect to the subsequent use of these answers, responses or the documents referred to herein and Plaintiffs specially reserve (a) all questions as to the competency, privilege, relevancy, materiality, and admissibility of said answers, responses, or documents, (b) the right to object to the uses of said answers, responses, or documents, (c) the right to object to the uses of said answers, responses or documents in any lawsuit or proceeding on any or all of the foregoing grounds or on any other proper ground, (d) the right to object on any and all proper grounds, at any time, to other discovery procedures involving or related to said answers, responses or documents, and (e) the right, at any time, upon proper showing, to revise, correct or clarify any of the following answers or responses. 2. Plaintiffs object to any of Defendant's instructions, requests and /or definitions 2"}, {"d": 121, "p": 140, "t": "to the extent that they may misstate or seek to impose obligations or requirements greater than those imposed by the Oklahoma Discovery Code. 3. Plaintiffs object to Defendant’s requests to the extent they seek or call for information which is protected from discovery and privileged by reason of (a) the attorneyclient privilege, (b) the work product doctrine, (c) the trial preparation doctrine, or (d) any other applicable discovery rule or privilege. Further, Plaintiffs do not waive privilege to any privileged document or information, or portion thereof, which may be inadvertently furnished or provided, it being the intent of Plaintiffs not to waive any privilege that might exist. Plaintiffs object to any request by the Defendant which purports to require the creation of documents that do not exist. 4, Any statement that a document or documents will be produced means that such documents will be produced only to the extent that they are not privileged, and if they do, in fact, exist. 5. By responding to the discovery requests of Defendant, Plaintiffs concede neither the relevancy nor the admissibility of any information provided or documents produced in response to such requests. 6. Plaintiffs object to the extent Defendant’s discovery requests are amorphous, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and so costly as to render compliance impractical. Subject to the foregoing objections and conditions and subject to the specific additional objections made with respect to each discovery request, Plaintiffs hereby submit their Responses to the Discovery Requests propounded by Defendant, as follows:"}, {"d": 121, "p": 141, "t": "RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1 Admit that Your House was insured by the Policy, subject to the terms, conditions, and exclusions stated therein. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1 Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2 Admit that State Farm provided You with the Policy at the time of contract and at the time of any renewal(s) of the Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 2 Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.3 = Admit that You had a copy of the Policy in Your possession, custody, or control. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 3 Admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4 Admit that the Policy covers hail damage. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4 Plaintiffs object to the extent this admission compels Plaintiffs to draw a legal conclusion. Plaintiffs further object to the Request as vague and/or ambiguous; Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is based on the premise that State Farm predicates coverage on limits, restrictions, definitions, protocols, and other rubrics that lie outside the terms and conditions of the Policy. State Farm relies on a hidden and very narrow definition of what constitutes hail damage that is conveniently absent from the purported replacement cost policy sold and marketed by Nancy Holcomb Ins. Agency, Inc. While coverage should be based on the terms of the written policy, Defendants’ conduct in this case shows it is not. Subject to the foregoing objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5 Admit that the Policy specifies that \"We [State Farm] | have the right but are not obligated to perform the following: make inspections and surveys of the insured location at any time.\""}, {"d": 121, "p": 142, "t": "RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.5 Plaintiffs object to the Request as it seeks information equally or more accessible to Defendant. Plaintiffs further object to the extent this Request seeks to alter, abridge, amend, or change in any way the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy and Defendants’ obligations in advertising, procuring, selling, and/or renewing the same, Defendant State Farm’s obligations thereunder, Defendants’ underwriting duties/obligations, or the manner in which Defendant State Farm handles and pays claims based thereon. Moreover, Plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon Defendants’ representations and/or omissions of material facts of the Policy, coverage amounts, and any inspections that may take place. Subject to the foregoing objections, admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.6 Admit that under the Policy, State Farm is not obligated to perform an inspection on Your House at the time of contract or renewal of the Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 6 Plaintiffs object to the extent this Request seeks to alter, abridge, amend, or change in any way the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy and Defendants’ obligations in advertising, procuring, selling, and/or renewing the same, Defendant State Farm’s obligations thereunder, Defendants’ underwriting duties/obligations, or the manner in which Defendant State Farm handles and pays claims based thereon. Moreover, Plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon Defendants’ representations and/or omissions of material facts of the Policy, coverage amounts, and any inspections that may take place. Plaintiffs’ object to this Request as premature since the Policy’s terms regarding inspections may potentially conflict with State Farm’s own internal policies, procedures, underwriting guidelines, and/or other documents. Plaintiffs further object to the extent this Request compels them to draw a legal conclusion."}, {"d": 121, "p": 143, "t": "Subject to the foregoing objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 7 Admit that the cover page of the Policy states: \"Please read your policy carefully, especially ‘Losses Not Insured’ and all exclusions.” RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7 Plaintiffs object to the Request as it seeks information equally or more accessible to Defendant. Plaintiffs further object to the extent this Request seeks to alter, abridge, amend, or change in any way the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy and Defendants’ obligations in advertising, procuring, selling, and/or renewing the same, Defendant State Farm’s obligations thereunder, Defendants’ underwriting duties/obligations, or the manner in which Defendant State Farm handles and pays claims based thereon. Moreover, Plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon Defendants’ representations and/or omissions of material facts of the Policy, coverage amounts, losses not insured and all exclusions, which inherently precludes Plaintiffs’ review of the terms and conditions of the Policy. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is based on the premise that State Farm predicates coverage on limits, restrictions, definitions, protocols, and other rubrics that lie outside the terms and conditions of the Policy. State Farm relies on a hidden and very narrow definition of what constitutes hail damage that is conveniently absent from the purported replacement cost policy sold and marketed by Nancy Holcomb Ins. Agency, Inc. Subject to the foregoing objections, admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8 Admit that You read the Policy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8 Plaintiffs object because they are entitled to rely upon Defendants’ representations of the Policy, coverage amounts and the Policy’s terms therein, which inherently precludes Plaintiffs’ review of the terms and conditions of the Policy. Plaintiffs"}, {"d": 121, "p": 144, "t": "further object to the extent this Request assumes obligations on Plaintiffs that may not exist and/or may not be imposed by law. Subject to the foregoing objections, admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9 Admit that the Policy states the following under the section \"Losses Not Insured\": “wear, tear, marring, scratching, deterioration, inherent vice, latent defect or mechanical breakdown.” RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9 Plaintiffs object to the Request as it seeks information equally or more accessible to. Defendant. Plaintiffs further object to the extent this Request seeks to alter, abridge, amend, or change in any way the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy and Defendants’ obligations in advertising, procuring, selling, and/or renewing the same, Defendant State Farm’s obligations thereunder, Defendants’ underwriting duties/obligations, or the manner in which Defendant State Farm handles and pays claims based thereon. Moreover, Plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon Defendants’ representations and/or omissions of material facts of the Policy, coverage amounts, losses not insured and all exclusions, which inherently precludes Plaintiffs’ review of the terms and conditions of the Policy. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is based on the premise that State Farm predicates coverage on limits, restrictions, definitions, protocols, and other rubrics that lie outside the terms and conditions of the Policy. State Farm relies on a hidden and very narrow definition of what constitutes hail damage that is conveniently absent from the purported replacement cost policy sold and marketed by Nancy Holcomb Ins. Agency, Inc. Subject to the foregoing objections, admitted."}, {"d": 121, "p": 145, "t": "REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.10 Admit that the Policy states the following under the section \"Losses Not Insured\": \"defect, weakness, inadequacy, fault or unsoundness in ... design, specifications, workmanship, construction, grading, compaction.\" RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10 Plaintiffs object to the Request as it seeks information equally or more accessible to Defendant. Plaintiffs further object to the extent this Request seeks to alter, abridge, amend, or change in any way the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy and Defendants’ obligations in advertising, procuring, selling, and/or renewing the same, Defendant State Farm’s obligations thereunder, Defendants’ underwriting duties/obligations, or the manner in which Defendant State Farm handles and pays claims based thereon. Moreover, Plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon Defendants’ representations and/or omissions of material facts of the Policy, coverage amounts, losses not insured and all exclusions, which inherently precludes Plaintiffs’ review of the terms and conditions of the Policy. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is based on the premise that State Farm predicates coverage on limits, restrictions, definitions, protocols, and other rubrics that lie outside the terms and conditions of the Policy. State Farm relies on a hidden and very narrow definition of what constitutes hail damage that is conveniently absent from the purported replacement cost policy sold and, marketed by Nancy Holcomb Ins. Agency, Inc. Subject to the foregoing objections, admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11 = Admit that the deductible amount was $3,090 under the Policy during the policy period December 29, 2022 to December 29, 2023. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO, 11 Admitted."}, {"d": 121, "p": 146, "t": "REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12 Admit that the Policy states that State Farm \"will pay, subject to the specified policy limits, only that part of the amount of the loss that exceeds the deductible amount.\" RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12 Plaintiffs object to the Request as it seeks information equally or more accessible to Defendant. Plaintiffs further object to the extent this Request seeks to alter, abridge, amend, or change in any way the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy and Defendants’ obligations in advertising, procuring, selling, and/or renewing the same, Defendant State Farm’s obligations thereunder, Defendants’ underwriting duties/obligations, or the manner in which Defendant State Farm handles and pays claims based thereon. Moreover, Plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon Defendants’ representations and/or omissions of material facts of the Policy, coverage amounts and the deductible, which inherently precludes Plaintiffs’ review of the terms and conditions of the Policy. ' Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is based on the premise that State Farm predicates coverage on limits, restrictions, definitions, protocols, and other rubrics that lie outside the terms and conditions of the Policy. State Farm relies on a hidden and very narrow definition of what constitutes hail damage that is conveniently absent from the purported replacement cost policy sold and marketed by Nancy Holcomb Ins. Agency, Inc. State Farm also has a pattern of practice of intentionally manipulating its damage estimates to ensure the damage falls below the Policy deductible on wind and/or hail losses. Subject to the foregoing objections, admitted. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13 Admit that You chose the company that performed the repairs on Your Property for damages related to the date of loss of June 15, 2023. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13 Admitted."}, {"d": 121, "p": 147, "t": "REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14 = Admit that Your Claim with the date of loss of June 15, 2023 was reported on July 28, 2023. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14 Plaintiffs object to the Request as it seeks information equally or more accessible to Defendant. Plaintiffs are without the recollection to admit this Request and therefore deny the same. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15 = Admit that You are not aware of any involvement by Haag Engineering in the handling of your Claim. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15 Plaintiffs object to Request for Admission No. 15 because it seeks a legal conclusion and imposes obligations upon Plaintiffs beyond the requirements of Oklahoma law and Oklahoma’s Discovery Code. Plaintiffs further object because this Request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work-product doctrine. Subject to the foregoing objections, denied. Respectfully submitted, /s John Sanders Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 Whitten Burrage 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage(@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com 10"}, {"d": 121, "p": 148, "t": "jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs ll"}, {"d": 121, "p": 149, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE [hereby certify that on October 17, 2025, the above and foregoing was emailed and/or mailed to: Timila S. Rother Paige A. Masters CROWE & DUNLEVY, PC Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com Attorneys for Defendant Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency, Inc. /s John Sanders 12"}, {"d": 121, "p": 151, "t": "1004 jnterloi/Extarlor Appraisal Report of: 7 RAY Bilarcreek Delve, Poon Vatloy Sauls, Lawton, Comanche County, Osfalioma 73505 - 1004 APPRAISAL OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT: 7 NW Brjarcroek Dr Lot3, Block 20, Pecan Vallay South, Lawton, Conianche County, OK 73505 Cavdon, OK A 73505 FOR:. Arvast Bank PO Box 799 Lowell, AR 72745 AS OF: 121302025 BY: Torry Peak THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS « For GA: EXHIBIT WEST_000709 CS CamScanner"}, {"d": 121, "p": 152, "t": "Tain, 11230260200 No 8 Waal liven Repedy Adest 7 NW Usinicrook Or Chel Ip lode 73606 Sale OK Coty Comanche Lawion vay . Arveal Bank TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Page Lever of Feansnial cua a sates Surnmiary of Sakenl Feahyes Hate Caters Arto USPAP idedican al Comparable Photas 4-6 Location Map Uxensure \"1 natirtmnnneemninn nan iin enna iS 16 cin \"7 a a \" een ; Compasabl Prates 15 — are : Scanned Doconet Photograph Addenda semaine ay i men wnn Adésional Comparables 18 3 aon as sninntiinmninanescai eneeprenananaicpanuiuepuiesinerosiesncut aa cinvnperienneete: san imposing in vnane sramynsinninininininotnanan . s 4 reo sinensi . : . st 8 a . ppm maw . uni cinmitoereuiummetniswieecote noe 9 Foem TOCP3KS - \"TOTAL\" appeaital softwara by ala mods, be. $-800-ALAANIDE WEST_000710 CS CamScanner"}, {"d": 121, "p": 153, "t": "Ponk Appraisal Service LLC PO, Box 284 Elgin, OK 73538 12/30/2025 Avvesl Bank PO Bos 7199 ‘Lowell, AR 72745 Re:.Property: 7 NW Brlarcreek Or ‘Borrower, Lewin, OK 73505 Neil S Wes! FieNe: 11290250216 tn accordance wilh your request, wa have anpralsad the above teferanced property, The report of that appraisal Is allached. The purpose of this appralsal is 1a estimate the iriarkel value of the property described In this appraleal report, as lnproved, In unencumbered fea ‘sinipta title of awnership. TNs report is based on_a physical analysis of tha slle and Improvements, a locational analysis of tha neighborhood and dity, and an éconosile anialysis of ihe markat for propariias such as the subject. The appraisal was developed and the saporl Was prepared ln accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Tha vatie Conclusions reported ara as of the affective date stated In the body of the report and contingent upon the Cerlification and tmiting conditions attached, ithas been a pleasurg fo assist you, Please do not hesilate fo contact ma or any of my staff if wa can be af additional service to you. Tig, A Pak WEST_000711 cS CamScanner"}, {"d": 121, "p": 154, "t": "SALES PRICE wsSUBJECT INFORMATION SUMMARY OF SALIENT FEATURES # i= Seed Aue 7 NW Bildrcroak Of Lega Destipeen Lo} 3, Block 20, Pacan Valley South, Lawion, Comanche County, Oktahomd 73805 ty Laiton toy Comanche Sai OK Te Coe 73505 Census Trae 0023.05 May Relerence 30020 Sale Price $ Date of Sale Borrower Neit S Wes LenderChent Arvest Bank Size (Square Feel] 2404 Price pet Squye foot ‘ 3a Locator 8;Res: 2 Age ri) Condson cy Tolal Rooms 9 Bedrooms 4 Baths 30 Apgar Terry Peak Date of Appraiied Yabe 4200/2025 cd APPRAISER oe S z e & oo ia a ur wed a Fina Estinaig of Yaboe $ 340,000 Form S80 «TOTALS appvalsal sottware by a ba made, lng, - 1-B00-ALAMOOE WEST_000712 cS CamScanner"}, {"d": 121, "p": 155, "t": "Peak Appralsal Serica, (LG 71230250216 Fie # 11230250216 201 wail; sigperted, apvion of the mukel vaha of the subecl popesty, Tne Hapose of Nb suemhary agpeatsal iaped le to pvovile the Rerdlr/clent WBL ay decide, Sta OK FoCode 73505 ty Lawton Propaty Mauss 7 NW Briarcraek Dy Lowy Comancho Owner of Abie Record = Nell Wost & Lacy Wast Rosgwet Nell S West Lega Oesereées Lot 4, Glock 20, Pecan Valley Soulh, Lawton, Comanche County, Oklahoma 73805 RE Twe$ 3,285 YacYeu 2025 Q2NE9W-26-1-94900-020-0003 Uniform Residential Appraisal Report Assessor’y Parcel # 5 Helghborhood Hane Pecan Valay South Ed Property Rights Appraised D4 fea Sire Transction 3 Assignee type | fPuchase 20020 May Reference Tenant | Mea i ccopnt 3 own masts pdtor bo fe eflectvg date of this Js the subject property currenily olferedfor sale or has a been offered for ade h The twelve a0 yt ana | Yes 2 ie Ola Soces} owner of pnle eco? ithe papery seteribe Oats of Contixct 3 Coexxt Prive $ KM Yes agoasal? ole cova fer Sl reso fe aay oe Kv ve otic purchase Vso, Ela Bib ok aye re cea T As of 42/30/2025 and par Lavon MLS publications. Repart data soecets) used. oSetig pest anda), “(roa . La onmied. . : PO Box 799, Lowell, AR 72745 Adaess peme Foye | Leasehold |. | Other (desu) jon) Other {describe} fied Leneuliod = Arves) Bank : Census Test 0023.01 . IAS 0 Pi pu 0 _ eines charges, cal concessions, if or dovenpaymard assistance, tie, fo be pad by any patty on fan rce LF is Gee any [nancial assisla ue a Ye : bead of Be bonower? Fed W Yes, report the Natal dolar around and describe the hams lo Be paid, of nthe neighborhood are net sppealaal factors. Note: att 3:4 the Faclal compositio :: hegibohaed Charactariatics: : Property Vales i Sybaban DG Rust Biss Land Usa 4:2 One-Unk Housley] i Presaat 91% OreUal KE PRE Ses | j | Over Say | $00) | 1 Unde 25% HOomandSupoy { FSnotage «=X Ewe ase X over 9% fry hs) 24th 1% 10 45° 30 Muth Faerdy | Conmercied Otter 1% 25 S% lew High Ped. | Madeieg Tine inet ane i ]o6mu | Over maha 25 | Stie XX Sable: ey Growth |ipod ww | 495° z Reghbohood Boundvies = Due fo soap, subject property's boundarles ara NW Cache Raad fo the Noah, - 395 to fhe West. 3 442th Street to the East, SW Lee Boulevard fo lhe South, and NW Deyo Mission Road devia of dwaBings of mixed slze, Fa te gbortoed Deserpden Subject focated in Pecan Vatey South sddilton facated win te NYY tagion of Layton, OX and \\s compslaad Lawton Olfers most areca inciydiny Fort Sik Astitary Post, industry, Sows. commercial plated and pastoral, residential, mised slndas with af r aye, quaity, and condition County Area, both tha county $43 and the dominant economic basin for tha greater Comanche employment, shopping. dining, suvetal KAZ school systems, and serves'as credin subjects Market condtons at the srasund ied considered sable. Average damand.obse Martel Conditions finehxing suppod lee the adore Concussion) of ves scope, Steady moeigage Werest tated observed over past pormary <150 days fora property perio im scatened aN competirve ksting gvicoswactoveange by the 6 Of Bis apo sal and i a verd is indicaled | hava Included ihe br 3pprasal iA this ding data Vien B:Psti; Snipe Appears Rectangular Nez 25385 sf MN Omnensars 246x175 1452 175 dé, Makobesy bones the past 4 manths, | have on foes observed evar in interes! months wits a steady reducti Toring Desedption “No Zoning Specie Jong Cassticaiyn No Zoning i | Megat (desert) Zoning Compbaage iE Legal 1 | Legal Nencentonning (Grandiathared Use). 3K No Zovdng DR Yee 5 Ho Mo, desente wits existing d and specihtatovs) the peeserd use? pet plans fs the highest dnd best use of sudject property 38 troroved (or 3¢ propose present see asa single family fesidential dwelling. Its is property subject the for use best and highasl the market atid currant demand, Private : Pulls j-she lryeercements = Type bok Other (deserhe) bi Pubs Other (describe) Wifes x one Asphault Ff 2X YotatRetenilon lagoon Aly Grass FEMA Nap # 400310407 | } LB Ne describe. x Watet KE Mberey SardsySewt |} |an x aig ZoneX ives SC He HMA Mood Fes Spec od Hara rea Xt eee pie ete es oc SRR 5 V¥es WY es, deserts , encroachments, of any adverse site conditlons observed at time of apparent véth no No legal survey provkled al time of j we nd is)? cnn, Ree there any adverse te conditions of external f acters{ta i x FEU Mag ale 02/20/2009 inspection. \"T Entecor Deseriplon< mataralaoondtod biter: tule Unt | One with Accessory tints: SK Gee} Rie eT iene » be 1 Suh Lnbeidat $j Heated £1 Fetishes FA haplarces 3X Religertor SX AunguOeen 5X Disheasher 3py Meoaeases {special eoegy Ulead Kets, tte). 3.0. Bari} “Bedrooms 4 IP, $d Up Saree He appoecth Pad fry pp es es HOWY,Subgect @eakieg bachighish nian te trrovghnd, updated gana’ al & Par eerty a , Demy ited aed ihe cohen es est vad id bet se dons ut et diag : et ea ae Squve feel of Gross Unig wei dbavé Grade COUKitchensremodelad-one to ive years and CHA, trtanar eoryved of wpaled carpe Riau vinyl Plank .4P) foamy deg vera, d ptead ood 6 kiery vordaied tanteat ard wenn gon acy Cesk eck dont ay ng Won ra pla spptancny te cry ant drt ob UAO Version 2011 rend Ms is de Ye | EW Page Fors nseaensingn det dey sche’ vets 650 aby, soueeeass, Od sicura cgay ae popay? Dees Ba oer gesrnty corr oI ear (cStAy, sb, contin st, coshi)? Freddis Mac Forrn 70 Match 2005 Cc 2,484 4 PCa CHA, double paned vinyl windows, fireplace, and ceiling fans. eh EYz esc ine eucvdtionof Ut ptoperly (rcteieg macded agers, dete iayaion, (eno rab0ns, |penoton, ago,Ballvooms-updated timefran Sor sum ig DX X {Ped Nona |_| Ober 9X Dispos. ( pMcronsve | LWasheudeyee 9 Asons ryred Fhaished area above grade condalns: | Cue PK Pabadeek Cover K Pwr Coin t au Constanig§— Cong 3X Corne atin XX Gare PK Faeplacets} 4. 43K Fate Wood [fest Ehetie ‘| Oe 1 f Stars 6 Diop Sua = Concrete/Avg 1 }Wondstoreis}# © [OhewaySudace ead SX FWA |: | RBG |] | Radand [Anwrdits § sates Oivensy Screenvavg Screens [Oamoness if Seflement ElectsAge is) 40 Bah Waksett_ TielAvg ‘Cw Storage "}, {"d": 121, "p": 156, "t": "| Theteare ad Uniform Residential Appraisal Report —gompwale propetes conenily Ofeed fon sale the subject mbphorberd tangnd Thain at) compivable sues fh he subieed pelghborboce atlas the pasl inetve moves8 CPATAILE SIE #4 susacl Tae Aasess 7 NW Brlarcreak De Lowton, OK 73605 _. Prorinky to Speck TE NW Ashbury Way Lawton, OK 73505 ee Sule fake pice Me s hae 609 ETD TONPARASLE SNE ae $420,090 COMUNE aii Shadow Lake Rd Lavdon, OK 73505 0,30 miles SW. wan 196629 422, 80 Baka Source(s} CIYLastonMLS# 169474:D0M 65 [CruLnwtonMLSA 169 Verecabon Sarees) RonilstokcovityracaribyAgant —-[Raatisvakcount sus of Foanchg Arnall ‘| anntith : ennesslons VAO Gonv,D : 8;Res: Fea Simplo : B;Psti; DTLSRanch ; | 03 : YA UE ABNUSTIENTS POTRSCNPTDH Date of Satta Se Res: Feesinpla 425386 sf Res; = [Fao Simplo View Design hit} B.Pshk OThRanch B;Pstd:; — OT H:Ranch Ouatty of Constaxtion aQ3 etual at s10125;c0925 | : Was Abort Grade Room Coot : 03 9° 4°90) 753 Gross thing Arts Basetvant & Finished Ost adhd anl Reons Geiny Grate : funcboral UBly Conforming 24 jonas 8 Eeeigy Elficient kere FS GarageCarport JOP Windows SgaSdw Bed Paich Pata Desk CEROPUP lCP.CPUP 5 Feachg FP,Stonn Celus-Shite |WoodFP/Yes |WoodlFPYes cHA [OP Windows IgaSdw Ke iA Accusted Sale Paces tel AG, oH? Tid mod reseuih We sale oe Daas ion Ge soe | BPs DTtRanch : O3 ' 234os| 9,067 4K. Ost i ; CHA CHA DP Windows 2gasdw | : OP Windows +4000) IgaSdw - OWood/FP/Na CIPCPUP 62%; aril sprkle systm | Kitch Apetanee : f+ X- Ha Ad. 6248/8 § : : tit Hea. 9.1835 . | o Stro/spoklr syst : Kitch Apphance | 22d} are 334.608 GessAg opey AN COMI #1,000 55,968 oP,CIP,UP WoodlFPINo 9608, 8 i Conforming, | : Hy age Q Conforming tees Jeussas fsO3HZ5.c025 | |None Observed |Strg Bidgs Kitch Apptancie [Kitch Appliance | poy Net Aatustme (Total : 3,000] 8 2,728 fh Ost oe me 0128 : a | waler Tea! 9) § 44 : Conforming Heating Cooly & Other Features £4 Kitchen Agptaces 13,0 0 #16608) anys o2a672st 30 C3 Tota | Baas | Bats 2.3tt WR Ost SABER 00M a B;Res, [feeSimple 15506 sf 28 26. | C3 C3 Tou [Bor | tate Ft | Bees. 310 | Condbion crater fn at) $Adpsseed | DESCABTION | #)SAdtment | DESCRIPTION witset025 Lotation Leasehold fee Singte XM _[ ‘[aa nv Pecan Valley Of Lawton, OK 73505 Sala Price Gross Ub, Ants Mal 71230250210 = Sa ay0216 ty X- 43 < BIZ STE GosAG, 196%.§ $4,968 : 964,092 salts, MR expat Myreseatch 1 > did Se dd cet reveal any pro sales oc rnisiers of he abject property tor Wea Duce years prior to the elective de of Bis apprabsal, Data Seatce(s} Comanche County Records ; Myeesemth Q.G¢ | | Gd tol revedt any price sales or vanclets of be tempat gales ov the year patos toa date of sala of Ou comrparabte sale, Buia Seurefs} Comanche County Records. Report Bra resuls of the research and analysis of Die peiag sale o¢ Yanster heloty ott subjecl peaperty aed torpaadie saies 5 Kreporl adctional prior sales epee 3p. fe Date of Prt StieTranater Suaket ; COMPARABLE SIE WT ‘ov/1sr2028 Price of Price Sule/Traaster Data Source(s) Ettecine Date of Data Saercets} Analysis of prior sik Wanster Nstocy of the suet peapety and comparable sales the past 36 months prior lo the etfective date af tis appraisal report, Grantor, Templeton | \\ COMPARABLE SHE #2 : COMPARABLE SALE #3 $0 Comanche County Records. Comanche County Records |Comanche County Records {Comanche ‘County Records 92/30/2025 1243012025 112302025 120025 . to Granlee: T ploton. No apparent prior No apparent priot safes of wansters found for he subject property within Comparable #1 U iened for an urate: f on, 01/1872025 from sales/vansfers of the comparables used within this raporl found within the past 12 months price io hair most recent recorded sale, Sumonaryof Sales Comp aisen Approsth See additional comparables page 4-6, _ indicated Vabe by Sales Comparison Agproxch $$ indicated Vabat by: Sales : 340.0086 - Comparison Approach$ = 340,000 . . = All erophasis poor wpon salet compariven approach tovalen being mortrebsble dus to avga being p dat lacomne p 7 Fy scajocrs accrued depraciatiog, 3 Tis agpeasalls mage 3 completed, POP for punt Using talas gos Musk, . Cost Approach (hdeetloped) 8 : leccene Approach (Ifdeveloped) § anaodty Owner ned, insufficient data foundbo wd ot eco, proach subpets achial aga belng oulsida rang of naw coostudon costa, and deflcuty ls estimating jach i value, tha estinstod markat vaiua apinion of lho subject property “as is\" iu $940,000, 4 subject b cunpleton per glans and specifications on thy buss of a hypathetial conden Gul the frpreverents have been | {subject to the Kitowting reps or oterations ont Ua basis ol a hypotetea concdtion that bie repairs oc aterabong have been compiled, oc‘ é folowing sequied ispecdon based on the evtacidnay asvanpbon thal WM condiion of deficiency goss pol (equines wud OF lepa ° ixtiote >. o Based on s. complete visual Inspection of the Interior and aateriar arent of UM ¢ operty, defined scope of work, statement of assumptions and ining. . condisens, and pals cartheato, Udon,my (our} opinion of the market value, 8 nap of tha real property Unat is the subject of ta report fo ope $ 340.000, asof 12/30/2025 » which is the date ol Inspection and the altective date of hs appvalsal Freddie Mac Foun 70 March 2005 uA Vorsion 972011 Pago 206 Fannla Mae Form {004 March 2005 Fort 1O04UAD + “TOTAL* appraisal softwave by a fa mode, inc, - 1-800-ALAMOOE WEST_000714 cs CamScanner"}, {"d": 121, "p": 157, "t": "Uniform Residential Appraisal Report piee 11930250210 Apetsuat padovined a3 is, Fea senpla, sudace sights only, Subjert'e Ginn wean on and appeased io be in warkdng oxdar Al fend of trapection, NIENOED USER(S}OF THE ADTTUAISAL REPORT: of tid appr asal, andre. ax mt infated user hood Kalad witht Og reppoullp iba taba bonded Uéar of IN Fepeit, The apywaitar hd fol blanthad Any paechaser, borates 00 taker Tha forderic an appeaival for ree ftom an appewsatof that con chanslng W thay reqiese appraltal ant china la wtelgéd ach parked Such prrpota, any fog Appeaisal hte ai rely OF use soukd such party poise, Ary relerene W066 U8 OF VD Angeaeal tepoet by A purch att, borrowes or salt jos thal own purses, Iekifing witvnd Beaton lor he prurposet al a peopenty purchase dudslort ocd Inborded oF duiticntoad by tha appeotees, HO ADTUTIGHAL WIENDFD USERS ARE WENT: FeO 04 Bn agplaisel condlngency kt a PRECHRGS ngenmnand, 16 ol socd patty’ coe Fak seid BY THE APPRAISER, TIE use of Nas ANNRASAL fy Atvone OTHER THAN THE STATED INTERDED USER(S), 1S PAGE barter COMMENT: IITHOLD USE OF THE APPRMEAL REPORT: AS DEFINED IN THIS REPORT FOR THE THE PURPOSE OF THE APTUUSAL 1S TO ALSO PROVIVE AN OPINION OF MANKET VALUE OF THE SUBIECT PROPERTY nes 6 TO ASSIST THE CEHOERMLIENT NOTED LENDCIVCUENT AS NOTED ON TE REPORT AS THE INTENDED USER OF THE REPORT, FUNCTION OF THE APPRAISAL OF WORK, PURPOSE OF THE appraisal, MEROAT AN EVALUATING THE SUBJECT MOPENTY FOR MORTGAGE LENOING PURPOSES. SUBJECT TO THE STATED SCOPE AQU)TIONAL INTENGED USE ARE IDENTIFIED GY THE REPO ING REQUIREMENTS OF 11S APPRAISAL MEPONT FORY, ANG DEFINITION OF MARKET VALLE. HO a APPRAISER, THE USE OF THIS APPRAISAL NY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE STATED USES), 15 PROHINITED SCOPE OF WORK: PUBLICATIONS, THE PROCESS OF PRETARING THE APPRAISAL REPORT INVOLVED THE UTR IZATION OF PUDLIC AHO PRIVATE DATA SOURCES, MUL TILISTING SERVICE or LONAL ANG EXTERIOR OF THE DWELLING |. BM COUNTY ASSESSOR RECORDS, TOGETIG! WITH REAL TOUS, BUALDERS AND OTHEN APPRAISERS FORMATION, BOTH THE INTERIOR : WERE MACE OF THE MEASUREMENTS PHYSICAL APPRAISED, PROPERTY THE GHARAGTERIZE ADEQUATELY TO PHOTGGRAPHS SUFFICIENT F4 WERE VIENTO TARING THIS APPRAISAL Fag EXTERIOR OF THE ‘DWELLING, THESE MEASUMLEWENTS WERE USEO TO CALCULATE THE SQUARE FOQTAGE OF THE DIWELLING_AS USEO VATHIN THE a AEPORT, THE SUBALCT'S NEIGHBORHOOD WAS ALSO INSPECTED TO. ASSIST IN THE DETERUUNATION OF THE SUBJECTS NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS, HAVE BEEN INCLUDED Bad VALUATION OF THE SUOJECT PROPERTY B{CLUDED Tit SALES COMPARISON APPROACH, FIVE OF THE MOST PERTINENT COMPARABLE SALES RECONCILIATION SECTION OF | IN THE SALES FORMATION, BOTH PHYSICAL ANO FINANCIAL, HAS BEEN CONFIUMED [INOUGH THE ABOVE NAMEO SOURCES. SEE THE THIS REPORT CONCERNING THE CREDIGLITY OF BOTH THE COST AND NCOME APPROACHES TO VALUE, THIS APPRAISAL IS NOT A HOME INSPECTION as used 4 ins feport Is only an observation of the subject property and shoud no be Conversions aporairals 60 ni guarantee thal the property is hee trom defects. The tim inspection’ and reports” 0d does nol Ay ottservaAnipect tha onby “obsena3 cooked wit the teem ispacton au ia required by # professional hore napacho pad homa hupatton, The appiarsae Soakouy systema, of ceding sinucture, TNs & re wubjent’s elscirical systaens, phunbing syalems, machacical systems, HVAC systems, foundation system, floor siruchanm/subBioce, of the subject propertyfor mortgaga lervdng purposes tovy, benderteserd Deeds1 OCL69 HAL oat horpe inspections vai a quebted appraisal eslubishes a astinuted mathe! valle opiivon : inspetion ta sabdly Dremselves with the condition of tha proptdty, ONLY PERFORMED A VISUAL OBSEAVATION OF ALL. THIS APPRAISAL §S NOTA HONE INSPECTION AND THE. APPRAISER 1S NOT A HOME INSPECTOR, THIS APPRAISE PROCESS. 2HE APPRAISAL REPORT, CANHOT BE. EASILY VEWARLE UHOBSIRUCTED SURFACES OF THE DYYELLING ANO O10 NOY MOVE PERSONAL PROPERTY 10 THE BY THE APPRAISER AT TUME OF INSPECTION, REUED UPON TO DISCLOSE CONDITIONS ANQIOR OEFECTS W THE PROPERTY NOT ABLE TO BE VIEWED OR ACCESSED COST APPROACH TO VALUE (riot Fequized by Fannie May le information forthe headend to depiale the below cost Bgares and cakeavons,. sont forthe cae of sie value {surnmnary of comparable land sales o otter methods for esfeuating ste vate} DWELLING ; Eftecten date of cond dala FF& oy tate Som tost sence 4 Comments on Cost Aopraach (oss |fring wer cakeations, depiaciaton, ). = =$ Sah 2s : * =$ ___ a Eset. remaining economic fifa= SOF yasrs fRotal Estanata of Cost-Hew les Est. remaining physical Me = 60+ yoars Deprechtion a§ RR@S Guagutupot ; % Site value estimated la be $40,000 7 Las OPIN OF SITE VALUE: FAESTIAAIED | }-REPROOUCTONOA | | REPLACEMENT COST EW 3E§ Sourceof cos data See addenda page ina ilem 15. Ptyskal 55,188) |Fexctoat 3§ lestemal | = *agls' abe ol Ste ngronements =$ BY COST APPROACH 50) Yeus |IMOWATED VALUE BE (stevuted Remarizg Ecenorit Life PDD 26 VR cay) IICOME APPROACH TO VALUE (nol required by Fools Mae} Gross Rent Mubpler z Estrrated Monthy Hartel Rand §. 3 Suiematy of Income Approath Gecaing sion fer mpaatuel tend and GRMY peg : 5 Toba emxnber of wits sealed Ef as Na kcome approach completed dua to rwal subdivision being majorly ownar propertigg in sub ect propatly's immodiata markel area. | [Yes Unthpet) [ [No et Oitarhed 1. | Mtached the divdlogec butler ir conted et he HOA and on subject proptty an atached aheling unt, Provide the fofernag ifewaton fee PDS OMY Legal Hame of Project g ZTPROJECT HFORWATION FOR PDA gpk) Us the developetedider conte arr Hlameones' Asoclan | HOA}? pA Vola saber of phases «$ Tobe ated Value by ncowne Approach at otenital tends conluchve for inconte producing & occupled and InsuNclant data found identi y af Doprechated Cost el Anprotemerts Toda raxnbat of wits sol Toll number of ws Tota purer af vals tor sake etl reed ye canes of xing gl) oa PUD? Data souteels) £1 Yes | [Ro WYes, dale of conversion, ft EYes f | Mo Oala Swen. Fo] Does Bra project conta any mab dein"}, {"d": 121, "p": 158, "t": "sue Hisxoeta_ l Appraisal Report Unitorm Residentia tena ataa sppvalsal of a one-unit property of a one-unll unli. propotty an accessoryi Unt; This vopoit fowiy_ I$ dosignedta Lo Aspdit properly vewth lychvllng & ivi i a planndd Unt davetopment (PUD), This report form Is not designed to report an appraisal of a . Manulachied home or a unit in a condominium of cooperative prolecl, ; , . : . . tun This sppralsat repart ts subjocl fo thé following scope of work, bitended use, Intended user, definition of market valua, statement al assumalions pa Joking condilons, arid cortlfigations. Modifications, additions, of delellons to the intended | * Use, Inlended user, ation of markel value, oF assumpllons and lmiting conitons 37a not perminted, The appralser may gxpand tho scopa of work fo iickide any additonal rossach of analysis necessary based on the complexity of this appia sal i] assigtiment, Modifications of dakiions to the corliicaitons ate also not garritied, However, additonal certificallogs that do \"not constituta maierlal aterations fo is ‘appralsal report, such ag those required by law or those ratsted fo the appraiser's Continuky education or membeistip fis att spptdigal organfration, ate permilted, SCOPE QF WORK: thé scope of work fot its appalsal fs Uatined by Ihe complexityof this. appraisal assignment and tha Foparting requwenvenis of hs sppratsal report fori, tnckdiig the fotfowg definition of market value, stalement of assuniplions and fling conditlans, and covtlticalions, Tho appiaisar must, al 4 minimum: (1) perform a completa visual faspection of tha Intetior and antetlor ardas of the stibjact proparty, (2 inspect the neighborhood, (3) inspect each of the Comparable sales trait al least the steal, (4) tosedich, veilly, and analyzes dala trom rellable public and/or ptivate sources, aod {6} report his or hor ahalysis, opindons, and conclustons th thls appraisal report, INTENDEO.USE: Tha Inlended use of this sppraisal report ts for the fonder/cKent to svatualo the property Ihat Is the INTENOED USER; Tho Intended usor of this appraleal roport fs tho lended/ctent subject of ‘this appiatsal for a mortgage finance transaction. \"DEFINITIONOF MARKET VALUE: = The most probable price which a pfogerty : farkel dinder al conditions requisite to 3 fair sale, tha buyer and seller, should bring in a competiive and open each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuring ‘[ {h piice Is not aflected by undue stinudss, ftnpllclt ta this delintion ts the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing -of ile from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: ({} buyer and sellee are typically (2} both pariles. are well infoimad of Well advised, and each acting In whal ha ot she considers his of het own:motivated: best interest: a Teasonable lime is alowed for exposure Ir the open market, (4) payment is made tn lems of cash. in Ul. §, dotiacs av (3)in terms 4 of Mnancial arrangements comparable thereto; and (5) the price “unaffected by speciat or create -financing or sales conceastons* | ‘Adjustments to the comparables must be mada {necessary for hose costs which are ‘normally paid fepresents the nomial consideration for lb’ property granted by anyone associated with the sale, sold for special or create Minancing of sales concesstons, No adjustments are by of Wadition of law in a markel area; these costs are sellers as a result teadily Wentifiable since the selley pays these costs’ in wieualy al sales transactions, Special gr ceeallve financing adjustments can be made to the comparable Property by comparisons ta financing terms ‘ottered by a tNrd party institutional lender thal. 1s not aeady lavoled in the property or tiansacllon. Any adjustment should nol be cakulaed on a mechanical Hollar for do¥ar cost ol the financing or concession but ihe dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate ‘the markat's feaclion to the financing. of concesslons based Gn the appraiser's, judgment. STATEMENT-OF ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: subject to the and following. assumptions iimiing he appraiser's certification fh this report is conditions: 1, The appraiser wil fiot bo sesponsible for matters of a legal fature that affect efher the property being appraised of ihe tite fo It; except for information that he or she became aware of during the research involved in performing ‘this appraisal. The appraiser assumes that the ta Is good and mavkalable and wil not cander any opinions about the Elle. | 2, Tha appraiser has provided a sketch in this appraisal report to show the approximate dimensi at ihe imp The siatch 1s included onty to assist tne reader in visualizing the property and understanding the appraiser's detenninaton fof ts ‘glia, / ° 3. The appraiser -has examined ihe avaitable flood maps tnat are provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency > (ot other data sources) and has noted ia thls appraisal repo whether any portion of the subject site Is located in an ~ Idemified ‘Speciai Flood Hazard Area. Gecause the appraiser is nol a surveyor, be or she makes no guarantees, express ‘or + Wmpiled, regarding «this determination. . A, The: appraiser will not give testimony ov appear in. court because he of she midde an appraisal of the property in question, Unless speciiic arrangements {9 do so have been mado cbelorehand, or as otherwise required by lew. 5. The appraiser thas noted In this appralsal report any adverse conditions (such: as’ needed sepals, deterioration, the presence of hazardous wastes, foxle subslances, etc.) observed during the inspection of tne subject property or that he of She became aware of during the esearch involved In partorming the appeaisal. Unless otherwise stated ln this appraisal feporl, the appraiser has na knowkdge of any hidden or pparent physical deficlencles or adverse conditions of the property (such as, buf not Imited fo, needed repairs, deterloralion, the presence of hazardous wastes, lade subslances, adverse sriviconmental canditions, etc,) thal wo"}, {"d": 121, "p": 159, "t": "Uniform Residential Appraisal Report APPRAISER’S CERTIFICATION: nis Tas0nst246 The Appraiser certifies and aqrass thal: 44 Uhavo, at a minimum, davelopad and reported thls appraisal [n accordance wilh ths scope of work sooufremenls stated: In sppralsat Unls report. . % 1 podormed & comipteté visual Inspection of tho intorlor and exlorlor areas of tha subject property, 1 feported tho concitlon “ot the Improvements i factual, specie (arms, 1 fdaniiied and tenatted the physical defictencles that could affect the Wvabilly, soundness, of sltuctural lilegily of the property. 2.9. 1 performed this apptalsal ini accerdanca wilt the requirements of the Untorm Standatds of Professional Appraisal Standads oPractice thal were adopted and prontulgated by the Appraisal “phice al tha timo this appraisal toport was piepared. L--4 Board of The Appraisal Foundation ahd that i were U developed my opision of ihe market value of tha real property that Is the subject of tMs report based on the sales approach \" comparison approach to value, | have adequate compatable market dita lo develap a ‘ellable sales comparison’ [: for-this: apptalsal assignment. | furthor ceriify that 1 considered tho cost and Income approaches to vake but did not develop. - {hen Unless otherwiso indicated in thts ‘eport, | -8. 1 researched, veritod, analyzed, and reported oa any current agreement for saka for the subject poperty, any offering for | gale of tha subject property in tia welva months pdor to tha offectiva date of this appraisal, and the -pifor salaz of the -subject property for a rviniewwm of thes years prior to tha ‘eifectve dala of this appraisal, unless othenvise indicated In this report. © 8, LE researched, verified, analyzed, and reported on the peor ‘Sales of te comparable sales for a minimum of one year pifor to lhe date of sata of ths comparable “7, EF selected and used comparable sala, unless otherwise Indicated In this report, sales thal are localionaly, physically, and Auncllonatly the most similar to the subject property. - 8. E have not used. comparable sales that were the resul of combining a land gale with the contract purchase price of a home that - has been bulk or wil be bul on the land, - 9. .E avd reported adjustments lo the -comparabie sales that reflect the muarkel’s sfeaction lo tha differences _ property and the comparable sales. between the subject 10, § verified, from a disinterested source, al Informalian fa ibis teport that was provided by parilas who have a financial Interest ia » the sate or linancing of the subject property. 1. ¢ have knowledge and experfence. In. appraising this typa of property In this market area. 12. 1 am aware of, and have access fo, the necessary and appropriale puble and petvale data sowces, sucti a3 multigle [isting Services, tax assessment records, public land records and other such dala sources for the area in which the propery Is. located, 13. ( oblained the: information, estimates, end opinions funvshed by other patties and expressed In this appraisal repo ve¥abla. sources thal. belave to ba tue and from costect. 14. | have taken [nto consideration the factors. thal have an Impact on value wth. fespect to the sodject neighborhood, sublect property, and the proximay of the subject properly fo adverse Infuences in thé development of my opinion of market value. f ““have noted in thls appraisal report any adverse conditions: (such as, bul not Fmited 0, needed repairs, detaslorallon, Ue : prasence of hazardous wastes, tox substances, adverse enyiconmental conditions, etc.) observed during ihe inspection of the © Subject propeny or thal | became aware of during the reseatch Involved In perlorming thls appraisal. | have tdered these adverse conditions in my analysis of the property valua, and have reported on the effect of the conditions of lhe value and - Markelabiily of the subject property, ».15, — have not Knowingly withheld any significant faformation fom this appraisal report and, lo the best of my knowledge, ‘ glatements and loformation in this appralsal report ate true and cosecl. all 18, { slated in this appralsal report my own personal, unblased, and professional analysis, opinions, and concluslons, which _ are subjéct only lo the assumptions and limiting conditions in this appralsal: report. 17. [| have no present of prospective Interest in the property that Js the subject of this report, and | have na present or prospective pessonal interes of blag with respecl fo the pariiclpanis inthe tansaction, 1 did sol base, elher partially or completely, my analysis and/or opinion of market value in thts appraisal yoport on tha race, color, teligion, sex, age, marital status, handicap, famillal status, .or national origin of sther the prospective owners or occupants of the subject property ar of tha present owners dr occupants af lhe proparties in the viclnity of the subject property of on any other basls prohibited by faw. “18. My employment ark/or Compansation for parforming INs appraisal or any futwe or anticipated appraisals was not conditioned on any agreement of understanding, written oF otherwise, that 1 would report (or present analysis supporting} a predetermined specific value, a predetermined minimum yvalua, a fange of dieclion in value, a value thal favors the cause of . aDY party, or the, attalament of a specllic sosull ot occurrence of a specific subsequent event (such as approval of a pending _ mortgage loan application}, “249. 4 personally preparedaf conclusions and opinions about the real estate that wera set lonh in this appraisal report Wt > telied on significant real property appraisal assistance trom any lndWiduat of dividuals In the performance of Us appraisal \"of the preparation of this appraisal report, | have named such Indivkluai(s} and disclosed the specific tasks performed in this appraisal report, | certify that any Indbidual so pamed Is gualifled fo perform thé tasks. | haye not authorized anyone to make a change to any ttem in this ‘appra"}, {"d": 121, "p": 160, "t": "BS ae Report __ Appraisal ial Uniform Resident _ 11230250216 rw rragozsozso_ 21, The lnderclonl may lactose or dstibuie. this appralsat report to: the -honrowes; another fendar at te borrowar; the mortgagee of Ke successors and assigns; movigay Insurers; government sponsored enterprises, depstmont, secondary smnikel pailicpants; dala collocilon’ or. foparling services; professtonal appraisal organtzations: e athaut having 10 agency, of fnstnimentaiay of the United States: and any slate, tho Distelet of Gokmbla,or other faistictionsi this appraisal abisiv tho appratser's or supervisory. appratser's {it spiteabk) consent, Such consent must be obtained before Ms voile typott niay ba diselosad or -distibuted to any otter pany (including, bul not mite fo, the publte through advertising, puoi’ \" Jolallons, ews, sabos, or olhor media}, 22, | am aware that any disclosure of eisuibutloni of this appfatedl repott by mie or tho lendar/cllent may be subject {0 eat - laws and. ipgutatlons, Farther, | ant also subject to. the piovistons of the Unitoim Standaids of Professional Appralsal Praclee: that pertain to disclosura ‘or distsibullon by nt, ; 23, The betsowar, another leader at the request of tha berawar, iho mortgages of Ns successors and sssipas, inortgage + sures, govommeal: sponsomed. anteypilses, aid other secondary market parilelpants may iely on this appraisal report aa pa P Of. any mortgage finance transaction thal kivolves any one of more ef these parties, _ 24, NH ibls appralsal repot was transmiled as an \"oloctionte tecotd* contaloing my \"electrons signatute* 38 thosa terms ae defined In applicadla federal andor sale laws (excluding auidlo and video fecordings), of @ lacsimtis [ransmisston -ot ‘Us appraisal report. conlainhig a copy or tepresentation of my signature, the appralsal zepod shall he as effective, enforceable aad; paper varslon valid as Wa my appraisal caport wero dattvered cantalning of ils original hand : : writlen signatuie, 25. Any intentional or negligent misrepresentation(s) contained i this appraisal report may tesut In chil Mabeity and/or a ctiminal: penatles Inchediig, but not Amited to, fine of Impdsoament or both under the provdstons of Tilo 18, Untied States” Code, Section 1001, cf seq, or similar state faws. SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: The Supervisory Appraiser certifies and. agrass that 11 diwetly supervised: the appratsey for this appralsal assignment, have. read the appratsal. report, and agsee with the. appraiser's analysis, opinions, statements, cancluslons, and ihe appraiser's certification. 2, a¢éepl full responsibilty for the contonls of this appraisal report inching, but-nok ited: to, the appralse’s analy, opinions, | statements, conchisions, and the appralser’s certikathn, . ; 4 The appraiser Wentifed inthis appraisal report [s either aeub-coniraclor of an employee of ihe supervisory appraiser (or the appralsal firm}, 1s quaktied to paitormn this appraisal, and is acceptable to perform this appraisal under the applicable slate Law, 4. This appraisal report complies with, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appralsal: Practice thal were adopted and Promulgated by the Appraisal Standards feporl: was 5...H1 ths prepared, appraisal fepen was Boatd of The Appraisal Foundation and that were in place at tha time this appraisal Uansmitted as an “electronic mcord\" Conlalning my “eléctionic slqnature’ as those tens are defined i applicable federal and/or slate laws {excluding audio and video recordings), or a facsimile transmission. of tvs appralsal seport containing a copy or sepresehtation of my signature, the appralsal report shal be as effective, enforceable and vakd as i a paper version of INs appraisal feporl wete defveced containing my orignal hand written signature. nn ay Peak Fi » |. Signature, Name TemyPeak AAS tH, | Shgnature C/ “Gorpany Name Peak Appraisal Service LLC a Telephone Number Elgin, OK 73538 (580) 678-4996... “Company Address SUPEAPPRAISER RVIS {ONLYORY IF REQUIRED) Name . PO Box 281 Company Name Company Address Telephone Number Emailaddeess tpask@idsnel Date of Signature and Repo = 04/04/2026. “Effective Dale ofAppraisal = 2/30/2028... | Stata Certification # = (2776CRA. Loe. \"| or State License# . —_ or Oiher (describe) Slate # Email Address Dateaf Signature State Certification # or State License # State a Expiration Date of Certification or License a a, ; oo Sao OK SUBJECT PROPERTY 9273412026 Expiration Date of Cevtiicallon or License AODRESSOF PROPERTY APPRAISED TNW Brarcteek Dy { | Bid not inspect subject property : Lavon, OK 73505 APPRAISED VALUE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. LENGERCLIENT Naine NoAMG CompanyName — Anvaé{ Bank ee, Company Address PO. Box 799, Lowell, AR 72745 Co, bes f } DW inspect exterior of subfect property from street Dateef nspecten 340,000 — coe .. Date of nepecton. COMPARABLE SALES . | { Did not inspect extertor of Comparable sales (rom street |} Did Inspact extadorof comparable sales trom street Email Addeess 2008 ‘Freddie Mac Form 70March _ | | Did inspect intettor and exterior af subject property Date of Inspection «=ss(“(été«tUA erston G/2011 Page Bot Mise form: 1004 March 2005 “Fannle Form TOCHUAD - \"TOTAL! appraisal sotwart by 2a mod, ie, - 1-800-ALAMOOE WEST_000718 CS CamScanner"}, {"d": 121, "p": 161, "t": "_ FEATURE [_ Suneer 7 NW Bilorcreek Dr Lavon, OK 73505 Adhess Proviriy to Sabet 14230250216 Uniform Residential Appraisal Report. COMPARABLE SALE # 4 O NW Millcroek Rd Lawton, OK 73568 Flle# 71230250216 COMPARROLE SALE # § 104 Witson Ln Lavon, OK 73505 : \" COHPARSRLE SALE # & 0.10 miles E Sea hike Sale Pace'Gioss Iv. Arta : Das Souicels} 88] West atod Scurce(s} VALUE ADAISTEHTS wh £691 CR/LawlonMLSW 168486,00M22 i, recotds/Agant | RaallsVokcauntyrecords/Agent® fey SAMustnen | DESCRPEON | 44) SAdininent | DESCRIPTION 5 +() $ Adsiment DESCRIPTION : Aumtth Armtth Concessions Conv,0 Cony0 j Bate of Sake Tine 809/28;c07/25 806/25;.04125 i Location B:Res; BiRes; i Subs o¢ rarely Leasebalgfer Sirgie id Sée Foe Simpla 425355 sf & hae PY design (SHR) éod Guaity ol Consrxton F Actual Age Fy Condition FA Above Cuode [Fea Simpla 20609 sf -ABSPstd. 8/Pstel; 3 fea Os at ‘fessinot 26136 sf BP sth }DTHRaneh — |DTS,Ranch Fes Py Ronen Cod Goss thing Nea 2 AB ah fa. On Ost 10st Heving teeing |eHA Conloining | Canforming Eneigy Lnfcnnd Beans lop windows JDP Windows ae Tota (Barns, | Bus SHR, Conforming CHA |. PochPaOD x jermeruo I Feocieg Pion CelarShetet |WooWFP/Ves {Wood FPINO OP Windows. 3gaddw. | OCR. UP Q|WoodiEP ives | . MY ELS RaAg 7% GressAG. 77K . Sad yo. Osprinkler system) Kitch AppSanca ; _ {Mone Observed Straspnide syst [Kitch Appflance }. tie Adjeshneit Tota) Aagasted Sate Pece of Compaabies ; Ost a Jgaddw Ober Feabees Kachen Apglances 400, 26975 8 | 4 124 42,000 42044el, 2,765.40; CHA Guagelapot, oad oO _ _|o3 - Tat | ema. | a . nam ah bil fasimend & Fuisted fioomgReowGrde Feachorat ity DT{Ranch ; c3 val tis ha Pe)wae i i a ee gaa, Cit K- F WtAG. 63%: SizAdelOrss hs. 67%1S ho. a7 fie bie s Hel Ady al HS: ———ag.ngaiGessag . Repor the resus of the tesearch ad anatysts of Wie prior sale or bansles History of the susjecl procerty2nd compara Sales (report additonal proy gales on $996 3). SALE # §: COMPARABLE SLE # § | COMPARABLE COMPARABLESALE? $ | \" SuaiteT [ i a [Comanche County Records |Comancha County Records: [Comanche County Records ; | _ frasorzezs. 1203002025 Ha302028, i ag hastery Ot ie inter progany and compara ses ee Ho apparent prior sales o¢ transfers (ound far the Subject property vithin amount on | 0171822025 from Fine pai 36 months ‘pilor.ta the affecilve dale ol this appralgal repent. Compatabs #4 uaostered for an undetermined © Templeton. No. apparent prior alestranstesters of the penparables used withia Ihis report found within ihe past 12 moniths |prior to thelr most recent recorded sale, AoaySiSCOCENENS vary bated sate Whe papeaes lie compara Dott hand win antec ap, hte a4 piasd Jot thes aesg wtptr panl h mervdns cePanengHore of Or iocatanifecrtiodary tte vale, oneieeas rat abit. Pisa Valey Su, a sree vated siete Ih foc b fernando ented nha Pecan Vabey Sout of tial temperate Sel: ober to Jeti Baim Minbatd we rs $4, tec Wchan Pu sbpects baabed og cosh ae corti a hte or W195 hits aah aa tht, Pn Sanka, bond ae a Pe ae. cate on Xe ey. a EA sccmstipat der, sol propery nbsesn bt nein, in nao pb A iripecort, Sagact probate parent ular Bcabun prea tg Hippy np ore, ig Wesaes rind ite ued Dish bedrpire ae bsibvoden bived, Bid ducers ie organ ote Fe aby etme fy tte wade, ned, ese ated ab bineidertd Kirwtat be Inland 8 cat Morag, a een, Pecan Vobey Sat, bo 60 9, een ena ha rihaty hei vale, Coesey Yay, bev da lly, dion, eet orb thy beachedDie subjects tevshed rt, a ie iin efor Ne af Bad cra rest. Cicloec opicrates ‘ntied $380 5 aioli wa te tpn ge bs bra ron, bern crf ete past 12 mci enivtedGata telat of Lamon IES pubbcakene i Ihe pet V0 menines wey 4 of the X nai y ake yoke, Svsigerstyte, quadly, condi, and ear orageto nial of the Bbjed, Sing tyne 6 whem df baled etn Se feerpa ing matal area St 8 propery af senda youpe, Comparsbie J dedrocra are! beaches 4 subject Mihi fg 49 On pita and, cond mag Cane I bed ti Pte ei i etn dcr spy beeey] area on tre qeeater axel, Ib GacsnderndWares i oh, aed iorant sirrehatir) Capp epe(rowe ita reg ste wipe Compan 9 ld sain Sor eed a Coun Rare mbps render at ated tdi inp,. og data tad ain bbc eden : Reh, Ooms senso, fs ole being av ud on De beaead and, 4 coccerderid FereY bi baitrcor nasser om , rsd asap page Mache’ fathet alan antde bin ro pert “Or Lane tsa a tor scaed tard fo 9h6 ail, wal, and navel of re suajecd penarty ty racdhcsard PDorwatons Sollechedot tne oF rapactont fa gupend whee? OF noltne sented racart ny Fac Wipes os Ye mdjacte oratod macelabiy wd vita See Asta Payee hin comma r Fieddie Mac Form 70 March 2005 srg Crh Snare ne Sols Campane Apprseh respond baedares, warn dy sanergn, wn voang catchers stowed mh Bs, , “YAD Version 92081 |” Fannie Maa Form 1004 March 2005 Form {004UAD,(AC) = \"TOTAL! apgiaisal sotteare by as mode, ine. « 1-80: ALAMOOE 1) CamScanner"}, {"d": 121, "p": 162, "t": "Supplomental [er Repel ADL Neit § West 7 NW Dancteeh Dr Lend Cleat Arvest Bank . . pat Sue OK Leaty Comanche Lanton oh fiw th, 11230250210 Addendum 73505 Salve Compéiiens Approath Reconeliiation: Roth the ne yhberbool boundastea and vows at keniied wiih tegort ae consaix ed te prof sons open of Be ap raw “, dl based on hah Bot se of of skégle ats doen foc If af deackors constit i pe Subject property's eau stews howater, covenanls 60 & manutd sn aru popertiyth avdganvont he feom 28 fo 1,25 acres, Zong a nok erforcéd rough oa Cy of Levon at time of Inspection: Here ies on platted sos ranging wh ca. pti bv ical Ae sbi bo he suit propor 8 ie of Rap cee ., Subject sucrounsing vrs £0 @ mij fo ihe Fors subi thorcughtvn, NW Ciche Road. bo te nor, Fork Sk Boer Zane fo Whe nevth, aeolher mifol oairaythoreughlare, US Higtaay62, iothenonh, ados pate rehodlla the HE, Gondyens Tio Phunk to Hie SE, and vacanl lal a tho exit, souk, ond wasl with oat compaling shale lenny daoftegs and adcihonsinutd Jaatasions seved Oba ty of tha hudiecd gropesty, No appacdat negates lohuences Mlontted to ths subject property's martel arta at Gna of inspection, inn’ aiatle with dubjacté sree wih fio apparent negative intueees Kieniifed wihin the subjetl property's marbel Le sn bac are cot Sadtings conshdoced DION A ped Neighborhood Despsiption~ Subfecl preyerty i located it the toxbl subahtslon, Heals Vatey Soidh, loeated within thé NY ragion of Littlon, OK anid is otated io he Cacho School OisireL Subjects area routtiy comprised of stoviey | + 2 slocy marcery deahigat inp foot kes 18 £800 ~ 3.500 gross Hing ati, #e0h mized actoal ages ranging Horr 10-90 peare Bf ng O& Nah shrdse nied Fesiteaval, pastoral; ciel soine Holatad conmnerelat vlows, Subgeetd pred had been a viatée adton for the Parl 302 poara, Ezplaymect cattery are consented a shored dkiid Peiial the gagecl property, cen sepa Iseaenet Giurgatble with ta#4 aeevion ood arc Hav ices Should havo @ remaining econends Ma of 304 poass, Modi dwetnyt id der nonin, mvdal ¢ vila wath soma isolated’ ijeilly Hg] conslaced WAnOUs Ongloet of undhierytonindning, Lond 144 wand dutyoct's suvhal wan cotraatt shaes halo’ bhenited ont re oh es RAR, Subbect’s ie seighl Trnutl-int preipevties Mantited both inakte and just opts tha severe octofs thas wocdl alteict stants Incheding chine dahages fo bathe sarvices, einploysrent, shopplag, ing, arid xqvacal K(2 school systems wth | owton Serving 48 Desh Mie county saat and tha major ecaniem#ercounmmstd basin hoc tha geantae ore County was, fori $4 Arttery Posts consideced Ove a0ny fenployetioqconwnte factor fir the gronlot Contanche Coun ices Eriphayment stably Is ronsbdored average vehi ne polental stgmalulny tickers Weaotifed fa subject tsaihot's anyieymeal al tino:po ot Manat, keerVes sudjacts cut oun Wi tonskigied avorage and hates steilat factors and Butages be hatte sarvicas as free competiiyy pure ny _Lomparable Properties ‘ “Comparable#1 Ut: OIE aS Adusted Sales. Price oo ‘ “334608 Comparable #2 Comparable#3 o25 0.20. - Comparable#4 Comparables ff RW Lavtan and Cache area. 342576 364032 f5 = | 342446 0.45 389024 eee ae nee 7 683536 os esses 0 ome 39823 Contin to carn at ald win png Weed Ain Tran, wat at ied yar eg aa ot Seviar scope al tina of Inspecton, the éstimated maital value opinion of the subyect propesty “ae ln\" fs $340,000 (rounded). ‘The adyutted sales brackat fa considered A delenailo valun astenate of $340,006 in “as la” coeyntion of 136 SASF adie wath the Una peice rare prasdnied i tha sales exnpivivon approach art aber sales eocondedl ards cape vitin he Wtjcts ashe en ‘Ueing Lawton MLS puliée $3565 Used a8 considered Ina most recent, comparadin sales foured wethin oe subject's rmeate wd competing market area wid sales used wai: Ya pert rd Amer market ince b foe ‘he subject's lnmedialeoonpating mariel anes for a property df abrvly tenpa. Athough a abe eooorys gibrate? caper voke ognitn ke anocncs hore De safes range for the: subject's knmedate and competing markotl araa for sales recorded aves te paal (2 months hom the effective date cf this appraisal, subject plopacty11 not contidered avecbuil Jor Whe arta wihDe apparent negauve aTects dotecled 30 he subjects Qverad marketadiAty at time of hspiection, Other Sales observadireconded eves Ihe past 12 - 24 montha wiinn ihe subjects market area of simiar scape, Giving condiderston Jo a factors thal Sand bo infizence aed Create valve, 134, the opinion of iho appraiser tha} Ihe estimated marhal valve opinion of the subject property “as 16” ie $340,000, Reconcifation setton an ry better at pear ae ot & of the URAA (continued): Ad ecnpbaais pUced upon sales tot on cls coeny aaa Nie vatoe b ot cael Da setadia dua to aiea being predoriinanty owner occupied and salts whadiound considered ends bss wnedoldvoneiog nad west a pay oe ape. teone appcoach deemed urvekabia and aot developed dus fo the dueling being ounet fed al tneof h ae anh sales sample found af comparable dwelbags salting wihin subject's$ invmediate/onnpaiing mayhel area ovat Ue past 12 marine speciicaly for pantal purposes fy order to extebbNh & mote cresOis gets teal muatipter for a peoperty of this scope. Cost approach deamed unvelable nd nol devaloped dus la tha subjects actual age age being outside 7196 of new construction 0 value only, he sstrated martel abe casts and diticisly in estimating the subject's accrued depreciation at Hn of analysis, Udog sales comparlion approach opinion of the subject propirty “as 14° it $340,000, Addenda: 4, Convantional appraisals do not quarantén that fw proparty fs ieee korn defects. The term \"eigpection” a vad nh oportia oly a obaaraton of 8 subyect ony obsenven and ‘Tha aopeaitar and hae in peckor progeny and sad ol be caved wh tar epactn a4 resend 6 mechankcal aystims, HVAC systems, bundasion aytiem, foo sceical systems, plumbing syslems, te sects vapors\" ane gore rot hy pysterns, of eating shuciure, Thin appralia estates an atvoaied mara vale oon of te subject propery ida"}, {"d": 121, "p": 163, "t": "RRCAA TMs Boones ied Neil S West TNW Bitarcraak Or Lawton LendesOhert_ Arvest Bank P bled to 8 Keni Hep c rem Peoteastinal _ fies, 74230250216 _ _ Supplemental Addandum 3. EXTIMONDINARY ASSUMPTION: Tha Uniera San funds of Sealy AES > ha Site OK Comane Aps Pinch aig on stinninary epee Word a be false, could eles ha appraiser's opevans af conchtont, EE Dpto 73505 apton a8 flows:#0 po 4 La aed a pibrytkin, legal, GF ¢conamic tharstlesics of Ihe y of aboul cotton itt smachel condtions oF kionds, ot boul ha legrty of Geld use nan anaes, micro a sce ope pr 4. EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTION THAT ALL HIFORMATION PRGYIDED BY LARYTON MLS PUBLICATIONS, COMANCHE COUNTY RECORDS, LANTON CITY JOLL, REALIST, DATASCOUT, OKCOUNTYTECONGS, COM, DEO, £18 TiN0 AGENTS JDEHTIFIED WiffiNt THIS REPORY, AHO HE SUBHECT PROPERTY OWNER IN REGARDS TO ROTH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S AND TIIE COMPARABLES USEO PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS, AS WELL AS, SALESAIS1ING INFORMATION WAS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE AT TIME OF INSPEGTION, AM EXTRAGRDAARY ASSUMPTION IS AN ASSUMPTION DIRECTLY RELATED 10A SPECIFIC ASSIONMENT, WHICH, IF FOUND TO GE FALSE, COULO ALTER THE APPRAISERS'S OPSYIONS OF GOFCLUSIONS. 8. With malating market and cursed demand, Ih be appraiser's aligle farrily co Odenilal dating ste for tie folowing tesions: pr profaaslonial opinion ihiat thy highest and beat use for the gubjact property i ds potent use a6 spesian Highest return to the land: Residential dwetys idarnd peadominant wile ye sublect’s kne : orate ty tesaible: Reshtental dvelings are bu non caren a.c oe heed and ho nateat eget Legally permtssibie: He lec} rosing énforcnd, Covenants da exist fey the subject's subdiviaites, Hive Subject pai ania and proce he grist monetary robe J POD anion farictey Phyricaly possible: - Subjects ste is cocaklered heel, has acca.ad fo both pubic and palvate ulithes considered lypicat for the sdieed’s markel aed, and may aecorrenodeie a ratidental ceviling, Accocuing lo the City of lawton, pute saver was pod avakabia to The subjects rural subdtayion ax Uma of ritpecton, According 10 the City of Lawton, aidjact propedy dons not have access to cty sewer with bial taleron lagoon sytlemns considered typical waste rerroval syslems for the subject's jure sbbslerdmackot are, No apparent negative murketabitly ianited widdin subject marke sen pf Kane of nipectior for being connected fo 3 fotal retention fagoon system, fax thomatehs .s Tha appraisal lx axed upon thete ave ne Ndén, unappacerd Gv apparent condone oh property se, swbtod, steuctures, OF oxic maleals, edhich woud sander 2 more of nia valuable, Ko yy it for any buch los Or for any a pedlee oF angina st bo deacovar Ihem, Ad mechanical components te ted lobe opel craton an slain vandrts bx popes ob etiea hp Condalons of he steg, coogeg, reniluion, elecidcal, wed purring me bb Ns undess clharwibe atelad, No poy may be made by Ih appracer 23 bq the adequacy of intlaton, pr ol InsulaGon:; or energy’ etfigency of Ue knprovements of equipment whith Is assumed slandard bor Ihe sub{ecl age and type, t Utena otherwins staied In iN rapoi, he winlenca of hexardoir alviat, whlch ity o mayb be prevent on tha dec property, waa fol obsecved by the The ap ied 1 Hoch) material on o¢ in pe the a ‘Tht appraiter is nol quaifed fo detect such subtiances. Te pretence ol wubslances such js asberios, ates horns if ponentily MEaidoun malerial sey affect Ihe value of tha Sudject property, The value opanion bs predicalnd on the aairmotdanary apt f tn Wiis ald, Wassumed bor any tuck 8), fear foe ary bxpertina oF ¢f cng kremtaciye reculend tg descover euch. ‘The chant s ued bs retain | export deve, 8. No nc i han gang yt ade ingrovet 4B a otal by beers Res nak pone lo parser obs css bene boll cr hidden stracdura, 9 other componenda, | have not critically b thn he are made hoa ac 40 use moor rlese peabody sed eid coraderad Whe fon “The vabis acters conor ere bei 60 uch condtora how read cae ssa fi valje, The land or tha soll of Ihe ated bhing appialtad appears bem, howsvw’, a subsklence In the area la Unkos The appraiser dows not warrsed Boas thie coridiion of cxcustence of froblens adsing from tod condilons, a. Ho aga mrvey was proved kre ot pacton wilh na i d for ingal matter In charactic or notice of matters of mureay, 809 of any sechaectural, Q in ature, No oploion by rendered a8 io the fe, which It presumed (9 be good and ri bk Tee property x tied an bag ee ad ces abise cbarwine tinted Fi paticuae pana othe pent ‘The legal dastripdan It assumed to be coxrect 4a used in tha report as Rarvstied by the hank, pubbcaton rouccas 5 fated within this tépor, hiwhat designee, or &s derived by tho apprakuer, 10, Por tea City of Laston, sibjedt dwaling fs located cxlahte the’ city Srnits. No clirienl pernWvepiipLance paperiiark for bre, subject dweiing prinided of made svalabje to Boe apprainar ax he otective date of Wis appraisal report Na responsibty sssumed by Ws tp i sor for & egal inanet eg Natactar of patary for aviy, 5 bis lhevels a Wetale code,If compl. iatica nolhs Deitel archtachural, suuciy al, mechanical, of gine ereng opeZt ch necessary, Ils bighty reconvnended Ihat aridor cade compt tice be consuted Fun, Lin apachctiy seasead noth pect fa drehng are of salstactory constucton pod meat all localstate code, AN EXTRAOROINAAY ASSUMPTION IS AN ASSUMPTION DIRECTLY RELATED TO ASPECIEIC ASSIGNMENT, WHICH, F FOUND 10 BE FALSE, GOLAD ALTER THE APPRAISERS |OPINIONS OR CONCLUSIONS, Again, f am not 4 code camplance othter, and thacators the vahie eatimale fs subject fo change should some absumpton tegarcing te tec propa panera dee fey el sas ata cde comptance nin Nis bighly recommended thal that the named Bocrowar and/or named { endariC Hint Fated within his report se¢k additional Sacdcedinnpectons #6 hey ing any comphance issive3 with Ow subject property, HL sravotunas staTenENT inspeedion of the subject ceveated ng apparenl structural defects which are considered ft devrarain tu martbity of wadjoct groperty, Fels noted, biaw"}, {"d": 121, "p": 164, "t": "sins. Th2go2co2t6 Supplomental Addendum Gere = [opal Adds ity Lende,Cient Not S Wot 7 NW BlarcrdgkOy Lawion — Arveal Bank. - Sue Ox (einty Comancho - - — as — 7 re 14, SALES COMPANISON APPROACH GRID PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS: Salod and fulng used wih tN tepot pode 75508 re ee bm in exienalng ce wseneed vribin ho Init UA GL vahue opieion for the suddsel property 24 of date of rapaction, ©: dprstents, oF lack thecal, fot property &h tha paat 12-24 monihe using Saios Compavican Anproach Grid dstved ren hiskarieal data foie rth tha subiser's Iremechato And coated mitrkel rad ove! OR DEE et ciate du MLS cubbeaboe local county cocorea/astantoe dat, sod pad anahaly, Furihar srpansion ol tha taaich area andi tena to chaeged bs paranasee OST oa aaa, maret condtons, la fis Inatince, | heve Dated th rehiemanis lot doa characiaascs on patel auayslmedat esrion, Ot Tt Ta ayy Ando experincenan such propirty characletes: The adwnimtalt appled, I any, 24 consMared nominal nd do onl Gao a Maes ara ostinates prosented heroin, Ta dvpand salea search sey Nether br disionce, gtopacty chacecatistcd, of i date Of sole WoUR, in he 4 ovahiadert process aed lad Kr Prous a more Crodbté ehial, , 16, DesignéStyin + Situs wied within this report consider most ry fable In 1) las erin Ol Value Opinion lor lbw sublacl property as of dale of wispectar. Alheugh Compacetin #2 45 considared 1.5 tlry tench dreSing, Irscfclent date lourd wt tiie 6 hsspacton adihin subject's Immadiafaicompeting market dea bo support bry Contnbtory adusinends bebween single lady dimeings of 1.0 and 1.5 story de rigevatyle, Coniibitory acjustmants, or Ihe lack there Of, ke ditfucancedin derigedstyle Gecived rom Halorical data Round within subfect’¢ lrimediatetcompeting market area over ihe pact 12 moniie using Lavon MA publeationt, Comanche Counly Recotts, ahd paired analyst, Yo ospand &sales peach sny Kither in dustacce, properly characteris ics, or in data of wala would, fy he spprmisar‘s opselan, Rader fhe avakiadon proces arid [nf in produce more edi 140 AT. Achat Ags Vartenca - Sales uved wttin 7s repod canakiered cinsast In achua) age and affociivaly beacket othar hey ploperty thearscledstes associated wis the subject property Inching designlsiyie, gross firing dens, cially, andl armor tad, InsuNicierd Information coleeted il bene Aries <Hon is seppartany contibudory edhasienends ket 30 ocklal ge Varianeaof (2 37 peare of age inth the corparabta propartes uted witha it separ welghlad based of thelr aBlacten agwttondiion at bone of most recent sate. To expecd valea search acry Ruther bs chitance, property characteristics, of in date of sale would, In the Bop ate4/'s opicaon, hinder the areiuation process aed fel io produce 8 more credithe reat, {A Roam Cove» Sates Used within bit ieport ; considered most iefabla in ng @ fai martel value opinion bor the subjecd property 44 of date of bispeciion. Conirin.tory sdersionents of $2,000 pet bedroom, $2,000 pethil bathroom, aod $1.000 per hal batvoom darieed ram Nelorigal day houcd win subject's enmediala and competing market area owes Bid pas! 12 months Uthg Lawton MLS publications, Comanche County Recimds, and paired analysts, Ts expand salen 2460ch any fortar in distance, property characterialics, or in dala of wate would, in tw Apptaiaed's hpinion, haved Ihe evaluadan process and far bo produce a mone crecible (aati be, a. Car Storage - Sein ined withda ihis report conaldered mori retable In estimating fair machet vahie opingon for tha subject property ax of date of Inspection, coe Contntadory adjustrsents of $4,600 per eiteched greys bay derived trom Niciorieal Gaia Found water sURecT 8 inenediata aad and competing market ase tver the past 12 or in Ta anpand pales xearch wey hyther in dealanoa, property characterises, and paired analysis. marine sain Lawion MLS pubitabons, Comancha County Records, ; date of cale wold, le the appewsedé opleicn, Dader the evalualon process and Jad ba produce a more creckohe etal, 21, PocehPaletDack -conldet Salesmora used markétatls, witha Wiis report d cvitl rebatie In wstmang pata bly Inautickend intormated kund al ive of 2 tar marhel yale opiion for the subject property as of dala of nipectan, ihapection bo support adivalmants batiesa dice lings telling with an ixkStiona! pak or dack a6 opposed jo dinalings sate with Au auch feapues, Conleibaulory adivabrenis, of the lack there of, for euch feateels) darived from Nislorical deta found within subject's Immediate and competing marke aréa over tha! past 12 morsaa using MLS pubdcationa, County Records, and paved anmyais, To eapand sales search any futher in dulence, property chanicteristics, of in dats of sala Woukd, in the appraiser's cpanwon, bode: Ww exaluelion process and tad la produce amore credible fend, 22. Fenciig PrStorm Colat’s Salts uted within this report considered mot! railable in estenating a tals markal value ofinion for the subject property as of dela of Inapection, Athough posaibly conakder ed i ackelabie, insufficient ink found ai tere of ep jp wopport mipe nt batwonn dyalings s¢fing wih a Slants shellet or storm pallar 83 oppoied ls Gwalings selfing with ia Such feats, Lack of Coniitukiny adjustnents fay tuch INadae derived hom Mitorical data found ‘within subject's Irenediate sad competing markel aces over Be past 12 monihs using MLS pubscatans, County Reconte, aod paired anelyzis. To expend eales search any furthor In distance, property chacaclerwtcs, oF fi dalé of tale would, bs the Bopralser’s cpinion, hinder [he mrakvaton process and £4 18 produce & more credible fesuk, : 98 Inic marhet-vabas opinion for ihe considered mast rekadtyint used within this repolt 23, Other Features [Sieg Gkigia}, Inground Sprinktar Syatam}+ idSains aced troce For Ih jel property as of date of Inspection, Athough passbly combdiced ark iar stabio, isulficient h found ai time of inspection to simppart penion acivtmenis betes drekengs sling with a svg bidg(s} of vashous sire35 opposed fo dwelings saling mids no suc"}, {"d": 121, "p": 165, "t": "71230250216 Market Conditions Addendum tothe Appralsal Report axe. rr2s02s0210 Ya purpose FIs schenctoen is Wo provide Iba ener cherd wh a Siew and atcartée uptergleacing Of Bo motel UeVVis A COMMONS prevail nie Subject elgbeihood, This le a teqaked addenda foe ab appraisal aeports with an elfeetive date on oe ate Ape’ 1, 2000. Propery Address Yononet 7 NVV Brinscraak Or ty Leto NeilS Wost Sale OK bP Galt 79505 Inatrvtlonss Tha appialse anus use te nlormyton raqpied oa HG horn an Bo bays for Nhe cosehralons, and mist pros deppod for hase corehisons, egving houslog bends avd overall muvkel conbons 98 zepoeled ln he Helghbarhogd secton nl the aypeatsal expint lows, The appeateer maant DM in alia [Poreatin bo he alent Wis sealable und sebable and msl prove anshys’s an bndic aid belaie, W any requted dalt i adavalabya o¢ i considered uevedatys, tha apprw'set mutt prada an explanation, 1S pecoréted that nol al data soceces wA ba abe bo peciidle dat lv Woe shad ari beni; 15 evel, bowarer, tha appraiser mest snchyde the data An She analyse. data sources pride Be cee td blonriiion a6 a avetaya sled ofthe masta, lhe appewyte todd espace avaible Fae ad Hendy as an Bveeagy, Sakes and Sskeogs esl a gopertes Poa Comriela wad a subfcl plopaely datartiined by applying tea cries Bat wed ba used by a grospective buyer oF IMs, subject progeny, The appyatces cst gapiata any anonniabes Hi Baa data, such at seaseaal mvhets, raw conshiation, loreclouves, ek, Prise 7-12 Months Adsorption Asia (Tolal Gates Months) Quel Fest f “f Catend~ I Modhy [Pre df Alors ° 7 inet a > Si 6,50. | Beclolny 24S ioat 4 of Comparable Achve Listegs f gE S Stblge: Miphihs of Housing Supply (Total Lintagy ab Staty oe Ovaat Tred % Subs Plot 1-12 Months Median Congatabe eT Days on Markel Fy Medan Cosiparabie List Pace bea Makas Commpacatio Ustngs Days an Markel Medoay Sake Pree at § of List Price Suike-Idevedopes, bubder, elt Jpand fnarcial assistance aie ews i ’ 4 3 EnplalaWs deladte seler concessions bends lov tha past 12 monshs (t.g, sefer coniebuslons hcreaied from 3% ia 5%, Increasing usa of buydanas, closby casts, conda FH fees, optlons, ete), fn iesearthing subject property's marketarea for Uw past 12 month parable sales showed a mixtura of rf Conventional, VA, “and FHA transactions where sellers are paying between 0 - 8% of the buyers dosing costs. -Bloanctng itanicessions of up. F416 6% assoclaled with Conventional, FHA, and VA joan programs considered typical for the subject's immediatelcompeling market area, No G other apparent special financing concessions or significant changes in financing trends observed wilh comparable sales reviewed in sublect ropeity’s immediate market area over the past 12 months. 0 -no compatable dala found No. fi Yes Ey Are tocectostie Sales (HEC sales} a lictorin hema? : the vers in stags wid saks of forcsid picpertzs). Heyes, tnglann (ricladeng months, no significant tends tn reviewing Lawton MLS publications ¢and Comanche County Records, iit sublact’s marke! area over the past 12 gathered ftom the f \"Information Cite Gata succes loy aboveit | cycie in subjact’s immediate marke} area, O- no conipareble data found identified showing an active declination ig Sauces: Lawion MLS pubieations, Camancha County Records, . property owner, Lawton City Hall, OataScout, Reaks|, Okeountyrecords. com, OQ, jisting agents identified within this report, and the subject O-~no comparable data found report form, Uyou used any echoed oman, such as Summarizethe above vdarrnal on #3 suppor for your conchistons i die Herghbachood sectot of fhe appraisal an analysls of pending sales andor taped are withdeeen stg, la formulae your conclusions, povide beh 44 explanationand support for your conciinlens, Pecan Vallay South, sources tayaaled vary limited sates daia in which o sonelusively Int reviewing sales: with subject’s immodiate rural subdivison, Markel search expanded io compari oF sales of simvlar scope for Ihe purpc potentially impacting a dwalfing q Vends identify anym a property of inchude dwellings of similar s00p8. within the competing addition of Pecan Valley to the north in an attempt to provide mote market dala as. 8 rosuil of ewer Interact this scope, Days on market ihvouighoul tne gitd appear to bs stable and can possibly |be inked to ower housing inventories awhal skewed showing slightly greater ia be years prior, Supplyidemand app s tates Intiaty assoclatad with the COVIO-19 pandemic sevatal Sales prices appeared comparison; of sales and competing market area for the purpases i comparable sales than stings within the subjects inmediala arket fox tha subject property appears te be stable and considered typical of olher bie across ihe Sales/llme grid, Allin ail, Use to be somewha dala found compar bie 0'-no competing dwellings of similar scope focated in doth ihe Pecan Vatiey Sovth and Pocan Waey subdivisions, Project Vane: fv 4 ond Un 9 conaomurnamoF coaperstivg projet, caaphe Re ledowing: Tie subject Piet P12 Months rE Subject Peajecl O13 : mi j: Totat # of Comparable Sales (Setiedy arpton ise (Total Sales Norths} | Pre ¢-6 Mlorshs |. Deena Tend ~ 3 Months Coren (2 f beteasoy |: iSote a Total # of Actve Compacabia Ustongs TONDOICG-OP PROJECTS | [Ma Pes Byes. mdeate the rarder of REO Isengs nd rey Re tends Aare aid safes of [Signs or oF tenyh Fy company Advess PO Box 261, Eigh, OK8 PA Copuaylliets = Peak Pata Series tLC A SuteliceaseCatheaton #427 78CRA Supamvigery Appraiser Hams ; Fog Appoaiser Nara fmaiAddess : : | _ foreclosed preperties, fone 3 deehony | . e/a Rate) Honehsof Ued Supply (Joti isting Are foreclasaae Ses [REO sates) a factor inthe preojent? | ; Suit : Company Aaiess ‘Sate fSuals ticeage Certs aon # OK Ipaak@tds.nat Freddie Mac For 71 March 2009 Company bane Ema Aas Page loft Pantie Mae Form IQO4MC March 2009 Form 1O04AG2 «TOTAL! appeatsd software by 2 {3 move, inc. - {-BODALAMONE WEST_000723 cs CamScanner"}, {"d": 121, "p": 166, "t": "fanvad Noll & Woal My Lawton Popa adhe fe Na, 71230260216 PNW Ditorcioek De : : ve OK — Ba Gon 73808 Cemnty Comanche Lender Vic . APPRAISAL AND REPORT IDENTIFICATION This Report fs on of tho following types: pursuant fo the Seops of Woik, at disclosed etsewhere In this report) 3 Appialsal Report (A walteis repost peepaied under Stantecds Auda. 2.2fa) ; Rastieted {A weiter iepoit prepared under Standards fw 2. 2(b} . pursuant bo the Seopa of Work, a$ aiiclosed slewhere br ints repost, * Appraisal Report tasked to ihe stated intended use by te s$pecttied Chon ow ended ise) Comments on Statidards Aulo 2-3 “Lcestty tual 40 the best of amy Arowstedgn and bebet: » The statements of fact contained bn this seport are frog ahd correc! . ~ The repotied anslyses, opinices, avd conclusions are Rented only by (he reported assumptions and imting conditions 4d afd ny pesserat iat, ated nblastd professional analyses, oprdons, and conclusions, + Dniess obbecwlse indicated, have no gcentl of prospective ierest in the property Wit ts Ine subjactof is reptand no. persomal invest wih respect fo Bu partes brrobeed. -+ Dndess olbevwise indicated, [have partormed no seeeites, as a1 aporlsay oft any other capacdy, ceigaccing the property halls ths abject of O15 report veh tha thet yee earied inenecately preceding acceptance ol bis assirinent ; « Thave 90 blas wah roipecl to Boa propedty thal ls the subject of this ceporl or the pavties nvobved wth this assteynent. «+ By engagement In this assignien’ was nol contingent upon developing oc reporing predetermined resus. . a My compensation foe completing Bis asslgenent fs nal ééctingend upon the development ot sepovttig of a peedeletmined value or degction in value [hal favors Oe cause ol ofan the amount ef the walie opinion, the atizinmentof a sUpuated resul, of the occurrence of 2 subsequent even deecily peialed Jo the iniended usa of ts appraisal, + My analyses, opinions, and concisions were developed, sad Bis report has been prepared, in conformity watt the Unitortn Slarwtards of Pro feaslonal Apseatsal Practice that were bn eltect at lhe time this report was prepared, ~ Uniess oltenvise Indicated, Ihave mads a personal inspector of the property that fs the sublect of tus repo. -+ Unless otherwise Indicated, no 0n¢ provided shgniicard real property appraisal assistance bo Ihe personts} skptiny this cectiicatlon Gf there we rnceptons, lhe name ol each Ievsividual pioiging Slgrificand teat property sppradtal assistance Is stated ehsewhers in INis teport), {USPAP definds Exposure Tine as the estimated Sength of Uma thatthe toperty interest hele Reasonable Exposure Time apncalsed would have been offered on the market prior to the hypothetical consumenation of a sale al market value ont he effective date of the apps alsal) G3 months “fay Opinion of Reasonable Exposuve Time for the subject property at the market Value stated In this reports: ilma for subject's Immediatefcompeting maskal araa based on reviewing exp bie conshered a The timeframe as listed above is recent comparable sales and Bsilngs using Lawion MLS publications. Comments on Appraisal and Report identification any slate mandated requirements; Nole any USPAP-related issues sequiring disclosure and Cedrtnion] appease by nl gras Kath pope Wiens dtl, Thy een aganhon’ y god fo arte iwet etyebagraon abnyalapect a meiner ect patio’ aed ren nyachen The agp ose oy \"iret ard rape at Son “epee abn enquew bi peterson srwcayrerntiionr, pputena, HVAC nystam, lourcbation stam, Roce port et “vig por anaes yom Lndrcet nea rape whe, Thin apse Lasley Oe pe nerg SHE, Hn ga wadely Rarmsatias with the soedinin of the propedy, ] Of ALL EASY WOKE PRATER OMY PEAS OAIZED AMSUAL ‘HHS yatta APPHALLAL B KOT A NOI WEPLCTION AXO Th AP? A GER 12 ROT A HOWE F ComoLTIONS ANDO : DASCLOLE 10 UPON RELIED BE CARBHOT REPORT APPRAISAL THE PRCEESS THE OER PAUL HOME HOT 19000 AFLG THE OF SURFACE “aecuatNUCTED : “DECRETS 11 TNE PROPEATYHOP ABLE YO BE VIEHEODR ACCESSED GY THE APPRAISER AT TIE OF BISPEGION, ae sue pagerwest $M pecwitcrnylanca harncie we pare ht wy ah hay ol MCN aretathe ' wists see at 8 tp * assur non it 4 alas weds ch nea nny cay hanit al er engineering pope c fas race rol) owep ince ht ND wh he property ind a Snare uy Ton hame: Terry Peak hagd gory the mbit property's pecltae eatnanaryeraan 9LaPe comphanca conde be wept, 1” ante nang SUPERVISORY of CO-APPRAISER(it applicable}: Sipeue: H. Rane: / Sine Ceribcaon #; Sue Certenion#; 12778CRA or Stale Ucertt 4: anes Exgaton Date of Certlcaton o Ucense ‘| State OK Hepat! 0101/2026 of Soyraandnse Bai of Appraisal: 42/30/2025 Date ive Eiec $243572028 . os oo yaageckon Suect. | | Hose DX ior andBaater [| Beer Oty Dials of specter esate . ee Ae Digay ational clambcaicn et til inves fe eatarntairy, ¥ onde, and mee \" a ub tee of de cannad. Dea. tt ipechiot tuentd ale FOUND TORE FALSE, COULD ALTER THE APPA ERS ppreoHt On, WHOCH, LNT, TOA SPECIE ASSIOM/ Y RELATED ptarae a bangs bala lft ai CONCAZARES, Ago nt col coe Cpfance Mw and Behn hare antennae nenreteon nunnel nitttnt Agnn, Bn Wohty vires ee en Se prety nnd ai Laat elald 42/30/2025 ox Stata Uceass #: Sats; — _ Eaph tlon Data of Signatur: CS Wnipectonod Sebect - _ or Licente: Dati of Certiicaton ; ; | | Hoo | E bderorand Exterior [| dei. Onay Dats of inspection ( appixabh): “Toamh IVE « \"TOTAL! apgvalsal sottrare by 2 a made, ine, - L-400-ALANQDE WEST_000724 CS CamScanner"}, {"d": 121, "p": 168, "t": "_ NewiMessage —S_ Cancel To: Nancy Holcomb Dec 7, 2021 at 1:01PM (CK >> EXHIBIT 4 WEST_000580"}, {"d": 121, "p": 170, "t": "BPODIecE Order #: 45395822 Page tots foms6 OAGKEN PRICE OPINION . ey FreddieMac Freddie Mac Loan ti Property Addenass 7 NW BRIARCTIEEK OF, States County: COMANCHE Asdet lofi Unis: Stty, LAW TOR Property Type: Singa Farty Zip: 73905 OX Servicer Lost A: 3492944403 SubdiTHOn oF pe CAN VALLRY SOUTH Complex Hane: A Riot Location’ OD Uneer 28% Property Vabexi Suppi: O_ Dacliada Marketing time: Comp [2-4 Untt 2% | Tenant 24% Mutt-tamity : % | Vacant o% Commerciat o% [oiner oy One dinit O gasy Zi Over 75% : G statte 1 slow WZ stable in Batance C1 90 days C0 _ under @ sosredays tneraasing . oversupply Oh dwariwdng 2 3 ge a Competitive Active Listings: 4 # 18% Cl Urhan Shortage CO) Vacant 120% | Ownet Occupled C1 Suburbsn 8 ing C1 Tenant Hi owner Occupant teapaction Type: bleorxtorior laspection Access Onrted pereonta 9 of Distrasaed Sales tn He bovhaod: tracttanal CRG ingat Sales: . Active Sold Por Month: ¢ eno $0000 Price Range of Compethive Active Listings ta Neighborhood: ~ 8% C1 shovt Sate | o fight; 459.9008 Behoot Distiiet: | ASHE URNTS. COMPS ANG MLS ACTITY IS SUBECTIS LOCATED N 7 RURAL ADDITON JUST OUTSIDE OF THE LAMONT, KL “CIY WILL HAVE TO BE EXPANOED WH ORDERTO COMPLETE THIS REPORT. ~ LIWUTEO SO MANY VARIANCES Helghberhood Market Condition: PREVIOUS LISTING MORTMATIO Previously Listed Wiha pant s2months; Cl Yes No Origloatbiat Pees” Listed {Oat Last Ust Price: 7-3 VNU OS HOAMAION ft applicabte} of Unite: 4 No, Falr Market Rentat Rata per Month per unit; Hy, of Stories: RentControk Yes ChNo —-. Rent Equity Bosrd Registered: Ove Oxo CIWA : Vetlficatton Source: . lausing ‘Unit Comzents: West_000747 CamScanner"}, {"d": 121, "p": 171, "t": "~ FreddieMac neras page tote BROKER PRICE OPINION SSA Subject Vey Condition: Averoga Tet 3 SITE (S$ CONSIDERED 10 BE NEU LBAL Subject Positive! Negaths Influences: Oves Oto Potential Tike! Leg : 9 it a i ook fos A. Does the subject appeat smucacaly sound? Hrd, is there avideree of severe seiting? Wing, Is thace ewcterce of maior koundaton cracks? ina, Is there aviderte of roting beans? B. ts Ge subject on @ permanend foundation? © Hobieaninny Hazard lesen: ‘| te Wea D. ts the wlechical system Runctoning property? |e: Ave We plumbing. ssi son F. ln the roof free of leaks? Yes : ; ©, Ace the kitchen and ail battvoons Raetionat? sea ng mo, Bo . Yo Yes . Yes 6. 1 te soot ree of erporadyrepainigatching)? it, Aue the HVAC system Iniact and functional? Yes inthe property fred of wood destroying insecta? 1. Has a weod destiayieg insect esi asa eraras: me : Unkanwn Unknown ee See Xo A. is the progeny clear of avidence inckcating incurable ervironanental hazards? B. Is the propecty tree of evidencis indicating lead based para? ves THE SUSJECT PROPERTY15 MASITABLE IN IT'S CURRENT COHOITION NO HEALTH HAZARDS WERE OBSERVED UP INSPECTION Habitabsllyt Hazard Comments: Fale Market Renta) 9008 Rate: Cee [is thera» KOA? Fees:$ Tvs. Per: Nemes . ipa y HOACondorPuOs 7 . Wino... Panding Asetesmants: bathe CendocomplexFHA spproved?, —§ O vas ON 2A Assessmpat Sagio Oste: Assenamisnt End Date: Faoned: Contact Name: HOA fasn lnchida: Iaupactions! Yearly Amount: $3,387.00 Chya Terenlte ool Ove =i lo Whe @i Annual 01 SembAnnusl O Yes Well Sapte Do Yes Imachanical Oye Ade lagal Unite? Ol Yes Biroctural Cys Eavironmental Other Oye Ne No Waste Olepoeal? Water Source zoning G Pustetewr D pute Raskental TaxeaPad: : .. Who @ Keo B ke © Sapite O wer tents) Freddie Mec LI © ~ West_000748 CamScanner"}, {"d": 121, "p": 172, "t": "Pagesolé fom 0 . BROKER PRICE CPINION flnanceable Lite’ tustenl condition? te the Tred OVE § ae Preservation & Matntenance: The LL eee battle POOF § ——-——i her [sie TES slolololololololojalojolo}olelojo}olofelofafela}a}ojaj/ajajajojs}ajalapnjojs TT Vives CC) Ho TOE HOA Fe balttal Yard Ob Preneevrtory Fanner Heath & Safety S oR . ofojalsjojolo}afolalafapa)ajojojoj;olajajasaj;opojo}aya;ala, ms FreddieMac NO INTERIOR OR EXTERIOR REPAIRS WERE OBSERVED ANG TION SUBJECT APPEARED 10 GE iN AVERAGE CONDI Repaly Commanis: TRapect LAciioA ory Dc UA 00 9 TO pba RUM, SOATENL Fa BEIT COO Be Sura in the rege Bk oa Une Tylon. FOC Wercitied repay eercnund Inchede a ker. 7 FendGokine RB ~ West_000749 SJ CamScanner"}, {"d": 121, "p": 173, "t": "sucetett oN panel BROKER PRICE OPINION Freddie Mac COMPARAMLE LISTINGS Sobect 9 NA RAR EEX DEE Adress Lavios bio, of nny ft aps) PSUR OK TEM ~ t Compazable #4 NUPLE LAL CARTON oe ry Seber ww TRIYAD ws LL ad Eye y : tO $a 199080) AG 574 ELAS SAT FECA IN nase AIH Current thet frity Veriticaben Seyree 7 par] Qeew Dwg [ntginab ist Rites 7 PecanesneLar PECAN VALERY SOUTH Subdivision OF Cerngten Hime AIGA oer 7 a Proxtenty 19 Fubfeet Coniparable #5 100 765 TEGO CODE LAUIOIE Sompicadle #2 ETUC GARTHBH. FEE FRLAGN TI VAS PIRS ee Sther Cescrasions Days or Mache} Lecallon Mating sheView Property ype Lot Strewher eres [90 50 avettamty os Square Foolege Year BYR Condaion 4asF 3-2 (x fsa wt $d aerage > is? [gh eg Pps pd 4 Fea St, 89 $8 2. MFietet Mer Prrgic PUM 350 SS [Rs (5 PURRSENER SAtered | 159 ($7 ” cr] _. a Pontvapa vy 657 39 aM. PARSER SV itaed Waste Ditgotat ParkingtGerage Fara Sage Fenty 78 Likal 9 KSeiaded “Staal ParpiaG PUBL Basement Hesting Cookag Water Sogrot $2 iy) TY) oan Were 8 ft 42s Bene Fetd2% ——Sanaaks g Total Roden (Bed F Bath 4. ay erage 0 othe: i] Tone THE he \"S357 ee ~, $259,20020 Subject Price of ed (Adjust y To Sublect Mont Souder cruck Propert SUB FECT 1 QvERALL. FEATURES AND VALUE, serta tor Comparable Moxt simitar Ve Subject: lect “THtA¢ BRIAREREEKOR OA 74905 LAWTON 4 qo aiden of tints Nt 2p to, Pra: Comparable 3 ros Comparanls#2 Comparable Ft X RS, LANTON, a AW NLLCREE CRW HUNENSHRRE CH, 1O HW SANOY TRAALAN, Cx ris LAWTON. 0 73505 pees. EAVZION, OF 23505 ° 3 iaS: sion Subdivi Or Geeppiex Name Sefer ee Sales Poca Let Price Price to Sata Sate Date oo 6 e ¢ $ “@ a Aswoge Aarean a SogeFerty fe 8 8 oH Te 8 Bikes 2400 —ae or is 8 s 3 \"fe 8 s De) z fAdiuaied Price of Subject 156 Fay Sug an se Rn “ig ieeg 7) ro} [80 dows “7. dracoge 3. NEW Lc t. T fi 8 ¢ $ Rican Hast Oven AG PUBUC PUBLICSEVER ye ee 8 $ a [52 Haat PanyAd [$6 PUK. PUSLICSEWER, {50 1G Samet 7... Stone 10000 ie .@ go KOI if aN i$ R09 s $303 20060 [Ehack Property Rost Simikas To Bedjecl MOST SIMLAR TO THE SUBJECT HW OVERJEC FEATURES ANO VALUE {88 so [$2 sO eae Ne ofr + a ya awrn Sate Ur F264.086 08 “FHS [aj te Compacshes Mont Slevlas To dudjed: Fredde Mac MIO - West_000750 cs} CamScanner"}, {"d": 121, "p": 174, "t": "saan NROKER PRICE OPINION Freddie Mac BROKER OPINION OF PRI Broker's Opinion of Peice should leprecent & 40.150 DAYS inarat aipstiaa. ASASPRICE, WITH AEPAIA PRICE: Probable Soles Free Probable Sales Price Recommenied ist Petcn Mark Up Percentage: 2% List Price Mark Up | TYPICAL FOR OUR MARKET DASEU ON COMPS IN THE AREA Percentage Supports DROLER MARKETING RECOMMENDATIONS Property Marketing Stratepy: § %) Avis 1) tender Requited Repairs (1) With Repale Most Likely Financlag: Cl Homesteps financing TI Conventional Cl twa Target Buyers CA Ficst time Buyer G7] Move-up CO Itwestor Ava Cl tah CO G indore CO Retiree other: RURAL ADDITION WITH LIMATED COMPS.TO COMPLETE THIS REPORT, | HAD 70 EXPAND SEVERAL VARIANCES INCLUOING G : ays He OTN BAGK AS 12 MONA ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE ACCORDING 70 WHAT 15 custonany IN OUR MARKET AS FAR G) 12 MONTHS FOR SOME SOLO COMPS, THIS HAS NO , REMAINING STABLE OVER THIS TIME, FFFECT GN VALUE OVE TO PRICES Support Opinion off Price: QUALIFIES FOR ALL TYPES OF FINANCING Support Recommended Marketing Strategy: SUBJECT ALSO CONFORMS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN AGE AND FEATURES Property Similaritiss & Dissimilarittac to Nelghbarheod: By clicking aubmnd, | haceby cortly thal [have porsanady inapacled tho proparty ort (Sate) Hzrosegzs Furthermore, J cectty thal Une report hes beon compioted by ma i Ks entirety and Broker Nome: 3 rene Flite DARIN RAY REMAK Fase teEe emekAdaess: — DARINRAY@HOMESLAWTON.COM inchasos spproptlale photos of tha aublectand comparables, - Harte of Agent Completed BPO: Agent Licence . DARIN RAY Expitstlon Dates ‘West_000751 S CamScanner"}, {"d": 121, "p": 176, "t": "RBZ000i5 StateFarm State Farm Fire and Casualty Company SS Fire Claim File Print & File History Information Route To: | | _ Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C Date of Loss: 06-15-2023 BASIC CLAIM INFORMATION Policy Number; 36-CR-X405-8 Named Insured: WEST, NEILS —eva pono Za | ~—namaeneme FILE HISTORY File History - File Notes Office: WHRUREC Performer: Wicker, Joe 42-19-2024 - 12:05 PM CST File Note: File Note Participant: COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 00 1(Named Insured(s)) Category: Contact - Outbound Call Sub Category: Working vm, RCF CTR Bob requesting claim status, CS explained that the CTR would have to contact the PA to get the claim status info. CTR said he understood and he will f/u with the PA Office: WHRUREC Performer: Burk, Carrie 12-19-2024 - 11:13 AM CST File Note: Contact Participant: Gategory: Contact - Inbound Call COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Sub Category: CS working ACD line. RCF CTR seeking update on claim. CS reviewed update with CTR, however CTR confused by the supplemental. CS provided CO's contact information and transferred to CO to seek clarfiication. CS backing out of claim. NFH EXHIBIT It »» <a Office: WHRUREC Performer: Wicker, Joe 09-17-2024 - 8:22 AM CDT File Note: File Note Participant: COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)} Category: Contact - Outbound Call Sub Category: Page 1 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000069"}, {"d": 121, "p": 177, "t": "RBZO0O0IS Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C FIRE Working new mail received an email from PA requesting that we review their photo, of the roof rain cap stating that this is a items we missed doing our ist inspection. Reviewed the docs and contacted the PA Jose, CS explained that we would need additional photos verifying the location for the rain cap on the roof. PA said he understood and he will submit those docs. NFH closing claim new mail will reopen the clam. 08-15-2024 - 9:32 AM CDT File Note: pending file nate Participant: Category: Pending Performer: Bradley, Yasiin Office: WHRUREC COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Cov A: RCBs paid. Cov B: néa Cov C: nla Sub: n/a Mortgagee (Dollar One Y/N): no Closing claim pending addtional documentation to be reopened. oe 8 © © we we we ® Performer: Bradley, Yasiin 08-15-2024 - 9:31 AM CDT File Note: CTR PHOTOS FOR 2ND INSPECTION COL / Line (Participant): Participant: Sub Category: Category: Claim Note Office: \\WWHRUREC .CTR submitted CX live photos previously submitted showing damage to the shingle CS reviewed photos submitted on 7/15/24 along with CTR EST, photos resembles previous submitted photos for CTR on 3/30/24. Per TM review \"no additional damages to roofing,\" CTR photos does not reflect additional damage done. All items were addressed at initial inspection by adjuster. Additional inspection is not warranted. NI and CTR were informed 2nd inspection or TRR not warranted. Decision remains. CS contacted PA and NI notifying decision remains the same at this time. Claim can be closed pending addtional supporting documentation to be reopened. 07-30-2024 - 11:31 AM CDT Office WWHRUREC Performer: Wicker, Joe File Note: File Note Participant: Category: Contact - Inbound Call COL / Line (Participant}: 35 /004(Named insured(s)) Sub Category: RCF the Agent, NI's called to get the status of the claim, CS explained that we have received the CTR's docs but we have not made it to that mail date yet. Agent said she understood. 07-26-2024 - 8:55 AM CDT Performer: Thomas, Dawn File Note: Claim Note Participant: COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC Category: Claim Note Revd claim - PA has been provided an update Office; WHRUREC COL / Line (Participant): 35 /001(Named Insured(s}) Sub Category: PHone message sent to CO in errir 07-25-2024 - 11:58 AM COT Performer: Berndtson, Erica Office: PROPVPLH File Note: Contact COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s}} Participant: COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, INC Sub Category: Category: Contact inspection review. PA Kelsey call back number supplement/2nd for timeline requesting voicemail left CS received voicemail from PA Kelsey 386-478-4911. 07-25-2024 - 10:53 AM CDT Office: WHRUREC Performer: Wicker, Joe File Note: File Note Participant: Category: Contact - Outbound Call COL / Line (Participant): 35 /001(Named Insured(s)) Sub Category: Page 2 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need fo Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000070"}, {"d": 121, "p": 178, "t": "FIRE Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C Working new mail tasks Labeled documents in file * Multiple photos of shingle damage to various slopes + Damage to shingles in photos did not appear to be ADPL hail damage + CTR requesting TRR * TRR not considered due to photos submitted does not support ADPL hail damage + No updates to SFE made; SF's decision unchanged * No RCBs remain + Claim closed 03-15-2024 - 4:32 PM CDT Performer: Haun, Kristin File Note: Claim note Participant: TRADEMARK EXTERIORS COL / Line (Participant): RBZO0015 * + Office ;WHRUREC RESTORATION Category: Fire Estimatics, Contact - Outbound Call, Claim Note Sub Category: « * * CS working messages PCT CTR (Bobby) to explain and clarify denied supplements. CTR did not provide any missed/omitted damages that are not on SFE for elevation for roof work. CTR is requesting TRR. Additional staining and measurements on fence are not warranted. SFE allows for damaged areas of fence to be stained. Additional staining of fence is not warranted because the separate areas of fencing did not match pre-loss. Photos of bathroom ceiling do not appear fo be water damage. » LMOVM with call back information. Office: WHRUREC Performer: Ernest, Connie 03-14-2024 - 2:06 PM CDT File Note: Working Phones Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Category: Contact - Inbound Cail COL / Line {Participant}: 35 / 001(Named Insured(s}} Sub Category: CS Working Phones CS RCF CTR Bobby stating that he'd received the email with the SFE and had questions about the non-supported items. + » CS reviewed the file notes and observed that CS Kristin had recently reconciled the supplement request, * CTR asked if CS Kristin can give him a cail to discuss those non-supported items. * CS advised CTR that the CS will reach out to address his questions and concerns. * CTRuls NFQ. + NEFH. 03-14-2024 - 1:12 PM CDT Office: WHRUREC Performer: Haun, Kristin File Note: Claim note Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Fire Estimatics, Contact - Outbound Call, COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Contact - Inbound Cail, Claim Note * + oe ee we + « CS working phones RCF CTR (Bobby) inquiring on status of supplements. Received labeled and reviewed CTRE with signed contract and photos. Reviewed file notes and documents. Advised CTR would be notified of any updates to SFE Supplements ‘TRR and additional elevation work - NOT APPROVED - CTR did not supply any evidence of missed damages * + Additional LF on fence - NOT APPROVED - SFE covers damaged area, fence did not match in stain color prior to storm + Bathroom - NOT APPROVED - photos do not appearto be water stains at ceiling Bedroom - APPROVED - already on SFE, allowed for floor protection, D&R ceiling fan and moving and resetting cantents + Closet - APPROVED - already on SFE, allowed for floor protection and moving and resetting contents * Nothing to warrant an additional inspection at this time Updated SFE to release depreciation per signed contract Payment letter, SOL and customer capy emailed to NI and DF to claim. Paper draft issued. Not eligible for OP Customer copy emailed to CTR and DF to claim PCT NI to advise of decision. LMOVM with call back information NFH 10-19-2023 - 1:06 PM CDT Performer: Balser, Max R Office: WOMOEC Fite Note: CES Review Page 5 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000073"}, {"d": 121, "p": 179, "t": "RBZoOO0I5 Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C FIRE Participant: Category: Management Called Neil West to discuss his response on the CES. COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: We discussed that when the CO and PH inspected the exterior that the CO pointed out hail damaged items like the gutters, window screens, : and the stain on the wood fence. Then the CO inspected the roof. After the roof inspection, the CO showed the PH the photos of spatter on the roof turlle vents, and multiple shingle photos, valleys, ridges, slope overviews, then told the PH does not have any wind or hail damage to the shingles. PH was told by 2 other roofers that he had damage to all the shingles. We discussed that if his roofer has any photos or proposals that he would like us to consider, we would be happy to review, He asked if his chosen roofer wanted to meet us to inspect roof again, would we. | advised that we would consider any review and would be able to reinspect his roof system. He thanked me for the call, and stated it meant alot to him that we would follow up in his concerns, 09-29-2023 - 1:34 AM CDT File Note: Agent contact Participant: Category: Contact Performer: Gooch, Cedric 09-29-2023 - 1:34 AM CDT Performer: Gooch, Cedric Office: WOOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: was drop filed to documents. Email results. and findings CO emailed agent Nancy Holcomb with inspection Fite Note: Settlement Participant: Category: Claim Note Office: WOOKTUL Office: WOOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: CO completed and settied claim onsite. 09-29-2023 - 1:30 AM COT File Note: Inspection file note Participant: Category: Fire Estimatics Performer: Gooch, Cedric COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Page 6 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000074"}, {"d": 121, "p": 180, "t": "RBzZ00015 Glaim Number: 36-53Q1-13C FIRE INSPECTION RESULTS: Met with: Neil West Date/Time: 09/28/23 @ 5pm CTR name, if applicable: Photos taken and labeled by YPS2 Prior Losses: Related Prior, repairs completed Coverage A - Roof scope sheet uploaded. Exterior scope sheets uploaded. CO inspected the property with NI. Inspection completed on dwelling. No hail damage was documented to the shingles on the dwelling roof. Hail damage was documented to gutters, downspouts, window screens, and fence stain.. Discussed and agreed upon scope with NI. Advised that CO would complete the estimate and contact to settle. NI stated he u/s. Dwelling: ROOF: Approx. 4yr old 30yr laminate shingle in avg. condition. There is one layer with felt and starter shingles, with drip edge. Pitch is 10/12. No hail damage documented to the chimney flue cap and metal roof vents. CO documented no hail damage to the shingles on any directional slope. Roof warrants full replacement based on impacts/sq. ELEV: FT: Hail damage to gutters and window screens. RT: Hail damage to gutters. RR: Hail damage to gutters, downspout, and window screen. LT: Hail damage to gutters, downspout, and window screen. Other Structures: Hail damage to fence stain. Interior: CO documented water stain on ceiling in bedroom. Labor minimums: Applied as warranted, removed those that will be completed by a primary repair trade. GCO8P: Not applied to estimate due to lack of complexity or need for coordination of repairs. Repairs can be completed without trade interference. Depreciation: Applied based on approx. age as identified during the inspection or provided by Ni Coverage B - Personal Property: No personal property reported by NI. Coverage C - Additional Living Expense (ALE): None-Home is habitable. Sub/Salvage: Weather related - no sub potential. No salvage value in damaged material/ items Building Code Jurisdictional Table utilized, code reviewed, coverage applies. CO completed SFE and settled claim onsite. 09-23-2023 - 1:01 PM CDT File Note: TM reassignment Performer: Boydston, Kim Office: WOOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Participant: Category: Management Please note scheduled inspection. 09-16-2023 ~- 12:09 AM CDT Performer: Hervey, Brandi File Note: Pending Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Office: WDOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): 35 /001(Named Insured(s)) Page 7 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000075"}, {"d": 121, "p": 181, "t": "RBZO000!5 Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C FIRE Category: Pending Sub Category: Cova: Pending inspection scheduled 9/29/2023 with 12-2PM arrival window Pending SFE Pending CDE Pending settlement call with Nl Pending settlement cal! with AO 8 #© @ 8 © PENDING File Note e Pending close Cov B: + Pending inspection Cov Cc: * No, home is still habitable Sub: * No, loss due to weather event Mortgagee (Dollar One Y/N): N- Rocket Morigage Office: WDOKTUL Performer: Hervey, Brandi 09-16-2023 - 12:07 AM CDT File Note: QFC COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Narned Insured(s)) Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Sub Category: Category: Quality First Contact Fire Property QFC - Wind/Hail Policy Type: Homeowners Prior Related Losses/iSO Details: Possible Related Prior Number of Stories: 1 Roofing/Siding Type: Comp Class IV identified on Policy Screen (Yes/No): No SteepWalkable: Steep Age of Roofing/Siding: 6-7 years AccuWeather Report Detaiis: Hail size 2.25 or greater FOL as provided by contact: Hail caused damage to dwelling Narrative Description of Damage: Damage to roof, interior room, exterior, and soft metals Exterior Damage: Y Interior Damage: Y Mitigation Performed: Building Habitability: Habitable Power Outage: N/A Personal Property Damage: Pending inspection Food Loss: N/A Coverage C - ALE Status, if uninhabitable: N/A Subrogation: No sub for this weather loss Mortgage Company, Dollar One (yes/no): N- Rocket Mortgage Ctr Name (if applicable): Trademark Exteriors Ctr Added to Participants (yes/no): Y Offered SFPSP CSP or RSP: N REIAP utilized? (yes/no): N Explanation of claim handling pracess/next steps: Yes, inspections scheduled 9/29/2023 with 12-2PM arrival window Page 8 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CCMWest_000076"}, {"d": 121, "p": 182, "t": "RBZO0IS Claim Number: 36-5301-13C FIRE 09-12-2023 - 9:35 AM CDT File Note: AVM review Participant: NEIL S WEST Category: Claim Note Office: WDOKTUL Performer: Cathell, Stacy COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: EGR has made first contact attempt with 2nd pending. Office: WDOKTUL Performer: Hervey, Brandi 08-24-2023 - 6:58 PM CDT File Note: 2nd Attempt contact Ni COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 001(Named Insured(s)) Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Sub Category: Category: Contact - Outbound Call Sent ODM. Called NI, Neil West @0014 phone number and Lacy West @0013 phone number. No option to leave VM as @0014 line VM box was full and @0013 phone number was answered by a man who stated it was the wrong number. FC0011519 Contact follow up letter sent via email « 08-06-2023 - 3:26 PM CDT Performer: Hervey, Brandi File Note: Contact NI Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Category: Contact - Qutbound Call Office: WDOKTUL COL / Line (Participant): 35 /001(Named Insured(s)) Sub Category: Sent ODM. Called NI, Neil West @0014 phone number and Lacy West @0013 phone number. Calls were unanswered. Left VM requesting c/b to discuss claim and schedule inspection date. * FC0010918 Contact initial attempt letter sent via email Office: WOOKTUL Performer: Hervey, Brandi 07-28-2023 - 10:34 PM CDT File Note: Pending COL / Line (Participant): 35 / 004(Named Insured(s)) Participant: NEIL S WEST, LACY WEST Sub Category: Category: Pending PENDING File Note Cov A: * 8 © © © © @ we ew Pending QFC and inspection scheduling Pending confirmation of CTR - Update participants if needed Pending FIOT Pending Accuweather Pending inspection Pending SFE Pending CDE Pending settlement cali with Nj Pending settlement call with AO Pending close Cov B: « Pending inspection Cov C: * No, home is still habitable Sub: » No, loss due to weather event Mortgagee (Dollar One Y/N}: N- Rocket Mortgage File History - File Note System Generated Page 9 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000077"}, {"d": 121, "p": 183, "t": "FIRE Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C RBZO00015 identifying Description: Listed Property Address: 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR, LAWTON, OK, 735059537, USA Description: Indicate if the damage was caused by lightning: No ls the damage to the building's exterior, interior, or both? Exterior Indicate: Has the caller indicated the named insured’s home is uninhabitable or involves a total loss to a detached structure(s), based on the facts of loss or information they provided? If uncertain, ask the caller: No Indicate if Catastrophe Deductible Word Track was read: No Indicate if Temporary Repairs - Fire word track was read: No Indicate if applicable deductible(s) were read: No (Water Shut Off} To protect your property from further damage, turn off the water at the shut-off valve nearest the source of the leak: No (Carpet) We suggest that you or a contractor extract the water from the carpet and remove the water-damaged pad: No (Appliances) If safe to do so, unplug and remove all appliances in affected rooms: No (Protect Furniture) If possible, move furniture and other personal property out of the affected rooms or place aluminum foil under legs of furniture that cannot be removed to prevent stains on the flooring, Pull draperies up and away from wet areas: No Indicate if Temporary Repairs - Water Rernoval & Restoration word track was tead: No Indicate if Temporary Repairs - Hail word track was read: Yes Indicate if Temporary Repairs - Wind was read: No Indicate if Temporary Repairs - Wind & Hail was read: No 07-28-2023 ~ 2:02 PM CDT Performer: System - Claim File System Generated File Note: Preliminary Information . Participant: Office: System COL / Line (Participant): Category: New Ciaim Indicate if damage to any houses, structures, or buildings: Yes Were any of your personal or business items damaged? No Was this incident reported to the police? No 07-28-2023 - 2:02 PM CDT Performer: System - Ciaim File System Generated File Note: Loss Details Participant: Office: System COL / Line (Participant): Category: New Claim Reported by: Contractor Person who reported the claim: Trademark Exteriors Restoration Indicate if warm transferred from agent's office: No Indicate the kind(s) of loss being reported: Hail Indicate, Is this a first-party injury claim? (injury to insured) Is this a first-party property claim? (damage to the insured's owned and insured property) Is this a third-party injury claim? (alleged injury to another person) {s this a third-party property claim? (alleged damage to another person's property): First party property Indicate if a Weather/Catastrophe loss? Yes Indicate if the caller is filing this loss for record only: No Indicate if caller is requesting a Record Only letter to provide to a government agency: No Mark all applicable coverage(s) and deductible(s) read: Loss Location Category: Listed Property 07-28-2023 - 2:02 PM CDT Performer: System - Claim File Office: System System Generated File Note: Policy Details Participant: COL / Line (Participant): Category: New Claim Date: 03-14-2025 Page 18 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000086"}, {"d": 121, "p": 184, "t": "FIRE RBZO0015 Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C Policyholder Address: 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR, LAWTON, OK, 735059537, UNITED STATES Policyholder Type: Individual Product Line: F Policy Number: 36-CR-A405-8 Effective Date: 07/28/2023 Expiration Date: 12/29/2023 State and State Cade: OK; 36 indicate if Excess and Surplus: No Excess and Surplus State: Excess and Surplus Policy: File History - Tasks Office: McLeod-Gleaton, Taylor Performer: 09-17-2024 - 8:22 AM CDT Status: Task: MANAGEMENT CALENDAR COL / Line (Participant): Participant: Sub Category: Category: Calendar Task is set for a manager on the claim. Task is set to display every 180 days until the assignment is closed. WHRUREC Office: WHRUREC Status: Completed Performer: 09-17-2024 - 8:04 AM CDT Task: NEW MAIL Estimate Participant: Category: Wicker, Joe Cleared COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: New Nail Estimate Notifies claim handler that new mail has been received. 09-17-2024 - 7:26 AM CDT Task: Participant: Category: Performer: Office: Wicker, Joe WHRUREC Status: Completed COL / Line (Participant): — Sub Category: File Documeniation NEW MAIL File Documentation New Mail Notifies claim handler that new mail has been received. Performer: 08-15-2024 - 9:36 AM CDT Task: MANAGEMENT CALENDAR Participant: Category: Calendar Thomas, Dawn Performer: 08-15-2024 - 9:35 AM CDT Task: NEW MAIL Estimate Bradley, Yasiin Office: WHRUREC Status: Cleared Office: Status: WHRUREC COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: Task is set for a manager on the claim. Task is set to display every 180 days until the assignment is closed. Participant: Category: Completed COL / Line (Participant): Sub Category: New Mail Estimate Notifies claim handler that new mail has been received. 08-15-2024 - 9:35 AM CDT Performer: Sracley, Yasiin Office: WHRUREC Page 19 Date: 03-14-2025 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only SFF&CC/West_000087"}, {"d": 121, "p": 186, "t": "StateFarm: Providing insurance and Financial Services Home Office, Bloomington, it August6, 2023 Lacy West State Farm Claims PQ Box 106169 7 NW Briarcreek Dr Atlanta GA 30348-6169 Lawton OK 73505-9537 RE: Claim Number. 36-53Q1-13C Date of Incident: June 15, 2023 Policy Number: 36CRX4058 Dear Lacy West: We have received your reported claim and wish to discuss this matter with you, but we were unable to reach you by telephone. In order to proceed with the handling of this claim, it is necessary to speak with you. Please call us so we can discuss the facts of this claim and schedule an appointment to inspect your property. It is our understanding that your property has suffered damage. If necessary, please use reasonable measures to protect your property from further damage. Keep a record of related expenses as all or some of them may be covered depending on your particular circumstances, If you have spoken with us before receiving this letter, you may disregard this request. We thank you for the opportunity to be of service and look forward.to speaking with you soon. If you have questionsor need assistance, call us at (866) 787-8676 Ext. 15631. Sincerely, Brandi Hervey External Claim Resource - Alacrity (868) 787-8676 Ext. 15631 Fax: (844) 236-3646 State Farm Fire and Casualty Company EXHIBIT WEST, 000066"}, {"d": 121, "p": 188, "t": "Providing Insurence and Financial Services Se State F; af m Home Office, Bloomington, It © August 24, 2023 State Farm Claims Lacy West PO Box 106169 7 NW Briarcreek Dr Atlanta GA 30348-6169 Lawton OK 73505-9537 RE: Claim Number: Date of Incident: 36-53Q1-13C June 15, 2023 Policy Number: 36CRX4058 Dear Lacy West: To assist you with this claim, please call us so we can discuss the details of this matter and schedule an appointment to inspect your property. Our last attempt to reach you was on August 24, 2023. It is our understanding that you have suffered damage to your property. If necessary, please use reasonable measures to protect your property from further damage. Keep a record of — related expenses as all or some of them may be covered depending on your particular circumstances. if you have spoken with us before receiving this letter, you may disregard this request. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and look forward to speaking with you soon. lf you have questions or need assistance, call us at (866) 787-8676 Ext. 15631. Sincerely, Brandi Hervey External Claim Resource - Alacrity (866) 787-8676 Ext. 15631 Fax: (844) 236-3646 statefarmfireclains@statefarm.com For your protection, when emailing Slate Farm, please do not include sensitive personal information such as Social Secunity Number, credit/debit card number (financial account numbed), driver's license number, or health/medical information in an email. Please contact us at (866) 787-8676 Ext. 15631 to discuss sensitive information. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company >> EXHIBIT SFF&CC/West_000636"}, {"d": 121, "p": 190, "t": "Providing insurance end Financial Services Home Office, Bloomington, It September 5, 2023. Lacy West 7 NW Briarcreek Dr State Farm Claims PO Box 106169 Lawton OK 73505-9537 Atanta.GA 30348-6169 RE: ClaimNumber. = 36-53Q1-13C. Date of Incident: Policy Number. Jurie 15, 2023 36CRX4058 Dear Lacy West: To assist you with this claim, please call us so we can discuss the details of this matter and schedule art appointment to inspect your property. Our last attempt to reach you was on September 5, 2023. itis our understanding that you have suffered damage to your property. If necessary, please use reasonable measures to protect your property from further damage. Keep a record of related expenses as all or some of them may be covered depending on your particular circumstances. If you have spoken with us before receiving this letter; you may disregard this request. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and look forward to speaking with you soon. If you have questions or need assistance, call us at (866) 787-8676 Ext. 15631. Sincerely, Brandi Hervey External Claim Resource - Alacrity (866) 787-8876 Ext. 15631 Fax: (844) 236-3648 statefarmfireclains@statefarm.com For your protection, when emailing State Ferm, please do not include sensitive personal information such as Social Security Number, credit/debit card number {financial account number), driver's license number, or héalth/medical information in an email, Please contact us at (866) 787-8676 Ext, 15631 to discuss sensitive information. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company EXHIBIT A WEST_000070"}, {"d": 121, "p": 192, "t": "Uocusign Envelope (U0: 1USSHEZ)-br Oe -BHSZ-BI48-USZFAd/F BAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) )) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) Defendants. ) Case No. CJ-2025-[35 JUDGE SHEPERD ) DECLARATION OF CEDRIC GOOCH I, Cedric Gooch, declare under penalty of perjury as follows: 1. I am over eighteen years of age, reside in Wylie to testify to the matters stated herein. , Texas, and am competent Iam currently employed by Renfroe as an independent adjuster. At the time of the events described in this Declaration, 1 was employed by Eberl and was assigned as an External Claims Resource to assist State Farm Fire and Casualty Company with the investigation and evaluation of property insurance claims, including performing field inspections and preparing estimates. In that role, I was assigned to inspect the property at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, Oklahoma owned by Neil and Lacy West (the “Property”) in connection with their claim for storm damage. On September 28, 2023, I physically inspected the Property, During my inspection, I evaluated whether there was storm damage to the roof and other exterior components. Based on my inspection, | identified conditions consistent with hail damage to portions of the Property, including the gutters, downspouts, window screens, and fence stain. I did not see or feel any hail damage to the roof shingles, chimney flue cap, or metal roof vents. Immediately following my inspection, and while still onsite, I discussed my findings with the insured, Mr. West. As part of that discussion, I showed him photographs from my inspection of the Property, as well as photographs of other roofs J had recently inspected that had hail damage, to explain the differences between the conditions I observed at the Property and the roofs where J found hail damage to exist. Following my inspection, J prepared a written estimate reflecting the damage I observed and the scope of repairs that | determined were appropriate based on my findings. ma? Sed EXHIBIT 15 ™> «"}, {"d": 121, "p": 193, "t": "Docusign Envelope iD. TUS Bt 25-F 56-BisS2-8548-CSZF BAS /FUAS 9, The estimate I prepared included an evaluation of repair costs, depreciation, and application of the policy deductible, and reflected the amount payable based on my inspection at that time. 10. I documented the estimate and related findings in the claim file as 1 normally do. 11, My findings, reflected in the estimate, were based on my inspection of the Property and the information available to me at the time of that inspection. At no point were my findings or estimate influenced by any policy that might trigger team management approval for a full roof replacement; nor, to my knowledge, was any such policy applicable to this claim because AccuWeather—an external vendor that provides hail-history estimates based on the date reported and the loss location—estimated hail over | inch in size for the reported date of loss and team manager approval was not needed fo total a roof where hail was larger than one inch. 12. To the best of my recollection, at the time inspected the Property, I had sufficient authority to total this roof without manager approval (had I thought it was warranted). 13. One sentence in my inspection claim note states, “Roof warrants full replacement based on impacts/sq.” That sentence is a clerical or copy/paste error, should not be there, and does not reflect my findings. As reflected in the same note and on my exterior scope sheet, | found no hail damage to the shingles on any directional slope. I did not estimate for a full roof replacement, and my estimate reflects the scope of repairs 1 determined were appropriate based on my inspection. 14, After completing my inspection and estimate, my involvement in the handling of the claim was limited to what is reflected in the claim file. I state under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma and 12 0.8. § 426 that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: May 25,00 , 2026. Location of Execution: Waterloo, IA Stoned by: (rdvic Coord BIGSOth-"}, {"d": 121, "p": 195, "t": "WEST, NEIL 36-539 1-13C State Farm P.O. Box 106169 Atlanta, GA 30348-6169 Fax: 1-844-236-3646. statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com Structural Damage Claim Policy This estimate is priced based on estimated market pricing for the cost of materials, labor, and other factors at the time of the loss. Adjustments in market pricing and timing of the repairs may impact the final cost of covered repairs, Should you or you select have questions conceming our estimate, please contact us. If your contractor's estimate is the contractor higher than ours, you should contact us prior to beginning repairs. State Farm will work with you and your contractor to determine the actual and necessary cost of covered repairs at the time repairs will be completed, subject to policy: terms, conditions and limits. * We want you to receive quality repair work to restore the damages to your property. » We will provide you with a detailed estimate of the scope of the damage and costs of repairs, Should the contractor you select have questions concerning our estimate, they should contact your claim representative directly. * Depending upon the complexity of your repair, our estimate may or may not include an allowance for general contractor's overhead and profit. If you have questions regarding general contractor's overhead and profit and whether general contractor services are appropriate for your loss, please contact your claim representative before proceeding wilh repairs. + There may be building codes, ordinances, laws, or regulations that affect the repairs of your property. These items may of may not be covered by your policy, Please contact your claim representative if you have any questions regarding coverage which may be available under your policy. + State Farm® cannot authorize any contractor to proceed with work on your property. Repairs should proceed only with your authorization. * State Farm does not guarantee the quality-of the workmanship of any contractor or guarantee that ihe work will be accomplished within any specific time frame. « It is understood that the contractor is hired by you, our insured, and that they work for you - not State Farm, Hyou have any questions or need additional information regarding your claim, please contact your claim representative immediately. m2? EXHIBIT Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM Ie 132214.1 06-18-2009 Page: ! WEST_000087 Ce"}, {"d": 121, "p": 196, "t": "16-530 1-13C Bullding Estimate Summary Guide StateFarm' guide Is based on a sample estimate and Is provided for reference only. This summary Please refer to the estimate for specifics of your clalm. t. Line Hem Total ~ Total vatue of ail line ftams In the piven plus possible State Farm insurance Insured: ms Property: Sim , H08 . 4 vena mith + Main Street 00-0000. O00 Estimat Clan number: — 00-0000-000 j Other $4,000.00 coals and repairs. 2. Ganorat Contractor's Overhaad and Profit ~ General contractor's charge for coordinaling your repairs. — Remodel F = Factored in, } 0 = Do Not Apply - Summary for Dwelling Line Item Total [1] . Matariel Sales Tax j “ due to waar, ep eine and ov all of this obsolescence. A Pa Subtotal amount may be eligible far replacement ¢ General Contractor Overhead [2] @ General Contractor Profit wo ‘ 0: cost benefits. cs Cost Value (Including Gene! Coniracto Overhead and Prot) Replacement Lass Depreciation (Including Taxes) cy Esiimated cost to repair of replace = The decrease in the 4, Depreciation volua of property over a period of ima . ; 10,000% x 1,620.08 Q £3, Replacement Cost Value (RCV) ~ damaged property. , . Minium It to cover a.certaln minimum of hours for drive-lima, set up number tiie and applicable administrative Soe ILAL8F_MAR 13 Restoratlon/Service/ Price List; bor minknums, Labor adustments for |) Polkcy Number: 00-00-0000-0 Anywherg, th 00000-0000 Type of Loss: Deductible: lat 8. Deductible -The Insurer will pay for 7,326.12 losses, up to the policy Emits, in excess (632,50) i otto of your applicable deductibe. &. Net Actual Cash Value Payment (166.50) The repair or replacement cost (ACV) Less Destin (Z] of tha dameged part of the property less depreciation and deductible. 7, Non Recoverabla Depreciation ~ Hon applied to iterns that are nat dligible for replacement cos benefits. 8. Total Maxkvium Additional Amount if O4P on Depreciation Genera! Contractor Incurred ~ Total amount of recoverable deprecialion after actual 168.60 repalt t of rep lacement °of Less General Contractor OSP on Non - recovatable Depreciation Subtotal Total Maximum Addiional Amounts Avaliable if incurred [B] the property. : 9. Total Amount of veri eg acme | Total Amount of Claim Ifincured [5] | - cash value paymant andar t actus Tolal amount of th jad maximum edditonal amount available Clalm Representalve ALL AMOUNTS PAYABLE ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITS OF YOUR POLICY. soozeas Date: 139028.1 01-23-2013 9/28/2023 5:43 PM Page: 2 WEST_000088"}, {"d": 121, "p": 197, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C insured: Properly: = WEST, NEIL 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR Estimate: Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C 3653Q113C LAWTON, OK 73505-9537 Policy Number: 36CRX4058 Home: 580-510-0427 Cellular; 580-695-0014 Type of Loss:. Heil Deductible: Date of Loss; Date inspected: $3,090.00 6/15/2023 9/28/2023 Price List) OKLA28_0{JUN23 Restoration/Service/Remodel Summary for Coverage A - Dwelling - 35 Windstorm and Hail Line Item Total Material Sales Tax 4,686.80 89.09 - Replacement Cost Valuc 4,775.89 Less Depreciation (Including Taxes) Less Deductible (167,39) (3,090.00) Net Actua! Cash Value Payment $918.50 Maximum Additional Amounts Available If Incurred: 767.39 Total Line Item Depreciation (Including Taxes) 767.39 Replacement Cost Benefits Total Maximum Additional Amount Available If Incurred Total Amount of Claim If Incurred . 767.39 $1,685.89 Gooch, Cedric 866-787-8676 ALL AMOUNTS PAYABLE ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITS OF YOUR POLICY. A residential or commercial roofing contractor providing repairs or improvement services to be paid by an insured from the proceeds of a property or casualty insurance palicy shall not, ax an inducement to the sale or provision of goods or services to an insured, e to pay, directly or indirectly, all or part of any applicable insurance deductible or offer to compensate an insured or promise advertis for providing any service to the insured. If a roofing contractor violates the provisions ofthis section, the insurer to whom the insured tendered the claim shall not be obligated to consider the estimate prepared by the roofing contractor, Every roofing contractor shall provide a written notification of the requirements of this section with its initial estimate, The adjuster or insurer shall provide a written notification of the requirements of this section in the initial estimate relating to the claim. Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM Page: 3 WEST_000089"}, {"d": 121, "p": 198, "t": "& StateFarm: . Explanation of Building Repiacement Cost Benefits Homeowner Policy Coyerage A - Dwelling - 35 Windstorm and Hail To: Name: Address: WEST, NEIL 7 NW BRIARCREEK DR City: LAWTON State/Zip: OK, 73505-9537 Insured: WEST, NEIL Date of Loss: 6/15/2023 Claim Number: 3653Q113C Cause of Loss: HAIL Your insurance policy provides replacement cost benefits for some or all of the loss of damage to your dwelling of structures. Replacement cost benefits pays the actual and necessary cost of repair or replacement, without a deduction for depreciation, subject to your policy's limit of lability, To receive replacement cost benefits you must: 4. Complete the actual repair or replacement of the damaged part of the properly within two years of the date of loss; 2. Promptly notify us within 30 days afler the work has bean complated; and 3, Confirm completion of repair or replacement, by submitting invoices, receipls or other documentation to your agent or claim office. Unltd these requirements have been satisfied, our payment(s) to you wal be for the actual cash value of the damaged part of the property, which may inchide a deductlon for depreciation. Without waiving the above requirements, we will consider paying replacement cost benefits prior to actual repair or replacement if we determing repairor replacement costs will be incurred because repairs are substantially under way or you present a signed contract acceptable to us. is for tha actual cash The estimate to repair or replace your damaged property is $4,775.89 . The enclosed claim payment to you of $918.50 value by deducting value of the damaged property at the time of loss, less any deductible that may apply. We determined the actual cash loss. Based on our depreciation from the estimated repair or replacement cost, Our estimate details the depreciation applied to your estimate, the additional amount avaiable to you for replacement cost benefits (recoverable depreciation) is $767.39. if you cannot have the repairs completed for the repair/replacement cost estimated, please contact your claim specialist prior to beginning repairs. Al! policy provisions apply to your claim, Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM FC0006615 10/22/2020 Page: 4 WEST_000090"}, {"d": 121, "p": 199, "t": "State farm 36-§391-13C WEST, NUL Dwelling Exterlor Roof . 46,33: Numberof Squares 4,632.97 Surface Arca 99,08 Total Ridge Length 330,96 Total Perimeter Length 229.79 Total Flip Length UNIT PRICE QUANTITY TAX RCV 0,00 0,00 AGE/LIFE DEPREC, CONDITION DEP % ACV No Accidental Direct Physical Loss observed at timeof inspection. Totals: Roof 0.08 0,00 Gutters 0,00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 0.00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV AGE/LIFE CONDITION DEPREC. DEP % 2,891.35 4/25 yrs (462.62) Avg. 16.00% Oe - up to 5” * {. R&R Gutter - aluminum 275,00 LF ACV 10,28 64.35. 64.35 Totals: Gutters 462,62 2,891.35 2,428.73 2,428.73 Front Elevation 2, R&R Window screen, | - 9 SF 2,00 BA Totals; Front Elevation Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0,00 LF Ceil, Perimeter 0,00 SF Short Wall 0.00 SF Floor 0,00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 SF Ceiling 0,00 SP Walls UNIT PRICE TAX RCV AGE/LIFE DEPREC, CONDITION DEP % ACV | 42,14 3.28. 3,28 87,56 87.56 4/30 yrs (11.68) Avg. 13.33% 41.68 75,88 75,88 Page: 5 WEST_000091"}, {"d": 121, "p": 200, "t": "State Farm 36-539}-f3C WUST, NEIL. Right Klovation 0,00 SE Wolts 0.00 SF Cefling 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0,00 SF. Floor 0.00 SF Long Wall 0,00 SF Short Wall 0,00. LF Floor Perimeter QUANTITY 0.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 0.00 6,00 AGF/LIFE CONDITION DEPREC. ACV 0,00 0.00 DEP% No Accidental Direct Physical Loss observed at time of inspection. Totals: Right Elevation Rear Elevation 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 10,28 4, R&R Window screen, 19 SF 1.00 EA 42.14 Totals: Rear Elevation Left Elevation | 0.00 LF Fioor Perimeter 0,00 LF Ceil, Perimeter TAX RCV AGE/LIFE CONDITION DEPREC. DEP% ACV 2.81 126.17 4/25 yrs (20.19) 105.98 Avg. 16.00% 4/30 yrs Avg. (5.84) 13.33% 37.94 26.03 143.92 * 3. R&R downspout - aluminum - up to 5° 12.00 LF 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00.SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Walls . 1.64 43.78 445 169.95 . 0.00 SP Walls 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0,00 SF Floor 0,00 SF Long Wall 0,00 SF Short Wall 0,00 LF Floor Perimeter 0,00 LF Ceil. Perimeter. QUANTITY UNIT PRICE #5, R&R downspout - aluminum - up to 5\" 12,00 LF | 6. R&R Window screen, 1 - 9 SF 1,00 BA Totals: Left Elevation Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM TAX RCV DEPREC. AGE/LIFE CONDITION . DEP % . ACV - 10,28 2.81 126.17 4/25 yrs Av. 16,00% (20.19) 105.98 42.14 1.64 43.78 430yrs (5.84) 37.94 AAS 169.95 Avg. 13.33% 26.03 . 143,92 Page: 6 WEST_000092"}, {"d": 121, "p": 201, "t": "State Farm 36-53Q1-13C WEST, NEIL Fence 0.00 SF Walls 0,00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0,00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Long Wall 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter QUANTITY TAX RCV 0,38 0.31 241.99 0.85 8.99 536.87 930 778.86 UNIT PRICE 7. Clean the surface nrea 636.00 SF 8, Stain - wood fence/gate 636.00 SF | Totals: Fence Asea Totals: Exterior AGE/LIFE. CONDITION ACV DEPREC. DEP % 241,99 4fi5 yrs Avg, (143.17) 26.67% 393.70 143.17 635.69 2,371.08 SF Walls 319.90 Exterior Perimeter 2,371.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 2,371.08 Exterior Wall Area of Walls 319.90 LF Floor Perimeter 4,632.97 Surface Area 99.08 Total Ridge Length 46.33 Number of Squares 229.79 Total Hip Length 330.96 Total Perimeter Length 85.83 Total: Exterior 669.53 4,097.67 3,428.14 Ioterlor Height: 8° Bedroom 352.00 SF Walls 120.00 SF Ceiling 472,00 SF Walls & Ceiling 120.00 SF Floor 44.00 LF Ccil, Perimeter 44,00 LF Floor Perimeter Opens into Extertor Opens into Extertor Opens ints Exterior 2'6\" X 68\" 2'6\" X 618\" 26\" X 68\" Door Door Door QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AGE/LIFE CONDITION DEPREC. DEP% ACV TAX RCV 0.00 39.38 39.58 0.01 2,09 2.09 CEILING 9. Content Manipulation charge - per hour 39,58 1,00 HR 10, Seal the surface area w/PVA primer - one coal 4,00 SF Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM 0,52 Page: 7 WEST_000093"}, {"d": 121, "p": 202, "t": "State Farm 36-53Q1-13C WIST, NUIL CONTINUED - Bedroom QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 0.85 1649 _ 11, Paint more than the ceiling - ono coal 124.00 SF 0.61 AGE/LIFE DEPREC. CONDITION DEP% StS yrs (25.49) Avg. 33.33% ACY 51.00 WALLS 12, Paint the walls ~ one coat 0,61 352.00 SF FLOOR 2.40 21712 3,26 335.28 © SAS yrs (72.37) Avg. 33,33% 144,75 . No Accidental Direet Physical-Loss observed at time of inspection. Totals: Bedroom Area Totals: Interior 472.00 SF Walls and Ceiling 44,00 LF Floor Perimeter 44.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter 352.00 Interior Wall Area 120.00 SF Ceiling 352,00 SF Walls 135.1) Total Area 46.67 Exterior Perimeter of Walls 120,00 SF Floor 120,00 Floor Area 237A2 97.86 Pn 3.26 Total: Interior Area Totals; Dwelling 135.11 Total Area 366.57. Exterior Perimeter 120.00 Floor Arca of Walls 2,791.08 Exterior Wall Area 46.33 Number of Squares 4,632.97 Surface Area 99.08 Total Ridge Length 89.09 767.39 3,665.56 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0,00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 0.00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY 330.96 Total Perimeter Length 4,432.95 0,00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Short Wall 0,00 SF Wails 0.00 SF Floor 44.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter -352.00 Interior Wall Area 229.79 Total Hip Length Total: Dwelling Debris Removal 2397.42 2,843.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 363.90 LF Floor Perimeter 120,00 SF Ceiling 2,723.08 SF Walls 120.00 SF Floor 97.86 335.28 UNIT PRICE TAX RCY AGE/LIFE DEPREC. CONDITION DEF % ACV 13, Haul debris - per pickup truck load - including dump fees 1.00 BA Totals: Debris Removal Date: 9/28/2023 5:43 PM 144,12 0.00 144.12 0.60 144.12 444,12 0.00 144,12 Page: 8 WEST_000094"}, {"d": 121, "p": 203, "t": "State Farm 36-53Q1-13C WEST, NEIL Labor Minimunts Apptled RCV AGE/LIFE DEPREC. CONDITION DEP % ACY UNIT PRICE TAX 178.98 0.00 178.98 19,84 0.00 19.84 Totals: Labor Minimums Applied 0,00 198,82 0.00 198.82 Linc Item Totals: 36-53Q1-13C 89.09 4,775.89 767,39 4,008.50 QUANTITY 14. Window labor minimum 1.00 EA 15, General labor - tabor minimum 1.00 BA | Grand Total Areas: 2,723.08 SF Walls 120.00 SF Ceiling | 19.84 | 2,843.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 363.90 LF Floor Perimeter 120.00 SF Floor Date: 178.98 44.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 120,00 Floor Area 2,791.08 Exterior Wall Area. 135.11 Total Area 366.57 Exterior Perimeter of Walls 352.00 Interior Wall Area 4,632.97 Surface Area 99.08 Total Ridge Length 46.33 Number of Squares 229.79 Total Hip Length 330.96 Total Perimeter Length 9/28/2023 5:43 PM Page: 9 WEST_000095"}, {"d": 121, "p": 205, "t": "To: Bobby Odom Sep 26,2023att43PM m@™>> 5 Son 17 EXHIBIT =» WEST_000433 «."}, {"d": 121, "p": 206, "t": "Cancel Oct 4, 2024 at 12:08PM Ok. I'm in Dallas at a barbershop « chorus : competition, soi can't really ‘do muchto help the cause WEST_000540"}, {"d": 121, "p": 207, "t": "-. NewiMessage —Cancel_— To: Bobby Odom WEST_000541"}, {"d": 121, "p": 209, "t": "New iMessage Cancel — To: Bobby Odom Oct 15, 2024 at 3:45PM Oct 22, 2024 at 8:24AM Oct 22, 2024 at 9:34 AM WEST_000543"}, {"d": 121, "p": 210, "t": "New iMessage Cancel — To: Bobby Odom Oct 22, 2024 at 9:34AM WEST_000544"}, {"d": 121, "p": 211, "t": "New iMessage To: Bobby Odom Oct 25, 2024 at 3:32PM ‘the pictures? Irrealy vwant to. : get moving on this. WEST_000545"}, {"d": 121, "p": 213, "t": "B NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOM Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 IN THE DISTRICT COURT LACY WEST, and NEIL OKLAHOMA COUNTY, COMANCHE OF Plaintiffs, No. Case vs. c7-2025-135 FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY STATE INS. and NANCY HOLCOMB COMPANY INC., AGENCY, Defendants. VIDEOTAPED July 14, offices 2026, of National, me, and sworn, produced, at examined Alpha Reporting Suite 405, ELIZABETH above-captioned C. & Tuesday, that Video, taken on at 1911 South in the behalf of RPR, CCR, the day, Missouri, Springfield, HETAGER, cause; on of a.m. 10:21 ODOM, BOBBY MR. OF DEPOSITION Defendants. EXHIBIT 18 Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) before the"}, {"d": 121, "p": 214, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 that's what you were asking. If first time I knocked on his door. No. Sorry. The you were you looked then you you said up there, you got him some photos. And if we made contact that like the exact time with Mr. around, you showed I'm not sure said, When West, there out the contact I made question. previous Page 79 day. Yeah. With insurance. say Okay. as far as with you guys, recall and remember 10 Yeah. I'd 11 made contact 12 recall. 13 Okay. 14 What 15 giving 16 with him. 17 And what did that inspection 18° time you were out at Mr. 19 I got on the roof and 20 Okay. 21 And 22 collaterals, like gutters, 23 pointed out some of 24 Would 25 T I do you believe have I taken I'm things shingles. the other sure. You know, him and -- first day? of some photos the at looked the photos first the of consist and West's? know, you at, looked reviewing then and inspection his him him meeting is not I do part that we to that did. Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405, 232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) yeah."}, {"d": 121, "p": 215, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 Q Okay. A I were they When you. tell and try and look can Page 80 uploaded. is when they were uploaded? Yes. Now, mind you, always the these not JobNimbus, on tell can you something that And not are dates the upload same. Because just like with several jobs, like, I've on the roofs, but upload photos. again, you know, been Because, of I did sift to throughout the day, you try know, people who are being serious and who aren't being serious, will. I you can see, five, six, seven, 15, 16, 17, 10 meeting people 11 through, you 12 the ones 13 mean, as 14 four, 15 13, 14, 16 20 people I made contact 17 I have to upload photos 18 you 19 Right. 20 And how things 21 like, Oh, 22 this person's 23 A lot of 24 Mm-hmm. So -- well, not necessarily that. 25 again, you get busy and you forget to upload can lost And there's ten, 11, -- 20 jobs or with -- I'm sorry for. So you can sauce, if you will. lot a 20 19, the in get nine, eight, 18, to do -- see 12, that how -- of And you're just start piling up. I forgot three, two, one, there's you if this. Forgot to upload photos. photos in the same area? Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) Just,"}, {"d": 121, "p": 216, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 photos Page 81 -- Okay. know. day, you come, first the of -- at the end ig -- it is a thing. You know, for They're not always looking for They're just wanting the easiest at door first. their first it kind of served anyways. people, some Because guy. best the who showed reason why guy up Okay. You 11 saying this 12 started uploaded 13 that 14 that's correct. 15 Yeah. January 16 Okay. 17 Was when 18 then from there, 19 March 6th of '24. 20 on March 29th of 21 photos 22 The 23 photos you 24 claim out. 25 And were drone they first set of photos, let me make sure back up. January 26. And photos. of a first set there was another set uploaded And then another set of photos And then the -- the drone 31st of 2024. '24. requested photos that were guys needed to said that 2024. of I uploaded that you Scroll 26 say -- twenty- I'm photos very the -- January were the is because the -- up essentially so know, 10 those were August allegedly approve taken and August Word for Word Reporting, LLC the only send this 31st of 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) on 2024?"}, {"d": 121, "p": 217, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 one 2 share. 3 | A Yeah. Sorry about that. 4 |Q That's fine. We'll make copies else has them. So 6 page, it looks like this bottom 7 this is -- 8 Brandon 9 the note? that 10 | A So 11 | Q Because 12 A Yes. 13 | Q Okay. 14 off. 15 and is, yes, him sending then it says @Bobby? So it says Your note add the photos. Do you recall 16 this note -- and sending is send to only this one it up type about what you were talking we can handle the supplement. only type it up and for us to it off for then? 17 So we have two ways 19 We can pay him to 20 send off to the insurance for approval. can type 18 I think it. said 3/6 third a.m., I didn't @Bobby. from to Brandon mean that Does Gold. go 6:01 5/3/24, says it sure if we everybody so make and 5 to have to going just we're this, of copy 1 Page 112 | A 21 Q Okay. 22 | A Or he 23 approval 24 et 25 that. and cetera. it up and then he sends does all the emailing and But, obviously, he gets phone paid Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) more calls, for"}, {"d": 121, "p": 218, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB Page 113 Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 Q Okay. A So the claim still not not having a job out of it, it typed up and sent off you know, didn't that time, even being approved and paid to have I, I just Because myself. too nothing know, be, you And that's when I turned Okay. And when you talking about Yes, ma'am. 11 Okay. And 12 you're basically 13 you type 14 on this? 15 And then 16 I had 17 identified as hail 18 Okay. And so do 19 State Farm yourself 20 Not -- not specifically. 21 Okay. 22 -- I'm sure I've 23 throughout 24 the 25 Okay. -- that is works, how that sending it to Brandon estimate for a full roof replacement anything else I had listed there an the let's that I said, to out reaching recall in March? reached -- Can yeah. damage, you Saying, like -- you know or, dates, Well, just you're it up,\" as far so as identified exact to him. estimate? the just over \"type was. it Until would it think crazy. it say 10 up with know, you at I mean -- to them out still time frame. I do not know the exact through some of go far as But the dates. these Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) as photos"}, {"d": 121, "p": 219, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 the of some or misinterpreted I misread maybe And photos. aerial some was needed, we all much pretty Page 193 information. Okay. my yeah, needed and... from last photos Where -- saying that they any other communication 10 October 1st, 11 requesting 12 Well, 13 So it 14 Mr. West 15 guess, is Jose Parga 16 Bobby, can you please 17 your team can help 18 you didn't. I'm 19 included in this. 20 looks 21 December of 22 you sent the 23 him you thought 24 lawsuit. I don't 25 in do of more photos? appears that throughout like the rest looks here, first following up and saying, confirm this is something I don't -- I'm not a reply that was seeing rest the the of it 20th of the email on asking to follow up. final email on January he should proceed with other requests any 2nd, you? Word for Word Reporting, LLC (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) 232.9673 405, saying emails, an see I the sent 2024, one, well, Or, And West Mr. like are photos of with? not (sic) these up. following were. they here, you sent Parga Jose that email 2024, this from aside aware you are photos, more needed a communication about talking you're when it he that the were those understanding, But then And telling the -- for the photos"}, {"d": 121, "p": 220, "t": "B NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOM Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 A this one, I don't After much back and have agreed to in Not an additional looking for better photos of of the entire house. email at overviews roof, specifically Right. That's the October 1st we just read, right? that communication, of page the Right. from 10 any other communication 11 to provide more 12 Not Yr oO YF aside time. of were asking you off of. you anything to Okay. have Okay. But based 16 to be the last 17 what you're 18 Mm-hmm. 19 Okay. And 20 like Jose 21 of October 22 December. 23 No. 24 10/31 note saying, \"See 25 follow up several times Do aware are they where this at knowledge my to really 15 bottom the photos? I don't 14 the Right. So 13 inspection. reconsider are they However, says, they Farm, State with forth it so Well, think. Page 194 35, go that understood you that, off of thing that they needed? Is that during this time, again, it looks follows up about a week later on the 2024. Then Mr. West follows up in saying? so If about 8th back to your notes on Exhibit six pages in. So after you send photos,\" you appear to of the we go over the course Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) the next"}, {"d": 121, "p": 221, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 couple of months Page 195 -- Mm- hmm. asking for an an update on November \"I have with Coastal.\" You on the 15th of November, and the 17th times, like look it 11 \"They're saying 12 more that 13 What happened? 14 didn't 15 attorney 16 for can it updates three more the 20th of December. And it the 18th November, of on Then done.\" You respond, be over. to get denied. And now recall what wrapping 19 Essentially, in 20 like, the end result? 21 Yeah. Do you remember 22 claim wasn't moving 23 Not entirely. I 24 Okay. 25 -- why? if they said let to his then they took their time of how this claim was up? Like sort 18 Brandon, it approved, get could He good. is not This of anything be to going doesn't you, tells Brandon that not take Do you 17 check there's they think I will for ask appears December, Brandon responds. Brandon 10 And 2024. of anything. heard not asked 12th says, for you like Looks update. -- up? I was trying way and why obviously -- happened what just, this forward? just to, wrapping remember, yeah, do -- do whatever Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) I could"}, {"d": 121, "p": 222, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 to going I'm 16. Exhibit on Exhibit 15 And so you'll see on September 13th, at six -- 16, is from State Farm back to Also includes Mr. West and Mrs. No. Mr. Parga. And says, Jose Dear based Coastal this morning, to send additional comes to the 10 when it 11 If 12 contact 13 Do 14 conversations 15 the 16 you additional any have information in is that questions, Services for review question. use my rain cap on the roof? please below. Mr. with specific any having remember you Claim information cap rain West. our on Parga, email, this And 6:13. conversation that Friday, email have Parga that about PP © Okay. Or, PF I don't really recall. Oo roof? Honestly, Okay. Do you remember 20 the 21 I would a as that will 19 marked sent Exhibit 18 been you Parga Mr. 17 what's hand Page 203 I don't recall. like, where it was located on located where it was we looked at maybe, would that help? at on roof? say on the And is -- 22 Okay. 23 Eagleview 24 Yeah. 25 Okay. photos, back. if Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) like, your"}, {"d": 121, "p": 223, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 A Absolutely. Q Because Yeah. I don't have the which may be took, you Page 204 the easiest to be on that photos drone the -~- I guess, way, to see, So Q I think -- where is that? No. 11, it has your towards the back. just hard to see where it's at on the from the photos that what I'm It's Yeah. Exhibit at look if you Eagleview A looks cap rain the A Eagleview. 10 Q 11 12 A 14 you have? Just the Q And can tell better exact placement on the it in your a hard having 13 you So Okay. 15 circle it on 16 No. 11 at 730, 17 start. 18 A I think that 19 Q So you believe 25 where your Eagleview photo got mixed up photos in there. of the photos you West roof? the not of to the form. no. That was a of the photos and things Object appears that not, is Exhibit were SANDERS: one some maybe be just misupload. 23 24 is that and photos it would So Eagleview. the MR. 21 It see Farm submitted A can to State 20 22 time. if you even is roof Q (By Ms. Finch) far as -- as Okay. far as And the the rest close-ups Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) like as"}, {"d": 121, "p": 224, "t": "NEIL and LACY WEST vs STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB Bobby Odom 07/14/2026 that, how the Wests? So it's -- how are we sure that those Object to the form. I can assume SANDERS: that only thing occurred is the photos that January 26 here, those photos the I went to the 11 these got mixed 12 (By Ms. 13 of 14 Yeah. 15 for the photos 16 And how many 17 The six. But 18 that is from the house. 19 And did you ever have 20 Coastal Claims al photos of 22 house? 23 I have 25 in on be froma that photos is maybe some of like you had would have occurred through my in, and it looked a lot that maybe were uploaded January 26th. other photo after any conversations with about how they to a house of those on photos? every I'm positive damage felt about that wasn't to the form. them about that, submitting the -SANDERS: not kind again, area? assuming I'm I have that uploaded there. Because Finch) houses MR. in has Because, zoomed and map 10 24 from what may up these I pulled how like were accident. by house different of are -- MR. So Page 205 spoken Object with Word for Word Reporting, LLC 405.232.9673 (OKC) | 888.277.9673 (Toll-Free) no. right"}, {"d": 121, "p": 226, "t": "Vocusign cnvelope I: MEFUUYTA-Ydd /-YIDL-dUNS-SOSUBEUZh 151 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 STATE FARM FIREAND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC,, ) ) JUDGE SHEPERD Defendants, ) ) DECLARATION OF BRANDON GOLD 1, Brandon Gold, declare under penalty of perjury as follows: 1, ] am over eighteen years of age and am competent to testify to the matters stated here, 2. [ am a licensed public adjuster and, at times, provide adjusting services for clients of Coastal Claims Services, LLC. I also, at tines, compile estimates for Trademark Exteriors—a roofing company located in Oklahoma. Ireside in Holland , Penysylvaniaand have never been to Lawton, Oklahoma. On or around March of 2024, ] compiled an estimate for Trademark Exteriors for the property located at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, OK (“the Property”). I did not inspect the Property at any time, I created the estimate based solely on photos provided to me by Trademark Exteriors, and remote measurement data, including Eagle View. In preparing the estimate, | was asked to prepare an estimate for a full roof replacement in connection with Trademark Exteriors’ request for a second inspection of the Property In preparing the estimate, | was not asked—nor did I—make any determinations regarding any alleged damage to the property or the cause of such alleged damage. 10.1 was not asked to, and did not, make any determination regarding the existetice, scope, or cause of any alleged damage to the Property. 11, From time to time, | refer business to Coastal Claims Services, LLC in exchange for a fee. EXHIBIT AG"}, {"d": 121, "p": 227, "t": "DoOCcUSIgN Efvelope iO) SEFUSYTA-Ybd /-BIUL-sUnd-JOSUBEYZE 151 12, I recall referring the claim of Neil West and Lacy West relating to the Property to Coastal Claims Services, LLC in or around the same time that I prepared the estimate described above, 13, Although my name appcars ona contract between Coastal Claims Services, LLC and Neil West and Lacy West, I did not provide any public adjusting services in connection with their claim, I state under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma and 12 0.5, § 426 that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: May 25:00, 2026, Location of Execution: Gold Claims, LLC's Office DecuStgned hy: brandon, Gold LOSE."}, {"d": 121, "p": 229, "t": "eat Plaintiffs, age JUDGE SHEPERD ntt STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Case No. CJ-2025-135 eet Vv, neattl Ntetl apt NEIL and LACY WEST, eae IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA amet Defendants. I, Derek Franklin, declare under penalty of perjury as follows: 1. Tam over eighteen years of age, reside in Lindsay, Oklahoma, McClain, County, and J am re competent to testify to the matters stated here. fam the owner of Legacy Roofing & Construction, LLC in Lindsay, Oklahoma, I inspected the property located at 7 NW Briarcreck Drive, Lawton, OK (“the Property”) on at Icast one occasion, in or around September of 2023, in connection with Neil West and Lacy West’s claim for alleged storm damage. T do not recall inspecting the Property at any other time. 1 do not have any notes, photographs, or other documentation documenting my inspection, but | recall observing damage to only two slopes of the roof. I believe those slopes were the north slope (above the garaye door) and west slope (above the back porch), I did not do any investigation, or make any determination, regarding the date of loss of any damage I observed to the rvofof the Property. I state under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma and 12 Q.S. § 426 that the foregoing is true and correct. Location of Execution: Lindsay, Oklahoma. Date: May 26, 2026. EXHIBIT O26K91"}, {"d": 121, "p": 231, "t": "From: Kevin. kevin@brown-chaver.com & Subject: Fw: State Farm Claim.pdf Neil Wes/Lawton Date: January 26, 2024 at 12:05PM To: J Whitson jwhitson@brown-ohaver.com Kevin Miller Brown O’Haver Adjusters for the Insured 1901 N, Moore Ave, Ste 12 Moore, OK 73160 405-735-5510 Office 405-735-5513 Fax 405-604-1510 Cell EXHIBIT From: Neil West <neilspencerwest@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 12:18 PM To: Kevin. <kevin@ brown-ohaver.com> Subject: Fw: State Farm Claim.pdf Neil West/Lawton «c Kevin- You and | spoke yesterday. Atlached is the repart made by State Farm, denying roof damage, but cutting a check for the screens, gutters and fence. The “goad guy” contractor {the one | lust) that inspected my roof Ihe second time is Derek Franklin. | asked him to send you the photos he took directly, so be on the lookout for thoss. { also nollced there was damage to the celling on one of the bedrooms and | took pictures of those, which | am attaching to this email, (The 4 pictures are of the same spol, although some were enlarged to see it better} t algo noticed that there is damage to the ceiling in a bedroom closet from another part of the house. | haven 'ttold anyone about this, as | Just discovered it, alhough my wife noticed it a few months ago about the time the storm hit, When | get home from work today | will snap photos of those and send them to you. As per our discussion, after you review the materials please let me know if this is a claim worth pursuing. Cail, text or email if you have eny questions or concerns. Respectfully, Neil West 580.695.0014 call SUB-BrownO’Haver_000004"}, {"d": 121, "p": 232, "t": "From : Kavin, austen@brown-ohaver.com & Subjact : Sales Call Date : November 28, 2023 at 1:25PM To : J Whitson {whitson@brown-ohaver.com Neil West 11/27 friend 6/23/23 580-695-0014 neilspencerwest@sbcglobal.net Lawton Wind/Hail State Farm Mr. West is an attorney in Lawton. He had a wind/hail claim that 2 roofers have looked at and both told hir that the roof was damaged. One said it was a total loss and the other said there was extensive damage but not necessarily a total replacement. State Farm is saying there is no roof damage and only paying him for a repair of the gutters and screens, Would like our help if possible. He sent over the claim documentation from State Farm. Inline image. SUB-BrownO'Haver_000008"}, {"d": 121, "p": 234, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE. 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405), 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. Client: Properly: Neil West 7.NW Briarcreek Drive Lawton, -OK-73505 Operator: BRANDONS Type of Estimate: ‘Date Entered: Hail 3/7/2024 Price List! ‘Labor Efficiency: -OKLA8X: MAR24 Restoration/Service/Remodel ‘Date Assigned: Estimate: © WEST NEIL File Number: . Claim Number: 3653Q113C: IN TTS pur Tee ¥~- PLEASE’ ee ALL PLEASE RREAD ris DOCUMENT. CAREF' ULLY, THOROUGHL YeANDIN ; ‘Trademark Exteriors Restoration standardly uses the primary insurance industry database (Xactimate) for preparation of property loss related.repair estimates. This estimate has been prepared based. on legitimate damage and a reasonable method of repairs, Additionally, this estimate may be subject to futiire revisions and/or ‘additions., Adopted and Required Building Codes: The 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC) has.been adopted and enforced in its entirety by Lawton, OK, unless otherwise specified in local amendments (which are: additions and/or deletions to the already ‘written building codes ~ see attached corresponding éode documentation in the images.section following this-estimate), The 2015 International Code Council (ICC) are the rules that govern this estimate. Important: \"Any person-who yiolates a provision of this code or fails to.comply with any of the requirements thereof or who. erects, constructs, alters or repairs a building or structure in violation of the approved Constriiction documents or directive of the building official, or ofa permit or ceitificate issued under the provisions of this code, shall. be subject to penaltiés as prescribed by law.” (RC.R113.4 Violation Penalties) Overhead and Profit- See Below Disclosures from Xactware for Additional Réference: Overhead and Profit (if applicable) has been added accordingly. For any questions related to the following estimate; please contact us: EXHIBIT SFF&CC/West_000321"}, {"d": 121, "p": 235, "t": "A DEMARK pene wil’ : Exteriors i , Restoration i Trademark 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105. (405).748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com PLEASE: READ THE FOLLOWING DISCLOUSRE FROM XACTWARE CAREFULLY AND THOROUGHLY. “Xactwaire cannot and does not represent of assume the accuracy of, or in uny Way endorse the content provided by its and represent; therefore, that your use of Licensed Product information is only customer's or any other entity. You warrant ‘as.a source of opinion. You agree notto rély thereon without independent verification except at your own risk.\" “Xactware does not. warrant the accuracy of Price Data, Price Data is intended to be a representation of historical information to be used asa baseline or place to begin creation of an estimate. ‘You are responsible to ensure the estimate not limited to actual niaterials, equipment, and labor pricing. You includes priding consistent with components including but acknowledge and understand that Price Data providedas part of the Licensed Product is intended to target the :most representative price of the various price points collected relevant to the specific line item in question. Having this single price per line item, computed from all valid price points researchedin the market, means that some market price. representative data.are higher and some market price data are lower than that which is reported, You agree not to prohibit or preclude: deviatioris from the Price Data where-contractor requitements, market conditions, demand or any other factor warrants of a different line item price in the specific situation. The pricing information shall be compatible with the current the use for informational purposes only. It is your-responsibility versionof the Licensed Product. This pricing informationis provided to ensure the estiniates you write include pricing consistent with components including but not lintited to actual materials, equipment, and labor pricing.” to the mid-pointof the market as possible. As.a result, generally half of the providers “Xactware publishes pricesas close in each market will be priced higher, and half lower than the:cost shown here. Due’to the structure at which different _ es sub-conttactors vs. roofing sales organizations) roofing costs quoted by local providers operate (traditional roofing compani of prices.” can cover avery broad / large:range “The building cost data published by Xactware isnot designed to be inclusive of sales tax, General O&P, or Job-Related O&P within the unit prices, These can be specified and added at print time after all line items have beer listed. However, Xactware has designed flexibility into the system go this is not mandatory. Xactware’s users have the option to add these costs to that are is designed to'provide full detail on all costs their line-items to their line items as they choose. The Xactimate system in gurre dv” (Ref. XactAnalysis License Agreement: 7 _ . - https:/Awww-xactware.com/en-us/solutions/claims-management/xactanalysis/subscription-software-usage-agreement/) WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 2 SFF&CC/West_000322"}, {"d": 121, "p": 236, "t": "amet TRADEMARK 6-6 Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36.NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. WEST NEIL Dwelling Exterior Exterior QTY. DESCRIPTION RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX. O&P. TOTAL L,ise R&R Guiter- aluminum - up to 275.00 LF 0.54 9.89 64,75 586,62 3,519;62 2, R&R Downspout- aluminuin--up 80,00 LF 0:54 9.89 18.84 170.64 1,023.88 3. Gutter splash guard 3.00 EA 0.00 WAT “0.53: 14.78 88.72 4. R&R Wrap wood window frame 2,00-EA 30.40 161.55 3.97 77:58 465.45 88,09 849.62. 5,097.67 ‘to 5\" _ & trim with aluminum sheet - Small Total: Exterior Roof REMOVE REPLACE TAX ‘O&P TOTAL 46:34: SQ 57:37 0.00 0.00: 531.70 3,190.23 46.00 SQ B41 0.00 0,00 215.38 1,292.24 40.84 SQ 0.00: 32.72 15,67 270.40. 1,622.35 Qry. DESCRIPTION: 5, Tear off, haul and dispose of RESET -comp, shingles - Laminated, 6, Remove-Additional charge for ‘steep roof - 10/12°- 12/12 slope 7, Roofing felt 15 Ib. Perth 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “For roof slopes of four units vertical in 12 units horizontal (4:12) or greater, underlayment shall be one tayer applied in the following manner: underlayment shallbe applied shingle fashion, parallel-to and starting fromthe eave:and not interfere with the ability of the shinglesto seal, End laps shallbe 4 inches and shall be lapped 2 inches. Distortions in:the underlayment shall offset by. 6 feet.” (Ref R905,2) shall sbe designed arid Installed in accordarice with this code Additionally, pet the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Roof assemblie and the approved manufacturer 4 § instructions such that the roof assembly shall serve.to protect the building or structure.” (Ref. R903.1, R9O4.1, and R90S.1) The.approved manufacturer is GAF,and their installation instructions state wotk shall be completed as outlined for the work to be professionally installed and wattanted. nui) as Per the approved manufacturer, GAF, \"For hips, the underlayment should be lapped over the hipsat least.4” (102.nm) to 6* (152 be done on a new or complete tear-off installation. Use a 12” (305 ram) to-18\" (457 muni) strip of underlaymentto run along the hip would and overlap the new underlayment on the replacement. pfane at least6\" (152 mm) to 12\" (305 min).” Additionally per the approved manufacturer, GAF, \"For ridges, the underlayment should he lapped over the ridge at least4\" (102 mm)to 6” run (152 mnt) as would be done on a new or complete tear-off. installation. Use a:12” (305 mm) to'18\" (457 mm):strip-of underlaymentto along the ridge and overlap the new underlayment 6” (152. mam) to 12” (305 mnt).\" on the replacement plane at least A copy of the IRC code and the approved manuifacturer’s installation instructions have been attached for reference. 8, Roofing felt - 15 tb.- double 0.34. SQ 0.00: 57.71. 3.96 0.24 23.84 coverage/flow slope WEST NEIL 3/7/2024 Page:3 SFF&CC/West_000323"}, {"d": 121, "p": 237, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Roof QTY ‘DESCRIPTION RESET (REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 2/42. PITCH (DEAD VALLEYS) Per the 2015 International Residential Code.(IRC), \"Asphult shingles shall be used on roof slopes of two units vertical in 12 units horizontal. (1 T-percent slope) or gteater, For roof slopes fot two units vertical in 12 units horidontal (17-percent slope) up to four units vertical In 12 units horizontal (33-percent slope); double underlayment application is required in accordance with Section R905.1.1.” (Ref R905.2.2) Additionally; per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (RC), “Roof assemblies shall he designed and installedin accordance with this code and the approved manufacturer ’ s instructions such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the buildingor structure.” (Ref. R903.1, R904.1, and R905.1) ‘The approved manufacturer is GAE,and theit installation instructions state work shall be completed as outlined for the work to be professionally. installed and warranted, and the approved manufacturet’s installation instructions have been attached for reference. A copy’of the IRC.code 11.47 1.60 6.00 $16.00 SE 9, Ice & water barrier VALLEY LINING ~ NOT 167.44 1,004.61 EAVES in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions before Per the 2015 Interniational Residential Code (IRC), “Valley linings shall be installed applying the shingles. Valley linings of the following types shall be permitted: 1. For open valleys (valley lining exposed) lined with metal, the valley lining shall be not less than 24 inches (610 mum) wide and of any of the metals in Table R905,2:8.2: corrosion-resistant d complying with ASTM D 3909'or ASTM D 6380 Class M, shall be roll roofing, 2. For open valleys, valley lining oftwo plies of mineral-surface not less than 36 inches (914mm) wide. pemitted. The bottorm layer shall be 18 inches (457 mm) and the'top layer 3. For closed valleys (valleys covered. with slilngles), valley lining of one ply of smooth toll roofing complying with ASTM D 6380 and at least 36. ng bitumen . polymer modified inches wide (914 mm) or valley liningas described in {tem 1 or 2 above shall be permitted. Seif-adheri ‘underlaytient complying with ASTM D1970 stall be permitted in leu of the lining material.\" (Ref. 905.2.8.2) per the 2015 Intemational Résidefitial Code (IRC), “Roof assemblies shall be designed and installedIn accordauce with this code Additionally, the building or structure.” (Ref. R903.1, such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect and the approved manufacturer ’ s instructions ; R904.1, and R905.1) The approved manufacturer is GAF, and their installation instructions state work shall be completedas outlined for the work.to be professionally : , 183.80 © -1,102.84 installed and warranted. instructions have been attached for reference. ret’s installation A copy of the IRC code and the approved manufachi 10. Drip edge WEST NEIL 331.00. LF 0.00 omp) 18.72. 3/7/2024 Page:.4 SFF&CC/West_000324"}, {"d": 121, "p": 238, "t": "sel, TRADEM pert : i il Ti * ademark . Exteriors. Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Roof ‘DESCRIPTION QTY. RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL Per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “A drip edge shall be provided at eaves and-rake edges of shingle roofs. Adjacent segments of drip edge shall be overlapped not less than 2 inches (51 mm). Drip edges shall extend riot less thari 4 inch (6.4 rim) below the roof sheathing and extend up back onto the roof deck not fess thian 2:inches (51 mm). Drip edges shall be mechanically fastenedto the roof deck at not more than 12 inches (305 mm).o.c. with fasteners as specified in i Section R905.2.5. Underlayment shall be installed over the drip edge along eaves ‘and under the drip edge along rake edges.” (Ref. R905.2.8.5) Additionally; per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Roof assentblies-shall be designed and installed in-accordance with thiscode. and the approved manufacturer ’ s instructions such that the roof assensbly shall serve.to protect the building.or structure.” (Ref. R903.1, R9O4.1, and R905.1) The approved manufacturer is GAF, and their installation instructions state work shall be completed as outlined for the workto be professionally installed and warranted. Per the approved manufacturer, drip edge must be installed to the rakes and caves of the roofto help prevent water frou getting behind the soffit: edge.or siding. A copy of the IRC code and thé approved manufacturet’s installation instiuctions have been attachedfor réference, 11. Asphalt starter - universal 331.00 LF 0.00. 1.87 8.07 125.42 \"752.46 Starter course Per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “Roof asseniblles shall be designed and installed in accordance with this code and the approved mariufactirer’s instructions such that the roof assembly shall serveto protect the bullding or structure.” (Ref. R903-1, R904.1, and R905.1) ‘The approved manufacturer is GAF, and their installation instructions state work shallbe completedas outlined for.the work to be professionally installed and warranted, , Per the approved manufacturer's installation instructions, asphalt starter strip shingles myst be installed along the rakes and eaves of the roof, A copy of the IRC code and the approved manufacturer’s installation instructions have been attached for reference, 12. Step flashing WEST_NEIL, 16.00 LF 0.00 10,56 1,54 34.10 3/7/2024 204.60 Page: 5 SFF&CC/West_000325"}, {"d": 121, "p": 239, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36.NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Roof ‘DESCRIPTION QTY. RESET ‘REMOVE REPLACE O&P TAX REQUIRED TO BE REPLACEDIF EXISTING & TO BE INSTALLED ALTOGETHER IF NOT EXISTING = BOTH PER TOTAL BUILDING CODE. Per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “Flashings shail be installedin a.manner that prevents moisture from entering the wall and. réof through joints in copings, through moisture permeahle materials and at intersections with parapet walls and other penetrations through the roof plane.” (Ref; R903.2) Additionally; per'the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC),.“Flastiings shallbe installedat wall and roof intersectlons, wherever-there isa change in roof slopeor. direction and around roof openings. A flashing shall be installed to.divert water away-from where the eave ofa'sloped roof intersects'a vertical sidewall. Where flashing is of metal, the metal shall be corrosion resistant with a thickness of not less.than-0.019 inch (0.5 mmm) (No. 26 galvanized sheet),” (Ref. R903.2.1) Furthermore, per the 2015 Intemational Residential: Code (RC), “B ase flashing against a vertical sidewall shallhe continuous or step flashing, and shail be not less than 4-inches (102.nm) In height and 4 inches (102 mm) in width and shall direct water away from the vertical sidewall. be continuous under the. leg of the flashing shall the vertical ‘onto the roof or into the gutter. Where siding is provided on the vertical sidewall, siding, Where anchored masonry veneer is provided oni the vertical sidewall, the hase flashing shall be providedin accordance with this: section and counterflashing shall be provided in accordance with Section R703.7.2.2, Where exterior plaster or adhered masonry veneer is with this section and Section, R703,6.3.” Ref. -R905.2.8.3) provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided in accordance Lastly, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code €RC), “Flashing against a vertical front wall, as wellas soll stack, yent pipe and chimney (Ref. R905.2.8.4) flashing, shall be appliedin. accordance with the asphalt shingle manufacturer s printed instructions.” be replaced as “Any existing flashings, edgings, outlets; in compliance with the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), must These flashings; shall be replaced where rusted, damaged, or deteriorated” (Ref, R908.5) and “Used yents, or similar devices that area part of the assembly materials, equipment and devices shall not be reused unless approved by the huilding official.” (Ref. R104,9.1) Additionally; per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC); “Roof assemblies shall be designed and installed in accordarice with this code such that the roof assembly shall Serve to protect the buildingor structure.” (Ref. R903.1, and the approved manufacturer’ s fristructions R904.1, and R905.1) have béeh attached following this estimate - These installation instructions The approved manufacturer is GAF, and their installation instiuetions professionally installed and warranted... state work shall be completed as outlined for the work to:be A copyof the IRC code and the approved manufacturer’s installation instructions have been attached for reference. 13. Alunilnim sidewall/endwall. 5.00-LF 0.00, 6.66 6.82 0.81 40.93 flashing - mill finish WEST NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 6 SFF&CC/West_000326"}, {"d": 121, "p": 240, "t": "Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE S2nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105. (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Roof. QTY. DESCRIPTION RESET REMOVE REPLACE O&P TAX TOTAL 10 BE REPLACEDIF EXISTING & TO BE INSTALLED ALTOGETHER IF NOT EXISTING - BOTH PER BUILDING CODE REQUIRED the walland. Per the'2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “Flashings shall be installedin a manner. that prevents moisture from entering penetrations. other and walls parapet with intersections at and inaterials permeable ‘roof through joints in copings, through moisture through the reof plane.” (Ref: R903.2) Additionally; per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Flashings shall be installed at wall and root intersections, wherever there is‘a from where the eave of'a sloped A flashing shall be installed to.divert water away. change in reof slopeor direction and around roof openings. l. is of metal,the metal shall be corrosion resistant with a thickrnitss of not less than-0.019 inch (0.5 Where flashing roof intersects’a vertical sidewal nm) (No. 26 galvanized sheet).” (Ref: R903.2.1) Furthermore, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “B ase flashing against avertical sidewall shall be continuousor step flashing the vertical dewall and shall be not less than 4 inches (102. mm) iu height and 4 inches (102 mm) in width and shall direct water away befromcontinuous under the leg of the ashing shall ‘onto the roof or into the gutter, Where siding is provided on the vertical sidewall, the vertical of the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall he providedin accordance with this: siding.Whére anchored ntasonry veneer is provided with Section R703.7.2.2. Where exterior plaster or adhered masonry veneer is g be provided in accordance shall section aud counterflashin with this section and Section R703,6.3.” (Ref. R905.2.8:3) provided on the vertical sidewall, the base Hashing shall be provided in accordance Lastly, pér the 2015 Intemational Residetitial Code (IRC), “Flashing against a vertical front wall, as well as soll stack, vent pipe and chimmey (Ref. R905:2:8.4) flashing, shail be applied In-accordance witb the asphalt shingle manufacturer’ s printed instructions.” with the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), must be replaced as “Any existing flashings, edgings, outlets, These flashings,in compliance (Ref. R908.5) and “Used deteriorated” vents, or sinillar devices that area part of the assembly shiall be replaced where rusted, dainaged,or R104.9.1) (Ref. official.” building the by approved unless reused be not shall devices and niaterials, equipment and installed in accordance with this code Additionally, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC); “Roof assemblies shall be designed and the approved manufacturer ? s instructions such that the roof assembly shall serveto protect the building or structure.” (Ref. R903.1, R904,1, and R905.1) ‘The approved manufacturer is GAP, afd their installation instiuctions have béen attached following this estimate - These installation instructions state work shall be completedas outlined forthe work to be professionally installed and warranted. A copyof the IRC. code and the approved manufacturer’s. installation instructions have been attached for reference. 322:39 238.54 0.00 55.00 SQ shingle fg, - comp. ted 14. Lamina 2,688.42 16,130.51 wiout felt 15; Additional charge for steep roof 10/12'~-12/12 slope 54,28 SQ 0.00. 68.77. 0.00 746.56 4,479.40 16.. Gable cornice return - jarulnated 5.00 EA 0:00. 71,18 1.85 q156 465,31 17; Flashing - pipe jack. 5.00 EA 0.00 48.94 4.31 49.30 298.81 vent - turtle type~ Metal 48. Roof 5.00 EA 0.00. 64.68 5,61 65,80 394,81 §,02 $2.60 $95.63 19, Chinmey flashing - average (32\" x36\") WEST_NEIL 1.00 EA 0,00: 408,01 3/7/2024 Page: 7 SFF&CC/West_000327"}, {"d": 121, "p": 241, "t": "e— FRA DEAMARE ec aT: rk Tradema ; Exteriors . Restoration Reytert 36 NE S2nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. CONTINUED - Roof QTY: DESCRIPTION RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX. O&P TOTAL ~ BOTH PER BUILDING CODE. REQUIRED.TO BE REPLACED.IF EXISTING & TO BE INSTALLED ALTOGETHERIF NOT EXISTING Per the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), “Flashings shalf be installed in a manner that prevents moisture from entering the wall and. ‘roof through jointsin copings, through fioisture permeable materials and at intersections with parapet walls and other penetrations ‘through the roof plane,” (Ref. R903.2) Additionally, per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Flashings shail be instailedat wail and roof intersections, wherever there is a change in roof slopeor direction and around roof openings. A flashing shall be installed to.divert water away. from where the eave ofa sloped sidewall. Where’ flashing is of metal, the metal shall be corrosion resistant with a-thickriess of not less than’0.019 inch (0.5 ‘a verticalcts roof interse mm) (No. 26 galvanized sheet).” (Ref, R903.2.1) Furthermore, pet the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Base flashing against a vertical sidewall shall be continuous or step flashing and shall be not less than 4 inches (102.mmn) in height and 4 inches (102 mm) in width and shall direct water away from the vertical sidewall l,leg of the flashing shall ‘be continuous under the the vertical onto the raof or into the gutter, Where siding is providedon the vertical sidewal be provided in accordance with this. flashing shall the basell, is provided oni the vertical sidewa siding. Where aitchored masonry veneer plaster or adhered masonry veneer is exterior Where R703.7.2.2. Section with accordance in provided be shall section and counterflashing this section and Seotion R703,6.3.” (Ref: R905,2.8.3) with e on the vertical sidewall, the bas¢ flashing shall be provided in accordanc provided soll stack, vent pipe and chimney (IRC), “Flashing against a vertical front wall, as wellas (Ref. Lastly, pér the 2015 Tritemational Resideritial Code ” R905:2.8.4) the asphalt shingle manufacturer” s printed instructions. flashing, shall be applied in accordance with s, with the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC), mustbe replaced as “Any existing flashings, edgings, outlets, in compliance These flashing shall he replaced where rusted, damaged,or deteriorated” (Re£ R908-5) and “Used vents, or siullar devices that.are.a part of the assembly approved by. the bullding official.” (Ref. R104.9.1} unless reused be not shall materials, equipment and devices e code. with this Additionally; per the2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), “Roof assemblies shall be designes and instalied in accordaric and the approved inanufacturer ’ s instructions sitch that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the bulldingor structure.” (Ref, R903.1, The approved manufacturer is GAF, and their iristallation instructions have béeh attached following this estimate - These installation instructions state work shall be completed as outlined for-the work to be professionally installed and warranted. A copy of the IRC code and the approved manufacturer’s installation instructions have'been attached for reference. 20: Conthiuous ridge vent - shingleover style WEST NEIL 75.00-LF 0.00 9,60 16.05 147.22. 3/7/2024 983.27 Page: 8 SFF&CC/West_000328"}, {"d": 121, "p": 242, "t": "TRADEMARK SREDEEESIOETIS Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE.52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Roof. DESCRIPTION QTY RESET ‘REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL Per the 2015 International Residential Code. (IRC), \"Enclosed attics and enclosed rafter spaces formed where. ceflings are applied directly to” the underside of roof rafters shall have cross ventilation: for ‘each separate space by. ‘ventilating openings protected against the entrance of rain or snow, Ventilation openings shall hiave'a least dimension of 1/16 inch (1.6 mm) minimum and. 1/4 inch (6,4 mm) maximum. Ventilation openings having a least dimension larger than 1/4 inéh (6.4 mm) stiall be provided 1with coirosion-resistant wire cloth screening, hardware cloth, or similar material with openings having'a ‘least dimension of 1/16 inch (1.61) minimum and 1/4 inch (6.4 mim) maximum. Openings inroof framing members shall conform to the requirements: of Section R802.7. Required ventilation openings shall open directly to the outside air.” (Ref. R806,1) Additionally; per the 2015 Intemational Residential Code (IRC), \"Ventilators sliall be installed in accordance with manufacturer's installation Instructions. Installation of ventilators in roof systems shall be.in accordance with the requirements of Section R903: Install of yentilators.in wall systems shall he in accordance with the requirements of Section R703.1.\" (Ref. 806.4). Lastly, per the.2015 Intemational Residential Code GRC), “Roof: assembles shall be. designed and installed in ‘accordance with this code and the approved manufacturer’ s instructions such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the building: or structure.” ‘Ref. R903. I, R904.1, and-R905.1) ‘The approved mariufacturer is GAF, and their installation instructions state work shall be ‘conipleted-as outliried for the workto be professionally. installed and warranted, A copy of the IRC code and the approved manufacturer’s:installation instructions have been attached for reference. 21, Hip / Ridge cap - Standard 330.00 LF 0.00. 5,58 43.60. 377.00 1,262.00 profile - coiriposition shingles Per the official Xactimate line item description for the replacement of the shingles, arid the foomotes of Eagleview and other satellite measurement reports, starter. strip shingles. and hips/ridge cap’ shingles must be estimated and accounted |for accordingly and separately as their own line items. 22.. Roofing - General Laborer - per 5.00 HR 0:06. 56.16 0:00 56.16 336,96 Totals: Roof ASSAS 5,830.14 34,980.80 Total: Exterior 543.54. 6,679.76 40,078.47 hour Labor to hand load materials onto roof Interior Bedroom REMOVE REPLACE TAX. ‘O&P TOTAL 32.00 SF 0.44 1.99 111 15.78 94.65 32.00 SF 0.00 0.79 012 5.08 30.48 32.00 SE 0.00 0.88 ‘0.31 5:10 34.17 26; Paint the celling - one coat: 40,00'SF 0:00: ‘0.60 0.27 4.86. 29.13 21, Paint the walls- one coat 208.00 SF 0.00 0.60 1.42 25.24 151.46 28. Ceiling Ian - Detach& reset. 1.00 EA 0.00 200.41 0.00 40,08 240.49 DESCRIPTION 23. R&R V2\" drywall~ hung; taped, ready for texture: A, Texture drywall ght hand QTY: RESET texture 25, SeaV/prime (1 coat) then paint (1 coat) the surface area WEST. NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 9 SFF&CC/West_000329"}, {"d": 121, "p": 243, "t": "nS TRADEMARK cy markm fae ExteriMyors / Restoration Trade s pean 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Bedroom. DESCRIPTION ‘REMOVE REPLACE TAX ‘O&P TOTAL 1.00-EA 0.00 15.03 0.00 3.00 18.03 30, Contents - move out then reset 1.00-EA 0.00 59.41 0,00- 11.88 71:29 31. Floor protection - plastic and 40.00 SF 0.00. 0.29 0.23 2.36. 14.19 3.46 113.98: 683.89 QTY 29. Heat/AC-register.- Mechanically RESET attaclied - Detach & reset tape - 10 mil. Totals; Bedroom Bathroom DESCRIPTION REMOVE REPLACE TAX. O&P TOTAL 32.00 SF 0.44 41.99 111 15.78 94.65 32.00:SF 0.00 0.79 0,12. 5.08 30.48 QTY 32: R&R V2\" .drywall- hung, taped, RESET ready for texture 33, Texture drywall - light hand textiir'é ; 34.. Seal/prime (1 coat) then paint (1 coat) the surface area 38, Paint the celling - one coat’ 32.00: SF 0,00: 0.88 O31 5.70 34.17 40.00 SF 0.00: 0.60 0.27 4.86: 29.13 36.. Paint the walls + one coat. 208.00 SF 0:00: 0.60 142 15.24 151,46 2.00 EA 0,00 15.03 9.00 6.02 36.08 40.00 SF 0.00. 0.29 0.23 2.36 14.19 3,46 65.04 390.16 ‘37, Heat/AC- register - Mechanically attached - Detach & reset 38. Floor protection ~ plastic and tape~ 10 mil. Totals: Bathroom Closet. REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 32.00 SF 0.44 1,99 141 ‘15.78. 94.65 32.00. SF 0.00 0.79 0.12 5.08 30.48 41, Seal/prime(1 coat) then paint(1 32.00 SF 0.00 0,88 0.31 5.70. 17 42, Paint the cetling - one coat: 39.25 SF 0.00: 0.60 0,26: 4.66 2737 43, Paint the walls - one coat’ 192.00 SF 0.00: 0.60 1.31 23.30 139.81 0.00. 0.00 0:00 11,26. 67.53 0.00: 59.41 0.00 ‘14.88 71,29 DESCRIPTION 39, R&R V2\" drywall - hing, taped, QTY RESET ready for fexture 40. Texture-drywall - ght hand texture coat) the surface. area 44, Detach & Reset Light fixture 1.00: EA 45. Contents~ move. out then reset 1,00-EA WEST_NEIL 56.27 3/7/2024 Page: 10 SFF&CC/West_000330"}, {"d": 121, "p": 244, "t": "ss TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma’ City, OK 73105: (405): 748-4444, info@tmexteriors.com CONTINUED - Closet REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 0,00. 0.29 0.22. 2.26 13.57 Totals: ‘Closet 3.33 79.92 479.37 Total: Interior- 10,25. 258.94 1,553.42 Total: Dwelling ‘553.79 6,938.70 41,631.89 QTY. ‘DESCRIPTION RESET 38.25 SI 46. Floor protection - plastic and ‘fape- 10 mil, Fencing REMOVE. REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 1,452.00 SF 0.00 0.37 O71 107.48 645.53 1,452.00. SE 0,00. 0.85 21.24 281.08 1,506.52 16.00 EA 0.00: 76.49. 1.68 245.10 1,470.62 23:63 603.76 3,622.67 QTY. DESCRIPTION 47. Clean-with pressure/chemical RESET spray 48. Stain - wood fence/gate 49, Weoil fence 5' -.6\" high ~ Detach -& reset - per $' section Totals; Fencing Debris Removal DESCRIPTION ‘50, Dumpster load - Approx. 12 QTY RESET 1.00 FA REMOVE REPLACE ‘TAX O&P TOTAL 429.25 0.00 0.00. 85.86 515.11 0.00 85.86 SiS1L yards, 1-3 tons of debris Totals: Debris Removal Labor Minimums Applied DESCRIPTION QTY. RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL 51, Siding labor minimum 1.00 EA: 0.00 62.99 0.00 12.60 95,59 52, Drywall labor minimum 1.00 EA 0.00- 84,42 0.00 16.88 101.30 53. Electrical labor minimum 1.00 EA 0,00 6.20 0.00 1.24 744 54, Heat, vent, & air cond, labor 1.00 EA 0.00: 20629 0.00 41.26 247.55 Totals: Labor Minimums Applied 0:00 198 431.88 Line Item Totals; WEST_NEIL STIL 7,700.40 46,201.55 minim. 1m WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 1] SFF&CC/West_000331"}, {"d": 121, "p": 245, "t": "os. TRADEMARK = Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36'NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. ‘Summary Line Item Total Material Sales Tax 37,923.83 577.42 Subtotal 38,501.25 3,850.15 ‘Overhead 3,850.15 Profit: $46,201.55 Replacement Cost.Value $46,201.55 Net Claiii WEST_ NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 12 SFF&CC/West_000332"}, {"d": 121, "p": 246, "t": "FRADEMARK EAA Trademark Exteriors Restoration . i” ' 36 NE. 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405). 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com Recap of Taxes, Overhead and Profit ‘Overhead (10%) Profit (10%) _MaterialSalesTax Manuf.Home Tax: Storage Rental Tax. Line Items 3,850.15 3,850.15 577.42 0,00. 0.00 Total 9,850,15 3,850:15 577.42 0,00: 6.00 3/7/2024 Page: 13 WEST_NEIL (4.875%) (4.875%) (4.875%) SFF&CC/West_000333"}, {"d": 121, "p": 247, "t": "Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE S2nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105. (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com Recap by Room. Estimate: WEST NEIL. Area: Dwelling Area: Exterior Roof Area Subtotal: Exterior Area: Interior Bedroom 4,159.96 28,695.21 10.97% 715.671%. 32,858.17. 86.63% 566.45. 1.49% Bathrooii 321.66 0.85% Closet 396.12 1.04% Area Subtotal: Interior 1,284.23 3.39% Area Subtotal: Dwelling Fencing 34,139.40 2,995.28 90,02% 790% Debris Removal 429,25. 1.13%. Labor -Mininiwms Applied 359.90: 0.95% Subtotal of Areas 37,923.83 100,00% Total 37,923.83 100.00% WEST NEIL 3/7/2024 Page:14 SFF&CC/West_000334"}, {"d": 121, "p": 248, "t": "ante TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors. Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com Recapby Category O&P Items Total % CLEANING. CONTENT MANIPULATION GENERAL DEMOLITION 537.24 ‘118.82 4,459.38 1.16% 0.26% 9.65% 351.30 6.20 0.76% 0.01% 1,223.84 751.38 2.65%. 0.54%, 256.68 0.56% DRYWALL ELECTRICAL FENCING HEAT, VENT & AIR CONDITIONING LIGHT FIXTURES: _ PAINTING ROOFING 1,788.72 3.87% 24,959.82 54.02% 386.09 0.84% & GUTTER SOFFIT, FASCIA, (3,584.36 1.16% O&P Items Subtotal Material Sales Tax 37,923.83 577.42 82.08%. 1.25% SIDING Overhead . 3,850.15 8.33%. Profit. 3,850.15 8.33% Total. 46,201.55 100.00%. WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 15 SFF&CC/West 000335"}, {"d": 121, "p": 249, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405). 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. MC Lawton, OK © OG Seeateoqene| _ “Search orjumpte ga 1Q Article 6-1 - BUILDING CODE REGULATIONS %* 8&8 Division 6-1-1 - Buliding Code * 88 6-4-4-101 - Adoption of international Building Cade, 2015 edition—incorporation by reference— %® @ Lawnan, Oklahoma «Code of Ordt., + Chapter - BUILDINGS, CONST... 7 Article 6-1 BUILDING CODE RE... _ - Filing of copy with the city clerk. Mort» BB 8 # & & {OUBCC) and The city hereby adapts the International Building Code, 20¢5 edition, as medi ified by the Oklahoma Uniform Building Cade Commission copy of which ore least at 748:20-1-19; to as set forth in Title 748, Chapter 5 of the Oklahonia Administrative Code, more specifi cally Sections 748:20-1-1 js on Ble in the office af the city clerk, Such code shall be In full force and effect within the city to the sama extent as H set forth In full in this section. A Code of Ordinances of violation of any provision of such cade shall constitute a misdemeanogs and shail be punished as provided in Section 1-1. 119 of the theCity of Lawton. {Ocd, 2005-22, Amended, 06/10/2005; 2002-04, Repealed & Replaced, 02/ 42/2002; 97-23, Repealed & Replaced, 05/13/1997) (Ord, 2008-07, Amended, 61/22/2008; Ord. No. 14-05, #1, 3-25-2014; Ord, No. 20:04 § 1, 3-9-2021) State Law reference— Power of city to addpt bullding code, 11 0.5-Sec. 14-107; 74.0.8 See, 324:8, Aa BSB 108.2 Work exempt from permit. Exe(n pti niaialeinnpsdainlasiiplicnsaiiicstedniistaaladiill not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be >» 6-1-4-102 - Amendments te the International Buliding Code, 2015 edition, A, Section 101.) entitled Title’ is hereby amended to read as follows: {04.1 Tile. These regulations shall be known as the Building Code of Lawton, Oxahoma, hereinafter referred to as the “building cade,* B. Section 105.2 entitled “Work exempt from permit\" Is hereby amended to read as follows WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 16 SFF&CC/West_000336"}, {"d": 121, "p": 250, "t": "Trademark Exteriors Restoration TRADEMARK ERE 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. «Go Back. icc About + : Advocacy * Meinbership . : Professional Development ~ _ Products and Services ow : State Acaptions Links to State Adoption View Digdal Codes Agencies Purchase Oklahoma Cades- Oklahoma Unifonns Budding Code Commission ‘The Oklahoma Uniform Bultding Code Commission adopts the fallowing statewide Consttiction hauatiies Beard ininimum codes listed below. “ > > pee 2018 international Building Code ata bes CSOT * - Save Time an 2018 international Existing Building Code 2018 International Fire Code 2048 international Fuel Gas. Code 2018 International Mechanical Code ° 2018 International Plumbing Code Cannabis Facilities WEST_NEIL 2015 international Residential Code State Fire Marshai State Energy Office State lysurance Commissioner Oxlshoma Forestry Snivices, Key Contacts 2009 international Energy Conservation ICC Government Relations Representative Code (Residential) Kelly Sadler 2006 international Energy Conservation Code (Commercial) Senlor Regional Manager E-mail: ksadier@iccsafe.cg 3/7/2024 Page: 17 SFF&CC/West_000337"}, {"d": 121, "p": 251, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405)'748-4444 info@tniexteriors.com. Rok.gov OktskGmws Ofirtal Web Site Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission Bee Commission Meetings & Evanis isdictions Resources (Search St Home Welcometo Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission The mission of the Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission is to establish minimum statewide codes affecting or relating to the built environment for the protection of life and property, to be utilized throughout the state, assuring public health, safety, and welfare. OUBCC Technical Review Committees Gall for Volunteers WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 18 SFF&CC/West_000338"}, {"d": 121, "p": 252, "t": "TRADEMARK TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com A od ok. gay BULLETIN NO, PC 2016-52 TO; ALL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS, RATING AND ADVISORY ORGANIZATIONS RE: LAWS and ORDINANCES, ADDITIONAL COVERAGE; FORTIFIED HOME ™--HIGH WINO AND HAIL PROGRAM : FROM; JOHN 0. DOAK, OKLAHOMA INSURANCE COMMISSIONER DATE: And 25, 2016 ‘The Deparimont Is issuing this Buieti In Pe Tmt fing to a resp complaint of number concerning coverage for tha repair of storm damaged foals. Ls are being fed d by roo) c requke solidly sheathed dacks or docks feathed 4 that pp to the shingles , hha fo SLd. q codes manufacturer's tnstatiation instructions. The sta dand HO-3 form axcines ¢ teduising or. regulating tie repair of i ag for loss caused by ordifiances.ot laws . bul:provides limited \"Additional Coveraga” for lha incfaased costs lnburted due to tha enforcement of any aw which requirés or reguiatas Ihe conslniction, dentolidon, rernodtatieny, tenovallon tone of mepalr of a -slructum damaged by a peril ineured against. We havo ponsidered the facts and ckcumstances surrounding thesa complaints and find as 1; On Judy 15, 201, Oklahom adopted The lntemailonat and thal code ta in affect throughout the State ol Oklahoma. Residential Code (2018) 2. The ntamational Resktantial Code 2015, on amandad and tevised by Iho rules CIRC\"), constitutes the statewide minknum slandards for pasidantat constuclion pursuant to 68 os, 5 7000.23 and OAC 748:20-5-11.3. 3, Chaptor 9 of the IRG, ax adopted provides in ralavant part as fobows\" 4, Certaln property insurance policies purpért to provide ‘addiGunal covatage” fot the increased cost incurred dueto enforcement of any law whith regulates demolition, Page | of? WEST_NEIL 3/1/2024 Page: 19 SFF&CCWest_000339"}, {"d": 121, "p": 253, "t": "TRADEMARK ee Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors;com & od.ok gov remodeling, renovation of repair of a covered building. 6. The onforoament or faiturato sneans execution oft ontore 4 faw does not invatidate the law; it only law Is wanting 6, Conditioning iinswance coverage. on the vageres, inconsistencies and uncertainties of yb, bs ta 4) and faciitaling rapair of ty in i tion of laws ¢. is dito ensure public sataly. Bey 7. Additionally, we find that the sate of “additional insutanes’ lo cover a known nonenistant sk constitutes the sal¢ of Husory and unbaldy: discriminatory covefage, Companies are lasiructed thal for jpurposes 6! poviding “addilional coverages, as an Re to the orefinance of law exclision, you shall consider all building chtles as being stricily enforced. Questions conceming any aspectof this bullatin should be, directed to the Okishomna ‘Insurance Department, Five Cofporate Plaza, 3626 NW, 66\" St, Oklahoma City,OK 73142 Attn: Tyee Laughin, Chief of Operations (often. lavghin@otd. ok.gov) of Gordon C, Amint, General Counsel (ooedott ainini@oid of. gov, AS a separate but telsted malter, Commissioner tf and the fi Doak reminds ing Jouttuts for Businass outehy UBHS) have one Honle™—High Wind andl Hall Program. anew FORTIFIED that the & Home IGHS Is a science-based research Giganization thal promoles effective aclions lo strengthen homes, businesses and comniunities agains! natural disasters, The Commissioner is aging property owners, insurers Brud evaluate the benefits of the Fortified Home. IBHS engineers believe property damage to homes front Fo and EF-4 lemmadoes ean be Vinually eliminated Hihay are bulkor” patrofitted using FORTIFIED standatds, For mora jlaase contact Ms. Tiffany O'Shea, Ditector of Pubse Affairs, \\GHS at loshaagibhs.omp, Office: 819.676. 1047 « Mobile: 542.656.2811 Page dol WEST NEIL 3/712024 Page: 20 SFF&CC/West_000340"}, {"d": 121, "p": 254, "t": "<TADEMRK TRADEMARR 4 Fademark Exteriors Restoration F ; a, Tn to, . net 36 NE on nd Stre Oklahoma City, OK T3105: ‘WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 21 SFF&CC/West_000341"}, {"d": 121, "p": 255, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark. Exteriors Restoration REI 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com ‘& codes, ktsate.org & Sign in Sacand Vorstort: dan 2016 ed gue hes Qa;'@ oa SECTION R103 GENERAL Riot. 4 thie, These provisions shall be known as the Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings of [NAME OF JURISDICTION}, and shalt be cited as such and will be seferrad.to herein as “this code.\" R101.2 Seope. Tha provisions of tha International Residential Code for One+ and Two-lamily Dwellings shall apply fo the construction, afleratian, movement, entargement, replacement, repair, equioment, use and occupancy, location, removal and demolition of detached one--and two-family dwellings and not more than thiee stories above. grade plane in height with a separaté means of egress and their accessory sirtcluras not more-than townhouses ihree stories above grade plane in height, Exceptions: +. LiveAvork units located In. townhouses and complying with tha requirements of Section 419 of the international Buildiig Code shall be pormitted to be constructed in accordance with the International Residential Cade tor One- and Two Family Dwellings, Fire supprassion required by Section 419.5 of the Intemational Building Code where constructed under the international Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall conform to Seclion P2904, 2. Owner-cccupled lodging houses with five or fawer guestrooms shall be permitted to be constructed in accordance with the international Residential Gade for One- and Two-lamily Dwellings where equipped with a fica sprinkler system [n accordance with Section P2904. RtOI.3 intent. The purpose of this code is to establish minimum requirements to saleguard the public safety, health and general wallare thraugh affordability, structural strength, means af egress facilities, stability, sanilalion, light and ventilation, energy consarvation and safely to file and property from fire and other hazards altributed to the bullt anviroriment and to provide Safety to fire lighters and emergency responders during emergency Oparations. WEST_NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 22 SFF&CC/West_000342"}, {"d": 121, "p": 256, "t": "FRADEMARR Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. a codes eésafeorg © hon BS Beg | seaven across international ResWental Code (RC) Pg : BE Ssignin QB : Second Version: Jan 2016 SECTION R102. APPLICABILITY R102.¢ Ganeral. Where there is @ conilict betwean a general requirement aid a specific requirement, the specitic requirement shall be applicable. Where, in any specific case, diferent sections of this Géde apecity different malerials,. methods of construction or othe} requirements, the most restrictive shall govern. Rt02.2 Other laws: The provisions of this code shail not ba deemed to nullily any provisions of focal, stete or federal law. 102.3 Application of reterencos, References to chapter or séction numbars, or te provisions not specifically identitied by number, shall be construed to refer to such chapter, section of provision of this ode. Aii02.4 Referanced cades and standards, The codus'and slandards talerenced In this code shall be considered pat af the requirements ol ihis code to the prescribed extent of each such reference and as further regulatedin Sections R102.4,1 and R102.4.2; Exception: Where enforcament of a code provision woutd violate the conditions of Ihe Jisting of lhe equipment or appliance, the conditionsof the: listing and manufacturer's instuctions shall epply, &3S | f102.4,3 Cantiiets. Where conticts occur between provisions of this code and referenced cades and standards, the provisions of this code shall apply. ‘WEST_NEIL. 3/7/2024 5 &3 Page: 23 SFF&CC/West_000343"}, {"d": 121, "p": 257, "t": "TRADEMARK SREROCEE Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com & codes. kesaleiorg ‘ZS Manu RS hs ches | Search acrogs international Residential Code (JAC) Qi :Fo @® Lsignin H Second Version: Jan 2016 SECTION R104 DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL @& R104,1 General. The building official is hereby avihorizad and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shail have the authority to render interpretations of this coda and:to adopt policies and procedures in order fo clarify the application-of Sts provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall bo in:conformance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shail not have the effect of walving requiremants specilically provided for In this code. Ai04.2 Applications end permits ‘The building official shall recaive applications, raview construction documents and issue permitsfor tha erection and alteration of buildings and structures, inspect the premises for which such permits have bean issued and enforce compliance with the provistoris of this coda, R104.3 Notices and orders. R104.4 Inspections. a The duiiding official shall make tha required inspections, or the building official shall have the authority to accept reports of Inspection by approved agencies orindividyals. Regorls of such inspections shail be in writing and be cortified hy a responsible officer of such approved’ agency or by the responsible individual. The building official ls authorized to engage guch axpert opinion as deemed necessary to raporl upon unusual technical issues that arise, subjectto the approval of the appointing authority, 1045 Identification. The building official shall carry proper identification when Inspecting structuras or premises in the performance of duties under this code. WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 24 SFF&CCWest_000344"}, {"d": 121, "p": 258, "t": "TRADEMARK SETTER Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405).748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com a codes.Iecsafe.org Q)coat ® Ssanm Second Version: Jan 2018 105.4 Validity of permit. The Issuancé of granting of a permit shail not be consinved to be a permit tor, oF an approvalof, any violation of any of the provisions of this cade of of any other ordinarice of the: jurisdiction. Permits presuming to give authority to vidiate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jusisdiction shalt not be vaild. The issuance of a permit based of Construction documents and ‘other data shall not prevent the building official from requiring tho correctian of errorsin the construction documents aad other data, The building ailficial is authorized to pravent occupancy or.use of a structure where in violation of this coda or of any olher ordinances of this jurisdiction, 10 ‘WEST NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 25 SFF&CC/West_000345"}, {"d": 121, "p": 259, "t": "TRADEMARK QCRGRATIR Ieee aE Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405):748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com a codes.kestfe.org = Menu BS pa , | Search acfosa International Residential Code (IAC) |B Ssinin HB Gecond Version: dan 2016 SECTION R1i2 VIOLATIONS A341 Unlswtul acts. it shall be unlawhdl for-any person, firm of corporation to erect, construct, altar, extend, repair, move, remove, demiolish.or occupy any building, struclure ot equipment regulated by this code, or cause same to be done,in conttict with or {n violation of any of the provisions of this code. il WEST_NEIL- 3/7/2024 Page: 26 SFF&CC/West_000346"}, {"d": 121, "p": 260, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration , ESERIES 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405) 74824444 info@tmexteriors.com CHAPTER 9 ROOF ASSEMBLIES @ &: User note: About this chapter: Chapter 9 addresses the dosign and construction of roat assomblles| A roof assembly inchides the roof deck, substrate or thermal | lbarrier, insulation, vapor retarder and root covering} This chapter provides the requirement for wind resistance of roof coverings. The types of roof covering maleriais and installation addressed by Chapter 9 are; asphail-shinglas, clay and concrete tile, metal rool shingles, minerel-surtaced roll rooting, slate and slale-type shingles, wood shakes and shingles, duill-up cools, metal roof panels, modified bitumen roofing, thermosei and tharmaplastio siagie-ply rooling, sprayed polyurethane foams roofing, liquid applied coatings and phetovoltaic shingles. Chapter 9 also provides requirements lor roof drainage, flashing, above-deck thermal insulation, roaftop-mounted photavolinic systems and recovering or replacing an existing roof cavering. 12 WEST_NEIL- 3/7/2024 Page:27 SFF&CC/West_000347"}, {"d": 121, "p": 261, "t": "aaa. TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration — 36 NE 52nd Street _ Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com WW Sy URTCRKATIONAL ie x / Search Codes About premlumACCESS™ = Free Trial = What are Building Codes? SZ Sign in SECTION R903 WEATHER PROTECTION R903, General. Roof decks shall he covered with approved roof coverings secured to the building or structure in accordance with the provistons of this chapter. Roof assemblies shall be. designed and Installed in accordance with this code and the approved manufatturer’s Instructions such that the roof assembly shall serve to protect the building or structure, 13 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 28 SFF&CC/West_000348"}, {"d": 121, "p": 262, "t": "Trademark Exteriors Restoration ‘TRADEMARK 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tniexteriors.com INTERNATIONAL cove Search Codes About premiumACCESS™ = Free Trial. = What are Building Codes? COURCIY & Sign In ; SECTION R904 MATERIALS R904.1 Scope. The requirements set forth in this section shalf apply to the Application of roof covering materials specified herein, Roof assemblies shall be applied In. accordance with this chapter and the manufacturer's installation instructions, Installation of roof assemblies shall comply with the applicable provisions of Section R905, 14 WEST NEIL 3/7/2024 Page:29 SFF&CC/West_000349"}, {"d": 121, "p": 263, "t": "FRADEMARR Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE S2nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405):748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com . Rey. 100 EU mee 600 12u Counce Search Codes About premiumACCESS™ _ = Free Trial - «= What are Building Codes? ec. am Sign in SECTION R905 REQUIREMENTS FOR ROOF COVERINGS ES R905.1 Roof covering application. Roof coverings. shall be applied In accordance with the applicable provisions of this ‘section and the manufacturer's installation instructions. Unless otherwise specified in this section, roof coverings shall be installed to resist the component and cladding loads specified in Table R301,2(2), adjusted for height and exposure in accordance with Table R301.2(3). 15: ‘WEST_NEIL- 3/7/2024 Page::30 SFF&CC/West_000350"}, {"d": 121, "p": 264, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark REE ONATENS ; Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (40S) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com ISN INTERNATIONAL CODE : Counce ; Search Codes © About premiuntACCESS™ = Free Trlat_ ; , «= What are Building Codes? ; 2. Sign ta 2904.2 Compatibitity of materlats. Roof assemblies shall be of materials that are compatible with each other and with the building or structure to which the materials are applied: 16 WEST_NEIL ‘3/7/2024 Page: 31 SFF&CC/West_000351"}, {"d": 121, "p": 265, "t": "nett: A . Pts fos] TRADEMARK ° yy mbt Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com RT) NSN BBR rcenarionaL coor courcie Search Codes About premiumACCESS™ = Free Tria} = What dra Building Codes? &, Sige in TABLE R905,1.1{3) UNDERLAYMENT ATTACHMENT ROOF COVERING Asphalt shingles SECTION MAXIMUM ULTIMATE DESIGN WIND SPEED, Vp < 140 MPH R905.2 MAXIMUM ULTIMATE DESIGN WIND SPEED, Vi; 2 140 MPH The underlayment shalt be attached with corfosion-resistant fasteners in a grid pattern of 42 inches between side laps with a 6-inch spacing al the side laps. Underlayment shall be attached using metal or plastic cap nails of cap stapies with a nominal cap diamater of not fess than 1 inch, Matal caps shall have a thickness of not leas lhan 32-gage sheet matal, PowerFastensd sufficlently to hold In driven metal Caps shail have a minimum thickness of 0.010 inch. Minimum thickness place Clay and concrete tile Rg05.3 ‘of the outside edge of plastic cups shall be 0.035 inch. Tha cap nail shank shalt be fot lags than 0.083 inch for ring shank cap nails and 0.091 inch for smooth shank cap nails, Staptes shall be nat lass than21 gaga, Cap.nalf shank and cap staple legs shall have a lerigth sufficient to penetrate through the roof sheathirig or not tess than 5/4 Inch into the root sheathing. av] WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 32 SFF&CC/West_000352"}, {"d": 121, "p": 266, "t": "PRADEMARR Trademark RRR Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405):748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com Sw name INTERKATIONAL COURCIE Search Codes About premiumACCESS™ — Free Trial What are Building Codes? 2 Signin R905,2.2 Slope. Asphalt shingles shall be used only on raof slopes of two units vertical in 12 units horizontal (2:12) or greater. For roaf slopes from two Units Vertical in 12 units horizontal (2:12) up to four units vertical in 12 units horizontal (4:12), double undéstayment application is required in accordance with Section R905.4.1, 18 ‘WEST_NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 33 SFF&CC/West_000353"}, {"d": 121, "p": 267, "t": "rte TRADEMARK ; . bs 2 oe TD y =. Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street . Oklahoma City, OK T3105 (405).748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. INTERNATIONAL Iw CODE mn meme COUNCIL ; SearchCodes About preniiumACCESS™ . = Free Trial. §=—- What are Building Codes? &. Sign tn . 'R905.2.8.2 Valleys. Valley linings shalf-be installed in accordance with the manufacturers instructions before appiying shingles. Valley linings of the follovaing types shall be permitted: 1. For open valleys (valley lining exposed} fined with metal, the valley lining shall be not less than 24 inches (G10 mm) wide.and of any of the corrosion-resistant metals in Table R905,2,8.2. 2. For open valleys, valley lining af two plies of mineral-surfaced rot roofing, complying with. ASTM D 3909 or ASTM D 6380 Class M, shall be permitted. The bottom layer shail be 18 Inches (457 mm) and the top layer not Jess than 36 inchés (914 mm) wide. 3, For dosed valleys (valley covered with shingles), valley Jining of one ply of smooth rail roofing complying with ASTM 0 6380 and not less than 36 inches wide (914 mm) or valley lining as described in Rem 1 or2 shall be permitted, Self-adhering polymer modified bitirmen underlayment complying with ASTM D 1970 shall be permitted in lieu of the lining material. , 19 WEST NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page:34 SFF&CC/West_000354"}, {"d": 121, "p": 268, "t": "TRADEMARE SERRE Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36-NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. AN INTERNATIONAL Search Codes About premiumACCESS™ Free Trial What are Building Codes? 2, Signin R905.2:8.5 Drip edge. A drip edge shalt be provided at eaves and rake edges of shingle roofs, Adjacent segments of drip edge shall be overlapped not less than 2 Inches {51 mm), Drip edges shail extend not less than 44 inch (6.4 mm} below the roof sheathing and extend up back onto the roof deck not less than 2 inches (51 mim). Orip edges shail be mechanically fastened to the roof deck at not more than 12 biches (305 mm).o.c. with fasteners as specified in Section R90S.2.5. Underlayment shall be installed over the drip edge along eaves and under the drip edge along rake edges. 20 WEST_NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page:-35 SFF&CC/West_000355"}, {"d": 121, "p": 269, "t": "aos, TRADEMARK Restoration Exteriors =6Trademark 7 , 36 NE 52nd Street . Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com NAT cone ma aN COUNCHS NSN Search Codes © About prentiumACCESS™ = Freé Trial. «= What are Building Codes? & Signin R908,5-Reinstallation of materials. Existing state, clay or cement tile shail be permitted for reinstallation, except that damaged, cracked or broken slate of tile Shall not be reinstalled. Any existing flashings, édgings, outlets, vents or similar devices that are a part of the assembly shall be replaced where rusted, damaged or deteriorated. Aggregate surfacing materials shalf not be reinstalled, R908.6 Flashings, Hastings shall be reconstructed In accordance with approved manufacturer's installation Instructions, Metal flashing to which bituminous materials are to be adhered shall be primed prior to installation. 21 ‘WEST NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 36 SFF&CC/West_000356"}, {"d": 121, "p": 270, "t": "TRADEMARK CREEKS Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors:com “DIGITAL copes mmm GRAY NNN Search Codes About premiumACCESS What Are Buildin 2015 International Residential Code? Get n Second Printing: Jan 2016 STAR R104.9 Approved materials and equipment. Materials, equipment and devices approved by the building official shall be constructed and installed in accordance with such approval. R104.9.1 Used materials and equipment. Used materials, equipment and devices shall not be reused unless approved by the building official. 22 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 37 SFF&CC/West_000357"}, {"d": 121, "p": 271, "t": "Trademark Exteriors Restoration TRADEMARK eR 36NE Sand Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com aN ER NATION is amen covscr Search.Codes — About premiumACCESS™ = — Free Trial = What are Building Codes? 2, Signin R903.2 Flashing. Alashings shail be installed in. a manner that prevents moisture from entering the wall and roof through joints In copings, through molsture permeable materials and at-intersections with:parapet walls and other penetrations through the roof plane. R903.2,1 Locations, Flashings shail be installed at wall and roof Intersections, wherever there Is a change in roof slope or direction and around foof openings. A flashing shall be installed to divert the water away from where the eave of a sloped roof intersects a verilcal sidewall, Where flashing Is of metal, the inetal shall be corrosion resistant with a thickness of not tess than 0,019 inch (0,5 mm) (No, 26 galvanized sheet). R903.2.2 Crickets and saddles. Acricket or saddle shail be installed on the ridge side of any chimney or penetration more than 30 inches (762 mm) wide as measured perpendicular to the slope: Cricket or saddle coverings shall he sheet metal or of the same material as the roof covering. Exception: Unit skylights installed in accordance with Section R308.6 and flashed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions shall be permitted to be ivstalled without a cricket ar - ] saddie. 23 WEST_NEIL- 3/7/2024 Page: 38 SFF&CC/West_000358"}, {"d": 121, "p": 272, "t": "TRADEMARK rademark Exteriors Restoration — 36NE S2nd'Streét Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com INTERMATIONAL SY cope. wae COUN’ Search Codes : oc iny About premiumACCESS™ . are Building Codes? = Free Trial. «= What &. Signin , R905.2.8.3 Sidewall flashing. Base flashing against a vertical sidewall shail be continuous or step flashing and shalt be-not fess than 4 Inches (102mm) in height and 4 Inches (102 mm) In width and shall direct water away from the vertical sidewall onto the roof or into the gutter. Where siding Is provided pn the vertical sidewall, the vertical leg of the Mashing shall be continuous under the siding, Where anctiored masonry veneer is provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided in accordance with this section and counterfashing shall be-provided in accordance with Section R703,7.2,2, Where exterior plasteror adhered masonry veneer Is provided on the vertical sidewall, the base flashing shall be provided in accordance with this section and Section R703.6.3. R905.2.8.4 Other flashing. Flashing against a vertical front wall, as well as sell stack, vent pipe and chimney flashing, shail be applied in accordance with the asphalt shingle manufacturer's printed Instructions. 24 ‘WEST_NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 39 SFF&CC/West_000359"}, {"d": 121, "p": 273, "t": "rl, TRADEMARK een PERRET rodt Saye ay | Trademark Exteriors Restoration : 36 NE 52nd Street , Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmnexteriors.com Iw, 128 Search Codes About premlumACCESS = What Are Buliding Codes? Q #8 Ssinn @ Get more with premiumACCESS 015 International Residential Code sg! # CHAPTER 8 ROOF-GEILING CONSTRUCTION AY START YOUR 14-DAY TRIAL NOW Second Printing: Jan 2016 SECTION R806 ROOF VENTILATION ESI R806.1 Ventilation required. Enclosed attics and enclosed rafter spaces formed where celtings are applied directly to the underside of roof ratters shall have cross ventilation for each separate space by ventilating openings protected against the entrance of rain or snow, Ventilation openings shall have-a least dimensionof '/y Inch (1.6 mm) minimum and '/, inch (6.4 mm) maximum. Ventilation openings having a least dimension larger than '/, inch (6.4 mm) shall be provided with corrosion-resistant. wire cloth screening, hardware cloth or simllat material with openings having a least dimension of '/;4 inch (1.6 mm) minimum and Ny inch (8.4 mm) maximum, Openings in roof framing members-shail conform to the requirements of Section R802,7. Required ventilation openings shalt open. directly to the outside air. 25 WEST_NEIL 3712024 Page: 40 SFF&CC/West_000360"}, {"d": 121, "p": 274, "t": "atmRK TRADEMA watt trad rk Trademark ion s Restorat Exterior Tradema 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. ms Pa Search Codes = Abotll premiumACCESS ai 2015 International Residential Cede C7 GHAPTER @ ROOF-GEILING CONSTAUCTION Second Printing: Jan 2018 = What Are Bullding Codes? Q > signin @ Get more with premlumACCESS START YOUR 14-DAY TRIAL NOW! A806.2 Minimum vent area, The minimum net free ventilating area shall be '/;s9 of the area of the vented space. Exception: The minimum net free-ventilation area, shall be ‘ggg af the vanied space provided one or moreof the following conditions ara met: 1. In Climate Zones 6, 7 and 8, a Class | or if vapor retarder is installed on the warm-in-winter side af the ceiling. >. Not less than 40 percent and not more than50 percent of the required ventilating area is provided by ventilators located in the Upper partion of the attic or rafter space. Upper ventilators shall be located not more than 3 feet (914 mm).below the tidge or highest point of the space, measured vertically, with the balance of the required ventilation provided by eave or cornice vents, Where the location of wall or roof framing members conilicts with the Installation of upper yentilators, Installation more than 3 feet (914 mm) bélow the ridge or highest point of the space shall be permitted. AS06.3 Vent and Insulation clearance, Where eave or cornice vents are installed, insulation shall not block the free flow of air, Not fess than a 1-inch (25 mm) space shall be provided between the Insulation and the roof sheathing and at the location of the vent. AG06.4 Installation and weather pretection, Ventilators shall:be installed in accordance with manutacturer's instructions. Installation of ventilators in roof systems shall be in accordance with the requirements of Section R903. Installation of ventilators in wall systems shail be in accordance with the - ) requirements of Section R703.1. 26 WEST NEIL 3/9/2024 Page: 4] SFF&CC/West_000361"}, {"d": 121, "p": 275, "t": "‘TRADEMARK RIE Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com foley Leaking ea soctanad va barat) Le ly sector Fait mace wwe Conn Hat ater peaks oe peted al aa INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS * INSTRUCCIONES DE INSTALACION.« [ASTRUCTIONS D'INSTALLATION Timpenures: Tingpertinge tia TFiwsenuneuani RP eres TMSERIINE<2 GEWERAL INSTRUCTIONS , SATERAL peau BATATh SHEESS: WWres ¢ odaets, © ge fiesj pacetarrents, ste cement, #2, feet egter 0 the MSOS et Corrent hohe 4 esrete ot Seteaun om GAF coegnet wears Gate heels ot inelaation Faberbcrs for ice ma munuiatistd yy GAP, Piatt: seiie malta sonshacloeet fot bar SOS and inetatadon inttrechoas +ROOF aay BCG sadied nape Ha [Gre Prwodd of OSE ‘drthing eecnenmaned by wai Hots peeved Woe diva Ae Wood teks st ain$* nea} thick ny mere ied Aecng's erty teB om) spac be att seateeed ashes} wits, hehe en i a iooth ean robes ROT Estes Sais eek te epaaten ee eubied deck wnlesd pattorlzed bs yentic:nv Rost eats aed eae Sorlacing statérial anied be dy price fo Sopheatiot ad § * ‘UNOERLATHENT {LEAK WARAIER): logead GAF faak borriar af the aves in locales where feaks eetiy be caved by eat usckieg wp behing 6 dees Gates, - ¥ GHEEALATMENT {Roor DECK pk prorecnion): Underlyjented beneath adigtes has inees banafity, lecdading Beip'ng tg Bievtey ged art sien ae mi ceed code Risk a pyeas hierste enan ie? ar cuss alsa be used Always have a ctegh profees! eis ux an yt rote note eae Withee ea a aN iis eisrag” eotiel: ‘eaten aa a setslaed Catal eereseayee estapmech eh as GAP Suge i eon a + snake, Bre-ceated ate taunt foe , buted, dalcnned, oc sstoanh shack eit hotee {oeraf $0 7/4\" Ef creer} in dasrater Faslenans sed 6 RES AS pasate H eonk £4\" [geen into word pyteigh beater with Sasa te eed ios stlogls,Geurdiheing wil dutnage ihe shagg, Bleed eee ban Bast s dects. Eso rent an cn bx) aa ‘ 0sine tse pes redoing AS) DIS Tine ncaa gers Bt a oe Ys ageay whan espocedfo yoared texgerstored, Shinglesiiptaded wh bad or an ve WA gn i te Fab goa tees # es tet wrt et aaege oye ok On cnet 9 abrqst saFOMA taneet bites, 4 Iba setl-cadant gets daty,iets FeSute 20 teal under these circaancunces results ftom tha ratule of sect-teaias) Shingles, 95d ie nel 2 ranataansing cele. | rie ue ‘pons,Ba danget detore pSatieersans Patiads obs area WE satboerg dust of a0 aa be ay fo be BEST be hind * MARIAN Bets tideEM PICATIONS: for reef Sopes greater then 24” pat font U7SSavwe), stage ragt be haod sealed, dO AOY sashes . Batty eng rave fi ee bien pastin patient faker eae on, ne beck Bee $t a {ich a ating’a. The tiie shigd ace bo preven AMagles fae ekirg PERLE U TAROUGH VENTRATION: Ve Foe cgeats seat He ed & wehoe waiet gioath, 22 root dMrceteres mast have nana vanhinisn to preaaat tabapenant of map stvry dagen xe baked tant sheatany Yen post be teat Ip DREL or dazend-cerenE PHA. HUG, a wel code aresiegs reget esterts. Hote:dren eft feea Gentiatton weaof 44 Focd par 15089 leet{} sq meter mtcighsa ‘pelyasfel cea eet & ioawitd haa Wheat bie ue BeatedSe t a iret bret d ‘a tha nocd sealesced) Ine foacrnant az How, peated oxy be tedated $9, Metis aceTine yy eel iretal surtaces net stats, 460, WA rating bAF Srinngle Match” nox aecenaary petal fer ° esl ADTRAN ‘ hore: kode nae aot Urea fo ra. INSTRUCCIONES DEHERALES + ROZAS DE DATOS GE secunione BE LDS MATERIALES (ISOS): Cosrda eltice Jos productos de AF toes comm bejas, bases ernestta pities, ee,ai fs MSDS mai ese cas hahis $e bas vines 48si ita Ga ho oan are geen OF Cetsote a febsicate a tre aces Ove 0 ne ok eles neds ig (iOrees) de madera férciads1 enadira aginenerats geanbs&a (058 ge ba seat) ma ces rine < fea is bsg mee Ueda fea fucza Ph arEason ng) eye Sierras cop ba Espada mduins Sy 178° (Seu, con uh ExcesOt MAIS sacral $a rasa 689 Waren} ea Gapetioad 34 melee cba Ge haves HeRca7ds 7 una pepatic‘g Tut, NO asepor raee My FREES Oat ES RROD: aris cade a ping tt IO ie tae a tea ca esto wapeke Srl tas, * ek cease hoa pene ait area}: sie Sarena site ie seluaconns ds GAF gai Sos secos en bustres donde ul ilenchemaate ds ayaa deinis de 0b desech ea ss pasar orcs. ' Ba Ate [PRO SCC PARA CURLER TAS te TeCHOS}: La cis dase dabsze Oe as tains Ces ecchos betetcios,‘endo tlapedrd SvAis qua ld tela Reratty nds pot ad eeda alates at Merce Hie oof BE 9 A Que feqara de egurag platecoms deg agen actions ct ba teas asiieess, La pa ar Enh sreceurss fo4 rannas #6 v de censtrnccha para 1A cain tN, Dood vo mates ara 73 Gps base, oté ree rd SC ay sa pester eat\"tno a an Tetbin i poset ty tase fon Pav ie 6 Cae ato de teavel de faut Sas ptt pid pt 3 on prolagianal a4 Sse qua teeise $36 egestas ease toads widen una taps tet coe diva da conned de @ taned: 27 WEST_NEIL 3/72024 Page: 42 SFF&CC/West_000362"}, {"d": 121, "p": 276, "t": "—a Ts. SREREZOUCSCC TIES Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com WAILIHG INSTRUCTIONS / HAND SEALING TASTAUCGIONES DE CLAVADURA 4 SELLADO A MAHO INSTRUCTIONS DE CLOUAGE / SCELLEMENT A LA MAIN ike Bega oot bephe ior is as minted I ot Rituertzis peters + i TeaEybeet parser gin MusT heenaieds rain ae Peay2sfingiet ee wien uh toed t (par ag ba naripater ate trey wy ae crib batt ‘bf rephat plas raiddese Ua 1/3\" (Geet) thes. me nee Gael Cage Lig seciegy of Ube wee Wha aiphetin uedarlreats wad leak ovileee, dlattiog it Une dephak dipecg nd siteeg Cais tela OLSEN clavarye un ngmninal& (42200) de La pat infin de by tak pet yc dg fo recernas, Camuo te mutates. Carvoy £65 debef4t erpltetas, cneear Pata gallo y para asagurt sellady medals, abea A loguel Suggs cab cathe ‘fthesteade wbagegtade tabvatd ta la pata es aeat tlm vis {S30 Abs} 4a Ge rats lady y §° {25 Wen) arrapaog looa de baba, Presione fewteeraeta scbtg el shave ATENUO Aplique wolarcanta vs caps ding ¢ ordtotens de coment asikitigg ax plisticn mados de 1253p) de qipeser, Conteh pases CHAN arepatas de UW aslebeta y parle Bandas ef axtsho eatss capary d4 daca yas bovretasde bagi, 9 gua atid en palate de quien y bs marchas Ges art deiverd Brn Cooks 2 aye GPa0Ga nominde$4 JSdrea (82) da esa bast, esesiin tes partons vfcaptes, corm 28 douga dole pis Hie espns ¥Peay Weavoenatizg Ja cattel ef dysueet acater brani ol ghiae de gout taint exhued eequrte Ge tersesu eo e080 4 Gite i 25 penalty’ Mites Rene os abaa Cenmentd bun bardery Pour aveatersovieg Graddal, é by bardesy fesrsdcgecd dans [ Sippkne ques SEULESIENT ug cout caiatee ince SasGDS Senaed ot plavend piers gag 1S\" (Sm fs ieseie Ceca rents ys gedkenl emntar geler des Suse Be Feo pout Hessitit Vasphade ail agate nts af fee bargeeue R peuiéot snots Fasphati dans CAF onderbayrn a 30-38\" (Hin) Perorrras ere ses PSE HAE Silas iiser tion} ~pf. Weea7 eee iat Hee Be Oi wae et Wee eeine tio eee erm te wim te Gr rm ee nce fat es aeestie Gin dagt Wa BEA ipaayy Moxy $¥4- 64d peee Binet Set yatadwsiet ontiek Ait Sijotaete ela porte ponered STARDARO HAILING PATTERH - tov nals per stony'e ive rebo-teatind ESQUEMA DE CLAVADUAA ESTARDAR - cuatro etreoe por fifa ites PATRON DE GLOUAGE STAHDARO - quatre coos put barceas 39-48 (tin) : 7 SEP a ny: Ngoear 12 Ly ikea e Gey e Rr iw, a See non nT Cn SS ; Et eee: Se eee year 4 yf etkoba igen 62 poe de ening ‘Sed saat chasse om back me apts neoseords BHHANCED HAILING PATTERN «sx nats pt shingle” halt yi eked * required by Some Igeal codes and required fer enthused wind coetrage on éactiin prodotts See Broad warranty fot datads hese WODELO VE CLAVAQURA AUHEHTANO - seis. Carns |get tea” * requeridea por algunos cddigus locales y requicido gare Garantle Henitada Soa pard Sos delalies- cobertira aurtentada contra af viento en derles prokxtos, PATAOH DE CLOUAGE ACCAY - six Clous par bardegu‘ * peguis pas certains codes locaiix puur ate Ceurverture atcius cantee les veais Sur cariaing procaty. Granta Banitte Sas pour des ditails 3. 28 WEST_NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 43 SFF&CC/West_000363"}, {"d": 121, "p": 277, "t": "awe. TRADEMARK SEREERETERTES Trademark Exteriors Restoration —_ — a 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405):748-4444 info@texteriors.com THSTALLING UNOEALAYMENT INSTALANDOLACAPA BASE INSTALLATION DE LA MEMBRANE DE PROTECTION UNOERLATMENT: FOR AGOF stores 2:92 10 LESS THAN 4:42 pat ovedang axpecied, west ora layer of GAR Leak Bastite, Eine Pathing west Application of wave Tasting: Ai eaves and where Soe dans gaa be Wed bare Boge by more than 124° (Gene) dod tbeedd dwtand 2° GotOren) oryordd tha insite wed Bae. Where ica dans oF dedcis dans 174 ot sigected, bubyd 2 pied G1 GHF Root Desa Protection, Apsllcaticg of radurtayment; Compiriety coves tog dach wih twa Gyens of GAF Road Deck Prttectionas shoiva. tse cel snouz mis fa bald oF: dw place ool tovered By beages, CAPA BASE: PARA TECKOS COM PENDIENTES OF LIZ A WENOS DE £12 Aaiicactin dy vinrteaquad gare alecos: fot fos aieces 7 donde st pueds acdarat 4 ceeveea Oé ecteneeatea de hess, via wos caps de Barrecade ftzrscioesGe GAP, Ei vigeteaguas para abetcs no Oba sobersalael horde al cla majade 124° (Gece) 7 eotereteona 24\" (Gt Ge} sre ad de ta See fotation da (a pared, Dovee 29 t2 expeten srtarcareelos Ge belog aonb, instgls 2 plagues Ge Proteotiiada Pulatoonias Gase de Techos, nnAE. Anlsatita fe sank vast: Cabra secular ia chitalerrra Bath to0 de§ C179 SB Prdancen pare Piadafcamag Bata os Tochor ce ‘da.clavos cers sara sesieser la capa basa 43 Bs jugs dusts qua Sueenaneeseas tes MEMBAANE de paoteenion: POUN PERTE OF TOT OF (2A MOINS OF at Agntizailon 2a satin d'avanltalt: Ag riezaa des srart-tedes st see tesdyous 0 ks accusmatations de glsca peatentd woreda’, yoviten witiets et GAF Unck Barvier, La soba dina ted ne Oo FS ‘asters fe ebond i Taras tad. de pli dt Hidpo (Ensen) 42 doa yeterira d phat cogehe co 2ego (Gtdean) as ath Ce 8 ae Be Niches Leenpat vers wantiiges oat mein de in ev srotes route 2 LothesCz CAF Roos Duck Protector. & de pi lesti Paco Hag Ga od vaee dean bxahes GF Reel eck Pratection, tet gpa sphak 5pooen, SEoNe sedfinsomant dy pine) pi wecirtets in pane a scab rdee Ge MINTER puser'd oe ques cel recnaverte 4 balieawd. e * Aieg tha, peat bee eaTGey ~ emetad dig tga oa toa at GAP teed ec’ pradtctivk Axa ad Beir ete Made “dt gehts $8 petal inceidatle ete oe panste dM pldrteesna bats dai ache de EM. Bes boxy be Tacessten, pesthigeg temaan dtd ncedtatt See eitGa ta aiolechon Be aheinge Aeeg park, td GA) feos barrie Gang ot ba OR Beste toehea taldep hye. doom omesone AL tngo de cs sevos, catia iret onsen iegiuerces br oar tapered Ls wi A prope! ven ta rspaucsie radi et hectn B unearned narodeioan! bing soaecsesoeddyigceda peat sa Raga eee “sleeget ene as sate GF oer : . a pane-tata CAFot 2 opting 0 iaecadas gn ended fener tin 16 femjred aes! ieee, $4 kg gn BT Geen) ta ctrneale pr ees Oe es phen ug Bonen (i 4 pan a spn ha Ok Anaticen Meh. La puree peed vata peas by Bers Be proteaton ueta 4, Sane fis acters Capinaiet Fol nt Remy est bbtstoy lemmuonag picaty porte Migat 4. 29 ‘WEST NEIL 3/7/2024 Page:.44 SFF&CC/West_000364"}, {"d": 121, "p": 278, "t": "FRADEMARK _ BRRRRITIGEEE Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405).748-4444 info@tmexteriors:com. UHDERLATM ENT: FOR ROOF ‘ones 1708 MORE Azahcallen ah care Maublegs Al exees And yebuts 208 Paescde by eopected ta oot yas 1 GAP Leak Byline: Ext fastieg att ver 2 (El Gen} deyornd tae inside wed foe. Application of andactaymant: Cover deck wah ace layer CAE rol ach piotertion gubted Werinhles, Ute onty erdagh cans to Bold endectayroant in piace bent coveitd by shéngits, CAPA BASE: PAA TECHOS COM PENQIERTES or $12 O MAS! dolleasiéa ad Horteopat jin dare Es bot Hereg pve sa puna Heat ig precentio de whew andettyy & has ute wd pd de Rate de oe GAP. OL park aint desa 24 (Gideran] nds 984 de Sa Kees interiog de fe pared, Aalkachia ds4 scape baie: Cabra tay gbalatstens Baye connian capa weoe cips base da GAF instalade sin arrages, Ysa sctaments fa eortidad Caves tomo para sostanes te copa bat a0 fe hugat hatte sping ta Raya eedaertg Cont fey hepa, MansnAne GE PACTEC TION: FOR RODE PENTES CE 4:32 00 mus: Applcaion Se pala Carat: soil: Aa svg des ayant tdts at aun excteots ¢4 las acqenatatets kona de ce peuvent sucear,yweatier ubkaer wht oouetd CAF Leak Barlies. Le vada Davsnltont dest g tteadiedt 24pe (Giger) 2-dgih da ba Rad da me Midas, Appecation Puna enemnbirat.a da profeeton: Cowvnlr 3e glatetage avet ane soache db protection satelage ¢ ds tat GAT eratelia sis phscamient, Utseae sullsamanint de clout govt madolives en pease & maadrane de protection josgad on qa’eiie soit cecourtrle Ge bacdtaer. Akog DAM, gud 264-20 FSi esanh sebses an Recipe y Seisa nyt eenked MT SPE trad dee getaten Checiadgoresd dap reste ssiiennes &6 Stem Ops} aradol iy ptge tn ig EA Abtupsdd dhe tio treet pA AL 7AM dee trot bee pal eed 5 soncneraahe tell og ed Aa hogs oa bee sores, eto fa Saaeera te Ragas $9 GAP fetes dl bere ds Betta ts ind Maaske toed vi reid Mages Fa sana trl poktiy & ne “ . mains Aa bong ey avyet-Soth, palapeceok, a pare fade GAP sce “Semict Ga Sars ps tat Saba vatiel taes a Oho nena Ceeekegheinad vation’ expirrars dy G70 (pS) Oa INSTALLING STARTER STRIP SHINGLES Mek mova Mart Ho mag gue 1 Libre) soot oontang A beck sores py deco da Piha aa ben tt pet ries at INSTALACION DE TEJAS DE HILABA IRICIAL INSTALLATION DES BARDEAUX OE BADE DE DEPART S)aRiee CauAsE Use GAF shutar strip shingles along che exes weal tala, Apely a6 Uaeerd, MOTE: GAF sluster stig shingles 354 recommendedal Leite tor bast Pedoieeae ded feasired fer ashanced warranty coperige cn cadiain poducts (gon Einited warranties tet deiats). ile b tina Has mic fe ectama 6 tha Selected stastig Grin sNinges. ect pines rma net a Span ce Ait coy sas apis inebiactigs: HOTA Soon a daja Ot binra boical da GAP ot 8 qa ig oda Bi Tideks of Cierton gristaclos Cre vvaite la qurnstis tentials feed ei Cy i eh a deg dratt ois at incaizes. Applqats tet qa'ivtigd: BEMARQUE: Les barSeaue 64 tasde Ot ns incised peer radice pectcrasce ot toed (aces god eeVt coenttsh46 Gees coe orth bs et dicedGH sor conan: cattaing grecult (y04 a gurnne ele pI EH Saiyre es iostractions # apphcstin’ ded Aardedua de utd dy dtp Fat shared Wied ANS deg ies Had ey DAP shar ainp dhaoges what ip deat aalesd te coment ihnarhes ty wacpertiprnacd wad ain 5p? 814 (ioe) with of yak pls ceed. Ppa iiskea reszarc of yoni 2% Gage ot (AS RECLACIONES, inside coctnanie B58 eh aria da 4 (1 Bde) ap get plaice ntarcg, ‘Pra ae cee Poni tot eb te weg ds Henchiss, nile dea bydesas ha ass da Spas BEF ayec Wester Ge (ohn ba borane 58 eeanbiae oe prdeceri Tat Miata dest emis Sa ceed phantegad siphatd da bya [Toth pit aneita Gal bleeds de weigalea de Ltd a Sc bao incl dg CLF con ceneuandt gelktir 9 tenants bas bs 2 4 raga badd y ee et ( Cee 1 A ~ eit 4/7. 396). whos a me Ria Sore oat dal bord de sere pee & thasiat ¥ feet nc a beody Geta Eumyacci ae bat ds Wosccstrectong ental Grp page beedede a pide fig acetak hap yhte, Lapinias a3 Metal Woaajetrbly webs ent ln sta tig Teasley bid fe saat bY ya Fees) dea ni vipat Be age _ Mret sgrceetadanenng 3/7#9 [BT Ress] tad ABT vad fo pt ae eas Thay Hiebert bes Anno we Hee) ore Cogito nh pinata 3 = Xf G- thu} MEME Da heniesSe wired Sci prs propery Fendt nen Pixs We Bareeag 46+ in C243 LM po tee bea torts facie tol ah da Feat na ten pont borez ost tween. 30 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page:45 SFF&CC/West_000365"}, {"d": 121, "p": 279, "t": "as. FRADEMARK EERIE Trademark Exteriors Restoration tat EAS LAS Aes , , 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405): 748-4444 info@tm exterlors:com. INSTALLING SHINGLES INSTALACION DE TEJAS INSTALLATION DES BARDEAUX FIRST COURS gunge ves hod be 5-59 (Lien) PRIMEAA HILA [a eagerionde ney debe Hi S48 [Gees PALBIER RANG Lesprysissde bartens devrat doe Hevea 5 -Sra} Sart 8 aft tad 38d tay by ede occ Sassy ba exit > eon dod continaa with he thangs Shot in bash ove tas ooaiee Enrylece 7 watinge oq ead petans : RoC Tat EF fons eaves yaa 1 fila inci. Obreurres ef carious trys doen bandeaica wii iirdes Ban st le poet de Mra. tec y coat oa bala 6 rs ——- . : / cee face tnn eric ed apes WAT = A eae ewe toga petra bands dy ais 4 2» 44 oeraal & renan &[s Sar see bek hen ig paren rag ches hat Ceres $ GP fevs (hdd w tutu tons ies na ter ‘pigast Beat fooler wa leredee STCOKD COURSE . . ab tha ils Gai gode. Teas nesiits i 0-59\" [ova) epaace. SEGUNDA HKG” ie Ba eacend 204 pabseqanel courts Baad aith the hops fiers asees eiag bn te sequida Pada y sxhebasies 2 198 ta Bs pith segaiens de los Sbths Beg Eee crea ta en eapanicdade ET (dn) Poatneriy tee bie ease dats be secied ag $line 1S Sp0} las rarenn Abe GzeNNG D etculeemd Teakbes edad cs lenges Adocwpics Cela thls fet pete hes ilbeeny fae uta edga ol fing thee Condes tn aise ingen 2 Potente S{ihaeren}det deren ot neacignade de prreyy te Lectin co fe inet Bicooger d 1m (18395) a Deed Ge premier Bards aides tarde ots, Md 6. 31 WEST_NEIL- 3/7/2024 Page: 46 SFF&CC/West_000366"}, {"d": 121, "p": 280, "t": "TRADEMARK ENEKECTERETES Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. THIRD COURSE TERCERA ARADA TROUSHEME ANG Sie WT ory bee 1d ged od fist shige Faiae W bee)tel Sead Ge bstoasin Se proceed ie Degen 3 Fikert L118}aa betoo pretat Legis ATH COURSE ANG REMADONG Sera & Oat id etal tty & cages wd eek paraded agro ATA HILADA Y RESTAITES , web aries, Tyacg wus Haves 4 tied dprdtd poets ads § bisdin para ceecectr le three paratea ted og Nescd. AGE RANG ET LES AAMGS BESTANTS: Fraces pee Farah Oy Coan A eoneon Revelas 8 asap paver vttdles fatipeaisl ta pedis wee Beaver hs. kv 37° (eFtomd bg ante ea = A Hd sis, Cavite ue wiczin ahiagies, Repeal ste Th Bl ison tinea \\: he fered by Coys Upting he coated ath a Rell wate - Ranesig 7\" e2huem da toda cult 9d Stoke ap 8 privesd bpp Coste Con gt. Bagida i fea ab thy erases a bold bs as Sesedas paataatty (emuncarsty by quar tg hats ort gra ga erg Daconper bd ven (lipo) Obs fin de Hite oe prerrsae bined. Cortiesay poet O08 hardin eta. Ripe ins pad lees Wy tex Ua Hong nang par fe cans rear eh cose Jt Geol riag net it taeda betty - h 32 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page:.47 SFF&CC/West_000367"}, {"d": 121, "p": 281, "t": "‘TRADEMARK SERREZIRIOE Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. INSTALLING ROOF ACCESSORIES ANO DETAMS INSTALACIN DE ACCESOHIOS Y DETALLES GE TECHO INSTALLATION DES PROOLIITS RGOF ACCESSORIES ET DETAILS, VENTILATION Sele GA sentation prodatls Sg epinal yogi ie Sea General battens tad fer “Through Venetation’ warnon. Fatesit kppicatio lndeatians for a selecing etiotiod podeels, yornucidn tattle pectin de vatodacide de GA pais wed Stir vida Gal 62 Lats Cota es evcanss Gates 7 tern “Aledo haemlacds*, Sicalas snstreocanes 4 apticartia ds bys productos de veatderhn select aces Veatacds FERTLATION laatilies bes prodicks Ca vtntiiaine CAE paid ing dorks dt Vt optenae, Vell fag bnieatons Ghobraies dans49 séeties «Adi win de Bitiotant:, Salad et deers Capsaation po is pregats de yevites pile fiends, RODE CAP SHINGLES want GA Sage FP RENES teinaieg ea appleaton bunaties aban oct Ge GAP ridge cap abe wrapperaz Of Bp & gg shea kee sterapes, 24 OY Ms Rian. Poutnn Bed dnay from piedang wil Oaeeed ve oe TOPES OF NOR: as eas de Bog i Yet he CAR aig bs nacho de sgtutcitn gpa Nera Ga enreltar' en eis di lagna ds GAP 0 cor Peebis 4 rohrere y Dade Om eetas e3t5 coenphEaa, 9 OpEauad catia +4 Boren Colggud hy vlan byed oe Ue heacnion de ving Beetennraie SARDEAU GE FAHTAGE Wapiti Serves de htop oh obi et ernie 6 an spect 8 ea erage AF Shee Eaton ce Nis nite Gar Ses Randege a poise Gide vos apAQUAI EE core nak. Powtanner Wnt ghraaacbements Baapoes dis wets shealtant, yan Fiahandae Reub fo tas} ERTEAGUAS DE PARED {ticks op Pescienta bacie 22 Paredy SOUKS. pyeAly bs yaa ge Pesta 4 May 4 Meer Se prdesiaa OF dake gig at yates) ae: y Bakara a ake Sptea es vnetal Chad a plotedaga NCH SO EN gid sates} ning erie sted Spe Raia} tral” AS . ita hopan poses da Ga par si mite {ETT own} becca be pared. Keced 2 4a prwra tats OM § Spa {ibleeal ae ronencal “ae that Dealspar Big RABI een” Tepwy ni dees epcakgnaty wat y tetera (112 pen) sabe obeta ~Saegchton et ned aaa at {F leap ake ts eng ak ast F (Bt en} perry B inowcsietaeti he tt UH Bay wes Placer b piptofemnsa mitasqua d ta pian de vagina weston by Sedagel tebe KP Sion} $ (N27 a) sae be Dad etal Lag pices Sa Drageet be ceviche Tota Pah) 44 Viren ites) | fe 9 Lepced i bord de Rardeant a Fed S107 enn) ar fa bared benders’ math F Geo) py pete a ates Ae ida eked of hateagins pone energy ieee Le tecociesneed {tarda Sod aadsteris Bp Blea} Hodesect 8 Vealand Ga ed Cescr'e gts a Pee Presta 33 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 48 SFF&CC/West_000368"}, {"d": 121, "p": 282, "t": "FRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105, (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors:com. ound ety FLASHING AMO CRICKETS Cat Hh weaned tee Med Get eco pick 3 GAP tout Gack protection, £0 MT 108 BAF eel enh brat oiet GUE food deck poetection and ap tidak of Cusvty al lei $+ {127 an): eshaeg ap Sade of theetey teat yond ude takes (soe te weiss a mites Sel thingen the wnetal anges {22e doaeéry bye9), Tr ope niente shoger,fp and igias aad stip Catkeg, Cee an add tal Se, anu cap ypotenion dy Meaning + rey ot pa dé madari (34 pitied pretuass ster ass ute tn sti es deb cess in ea oncom abe posto ne cg GU et contadees Gi by shortens. at rin 4 $+ USZleaN), et ek eaten 0 Sess ee ea (ow Sorts] ests Oa at ; belngpieg taripacione bd Nei ce meal fava dt). ae envionment art ae ks ‘eats Heat. falas de corbvenad y tases y vateigias Oe SOU DE cate £7008 DANE ised é \" rego eas Cent eat de rie i te ce ei eB PS te a flatelage ds tee CAF fat 5 cAsed de Wa Sramtedy, Saulatnt ds gare lke naa ba gestection Oe piabrings de tot CAL od ca bee coda de ha chord bi tevisnan60 Spa {igiaon} feaheien Gas drt Clee pot Gaminte mnie hid ot ose Seah th ela tot et merbertas sitet scamateg Seacat S9p ban dgace ang Woden Ge medtad vie es Hbapbratons ok decges), Levan as gros don dite 1 bag Carrey ind Indes abpirdy at later Ssh edd. drtaase, Sardonen be tre el Taciters Ht ontedt . | a. es tonion Ahe thandee inate to via by neds dy hose, 60 dd Beebo ae gag ing otelad ede gee a ae gordo aes wa Bagbadl ps yt Laster UR Z0 eat ata OF Fedasa tigre ash phertanale4 Sait pia RR Gio. Suaee saa tig tee Pikempen Nace {da} sien pod Bat ot esd dedey cc Misha partants patter Ue eh esl de iced tapactamest Paeaenoritert 4 pros Cope cg Kottertat taejetat cae peat raectet ccigrotea bree | mache bawen{ et Sarda Sed seg ene Sey Rot Geaarta dad stich ergs ceeeerh Beda tes lag a te ble rd con 2a ita ee Seasir ica bacstace Ab bea s ae tne be aca hs rosette Devitt aa Wy ASTeee) ip rant geek. Liebe de ic desstadrss ca SRE HORA 4 34 55 mah A ; isioe} yeu cobature a (rude sande fy ao see 2) teil Cechats pacAd artes at eat 6 {088 a5 tanked he ec Les Seeradtaed debt talacdlared 4 pea ip etn Un) bat Lax Son ew Gee el id por tsb ag eeserver a Uo Stern war ait a tk herr ad TFS at oar el a i ot jeeeceta bt eve 17 05 8h (a gabe det bh: dare a rien 34 pg (Kvn) var pan fa Pod 9 34 WEST_NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 49 SFF&CC/West_000369"}, {"d": 121, "p": 283, "t": "TRADEMARK SEZ Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE S2nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors. com. VALLEY COMSTAUERON = OPEH Uarmninest OF Gites) wit siewon, plenors re, COppAt Bar Se ceeTesing, oes ea iin malls (24 gangs Baie, loop an Easel pet aise reyes sider parts al Be rl on in Weg isos leading ped barking dH sees sh ba a Sec Ads pine Da art fatchce Be metal Mies Besegshe CONSTRUCLIOR DEL VALLE~ DE CORTE ASIERTO Vie oa anche incians fe 20° (60S) de shennie, scars qoearcade, telve y abe patel ieoridatés due £0 mance (Gahee 2d cand icine), Las vee hae9 $54 edaigan locales 4 coestrpceibe peceden reqotea ek fae Fade pv or movie ne hata ral Sr Maa togBo puctozn H arated Lins 2 iravig det coed piece coisie S22 7 tons HOM DE KOUE ~ HOVE GUYERTE (er de rata Urges Sa pn RRA) te aes pada eg pelted peftoan Sel ob ere bls aA ne se Be pat, (ae Ud a3 sao, O95 saves sha bogiesos Tea a tae essen tdeectbr ok mit gs toga Cos eal eta trey a gaa a ts Be sf ae en pa Wie fas pvcet Cleat ay avers 2 kG pond cae des hel wt dig bendyerands v8 ay easveeed Certhad Sy eth 136 BAS aa Tat De set peace tacleears achin ® iSteun| oh cate brie, Recreedal biga aunthe ad (1S2e0t5 hg 64 atcha Gees ga SA Stegcenn’sby CAE. coeand gastadyres deeieg hg Woy at (Seay ds ro cq. Las fasts 6 led dededdoves dudes lw Aa Bhs HAY en at ctl dH pooch gt Se para BAF Wea pa geen We aging $ Tat tege Sa eae a in Byecd is ttre. Ln Charnes “Gebged tice ds onda ign (ews) Cannas satay Mad, eset ead Lieot a pape bane de DAT gor i regen SUES; seher pons ee teeta 6 GAL, ” Cast reilly retigs a 3 DS Paces ca orien 42 TE (ey ete wens evenet (ad eerie tactscnta fed fedu ne Be as fake. Cacthiy 1g watad de nena characte Serr toro poeta ' On ive pret Tes txctrodoeierts bebereaa get wieiran ta Wola ii2pe) A eater sonia 4 CL x < + / 7] “Oe 7a 4 og ined te Cin a Sip corners o> shayges 6\" es eater Row yeardite sectee dl eure bats4 ota Cigar oe AS\" lag cr sigdtin, peat driga Tacodened dais Fees cenit & Mie. ae Soy tejat 3 por) x Snee aa Omen! fom ‘igen ae) gee (ka toy ever, 8 hes Wa mt are Darpas dvergt piegeny 8 Vay fat Soi i sire fipelpeaerecrenn No Oe Orang, tengo fal etriestis idea] Redera a Wer ne set serveur gs cas ad core siden tence pea sabe bs ics re 9p rAed el pa itd ts $e eat, Gheneachar io hy dana dv 5 Fite Feacckerart Gris Mi dents Seurdanneecyee ta i be Ln Doe} Best @ ten a (or detseiee ger a Docs Bapese Ahr Hage Uae he ba arene es 48th epmmaran dr sotane fb Hen (1 fo) pa a et very et atta pe conto Tyme det eis do ald dus Botan Gt len bade kein Gti gied sAbeadboonens fas be aed 10. 35 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page:50 SFF&CC/West_000370"}, {"d": 121, "p": 284, "t": "TRADEMARK ERRESEET eS Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. VALLEY CONSTRUCTION ~ CLOSED CUT CONSTAUCCIOM OF VALLE CORTE CEARADO CORSTRUCTION DE MOUE FERMEE~ COUPE FERMEE Kec ek a etl farniy grea shaagien sa Fay ee Setece eecirns, ~~. sol a weloy ga. Na, puting 4a a friteead a he Gxtes Baage hg uaa bute oie para ava neal Wh Garter <3 aR, Cacdye bed ra ae RCAF tak bate i eaclored ds GA. He cotrjue weiter doe Oo bed & ctMQrres) oe ba Fine cactrad bg Jettag oe Yes departs cata enta apet arnt FAQ eed: Gt ds i en do ee dred Ge Sansa pis Neeser Scat Wy bes Dee aes ae 3 8 poe peat St 2a) Cop eieat oy Seabed. Fe reient Ay ees ‘eeseeant d ee oven i laa, Set 9c pots Oe ahd 4 Seabee peoaet te hat Set bing. ire Gah pe da tee Ua Pe “ Metts delet ive Sa moe S901 HzO Apganee ty bere de 8 nein Cased 8 peal wee Seales aay ‘: 7 Dorie ond td ep: TASreNs| acy Con TE Deg EE ‘ele sorter Ine. Cig Prat Catsy SAE senteris pret 3B fe thdees} er ca ern Eieed U cia baste de CHF pr 8 iain HELD) pada arenes be racion o4 GA Aisaten $9 bs paconcng $4 pdacteel GAS Ab ene 1B ae Lik Set sopiopicertis Altes say i bijsstetinrbhe Sips teat fare hatg al vale, rsette US eneidtOe jaa tajag 2 12° pack amine flags do apa of eh ghas Sel wae Bate et is Ge eae pl ervee aaa ej feu peg ein Roark “ieee dteete9 ave jars aud hes bonde acd craechert d de toile ttre coupes Gesvpr 24 928 Govgrds oe 299 3 {Benen de Sone du centre ae ert pros coala bey tad yw ed acs gear, ha Plea iad da read, Coggat es entra de ° Phan lanplarcite Cost wna tarsi Sa Cigar au bert egiercart Chaucumabacie * aiourent one 4 CANTER ta NOt pce RAD, cane nt Fas (LE ese ty ete mb ae Sheena ee reg tehad PRUCENER aE ad pices Gan clave coh ele con tio Nertoely EK CAS de Wome, Soca ‘cerns bar deals da rooiet Pisa a Fpadre ae 28) aa | ged ca eng te ale a Carene . WAPOATANE ROTE: Coo HOY isa a \"Cesdciais Volley” {ities instabed paraded 39 Bg roby cand Goat. etch cal end Pking OTA TMPGRTANUE: Be vei wt “YadaGx Cadtorcia” (thas malaga evn povpan 3a Bex Gece de eve), coat pots provera Leracgows LEMAR QUE IMPOR TAMTE: Ke pun atta Ge Re Calter » ards ikzita en paca none a Eg a ena OF Ue csr), ca ped cota det Est. Ln 36 WEST NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 51 SFF&CC/West_000371"}, {"d": 121, "p": 285, "t": "TRADEMARK CRUREUERETEESE NEE Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405):748-4444 info@tmexteriors:com PRECAUTIONARY NOTES - asp sapiek1 thea. psig Heat nat ogi becker of 04 aidan Cunictorsers ol fg hclrcaaty wtacy oofing winced verd, ude ctienyoy zion tepautere emda mu eter nee Exzond Hace uiy bent act rae Meco a Arch Shade hat beset Seve PuNgers, ste Sasi EEG wees arti Tipped Mastees 3 ead aMecti 3 Pegadess of mitnlwed Ba Boveis aa ea ronan nes gnc aeons ees peer aera eccereniied Maney redas bs Ong MISES tox asthe Pyotr ded hota ott peKRe Ss. Foe 5 Sore one eects be ray gi ee eced Dak tery apa i Saat melanie Twat sone a cok bres bones on niga ob teat baat Hees Pussdes Soe carrying ee ad an te ssrarine Gerage, Lary fin dadle acted teeage. agen al) “i NASA {nga Hos SAPORIARE: Rot sh promy e ltwvern ech, bat ye podem, mena Jeeher ip Posten vert RE ROCIO tt a wt bo bert para ad doen oa col sy een pated ay ghd petes 36d poe ah yivaietes sie eos co 8 Sece sy re darted may thos biocy sain ed chs mated Speirs elt eshh peered ba vod & asa Stet ssataeg bt Rb bays, apes 40d sala $aege.os aero aed. ge * aT a Nee faa bg Paty oe ian sels 2) Sete rs ep batons A Re stieges? malt 5ace ris Te Eat os] ne et ar w& bel tetarr al ia grand Hieeset a ta, a ea tS HE eh dertoptee hy waves nats Aaling * le a ote Sta, este ett uy mane Fat exdedeal appar, «381 1 OeHEBII 4 visa ont webs ke el we gat cat, NAS DE PREGAUCHON asteeehcs te Urs» shin. Dette at ceca Sl tid ingens a atti an pate sine Meseh aoe in ibcree steed ia dicate sera o acta, Les cy icis08 gua bt cue tex pennal tones oa/g tart betes tyes Teetiin 4 me patie pone 2 Gols Sarrnanta see, Senge s ettfa week arty APES yo Ber TO, Fut agate oars en A phen or veda ference i 2 fae pretan oo ni Sener eed) detractsy i sah tise $4 pated Condit teens CoHSeema aay at Var pote apes Terawaa re Ere Se oa on Blanes boas 8 bet gab ans Borges Gusset elie, ae Ge cabatety ¢ Mirae High isteneoor na iekojual ney beaad soireesid sone Uuouccsscina) aide et mane Sun Sts ey $9 tlacton ater, chyna eh costs G4 mh. $908 saevk . Ss. el Sot sca} ptr ata DAbdS (apcetesecnt ets mie atedSieaiinde caution Poates DeOe ioeala iin paneby tern Mager uae uu ner Gereeypai taser I NinodegtRensitnes os rset edn mtorr bes vitivatsfe Groton adaiy took HoR tet, RTA re Ghee peo Sees hen oats baen corideas abostns sentra a ighase qua oe Ait Milde wo. Ded sactoaia aegirts Pa BEES ES rik. Badd Sakae Oey Gets. Sek porkectnts teleteh, He Gack oes peatsis. Lespet Ls bad aes ens it ik Ue Sahn cel aves ae eeu . ingen tens Trent tan didinm ered mre ee 2\"ak ces tachee Stet paris Bectebdesdet Her ie i she Hoan ep ucts rua pis mies gods Gatuls hat ors g3$ le aay is corte’ big Sota bes BiCene aA rg speaenes ea a el ec ac ent . Pars eagéeia Mesloy, Baar 43 5-490-7HE- 11h a vhUiee norade 4386 WAI 4 wien pal cat, REMARQUES bE. PRECAUTION ote Sprig feaeuecye fh Sank en rented veetiada~ empaiatcsa suber SCE 434, Bo sracers (area G2 talaries oe VV, CHATS,siaRB ans de tet ae BA J Moemuybes wretententeoe at coatscatrqus Staal Sat pet pre est oe eat. “4 fewer irene pat Pesca Sn Wega pte nd a i hy Si me ee Dees ‘fgets eater rar ey aoe Th d2t tod PAZGEA WAGES Rosen pork aS 3 Tabet ya bed Soap ae Ga corel Hla cea Sale AAS (11T by pukka 3 Wein te + iy acon Rn ba iat & Jed vg bagi eet Sige 8 eraptags os okt ge yt Seco pres 1 caetteg gene wie 4 saan aft = eave Vion Soot xarpa tpoerieee yyperanes 9 setae Bison & Sag Broa ed aerpage MMPORUNT: om bint seeteeneat ein toler pn 6h dnt a etn da nae. MITSTOMDE gs baa espeie dekreod deopeeeit Ef, Cgs ca caged bed a ne eat seepicar kek $a panel, of bate 8 PA hionh revenniesaminnat' erate ers oe ipa beara scrnr oa sate Nee unten oot eo hae dua bs bee einen Nernoweials Leora fet pec fe ea 1p peed them ri wham ashe Semenbre lesa te pig 8 patSoarneneny Pe Wed Contin ekieet $9 ea lesan ‘ epics a bee teoarre i aah rm et even 4 prterinn epee rites eta Case k Poss 44 seuee Meuhtiges, nppelas au 1-000-700-4114 a virrlar ncirs oly Web 23 ray, pi. 108 EH OW oot nearer a tae de Your Cg Crk ‘aa bese Tete 12, 37 WEST NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 42 SFF&CC/West_000372"}, {"d": 121, "p": 286, "t": "POE MARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748:4444 info@tmexteriors:com. 38: WEST NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 53 SFF&CC/West_000373"}, {"d": 121, "p": 287, "t": "‘TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE S2nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405):748-4444 info@tmexteriors:com. 39 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page:54 SFF&CC/West_000374"}, {"d": 121, "p": 288, "t": "TRADEMARK Nee Ste tas Trademark Exteriors Restoration r, 4. y t o ° 7 ws, e . 36 NE 52nd Street _ Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. 40 WEST _NEIE: 3/172024 Page:55 SFF&CC/West_000375"}, {"d": 121, "p": 289, "t": "TRADEMARK ‘SURE Trademark Exteriors Restoration / ; 36 NE S2nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405):748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 4l WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page:56 SFF&CC/West_000376"}, {"d": 121, "p": 290, "t": "TRADEMARK SWERUZIEDS Sa Trademark Exteriors Restoration SWEL USES 36 NE S2nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748:4444 info@tmexteriors.com 42 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 57 SFF&CC/West_000377"}, {"d": 121, "p": 291, "t": "TRADEMARK EERE Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors:com 3 WEST. NEIL 3/7/2024 Page:58 SFF&CC/West_000378"}, {"d": 121, "p": 292, "t": "Ese TAS Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405).748-4444 info@tmexteriors:com Beyer 44 WEST NEIL 3/7/2024 Page:59 SFF&CC/West_000379"}, {"d": 121, "p": 293, "t": "TRADEMARK EACINAIN Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405) 748-4444 info@tniexteriors;com. Soninrien 45 WEST_NEIL- 3/7/2024 Page: 60 SFF&CC/West_000380"}, {"d": 121, "p": 294, "t": "TRASoC.DEMARK SE Se MB LT IS. Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405). 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 46 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 61 SFF&CC/West_000381"}, {"d": 121, "p": 295, "t": "“TRADEMARK COREE Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105. (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. 47 WEST_NEIL. 3/7/2024 ’ Page: 62 SFF&CC/West_000382"}, {"d": 121, "p": 296, "t": "‘TRADEMARK GOVERN Trademark Exteriors Restoration : 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com ihe 48 WEST_NELL. 3/7/2024 Page: 63 SFF&CC/West_000383"}, {"d": 121, "p": 297, "t": "TRADEMARK ROOMS Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. 49 WEST NEIL 3/772024 Page: 64 SFF&CC/West_000384"}, {"d": 121, "p": 298, "t": "TRADEMARKpk Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NB 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 731 05: (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. 50 WEST_NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 65 SFF&CC/West_000385"}, {"d": 121, "p": 299, "t": "TRADEMARK CORIO Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105° (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 51 WEST NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 66 SFF&CC/West_000386"}, {"d": 121, "p": 300, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration CORRECT 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 52 WEST. NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 67 SFF&CC/West_000387"}, {"d": 121, "p": 301, "t": "‘TRADEMARK Th | Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE S2nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405):748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. 53 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 68 SFF&CC/West_000388"}, {"d": 121, "p": 302, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. 54 WEST _NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 69 SFF&CC/West_000389"}, {"d": 121, "p": 303, "t": "TRADEMARK Giieeu ro ereemerrEs Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. WEST_NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 70 SFF&CC/West_000390"}, {"d": 121, "p": 304, "t": "TRADEMARK SRR Trademark Exteriors Restoration ' 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405):748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 56 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 71 SFF&CC/West_000391"}, {"d": 121, "p": 305, "t": "‘TRADEMARK ou TEOEN SEGUE RE tae Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors. com. 57 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 72 SFF&CC/West_000392"}, {"d": 121, "p": 306, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration CEREUS 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405). 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. WEST. NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 73 SFF&CC/West_000393"}, {"d": 121, "p": 307, "t": "TRADEMARK EEEEDISESORU ST Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 59. WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 74 SFF&CC/West_000394"}, {"d": 121, "p": 308, "t": "PRADEMARK Loh Trademark Exteriors Restoration sbai ed CLIN 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors:.com WEST NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 75 SFF&CC/West_000395"}, {"d": 121, "p": 309, "t": "TRADEMARK PRR Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36NE S2nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405):748-4444 info@tmexteriors,com. 61 ‘WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 76 SFF&CC/West_000396"}, {"d": 121, "p": 310, "t": "ern TRADEMARK anal . . . . , » Trademark Exteriors Restoration CORTE . 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405). 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com creas 62 ‘WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 77 SFF&CC/West_000397"}, {"d": 121, "p": 311, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 63 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 78 SFF&CC/West_000398"}, {"d": 121, "p": 312, "t": "TRADEMARK CRASS Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405):748-4444 info@tmexteriors. cori 64 WEST NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 79 SFF&CC/West_000399"}, {"d": 121, "p": 313, "t": "TRADEMARK Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE S2nd Streét Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 65 WEST_NEIL. 3/772024 Page: 80 SFF&CC/West_000400"}, {"d": 121, "p": 314, "t": "TRADEMARK me ASRS SES(8b ff ftEh Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE S2nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105: (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com. 65 WEST_NEIL 3/7/2024 Page: 81 SFF&CC/West_000401"}, {"d": 121, "p": 315, "t": "TRADEMARK ERMINE SOT ara Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405): 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 67 WEST_NEIL. 3/7/2024 Page: 82 SFF&CC/West_000402"}, {"d": 121, "p": 316, "t": "Trademark Exteriors Restoration 36 NE 52nd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 748-4444 info@tmexteriors.com 68 WEST NEIL 3/72024 Page: 83 SFF&CC/West_000403"}, {"d": 121, "p": 318, "t": "Providing Insurance and Financial Services Home Office, Bloomington, iL March 14, 2024 State Farm Claims NeilS West PO Box 106169 30348-6169 GA nta Atla 7 NW Briarcreek Dr Lawton OK RE: 73505-9537 ClaimNumber, 36-59Q1-13C Policy Number: Date of Loss: 36CRX4058 June 15, 2023 Dear Neil S West: Thank you for the opportunity to review your claim. A payment in the amount of $1274.67 will be mailed to you. The terms of your policy require your mortgage company or lienholder be included as a payee. Some mortgage companies or lienholders opt to be removed as a payee. If they are included as a payee, please contact them for instructions on obtaining their endorsement. if you have questions or need assistance, call us at (844) 458-4300 Ext, 66. Sincerely, ™~*s)> EXHIBIT Kristin Haun Claim Specialist 3 _ (844) 458-4300 Ext.66 statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com as Social Security For your protection, when emailing State Farm, please do not include sensitive personal information such in an email, information al healttvmedic or number, license driver's number), account Number, credit/debit card number (financial Please contact us at (844) 458-4300 Ext. 66 to discuss sensitive information. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Take advantage of our self-service options Go to statefarm.com® to easily review claim status, select a repair facility, reserve a rental vehicle, update communication and claim payment preferences, and many other insurance services. WEST_000097"}, {"d": 121, "p": 319, "t": "& Statefarm Summary of Loss Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C Date Created: 3/14/2024 Named Yusured: LACY WEST, NEIL S WEST Coverage A - Dwelling Limit of Lisbitity: $309,000.00 Cost ($) Recoverable Depreciation (S) Now-Recoverable © Amount Over Description Replacement Litt ($) Subtotal ($) Staff Estimate. Totals: 5,283.17 5,283.17 0.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 0,00 000 5,283.17 528317 $ S$ Comments/Supplements Depreciation () S S$ $ Subtotal: $5,283.17 Less Deductible: $3,090.00 Less MISC: $0.00 ‘Total Payables Lets Total Paynsents Made: Net Payment: $2,193.17 $918.50 $1,274.67 Signature and * Your policy may provide for additional payments an a replacement cast basis for the Recoverable Depreciation Usted above for Cov, A and Coy, B for your Building you if handler your claim for specific time limits and additional seitlement provisions, Please contact Personal Property. Ploate referta your polley and any endorsements kava any questions. Previous Payments Bubtotal Date Sep 28,2023 Payee Remarks (8) 916.50 Actual cash value payment for gutters, downspout, window screena, fence stain, and LACY WEST& NEIL S. WEST Interior repairs. . $ Totals; Page | of I 918.50 WEST_000098"}, {"d": 121, "p": 320, "t": "WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C State Farm P.O. Box 106169 Atlanta, GA 30348-6169 Fax: 1-844-236-3646 statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com Structural Damage Claim Policy This estimate is priced based on estimated market pricing for the cost of matcrials, labor, and other factors at the time of the loss. Adjustments in market pricing and timing of the repairs Inay impact the final cost of covered repairs. Should you or the contractor you select have questions concerning our estimate, please contact us. If your contractor's estimate is higher than ours, you should contact us prior to beginning repairs. ‘State Farm will work with you and your contractor to determine the actual and necessary cost of covered repairs at the time repairs will be completed, subject to policy terms, conditions and limits. » We want you to receive quality repair work to restore the damages to your property. « We will provide you with a detailed estimate of the scopeof the damage and costsof repairs. Should the contractor you select have questions concerning our estimate, they should contact your claim representative directly. + Depending upon the complexity of your repair, our estimate may or may not include an allowance for general contractor's overhead and profit. If you have questions regarding general contractor's overhead and profit and whether general contractor services are appropriate for your loss, please contact your elaim representative before proceeding with repairs. * There may be building codes, ordinances, laws, or regulations that affect the repairs of your property, These items may or may not be covered by your policy. Please contact your claim representative if you have any questions regarding coverage which may be available under your policy, + State Farm® cannot authorize any contractor to proceed with work on your property. Repairs should proceed only with your authorization. » State Farin does not guarantee the quality of the workmanship of any contractor or guarantee that the work will be accomplished within any specific time frame. + It is understood that the contractor is hired by you, our insured, and that they work for you - not State Farm. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding your claim, please contact your claim representative immediately. Date: 3/14/2024 1:02 PM 132214,1 06-18-2009 WEST_000099 Page: J"}, {"d": 121, "p": 321, "t": "36-53Q1-13C Building Estimate Summary Guide Statefarny This summary guide is based on a sample estimate and is provided for reference only. Please refer to the estimate for specifics of your claim. 1. ‘Line item Total ~ Total Va, of ail tine State Farm insurance lems ih the estimate’ ‘plus possible a Estimate: 00-0000-000 1 Main Street Claim number! 00-0000-000 Anywhare, iL 00000-0000 Pollcy Number: 00-00-0000-0 Insured: Smith, Joe & Jane Property: Price List’ Type of Loss: Other ILBLEF_MAR 13 vice/ Restoration/Ser Remodel Deductible: $1,000.00 F = Factored In, D = Do Not Apply Profit = General contractor’ 8 charge for coordinating your repairs. 3 Replacement Cost Value (rcyy—Estimated cost to repair. oF replace _ damaged property. Summary for Dwelling Line tem Total [1] Material Sates Tax . 1 The. deciease ih the 10,000% x 1,520.00 Subtota? General Contractor Overhead General Contractor Profit 7,326.12 Replacement Cost Value (Including Gener (832.50) | Less Depreciation (Including Taxes) [4] (166.50) b cpgption including Taxes) [4] Lesson - reopverable Depreciation (Including Taxes) 7] 832.50 312.50 Subtotal” General Contractar O&P on Depreciation Less General Contractor O&P oh Noh - recoverable Depreciation 166.50 Subtotal Tota! Maximum Additional Amounts Available if incurred Total Amount of Claim if Incurred [9] Claim Representative ALL AMOUNTS PAYABLE ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITS OF YOUR POLICY. 439928,1 {002089 Date: 01-23-2013 Page: 2 3/14/2024 1:02 PM WEST_000100"}, {"d": 121, "p": 322, "t": "State Farm 36-53Q1-13C WEST, NEIL Insured: Property: | WEST, NEIL 7NW BRIARCREEK DR Estimate: Claim Number; LAWTON, OK 73505-9537 Home: 580-510-0427 Cellular: 580-695-0014 Type of Loss: Policy Number: Price List! 36-53Q1-13C 3653Q113C 36CRX4058 OKLA28_MAR24 Restoration/Service/Remodel —_ Hail Deductible: $3,090.00 Date of Loss: 6/15/2023 Date Inspected: 9/28/2023 Summary for Coverage A - Dwelling - 35 Windstorm and Hail Line Item Total 5,191.55 Material Sales Tax 91.62 Replacement Cost Value Less Deductible 5,283.17 (3,090.00) Net Payment $2,193.17 HAIL RECONCILIATION UNIT 844-458-4300 x 66 ; ALL AMOUNTS PAYABLE ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITS OF YOUR POLICY. A residential or commercial roofing contractor providing repairs or improvement services to be paid by an insured from the proceeds of a property or casualty insurance policy shall not, as an inducement fo the sale or provision of goods or services to an insured, all or part of any applicable insurance deductible or offer to compensate an insured advertise or promise to pay, directly or indirectly, contractor violates the provisions of this section, the insurer to whom the insured roofing a If insured. for providing any service to the the estimate prepared by the roofing contractor. Every roofing contractor shall consider to obligated be not shall tendered the claim a provide a written notification of the requirements of this section with its initial estimate. The adjuster or insurer shall provide claim. the to written notification of the requirements of this section in the initial estimate relating Date: Page: 3 3/14/2024 1:02 PM WEST_000101"}, {"d": 121, "p": 323, "t": "State Farm 36-53Q)-13C WEST, NEIL Dwelling Exterior Roof 4,632.97 Surface Area 46.33 Number of Squares 330.96 Total Perimeter Length 99.08 Total Ridge Length 229.79 Total Hip Length DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE. TAX RCV 0,00 0,00 No Accidental Direct Physical Loss observed at lime of inspection. Totals: Roof Gutters 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 SF Floor 0,00 SF Short Wall 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 SF Long Walt 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCY * 1, R&R Gutter - aluminum - up to 5° 275.00 LF 10.43 64.75 2,933.00 64.75 2,933.00 Totals: Gutters Front Elevation 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Long Wall 0.00 SF Short Wall. 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00. LF Ceil. Perimeter DESCRIPTION 2. R&R Window screen, | - 9 SF QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 2.00 EA 42.29 3.28 87.86 3.28 87.86 Totals: Front Elevation Right Elevation 0.00 SF Walls Date: 0.00 SF Ceiling 0,00 SF Walls & Ceiling Page: 4 3/14/2024 1:02 PM WEST_000102"}, {"d": 121, "p": 324, "t": "State Farm 36-53Q1-13C WEST, NEIL 0.00 SF Floor 0,00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 0.00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 0.00 0.00 No Accidental Direct Physical Loss observed at time of inspection. Totals: Right Elevation Rear Elevation 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 LF Floor Penmeter 0,00 LF Ceif. Perimeter 0.00: SF Long Wall QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TAX RCV * 3. R&R downspout - aluminum - up to 5\" 12,00 LF 10.43 2,83 127.99 4, R&R Window screen, 1 - 9 SF 1,00 FA 42,29 1.64 43,93 4,47 171,92 Totals: Rear Elevation Left Elevation 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 0.00 SF Long Wall QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV #5 R&R downspout - aluminum - up to 5° 12.00 LF 10.43 2.83 127,99 6. R&R Window screen, ] - 9 SF 100 EA 42.29 1.64 43,93 4,47 171,92 DESCRIPTION Totals: Left Elevation Fence 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 LF Floor Penmeter 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 0.00 SF Long Wall DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 7. Clean the surface area 636.00 SF 0.38 0.31 241.99 Date: Page: 5 3/14/2024 1:02 PM WEST_000103"}, {"d": 121, "p": 325, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C CONTINUED - Fence DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 8, Stain - wood fence/gate 636.00 SF 0.85 9.30 549.90 9.61 791,89 Totals: Fence Area Totals: Exterior 319.90 Exterior Perimeter 2,371.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 2,371.08 Exterior Wall Area of Walls 319,90 LF Floor Perimeter 4,632.97 Surface Area 99.08 Total Ridge Length 229.79 Total Hip Length 2,371.08 SF Walls 330.96 Total Permeter Length 46.33 Number of Squares 86.58 Total: Exterior 4,156.59 Interior Height:8° Bedroom 352,00 SF Walls 120.00 SF Ceiling 472,00 SF Walls & Ceiling 120.00. SF Floor 44.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 44.00 LF Floor Perimeter Door 2' 6\" X68\" Opens into Exterior Door 2'6\" XK 6' 8\" Opens into Exterior Boor 2' 6\" XK 6' 8\" Opeus into Exterior DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE RCV TAX 9, Content Manipulation charge - per hour 1.00 HR REVISED 10. Seal the surface area w/PVA primer - one 4.00 SF 0.52 0.01 2.09 11. Paint more than the ceiling - one coat 124.00 SF 0.60 0.85 75.25 12. Paint the walls - one coat 352,00 SF 0,60 2.40 2133.60 13. Floor protection - plastic and tape - 10 mil 120.00 SF 0.29 0.70 35,50 1.00 EA 200.41 0.00 200.41 coat 14, Detach & Reset Ceiling fan & light Date: Page: 6 3/14/2024 1:02 PM WEST_000104"}, {"d": 121, "p": 326, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C CONTINUED - Bedroom DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCY 15, Detach & Reset Heat/AC register Mechanically attached 1LO0EA 15.03 0.00 15,03 16. Contents - move out then reset LOOBA 39.41 0.00 59.41 2.00 SF 0.52 0.01 1.05 * 18. Paint ceiling 32.00 SF 0.60 0.22 19,42 * 19, Paint walls 96.00 SF 0.60 0.66 58.26 20, Floor protection - plastic and tape - 10 mil 32.00 SF 0.29 0.19 9.47 21. Contents - move out then reset - Small Toon 100EA 44.60 0.00 44,60 5,04 734,09 ***CLOSET*#* 17, Seal the surface area w/PVA primer - onc coat Totals: Bedroom Area Totals: Interior 352.00 SF Walls 120.00 SF Floor’ 120.00 SF Ceiling 135.11 Total Area 120.00 Ffoor Area 46.67 Exterior Perimeter 420.00 Exterior Wall Arca _ of Walls Total: Interior 472.00 SF Walis and Ceiling 44,00 LF Floor Perimeter 44,00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 352.00 Interior Wall Area 5.04 734,09 Area Totals: Dwelling 2,723.08 SF Walls 120.00 SF Floor 120,00 SF Ceiling 135.11 Total Area 2,843.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 363.90 LF Floor Perimeter 120,00 Floor Area 366.57 Exterior Perimeter 44.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 352.00 Interior Wall Area 2,791.08 Exterior Wall Area 4,632.97 Surface Area 99.08 Total Ridge Length of Walls 46.33 Number of Squares 330,96 Total Perimeter Length 229.79 Total Hip Length 91.62 Total: Dwelling 4,890.68 Debris Remoyal 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Floor Date: 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 3/14/2024 1:02 PM Page: 7 WEST_000105"}, {"d": 121, "p": 327, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C 0.00 SF Long Wall DESCRIPTION 22. Haul debris - per pickup trick load including dump fees 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 100EA 147,50 0.00 147.50 0,00 147.50 Totals: Debris Removal Labor Minimums Applied DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX RCV 23. Window labor minimum 1.00EA 182.52 0.00 182.52 24, Electrical labor minimum 1.00 EA 62.47 0.00 62.47 Totals: Labor Minimums Applied 0,00 244,99 Line Item Totals: 36-53Q1-13C 91.62 §,283.17 Grand Total Areas: 2,723.08 SF Walls 120.00 SF Ceiling 2,843.08 SF Walls and Ceiling 363.90 LF Floor Perimeter 120.00 SF Floor 44.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter 120.00 Floor Area 2,791.08 Exterior Wall Area 135.11 Total Area 352,00 Interior Wali Area 366.57 Exterior Perimeter of Walls 4,632.97 Surface Area 99.08 Total Ridge Length Date: 46.33 Number of Squares 229.79 Total Hip Length 330.96 Total Perimeter Length 3/14/2024 1:02 PM Page: 8 WEST_000106"}, {"d": 121, "p": 328, "t": "Trade Summary Includes all applicable Tax, General Contractor O&P, and Labor Minimums DESCRIPTION LINE ITEM REPL. COST ACY NON-REC. DEPREC, AMT AVAIL. | 636.00 SF $241,99 $241.99 $241.99 $241.99 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Content Manipulation charge - per hour 1.00 HR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0,00 Contents - move out then reset 1,00 EA $59.41 $59.41 $0.00 $0.00 Contents - move out then reset - Small room 1.00 EA $44.60 $44.60 $0.00 $0.00 $104,01 $104.01 $0,00 $0.00 ; CLEANING CLN QTY Clean the surface area TOTAL CLEANING CON TOTAL CONTENT MANIPULATION TOTAL CONTENT MANIPULATION DMO GENERAL DEMOLITION ZZ Haul debris - per pickup truck load - 1.00 EA including dump fees TOTAL GENERAL DEMOLITION ELE $147.50 $147.50 $0.00 $0.00 $147.50 $147.50 $0.00 $0.00 $62.47 $62.47 $0.00 $0.00 $62.47 $62.47 $0.00 50.00 ELECTRICAL Electrical labor minimum 100 EA TOTAL ELECTRICAL HVC _HEAT, VENT & AIR CONDITIONING Detach & Reset Heat/AC register Mechanically attached | 1.00 EA HEAT, VENT & AIR CONDITIONING LIT LIGHT FIXTURES Detach & Reset Ceiling fan & light $15.03 $15.03 $0.00 $0.00 $15.03 $15.03 50,00 50.00 $200.41 $200.41 $0,00 $0.00. $200.41 $200.41 $0.00 $0.00 a : TOTAL L.00EA TOTAL LIGHT FIXTURES PNT MAX ADDL, oo . PAINTING Stain - wood fence/gate 636,00 SF $549.90 $549,90 $0.00 $0.00 Floor protection - plastic and tape ~ 10 mil 152,00 SF $44,97 $44.97 $0.00 $0.00 Paint ceiling 32,00 SF $19.42 $19.42 $0.00 $0.00 Paint walls 96,00 SF $58.26 $58.26 $0.00 $0.00 Paint - one coat 476.00 SF $288.85 $288.85 $0.00 $0.00 6.00 SF $3.14 $964.54 $3.14 $964.54 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 30.00 Seal w/PVA primer - one coat TOTAL PAINTING SFG SOFFIT, FASCIA, & GUTTER . R&R Gutter - aluminum - up to 5” 275.00 LF $2,933.00 $2,933.00 $0.00 $0.00 R&R downspout - aluminum - up to 5” 24.00 LF $255.98 $255.98 $0.00 $0.00 Note: Slight variarices may be found within report sections due to rounding Date: Page: 9 3/14/2024 1:02 PM WEST_000107"}, {"d": 121, "p": 329, "t": "Trade Summary Includes alt applicable Tax, General Contractor O&P, and Labor Minimums DESCRIPTION SFG LINE ITEM QTY REPL. COST TOTAL ACV NON-REC, DEPREC. MAX ADDL, AMT AVAIL. $3,188.98 $3,188.98 $0.00 $0.00 4.00 EA $175.72 $175.72 $175.72 $175.72 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 LOOEA SOFFIT, FASCIA, & GUTTER TOTAL SOFFIT, FASCIA, & GUTTER WDR__ WINDOW REGLAZING & REPAIR R&R Window screen, 1 - 9 SF TOTAL WINDOW REGLAZING& REPAIR WDW WINDOWS - WOOD $182.52 $182.52 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL WINDOWS - WOOD Window labor minimum $182,52 $182,52 $0.00 $0.00 TOTALS $5,283,17 $5,283.17 $0,00 $0.00 Note: Stight variances may be found within report sections due to rounding Date; 3/14/2024 1:02 PM Page: 10 WEST_000108"}, {"d": 121, "p": 330, "t": "State Farm WEST, NEIL 36-53Q1-13C Recap of Taxes, Overhead and Profit GC Overhead 0%) GC Profit (0%) Material Sales Tax Manuf. Home Tax Storage Rental Tax Line Items 0.00 0.00 91.62 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 91.62 0.00 9,00 . Date: (4.878%) (4.875%) (4.875%) 3/14/2024 1:02 PM Page: 11 WEST_000109"}, {"d": 121, "p": 331, "t": "Claim Number: 36-53Q1-13C From: HOME CLMS-FIRECLAIMS (statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com) To: NEILSPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET; odom_bobhy@yahoo.com Co: LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM; nancy.holcomb.gavc@statefarm.com Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 12:42 PM CDT Christy Mebane Claim Specialist- Proximity Stale Farm Fire Claims Work: 844-458-4300 EXT:3099946711 &. tatetarmfireclaims @statefarm. ge ee WEST_000110"}, {"d": 121, "p": 333, "t": "From:\"Christy Mebane\" <christy.mebane.shel@statefarm.com> Sent:Wea,10 Apr-2024 17:41:59 +0000: To:\"DF - FIRE - Drop File Document\" <DF-FIRE-CL@internal.statefarrn.com> Subject:FW: Claim Number: 36-5301-13¢ Attachments:West.pdf vom HONE CIMS-FIRECLAINS ssn i aah apa einen _ secununnatnncinisain Sent: Wednesday, April 10; 2024 12:42 PM To: NEILSPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBAL.NET;.cdom_babby@yahoo.com Cc: LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM; Nancy Holcomb <nancy.holcomb.gave@statefarm.com> Subject: Claim Number: 36-5301-13C Christy Mebane Claim Specialist- Proximity State Farm Fire Claims Work: 844-458-4300 EXT:3099946711 statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com mo) CK EXHIBIT at SFF&CC/West_000196"}, {"d": 121, "p": 334, "t": "Providing Insurance and Financial Services SS St ‘ate Farm’ Home Office, Bloomington, It April 10, 2024 WEST, NEILS&LACYM 7 NW BRIARCREEKDR LAWTON OK 73505 Feds eGame wera Aoranta,.GAca 30848-6169 Fax 844 236.3646 RE: Glaim Number: 36-5301-13C Dateof Loss: June 15, 2023 Dear Neil & Lacy Thank you forthe opportunity to review your claim-and the information submitted by your roofer. This letter addresses your request for an additional inspection of the roof. Your roofer has: provided additional photos and his estimate for damages. This information has: been-elevated for review by management fora and inspection. A manager has reviewed the file and the new information to make-the decision on the:2\" inspection:and finds the: information and photos provided do not 'demonstrate missed damages’or merit additional inspection. Based on this information we must respectfully decline your request for an additional inspection, Please refer to HW+2136, for the following applicable language: SECTION 1 —-LOSSES NOT INSURED 1, Wewill not pay for any loss:to.the property described in Coverage A that consists of, oris directly and immediately caused by, one or more of the perils listed.in items.a. through m. below, regardless of whether the loss occurs abruptly or gradually; involves isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or external forces, or occurs as a result of any combination of these: g. wear, tear, decay, marring, scratching, deterioration, inherent vice, latent defect, or mechanical breakdown: SECTION f - CONDITIONS 6. Suit Against Us. No action will be brought against us unless:there has been full compliance: with all of SFF&CC/West_000197"}, {"d": 121, "p": 335, "t": "36-53Q1-13C Page 2 April 10, 2024 the policy provisions. Any action by any party must be started within.one year’ after the date of loss-or damage. However, if the cause of loss or damage is: ‘burglary, theft,. larceny, robbery, forgery; fraud, vandalism, malicious mischi ef, confiscation, wrongful conversion, disposal or concealment, the action must be started within two years from the time-the cause.of action accrues. The: Company does not intend, by this letter, to waive any policy defenses in addition to those-stated above, and reserves its right to assert such additional policy defense at any time. If you have any questions regarding your claim of any additional information: you would like us to consider, please contact me. at the number below. Please provide the claim number on any correspondence you send to-us.. Sincerely; Christy Mebane Claims Specialist 3099946711 State Farm Fire.and Casualty Company’ CC: Nancy Holcomb, Agent Take.advantage of our self-service options _ ; . Go to statefarm.com to easily review claim status, update-communication and claim payment preferences, and many other insurance services. SFF&CC/West_000198"}, {"d": 121, "p": 337, "t": "From:\" Office Coastal Claims\" <office@coastalclaims.net> Sent:Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:44:10 +0000 To:\"statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com\" <statefarmfireclaims@ statefarm.com>Ces“ecsves-OK-2024040001 @claimmail.net\" <ccsves-OK-2024040001@claimmail.net> Subject:[EXTERNAL] 3653Q113C Attachments: WEST-LOR_PA.pdf, CCS 2024 W9.pdf April 24, 2024 To whomever it may concern: Please be advised that effective April 16, 2024, Coastal Claims Services, LLCis representing Neil 5. & Lacy M. West for a loss sustained on 6/15/2023, We will be assisting Neil & Lacy in the preparation and negotiationof their claim. Attached you-will find our Letter of Representation, Public Adjuster Contract. and W-9., in respect to this claim we are currently requesting all previous photos of the property, all previous communications, engineering reports, estimates, notes, and payments. We are also requesting all future communications, photos, estimates and reports to be sent to our office along with a certified copy of the policy, if you would like to schedule an:inspection or a recorded statement, please call our office at 386-314-0074, and ask for our scheduling department or via email at scheduling @coastalclaims.net. Fora ny specific questions about the claim please feel free to contact the Pu blic: Adjuster, Brandon Gold, at Office (386) 314-0074, or Cell 215-791-1611. We look forward to working with you towards a settlement for this claim. Best Regards, Griffin Cheeseman Intake Specialist | Coastal Claims ehwicnd 2650 N Dixie. Fwy | New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 Office (386) 314-0074 Direct (863) 835-9202 Fax (386) 961-4344 office@coastalclaims.net www, coastalclaims.net mm? EXHIBIT SFF&CC/West_000655"}, {"d": 121, "p": 339, "t": "From:office@coastalclaims.net Sent:Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:28:50 -0400 To:statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com Ce:ccsvcs-OK-2024040001 @claimmail.net Subject:[EXTERNAL] 36530113C Attachments:3653Q113C_WEST_PRELIMINARY PA ESTIMATE. pdf Please see attached PA preliminary estimate. If you have any questions, please reach out to the PA on file for this claim, JOHN DEKKER @ 267-791-1611 or email john@coastalclaims.net. “This is a PRELIMINARY estimate produced by Coastal Claims Services. This estimate represents our current evaluation of the damages to the insured's property. As we continue to evaluate this claim, there may be additional damages related to this event that have not been scoped at the production of this estimate.” =» EXHIBIT ab =) ce SFF&CC/West_000538"}, {"d": 121, "p": 340, "t": "(Gost cris Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyrna Beach, Fi 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net Insured: West, Neil & Lacy Home: (580) 695-0014 Property: 7 NW Briarcreek Drive E-mail: neilspencerwest@sbcglobal.net Lawton, OK 73505 Claim Rep.: John Dekker Company: Business: Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway Business: E-mail: (267) 261-0085 john@coastalclaims.net New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 Estimator: Eileen Dalton Company: Coastal Claims Services Claim Number: 3653Q113C Date of Loss: Date Inspected: Policy Number: 36CRX4058 6/15/2023 12:00 AM Price List! OKLA8X_APR24 Estimate: Restoration/Service/Remodel WEST Date Received: Date Entered: Type of Loss: Hail 4/25/2024 11:07 AM “This is a PRELIMINARY estimate produced by Coastal Claims Services. This estimate represents our current evaluation of the damages to the insured’s property. As we continue to evaluate this claim, there may be additional damages related to this event that have not been scoped at the production of this estimate.” SFF&CC/West_000539"}, {"d": 121, "p": 341, "t": "Gara Clays: Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, F1 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net WEST SOURCE: EAGLEVIEW Roof DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV = _— DEPREC. ACV 46.34 SQ 57.37 0.00 531.70 3,190.23 (0.00) 3,190.23 46.34 SQ 23.4) 0.00 216,96 1,301.78 (0.00) 1,301.78 4,634.00 SF 0.23 2.26 213.62 1,281.70 (6.95) 1,274.75 Roofing 1. Tear off, haul and dispose of comp. shingles - Laminated 2. Remove Additional charge for steep roof'~ 10/12 - 12/12 slope 3. Renailing of roof sheathing - complete re-nai 4, Saddle or cricket - 26 to 50 SF 1.00 EA 346.29 6.92 70.64 423.85 (21.30) 402.55 46,34 SQ 55.67 SQ 32.72 238.54 17.78 326.32 306.80 2,721.16 1,840.82 16,327.00 (54.70) (1,004.06) 1,786.12 15,322.94 7.61 SQ 68.77 0.00 104.66 628.00 (0.00) 628,00 331,00 LF 330.00 LF 1.87 8.25 8.07 43.60 125.42 553.22 752.46 3,319.32 (24.83) (134.15) 727.63 3,185.17 5.00 EA 90.51 1.85 90.90 545.30 (5.71) 539,59 1.00EA 427.98 5.02 86.60 519.60 (15.43) 504.17 331.00 LF 331.00 LF 3.18 0.72 20.49 5.00 214.62 48.66 1,287.69 291.98 (63.06) (15.39) 1,224.63 276.59 16.00 LF 5.00 LF 9,92 5.38 1,57 0.55 32.06 5.50 192.35 32.95 (4,82) (1.69) 187,53 31.26 $16.00 SF 172.00 LF 344.00 LF 1.63 6.00 0.72 13.08 21.21 5.20 170.84 210.64 50.58 1,025.00 1,263.85 303.46 (40,25) (65.27) (16.00) 984,75 1,198.58 287.46 75.00 LF 10.77 7.11 164,98 989,84 (52.65) 937.19 5.00 EA 75.20 5.84 76.38 458,22 (17.97) 440,25 21. R&R Fumace vent - rain cap and storm collar, 6\" 100 BA 95.10 2,03 19.42 116.55 (6.24) 110.31 22, R&R Flashing - pipe jack - tead 23. Apply mastic around vent pipes to prevent leakage* 5,00 EA L100 EA 88.49 25.99 12.12 0.53 90.92 $7.28 545.49 343.70 (37.30) (1.62) 508.19 342.08 5, Roofing felt - 15 Ib. 6. Laminated - comp. shingle rfg. - w/out felt 7, Additional charge for steep roof - 10/12 12/12 slope 8. Asphalt starter - universal starter course 9, R&R Hip / Ridge cap - Standard profilecomposition shingles 10. R&R Gable comice return - laminated Flashing 14. R&R Chimney flashing - average (32\" x 36\") 12. R&R Drip edge/gutter apron 13. Apply roofing sealanvcement-perLFDrip Edge* 14. Step flashing 15. R&R Flashing - L flashing galvanized 16. Ice & water barrier 17. Valley metal 18. Apply roofing sealant/cement - per LFValley Metai* Ventilation 19. R&R Continuous ridge vent - shingleover style 20. R&R Roof vent - turtle type - Metal Pipe Jacks, Caps, and Collars Miscellaneous Items WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 2 SFF&CC/West_000540"}, {"d": 121, "p": 342, "t": "Gove Gtalws| Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyrna Beach, FI 32168 386-3 14-0074 www.coastalclaims.net CONTINUED - Roof DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV L.00EA 37,55 0.00 752 45.07 (0.00) 45.07 LOOEA 300.00 0.00 0,00 300.00 (0.00) 300.00 5,00 HR 40.48 0.00 40,48 242.88 (0.00) 242,88 Totals; Roof 516.55 6,211.56 37,569.09 1,589.39 35,979.70 Total: SOURCE: EAGLEVIEW §16.55 6,211.56 37,569.09 1,589.39 35,979.70 24, Digital satellite system - Detach & reset ~-~GENERALS-25, Taxes, insurance, permits & fees (Bid Item) 26. Roofing - General Laborer - per hour Labor to hand foad materials onto roof Exterior DESCRIPTION 27. R&R Window screen, 1 - 9 SF 28. R&R Wrap wood window frame & trim with aluminum sheet QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCY DEPREC, ACV 4.00EA 2.00 EA 45.23 303.21 7.14 6.56 37.60 122.60 225.66 735.58 (21.97) (20.18) 203.69 715.40 13.70 160.20 961.24 42.15 919.09 Totals: Exterior Gutters DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV _—DEPREC. ACV 29, R&R Gutter- aluminum - up to 5°* 275.00 LF 10.44 64.75 587.18 3,522,93 (199.24) 3,323.69 30. R&R Downspout - aluminum - up to 96.00 LF 10.44 22.60 204.98 1,229.82 (69.55) 1,160.27 3.00 EA 27.18 0.53 16.42 98.49 (1,64) 96.85 87.88 808.58 4,851.24 270.43 4,580.81 TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV sie 31. R&R Gutter splash guard Totals: Gutters Fencing DESCRIPTION WEST QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 4/25/2024 Page: 3 SFF&CC/West_000541"}, {"d": 121, "p": 343, "t": "(Gooner ctor Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyrna Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net CONTINUED - Fencing DESCRIPTION , QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 1,452.00 SF 1,452.00 SF 16.00 BA 0.37 0.86 76.49 0.71 21.94 1,68 107.58 254.12 245.10 645.53 1,524.78 1,470.62 (2.18) (67,52) (5.18) 643.35 1,457.26 1,465.44 24,33 606.80 3,640.93 74.88 3,566.05 32. Clean with pressure/chemical spray 33. Stain - wood fence/gate 34, Wood fence 5° - 6’ high - Detach & reset - per 8' section Totals: Fencing Main Level I Bedroom a t 2 : 1 f 352.00 SF Walls 120,00 SF Ceiling = 472.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 120,00 SF Floor ™ 13.33 SY Flooring 44.00 LF Floor Perimeter 6 | | l' g\" bem u Height: 3' . . 44.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 4\" td DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV (0,00) 106.94 General: 35, Contents - move out then reset - Large 1.00 EA 89.12 0,00 17,82 106.94 room Ceiling: 36. Ceiling fan - Detach & reset 1.00 EA 200.41 0,00 40.08 240.49 (0.00) 240.49 37. Detach & Reset Heat/AC register - 1.00 EA 15.04 0.00 3.00 18.04 (0.00) 18.04 44,00 LF 0,54 0.11 4.78 28.65 (0,33) 28,32 120.00 SF 0.91 1.52 22.14 132.86 (4.68) 128.18 Walls: 40, Mask and prep for paint - plastic, paper, tape (per LF) 44.00 LF 1.26 0.58 11.20 67.22 (1.78) 65.44 41, R&R 1/2\" drywall - hung, taped, 32.00 SF 2.67 1.12 17.32 103.88 (3.46) 100.42 32.00 LF 107 0,53 45,34 272.11 (1.63) 270.48 32.00 SF 352,00 SE 0.79 0.52 0,12 1,03 5.08 36.80 30,48 220.87 (0.38) G.17) 30.10 217.70 352.00 SF 0.91 4.46 64,96 389.74 (13.73) 376.01 Mechanically attached 38. Mask and prep for paint - tape only (per LF) 39. Paint the ceiling - two coats floated, ready for paint 42, Tape joint for new to existing drywall per LF 43, Texture drywall - light hand texture 44. Seal the walls w/PVA primer - one coat 45. Paint the walls - two coats WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 4 SFF&CC/West_000542"}, {"d": 121, "p": 344, "t": "Gaset Clajgis. Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyrna Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net CONTINUED ~- Bedroom DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. 46. Mask or cover per square foot 120.00 SF 0.45 0.53 47, Final cleaning - constriction - 120,00 SF 0.28 0.00 10.00 ACV 10.90 65.43 (0.00) 65.43 6,72 40.32 (0.00) 40,32 286.14 1,717.03 29.16 1,687.87 Floor: Residential Totals: Bedroom ow sg 5 Bathroom Height: 8' ' ] 208.00 SF Walls 40.00 SF Ceiling pathwonde oe & 248.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 4.44 SY Flooring 40.00 SF Floor 26.00 LF Floor Perimeter | DESCRIPTION 26.00 LF Ceil, Perimeter QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC, ACV 100EA 89.12 0.00 17.82 106.94 (0.00) 106.94 49. Detach & Reset Bathroom ventilation fan 1.00 EA 58.83 0.00 11.76 70.59 (0.00) 70.59 50. Detach & Reset Heat/AC register Mechanically attached 5}, Mask and prep for paint - tape only (per LF) LOOEA 15.04 0.00 3.00 18.04 (0.00) 18.04 26.00 LF 0.54 0.06 2.82 16.92 (0.20) 16.72 40.00 SF 0.91 0.51 738 44.29 (1.56) 42.73 26,00 LF 1.26 0.34 6.62 39.72 (1.05) 38.67 32.00 SF 2.67 1.12 17.32 103.88 (3.46) 100.42 32,00 LP 7.07 0,53 45,34 272.11 (1.63) 270.48 32.00 SF 208.00 SF 0.79 0,52 0,12 0.61 5,08 21.76 30.48 130.53 (0.38) (1.87) 30.10 128.66 208.00 SF 0.91 2.64 38.38 230.30 (8.11) 222.19 General; 48. Contents - move out then reset - Large room Ceiling: 52. Paint the ceiling - hvo coats Wails: 53. Mask and prep for paint - plastic, paper, tape (per LF) 54, R&R 1/2\" drywall - hung, taped, floated, ready for paint 55. Tape joint for new to existing drywall per LF 56. Texture drywall - light hand texture 57. Seal the walls w/PVA primer - one coat 58. Paint the walls - two coats Floor: WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 5 SFF&CC/West_000543"}, {"d": 121, "p": 345, "t": "Geaste Coyne Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coasial Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smymia Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074 wew.coastalclaims.net CONTINUED ~ Bathroom DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV 59. Mask or cover per square foot 40,00 SF 0.45 60, Final cleaning - construction - 40.00 SF 0.28 6.11 DEPREC, ACV 0.18 3.64 0.00 2,24 21.82 (0,00) 21,82 13.44 (0,00) 13.44 183.16 1,099.06 18.26 1,080,80 Residential Totals: Bathroom hk 613\" — 6' con Xe T ; Height: 8' Closet I 192.00 SF Walls 36.00 SF Ceiling o 228.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 36.00 SF Floor % | 4.00 SY Flooring 24.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 24.00 LF Floor Perimeter DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV = DEPREC. ACV 1,00BA 44,59 0.00 8.92 53,51 (0.00) 53.51 62. Detach & Reset Light fixture 63. Mask and prep for paint - tape only (per LF) 1.00EA 24.00 LF 56,27 0.54 0.00 0.06 11.26 2.62 67.53 15,64 (0.00) (0.18) 67.53 15.46 64. Paint the ceiling - two coats 36.00 SF 0.91 0.46 6.66 39,88 (1.40) 38.48 65, Mask and prep for paint - plastic, paper, tape (per LF) 66. R&R 1/2\" drywall - hung, taped, floated, ready for paint 67. Tape joint for new to existing drywall per LF 68. Texture drywall - light hand texture 24.00 LF 1.26 0.32 6.10 36.66 (0.97) 35.69 32.00 SF 2.67 1.12 17,32 103.88 (3.46) 100,42 32.00 LF 7.07 0.53 45.34 272.11 (1.63) 270.48 32.00 SF 0.79 0,12 5.08 30.48 (0.38) 30.10 69. Seal the walls w/PVA primer - one 192.00 SF 0.52 0.56 20.08 120,48 (1.73) 118.75 coat 70. Paint the walls - two coats 192.00 SF 0.91 2.43 35.42 212.57 (7.49) 205.08 36.00 SF 36.00 SF 0.45 0.28 0.16 0,00 3.28 2.02 19.64 12.10 (0,00) (0.00) 19.64 12.10 General: 61. Contents - move out then reset - Smali room Ceiling: Walls: Floor: 71. Mask or cover per square foot 72. Final cleaning - construction Residential WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 6 SFF&CC/West_000544"}, {"d": 121, "p": 346, "t": "Gasser cera Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyrna Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net CONTINUED - Closet DESCRIPTION Totals: QUANTITY UNIT PRICE Closet Total: Main Level TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 5.76 164,10 984.48 17,24 967.24 21,87 633.40 3,800.57 64.66 3,735.91 Debris Removal DESCRIPTION 73. Dumpster load - Approx. 12 yards, 1-3 tons of debris QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC, ACV LOO EA 429.25 0.00 85.86 S151 (0.00) 515.11 0.00 85.86 518.01 0.00 $15.11 Totals: Debris Removal Labor Minimums Applied DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACY 74. Heat, vent, & air cond, labor minimum 100EA 409,32 0.00 21.86 131.18 (0.00) 131.18 75, Electrical labor minimum* 100 EA 6.20 0,00 1.24 744 (0.00) 744 76, Window labor minimum L.00EA 182.99 0.00 36.60 219.59 (0.00) 219,59 0.00 §9.70 358.21 0.00 358.21 664,33 8,566.10 51,696.39 2,04L.51 49,654.88 Totals: Labor Minimums Applied Line Item Totals: WEST Grand Total Areas: 752.00 SF Walls 196.00 SF Ceiling 948.00 SF Walls and Ceiling 196.00 21.78 94.00 LF Floor Perimeter 94,00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 752.00 Interior Wall Area SF Floor 0.00 SF Long Wall 196.00 Floor Area 918.00 Exterior Wall Area SY Flooring 0.00 SF Short Wall 228.67 Total Area 102.00 Exterior Perimeter of Walls WEST 0.00 Surface Area 0.00 Number of Squares 0.00 0.00 Total Ridge Length 0.00 Total Perimeter Length Total Hip Length 4/25/2024 Page: 7 SFF&CC/West_000545"}, {"d": 121, "p": 347, "t": "Gasiat cee Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smymia Beach, F1 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net Summary for Dwelling Line Item Total 42,465.96 Material Sales Tax 664.33 Profit 43,130.29 4,283.05 4,283.05 Replacement Cost Value Less Depreciation $51,696.39 (2,041.51) Actual Cash Value $49,654.88 $49,654.88 Subtotal Overhead Net Claim 2,041.51 Total Recoverable Depreciation $51,696.39 Net Claim if Depreciation is Recovered Eileen Dalton WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 8 SFF&CC/West_000546"}, {"d": 121, "p": 348, "t": "Goan Gains. Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, Fi 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net Recap by Category with Depreciation O&P Items RCV Deprec. ACV CLEANING §92.12 2.18 589.94 CONTENT MANIPULATION 222,83 222,83 GENERAL DEMOLITION 5,844.40 5,844.40 DRYWALL 568.64 ELECTRICAL 16.41 952.23 6.20 ELECTRICAL - SPECIAL SYSTEMS 6.20 37,55 37,55 FENCING 1,223.84 §.18 1,218.66 HEAT, 281.91 6.24 275.67 VENT & AIR CONDITIONING LIGHT FIXTURES 256.68 256.68 PAINTING 2,671.64 115.77 2,555.87 ROOFING 25,426.15 1,583.15 23,843.00 SIDING §36.00 20.18 515.82 SOFFIT, FASCIA, 3,750.17 270.43 3,479.74 WINDOW REGLAZING & REPAIR & GUTTER 164,84 21.97 142.87 WINDOWS - WOOD 182,99 O&P Items Subtotal 42,165.96 2,041.51 40,124.45 Non-O&P Items RCV Deprec. ACV PERMITS AND FEES 300.00 Non-O&P Items Subtotal O&P Items Subtotal Material Sales Tax Overhead Profit 300.00 42,165.96 664.33 4,283.05 4,283.05 0.00 2,041.51 300.00 40,124.45 664.33 4,283.05 4,283.05 Total 51,696.39 2,041.51 49,654.88 182.99 300.00 “The amount claimed in this estimate is based on a preliminary inspection by a public adjuster and/or contractor and/or other experienced person/building estimator. Nevertheless, the estimated amount may change based on material prices, contractor bids, and other costs which are too numerous to mention. The amount claimed may be affected by policy exclusions. Any overlap, upgrade, or mistake which would result in additional costs is unintentional. Estimate includes costs associated with code upgrades, if known. This estimate was not made with a set of plans created by a design professional. Any plans made by a design professional would come at an additional cost and would require approval by the local building inspector. Costs may change based on the building department approvals, and means and methods acceptable to a general contractor. “THIS ESTIMATE IS ONLY AN OPINION WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 9 SFF&CC/West_000547"}, {"d": 121, "p": 349, "t": "Gao Ciatgis: Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyrna Beach, FI 32168 386-3 14-0074 www.coastaiclaims.net 1 WEST 1-EAGLEVIEW ROOF SKETCH 4/25/2024 Page: 10 SFF&CC/West_000548"}, {"d": 121, "p": 350, "t": "Main Level 6! Q—F 6' Oo [—5! gn— 5! Bathroom ~ OO -——— t+#——— ! ]Q' 10' Bedroom Qu ———— ———_ 12! 8\" 12' Qn | -—— 6! Closet Qu-——4+ t— N Tt Main Level WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 11 SFF&CCMWest_000549"}, {"d": 121, "p": 352, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY ) COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. _ ) AGENCY, INC., Defendants. Case No. CJ-2025-135 JUDGE SHEPERD ) DECLARATION OF JOHN DEKKER I, John Dekker, declare under penalty of perjury as follows: I. I am over eighteen years of age and am competent to testify to the matters stated here. 2. I am a licensed public adjuster and, at times, provide adjusting services for clients of Coastal Claims Services, LLC. I reside in P, 2c Kary ie Pennsylvania and have never been to Lawton, Oklahoma. I am not licensed as a public adjuster in the State of Oklahoma. I did not provide any public adjusting services in connection with the claim relating to the property located at 7710 SW Crystal Hills Place, Lawton, Oklahoma (the “Property”). I did not inspect the Property at any time. I did not review any photographs of the Property. Although I am listed as the claim representative on an estimate relating to the Property, I did not prepare or assist in preparing any estimate relating to the Property or the claim of Neil West ana Lacy West. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 1746. Executed on May ¢ ] , 2026, at beckeasie PA ;"}, {"d": 121, "p": 354, "t": "@ How Do |? Lookup Search | Jurisdiction scquiren : Oklahoma Search Type : _ Licensee Entity Type requires : Individual - Enter one or more additional fields: Last Name Dekker License Number First Name John NPN Advanced Criteria | agree to the NAIC’s Terms and Conditions EXHIBIT ce am» sad"}, {"d": 121, "p": 355, "t": "fo NATOMAS RAO OF p RTA EE SEES MONTES + AmEOdS Lookup Search O How Dot? > Jueisdiction w.°-: Oklahoma v Search Type *:: Licensee v Entity Type rs Individual Enter one or more additional : fleids: Last Name Dalton| First Name Elfeen License Number NPN Fath vee] mands linc Saowediners.cony is signed ing *"}, {"d": 121, "p": 356, "t": "Sarerale MS OATTTH oe ecbeats tho martes Lookup Search 6 How Do I? | Jurisdiction «22. <. ” Oklahoma license Type - License Effective Date Expiration Date Is Resident? Insurance ProducerConversion 07/30/2004 OFFA 12006 Yes PRATT. PALLIAnS ALEXANOER Insurance Producer. inacthe 10/19/2020 4043142022 No license Number “NPN Name+ Status 63304 9183633 PRATL. YALUARTA, vo Search Type «2. “7 Licensee vo HN035250 19678572 Entity Type « Andividual NO UNES ASSIGNED Alias Names Business Address Business Phone YUKON, OX 73099 {405) 8438430 RO LUNES » ORLANDO, A. {740} 343- ASSIGNED 32808 5199 RICHARDSON, TR 75080 (214) 3602457 1405) $12- 136708 . 7859051 PRATT. WALLA HENRY Adjuster. Inacthve 01/01/2013 1243142012 No NO LINES ASSIGNED 00127949 * 16599022 PRATT. WILLIAM RYAN Insurance Producer. Inacthve 03/27/2012 11/30/2093 Yas \"KO UNES OKLAHOMA ASSIGNED - CIFY,OK 73132-6176 : Enter ane or more additional fields: LOAs Designated = Home State — License = Monager Last Name | Pratd 100149172 16854193 LUmited Lines Producerinactlve 1272772012 02/28/2015 tes ND UNES ASSIGNED TULSA. OK 74172 (405) 2722530 100149172 _ 16854193 insurance * Producer. 12/07/2020 02/28/2023 Yes NO UNES ASSIGNED | TULSA OK 74122 {405} 272250 First Name Wiltam License Number * Inactive NPN 22025 National Assasiation af xs a Absigths reserved, tense Manager"}, {"d": 121, "p": 358, "t": "JOSE PARGA WEST V. STATE FARM and LACY DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA WEST, COUNTY ge NETL THE Stl IN July 27, 2026 1 ett Net get Plaintiff, Case No. CJ-2025-135 gest? Sige Vv. att gett STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., ett Defendants. 10 11 12 RR KK ee ORAL 13 14 RK KKK I KIKI KH AND KE KEKE VIDEOTAPED IKE IKI IKE EEE DEPOSITION IIE EEK IKE KE OF KR HAKEKE KEE KE EE JOSE KKH KEEKEKEKEK PARGA EKER KEK KAR KAKA KS 15 16 17 ANSWERS AND at the DEPOSITION 18. witness 19 above-styled and 20 2026, beginning 21 Haynsworth, 22 State 23 at 24 accordance 25 the agreement Z RE ESQUI DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS A.D., of 2525 a instance of -numbered at Certified Texas, in McKinnon with the JOSE the Defendants, cause 10:12 on offices Suite Oklahoma hereinafter set PARGA, the a.m., Shorthand Street, the OF of Reporter 425, Rules as taken in the of July, 27th before Crowe produced day Charlotte in and Dunlevy, for the located Dallas, Texas, of Procedure Civil a in and forth. EXHIBIT 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com"}, {"d": 121, "p": 359, "t": "JOSE PARGA WEST V. STATE FARM organizations ~- they each someone in-house who did do your own A. estimates. I reviewed physically Q. go into Okay. assignments 10 July 27, 2026 59 they are had the third estimates. them. But I didn't do right. Do you have made within Coastal Claims? I can't answer that. On Q. Okay. So you don't have A. Yeah, I'm 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. -- 14 Q. I believe yeah, claims -- I'm go not I can't -- -- don't know how on that. earlier 16 claim. That the 17 briefly. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. 20 inspecting 21 correct? 22 A. Inspecting physically, no. 23 Q. Okay. told you A. Z recall recall have saying Oklahoma to been that inspect a lot about assigned you didn't -- the West me -- in May of 2026 the West to you that? You told me that the property you -- me might claim their told file how on gonna speak didn't idea -- you 25 you any their -- Lawton, not it myself. 15 You did to who. when we spoke that you I didn't All 11 to -- and which 24 That Xactimate determine or perhaps Correct? A. Do you parties any recall property. -- homes. you Is that hadn't been out Correct? Correct. RE ESQUI ObPOSITION SOLUTIONS 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com"}, {"d": 121, "p": 360, "t": "JOSE PARGA July 27, 2026 72 WEST V. STATE FARM Q. Okay. been July And at this 15th of 2024. to the West claim? A. It's -- on this claim. Q. Okay. the -- is the Page 262. has the What I couldn't And if you estimate. rep -- had you done remember want to that right here listed as Decker. John -- 12 Q. Okay. So you don't know 13 another public adjuster with Coastal 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Okay. 16 Fileen Dalton. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Are 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Do you And say Z I'm not good -- Are names. whether Mr. it has listed as the familiar with Ms. Dalton? done other estimates know anything about Ms. she As far -- I -- I know specifically what certification ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SGLUTIONS as writing -- yeah, is it familiar Decker is Claims? then Had you with done attached at I'm 25 so looking Again, Not -- I've we're A. A. what to 11 24 -- relating turn Decker? certifications? exactly have to just with Mr. 23 re- review 10 you so this would If you want So when claim point estimator for you? Dalton's estimates. I wouldn't be able she she doesn't has or to 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com"}, {"d": 121, "p": 361, "t": "JOSE PARGA July 27, 2026 73 WEST V. STATE FARM have. Q. Okay. training Do you A. As far Q. (BY MS. Dalton A. I'm not Q. Okay. for 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. Okay. whether it no. I wouldn't Okay. Dalton's the able. Do you know whether adjuster? I think you told estimators -- the Coastal Claims I don't Down is Coastal Claims Services. 16 current evaluation 17 property. As we continue 18 there may be 19 have not been 20 Is that 21 A. No. 22 Q. Okay. So 23 Eileen or John Decker 24 there. You didn't the Z ESQUIRE OEFOSITION SOLUTIONS the you're not internal usually public adjusters. -- middle of the produced by at the estimate estimate damages represents our to the insured's to evaluate the [sic] claim, this event related to that at the production of this estimate. -- you into this estimate? something that that I di- the damages you put at This additional something -- a PRELIMINARY of scoped are me earlier know. here This Yeah. be sure. says A. form. training, And estimators 25 the to is a licensed public 11 15 Ms. Object FINCH) sure page, about SANDERS: ag 10 14 anything or experience? MR. Ms. know inserted would or someone that -- have been else would have put in in there. I -- I didn't go into the 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com"}, {"d": 121, "p": 362, "t": "JOSE PARGA WEST V. STATE FARM Xactimate Q. July 27, 2026 74 software and And -- when then type that they're putting is the internal estimator -- that also the who estimate? estimates, are they als- -- think were calling them -- you in. is together these person selects the photos that are attached to the A. You would have to ask them, not me. Q. Okay. You didn't have anything to do with the photos that were attached to this estimate. selecting MR. SANDERS: 10 A. I don't recall. 11 Q. (BY MS. FINCH) 12 A. Selected -- 13 Q. -- selected 14 A. -- it? 15 Q. -- photos? 16 A. Two years 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. -- don't 19 Q. As a general 20 estimate, ai estimate? are 22 23 A. 24 versus 25 Q. ZF You the ago. Object to don't recall I -- whether you -- rule, if recall. they're selecting the MR. SANDERS: Object it's their (BY FINCH) Right. -- the attach the way they handled It's to to form. mine. RE ESQUI DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS photos writing the I handled MS. form. -- they Again, the I answer So ever you the claims I couldn't did to that. select 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com"}, {"d": 121, "p": 363, "t": "JOSE PARGA July 27, 2026 WEST V. STATE FARM A. I don't know. I don't Q. You've got let A. (No verbal Q. So you don't or creating the | Q. Okay. A. -- 10 Q. Okay. 11 report, which 12 this bears 13 William Pratt 14 A. Yes. of my Mr. Yes. 17 Okay. 18 He Okay? recall having any involvement in this estimate that was created for not sure -- I'm involvement. Yeah. And then when we turn on Page William 273 Pratt's to the attached photo -- as you pointed out, name on it. Do you know who do? What works do you know about Mr. Pratt? Or he for Coastal Claims. used if he's a licensed public to. I'm sure. FP No. OD Do you know RP 21 I believe oO Okay. Okay. ~ 20 25 question. is? 16 24 the remember. starts You 23 finish response.) I don't 15 22 me remember. Wests. I -- not to reviewing A. 19 78 I'm not adjuster? he is. sure. IRE ZB ESQUDérosition sovuTions 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com"}, {"d": 121, "p": 364, "t": "JOSE PARGA WEST V. STATE FARM July 27, 2026 79 Q. And so you said your understanding, based on the fact that his name is on this -- Pratt would have put together this photo A. Or some involvement. he put it he had is that Mr. packet? I wouldn't say that could have been the sure, what is you did -- Q. Okay. A, -- but -- could have Could have been something. I'm Q. Okay. And your testimony, though, any involvement log-in. been -- not capacity. 10 11 have 12 report. MR. SANDERS: 13 14 A. In my 16 A. -- 17 Q. (BY MS. 18 involvement 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. Can your reviewing this photo Object to the -- SANDERS: testimony, FINCH) in preparing -- testimony or -- MR. 15 22 in preparing not -- form. I said I don't Okay. You recall. don't recall having any or reviewing this photo report. something like where you Yeah. is there -- say in -- 23 Q. Why don't 24 A. -- as 25 Q. -- we take a -- -- break. @ ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS 800.211, DEPO (3876) EsquireSolutions.com"}, {"d": 121, "p": 365, "t": "JOSE PARGA WEST V. STATE FARM A. now Yeah. 11:48 now this MR. SANDERS: We need THE VIDEOGRAPHER: All a.m. We are off (Off the record THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 11:49 a.m. We're Q. (BY MS. FINCH) recollection 10 July 27, 2026 80 photo of back from on off right. 11:48 Is that -- The time All the a.m. is to 11:49 a.m.) The time is have any right. record. So you don't the the record. Okay. selecting report. the to go photographs that went into already told me -- 11 A. That -- 12 Q. -- correct? 13 A. That is correct. 14 Q. Okay. I believe 15 haven't been to Lawton, Oklahoma. But just 16 You did not take these photos that are in 17 Is that correct? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. Okay. And -- you were submitting this 20 estimate and Farm, -- 21 were relying 22 rather you that the State MR. 23 so photo on Farm when report come SANDERS: A. Repeat that 25 Q. (BY MS. FINCH) E ESQUIR OFPOSITION SOLUTIONS you've to State in determining 24 Z that one out -- and Object more time, Yeah. In or to be the clear. photo what you report. what in recommending reinspect? to the form. please. -- in attaching this and 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com"}, {"d": 121, "p": 366, "t": "JOSE PARGA July 27, 2026 WEST V. STATE FARM Q. Okay. how do you 85 So these -- how do you how -- how that confirm, you know, -- for these types of photo A. It transferred over to me. Q. Okay. A. So how these photos were collected essentially out of my control. was Okay. 10 A. I do not. 11 Q. Okay. of the West And 15 know 16 Google 17 nature. 18 looks 19 the -- that these -- for this -- photos Of were know who took these know if all of these Object to the form. I couldn't do you photos? photos SANDERS: the photos, I'm -- I did look at the West property on Google Maps Earth and to confirm that they were similar in Saying like hey, it looks like guarantee. the home. Right? geography of the home. There's a roof -- right? -- that has similar pitches. 20 Things of nature. 21 Q. {BY MS. FINCH) Can you see -- when you're Earth, can see 22 on Google 23 on the 25 can Z that you some There's I -- It the 24 are all that I reports? So do you MR. A. collect submitting home? 13 14 do you you're guess Q. 12 photos a fence. the looking of, like, soft metals look blurry. I mean -- depending on what the roof? A. Sometimes and can't. accounts Sometimes IRE ESQUokPositiow soLuTIONS can -- just it 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com"}, {"d": 121, "p": 367, "t": "JOSE PARGA WEST V. STATE FARM photograph or the there's clouds. there's just, -- July 27, 2026 86 captured image Sometimes there's you know, dirt percent -- there's a hundred percent. a hundred Q. Okay. A. -- Q. So you're photographs are of MS. looks home. Q. (BY MS. FINCH) 12 understand that you didn't 13 have any idea 14 Page, you know, 276 15 to these photos where 16 A. 276, Yes. 17 Q. Have you 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. Object a hundred And confirm -- all of these form. no. -- and again, I this But do you ~~ just, for example -- to next prepare -- so when we turn -- to the percent, Okay. there's that West SANDERS: Again, confirm the 11 Sometimes to to To confirm shadows. no way able A. Sometimes on an image. not 10 like. report. do you see on the middle it has a date and a time? prepared one of these photo Do you know where that date that the date that it's upload I I'm not familiar with, it was 2024. an update line reports 18 21 from? 22 Like is A. That, -- 23 this -- it seems like 24 they could have had 25 software. Z So I couldn't, IRE ESQUDEPOSITION SOLUTIONS you and time comes or taken? as far as I mean -- I'm assuming since then. Updated their know -- -- at 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com"}, {"d": 121, "p": 368, "t": "JOSE PARGA WEST V. STATE FARM current July 27, 2026 139 laborer would be. Right? So everybody understand that pricing, scope of work, items listed per -- certain policies are required. any disputes. Right? are Right? If there's a little bit alleged do with who damages are, the coverage along with things that nature. of Q. to (BY MS. the -- just carrier is, what the scope of work, and then any any codes that are required. So But as far as identifying -- you would have to rely on Right? If you didn't do a physical Just very similar to State in this case -- because you were the 11 to do that. 12 inspection. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And 15 a physical inspection 16 Trademark Exteriors -- Whoever is. I'm not sure it's But whoever's -- the photos are. uploaded. damage so back to the very back two pages 22 MR. SANDERS: Which 23 THE WITNESS: 14. 24 MS. FINCH: 21 312, 25 so to -- Q. to (BY MS. -- FINCH) @ ESQUIRE OEPosiTiON SOLUTIONS you contractor's go flip And the the Farm's relying we 20 Q. it -- if 19 -- Okay. ~- 18 line FINCH) the A. and So it has 10 17 helping practice. didn't do Bobby Odom on photos. -- Exhibit photos or Right? they No. 14 and of it. So 313 one are we on now? I'm just gonna pick we and 14. And another -- 300.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com"}, {"d": 121, "p": 370, "t": "From:\"Jose Parga\" <jparga@coastalclaims.net> Sent:Mon, 15 Jul 2024 22:27:39 -0500 To:\"HOME CLMS-FIRECLAIMS\" <statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com>; ccsvcs-OK2024040001 @claimmail.net; \"Chris McCombs\" <chrismccombs@coastalclaims.net> Subject:[EXTERNAL] 3653Q113C . . Attachments:3653Q113C_WEST_PRELIMINARY_PA_ESTIMATE.pdf, Nei|_West_Photo_Report_companycam_report.pdf Hello Statefarm, Attached is our’estimate along with our photo report to evidence our request for are inspection. Please contact te directly to set-up a re inspection 682-716-9565. Thank you, Pred Jose J. Parga Public Adjuster. Coastal Claims Fohwinas 2650 N Dixie Fwy |. New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 Office (886) 314-0074 Fax. (386) 961-4344 jparga@coastalclaims.net www.coastalclaims.net: EXHIBIT —30CK SFF&CC/West_000261"}, {"d": 121, "p": 371, "t": "Gora Clajms Coastal Claims Services, Inc: Coastal Claims Services 2650N Dixie Freeway oo. ‘New Smyma Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074 ‘www, coastalclaims:net. Insured: Property: West, Neil & Lacy Home: (580) 695-0014 7 NW Briarcreck Drive E-inail: Hieilspencerwest@sbeglobal.net Lawton, OK. 73505 Claim Rep.: John Dekker Business: ‘Company: Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway E-mail: Business: (267) 261-0085 john@ocastalolaims.net New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 Estimator: ‘Company: Claim Number: Daté of Loss: Eileen Dalton: Coastal Claims Setvices 3653Q113C Policy Number: 36CRX4058 6/15/2023 12:00 AM Price List: Date Received: Date Entered: Date Inspected: Type of Loss: Hail 4/25/2024 11:07 AM OKLASX_APR24 Restoration/Service/Remodel. Estimate: WEST “This is aPRELIMINARY estimate producedby Coastal Claims Services: This estimate:represents our current evaluation of the dantagesto the insured's property.As we continue to evaluate this claim, there may-be additional damages related to this event that have not been scoped at the productionof this estimate.” SFF&CC/West_000262"}, {"d": 121, "p": 372, "t": "Casta Claims Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650'N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, F1 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims.net. WEST. SOURCE: EAGLEVIEW Roof: DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACY Roofing 1. Tear off, haul and dispose of conip. 46.345Q 57.37 0.00 531.70 3,190.23 (0.00) 3,190.23 shingles - Laminated 2, Remove Additional charge for steep 46.3480 234). 0.00 216.96 1,301.78 (0.00) 1301.78 4,634.00 SF 0:23 2.26 “213.62 1,281.70 (6.95) 1,274.75 A, Saddle ot cricket - 26 to 50.SF 5, Roofing felt - 151b. LQOEA 46.34 SQ 346.29 32.72 6,92 17.78 70.64. 306.80 423,85 1,840.82. (21.30) (54.70) 402.55 1,786.12 6, Laminated - comp, shingle-rfg. - w/out felt , 55.67 SQ 238.54 326.32 2,721.16 16,327.00 = (1,004.06) , —.15,322.94 7. Additional charge for steeproof-10/12- 7.61 SQ 68.77 0,00 104,66 628,00 (0.00) 628.00 8. Asphalt starter - universal starter course. 9. R&R Hip? Ridge cap - Standard profile- 331.00 LF 330,00 LF 1:87 8.25: 8.07 43.60 125.42 553.22 752,46. 3,319:32 (24.83) (134.15) 127.63 3,185.17 5.00 EA 90:51. 1.85. 90:90 $45.30 (5:71) 539.59 1.00-BA: 427.98 5.02 86,60 519.60. (15,43) 504.17 331.00. LF 318: 20.49. 214.62 1,287.69 (63.06). ‘1,224.63 13. Apply roofing sealant/cement~per LFDrip Edge* 331.00 LF 0.72 5.00 48.66 291.98 (15.39). 276.59 14. Step Nashing, 16.00. LF 9.92 157 32.06 192.35 (4.82) 187.53 roof - 10/12 - 12/12 slope. 3, Re-nailing of roof sheathing -‘complete Te-nail 12/12 slope composition shingles 10. R&R Gable cornice return - laminated Flashing AL. R&R Chimney flashing - average (32\" x 36\") 12, R&R Drip edge/putter apron 15, R&R Flashing -L flashing - $,00'LF 5,38. 0.55 5.50 galvanized 16, Ice & water barrier 17. Valley metal 18, Apply roofing'sealant/cemient™~ per LF- 32.95, ae (1.69) 31.26 516.00 SF 172,00 LF 344.00 LF 1.63 6.00: 0.72, 13.08 21.21. 5,20. 170.84 210.64. 50,58 ‘1,025.00 ‘1,263.85 303.46: (40:25) (65.27) (16.00): 984.75 1,198.58 287,46 19, R&R Continuous ridge vent ~ shingle- 75.00 LF 10.77 I71L 164.98 989.84 (52.65) 937.19 over style ‘20. R&R Roof vent- turtle type - Metal 5.00 BA: 75,20. 5.84 76.38 458.22 797 440.25 ‘Pipe Jacks, Caps, and Collars 21. R&R Furnace vent - rain cap'and storm 1.00 EA 95.10. 2.03 ‘19:42 116.55. (6.24) 110.31 22. R&R Flashing - pipe jack - lead 5,00 EA 88.49. 12.12 90.92 545,49. (37.30) $08.19 23.. 11.00.EA 25:99 0:53. 57:28 343,70 (1.62) 342.08 Valley Metal* ‘Ventilation. collar, 6” Apply-mastic around vent pipesto prevent leakage* . _ ‘Miscellaneous Items WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 2 SFF&CC/West_000263"}, {"d": 121, "p": 373, "t": "asia Claims Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650'N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, Fl 32168 386-31 4-0074 www.coastalclaims:net. ‘CONTINUED - Roof DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 24. Digital satellite system ~ Detach &. TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 1.00 EA 37.55. 0,00 752 45.07 (0.00) 45.07 1.00 EA 300.00 0.00 0.00 300-00 (0.00) 300,00 5.00;HR. AOA: 0.00 40,48 242.88 (0.00) 242.88 Totals; Roof 516.55. 6,211.56. 37,569.09 1,589.39 35,979.70 Total: SOURCE; EAGLEVIEW 516.55 6,211.56 37,569.09 1,589.39 35,979.70 TAX: 714 O&P 37.60 RCV 225.66 DEPREC. (21.97) ACV 203.69 6.56 122.60 735.58 (20.18) 715,40 13.70 160.20: 961.24 4245 919.09 TAX O&P RCV DEPREC, ACV reset ~GENERALS— 25, Taxes, insurance, permits & fees (Bid Item) 26. Roofing - General Laborer - per hour Labor to hand load materials onto roof Exterior. DESCRIPTION: 27. R&R Window screen, | - 9 SF QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 4.00 BA 45.23 ‘'28.. R&R Wrap wood window frame &. 2.00 EA 303,21 trim with aluminum sheet ‘Totals: Exterior Gutters DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE. 29. R&R Gutter aluminum - up to.5\"* 30. R&R Downspout - aluminum - up te 5pm 31. R&R Gutter splash’ guard 275,00 LF 96.00 LF 10.44. (0.44 64:75 22.60 $87.18 204.98 3,522.93 1,229.82 (199.24). (69:55) 3,323.69 1,160.27 3.00. EA 27.18. 0.53 16.42 98.49 (1.64). 96.85 ‘87.88 808.58 = 4,851.24 27043. 4,580.81 TAX O&P _—DEPREC. ACV Totals: Gutters Fencing DESCRIPTION WEST QUANTITY UNIT PRICE RCV 4/25/2024 Page:3 SFF&CC/West_000264"}, {"d": 121, "p": 374, "t": "Gosia Clajms Coastal Claims Services, Inc: Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, F1 32168 986-314:0074 www.coastalclaims.net. CONTINUED - Fencing DESCRIPTION’ 32. Clean withipressute/chemical spray QUANTITY UNIT PRICE: ‘1,452.00 SE 0.37 TAX 0.71 O&P 107.58 33. Stain- wood.fénce/gate. 1,452.00 SF 0.86. 21.94 16,00 EA 16:49 1.68 433 34, Wood fence 5' -6' high - Detach & RCV 645.53, DEPREC. (2:18) ACV 643.35 “954.12 1,524.78: (67.52) 1,457.26 245,10 —-1,470,62 (5.18). 1,465.44 606.80. 3,640,93 7488 3,566.05 yeset - per 8 section Totals: Fencing. ‘Main Level I Bedroom Height: 8' | 352.00 SF Walls 120.00 SF Ceiling ~| S 472.00. SE Walls & Ceiling 120,00 SE Floor 13.33: S¥ Flooring 44,00 LF Floor Perimeter 1 | <n peor 3\" et Lier et DESCRIPTION 44.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV. 17.82 106.94 (0.00) 106.94 General; 35. Contents - move out then réset - Large LOO EA 89.12 0.00 36. Ceiling fan - Detach& reset 1,00 EA 200.41 0.00 40.08 240.49 (0,00) 240,49 37., Detach & Reset Heat/AC register - LOO EA 15.04, 0.00 3.00 18.04 (0.00) 18.04 44,00.LF 0.54. OE 4.78 28.65 (0:33) 28,32 120.00 SF’ 0.91. £52: 22.44. 132:86 (4.68) ‘128.18 44.00 LF 1.26 0.58 ‘1.20 67.22. (1.78). 65.44 2.67 Ly 17,32 103.88 (3.46) 100.42 — 7 0.53 45.34 272,11. (L:63y 270.48 Toon Ceiling: . Mechanically attaclied 38. Mask and prep for paint - tape only (per LF) 39: Paintthe ceiling- two coats _ i Walls: 40. Mask and prep for paint - plastic, paper, tape(perLF) 41, R&R 1/2” drywall - hurig, taped, 32.00 SF floated, ready for paint a 42. Tape joint for new to-existing drywall- 32.00.LF 7.07. - per LF 43, Texture-drywall ~ bight hand texture 32.00 SF 0.79 0,12. 5.08 30.48 (0.38) 30.10 44. Seal the walls w/PVA primer - one 352.00 SF 0.52 1.93 36.80 220.87 B.17) 217.70 352.00 SF 0.91. 4.46 64.96 389-74 (13.73) 376.01 coat 45:. Paint the walls - two.coats WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 4 SFF&CC/West_000265"}, {"d": 121, "p": 375, "t": "Coastal Claym. Claims Coastal Claims Services, Inc: Coastal Claims Services 2650 N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, F1 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims:net. CONTINUED - Bedroom DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P RCV -DEPREC. ACV 46. Mask or cover per square-foot _ 120.00 SF 0.45. 0.53 10.90 65.43 (0:00). 65.43 47. Final cleaning - construction - 420,00 SF 0:28. 0,00 6:72 40,32 (0,00), 40.32 10.00 286.14 1,717.03 2916- 1,687.87 Floor: Residential. Totals: Bedroom rs! gr 5 - Bathroom i wveoone & 7 Ret Height: 8’ 208.00 SF Walls 40,00 SF Ceiling 248.00 SF Walls &-Ceiling 40.00 SF Floor 4.44: SY Flooring 26.00. LF Floor Perimeter 26.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter ‘DESCRIPTION ‘Generak: 48; Contents - mové-out then teset - Large room QUANTITY: UNIT PRICE: TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 1.00 EA 89:12 0:00 17.82 106,94, (0.00): 106.94 {00 BA 38.83 9.00 11,76 70.59 (0.00), 10.59 18.04 Ceiling: 49. Detach & Reset Bathroom ventilation. fan ‘50. Detach & Reset Heat/AC register Mechanically attached “SL. Mask and prep’ for paint - tape only 1.00: EA: 15.04 0.00. 3.00 18.04 (0.00) 26.00.LF 0.54 0.06 2.82 16.92 (0.20) 16.72 52. Paintthe ceiling - two ‘coats 40.00 SF 0.91 0.51. 738 44.29 (1.56) 42.73 53. Mask and prepfor paint - plastic, 26.00 LF 1,26 0.34 6.62 39.72 (1.05) 38.67 54, R&R 1/2\" drywall - hung, taped, floated, ready for paint — 32,00 SF 2.67 — iP _ 17,32 103.88 oe (3.46) - 100.42 55. Tape joint for new to existing drywall- 32.00LF 7.07 0:53 45.34 IRA (1-63) 270.48 (erLFy . , “Walls: paper, tape (per LE) ‘pec LF 56. Texture drywall - light hand texture 32.00 SF 0.79. 0.12 5.08 30.48 (0:38) 30.10 57. Seal the walls w/PVA primer - one 208.00 SF 0.52. 0.61. 21.76 130;53 (1.87) 128.66 208,00 SF’ 0.91. 2.64 38.38 230.30 (8.11) 222.19 ‘coat 58.. Pairit the walls - two coats Floors WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 5 SFF&CC/West_000266"}, {"d": 121, "p": 376, "t": "Gosia Claims Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, Fl 32168 386-314-0074 ~www.coastalclaims.net. CONTINUED - Bathroom DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX. O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 59, Mask or cover per. square foot 40.00 SF 0:45. 0.18 3.64 21.82 (0.00) 21.82 60. Final cleaning - construction - 40.00 SF 0.28: 0.00 2.24 13.44 (0:00): 13.44 6.11 183.16 1,099.06 18.26 1,080.80 Residential Totals: Bathroom — “6h Qu— T a — Closet Height: 8° 6' ' 192.00 SF Walls 36.00 SF Ceiling com o 228.00. SF Walls & Ceiling. “36.00. SF Floor | 24.00 LF Geil. Perimeter me DESCRIPTION 4.00 S¥ Flooring QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 24.00 LF Floor Perimeter TAX. O&P RCV DEPREC: ACV General: 61. Contents - move out then reset~ Small 1.00 EA: 44,59 0.00 B92 53:51 (0:00) 53,51 62:- Detach & Reset Light fixture 1.00 EA 56.27 0.00. 11.26 67.53 (0.00). 67.53 63. Mask and prep for paiiit - tape only 24,00 LF 0.54 0.06 2.62 15.64 (0:18). 15.46 36.00 SF 0.91 0.46 6.66 39,88 (1.40) 38.48 room Ceiling: ‘(per LE) 64. Paint the ceiling’- bwo coats ‘Walls: 65. Mask and prep for paint - plastic, 24.00.LF 1.26’ 0.32 6.10 36.66 (0.97). 35,69 ‘paper, tape (pet LF) 66.. R&R. 1/2\" drywall - hung, taped, floated, ready for paint: 32.00 SF 2.67 7.12 17:32 103.88 (3.46) 100.42 67. Tape.joint for new to existing drywall - 32.00 LF 7.07 0.53 45.34 272.11 (1,63) 270,48 32.00 SF 192.00 SF 0.79. 0.52 0.12 0.56 5.08 20.08 30.48 120.48, (0.38) (1.73) 30.10 118.75 192.00 SF 0.91 2.43 35.42 212.57 (7.49) 205.08 36,00 SF 36.00 SF 0.45 0.28 0.16 0.00 3,28 2.02 19.64 12.10 (0:00), (0.00). 19.64 12.16 perLF 68. Texture drywall - light hand texture 69. Seal the walls w/PVA primer - one coat , 70... Paint the walls - two coats Floor: TL. Mask Or cover per square foot 72. Final cleaning -. constructionResidential WEST = 4/2572024 Page: 6 SFF&CC/West_000267"}, {"d": 121, "p": 377, "t": "Gaver Clays Coastal Claims Services, Inc. Coastal Claims Services 2650'N Dixie Freeway ‘New Smyma Beach, Fi 32168 386-314-0074 www.coastalclaims net. CONTINUED - Closet TAX 5.76 O&P 164.10 RCV 984,48 DEPREC, ACV 1724 967.24 21,87 633.40 3,800.57 6466 3,735.91 UNIT PRICE QUANTITY DESCRIPTION’ Totals; Closet Total: Main Level Debris Removal DESCRIPTION: 73. Dumnpster load - Approx. 12 yards, 1-3: ‘tons of debris QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TAX O&P. RCV: DEPREC, ACV. 1.00 EA 429.25. 0.00: 85,86 SISAL (0.00) 515.0 0.0 $5.86 515.11 0.00 515.11 Totals: Debris Removal ‘Labor Minimums Applied DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE. TAX O&P RCV DEPREC. ACV 74., Heat, vent, & ait cond. labor minimus 95, Electrical labor minimum* 1.00 EA. LQOEA 109.32 6.20- 0.00 0.00 21,86 124 13LAB 7.44 (0.00), (0.00), 131.18 7.44 76, Window labor tiniimm 1.00 EA 182.99 0.00 36.60 219.59 (0.00) 219.59 6.00 59.70 359.21. 0.00 359.21 664.33 8,566.10 51,696.39 204151 49,654.88 Tofals: Labor Mininiums Applied Line Iteni Totals: WEST’ Grand Total Areas: 752.00 SF Walls 196.00 SF Ceiling 196.00 SF Floor 21.78. SY Flooring 94.00 LI Floor Perimeter 0.00° 94:00 0.00 SE Long Wall SF Short Wall 196.00 Floor Area. 228.67 Total Area 918.00 Exterior Wall Area 102.00 Exterior Perimeter of 948.00 SF Walls and Ceiling LF Ceil. Perimeter 752.00 Interior Wall Area Walls WEST 0.00 Surface Area 0.00. Number of Squares 0.00 0.00 Total Ridge Length 0.00 Total Perimeter Length Total Hip Length 4/25/2024 Page: 7 SFF&CC/West_000268"}, {"d": 121, "p": 378, "t": "Gener Clams Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650'N Dixie Freeway New Smyrna Beach, Fi 32168 386-314-0074 swww.coastalclaims net. Summary for Dwelling Line Item Total 42,465.96 Material Sales Tax 664,33 ‘Subtotal 43,130.29 Overhead 4,283.05 Profit 4;283.05 Replacement Cost Value $51,696,39 Less Depreciation (2,041.51) Actual Cash Value $49,654.88 Net Claim $49,654.88 2,041.51 Total Recoverable Depreciation $51,696.39 . Net Claim if Depreciation is Recovered. Eileen Dalton WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 8 SFF&CC/West_000269"}, {"d": 121, "p": 379, "t": "Goastat Clans Coastal Claims Services, Inc. Coastal Claims Services 2650'N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, Fl 32168 ; 386-314-0074 www.coastaiclaims:net. Recap by Category with Depreciation O&P Items RCV Deprec. ACV CLEANING 592.12 218 589.94 16:41 CONTENT MANIPULATION 222,83 222,83 GENERAL DEMOLITION DRYWALL ELECTRICAL 5,844.40 968.64 6.20 5,844.40 952.23 6.20 ELECTRICAL - SPECIAL SYSTEMS FENCING 37,55 1;223,84 5.18 37.55 1,218,66 HEAT,, VENT &-AIR CONDITIONING 281.91 6.24 275.67 LIGHT FIXTURES: ‘156.68 PAINTING 2,671.64 315.77 2;555,87 ROOFING SIDING 25,42615 536.00 1,583.15 20.18 73:843:00 515.82 SOFFIT, FASCIA, & GUTTER ‘WINDOW REGLAZING.& REPAIR: 3,750.17 164.84 270.43 21:97 3,479.74 142.87 WINDOWS - WOOD . O&P Itenis Subtotal Non-O&P Items. | 182.99 356.68 . - 182,99 42,165.96 7,041.51 40,124;45 RCV. Deprec, ACV 300,00 PERMITS AND FEES 300.00: Non-O&P Items Subtotal 300.00 0.00 300.00 O&P Items Subtotal 42,165.96 2,041.51 40,124,45 Material Sales Tax. Overhead. 664.33 4,283,05 Profit 4,283.05 Total $1,696.39 (664,33 4,283.05 4,283.05 | 2,041.51 49,654,88 \"The amountclaimed in this estimate is based on a preliminary inspection by a public adjuster and/or contractor and/or other experienced person/building estimator. Nevertheless, ihe estimated amount may change based on material prices, contractor Any bids, and other costs whichare too mmerousto mention. The amount claimed maybe affected by policy.exclusions. overlap, upgrade, or mistake. which would result in additional costsis unintentional. Estimate includes costs assaciated with Any plans made by a code upgrades, if known, This estimate was not made witha set of plans created by a design professional. design professional would come at-an additional cost and would require approval by the local building inspector. Costs may change based on the building department opprovals,.and means and methads acceptableto a general contractor.“THIS ESTIMATES ONLY AN OPINION WEST 4/25/2024 Page: 9 SFF&CC/West_000270"}, {"d": 121, "p": 380, "t": "Garai Claims Coastal Claims Services, Inc Coastal Claims Services 2650.N Dixie Freeway New Smyma Beach, F132168 386-314-0074 www,coastalclaims.net 1 WEST 1-BAGLEVIEW ROOF SKETCH 4/25/2024 Page: 10 SFF&CC/West_000271"}, {"d": 121, "p": 381, "t": "Main Level -———_——_ 10' 10\" Bedroom 5! Qn —— Bathroom — 5' oO g' gr [— Q\" | 128\" 12\" t#——— Oo ppaS Closet. -—— 6' 6' 8\" —_—— k#-—— 6' Qn —— IN Main Level WEST 4725/2024 ‘Page: 11 SFF&CCMWest_000272"}, {"d": 121, "p": 382, "t": "Will Pratt Coastal Claims Services 6/6/2024 | 154 Photos (Coastal Claims Neil West Photo Report Cover Pege tal Neil $.& Loey M. West - Nei! Wes! Photo Report SFF&CC/West_000273"}, {"d": 121, "p": 383, "t": "Neil Vest Phato Repent 6/6/2024 Section 1 Section 4 avai NaS. & LacyM. West SFF&CC/West_000274"}, {"d": 121, "p": 384, "t": "6/6/2024 Neil West Photo Report Project: Neil S. & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:21pm Creator: Coastol Claims Services Project: Nell S. & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:22pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:22pm Creator; Coastal Claims Services Project: Neil S. & Lacy M, Wast Date: 3/6/2024, 2:22pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services Section} 3/41 Neil $. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000275"}, {"d": 121, "p": 385, "t": "6/6/2024 Neil West Photo Report Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:23pm Creotor: Coastal Cloims Services Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date; 3/6/2024, 2:23pm Creator: Caasta! Claims Services Project: Neil $.& Lacy M. West Bote: 3/6/2024, 2:24pm Cravior: Coastal Claims Services Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 2:24pm Creator; Coastal Cloims Services Section 4 A/a Neil S, & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000276"}, {"d": 121, "p": 386, "t": "6/6/2026 Naif West Photo Repart Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. Wast Dote: 3/6/2024, 2:24pm Crestor Coastol Claims Services 10 Project: Neil S. G Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:24pm Creator: Coastol Claims Services \"1 Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 2:25pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 12 Project: Neil S. & Locy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 2:25pm Creater: Coastal Claims Services Section 4 5/4} Nell S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000277"}, {"d": 121, "p": 387, "t": "6/6/2026 Nel! West Photo Report Bb Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:26pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 4 Projact: Neil S. & Locy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:26prn Creator: Coaastot Claims Services 15 Project: Neil $. & Locy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:27pm Creator: Coastal Cicims Services 16 Praject: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date. 3/6/2024, 2:27pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services Section i G/al Neil S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000278"}, {"d": 121, "p": 388, "t": "6/6/2026 Nei! Wes: Photo eeport v7 Project: Neil S, & Lacy M, West Dote: 3/6/2024, 2:28pm Crestor: Coastal Claims Services 18 Proje t: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:40pm Creatcr: Coastal Cloims Services 19 Project: Neil $. & Locy M. West Bote: 3/6/2024, 24pm Creaier: Coastel Claims Services 20 Praject: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:4ipm Creator; Coostal Cloims Services Section 1 The Nei S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000279"}, {"d": 121, "p": 389, "t": "6/2024 Neil West Photo Report ai Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:42pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 22 Projeck Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:42pm Creator: Coastol Cloims Services oo co. ee eR OO Dathd aeae eeos :ie 4 pron Project: Neil $. & Locy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 2:42pm Creator: Coastal C aims Services 24 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date 3/6/2024, 2:43pm Creator: Coastal Ciairns Services Section | B/4i Nell S. & cocy M. West SFF&CC/West_000280"}, {"d": 121, "p": 390, "t": "Ne 6/6/2026 West Photo Report Saas 25 ¥, ais Ae ae ay x ahs Project: Ne. $. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:43pm Creaior: Coastal Claims Services 26 Projcct: NeilS. & Lacy M. West vote: 3/6/2024, 2:43pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 27 Project: Neil $. & vocy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:43pm Creator: Coastal Ciaims Services 2B Project: Nei. $. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 2:43pm Crestor: Coasto! Claims Services Section 974i Neil S. & Locy M. Wes: SFF&CC/West_000281"}, {"d": 121, "p": 391, "t": "6/6/2024 Nei West Phote Report 29 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:43pm Crestor: Coastol Cialins Services 30 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West DOote: 3/6/2024, 2:44pm Creotor: Caastol Cloims Services 3) Project: Neil 8. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:47pm Creator: Coastol Claims Services 32 Praject: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:48pm Creater: Coastol Cloims Services Section i 10/ 4} Neil S. & Locy M, West SFF&CC/West_000282"}, {"d": 121, "p": 392, "t": "6/6/2024 Neil West Photo Report 33 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:48pm Creator: Coasto! Claims Services 34 Projact: Neil S. & Locy M, West Bote: 3/6/2024, 2:49pm Creator: Coastol Claims Services 35 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:49pm Crestor: Coastal Claims Services 36 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:49pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services Section 1 asa Neil S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000283"}, {"d": 121, "p": 393, "t": "6/6/2024 Neil Wes! Photo Repast 37 Project: Nei! $, & Lacy M. West Oate: 3/6/2024, 2:49pm Creoter: Coastal Claims Services 38 Project: Nell S$, & Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:01pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 39 Project: Nail S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:0ipm Creator: Coastal Clalms Services 40 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, :0ipm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services Section 1 12 fai Neil S. & Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000284"}, {"d": 121, "p": 394, "t": "G/6/2024 Neil West Photo Report 4 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:0iprn Creoiar: Coastal Claims Services 42 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:02pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services 43 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 02pm Creotar, Coastal Clalms Services 44 Project: Neil S. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:02pm Creator: Coastol Claims Services Section | Ws a Neil S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000285"}, {"d": 121, "p": 395, "t": "6/6/2022 Nei! West Photo Report Project; Neil $, & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:02pm Creotor; Coastal Claims Services 46 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:03am Crecter: Coastal Claims Services 47 e Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:03pm Creatae: Coastal Claims Services 4B Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Cote: 3/6/2024, 3:03pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services Section 1 Nei! S.& Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000286"}, {"d": 121, "p": 396, "t": "6/6/2022 Neil West Photo Report 49 Project: Neil S, & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:03pm Creoter: Coastal Claims Services 50 Project: Neil S, & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:03pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 51 Project: Neil S$. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 1:04pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 52 Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:04pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services Section | 18 / as Neti $.& Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000287"}, {"d": 121, "p": 397, "t": "Noil Wes: PE ita Report 64G/ HIE a 53 cee = . _ ., md 4 Ae gs rechert pee _ Rar? . SOR Project: Ne S$. & Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:05pm Crestor: Coostal Claims Services 54 Project: NeilS. & Lacy M. West Date 3/6/2024, 3:05pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 55 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024. 3:05pm Creator, Coastal Cloims Services 56 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:09pm Creator Coostel Claims Services Section 1 1/4 Nei! $. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000288"}, {"d": 121, "p": 398, "t": "Neil West Photo Report 6/6/2024 57 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:09pm Creator: Coastel C aims Services 58 Project: Ne S.& Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:09p.a1 Creator: Coastal Claims Services 59 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:09pm Crestor: Coostal Claims Services 60 eject: Nell $. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:09pm Creator: Coostol Claims Services Section 1 7/7 Al Ne §. & racy M. West SFF&CC/West_000289"}, {"d": 121, "p": 399, "t": "6/6/2026 Nei! West Photo Report 6 Project: Nei: $, & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:09pm Creotor: Coastal Claims Services 62 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 63 Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:12pm Creoter: Coastel Cloims Services 64 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:12pm Crector: Coastal Cloims Services Secticn 1 18/4 Neil S$. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000290"}, {"d": 121, "p": 400, "t": "Ne 6/6/2026 West Photo Report 65 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 33pm : Creator: Coastal Ciaims Services Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:14pm Creator Coosto! Cloims Services 67 68 =. Proje ck Neil S. & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:14pm Crestor: Coastal Claims Services Project: Ne S$. & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:44pm Creator: Coustal Claims Services Section | 19/4 Ne’ &. & Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000291"}, {"d": 121, "p": 401, "t": "6/6/2022 Neil West Phote Report 69 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 34pm Creator: Coasto! Claims Services Project: Neil S. & Locy M. West vate: 3/6/2024, 3:14pm Creator: Coastol Claims Services 1 Project: Neil $. & Locy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:14pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 72 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:15pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services Section 4 20/41 Neil S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000292"}, {"d": 121, "p": 402, "t": "6/6/2022 Ne}! West Photo Report 3 Project: Nell 5. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:15pm Creotor: Coastel Claims Services 74 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:15pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services 75 Project: Neil 5. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:15pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services 76 Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:i6pm Creatar: Coastal Claims Services Section 1 ais Nell S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000293"}, {"d": 121, "p": 403, "t": "6/6/2024 Neil West Photo Report Project: NeilS. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:16prn Crestor: Coastal Claims Services B Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 36pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services 79 Project: Nail S. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:16pm Creator: Coastal Cleims Services BO Proleci: Neil S.& Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:16pm Creator: Coustol Claims Services Section 7 22/4i Ne S.& wacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000294"}, {"d": 121, "p": 404, "t": "Me OM/2026 West Photo Report a1 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:16pm Creatcr: Coastal Claims Services 82 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M, West Vote: 3/6/2024, 2:16pm Creator Coastel Cioims Services 83 Proje cl Ne $. & Locy M West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:17pm Creoter: Coosto! Claims Services 84 ‘iject: Neil S. & Lacy M. West ate: 3/6/2024, 3:17pm Creator: Coastal Cioims Services Section | 23 / ai Nei 8. & acy M. West SFF&CC/West_000295"}, {"d": 121, "p": 405, "t": "Ne Wesl Photo Repos! 6/6/2088 85 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 37pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 86 Project: Neil S. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:17pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 87 Project: Neil S. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3.17pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 8B Project: Neil $. & Lacy M West Dete: 9/6/2024, 3:17pm Creator: Coastel Cloims Services Section i 24/4) Neil S. & Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000296"}, {"d": 121, "p": 406, "t": "6/6/2024 Neil West Phota Report 89 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:17pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 90 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:17pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services 91 Project: Nei! $. & Lacy M, West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:18pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 92 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Cate: 3/6/2024, 3:18pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services Section 3 25/ at Nell S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000297"}, {"d": 121, "p": 407, "t": "6/6/2024 Nei! West Photo Report 93 Project: Neil S. & Lecy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 38pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 94 Project: Ne. S. & L icy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3-18,:m Creator: Coastal Cloims Services 95 Project: Neil S. & Locy M. Wesi Date: 3/6/2024, 3:18pm Creator: Coastal Cl.ims Services 96 Projact: Nc. S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:18pm Creator Coustal Cloims Services Suction * 26/4) Ne. S.& Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West 000298"}, {"d": 121, "p": 408, "t": "Ne\" West Phate eeporl 6/6/2024 Project; Neil $. @ Lacy M. West Dale: 3/6/2024, 3:18pm Crestor: Coastal Claims Services 98 Project: Ne $.& Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:20pm Creator: Coastol Claims Services 99 Project: Neil S. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:21pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 100 Project: Ne S.& Lacy M. West Dele: 3/6/2024, 3:22pm Crect +: Coasta: Clcims Services Section 1 arial Ne §&.& cacy M. Wesi SFF&CC/West_000299"}, {"d": 121, "p": 409, "t": "Ne 6/6/2026 West Photo Report 101 Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West vate: 3/6/2026, 3:22pm Creater: Coastel Claims Services 102 Project: Nei $. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:22pm Crestor: Coastal Claims Services 103 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:22pm Crevicr: Coastol Claims Services 104 Project: Neil $.& Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:23pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services Section | 28/ 4h NollS. & cacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000300"}, {"d": 121, "p": 410, "t": "6/6/2026 Ne? West Photo Report 105 Project: Nei S. & Lucy M. West Date 3/6/2024, 3:23pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 106 Project: Ne S.& Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:25pm Creator: Coastal Clcims Services 107 Project: Neil S. & Locy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:25pm Creator: Coastol Cloims Services 108 Project: Ne $. & cacy M, West Octe: 3/6/2024, 3:26pm Creator: Caaste Section 1 29/81 Claims Services Neil S. & Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000301"}, {"d": 121, "p": 411, "t": "Nell West Photo Report 6/6/2026 109 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:26pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 110 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:26pm Creator: Coastel Claims Services ii Project: Neil S. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:26pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services v2 Project: Neil $. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:26pm Creator: Coastal Ciaitns Services Section 1 30/ 4t Neil $. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000302"}, {"d": 121, "p": 412, "t": "6/6/2024 Neil West Phote Report 113 Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:26pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 114 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:26pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 15 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:26pm Creotor: Coastal Claims Services 116 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 26pm Crester: Coastal Claims Services Sectien i Neil S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000303"}, {"d": 121, "p": 413, "t": "6/6/2024 Neil West Phote Repart 17 Project: Neil S, & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:27pm Creator; Coostal Claims Services 118 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:27pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services 119 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:28pm Creator: Coastol Claims Services 120 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 2:28pm Creator: Caostal Cloims Services Section 4 327 Al Neil S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000304"}, {"d": 121, "p": 414, "t": "6/6/2024 Neil West Photo Report 121 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:28pm Creator. Coastal Claims Services Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:33pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services 123 Project: Nel) S.& Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:33pm Creator: Caastal Claims Services 124 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:33pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services Section 1 33/4) Neil S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000305"}, {"d": 121, "p": 415, "t": "6/6/2024 Nell West Phote Report 125 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:33pm Creotor: Coastal Claims Services 126 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Oste: 3/6/2024, 3:33pm Creator: Coastai Cloims Services 127 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:33pm Creator: Caastol Cloims Services 128 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M, West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:33pm Creator: Coastal Cleims Services Secttcn 1 34/41 Neil S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000306"}, {"d": 121, "p": 416, "t": "6/6/2024 Nei! West Photo Report 129 Project: Neil S, & Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:34pm Creator: Coastel Claims Services 10 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Ooie: 3/6/2024, 3:34pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services 131 Project: Nell S$. & Lacy M, West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:35pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 432 Project: Nell S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:35pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services Section t 35/44 Neil S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000307"}, {"d": 121, "p": 417, "t": "6/6/2024 Neil West Photo Report 133 Project: Neil $. & Lacy M, West Date: 3/67/2024, 3:36pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 134 Project: Neil §. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:38pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 435 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:38pm Creator: Coastal Clalms Services 136 Project: Nell S, & Lacy M. West Date; 3/6/2024, 3:38pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services Section | 36/41 Neil $. & Lacy M, West SFF&CC/West_000308"}, {"d": 121, "p": 418, "t": "6/6/2026 Neil West Photo Report 137 Project: Ne S$. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:38pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services 138 Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Doter 3/6/2024, 3:38om Creator: Coastal C sims Services 139 Project: Nell S, & Lacy M West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:38pm Crecor: Coostol Claims Services 140 Project: Date: Neil S. & Lacy M. West 3/6/2024, 2:38pm Creator: Coostol Cioims Services vection i oF / a4 Ne $.& Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000309"}, {"d": 121, "p": 419, "t": "Ne 6/6/2026 West Photo Report 141 Project: Neil S.& Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:39pm Crestor: Coaste) Claims Services 142 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Bote: 3/6/2024, 3:39pm Creotor: Coastal Cloims Services 143 Project: Neil S$. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:39pm Crevtor: Coastal Claims Services 144 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Dote 9/6/2024, 3.39pm Crestatr: Coastol Cloins Servces Section 7 38/ At Neil S. & Locy M. West SFF&CC/West 000310"}, {"d": 121, "p": 420, "t": "6/6/2024 Neil West Photo Repart 145 Project: Nail S. & Locy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:40pm Creator: Coasto' Claims Services 146 Projact: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Dete 3/6/2024, 3:40pm Creator: Coastal Cloims Services Project: Neil $. & Lacy M. West Dote: 3/6/2024, 3:40pm Crestor: Coastal Claims Services 148 Project: Ne S.& Lacy M. West Date: 3/6/2024, 3:40pm Creator: Coastal Claims Services Section | 39/4) Neil S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_00031 1"}, {"d": 121, "p": 421, "t": "€ 0/2024 Neil West Phole Report 149 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 6/6/2024, 1:22pm Creotor: Coastal Claims Services 150 ‘vrojact: Neil S. & Lacy M, West Date: 6/6/2024, 1:22pm Creator: Coastal Cioims Services 151 Project: Neil $, & Lacy M. West Dole: 6/6/2024, 1:22pm Creotor: Coastal Claims Services 152 Project Ne S$. & Lacy M, West Date: 6/6/2024, 22pm Creator: Coast., Cloims Services Section 1 40 / 41 Neil S. & Locy M. West SFF&CC/West_000312"}, {"d": 121, "p": 422, "t": "Nail West Shota Report 6/6/2024 183 Project: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 6/6/2024, ¢22pm Creaicr, Coastal Claims Services 154 Praject: Neil S. & Lacy M. West Date: 6/6/2024, 4:22pm Creator: Caastal Claims Services Section j aida Neil S. & Lacy M. West SFF&CC/West_000313"}, {"d": 121, "p": 424, "t": "From:\"José Parga\" <jparga@coastalclaims.net> Sent:Fri, 13 Sep. 2024 06:13:54 -0500 To:\"HOME CLMS-FIRECLAIMS\" <statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com> Ce:neilspencerwest@sbcglobal.net; ccsvcs-OK-2024040001 @claimmail.net Subject:[EXTERNAL] 3653Q113C Attachments:West_Executed_SPOL.pdf, 36530113C_WEST_PRELIMINARY_PA_ESTIMATE.pdf Hello StateFarm, We did have a conversation with your desk adjuster who refused to fulfill her duties and provide: a clear reasoning of the denial of coverage based on the-policy. She stated that she did not believe that'the photos presented were storm related damages which is a false and misleading statement which appears to be an attempt to breach the contract between StateFarm and the — insured, We did provide her with the Date of Loss report which shows there-was hail and wind. reported. in the area along with clear photos of the damage:to roof components. She still refused to fulfill her duties to-act in good faith to provide a’ written response. rin SFF&CC/West_000240"}, {"d": 121, "p": 426, "t": "Ql Pi Bsrereek Drive, Lawton, 7 NW Briarcreek, Lawton, OK 73505, USA Weather Events (dune 15, 2023) j Neleontogis| Nad Sue 0 MPH iy Uaioe 1a AY 73 MPH SFF&CC/West_000242"}, {"d": 121, "p": 427, "t": "We are demanding that we speak to management to avoid escalating further as this does not satisfy the minimum standard outlined by the Department of Insurance. We have again attached the Sworn Proof of Loss for the insured which has been notarized along with the estimate that reflects the full indemnity of the insured . If no factual response is provided within a reasonable time the insured along with their StateFarm agent will have to entertain filing a complaint with the Department of Insurance Insurance Okla. Stat. tit, 36§1250.6(C) and Okla. Admin Code §365:15-3-5(c) Please give us a call directly 682-716-9565. Thank you, Jose J. Parga SFF&CC/West_000243"}, {"d": 121, "p": 429, "t": "From:\"HOME CLMS-FIRECLAIMS\" <statefarmfireclaims@statefarm.com>. Sent:Tue, 17'Sep 2024 13:16:51 +0000 To:\"jparga@coastalclaims.net\" <jparga@coastalclaims.net>; \"NEILSPENCERWEST@SBCGLOBALNET\" <NEILSPENCERWEST @SBCGLOBAL.NET>; \"LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM\" <LACYLOU@GMAIL.COM> Ce:\"DF - FIRE - Drop File Document\" <DF-FIRE-CL @internal.statefarm.com> Subject:36-5301-13C Dear Jose. Parga, Based on our conversation this:morning, Coastal Claim Services will have to send additional information over for review, when comes to the sain, cap that is in question. if you have any additional questions my'contact information is listed below. Joe Wicker (hiefhim/his) Claim Specialist — Hail Reconciliation Unit: ATL Park:Center 3 Desk#: 469-442-1670 HRU #: 844-458-4300 Ext. 66 Statefarmfi ireclaims@Statefarm. com ée Statefarm | {OC deed EXHIBIT SFF&CC/West_000186"}, {"d": 121, "p": 431, "t": "* Re: Neil S. & Lacy M. West — 7 NW Briarcreek Drive From: Bobby Odom (odom_bobby@yahoo.com} To: _ neilspencerwest@sbeglobal.net Date: (fhureday, January 2, 2028 9t 01:21 PM CST Yas | think we should proceed forward on that. My apologies m Yah ai iP’ Ae i OrfFriday, December 20, 2024) 3:29 PM, Neil West <neiispencerwest@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Jose, BobbyWhere are we on this? if they're not moving on it and we’ve done everything we can, then it’s time to consider filing a lawsuit for bad faith. | have my own lawyer in mind. Please advise with an update. Respectfully, Neil i Mail for | On(Tuesday, October 8, i Bobby, iP: 2024, 9:57 PM, Jose Parga <jparga@coastaiclaims.net> wrote: Can you please confim if this is something your team can help with? Thank you, | O€ Tus, Oct 1, 2024 yt 9:41 PM Jose Parga <jparga@coastalclaims.net> wrote: | | Bobby, | After much back and forth with StateFarm they have agreed to reconsider an additional inspection. However, they | are looking for better photos of the roof, specifically overviews of the entire house and close ups of the rain caps i showing damages, Our position is that with them not including the rain caps, although all photos show that there is damage present to i them, it would be deemed a breach of contract as the policy covers for ADPL. Please coordinate with the insured to stop by the property and obtain those photos so we can submit them. We are . looking for about 60- 70 photos of the damages to the roof. The more the merrier, especially on the components, Thank you [ j bane | | | Jose J. Parga jo! i} Public Adjuster _ EXHIBIT WEST_000144"}, {"d": 121, "p": 433, "t": "Note update | Note ~~. update? Note — update? Note | have not heard anything - | will check with Coastal Note update? Note EXHIBIT ~. see photos 34 BobbyOdom_000009"}, {"d": 121, "p": 434, "t": "yaoi 1Ss there anything we can do? Maybe get more-e supporting photos of the damage? Like to the vents or around the house on other... Note 5 | don't think there's enough grounds for them, which | wish they had advised me of as well - | had explained their original intentions on text Note an a why what happened? This is not good he said if they didn’t think they could get it approved to let his attorney take over then they took their time for it to get denied?... . Note They're saying there's not going to be anything more that can be done update BobbyOdom_000010"}, {"d": 121, "p": 436, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vv. ) STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., ) ) ) . Case No. CJ-2025-135 JUDGE SHEPERD ) ) Defendants,,. ) DECLARATION OF ANDREW D. HAROLD, MS., S.B. P.E. I, Andrew D. Harold, M.S., S.E., P.E., declare under penalty of perjury as follows: 1. I am over eighteen years of age and competent to testify to the matters stated in this Declaration. I am a professional engineer employed by Nelson Forensics, LLC. I hold a Master of Science degree and am a licensed professional engineer and structural engineer. I serve as Senior Vice President of Nelson Forensics, LLC, and I have education, training, and experience relevant to the evaluation of wind and hail damage to composition-shingle roofing systems. I have personally evaluated many asphalt shingle roofing systems for potential wind or hail damage. Commonly used as roofing systems for single-family residences, asphalt shingle roofing is also commonly used for commercial and multi-family residential structures. Nelson Forensics, LLC was retained by counsel for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company in connection with the claims asserted by Neil West and Lacy West concerning the property located at 7 NW Briarcreek Drive, Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 (the “Property”). On June 24, 2026, with Nelson representative Dylan Huegel, J physically evaluated the exterior of the Property, including the roof covering, roof slopes, roof penetrations, vents, flashing, soft metals, and other relevant exterior components. >> BS Sed EXHIBIT 3S"}, {"d": 121, "p": 437, "t": "At the time of Nelson's site visit, the roof had not been replaced after the reported June 15, 2023 loss, During the site visit, Nelson conducted a visual evaluation of the site and the Property’s roof, exterior, and relevant interior areas, and photographically documented conditions as they pertain to the scope of Nelson’s investigation. Destructive testing was outside the scope of Nelson’s investigation and was not performed, As related to the scope of Nelson's investigation, { observed the following: Burnish marks measuring not more than 1/4\" across at a portion of the light-gauge metal surfaces. Circular tearing at a portion of the window screens, along with circular indentations at a portion of the screen frames. Small, circular indentations at a portion of the light-gauge metals (e.g., low profile roof vents, gutters, downspouts) that are consistent with hail impact. Separations in deteriorated and deformed siding at the chimney Weathered sealant repairs were evident at the base of the enclosure. enclosure. General granule loss at the roof shingles throughout, which is minor in nature and is consistent with age and long-term exposure to the elements rather than hail impact. Linear, semi-circular, and irregularly-shaped areas of granule loss at the roof shingles, concentrated at the hips/ridges, valleys, and cricket. The areas were not of the circular size, shape, or random distribution that is characteristic of hail impact. Rather, the areas are consistent with foot traffic or maintenance-related activities. Annular (ring-shaped) areas of granule loss at the hips and ridges, characteristic of bird droppings rather than hail impact. Moisture staining at the master closet ceiling. The master closet was located toward the southeast comer of the structure. Openings in the roof covering above were not evident, and moisture staining was not present at the underside of the roof framing cas oo nor at the attic insulation above. Moisture staining at the northeast bedroom ceiling, located below the base of a valley at the roof above."}, {"d": 121, "p": 438, "t": "10, I did not observe evidence of hail impact at the roof shingles which would warrant repair or replacement, nor did I observe storm-created openings (e.g., as from hail or wind-borne debris impact or wind uplift) in the building envelope (i.e., roof, exterior) which would allow water intrusion to the interior. il. I observed conditions consistent with age and general weathering with long-term weather exposure, along with foot traffic and/or maintenance-related activities, and deferred or inadequate maintenance (e.g., the chimney enclosure). 12. The conditions I observed did not exhibit the physical characteristics I would expect from hail impacts of sufficient severity to damage asphalt composition shingles. Hail impact at asphalt composition shingles tends to manifest as circular areas of granule loss with more graduated than well-defined edges, which are of a size that is characteristic of hail impact and with other on-site indicators (e.g., burnish marks, indentations at light-gauge metals), and which are distributed throughout the roof in a random, “peppering\" type pattern rather than concentrated at certain areas of the roof (e.g., valleys, hips/ridges). Depending on the severity of the impact, fracturing of the shingles may be present at the concentrated areas of granule loss. No such conditions were observed at the Property. 13. I observed hail-related indications on certain metal or exterior components, but the presence of hail indications on those components does not establish hail-caused damage to the roof shingles. 14. I did not observe the deformed flue gas vent cap on the roof of the Property corresponding to that in photographs submitted by Coastal Claims [SFF&CC/West_00243]. Further, the shingle roofing in this photograph appears to be accented with a rust/brown coloration that differs from the gray coloration of the shingles at the Property. The photograph in SFF&CC/West_00243 appears to be a cropped version of that in WEST_000155. 15. I also did not observe the apparent half-round fracture at the ridge shingle in WEST_000154. A ridge vent was present at the garage only. Again in WEST_ 000154, the coloration of the shingles in the photograph does not match that at the Property. Based on my education, training, experience, physical evaluation, and review of the available materials, I conclude that the roof shingles did not sustain hail-caused damage from the reported June 15, 2023 event. Replacement of the shingle roofing due to hail impact damage is therefore neither warranted nor necessary."}, {"d": 121, "p": 439, "t": "17, I further conclude that the conditions observed on the roof do not require full roof replacement under generally accepted engineering principles. 18. Before forming these opinions, I reviewed materials made available for this matter, including file materials provided by counsel, photographs of the Property, additional photographs concerning the reported interior leaking, Nelson Forensics’ photographic documentation which we collected on site, and weather information concerning the reported June 15, 2023 date of loss. 19. | My opinions are stated to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty and are based on the information presently available to me. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of Oklahoma and 12 O.S. § 426 that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 2 (ec. Location of Execution: “Ply TX Andrew D. Harold, M.S., S.E., P.E. Senior Vice President Nelson Forensics, LLC Oklahoma Certificate. of Authorization 7534 ae AN *s, ’ ii, (ERS WAG _ SUSAN KAY PIERCE Notary 10 #134545820— My Commission Expires September 8, 2027 Notary Public, State of Texas Commission Expires: Se ten ber 8, 2027"}, {"d": 121, "p": 441, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-01295-PRW Documenti2 Filed 09/16/25 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA JONATHAN POE and JULIE POR, Plaintiffs, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. C1V-24-1295-PRW ORDER Before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7), filed by Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company; the Response (Dkt. 10), filed by Plaintiffs Jonathan and Julie Pope; and State Farm’s Reply (Dkt. 11). Having considered the pleadings and applicable legal authorities, the Court GRANTS the Motion (Dkt. 7). Background This is an action for breach of contract and violation of the duty of good faith, According to the Complaint (Dkt. 1), the Poes’ home was insured by State Farm when it incurred hail damage on or about April 19, 2023. The Poes reported a claim in the summer of 2024, State Farm investigated it on August 28, 2024, and authorized payment for spot repaits on September 18, 2024.' On December 10, 2024, the Poes brought this action against State Farm seeking damages for breach of contract and violation of the duty of I Pifs.’ Resp. (Dkt. 10), at 2. «<r EXHIBIT"}, {"d": 121, "p": 442, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-01295-PRW Documenti2 Filed 09/16/25 Page 2 of 6 good faith and fair dealing and punitive damages,? State Farm now moves to dismiss as time-barred the Poes’ breach of contract and tort claims. Standard of Review Inreviewing a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must satisfy itself that the pleaded facts state a claim that is plausible.’ In addition to the complaint, courts may consider “the attached exhibits and documents incorporated into the complaint by reference,” “A statute of limitations defense may be appropriately resolved ona Rule 12 motion when the dates given in the complaint make clear that the right sued upon has been extinguished.”* Analysis I, The breach of contracts claims are time-barred. State Farm argues that the insurance policy bars the Poes from bringing an action to recover for damages which occurred before December 10, 2023, a year from the date they brought the present action. In the insurance policy at issue, there is a “Suit Against Us” provision that provides the following: Suit Against Us. No action will be brought against us unless there has been full compliance with all of the policy provisions. Any action by any party must be started within one year after the date of loss or damage. However, if the cause of loss or damage is burglary, theft, larceny, robbery, forgery, 2 Compl. (Dkt. 1), at 2-5. 3 Bell Atl. Corp. vy. Twombly, 550 U.S, 544, 555 (2007). 4 Commonwealth Prop. Advocs., LLC v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 680 F.3d 1194, 1201 (10th Cir. 2011). 5 Sierra Club v. OMahoma Gas & Elec, Co., 816 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up and citation omitted)."}, {"d": 121, "p": 443, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-01295-PRW Documenti2 Filed 09/16/25 Page 3 of 6 fraud, vandalism, malicious mischief, confiscation, wrongful conversion, disposal or concealment, the action must be started within two years from the time the cause of action accrues, Oklahoma law requires property-insurance policies to provide at least a one-year limitations period for bringing “an action,” with the clock starting on “the date of occurrence of the event resulting in loss.”® Here, the policy imposes just such a deadline.’ Thus, under its plain language, any claims for damages resulting from events before December 10, 2023, are time barred. The Poes do not argue that any of the provisions of the policy are ambiguous. Instead, with respect to their contract claims, they seek certification of a question to the Oklahoma Supreme Court to determine whether State Farm’s Suit Against Us provision can bar their claims. The Poes argue that past rulings of courts in this district shouldn’t control this case because their claims were submitted in a timely manner to State Farm, but the subsequent suit for breach of contract was filed after the timely claim was denied. Plaintiffs point to 36 0.8. § 1250.5(7), which the Oklahoma Legislature amended, effective May 16, 2022, to add the following language: .., Any policy that specifies a time limit covering damage to a roof due to wind or hail must allow the filing of claims after the first anniversary but no 6 OKLA. STAT. tit, 36, § 3617; see also Clipperton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 151 F, App'x 652, 655 (0th Cir, 2005). 7 Mot. Dismiss (Dkt. 7), at 2. 8 Unlike in Root v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 23-870-PRW, 2024 WL 5239456, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Dec, 27, 2024) and Marhsall v, State Farm Fire & Cas. Co,, No. 24-780JD, 2025 WL817606, at *1 (W.D. Ola. Mar. 13, 2025), the Poes filed their insurance claim afier the Suit Against Us limitation period had run, but still within the two-year statutory limit for filing an insurance claim under 36 O.S. § 1250.5(7)."}, {"d": 121, "p": 444, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-01295-PRW Documenti2 Filed 09/16/25 Page 4 of 6 later than twenty-four (24) months after the date of the loss, if the damage is not evident without inspection{.]? The Poes do not marshal an argument that 36 O.S, § 1250.5(7) operates to extend the time in which insureds can bring breach of contract claims against insurers, but instead argue that not allowing them to do so would be “at odds” with both public policy and the legislative intent of the amendment. !° Certification is appropriate where the question “(1) may be determinative of the case at hand and (2) is sufficiently novel that [the Court] feel[s] uncomfortable attempting to decide it without further guidance.”!! However, when the Court instead “see[s] a reasonably clear and principled course, [it] will seek to follow it [itself].”!? Here, the Court has no discomfort in applying the plain meaning of the law. There is no argument that there is an ambiguity in the statute, and the Court cannot detect one on its own. To the extent that application of 36 O.S. § 1250.5(7) creates troublesome policy results, that is for the people of Oklahoma to resolve through their legislators. The most “principled course””’ wl}; is for this Court “to say what the law is[,]” not what it ought to be. 4 9 OKLA, STAT. tit, 36, § 1250.5(7); 2022 Okla, Sess, Law Serv, Ch. 266 (H.B. 3495) (West). 0 Pfs.’ Resp, (Dkt. 10), at 7. '! Pino y, United States, 507 F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). 2 Id. 3 Id. '4 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803)."}, {"d": 121, "p": 445, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-01295-PRW Document12 Filed 09/16/25 Page 5 of 6 Accordingly, under the well-pleaded facts in the Complaint, the policy language controls. Any breach of contract claim relating to damages occurring before December 10, 2023, is time-barred. Il, The claims in tort are time-barred. The Poes argue that 12 O.S, § 95(A)(3) governs the statute of limitations for their bad faith claims, which would allow them two years from the date of the loss to bring this action. State Farm counters that 36 O.S. § 3617 governs. The Court agrees with State Farm. While the Poes were able to produce caselaw that demonstrate instances where Oklahoma courts have found that statutory limitation periods overrode contractual limitation provisions, their cases did not deal specifically with the plain language of 36 OS. § 3617: No policy delivered or issued for delivery in Oklahoma and covering a subject of insurance resident, located, or to be performed in Oklahoma, shall contain any condition, stipulation or agreement... limiting the time within which an action may be brought to a period of less than two (2) years from the time the cause of action accrues in connection with all insurances other than property and marine and transportation insurances; in property and marine and transportation policies such time shall not be limited to less than one (1) year from the date of occurrence of the event resulting in the loss. The Poes do not explain why the plain language of this provision does not apply to their case, It is true that a reading of 12 O.S, § 95(A)(3), which states that civil actions other than for the recovery of real property must be brought “[w]ithin two (2) years” if it is “an action for injury to the rights of another, not arising in contract, and not hereinafter enumerated[,]” superficially supports the Poes’ position. However, “the specific governs"}, {"d": 121, "p": 446, "t": "Case 5:24-cv-01295-PRW Documenti2 Filed 09/16/25 Page 6 of 6 the general.”!5 12 0.S. § 95 governs limitations on civil actions generally, while 36 0.5. § 3617 governs insurance policy restrictions. If the Court were to follow the Poes’ lead, the excerpted portion of 36 0.8. § 3617 above would be rendered superfluous. The best construction of 36 O.S, § 3617 leads to the conclusion that the insurance policy’s Suit Against Us provision is both valid and bars the Poes’ bad faith claims. Conclusion Aceotdingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion (Dkt. 7) and DISMISSES the Poes’ breach of contract and bad faith claims to the extent that they seek to recover for damages which occurred before December 10, 2023. An order entering final judgment will follow. IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of September 2025. PATRICKR, WYRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. 1S McKenzie v. U.S, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Dist. Dir., 761 F.3d 1149, 1156 (10th Cir, 2014) (citing RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. 645 (2012))."}, {"d": 122, "p": 1, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY FILED STATE OF OKLAHOMA DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA August 24, 2026 1:41 PM Plaintiff, Vv. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. Newnes ast” Saat! ana at! aaa gt at! NEIL and LACY WEST, ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2025-135 Case No. CJ-2025-135 AMENDED NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION Please notice that, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230 of the Oklahoma Discovery Code, the Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company will take the deposition upon oral examination of Derek Franklin, on Friday, September 11, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, Braniff Building, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102, before an officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the State of Oklahoma. The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic and videographic means. A subpoena will be issued to Mr. Franklin for his attendance. The subpoena is attached as Exhibit 1. Dated this 24th day of August, 2026. AM Ze TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda. finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 122, "p": 2, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by US. Mail, postage prepaid, this 24th day of August, 2026, to: 9010632 Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson Blake Sonne BURGESS Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, Oklahoma 73505 by & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM"}, {"d": 122, "p": 4, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Plaintiff, Vv. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. Newnes ast” Saat! ana at! aaa gt at! NEIL and LACY WEST, COUNTY Case No. CJ-2025-135 DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO: — Derek Franklin Legacy Roofing & Construction, LLC 12094 State Highway 76 Lindsay, Oklahoma 73052 GREETINGS - You are hereby commanded to appear at the offices of Crowe Dunlevy, Braniff Building, 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 on Friday, September 11, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. to testify as a witness in a deposition noticed by Defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, in the above-captioned case. The deposition shall be recorded by stenographic and videographic means. All parties are invited to attend and cross-examine. Hereof fail not under penalty of law. Issued this 24th day of August, 2026. ee TIMILA S. ROTHER, OBA # 14310 PAIGE A. MASTERS, OBA #31142 AMANDA M. FINCH, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY Braniff Building 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 235-7700 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 9010633"}, {"d": 123, "p": 1, "t": "STATEa anaOF OKLAHOMA ies ounty Fil ihe C IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY NEIL and LACY WEST, Office of AUG 21 he ourt Clerk 2008 6 By. Deputy Plaintiffs, V. CASE NO. CJ-2025-135 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and NANCY HOLCOMB INS. AGENCY, INC., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO STATE FARM’S IMPROPER NOTICE OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THE DEPOSITIONS IN THIS CASE WITH A CASE PENDING IN ANOTHER COUNTY & COUNTER MOTION FOR RULE 4 ORDER THAT THIS CASE IS NOT TO BE CONSOLIDATED WITH ANY OTHER CASE COME NOW the Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel of record, Whitten Burrage, and respectfully request that the Court issue an order that this case and the discovery and depositions herein is not to be consolidated with any other action. Plaintiffs are willing to have oral arguments if this Court prefers, but in the alternative, Plaintiffs request a ruling on the briefs under District Court Rule 4(h). 12 O.S. Chapter 2, Rule 4(h) (“Motions may be decided by the court without a hearing, and where this is done, the court shall notify the parties of its ruling in writing by mail or email.”’). PROCEDURAL HISTORY & FACTUAL BACKGROUND On December 4, 2025, Plaintiff moved for an appointment of a special discovery master in three cases pending in front of Judge Dishman in Oklahoma County and made a secondary request to consolidate those cases solely for judicial economy of the special discovery master (Adair v. State Farm, CJ-2023-6121; Pruitt v. State Farm, CJ-2024-7828; and Cox v. State Farm, CJ-2024- 7630). See e.g. 12/4/2025 Adair Mot. for Special Disc. Master. F"}, {"d": 123, "p": 2, "t": "On January 9, 2026, the parties appeared in front of Judge Dishman on Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Special Discovery Master in those three cases pending in front of Judge Dishman against State Farm at similar stages of discovery wherein Plaintiff made clear that consolidation of the three cases at issue was not the main request, as “plaintiffs are willing to bear the burden of three separate special discovery masters if this Court is not inclined to consolidate.” See Ex. 33, Adair 1/9/2026 Hrg. Trns. at 12:6-8. Judge Dishman decided, “I’m not going to consolidate, and the reason I'm not going to consolidate is because | think there are too many differences when you name the individual agents as a defendant. All those situations are going to be factually different.” Ex. 33, Adair 1/9/2026 Hrg. Trns. at 31:7-11. Ironically, the last time Plaintiff’s counsel moved for consolidation prior to the request to consolidate for only discovery purposes in cases pending in front of the same Judge (Judge Dishman) was in CJ-2020-4453, wherein State Farm filed a Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Consolidation on January 16, 2024 with the following arguments to prevent consolidation in front of Judge Timmons: Consolidation should be denied because Plaintiffs have not met — and cannot meet — the burden placed on them to demonstrate that: (1) consolidation will benefit judicial economy without causing delay, undue expense, prejudice, or confusion; and (2) sufficient common questions of law or fact exist, particularly as to the agents sued in each case. Consolidation of the cases urged herein is not permitted because the issues are neither identical issues as required by Local Rule 9 nor common as required by 12 O.S. § 2018. But the Court need not even get to that substantive prong of the analysis, because Plaintiffs are not simply asking the Court to combine the causes of action against State Farm, but nine separate causes of action against the agent Defendants arising from entirely different and unique facts. Further, the cases are of varying ages and in different litigation postures governed by different discovery orders. The disparity among the cases both factually and procedurally negates any perceived efficiency and reveals the delay, confusion, and prejudice to the"}, {"d": 123, "p": 3, "t": "individual agent Defendants, State Farm, and the judicial system that will result. For example, Nida, arises from a hail claim made more than four years ago and has been on file since September 2020, while Fletcher still has pending motions to dismiss with answers not yet due. Likewise, in Nida, Hosier, and Kyger, extensive institutional discovery has already occurred, while initial discovery requests have not even been served in Fletcher. As to most of the others, they are in varying stages of non-\"native\" document production made subject to protective orders entered by the judges in those cases with greater protections than have been ordered in the cases before this Court. Each of the cases where discovery has taken place have different discovery rulings by different judges that would need to be addressed one by one and reconciled in a consolidation by this Court that would take extensive motion practice as well as hearings. Given the different procedural postures of these consolidation, cases and granting Plaintiffs' Plaintiffs' unexplained Motion would delay be in moving prejudicial to for the Defendants, delay efficient and prompt adjudication of cases that does not benefit any party, and benefits only Plaintiffs' Counsel. Critically, these cases include not just State Farm, but nine individual agents who had no part in the claim determination for which State Farm is sued. The agents are instead sued under negligent procurement and fraud theories, the outcomes of which will turn entirely on what each Plaintiff said to his or her respective agent and what his or her agent said to each Plaintiff. Indeed, the agent issues veer entirely into policy issuance and underwriting questions and are not at all about the claim handling for which Plaintiffs pursue institutional discovery from State Farm. As to the claims against State Farm, the Consolidation Cases involve nine different disputes about whether nine different houses were damaged by nine different weather events and to what degree. All nine have different dates of loss, ranging from October 6, 2019, in Nida to October 14, 2021, in Kelly, implicating differences in training and claim handling procedures. The nine properties are located across seven towns, nearly half of which are not even in Oklahoma county. As to Plaintiffs theme that State Farm enforced a scheme for denying hail claims, the hail determinations in Christy, Kelly, and Fletcher were made by thirdparty inspectors not trained by State Farm or bound by its operational guidelines, and McDow involved an external claims resource adjuster who was also not trained by State Farm. In addition to the third-party inspectors, more than 20 different State Farm adjusters were involved, meaning training material produced in"}, {"d": 123, "p": 4, "t": "one case may not be relevant to another. Further, there were 13 different contractors. Fletcher and Christy involve rental policies rather than homeowner policies. Because the facts specific to each claim vary, the claim decisions also vary: only one claim was denied; State Farm made payments in four cases; and in three cases, although damage was identified, payments were not made because the estimated cost of repairs fell below the total deductible and depreciation. See Ex. 34, 1/16/2024 Nida SF Resp. to Mot. to Cons. (without exhibits) (emphasis added). Despite State Farm strongly objecting to consolidation of identical matters two years ago, State Farm now says the same is proper, without distinguishing any of its previous arguments. For the same reasons above, the cases pending against State Farm in front of different judges are not proper to consolidate. On January 23, 2026, State Farm moved for consolidation of all the State Farm Oklahoma County District Court cases pending in front of various judges See Ex. 35, 1/23/2026 Adair SF Mot. to Cons. OK in various different stages of litigation. County Cases (without exhibits). Plaintiffs submitted their response and objection to such request, because consolidation is not proper and the local county rule requirement of identical issues is clearly missing from these cases. See Ex. 36, 2/10/2026 Pls’ Obj. & Resp. to SF’s Con. Mot (without exhibits). See also Oklahoma County R. 9. Thereafter, the parties received the following email from Judge Dishman’s bailiff: Judge has reviewed the Motion to Consolidate and below is his response. Counsel, Defendant State Farm’s Partial Motion to Consolidate for Corporate Discovery Purposes Only is denied, with respect to written discovery. While the Court is sympathetic to Defendant’s arguments and understands how such consolidation may create efficiencies for Defendant, the Court is concerned that an order of partial consolidation may make things more difficult for the Court, and create future, unnecessary litigation over what is (or isn’t) “corporate discovery.” The Court also is in agreement with the reasoning of the Attorney General’s objection to the motion. handle discovery intervention. My issues to the greatest intention extent is for the discovery master to possible, without the Court’s"}, {"d": 123, "p": 5, "t": "That said, the Court is open to limitations being placed on the length or number of depositions of corporate officers. Please work together to come to an agreement on this issue. If not, please file a motion. If you have any question about my ruling, please set us for a quick status conference at your convenience. See Ex. 37, 5/21/2026 Dishman Email Order. State Farm did not ask for a status conference with Judge Dishman until over two months later and after losing several Motions to Quash in Oklahoma County and Comanche County. See Ex. 38, 7/31/2026 Rother Email. See also e.g. 10/24/2025 SF Hursh MTQ Ress, 10/25/2025 SF Hursh MTQ Welsh, 10/27/2025 SF Hursh MTQ Manduca, 11/03/2025 SF Hursh MTQ Herbert, 1/7/2026 SF West MTQ Manduca; 6/11/2026 SF West MTQ Ress, Herbert, Moss, and Welsh. See also. Ex. 39, Hursh 12/31/2025 JE; Ex. 40, West 7/24/2026 Order. Six (6) business days later, State Farm filed a Motion to Consolidate the depositions in only two cases, the Hursh Matter and this matter, both pending in different counties. See e.g. West SF Con. Mot. This case is set for trial on November 2, 2026. The Hursh Matter’s case number is CJ-2025-2626 and is pending in front of Judge Palumbo in Oklahoma County and is set for trial December 7, 2026. In response to State Farm’s request for a status conference in front of Judge Dishman, Plaintiffs objected to such conference, and provided, in relevant part: We respectfully object to a status conference. We have communicated with State Farm that in our view, the court welcomed a status conference if the parties were unable to come to an agreement on the length or number of depositions in the State Farm cases pending in front of Judge Dishman and after State Farm files a new Motion on this. We would ask that the Court post-pone a status conference until State Farm files a Motion and Plaintiffs are able to respond on the merits in writing. We also believe the Court would benefit from seeing the parties’ position in writing before making a ruling on the new request to consolidate."}, {"d": 123, "p": 6, "t": "See Ex. 38, 8/10/2026 Burrage Email (emphasis added). Thereafter, Judge Dishman set a status conference for August 20, 2026 at 2:30 PM. Importantly, the “corporate discovery” State Farm seeks to get another bite at consolidating is not even pending in front Judge Dishman, but is now pending in front of Judge Sheperd. See Ex. 41, West SF Con. Mot (without exhibits). Furthermore, there is no request to take any of the State Farm executives in any of the cases pending currently against State Farm in front of Judge Dishman. To use Judge Dishman’s email order to somehow argue that a case in Comanche County which State Farm never even asked Judge Dishman to consolidate solely to take depositions away from this Court is improper and unprecedented. Those making the rules for this Court chose to allow consolidation only if the issues are \"identical.\" Oklahoma County R. 9. Consolidation limited to Oklahoma County does not meet the requirement of identical issues. Furthermore, because of State Farm’s attempts to rob this Court and Judge Palumbo of the ability to control their dockets and orders in the two most advanced cases set for trial, Plaintiffs are filing a Motion in both in this case and the Hursh Matter for an Order removing these cases from any future consolidation order. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES Why does State Farm now seek this extraordinary and unprecedented consolidation of two cases proceeding against two different agent defendants across two different counties? The answer is simple: they do not like the discovery orders issued by those judges (specifically this Court and Judge Palumbo) presiding over the cases they now seek to consolidate. Indeed, State Farm’s plea to judicial economy is self-servingly ironic given that the original request to consolidate was limited to Oklahoma County but now, after such request was denied, State Farm attempts to loop"}, {"d": 123, "p": 7, "t": "this case pending in Comanche County that is well-developed and distinct, with distinct discovery orders. Additionally, State Farm only seeks to consolidate depositions after losings Motions to Quash such depositions, showing the request to consolidate is not made in good faith. See e.g. 10/24/2025 SF Hursh MTQ Ress, 10/25/2025 SF Hursh MTQ Welsh, 10/27/2025 SF Hursh MTQ Manduca, 11/03/2025 SF Hursh MTQ Herbert, 1/7/2026 SF West MTQ Manduca; 6/11/2026 SF West MTQ Ress, Herbert, Moss, and Welsh. See also. Ex. 39, Hursh 12/31/2025 JE; 7/24/2026 Order. Ex. 40, West Furthermore, State Farm has sought to avoid its discovery obligations in these cases by asking the Oklahoma Supreme Court to intervene. However, even after arguing that Judge Palumbo exceeded her jurisdiction by granting Plaintiffs’ First Motion and ordering certain executives to be produced (which State Farm seeks to consolidate), the Oklahoma Supreme Court unanimously denied accepting State Farm’s request to accept mandamus. See Ex. 42, Palumbo Writ Denied Order. In the Hursh Matter, Judge Palumbo has stated on the record at the August 4, 2026 hearing: “State Farm, nobody can adequately prepare for depositions because you have not complied with discovery ... State Farm has had every opportunity to come in and march in a live witness to tell me and explain why they cannot comply, and they don’t ... I will be attending Nicole Manduca’s deposition. She is welcome to do it here in my courtroom or in my jury deliberation room, or I will be attending it by Zoom.” See Ex. 43, 8/4/2026 Hursh Trns. at 11:9-11; 12:11-13; 14:23 (emphasis added). Judge Palumbo ordered the executive depositions take place in on the following dates in her August 4, 2026 minute order: Wensley Herbert on August 20, 2026; Scott Welsh on August 27, 2026; Kathy Ress on August 28, 2026; and ordered the corporate representative depositions to"}, {"d": 123, "p": 8, "t": "take place in her courtroom for Nicole Manduca and Wayne Stewart (State Farm’s chosen designees) between September |-3 and 9-11. See Ex. 44, Hursh 8/4/2026 Minute Order. After this hearing, the parties worked together to secure deposing Wensley Herbert on August 26, 2026: Scott Welsh on August 27, 2026; Kathy Ress on August 28, 2026 in Bloomington, Illinois and have booked flights, hotels, and court reporters. The parties are working on securing availability for the corporate designees to take place in Judge Palumbo’s courtroom on September 17 and September 18, however, counsel for State Farm stated they were unavailable and only provided two dates for these depositions to take place. The cases where the plaintiffs are represented by the undersigned attorneys are facially inappropriate for consolidation across different counties for at least five reasons: they (1) are factually distinct from each other; (2) arise from various and dissimilar dates of loss with different sizes of hail (3) the consolidation on “corporate discovery” would cause massive confusion because the individual agents get “corporate scheme” training; (4) arise from various and different State Farm agencies with different underwriting guidelines in effect based on different dates of procurement and renewal; and (5) are at dramatically different stages of litigation. State Farm seeks another bite at the apple to consolidate all Oklahoma County cases to Judge Dishman and to consolidate the depositions Judge Palumbo ordered with Comanche County depositions to forum shop in cases where they lost orders to quash these depositions. See e.g. Ex. 39, Hursh 12/31/2025 JE; Ex. 40, West 7/24/2026 Order. Granting the requested Oklahoma to seek relief will encourage consolidation whenever an every insurance company unfavorable discovery ruling defendant occurs in in any individual case. Not only is consolidation in Oklahoma County improper but State Farm is seeking"}, {"d": 123, "p": 9, "t": "to use this Court’s order to support its request for a multi-county consolidation, which is deeply improper. For the reasons below, the relief sought by State Farm should be denied. STANDARD Oklahoma law requires a common question of law or fact for consolidation, and due to the differences in discovery sets issued, as well as differences in case needs and nuisances in facts, does not support State Farm’s request for consolidation. The absence of a \"common question of law or fact\" also negates consolidation. 12 O.S. § 2018(C). Indeed, those making the rules for this Court chose to allow consolidation only if the issues are \"identical.\" Oklahoma County R. 9. The questions of law and fact in these cases are neither identical nor common enough to satisfy the prerequisite for consolidation. Furthermore, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has not ever implanted the statutory authority for multicounty consolidation pursuant to 20 O.S § 81 (2004), nor has it promulgated rules under the statute. ! This is especially true considering State Farm in January of 2024 stated that nearly identical State Farm cases were not proper to consolidate because of the “different procedural postures of these cases and Plaintiffs’ unexplained delay in moving for consolidation, granting Plaintiffs’ Motion would be prejudicial to the Defendants, delay efficient and prompt adjudication of cases that does not benefit any party, and benefits only Plaintiffs’ Counsel.” See Ex. 34, 1/16/2024 SF Resp. to Mot. to Consolidate at p. 2. Almost two years later, this remains true: State Farm’s unexcused delay in moving to consolidate only after receiving orders it objects with is not proper and does not benefit any party. Plaintiffs, as the mater of the complaint and the burden of proof, strongly object to the consolidation of these matters. Plaintiffs’ counsel has never had State Farm cases become ' See 20 OS. § 81(A), (H) (\"At the discretion of the Supreme Court, the Court may create a Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ... The Supreme Court shall promulgate rules for the implementation of this section.\")."}, {"d": 123, "p": 10, "t": "consolidated at its objection. As such, Plaintiffs request this Court to deny State Farm’s request for partial consolidation. CASES ARE NOT AT SAME DISCOVERY POSTURE The cases State Farm seeks to consolidate are not the same. State Farm couches its request at “corporate discovery” only but as the party with the burden of proof who issues discovery, the discovery requests Plaintiffs have issued on corporate discovery blends into individual discovery on the agent and individual discovery on the claim. For example, Plaintiffs are aware that State Farm provided corporate training after the scheme was implemented for agents to have “tougher conversations” with insureds when denying or underpaying claims and that is corporate discovery, as well as underwriting guidelines at State Farm changing from 2015 to 2020. While this discovery is aimed at State Farm’s institutional training of its agents, the discovery responses will differ depending on when the agent began working at State Farm and when their training began. There is no clean way to sever “corporate discovery” from individual agent discovery. For example, discovery produced in this case evidences an intentional scheme to reduce first party claims. See Ex. 1-31. See also Ex. 32, Sheperd Order De-Designating Exhibits. For example, Exhibit | pertains to an agent complaining to State Farm that, “Our claims processes need to be reviewed ... as they are not working for the customer or the agent ... Agents need to know who the appropriate leadership personnel are to make decisions. Right now — that is next to impossible. There appears to be zero accountability within the claims system.” This exhibit also shows that Nicole Manduca was the Claim Manager on this claim, which caused the agent great chaos. See Ex. 1. Additionally, Exhibit 2 shows that State Farm was focused on how they will “know the tactics are working” and these tactics were created in bad faith by State Farm leadership, including pillar leads Dana Jokerst, David Chikahisa, Eric Daly, and Nicole Manduca. See Ex. 2. Furthermore, State 10"}, {"d": 123, "p": 11, "t": "Farm identified that “Full Roof Replacements is [State Farm’s] biggest bucket of opportunity[.]” Ex. 3. Furthermore, Nicole Manduca stated that the biggest bucket means indemnity savings. Ex. 4 (“The hypothesis helped us see our biggest bucket of opportunity (indemnity spend)”). State Farm’s 2020 Fire Weather Leadership Business Plan identified that the “greatest opportunity” as “accounting for 57% of Net Paid Indemnity.” Ex. 5. State Farm bragged about saving “$1.4B decrease in indemnity” in just one year of the Scheme. Ex. 6. In fact, when Manduca confirmed that the FME Wind/Hail tactics worked so well for State Farm that ratios of full roof replacements to partial roof repairs were cut more that half in the years following introductions to all States. When Manduca asked if State Farm’s results showed they were getting better, Tom Moss at State Farm bragged that “each % point difference is about 5k claim, so if we didn’t pay for 1% of claims that did not have damage and were not covered but would have been paid for before based on lack of skill/will, that is 5K claims at $15,769 avg severity for $78.8 million.” Ex. 7. So State Farm estimated that each homeowner they deny a roof replacement, like the West family, State Farm saves $15K on average. When State Farm leadership was discussing the wind/hail dashboard they created to track the roof tactics they developed, Kathy Ress told Manduca that this was a “[s]ilver platter for you.” Ex. 8. When State Farm leadership was discussing certain tactics, such as management reviews, roof skills reviews, Art of the Conversation to have tougher conversations when denying claims, Manduca noted “expanding/broadening management review on higher hail/wind severity threshold nets us the most gain from now until the end of the year.” Ex. 9. State Farm worked with Accenture Consulting Services to develop self-serving and false industry standards that State Farm was overpaying on wind and hail claims. Ex. 10. This same email thread shows State Farm tracking reduction of total roof replacements. Ex. 10."}, {"d": 123, "p": 12, "t": "Manduca bragged about the “playbook” they created with the wind and hail tactics created to reduce coverage. Ex. 11. Manduca and Scott Welsh discussed the “huddle” they would do with the “playbook” on tactics they created. Ex. 12. John Christensen told Moss in 2023. “I want to ensure they plays that worked in the past we are doing.” Ex. 13. This evidences that contrary to State Farm’s claims, State Farm leadership in 2023 was doubling down on the tactics that saved State Farm $1.4 billion in 2021. Ex. 13. Ex. 6. Furthermore, John Christensen asked for “help on how we act immediately to improve our accuracy on wind/hail and the T[eam] M[anager] role” to “go back to what worked in the past to quickly make an impact.” Ex. 13. Jordan Coad emailed Manduca and other State Farm leadership about the Fix Profit Task Force (“Profit Task Force’) and stated that the Profit Task Force was focused on “how we plan to continue to build on our momentum” and “continue focus on coverage for Water, Wind, and Hail.” Ex. 14. Further down in the same chain, Jon Farney sent an email stating that State Farm was repurposing the Profit Task Force meeting to “discuss claims” and meet every Tuesday at 7 am. Ex. 14, Above this and in response to Farney, Michael Roper stated that some of the “Summary Observations” to discuss at the Profit Task Force Meeting on claims was that the “Property Damage C[losed] W[ithout] P[ayment] ratio was 39%, directly in line with estimates.” Ex. 14. Roper also noted that the “tentative approach for Tuesday is to briefly cover the November trends at a high level before spending the majority of time focusing on Claims specific content.” Ex. 14. State Farm knew its tactics were implemented in bad faith, as evidenced by their leadership recommending that “any reference to ‘targets’ need replaced with ‘selection’” Ex. 15. Manduca noted to State Farm leadership that the “Profit Task Force meetings are not anything we’ve typically been involved in, at least I don’t think so.” Ex. 16. This is likely because Oklahoma law has long established that an insurance company’s claim center can never operate as a profit center, yet State"}, {"d": 123, "p": 13, "t": "Farm knew that agents and consumers were complaining “State Farm is not writing accurate estimates as we are writing to repair roofs instead of replacing them.” Ex. 17. Corporate discovery against State Farm cannot be separated from the individual discovery against the captive agent in each of these cases. For example, on October 5, 2021, a captive State Farm agent named Tracy Haus emailed Jon Farney and other State Farm leadership about how the tactics State Farm created to reduce roof coverage was impacting her and the State Farm insureds she served: The old slogan of “we pay what we owe, not a penny less, not a penny more” is not the case right now. We now pay really low and customers fight to get what we owe them in more and more cases. In my 20 years I have NEVER had to worry about the reputation of State Farm. Even when we have raised rates and been uncompetitive, I always knew even if customers were paying more to be with us, we would come through at claim time! #ClaimTimelsGameTime. I have heard for years now about Allstate’s declining reputation when it comes to claims. I have taken so many of their customers all while paying more to be with us in most cases. I know I am not the first to send an email about the issues we are having in claims, I certainly hope you are receiving A LOT of communication from agents letting you know what’s happening to our company from the ground. I have been involved in many agent discussions, email groups etc. about fire claims problems, and specially Roofing issues. I had faith that you all were handling it and that you knew by word of sales leaders and claims team managers that are on the ground that its really bad. But when I heard the slogan from a very reputable roofing company owner, “You are not in good hands and we are not your good neighbor’ ...1 was very upset. That's the slogan around the country, not just here in Louisville. He sent me screen shot after screen shot of reputable companies that for years have loved working with us and now say we are just as bad as Allstate. And if we choose to ignore the contractors then we must listen to our clients. Calls have increased, almost every roofing claim we have the customer is unhappy, the process is laborious, and 8/10 times we end up paying what we should have in the beginning but end up with a mad customer and a tarnished reputation. My team is spending more and more time on claims and being pulled away from selling. For the last 6 months the roofing claim problems have grown. what is being done to look at and hopefully change the way Roofing claims are being handled? This system is not only broken it is taking us down quicker than you can imagine. Its gone from bad to worse in record time. Word of mouth travels far and right now body shops to rental car companies to contractors are screaming from the rooftops and not saying nice things. Right now, our adjustors"}, {"d": 123, "p": 14, "t": "(4 in Louisville) are not the problem they are the solution. Roofing contractors would say we have a great team. Inspectors are being sent out to measure and photo roofs and hand out a very small estimate to REPAIR knowing that in a lot of cases it should be much more than that. They are afraid to get their hand slapped and are in the pockets of State Farm so they are low balling at best and almost NEVER replace a roof. Ex. 17. What did State Farm leadership do after receiving hundreds of complaints just like this? Doubled down on the tactics causing chaos on wind and hail claims across the country. Ex. 14. State Farm had many discussions about the “larger than normal number of complains” about coverage declining at State Farm and noted “[t]he roof thing is a problem. We have not done ourselves a favor there and claims leadership needs to clearly communicate the philosophy change to agents.” Ex. 18. State Farm leadership specifically provided “Wind and Hail Claim Handling” training in a presentation to “Agency Leadership” in 2021, evidencing that these captive agents know they are selling illusory coverage that will not provide the full replacement cost benefits they purport to sell. Ex. 19. In fact, leadership such as Manduca were involved in calling agents about complaints over roof claim handling specifically. Ex. 20. See also Ex. 21 (“Iam saddened to share the impact that my agency is having over roof claims.”). Not only did State Farm leadership discuss claims specific content with agents, State Farm noted as early as 2020 that agents were distrustful of State Farm claim handling due to the massive changes in claim handling without any changes to the policy. Ex. 22 (“Our 2020 Fire Claims quality plans also ... disrupted expectations of our agents ... this created a distrust of agents in our claim handling.”). State Farm noted that the agents want to learn more about “underwriting guidelines, new processes being implemented and existing processes that are important for agents and customers to understand.” Ex. 22. State 14"}, {"d": 123, "p": 15, "t": "Farm also noted planned to “schedule Wind/Hail Quality discussions with Agency leadership.” Ex. 22. State Farm noted in 2021 that their tactics to reduce coverage were “going well” and the “Art of the Conversation” they created to help agents explain reduction of coverage without any new exclusions to the policy. Ex. 23. State Farm also scheduled a call in 2020 with all Oklahoma captive State Farm agents to discuss “damaging hail that impacted Oklahoma on April 21-22, 2020.” Ex. 24. Another tactic State Farm developed was using a hidden definition from Haag Engineering on what is damage on a roof, discussing watershedding ability, but did not add this language to their policy, and this was implemented in Texas and Oklahoma first. Ex. 25. For example, State Farm’s operational guidelines on Wind/Hail provides that “damage occurs to roof coverings when water shedding ability or the life expectancy of the material is reduced.”? Ex. 26. State Farm made the Haag Education Hail and Wind Assessment Video Series mandatory viewing and required “[a] yearly refresher of relevant portions from the HAAG Education Hail and Wind Assessment Video series .. [a] minimum of 2 hours of refresher training will be completed by each claim handler and T[eam] M[anager].” Ex. 27. They tracked the completion of Haag education video training of all their claim handlers through an internal software called “MyBlock.” Ex. 28. Moss sent an email in 2022, noting that State Farm leadership had developed a “replace calculator” which was a “new tool” for State Farm to use, despite not telling insureds this was going to be implanted on their claims. State Farm required mandatory training from Haag engineers despite having an ? Haag brags on its website that “A longstanding definition of functional damage used by Haag is a reduction in the water-shedding capability or expected service life of the roofing material.” https://haagglobal.com/articles/september-2019-blog-post/ (last visited August 21, 2026). 15"}, {"d": 123, "p": 16, "t": "internal moratorium on the use of Haag engineers in Oklahoma based on previously revealed fraud with respect to these Haag reports. State Farm noted “Prioritized Tactics” which included “Early Team Manager Involvement” and these tactics were started at the “Wind/Hail Kick Off in Dallas County, TX June 26, 2020” and then “Expansion to Texas December 7, 2020” and “Expansion to all States December 17, 2020.” Ex. 30. It also discusses the “Wind/Hail Playbook” wherein State Farm discussed the key tactics to reduce claim payments on wind and hail claims, namely: (1) Roof Skills Review, (2) HAAG Refresher, (3) Wind Loss Overview, (4) Art of the Conversation, (5) T[eam] M[anager] reviews on roof replacement recommendations but no review of roof denials, (6) Weekly Monitoring & Surveying of roof replacement recommendations and overturns. Ex. 30. It also showed a reduction in claim payments being tracked from February 2021 to June 2021. Ex. 30. State Farm even developed charts to show a reduction in total roof replacement to partial roof with their manager review overturns. Ex. 30. State Farm even developed a “Hail Reconciliation Unit” to overturn total roof replacement recommendations and track those reductions in coverage. Ex. 31. These select internal documents this Court required State Farm to produce, are only the tip of the iceberg of what was going on behind the curtain at State Farm. The individual agent defendants’ depth of knowledge regarding these tactics, as well as obligations of disclosure to State Farm customer/insured is anticipated to vary greatly among the cases- thus creating complexity and confusion and instead of efficiency, which is what is required at law with any proposed consolidation. As noted above, this case is set for trial on November 2, 2026. Furthermore, the dates of loss, dates of initial procurement, conversations with captive agents and adjusters, and individual"}, {"d": 123, "p": 17, "t": "insurance needs will differ from each named plaintiff. Some of these cases deal with a third-party adjuster hired by State Farm, others have State Farm adjusters handling the claim. These properties span across the State of Oklahoma, with causes of loss ranging from wind and hail to tornado or pipe burst damage actions. Oklahoma law is clear that separate claims which arise out of separate events, like these cases which arise from different dates of loss, are not proper to consolidate. See State v. One Thousand Two Hundred Sixty-Seven Dollars, 2006 OK 15, § 16, 131 P.3d 116 (“There is here absolutely no showing of some predominant equitable consideration that demands ajoint trial ofthe two separate claims to money which arose out of discrete events.”). These cases do not deal with identical issues, as required by the local rule on consolidation. Oklahoma County R. 9. It is clear these cases do not all deal with common questions of fact or law, and are not proper to consolidate. It is clear the parties need this Court’s guidance because State Farm is seeking to avoid orders of this Court by trying again to consolidate the depositions in this case and the Hursh Matter. This far into litigation, with trial looming and specific orders on when and where these depositions are to take place will not occur if State Farm is able to forum shop its way out of this Court’s orders. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs respectfully submit the above authority and requests this Court issue a formal Order stating the discovery and depositions herein are not to be consolidated with any other action in any county pending in the State of Oklahoma against State Farm and for further relief deemed just. Respectfully submitted, Duypgie Whitin Reggid N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 17"}, {"d": 123, "p": 18, "t": "Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 Facsimile: 405.516.7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com -and- Brad Burgess Colby Stephenson BURGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRM 21 NW 44th St., Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 580-355-8920 580-355-8999 (fax) brad@burgess-hightower.com colby@burgess-hightower.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 18"}, {"d": 123, "p": 19, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 21“ day of August, 2026, a true, correct, and exact copy of the foregoing document was emailed and/or mailed to the following persons: Timila S. Rother Paige A. Masters Amanda M. Finch CROWE & DUNLEVY, PC Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com -andLance E. Leffel GABLE GOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS (Dengie. Whitton 19"}, {"d": 123, "p": 20, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. From: Sent: To: BCC: Subject: Nicole Manduca [/O=STATEFARM/OU=HOME/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=LOK2] 8/19/2021 12:57:44 AM Gwen Hodgson [gwen.hodgson.|pb5@statefarm.com] Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com]; Gwen Hodgson [gwen.hodgson.|pb5 @statefarm.com] RE: 35-B445-5P5: Agent Complaint: Claim concern Perfect — thank you. From: Gwen Hodgson Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 5:52 PM To: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: 35-B445-5P5: Agent Complaint: Claim concern Yes ma’am reviewed today and have on the calendar for next follow up Friday. Sent with BlackBerry Work (www.blackberry.com) From: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com> Date: Wednesday, Aug 18, 2021, 6:57 PM To: Gwen Hodgson <gwen.hodgson.Ipb5@statefarm.com> Subject: FW: 35-B445-5P5: Agent Complaint: Claim concern Gwen ~ making sure this is on your radar for a response next Tuesday, 8/24. From: Kathy Ress Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:28 PM To: Gwen Hodgson <gwen.hodgson.|pb5 @statefarm.com> Cc: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: 35-B445-5P5: Agent Complaint: Claim concern Thanks Gwen. I’ll calendar 2 weeks for an update. From: Gwen Hodgson Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 7:28 PM To: Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8j@statefarm.com> Ce: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: 35-B445-5P5: Agent Complaint: Claim concern Kathy, Since our last response Eber! ECR VM Brandon Becker has made multiple contact attempts with the contractor and kept the insured and agent’s office apprised of our efforts to ensure the similar products recommended by Jeld-Wen (JeldWen W-2500 series (Standard) in Brilliant White) has been utilized to achieve a reasonably consistent appearance. ECR Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00019312"}, {"d": 123, "p": 21, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. VM Becker and | have reviewed the claim and are committed to daily follow up to drive the claim to conclusion. | will maintain an SM calendar to ensure continuing action occurs. The contractor at this time has not responded with what Jeld-Wen products they have used in the documentation provided contending a reasonably consistent appearance cannot be achieved. Our efforts to obtain this information will continue and we will keep the insured and agent's office up to date on all communication. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like any additional information. Gwen Hodgson, CPCU, CLU, ChFC Claim Section Manager WCCS IO ~ Hail Reconciliation Unit w: m: 972-657-1824 309-532-4930 ; 'g << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> From: Kathy Ress Sent: Saturday, August 7, 2021 9:39 PM To: Gwen Hodgson <gwen.hodgson.|pb5 @statefarm.com> Ce: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca lok2 @statefarm.com>; Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.heSi@statefarm.com> Subject: 35-B445-5P5: Agent Complaint: Claim concern Hi Gwen, Would appreciate an update specific to resolution on Tuesday. I note we’ve left messages for the contractor and spoke to the insured, with a follow up date on Monday. A brief update on resolution with next steps and timeline is appreciate to ensure we monitor this claim to conclusion. Thanks, Kathy From: Gwen Hodgson Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 8:08 PM To: Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8i@statefarm.com> Cc: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca lok? @statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Agent Complaint: Claim concern Kathy, There was actually quite a bit of contact between August 2020 and July 2021 which | have captured below. There were definitely opportunities for follow up with the contractor, insured and agent throughout that timeframe. | have also updated the vendor name throughout the summary. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00019313"}, {"d": 123, "p": 22, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Please let me know if there is any additional clarity | can provide or follow up. Thank you and have a great evening. Gwen Hodgson, CPCU, CLU, ChFC Claim Section Manager WCCS IO - Hail Reconciliation Unit w: 972-657-1824 m: 309-532-4930 << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> From: Kathy Ress Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 5:46 PM To: Gwen Hodgson <gwen.hodgson.ipb5 @statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Agent Complaint: Claim concern — Gwen, Would you provide timeline when the service gaps occurred? What has our handling been in 2021, as appears no activity since Aug 2020 to July 2021. Trying to understand if these are recurring gaps or recent gaps with our Call to Action. When you update the summary please provide the name of the vendor. A review of the claim file identified the following service gaps: e Lack of verbal communication between State Farm Claims, the agent’s office, and the insured. Status follow-ups to the insured after conversations with the contractor regarding sash and window replacement findings were needed. Follow up with agent’s office to provide status and difficulty working with the contractor were needed. Thanks! Kathy From: Gwen Hodgson Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 4:48 PM To: Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.heSj@statefarm.com> Cc: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca Jok2@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Agent Complaint: Claim concern Kathy, Please find our response to the agent concerns: Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00019314"}, {"d": 123, "p": 23, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Outline Customer/Agent Concern and Resolution with the Customer/Agent ° Contractor Feazel Inc. contacted State Farm and advised that the windows on the front and rear elevations of the Loeser’s home have sustained damages. The original manufacturer of the windows is no longer in business and the contractor has adviscd that like kind and quality replacements do not exist. EBERL ECR Vendor Manager Brandon Becker had contacted the manufacturer that bought out the original window manufacturer and has determined the make and model of the windows to be replaced to provide for a uniform appearance. This was communicated to the Insured and Contractor. ° The original inspection of October 8, 2019 did not find damages to the windows and settlement was provided for the roof and gutters on the home. All repairs to the roof and gutters were completed and all RCB’s were released per a certificate of completion dated November 7, 2019. On August 10, 2020 the contractor submitted photos of window damage. An additional inspection was completed on August 17, 2020 and no storm related damages were found to the windows. Additional communication with the contractor and insured disputing the determination on the windows throughout September 2020 resulted in the hiring of an engineer October 15, 2020 to evaluate the windows. The engineer inspection occurred November 10, 2020. The engineer’s report, received December 3, 2020 identified six cosmetically damaged windows on the South and North elevations and replacement of the window sashes was recommended. The Engineer report provided manufacturer and installer information for the sashes. The State Farm estimate was updated to reflect 6 sash replacements per the Engineers report and evaluation of proper repair. These results were reviewed with the agent’s office on December 7, 2020 and with the insured on December 9, 2020, due to the insured’s availability. On January 14, 2021 we received a contractor’s estimate to replace all windows in the home due to unavailability of original or LKQ replacement. Wc contacted the contractor and Icft a message for the insured outlining the repair options and vendors identified within the engineer’s report. On February 1* and February 9* we received calls from the contractor requesting status. We reiterated the repair options and vendors identified within the engincer’s report and explained followed up with the insured again on February 9, 2020 to advise of same. The contractor submitted another follow up request on February 15, 2021, it was reviewed February 18, 2021 and while previous activity was referenced no additional action was taken to respond to this most recent request. The agent contacted HRU on February 19, 2021 and we reviewed our handling with him from the time the engineer was retained to current date. The contractor argued he would not warranty the repair or the quality of the work. After advising the contractor we owe to repair hail damage, he agreed to obtain quotes from the two companies identified within the engineer’s report. The agent contacted HRU again on February 24, 2021 advising the contractor is telling the insured SF is difficult to get ahold of and is trying to make SF look bad. We reviewed our 2021 communications will the agent. On February 27, 2021 we received mail from the contractor indicating one vendor did not have NFRC certification, stating that is an Ohio code requirement. The contractor asked if we would like the insured to install windows that don’t meet code. An email was sent to the agent and the insured that same day advising the documentation the contractor has provided addresses one of the companies referenced in the engineer’s report but it does not appear availability from the other company has been researched. While awaiting additional information from the second company research of the code referenced by the contractor was conducted, including follow up with the Franklin County Building Department, that revealed that code applied to new construction only. We spoke with the insured on March 11, 2021 to advise of our findings related to the code issue. We had left a message for the contractor as well but at the insured’s request we provided this information to the contractor in writing with a cc to the insured. On March 26, 2021 we reviewed correspondence from the contractor which once again indicated use of the recommended product did not meet code requirements. A response was emailed to the contractor again stating our research indicated that code applied to new construction only. The insured and agent were cc’d on that email. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00019315"}, {"d": 123, "p": 24, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al On March 31, 2021 we received and email from the contractor disputing the applicability of the code, the was reviewed by a CNC ECR in WCCS Stewardship April 14, 2021. The prior activity was referenced in the file note but no action was taken to contact the contractor, insured or the agent. On April 16, 2021 the contractor called into HRU advising the window companies will not do the recommended repair and other window installers have also indicated they will not just replace the sashes. The contractor was asked to provide documentation as to why the sash repair was not possible. On April 20, 2021 the contractor sent in an email indicated the window manufacturer specifically states they do not attempt to match double hung dimensions and the contractor feels this would create a guaranteed mismatch. This email was reviewed on April 22, 2021, attempts to reach the contractor’s office were unsuccessful and files notes indicate no voicemail option was available. The CS indicated a calendar was set for next day follow up but the next claim activity was not seen until a calendar review occurred on May 6, 2021. No action was taken at that time and the claim was reclosed in error. On May 14, 2021 the contractor called back in indicating the replacement sash would not match. The CS inquired as to whether the contractor was aware of what the replacement sash height would be to determine if there would be a matching issue. The contractor did not know that and advised he would proceed with repair of one window to see if it would match. The claim remained closed. On June 24, 2021 the agent contacted HRU asking when we spoke to the insured last and requested a manager. That same day the agent was contacted by Eberl ECR VM Brandon Becker. The agent advised the sash repair would not provide a reasonably consistent appearance and the windows should be replaced. The contractor indicated one vendor would require a minimum purchase and the insured indicated when the second vendor came to the home they misidentified the windows as vinyl and stated they could not install the sashes. The agent requested Eberl ECR VM Becker review the file and join a conference call with the contractor and insured on June 28, 2021 to discuss the matter in more detail. During the call the contractor advised they received confirmation from the first vendor that they could not match double hung window sashes, Eberl ECR VM Becker was able to confirm this with the vendor and agreed to replace the six damaged windows. The contractor indicated the window glaze would likely not match the existing windows. The contractor then asked what window would be of like kind and quality. Eberl ECR VM Becker suggested Jeld-Wen as the manufacturer who bought out the original manufacturer but the insured and the contractor would need to research like kind and quality and appearance to go with the existing windows. The contractor expressed agreement and the conference ended. The SF estimate was revised and a supplemental payment for the window replacement was issued July 1, 2021. On July 8, 2021 Eberl ECR VM Becker spoke w/ the agent who advised the contractor and insured are stating the windows do not provide a reasonable appearance per OH code. Photos were requested for evaluation. On July 12, 2021 the agent and Eberl ECR VM Becker reviewed the photos which reflected an off white Jeld-Wen window with grid, next to the existing bright white non-grid window. Eberl ECR VM Becker contacted Jeld-Wen to find out if something similar to the original window was available in profile and color. The Jeld-Wen W-2500 series in Brilliant White was provided. Eberl ECR VM Becker sent an email to the insured contractor and agent on July 14, 2021 providing this information. The contractor then provided what appeared to be similar photographs of Jeld-Wen windows but are of a different profile and color to advise that a reasonably consistent appearance cannot be achieved. e The agent’s primary concern is the number of people involved in the handling of the claim. He felt it was confusing for the customer, conveyed a lack of authority and did not aid in moving the claim forward. He had very positive feedback on Eberl ECR VM Brandon Becker’s intervention and involvement in the claim. SM Hodgson reviewed the agent’s concerns and advised Eberl ECR VM Becker would shepherd the claim to conclusion. Eberl ECR VM Becker has made contact with the insured and the contractor and is actively working to confirm the recommended window has been used for replacement prior to reviewing for reasonably consistent appearance. Identify Leadership Findings and Service Gaps with our handling A review of the claim file identified the following service gaps: Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00019316"}, {"d": 123, "p": 25, "t": "West, ° Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Inaccurate information advising the Ph must provide a written request for an engineer inspection by Auto Assist handlers, Pilot and Alacrity ECRs no longer in HRU delayed retention of the engineer through the month of September 2020. engineer. A HRU TM reviewed the file October 9, 2020 and approved the hiring of an e Lack of verbal communication between State Farm Claims, the agent’s office, and the insured. Status follow-ups to the insured after conversations with the contractor regarding sash and window replacement findings were needed. Follow up with agent’s office to provide status and difficulty working with the contractor were needed. ° HRU representative in August 2021 advised the insured that we did not have the contractor’s contact information on file which caused an unsatisfactory reaction from the insured. The contractor information was readily available in the file notes and documents on file. Discuss Action Taken to Address Findings/Service Gaps and Prevent Future Occurrences ° This claim cxamplc was handled by multiple in-office, deployed, and proximity handlers, specific specialists will be provided feedback on their handling of the claim. Further, HRU leadership will review this topic in this week’s huddle to cascade to all HRU handlers. e The claim handler who failed to locate the contractor contact information has been provided feedback and coaching on investigating claims and review of claim files. The specialist’s manager has been provided feedback to continue the development of the specialist. Indicate any history of performance issues for involved claim handlers. not, how are we addressing. ° If so, how are we addressing. If No history of performance issues for the immediate claim handlers. This claim example is being reviewed with those handlers. e HRU leadership will continue our Call to Action plan and communicate the need for prompt and accurate customer contacts through EOM activities and individualized coaching as necessary. Gwen Hodgson, CPCU, CLU, ChFC Claim Section Manager WCCS IO — Hail Reconciliation Unit w: m: 972-657-1824 309-532-4930 owen hodeson ipbsvastatek: << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00019317"}, {"d": 123, "p": 26, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. From: Kathy Ress Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:50 AM To: Gwen Hodgson <gwen.hodgson,ipb5 @statefarm.com> Cc: Nicole Manduca <nisoj e.mand lok2@statefarm.com>; Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8i@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Agent Complaint: Claim concern Got a note from Wensley. We’ll need you to call the agent first as comments he’s been bounced around. Ok good. | just talked to the agent. Please have Nicole call him first. He has background and has been bounced around a lot. He is heading on vacation so he said Cell is best. Here is the IM. Keep me posted., Thanks Ww Thank you for the call. | am logging off. | have several other pre travel/vacation items to get to this afternoon. However, this claim remains a top priority for me - and seeing this gets the right level of attention and resolve. My cell: 614.769.1660. An unknown number calling will likely go straight to vm...but | will call whomever back. Welcome to initiate via text to me also. Thank you again for engaging. From: Gwen Hodgson Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:46 AM To: Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8j@statefarm.com> Ce: Nicole Manduca <nicole. manduca.lok2 @statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Agent Complaint: Claim concern We will take care of it, thank you. Gwen Hodgson, CPCU, CLU, ChFC Claim Section Manager WCCS IO — Hail Reconciliation Unit w: 972-657-1824 m: 309-532-4930 ay & 8] << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> From: Kathy Ress Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:43 AM To: Gwen Hodgson <gwen.hodgson.Ipb5 @statefarm.com> Ce: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com>; Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8i@statefarm.com> Subject: Agent Complaint: Claim concern Importance: High Gwen, Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00019318"}, {"d": 123, "p": 27, "t": "a West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Please see the executive complaint from the agent. see what we need to resolve. Please have a leader reach out to the agent and customer to I’d appreciate the summary in standard format by EOD Wed. It appears there has been some interaction with the agent. Wensley is reaching out to the agent to let him know one of our leaders will be in contact in the next couple of hours. Kathy From: Kathy Ress Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:35 AM To: Wensley J Herbert <wensley.j. herbert.ciSb@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Claim concern This is actively being handling in HRU unc GMM Ree Matis with the contractor. Appears “matching” windows yet just a brief review. Will get a summary back on our handling. From: Wensley J Herbert Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:30 AM To: Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8i@statefarm.com> Subject: FW: Claim concern Importance: High Can you please look this one up? | will call him and let him know we are reviewing it and someone will reach out Thanks Ww From: Robert Yi Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:27 AM Cc: Beth Lamb <beth.lamb.amagr@statefarm.com> Subject: FW: Claim concern Importance: High See Chris’s request for an OVP to contact the agent. Beth will let you know. Beth is checking to see if we had a previous complaint on this claim. Robert From: Beth Lamb Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:22 AM To: Robert Yi <rebert.yi.caga@statefarm.com> Cc: Beth Lamb <beth.lamb.amgr@statefarm.com> Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00019319"}, {"d": 123, "p": 28, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Subject: |: Claim concern Importance: High Ni: Edward A Loeser CL# DOL: 35-B445-5P5 9-01-2019 (Cat) VPO: K Ress From: Chris Schell Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 12:18:05 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) To: Robert Yi Subject: FW: Claim concern | think Chad sent this in some time ago. Could we get an OVP to call him and work to get back on the rails? Thanks From: Chad Harris Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:15 AM To: Chris Schell <chris.schell.gxnO@statefarm.com> Ce: Chad Harris <chad. harris JeOx@statefarm.com> Subject: Claim concern Importance: High Hi Chris, | hope my memo finds you well. | wish | was emailing you under different circumstances. | am emailing you because | know you (and more importantly, | believe you to be a person who cares)...and based on your current position, | believe this is information a person in your position needs to know. Re: Homeowner Claim number: 35B4455P5 Date of Loss: 9.1.2019 (Hail CAT claim) claim has been on-going for almost one year) ° Inspection date: 8.17.2020 (this This should be a Department of Insurance Complaint (due to the delays in resolving this claim) . Perhaps a customer complaint to the Mike Tipsord (due to our dysfunctional processes, delays and poor communication with the insured) ° The insured is beyond frustrated with SF claims; their processes, lack of communication and personnel. on what I’ve personally witnessed and experienced, the insured has every right to be frustrated. ° | have been pulled into this claim by the insured and the contractor. leadership personnel to no avail. Based | have attempted to talk with multiple e We have people handling claims that are not SF employees (outside contractors)...who apparently lack the authority to make a decision or solve problems when they occur. Deployed vs. employed processes do not communicate well. ° Finding and identifying a leadership person to talk with...and have them make decisions is almost impossible (to date, it has been impossible) ° Yesterday 8/2/21, | once again reached out to claims leadership due to more errors...only to watch as it was passed down from one person to another and to another. This is terribly embarrassing for State Farm...and me, as the local agent. Our claims processes need to be reviewed...as they are not working for the customer or the agent. JD Power customer claims satisfaction scores have been telling us — Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00019320"}, {"d": 123, "p": 29, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al what agents are experiencing with more and more regularity. Agents need to know who the appropriate leadership personnel are to make decisions. Right now — that is next to impossible. There appears to be zero accountability within the claims system. No ownership. No accountability. The team environment is failing us and the insured. People simply pass things down to a person who otherwise lacks the authority to make a decision...and the claim stalls, or a new person picks it up and the processes begins again...with no better result. My ask: This claim needs leadership involvement (not passing it down, again). The leadership person needs to be someone with the authority to review the concerns and make a decision. | am also requesting to have a conversation with said claims leadership — as to avoid add'l mistakes. The claim file and notes appear to be incomplete. My second ask: This claim should be put into the “process excellence” type file for process review. When we perform poorly — we should take the time to learn from our mistakes and improve our processes. This claim highlights all the current dysfunction within our SF claims operations and processes. Our insured deserves better service than what they are currently receiving from State Farm claims. This claim needs to be resolved without further delay. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. P.S. Lam leaving for vacation this afternoon. My cell is 614.769.1660. Thank you. Respectfully, Clad Parris, regent << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> Chad Harris State Farm Agency 6151 Avery Rd. Ste A Dublin, Ohio 43016 P. 614.889.2778 | F. 614.212.4461 chad@chadharrisinsurance.com www. chedharrisinsurance.com NMLS # 2052343 If this communication is securities related, click here for additional disclosures. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00019321"}, {"d": 123, "p": 30, "t": "West, 2022 Fire & AWC Claims: Quality Pillar Strategy Where we go, we grow. Gur exe wil Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. @StateFarm: We are be achieved as # Context The State Farm mission is to help people manage the risks of everyday life, recover from the unexpected and realize their dreams. State Farm will drive improvement in claim handling accuracy. We will be the leader in claim handling accuracy while delivering a differentiated customer experience and competitive cost structure through our operation model transformation. Purpose What is the purpose of the Pillar Team? Outcomes e Execute on Quality Plans e Enhance technical skills and align complexity of work e Carry out Model Enhancement guidelines to the skills Monitoring and measuring How will we know the tactics are working? e 85% All SM Surveys e Fire Frequency Errors — Wind 6.1%, Hail 6.2%, Water 8.2%, Fire 7.7% e XX% Auto Frequency Errors Potential Obstacles What barriers do you anticipate you’ll need to overcome? Key Players e Claims Exec Sponsors co VPO Kathy Ress o VPO Tyrone Smith Nicole Pillar Workgroup o KX FOR INTERNAL STATE FARM USE ONLY Contains information that may not be disclosed outside State Farm without authorization Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order Page 1 Last updated: 12.23.2021 WEST00000014"}, {"d": 123, "p": 31, "t": "West, 2022 Fire & AWC Claims: Quality Pillar Strategy Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. e StateFarm Pillar Tactical Roadmap oe ee e Date — Period of the month planned to execute the tactic Outcome — Input one of the three outcomes from the Pillar Outcomes above Tactic — Include high level name of the tactic Tactic Definition/Deliverable — Briefly define the tactic/deliverable being executed Milestone — Outline the expected result of the tactic and by when will the result occur (Result may be quantitative or qualitative) QUARTER ONE _ SANUARY Date Outcome ic Outcome Tactic nition/Deliverable(s) Milestone Tactic Tactic Definition/Deliverable(s) Milestone Tactic Tactic Definition/Deliyerable(s) SBRUARY JUNE Outcome FOR INTERNAL STATE FARM USE ONLY Contains information that may not be disclosed outside State Farm without authorization Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order Milestone Page 2 Last updated: 12.23.2021 WEST00000015"}, {"d": 123, "p": 32, "t": "West, 2022 Fire & AWC Claims: Quality Pillar Strategy FOR INTERNAL STATE FARM USE ONLY Contains information that may not be disclosed outside State Farm without authorization Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Viaectaticdalcdl Page 3 Last updated: 12.23.2021 WEST00000016"}, {"d": 123, "p": 33, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. 2022 Fire & AWC Claims: Quality Pillar Strategy _ SeStaterarm— Communication Strategies and Key Messages Claims Focus, Tactics & Measures Strategic Priority Focus Tactics Reduce the volatility of sur Claims loss frends end Improve our enor Focus on quality claim handiing practices to reduce error rales. rates. ¥ v Strategic Priority #3: Brive improvement in olan handling accuracy and operational expense. Increase the focus en the internal drivers of our quality results. Effectively execute on budget goals and ment targets. ~ y Achieve and susiain productivily targets. Effectively manage absence rates. How will we measure? Y¥ Reinspection Results v Section Manager Execute on CRT modernized survey epproach, including coaching ta improved quality performance. Build proficiency in use of virtuai capabilities with {ar additonel qualky results. productivity; SLO metrics we determine are Buifd proficiency in use of CCC platform. Ensure capabilities are maximized by Estimatics and Totai Loss associates following tmplementation. nendex} Positively impact ECR expense trends by meeting Y mesling or enterprise resources and virtual capabilities. exceeding Manage DCCE through proactive claim handling, Griving eligible files to CLC, reviewing litigation expenses, and use of matter screens identify and address absence trends early. productivity goals: Expanse and Roadmap goals ECR Expense Trends ~ yY FOR INTERNAL STATE FARM USE ONLY Contains information that may not be disclosed outside State Farm without authorization Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order Soul employees productivity targets and leveraging available % | ¥ APPENDIX DCCE Trends Absence Trends Page 4 Last updated: 12.23.2021 WEST00000017"}, {"d": 123, "p": 34, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. From: Sent: To: BCC: Subject: HOME SYS-MCT-LYNCARCH [/O=STATEFARM/OU=EXTERNAL (FYDIBOHF25SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=A6FB63A0115C428C8DOBAD6604AE1CB1) 7/1/2020 6:31:03 PM Greg Robinson [greg.robinson.|420@statefarm.com]; Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com] greg.robinson.|420@statefarm.com; nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com SendLyncArchivingDataToHadoop Transcript for instant messaging (1M) session: Conversation between greg.robinson.1420@statefarm.com and nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com greg.robinson.1420@statefarm.com [2020-06-29 15:33:28 (UTC)]: So they will provide a claim listing? nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2020-06-29 15:33:40 (UTC)]: Yes greg.robinson.1420@statefarm.com [2020-06-29 15:34:08 (UTC)]: Just need to understand that second piece around the opportunity nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2020-06-29 15:34:46 (UTC)]: Here's where my head goes..... nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2020- é Can you hop on a call with me briefly after this wraps? Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00011454"}, {"d": 123, "p": 35, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. From: Sent: To: Subject: home.sys-mct-lyncarch.883cO0@statefarm.com [home.sys-mct-lyncarch.883cO0@statefarm.com] 12/4/2020 7:20:55 PM nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com; dana.jokerst.pmhi@statefarm.com SendLyncArchivingDataToHadoop Transcript for instant messaging (IM) session: Conversation between nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com and dana.jokerst.pmhi@statefarm.com nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2020-12-02 16:51:06 (UTC)]: dana.jokerst.pmhi@statefarm.com {2020-12-02 16:51:24 (UTC)|: That is great dana.jokerst.pmhi@statefarm.com [2020-12-02 16:51:41 (UTC)]: So Accenture reps will be on the workshop calls? nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2020-12-02 16:53:04 (UTC)]: | have to get my head around what that will look like for Water, but essentially our analysis found that we (SF) replaced roofs at a far higher percentage for small hail/light wind compared to industry average. For example, we replaced 85% on small hail compared to industry average of 8-10%, followed by 65% on light wind compared to industry average of about 5%. When we ran the dollars, that narrowed our focus of opportunity. nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2020-12-02 16:53:14 (UTC)]: | believe they will just not sure when that begins. dana.jokerst.pmhi@statefarm.com [2020-12-02 16:53:43 (UTC)]: Wow! That is significant! nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2020-12-02 16:54:37 (UTC)]: Indeed. That also supported our need for data integrity (updating participants, additional inspections) so we could track if particular contracting firms drove these outcomes and/or where our skill opportunities resided. nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2020-12-02 16:56:15 (UTC)]: You'll be provided the indemnity spend in the buckets of opportunity - it'll stay at your level and higher. That's how you'll engage Wendy and the O's on how you prioritize your focus and guidelines. For example, one of your buckets may be a $50M opportunity if our Accuracy improves in that space. dana.jokerst.pmhi@statefarm.com [2020-12-02 17:01:12 (UTC)]: That's incredible CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER HOSIERGAR0071137PROD WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000021"}, {"d": 123, "p": 36, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Se StateFarm Where we we a y fe We are committed to achieving a culture of operational excellence where our actions lead to growing State Farms. Our excellence will be achieved as #oneteam. We are compelled by our customer-driven focus, with a contemporary leadership mindset that drives success today and positions us for tomorrow. Our team accelerates outcomes through innovative thinking and early adoption of technology. We build confidence in our ability and agility, and inspiring each other to continuously improve and have fun in our service to others. Accuracy* Drive in claim handling accuracy. Outcomes e® Improved Wind/Hail Trends e A minimum of 80% on 100% Section Manager Surveys Priorities ater losses account for 17% ° down 4.9% YOY. L STATE FARM USE ONLY —- Contars CONFIDENTIAL information which may noi be disclosed \\ Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order xpiesa written WEST00137703"}, {"d": 123, "p": 37, "t": "West, 2020 Fire Weather Leadership Business Plan Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. &» StateFarm: Accuracy Tactical Plan Trends | Enterprise {as of Dec 2019} foot Causes Sobition Tactics Skills Set Gaps » ineastegation & Coverage Analysis ae os Rirmageerhicaine ane $4.4n ANP increase 106 S200M_—__s_Exmate Reconciliation ce: setlmn authors 5 Mositicd Meeind stlonesy sulterry, Fas Sowtty $16,60 wind sia} PS tecrrasr FE $708 ‘Dvetat éCourts farsacred Frequency + = Mifinek Pasa Farah wth ‘Oyeralt NPE 2 Estimate Write, Technical Sail Documentation © Somping & Docementatiar + Upshil in Office and Deploynd morkiorce oni Xactimate. : Haag Sood Engineering 4+ Tolel Ousrenn:Baseline AetherTraining 1a + 2020 Five States of Focus ‘Ronked Oppartunity by Perl Po wecaiat | oe Leadership Cops + Consistent tniaclang tr cue, including CM to SM..SM to TM and Tito C4 + Proactive use of mondaring tools bis wi © Accourfabilty to outcomes + Esatele Bifleconcs. © ferage Reconclistion Payment + Haag Engpeesiag Tomng: ee — * : Dansulling Servines. * RIZPind Severity + Oaims insinng Support = Wind/Hat + Retrspection Sharad Services: ‘0 total Roof Overtam: Rale Resdnw ard Coaching: 35 payments vath Reesan Code TR, PR or NA and 96 TP. to Paid status Leadership Tacties Applies te OM, SM aoc: TH loaders, + MyBiock Performance Framework Valldation + Use SactAnatys:s 0 montior progress ad reskil 2s jeentsiad > Modilied satiloment authority eR » ‘Tog Five States Suecess Measares Damage 10 & Coveinye Decision TM File ww OM Goaching Activihes with tocus of: techitical instruction ‘Windftiat Rflorniee Rocked Orvortanity br ford + Tolal Root Ovarumnand 95 Payment J veces eee z | ‘Skills Sot Tactics Appies bo loaders and claim hatdlors Mortar : TA OK R Where we go, we grow. But first, where do I need to lead my teams to grow. @ 2019 SM Survey Results indicates our opportunities are: e 1. Investigation - Damage Identification 2. Estimate Writing —- Scoping & Documentation 3. Estimate Reconciliation Consider the opportunities and results below in our Fire Weather claim handling RM USE ONLY ~~ Contains CONFIDENTIAL Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order information « ray mot be disclosed ess Written WEST00137704"}, {"d": 123, "p": 38, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. 2020 Fire Weather Leadership Business Plan ée Statefarm Accuracy Tactical Plan 2019 SM Survey Results Investigation + Colbert, & tnvastigation Damage Evaluation ‘Diligent Resolution Initial Lots of Use initial Contact SPR Ax) Sti) ES%| BFS 160% ied 43% 36%. 45% B97 Feb. 52% Manduca: 85%) 2 son. 66% 36% 27% ted 83%] s Mandi, 66% 56% 57%, Re Ba ase! Oi 57% 88% 82% ae| Bs 61% Thema. Frat 738 Rentz % frasore i Ys Gardner rf 253 Heed 6a Tike x 53% Be% 66%) 27% OR BON F2%| GE 2%] 19% REx 25 ie 5% DR 3% 2% as B2N, Taye, P| 1% 38% BSS] £a% 50%} 1005 }Gattoway Mack 59% cd 746% 78 Bees ee 68%) 1% itis ier 82% 82% 7% . Parts Damage Evaluation Thorough Scope Thorough Scope ot CovAloss ef Cov B Loss iia) 3) : Resolution Property PP Settiament Inventories Ss Verified by Active Handling Reconeiilation and Resolution 713% 67%) Rss 5966 298 5656 BY 50% ai 33%) 36% 8255] 38% 88% 35%) 57%] 28 37% 5835, eo 76x ESS B2%| 23'S) 99%] 26% eee ied 79%) 92% 67% ose 65% 91% 36% | 76% ca 323 82%, 50% Bo 39% 88% 54%, 42% 10055] : 72%) 35% E “| 4 22 80% TT 425 57% 4 Ee 25%] 1% 89% 33% i 38% aa 26%] 774 0] Ets) 10086] os 33% BB 50% Bid A0% 73% SFR aan 45% FAN B34) Bes 23%) _ Bi 73%, PP5 ea 73% ES Essie O08 ox 40%) $78 9E86) 95%) B2% S73 575] 67% 30%) 57%. 5 a8s 38%) 52) i) 50%: Ba 53%] Lid 55%: 95% 7E% 73%) 89% FOR INTERNAL STATE FARM USE ONLY ~~ Can auther 64 JONFEDENTIAL mfonnation 53% not be disclosed i express wiitten Page 2 of? Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00137705"}, {"d": 123, "p": 39, "t": "2020 Fire Weather Leadership Business Plan és StateFarm Accuracy Tactical Plan Strategy Execution Exercise e Clear outcomes and common understanding e e Mutual commitment and cooperation Why, How, What execution People ; Tactic Success Measure hy Role Execute on 2020 Fire Property Claims Plan with excellence = mt West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. j 1.30.20 2020 Fire Cletine ealisyeerl * MyBlock5 ORT Results ® Total Roof Authority and Monitoring Reconciliation Accuracy EOM Coaching Activity by Role MyBlock 5 VPO CM SM MyBlock 5 VPO CM SM ™ ™ ™ CH CH CH ORT Results ORT Results ORT Results VPO VPO VPO SM ™. CH SM ™ CH SM ™ CH CM e@ e MyBlock § | VPO CM SM Frequency of Success Measure Total Roof Authority and Monitoring VPO CM SM ™ CM | Total Roof Authority and Monitoring VPO CM SM ™ CM | Total Roof Authority and Monitoring VPO CM SM ™ CH CH CH Reconciliation Accuracy VPO CM SM ™ CH Reconciliation Accuracy Reconciliation Accuracy VPO CM SM ™ CH VPO CM SM ™ CH VPO CM VPO CM VPO CM. SM ™ CH SM ™ CH SM ™ CH Assess & adjust settlement authority based on quality claim handling; IO focus on Ordinance & Law, Deployed focus on Damage [D and Documentation Refresh Coaching Activitics with focus on | VPO | CM SM ™ CH VPO CM SM ™ CH VPO CM SM T™ CH VPO CM VPO CM VPO CM technical instruction SM ™ SM ™ SM ™ Conduct ail Damage Identification training VAL STATE FARM USE ONLY Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order AL information which may not be disclosed express written WEST00137706"}, {"d": 123, "p": 40, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. 2020 Fire Weather Leadership Business Plan Accuracy Tactical Plan é® Statefarm CH CH CH Leaders maintain authority | VPO on overtums and monitor | CM payment activityon CWP | SM claims ™ VPO CM SM ™M VPO CM SM TM. Upskill claims workforce on Xactimate Targeted use of XactAnalysis to coach to performance results CH CH CH | VPO CM VPO CM VPO CM SM ™ CH SM ™ CH SM ™ CH VPO CM SM VPO CM SM VPO CM SM ™ CH ™ CH ™ CH VAL STATE FARM USE ONLY Cont us CONFIDENTIAL infoomation wht Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order not be disctosed w i express written WEST00137707"}, {"d": 123, "p": 41, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. 2020 Fire Weather Leadership Business Plan S$ Accuracy Tactical Plan ee . tateFarm Process Tactic Success Frequency Measure by Role of Success Measure EOM Coaching Activity by Role Align Deployed workforce | WPO to damage areas basedon | CM skills sets SM ™ CH VPO CM SM ™ CH VPO CM SM ™ CH Implement IO Call Recording/Screen Capture VPO CM VPO CM to enable root cause identification Update Xactimate with Wind/Hail enhancements and use effectively Activate state model approach to Wind/Hail Peril in alignment with Claim Insights testing VPO | CM SM SM SM ™ CH VPO | CM SM ™ CH VPO CM SM ™ ™ CH VPO CM SM ™ CH VPO CM SM ™ ™ CH VPO cM SM ™ CH VPO CM SM ™ CH CH CH NAL STATE FARM USE ONLY ~~ Contains CONFIDENTIAL information Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order wia may not be disclosed wi Lexpress written WEST00137708"}, {"d": 123, "p": 42, "t": "West, 2020 Fire Weather Leadership Business Plan BS Accuracy Tactical Plan Success Measure by Role Frequency of Success Measure . EOM Coaching Activity by Role Explore real-time | VPO | CM SM ™ CH VPO VPO CM SM ™ CH VPO VPO CM SM ™ CH VPO “Xactimate Estimate CM CM CM Check” prior to issuing settlement draft SM ™ CH VPO SM ™ CH VPO SM ™ CH VPO advanced weather data CM CM CM beyond atmospheric data, including Geospatial | SM ™ SM ™ SM ™ Discover opportunity for et al. tateFarm Technology Tactic Address contractor phone activity into IO operations Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, Intelligence Model Testing | CH CH CH Test Claim Data Insights opportunities to prioritize new claims based on file VPO | CM SM VPO CM SM VPO CM. SM markers, optimize timing | TM ™ ™ of management review, cit cl cil and enhance inventory management for Wind/Hail claims VAL STATE FARM USE ONLY Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order AL information whi 1ot be disclosed w express written WEST00137709"}, {"d": 123, "p": 43, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. From: Sent: To: BCC: Nic ca [/O=STATEFARM/OU=HOME/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=LOK2] 1/16/2023 10:20:46 PM Tammy Higa-Seaver [tammy.higa-seaver.c7sy@statefarm.com] Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com]; Tammy Higa-Seaver [tammy.higaseaver.c7sy@statefarm.com] Subject: FW: Wind/Hail Peril Trends Attachments: Total Homeowners Wind Hal - December 2022.pdf; Wind Hail 5 year trends.pdf We can talk oo this ina touch point butae ed the | ig may find the info tion interesting to see the year-over-year in one From: Terrie Lemon <terrie.lemon.hhil@statefarm.com> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 11:30 AM To: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2 @statefarm.com> Subject: Wind/Hail Peril Trends Hi Nicole, Attached are some views of the Enterprise wind/hail results over the prior 5-year period. Please let me know if you have any questions, or require additional information, or wish to see them in a different format. Thank you Terrie Terrie Lemon, CPCU Sr. Business Analyst P&C Analytics - Claims E-Mail | terrie.lemmon.hhit @statefarm.com re markable” Every Customer | Every Interaction | Every Day confidential and/or privileged infomation. If you are not the addressee or autho: , disclose of take any action based on t Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order ed [0 jecelve this for the j WEST00020276"}, {"d": 123, "p": 44, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. From: Sent: To: BCC: Subject: HOME SYS-MCT-LYNCARCH [/O=STATEFARM/OU=EXTERNAL (FYDIBOHF25SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=A6FB63A0115C428C8D0BAD6604AE1CB1] 11/19/2021 12:46:55 AM Tom Moss [tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com]; Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com] tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com; nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com SendLyncArchivingDataToHadoop Transcript for instant messaging (IM) session: Conversation between tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com and nicole.manduca.Jok2@statefarm.com tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 21:50:24 (UTC)]: looks like we are off the hook today nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 21:51:05 (UTC)]: We are -just traded notes w/ Dana and confirmed w/ KR that we'll cover in December call. nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 21:51:19 (UTC)]: | think that time is better as we can show a ‘year in review’ for Water and Wind/Hail FME tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 21:51:21 (UTC)]: cool beans - we will have more info to share then nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 21:51:31 (UTC)]: Yep nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 21:51:40 (UTC)]: When did we introduce FED? tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 21:51:44 (UTC)]: do you have a minute to visit right after this call tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 21:51:51 (UTC)]: q3 2020 nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 21:52:00 (UTC)]: As long as it's before 4p C as have call w/ KR at that time tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 21:52:19 (UTC)]: she is very demanding of your time :) nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 21:52:34 (UTC)]: to see Q3-Q4 2020 Wind/Hail FED and compare to 2021. Conceme nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 21:53:29 (UTC)]: | find all of that Shes heb tom.moss.c when seeing the TR to PRR ratio .... feel similar on Severity trends. We have better, atefarm.com [2021-11-16 21:53:57 (UTC)]: we have definitely gotten better nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 21:54:12 (UTC)}: do the rests (hat mate) prove that? They havet tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 21:56: C)): one of the challenges in comparing q3/4 2020 to this year is that we switched where Ris make the finding for paying for an undamaged roof. It was under SC03 (scoping) in 2020. It is now in CA01 (coverage analysis). tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 21:56:26 (UTC)]: but yes, the results show it tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 21:57:03 (UTC)]: if we look at the reason code % of TR, PRR, and NR - the overall % shows improvement nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 21:57:03 (UTC)]: Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00080626"}, {"d": 123, "p": 45, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Very good point nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 21:57:12 (UTC)]: Also true tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 21:59:55 (UTC)}: each % point difference is about 5k claim, so if we didn't pay for 1% of claims that did not have damage and were not covered but would have been paid for before based on lack of skill/will, that is 5k claims at $15,769 avg severity or $78.8 million nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 22:04:13 (UTC)]: Our call is pushed to 4:15 if you happen to be available nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 22:04:15 (UTC)]: No worries if not tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 22:11:08 (UTC)]: So sorry, | stepped in to visit with Harris tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 22:12:59 (UTC)]: BTW, did Eric just tell me not to speak in the Dec meeting? nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 22:14:45 (UTC)]: He may have - was it a joke? tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 22:21:29 (UTC)]: don tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 22:21:35 (UTC)]: don't think so nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 22:21:41 (UTC)]: jerk move tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 22:22:08 (UTC)]: He's yelled at me a few times this year - doesn't like some of our direction but it's not his call nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 22:25:21 (UTC)]: so not cool tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com [2021-11-16 22:26:22 (UTC)]: it's all good. I've worked with him for 13 years and if he doesn't get his way he bulls through things. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00080627"}, {"d": 123, "p": 46, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFF&CC, From: Sent: et al. home.sys-mct-lyncarch.883c00@statefarm.com [home.sys-mct-lyncarch.883cO0@statefarm.com] 3/5/2021 10:48:16 PM To: kathy.ress.he8j@statefarm.com; nicole. manduca.lok2@statefarm.com Subject: SendLyncArchivingDataToHadoop Transcript for instant messaging (IM) session: Conversation between kathy.ress.he8j@statefarm.com and nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com kathy.ress.he8j@statefarm.com [2021-03-03 20:21:27 (UTC)]: WIIl you have W/Hdashboard ready for next month quality check in we could highlight in this call? nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com Would love to [2021-03-03 20:21:44 (UTC)]: kathy.ress.he8j@statefarm.com [2021-03-03 20:22:19 (UTC)]: Very good. We're going to focus on Wind/Hail TX, IL and GA. and the FME dashboard kathy.ress.he8j@statefarm.com [2021-03-03 20:22:23 (UTC)]: Will that work for you? nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2021-03-03 20:23:04 (UTC)|: i'm drooling :03:03:03 kathy.ress. he8j@statefarm.com [2021-03-03 20:23:34 (UTC)]: lol! nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2021-03-03 20:24:19 (UTC)]: Passion project... am so excited and optimistic (and | believe steeped in reality) that we WILL realize improvements in Wind/Hail trends in ‘21 kathy.ress.he8j@statefarm.com [2021-03-03 20:29:57 (UTC)]: r for nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2021-03-03 20:30:11 (UTC)]: P kathy.ress.he8j@statefarm.com [2021-03-03 20:30:19 (UTC)]: lol... CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER HOSIERGAR0072891PROD WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000119"}, {"d": 123, "p": 47, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFF&CC, From: Sent: home.sys-mct-lyncarch.883c00@statefarm.com [home.sys-mct-lyncarch.883cO0@statefarm.com] 9/28/2020 9:22:30 AM To: wendy.mazza.c9s2@statefarm.com; Subject: SendLyncArchivingDataToHadoop et al. nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com Transcript for instant messaging (1M) session: Conversation between wendy.mazza.c9s2@statefarm.com and nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com wendy.mazza.c9s2@statefarm.com [2020-09-24 20:11:51 (UTC)]: Are we still moving forward with having the Insight for accuweather and ISO info? wendy.mazza.c9s2@statefarm.com [2020-09-24 20:11:58 (UTC)|: That might be a good call out for Fire. nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2020-09-24 20:12:18 (UTC)]: Insight for ISO, yes. Potential Match Locator - however it is not in flight yet. nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2020-09-24 20:12:29 (UTC)]: Additional approvals needed from P&C wendy.mazza.c9s2@statefarm.com [2020-09-24 20:12:37 (UTC)]: Got it. Thanks nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2020-09-24 20:13:34 (UTC)]: My understanding is ET is working on an ECS enhancement (not sure where it's prioritized) to pull in Accuweather data at FNOL. Again, not in flight. wendy.mazza.c9s2@statefarm.com [2020-09-24 20:14:17 (UTC)]: But our work might help inform what the possibilities are with it, right? wendy.mazza.c9s2@statefarm.com [2020-09-24 20:14:29 (UTC)]: What would you highlight as the \"hot\" topic for Fire? nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2020-09-24 20:14:33 (UTC)]: Take that thought further for me... nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2020-09-24 20:15:04 (UTC)]: U manac ent N on higher haill/wind sev wendy.mazza.c9s2@statefarm.com [2020-09-24 20:15:09 (UTC)}: Since we are getting the acuweather data, and how we are using and its impact on claim outcomes. the ET work faster. That will help push -wendy.mazza.c9s2@statefarm.com [2020-09-24 20:15:28 (UTC)]: If it shows positive outcomes. nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2020-09-24 20:15:45 (UTC)]: Agree. We are having some learnings around Accuweather in/outside of the model. the end-all. It's a helpful data point but it's not wendy.mazza.c9s2@statefarm.com [2020-09-24 20:15:54 (UTC)|: Got it. soles he pert eam ae ae nat ay : Bes are ye highlights. Art of the Conversation rounds it out in that with improved quality, inevitably we are engaging in tougher conversations. This training helps in having courteous and effective conversations when we are unable to extend coverage or only partial coverage. wendy.mazza.c9s2@statefarm.com [2020-09-24 20:17:56 (UTC)]: y) nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com [2020-09-24 20:22:46 (UTC)]: | am now seeing that | likely was not supposed to be invited to this call. Good grief wendy.mazza.c9s2@statefarm.com [2020-09-24 20:23:21 (UTC)]: Youre good. CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER HOSIERGAR0070281PROD WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000282"}, {"d": 123, "p": 48, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. From: Sent: To: BCC: Subject: Attachments: Nicole Manduca [/O=STATEFARM/OU=HOME/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=LOK2] 10/20/2021 6:19:26 PM Tom Moss [tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com]; Scott Welsh [scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com] Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.lok2 @statefarm.com]; Tom Moss [tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com]; Scott Welsh [scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com] FW: Q3 TTR: PRR: SEO Update Wind/Hail and Fire End to End image00S.jpg; image006.png; image007.jpg; image008.jpg; TR_PRR_SS.PNG Hi friends — Sharing the updated graph with data back to April 2020. this what Tom is compiling? Are you needing me to assist with the following or is Also, what is our YTD % Total Roofs overall and how does that compare to a year ago, 2 years ago? (Not sure if we have 2 years data) How do we compare today against this statement? e Baseline: Analysis of 3-year data validated Full Roof Replacements were paid at 63% frequency for Severity 3 Wind and 90% frequency for oni 3 Hail. Nicole From: Zach Olson Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 11:11 AM To: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2 @statefarm.com> Cc: Sean McCary <sean.mccary.nlzg@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Q3 TTR: PRR: SEO Update Wind/Hail and Fire End to End Yep, just pulled: Zach Olson CPCU*, ChFC®, CLU®, FLMI°, MBA Data Analyst ~ Advanced Analytics Bloornington, 1 “2 zach.olson inmu@)statefarm.com From: Nicole Manduca Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 1:10 PM To: Zach Olson <zach.clson.tnmu@statefarm.com> Cc: Sean McCary <sean.mccary.nlzg@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Q3 TTR: PRR: SEO Update Wind/Hail and Fire End to End Hi Zach — | went through my folder and located the results for May and June 2020 which are attached below. | cannot recall if we ever had a view back to April 2020 but know that is what Kathy is hoping for if it exists. If it does not, we will just need to update the visual to include May and June of 2020. Kathy originally requested our summary be due yesterday and then obviously we received the follow up — is it possible to receive an updated graphic by EOD today? Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00001271"}, {"d": 123, "p": 49, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Wind-Hail Quality Focus - Enterprise + Trend fine represents the ratio of payments for Total Roofs (TR) to Partial Roof Replacements (PRR) Enterprise-wide from + May 2020 resulted in an 4.5:1 ratio compared to Apo 2021 at a 1.6:1 ratio, an indicator of improved quality 1% sewer roe Rowe ecwne- hasten yh auptinsmerteuseee ET SA Gabedmamann AD Hamam oneian LHR MH Hendes mramues | a Remain sad sa EE Rebs Casta pf sta ote ater Be RID Cops Ceerte He Dep OHH Bs B Sowr'tos He Aas Sate oe Se BE sd Pasme Sating Be Fon Comsat Aaefnien ae RE Eg ence SIN Sing 2 INA Paynes Sse # MEHR From: Nicole Manduca Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 10:55 AM To: Zach Olson <zach.olson.tnmu@statefarm.com> Cc: Sean McCary <sean.mecary.nlzg@statefarm.com> Subject: FW: Q3 TTR: PRR: SEO Update Wind/Hail and Fire End to End Hi Zach — Kathy is prepping Wensley for his Senior Executive Offsite meeting next week. You will note she is requesting the TR to PRR ratio graph to be populated from April 2020 through September 2021. Are you able to assist in providing this view? | may have snag-it’s of earlier months in 2020 if for some reason the data is no longer available. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00001272"}, {"d": 123, "p": 50, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Thank you in advance -— please let me know if any questions. Nicole From: Kathy Ress Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 10:51 AM To: Nicole Manduca <nicole. manduca.lok2 @statefarm.com>; Scott Welsh <scott,welsh,cx30@statefarm.com>; Tom Moss <tom.moss.cdsg@statefarm.com> Cc: Gregory E Jones <gregory.¢.jones.gzwh@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Q3 TTR: PRR: SEO Update Wind/Hail and Fire End to End Thanks. Looking for the story so will be helpful to provide headlines from this. Appreciate the help. From: Nicole Manduca Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 12:50 PM To: Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8j@statefarm.com>; Scott Welsh <scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com>; Tom Moss <tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com> Cc: Gregory E Jones <gregory.e.jones.gzwh@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Q3 TTR: PRR: SEO Update Wind/Hail and Fire End to End Yes, | will get with Zach to get that populated. With the monthly updates, it shaves off prior months in 2020 but he should be able to update. Will return to you ASAP. From: Kathy Ress Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 10:48 AM To: Scott Welsh <scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com>; Tom Moss <tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com>; Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.Jok2 @statefarm.com> Cc: Gregory E Jones <gregory.e.jones.gzwh@statefarm.com>; Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8i@statefarm.com> Subject: Q3 TTR: PRR: SEO Update Wind/Hail and Fire End to End Do we have a view of this that dates back further? around April 2020. | seems to recall we had one that dates back Total Roof Payment The following graph reflects the ratio of Total Roof (TR) Payment Reason Codes to Partial Roof Replacement (PRR) Payment Reason Codes. Results are reflective of improved quality claim handling behaviors in identifying wind and hail damage to roof surfaces. Pa oe ta be Ed scbieospenteantonad eR Ae, Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00001273"}, {"d": 123, "p": 51, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. From: Kathy Ress Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 12:17 PM To: Scott Welsh <scott.welsh.cx30 @statefarm.com>; Tom Moss <tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com>; Nicole Manduca <nicole. manduca.lok2 @statefarm.com> Cc: Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8i@statefarm.com>; Gregory E Jones <gregory.e.jones.gzwh@statefarm.com> Subject: Q1& 2: SEO Update Wind/Hail and Fire End to End Thank you! As | work through adding other items and editing, |’ll send you inquiries to help me frame: First one on the statement below: ° The chart below does not provide at % - Could we provide a statement of what the % range is and the YTD average? Also, what is our YTD % Total Roofs overall and how does that compare to a year ago, 2 years ago? (Not sure if we have 2 years data) How do we compare today against this statement? ° Baseline: Analysis of 3-year data validated Full Roof Replacements were paid at 63% frequency for Severity 3 Wind and 90% frequency for Severity 3 Hail. e Industry Best: Industry Best FRR on light wind and small hail averages a 5-10% frequency, therefore an internal quality improvement opportunity of 53-58% for light wind and 80-85% for small hail (Source: Accenture Consulting Services). Call quality tracking One measure we track to identify the quality of our initial claim call is the number of claims that were previously Closed Without Payment (CWP) and were subsequently changed to a paid status of a Total Roof (TR). Many factors may impact why the loss moved from a CWP status to a Paid (TR) status, and the change in status may not indicate that the initial call was incorrect. A common cause of this change is a customer initially withdrew their claim and it was closed CWP but later resubmitted the claim and requested an inspection of the roof. As noted in the charts below, while there has been movement from month to month of this measure, the overall percent change (%) in movement has been minimal. Reason Cade TR (Total Roof) to CWP to Paid Comparison (by month} 20,000 (1299, = = 27.500 ff 1200 S =, 5 25,000 = a5 500 <= = 47500 &© 17,500 = 46,000 / ‘g 12500 465) & 10,000 BA RFE x S S 780an MR = 50000 1 A 2.800 387) ge Jan2? Fet-21 Mar21 Pry, . ! 2 = Me ge 4 é F=\" 1000 @ ena see S 2 8 : ' = : 2 Apr2t mmm HOLT OA RG Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order May-21 TR] = pe ar nape oe - ote Jun27 r & = es 20 Jubet Aug21 Sep21 Oct-31 — -mmmett of Overturn Calls WEST00001274"}, {"d": 123, "p": 52, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al From: Scott Welsh Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:17 AM To: Gregory E Jones <gregory.e.jones. gawh@statefarm.corn>; Cc: Tom Moss <tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com>; Kathy Ress <kathy.ress. he&j@statefarm.com> Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2 @statefarm.com> Subject: SEO Update Wind/Hail and Fire End to End Good morning Kathy and Greg, Attached is our initial draft of an overall summary of Wind/Hail Call to Action work and the Fire End to End work - Fire Segmentation and Staffing Analysis. Nicole, Tom and | worked from the resources provided and gathered additional data to outline the companies activity/response to the 2021 season. We also worked with Katie to get her review and feedback. As we discussed, we will plan to update the document with the most current data at month’s end for the November SEO. We have included both requests (Overview of 2021 Wind/hail work and Fire Design Work) in a single document. For ease of use, we can make these two separate documents if that is preferable. Please let us know if this format/content/level of detail meets the needs for the SEO or if you would like us to make some updates/edits. If this document will be shared or used beyond talking points/notes for Wensley, | would recommend a review. legal Thank you and please let us know. Scott Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00001275"}, {"d": 123, "p": 53, "t": "Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. ere aes ji West, From: Sent: To: BCC: Subject: Attachments: Nicole Manduca [/O=STATEFARM/OU=HOME/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=LOK2] 6/30/2021 1:09:47 PM Lisa Clauson [lisa.clauson.hfnd@statefarm.com] Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com] FW: DocumentsFire WindHail Playbook 6.29.2021 DRAFT.pptx DocumentsFire WindHail Playbook 6.29.2021 DRAFT.pptx Hi Lisa — wanted to provide a heads up that we'll have a communication w/ this week’s Playbook linked ready to go likely this morning. | know Katie has already worked on the internal and ECR communications and may just need to touch up a few items now that the playbook is completed. [ll stay in touch. Sent: Weaesiae Ane 30, 2021 6:56 AM To: Daphne Outerbridge Louie <daphne.o.louie.gryi@statefarm.com>; Scott Welsh <scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com>; Steve Meulemans <steve.meulemans.gorz@statefarm.com>; Tom Moss <tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com>; Katie Benes <katie.benes.p98b@statefarm.com> Cc: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com> Subject: DocumentsFire WindHail Playbook 6.29.2021 DRAFT.pptx Good morning all — e links Ee eer! D to ensure the end bu j 30. Katie will assist if there are any updates needed user is able to easily aaccess once communicated — we have found she needs to work her magic (and she’s amazing) on the last two weeks of communications. We are focused on the following for these plays: e Ramp up use of Voicemail Monitoring, Call Recording/Screen Capture and EOM activities. Leaders will be expected to share specific observations and claim examples in huddles. (This is a ‘repeat’ play as we did not see adoption ~ KR requested it be included) ° Incorporate best practice of using the recently enhanced Evaluating Composition Roofing Brochure when explaining the results of our wind/hail roof inspections. e Outline expectation that the Customer Service Survey will be extended for an additional two weeks in order to realize improved behaviors relative to Communication and Customer Expectations. (KR request to extend survey 2 wecks) Please let me know if any questions or revisions needed. I’ve shared the Playbook with Kathy yesterday afternoon but know she’s on PTO and traveling today — I do not expect to hear back from her before this needs to be distributed. Thank you, Nicole Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00105168"}, {"d": 123, "p": 54, "t": "West, From: Sent: To: BCC: Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Angela M Mitchell [/O=STATEFARM/OU=EAST/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=SPNB] 6/23/2021 1:41:41 PM Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com] Angela M Mitchell [angela.mmitchell.spnb@statefarm.com]; Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com] FW: DocumentsFire WindHail Playbook 6.22.2021 DRAFT.pptx Subject: Hi Nicole. I’d be happy to help, but | have a few questions... « Just to clarify, is there a draft of the communication or is this something you need me to create? ° Is the communication to leadership separate from ECR? ° What's the context of the communication? Something along the lines of... Several updates have been made to the Wind Hail Playbook Playbook, including: REIAP Word Tracks, REIAP Infographic and Home Estimate infographic. Please share with your teams the week of June 28? ° Who are the authors? Kathy, Tyrone, Wendy and Fire Property Claim Managers? Thanks From: Steve Meulemans Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 9:35 AM To: Scott Welsh <scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com>; Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com>; Angela M Mitchell <angela.mmitchell.spnb@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: DocumentsFire WindHail Playbook 6.22.2021 DRAFT.pptx These look great!! Nice work. From: Scott Welsh Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 8:06 AM To: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.Jok2@statefarm.com>; Steve Meulemans <steve.meulemans.gorz@statefarm.com>; Angela M Mitchell <angela.mmitchell.sonb@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: DocumentsFire WindHail Playbook 6.22.2021 DRAFT.pptx Hello Nicole, This looks great. | think the timing looks fine if the communication can be ready to go. For the question on confirming the activity is occurring | think the added question to the CRT would be the most accurate way confirm the activity. Nice work Nicole Scott From: Nicole Manduca Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00143517"}, {"d": 123, "p": 55, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 7:34 AM To: Scott Welsh <scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com>; Steve Meulemans <steve. meulernans.gorz@statefarm.com>; Angela M Mitchell <angela.mmitchell. spnb@statefarm.com> Subject: FW: DocumentsFire WindHail Playbook 6.22.2021 DRAFT.pptx Good morning all — Sharing Kathy’s comments below and expectation of communications being ready to distribute today in alignment with our tactical plan. Our action items today include: 1. Prepare communications (Staff & ECR) to include the updated Playbook attached below — Playbook focuses on (3) topics: << Message: RE: Call to Action - Estimate Reconciliation IG Play >> ° REITAP Word Tracks ° REIAP Infographic ° Home Estimate Infographic 2) Confirm specific action by leaders & timing; in the Playbook, | referenced the Week of 6/28 as the timing to disciigs during huddle ~ do you recommend different timing? Communications prepared by POST for the (3) deliverables above are pending our ‘green light’ on when to send (before or after this communication plan and Playbook) << File: DocumentsFire WindHail Playbook 6.22.2021 DRAFT.PPTX >> << Message: RE: REIAP Word Track and communication >> << Message: FW: Call to Action - Estimate Reconciliation IG Play >> 3. Monitoring activities are illustrated in the visual within the Playbook (similar to Call to Action PPT slide); the communication plan could outline those activities. What are your thoughts about adding a question to the CRT survey as Kathy suggests? From: Kathy Ress Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 8:11 PM To: Nicole Manduca <nicole. manduca.lok2 @statefarm.com> Cc: Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8j@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: DocumentsFire WindHail Playbook 6.22.2021 DRAFT.pptx Nicole, Yes, we are missing the communication plan. Please pull Scott, Steve and Angela together first thing as we don’t appear to be ready to roll and we will release Wednesday per our tactical plan. In the communication plan and playbook, we need to be specific on action by leaders (e.g. huddle and by when). How will leaders monitor we are sending the email that’s prepped with the infographic as outlined in Jared’s email. Does this become part of the CRT survey? What’s ready for ECR vendors? Jared has some good items to take as the email was tee’d up to send. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00143518"}, {"d": 123, "p": 56, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Action requested If the customer's opt-in preference for emails is “Yes,” then claim handlers should email the Home Estimate Infographic to customers along with the Customer Final Copy of the State Farm structural estimate. is information will reduce inbound calls from customers with questions about the next steps after receiving the initial building settlement. Soon, this infographic will be an automated Forms & Correspondence letter. This email should not be sent to customers in California. From: Nicole Manduca Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 8:53 PM To: Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8i@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: DocumentsFire WindHail Playbook 6.22.2021 DRAFT.pptx I was thinking a similar follow up communication to last week's (that Angela prepared), and include reference/links to the REIAP word tracks along with REIAP and Home Estimate Infographics. We can then link to the Playbook on the SharePoint that Katie created ~ allows us to continue to iterate the Playbooks week/month over week/month and a one- stop shop for the end user. Thoughts? From: Kathy Ress Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 7:23 PM To: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: DocumentsFire WindHail Playbook 6.22.2021 DRAFT.pptx How do we plan to communicate this? From: Nicole Manduca Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 6:30 PM To: Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8j@statefarm.com> Cc: Daphne Outerbridge Louie <daphne.o.louie.gryi@statefarm.com>; Scott Welsh <scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com>; Steve Meulemans <steve-meulemans.gorz@statefarm.com>; Andrew Hill <andrew.hill pwk4@statefarm.com>; Jared Starnes <jared.starnes.mm05@statefarm.com>; Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2 @statefarm.com> Subject: DocumentsFire WindHail Playbook 6.22.2021 DRAFT.pptx Please disregard previous email — attached is the updated DRAFT. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00143519"}, {"d": 123, "p": 57, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. From: John Christensen [/O=STATEFARM/OU=EXTERNAL (FYDIBOHF25SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BE2A7A05026B4D3B9CFBE63DD5AC5697] 9/20/2023 9:16:39 PM Tom Moss [tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com] John Christensen [john.christensen.ghu1@statefarm.com]; Tom Moss [tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com] RE: FIM HUB and Reviews Sent: To: BCC: Subject: Low key, check in with Nicole or Zach Olson or let me help. in essence, | want to ensure the plays that worked in the past we are « From: Tom Moss <tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 4:15 PM To: John Christensen <john.christensen.ghu1@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: FIM HUB and Reviews Thank you. | am very surprised by the numbers. 98% approved does not seem to be consistent with prior year findings. Tom Moss 309 660 2105 << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> FOR INTERNAL STATE FARM USE ONLY Contains information that may not be disclosed outside State Farm without authorization From: John Christensen <john.christensen.ghu1@statefarm.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 5:09 PM To: Tom Moss <tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com> Subject: FW: FIM HUB and Reviews Likely the later. From: Tom Moss <tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 4:08 PM To: John Christensen <john.christensen.ghu1 @statefarm.com>; Scott Welsh <scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: FIM HUB and Reviews Hello John. Is the data provided based on overturn calls? Or is it based on management structured phrases and when the hail was 1” or less/wind speed 50 mph or less? Tom Moss 309 660 2105 << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> FOR INTERNAL STATE FARM USE ONLY Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00021540"}, {"d": 123, "p": 58, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Contains information that may not be disclosed outside State Farm without authorization From: John Christensen <john.christensen.ghul @statefarm.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 4:48 PM To: Scott Welsh <scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com>; Tom Moss <tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com> Subject: FIM HUB and Reviews Scott/Tom, << File: NEW_2023_TM_APPROVALS_YTD.xIsx >> ° We need CMs, Consultants, SM reviewing these reviews to ensure the front line leader is appropriately following the process on overturn reviews. ° We need to get very precise on when the coverage finding reinspection worksheet goes to the SM and TM. ° | am going to ask the quality pillar to execute on what has worked in the past. We REEd £6 go BAEK to WHAEWOrKEd in the Past t Quickly MaKe an impact. Je Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00021541"}, {"d": 123, "p": 59, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. From: Sent: Jordan Coad [/O=STATEFARM/OU=EAST/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=P3DV] 1/19/2024 3:29:05 PM To: BCC: Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com]; Bryan McLaughlin [bryan.mclaughlin.he2g@statefarm.com] Jordan Coad [jordan.coad.p3dv@statefarm.com]; Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.lok2 @statefarm.com]; Bryan McLaughlin [bryan.mclaughlin.he2g@statefarm.com] RE: Fix Profit Task Force - EOD draft for Tomorrow image001.png; image002.png; image003.png Subject: Attachments: Hey team — and quick additional point — | am not sure we know yet what output they are looking for. So to Bryan’s point in his email — we may be able to hang tight until that call before we draft any sort of output, but we can at least start the brainstorming on the yellow highlights below. Jc From: Jordan Coad Sent: rriday, January 19, 2024 8:15 AM li uca <nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com>; Bryan McLaughlin <bryan. mclaughlin. he2g@statefarm.com> Subject: FW: Fix Profit Task Force - EOD draft for Tomorrow — saw your note. Safe travels today! | am not sure on specific format — but sounds like the call this afternoon is pulling together content for the yellow highlight below based on JCs note. ° A concise story on our quality results for 2023 ° Our focus for 2024 On the first bullet — | think this existing slide directly below may be helpful and possible something to use. For bullet 2 and 3 —- we may need to draft fresh summary slides. JC put some thought starters for the focus for 2024 — so maybe these can get dunked on a slide? 2024 ° ° : * Strong focus on water mitigation and WRU ° Improved vendor insights on performance Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order expansion WEST00070526"}, {"d": 123, "p": 60, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Increasing Quality Accuracy* of Claim Handling Summary YTD November Water, Wind, and Fire accuracy results increase< compared to 2022, while Hail decreased. + Water: + The number of errors decreased -6% and their size decreased ~14%. « Fire: * The number of errors decreased -12% and their size decreased -22%. + Wind: * The number of errors increased +7% and their size decreased -9%. * Hail: + The number of errors increased +8% and their size increased +4%. “Whenever the term “accuracy” ip used “uskty claim handling is defined as @gentiy Inve: Eech oloin sncwtt br hendied on itz own morite i dance with Our Commiment re Dur Bake ynciders DRAFT Feo ced ote rinaCay kha cent cma Ey &. Be et ALA a8 te cha From: John Christensen <john.christensen.ghu | @statefarm.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 12:47 PM To: Phani Aytam <phani.ayiam.qik2@statefarm.com>; Brad Babic <brad.babic.lyiv@statefarm.com>; Kimberly Rose <kimberly.rose nv8v@statefarm.com>; Jordan Coad <jordan.coad.p3dv@istatcfarm.com>; Nicole Manduca <nicole manduca.lok2 @statcfarm.com>; Katie Magwire <katic.magwite.pwgX! Ce: Scott Welsh <scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com>; Bryan McLaughlin <bryan.mclaughlin.he2g@statefarm.com>; Byron Galloway <byren.galloway.g6ki:@statefarm.com>; Beth Enchinton <beth.enchinton.g4m7(@statefarm.com> Subject: FW: Fix Profit Task Force - EOD draft for Tomorrow Good afternoon. | spoke with Mike. If you scroll down, you will see a note he shared with Matt Schulkins. His request to P&A and the Quality Pillar is to pull together: e A concise story on our quality results for 2023 ° Our focus for 2024 ° How we plan to continue to build on our momentum. Here are a few ideas pulling from the full quality deck that was just updated. Slide five still shows November data, can we get December YE Data before Tuesday? I'd like a few slides by EOD Friday to share with Mike. if we need to huddle today or first thing in the morning, let me know. A starting point: 2023 e We increased quality/accuracy of claim handling in the perils of water, fire, and wind. Hail accuracy declined. (Slide 5) fey Water finding size decreased 14% to) Fire finding size decreased 22% fay Wind finding decreased 9% ° Hail did not improve YOY but substantial improvement the last six months of the year Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00070527"}, {"d": 123, "p": 61, "t": "West, ° Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Water coverage improved from YE2022 (7.36%) to YE 2023 (6.1%). The team improved from 8.5% in January to 6.1% YTD. {Slide 7) e Hail coverage improved significantly the second half of 2023 with more focus on front end and back end leadership engagement. Internal staff also improved as they gained experience demonstrated by April 2023 error rate of 10.41% to 7.78% year end. ECRs also improved from a high of 14.58% in April to 10.66% in December. It’s important to know the large reduction in Q4 2023 lessons the overall impact of their FED. (Slide 8) e Wind... 2024 e Continue focus on coverage for Water, Wind, and Hail. e Narrow focus on estimatics based on areas of largest opportunity ° Strong focus on water mitigation and WRU ° improved vendor insights on performance expansion Some slides would likely help. Increasing Quality Accuracy* of Claim Handling Summary YTD November Water, Wind, and Fire accuracy results while Hail decreased. increase] compared to 2022, + Water: * The number of errors decreased -6% and their size decreased -14%. + Fire: * The number of errors decreased -12% and their size decreased -22%. + Wind: * The number of errors increased +7% and their size decreased -9%. * Hail: * The number of errors increased +8% and their size increased +4%. “Wheneverthe torm “accuracy” js used in this PowerPoint it is datined as: “Diligent investigation, evaluation and negotistio “Guakty claim handing is dethed as ciigentiy Prveatigsting ech clei, evaluating the facts, anplving coverage. acourareicocumartng the fe. and paying whatis owed Each clin shout!be handed on tts own marie in accarcarce with Our Commitment to Our Pod yheklers, DRAFT Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order Fo ce te 0 C8 Ces Cb & SC I yO A OL aS We ED WEST00070528"}, {"d": 123, "p": 62, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. wore Water Claim Handling Quality* oi“is 4] Water Coverage YTD Reinspection Results i ay Total P&C. Catastrophe and Non-Catastraphe Structure only 25 ane bits 2 rots sbom 108 BI gang bs ‘ ‘ gag, 805% gos, OHS Og 255% QRABYE GAGS es BR WR BE ay me ORR YTD December 2023 result of 6.12% continues to be lower hehe Re RR oe 8 than full year 2022. Strategy to address. + Enhanced Routing » Claim Intervention (Fariy Management Involvement} « Coverage Execution AQudity cinbn nendiowi: deinedas tikgentiy irexteating pach isin. aveisalingt the forts, soning coversen, sx curstebheurenting the Se. 20d zaying whet & owed. DRAFT etd Ve the oy ant ae wht B tad i pnes MAen a = Hail Claim Handling Quality* Hail Coverage YTD Reinspection Results - Staff and ECR ffi of GJ ifn 3 ey 4 ln) Total PRC, Catastrophe and Non Catastrophe Structure only 228% Be 922% samy 488 In 2023, the ECR Hail Coverage result was consistently higher than the Staff result. YTD December 2023 * + + Overall result is 9.44%. higher than full year 2022. ECR result is 10.66%, higher than full year 2022. Staff resutt is 7.78%, higher than full year 2022. Strategy to address + Accurate Damage Identification Repair vs. repiace decisions > + Management Review and Intervention Vendor Accuuntability SSuahy winks: hart i desired ox ddjeontly trestigoting eact ohvin, evokunting the (acts, auplving vowerage, accu aiwizcemnienting the We, sod neyine wot A mod, DRAFT ea bees Rie an She Ooh Canes eH MONA aA Meg Ue Dc WE From: Michael T Keating <michacl.t.keating EL Wa de RR 2erp@statefarm.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 8:54 AM To: Matt Schulkins <matt.schulkins.m9eS(@statefarm.com> Cc: John Christensen <john.christensen.zhul @statefarm.com> Subject: FW: Fix Profit Task Force Matt, With next week’s FPTF being “claims” focused, when do you think you will have this info ready for NTHO? wants me to provide a fire update after auto next week, so having this will help. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order Wensley WEST00070529"}, {"d": 123, "p": 63, "t": "a! West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. TEE | From: Wensley J Herbert <wensiley.j.herbert.c | Sh@siatefann.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 1:53 PM To: Matthew Parola <matthew.parola. nzjn@statcfarm.com>; Michael Arnold <michacl.arnold.bjhs@statefarm.com>; Michael T Keating <michael.t.keating.2erp@statefa m>; Brian Truttmann <bri: ( farm.com>; Jennifer Megargell <jennifer.megargell.uoyh@statefarm.com> Subject: FW: Fix Profit Task Force FYI...updated with Dec info. Look at those BI pendings @) From: Matt Schulkins <matt.schulkins. m9cS@statefarm.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 1:26 PM To: Wensley J Herbert <wensley.j.herbert.cl 8bia@staielarm.com> Cc: Michael Roper <michacLroper.pxll@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Fix Profit Task Force Yep we just got the data for those pieces today. Pages 12 & 13 here are the ones you're looking for | believe. We'll include this full Monitoring Plan as part of pre-read for FPTF next week even though | hit some highlights already yesterday. From: Wensley J Herbert <wensley.j.herbert.c] 8b@statefarm.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 7:17 AM To: Matt Schulkins <matt.schulkins.m9eS@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Fix Profit Task Force Matt, Can | get as much of pages 22 &23 of this updated for SEO next week? Thanks WwW Sent: istry, December 16, 2023 §9:38 ‘AM To: Jon Farney <jon.farney.2als@statefarm.com>; Mark Schwamberger <mark.schwamberger.cO95@statefarm.com>; Justin Tipsord <justin.tipsord.q064@statefarm.com>; Chris Schell <chris.schell.gxn0@statefarm.com>; Sara Frankowiak <sara. frankowiak, edeb@statefarm.com>; Craig Isaacs <craig.isaacs. io8i@statefarm.com>; Wensley J Herbert <wensley.j herbert.c] Sb@statefarm.com>; Michael Arnold <michael.arnold.bjhs@statefarm.com>; Kristyn Cook <kristyn.cook.itm0@statefarm.com>; Matthew Parola <matthew.parola.nzin@statefarm.com>; Matt Schulkins <matt.schulkins.m9ce5@statefarm.com>; Nicole Forziati <nicole forziati.gvec@statefarm.com>; Brian Truttmann <brian.truttmann.g23f@statefarm.com>; Jennifer Megargell <jennifer.megargell uoyh@statefarm.com>; Michael Tipsord <michael.tipsord.cdrf@statefarm,com>; Paul Smith <paul.smith.chitb@statefarm.com> Cc: Becky Herald <becky. herald.a | da@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Fix Profit Task Force Attached is the normal content to help support the conversation on Tuesday. Included starting on page 11 is the Claims Trends Monitoring Plan updated for November results. High level summary of November results is included below. The Please let me know if there are any questions. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00070530"}, {"d": 123, "p": 64, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Summary Observations: ° The Physical Damage coverages all experienced a downward trend in pure premium with the rate of change on severity dropping about 1% for each coverage month over month. That put Property Damage below the YE severity selection and Coll/Comp both less than 1% away and on track relative to glide paths. ° Note that the Property Damage CWP ratio was 39%, directly in line with estimates. e The Major Liability coverages saw continued pressure on frequency for BI and UBIMWBI. ° Bl reported frequency R12 rate of change increased from +7% to +7.7%. For context on materiality, the 7.7% frequency increase translates to 434,400 more reported counts. If the increase was 7.0% it would have been an increase of 431,745. So these 2,700 incremental claims would translate to roughly $60M in additional expected losses vs if it had held flat at least month’s result (after accounting for average severity and expected reported to incurred conversion) Michael Roper AVP — Planning & Analysis P&C Analytics Office: 309-735-3403 Cell: 309-846-7509 STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only -----Original Appointment----From: Jon Farney <jon.famey.vais@statefarm.com> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 4:47 PM To: Jon Farney; Michael Roper; Mark Schwamberger; Justin Tipsord; Chris Schell; Sara Frankowiak; Craig Isaacs; Wensley J Herbert; Michael Arnold; Kristyn Cook; Matthew Parola; Matt Schulkins; Nicole Forziati; Brian Truttmann; Jennifer Megargell; Michael Tipsord; Paul Smith Cc: Becky Herald Subject: Fix Profit Task Force When: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 7:00 AM-8:00 AM (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada). Where: E10 Room A | MS Teams (new link) This invite is to secure time on calendars for the Fix Profit Task Force (FPTF) 10 through year end 2023. E10 Room A has been reserved for those of you in the at 7 aim. CT beginning Jan. office. Attendees — Jon Farney; Michael Roper; Mark Schwamberger; Justin Tipsord; Chris Schell; Sara Frankowiak; Craig Isaacs; Wensley Herbert; Mike Arnold; Kristyn Cook; Matt Parola; Matt Schulkins; Nicole Forziati; Brian Truttmann; Jennifer Megargell Guests (Dec. 19) — Michael Tipsord; Paul Smith Microsoft Teams (new link) - Click here to join the meeting Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00070531"}, {"d": 123, "p": 65, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Meeting ID - 253 880 419 047 Passcode - tgnXZa Join by phone — =: 872-215-6947, 40253 16244 Meeting options /km Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00070532"}, {"d": 123, "p": 66, "t": "West, From: Sent: To: cc: BCC: Subject: Attachments: Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Kimberly Rose [/O=STATEFARM/OU=EAST/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=NV8V] 10/10/2023 2:56:56 PM Jordan Coad [jordan.coad.p3dv@statefarm.com]; Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.lok2 @statefarm.com]; Scott Welsh (scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com] Bruce Aldrich [bruce.aldrich.coxm@statefarm.com]; Phani Aytam [phani.aytam.qik2@statefarm.com]; John Christensen [john.christensen.ghu1@statefarm.com]; Wendy Hopping [wendy.hopping.cw2|@statefarm.com]; Heather Burns [heather.burns.mbgy@statefarm.com]; HOME CLMS-CA-EXEC-FIRE-RPT [home.clms-ca-exec-firerpt.243028@statefarm.com] Kimberly Rose [kimberly.rose.nv8v@statefarm.com]; Jordan Coad [jordan.coad.p3dv@statefarm.com]; Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com]; Scott Welsh [scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com]; Bruce Aldrich [bruce.aldrich.coxm@statefarm.com]; Phani Aytam [phani.aytam.qik2@statefarm.com]; John Christensen {john.christensen.ghu1@statefarm.com] 10/9/2023 Meeting Recap - Quality Slide Decks Fix Profit Task Force Quality Claim Handling Draft.pptx; DRAFT Quality Early Monitoring Plan September 2023 Data FULL DECK_ 10.9 (002) - Read-Only.pptx Good morning! Thank you for providing input to simplify the suite of Quality Slide Decks to align them with your current needs during our call yesterday. We accomplished a lot in a small amount of time. As we wait for our Business Partners to provide data we need to finalize the decks (Reinspection Results and Financial data, Performance Teams NTHO PPTs), we have made the preliminary changes and attached draft versions below for any input. HIGHLEVEL OVERVIEW: ° October will have 2 slide decks rather than the 5 we collectively created last month. ° The Quality Early Monitoring Plan Slide Deck was condensed from 21 slides to 8. e The Sizing and Scoping has been deck paused for now. ° The “Simplified Deck”, “Keating Quality Deck” and Average Estimate Value Deck were consolidated into one new deck named ”Fix Profit Task Force Deck” that will serve several meetings by adding and deleting slides as needed. ACTION: We have listed the changes made to the slide decks below. If this is not what you recall or if there are any additional changes needed, please let us know by noon, Thursday, October 12+. e One line per Finding Frequency. ° Take off dash line but kept %s. ° Removed selection % where applicable. e Take key strategies and match Fix Profit Task Force. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00020078"}, {"d": 123, "p": 67, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Slide 4: Keep. Removed glide path and baseline on graph. Slide 5: Keep. Changed footer to advise which states are reflected in months. Slide 6: Keep. Same modifications as slide 3. In the note section, added the % of Overturned calls to total Roof. Slide 7 and 8: Kept. Added baseline to title for clarity. UPDATED WITH SEPTEMBER DATA 2. Sizing and Scoping Slide Deck - Pausing 3: Simplified Slide Deck — will combine with other decks to create the Fix Profit Task Force Slide Deck. 4, Deck. Keating Quality Slide Deck - will combine with other decks to create the Fix Profit Task Force Slide 5. Deck. Average Estimate Value Deck - will combine with other decks to create the Fix Profit Task Force Slide Fix Profit Task Force Slide Desk (NEW) e Moving 5 of 6 slides from the Simplified Slide Deck ° Moving 3 of 3 slides from the Keating Quality Slide Deck (Eventually replacing the first slide with a new ° Moving 3 of 3 slides from the Average Estimate Value deck. e Slide 1: Placeholder for new slide focusing on opportunity - Estimatics opportunities — OSS will Partner ° Slide 2-3 unchanged from Keating Quality Slide Deck ° Slide 4-6 Quality Leads summarics. When updated, Scott advised that any reference to “tar need e Slide 7-8 NTHO Monitoring and Attribution Summary ° Slide 9-14 Appendix: NTHO SEPTEMBER DATA Severity Monitoring and Average Estimate Valuc - UPDATED Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WITH WEST00020079"}, {"d": 123, "p": 68, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. From: Sent: To: John Christensen [/O=STATEFARM/OU=EXTERNAL (FYDIBOHF25SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=BE2A7A05026B4D3B9CFBE63DD5AC5697] 8/29/2023 1:24:47 PM Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com]; Jordan Coad [jordan.coad.p3dv@statefarm.com]; Tyrone Smith [tyrone.smith.aS7w@statefarm.com] Subject: Attachments: RE: Draft Quality Opportunity Sizing - 30 Day T Minus image001.png; image002.jpg You guys are aces! This t-minus is perfect, and we should execute to it. | would like the longer plan/visual so we can start to build out. I’ll share this with Scott and see if he has any feedback. | may then ask you to work with Beth Enchinton to carry forward the remainder of the year. tam all in to have check points to push our teams for accountability across all perils. From: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2 @statefarm.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 8:22 AM To: John Christensen <john.christensen.ghu1 @statefarm.com>; Jordan Coad <jordan.coad.p3dv@statefarm.com>; Tyrone Smith <tyrone.smith.a57w@statefarm.com> Subject: Re: Draft Quality Opportunity Sizing - 30 Day T Minus Get Outlook for iOS From: John Christensen <john.christensen.ghu1@statefarm.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 6:16:18 AM To: Jordan Coad <jordan.coad.p3dv@statefarm.com>; Tyrone Smith <tyrone.smith.a57w@statefarm.com> Cc: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Draft Quality Opportunity Sizing - 30 Day T Minus Thank you to both of you. | would also like us to consider how we plot/integrate the fix profit task force dates as well (I am not sure | even have those on my calendar yet). Scott Welsh reached out yesterday to help/inquire about setting up a meeting cadence and periodic check ins. | indicated we were developing a draft plan to do just that. Tyrone, we can catch up on this now that you are back. If you all are OK with it, | would like to get Consulting Services’ feedback, plot the task force dates, and build the meeting plan beyond this next quality meeting. | love this four week approach. Just want to plot it out a bit further and set a regular meeting cadence. Thoughts? From: Jordan Coad <jordan.coad.p3dv@statefarm.com> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:23 PM Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00090123"}, {"d": 123, "p": 69, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. To: John Christensen <john.christensen.ghu1@statefarm.com>; Tyrone Smith <tyrone.smith.a57w@ statefarm.com> Ce: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2 @statefarm.com> Subject: |: Draft Quality Opportunity Sizing - 30 Day T Minus Hey JC and Tyrone — As a follow up to our discussion last week — we tried to take a run at a T-Minus plan for the Quality Opportunity Sizing work being completed by each CM Peril Lead. In short, we hope the Quality Pillar CM crew can use this as a NorthStar to keep us on track as we work through this the next 4 weeks. This is also builds in a set framework with two built-in checkpoints along the way — and bite sizes the work into four (4) phases. Please let us know if any questions or feedback. If no questions or feedback — Nicole and | can share with our peers and we will use as a roadmap. We then will have our first checkpoint next week on progress. Thanks! StateFarm Quality Pillar —- Peril Opportunity Sizing and Review Framework - 30 Day TMinus Objective In August the Quality Pillar was refreshed to align CMs to specific perils. As part of this, each CM pillar was also asked to assess and size opportunities for the respective peril in partnership with P&C and Data Analytics. The below seeks to organize and outline the review timing, objectives, and defined outcomes for this Opportunity Sizing. Phase I —- Assessment and Understanding — What are we doing now for the peril? ° Each Quality Peril CM will review the current content being provided for Target Status Monthly Executive Quality Meetings. This material was previously attached within the 8/23 email from VPO Christensen. As we begin this Opportunity Sizing, each CM should seek to understand the metrics being reported out at Executive level. Additionally, each CM should review the Peril PPT forwarded from Data Analytics on 8/24. This also helps lay the foundation for the Opportunity Sizing each peril will need to complete. ° Also included within the 8/23 email from VPO Christensen were specific | 8/31/2023 OnTrack action items for each CM pillar lead. So at this juncture we are also asking CMs to form initial thoughts and a clear way forward/next steps as you follow up on these specific action items. ° For example — one action item for Water was the Market Area communication on PSP. So what is our specific next step on this and by who and by when? Phase Il — Opportunity Sizing — Are we focused on the right areas with current tactics? Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order Target Status WEST00090124"}, {"d": 123, "p": 70, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. ° So after completing the review in Phase | —- CMs should have understanding of the current Quality material(s) above. So based on review, are we pursuing the right opportunities based on size/scale? Do we need to pivot our tactics? CM should also review the Glidepaths on the Peril PPT forwarded from Data Analytics on 8/24. ° At this stage you should also continue to progress your way forward on action items from 8/23 email from VPO Christensen (if not already being captured in bullet above). ° Using an example from our kick-off call — this is the Phase where something like XM audit rule may be identified as potential tool/technology to 9/8/2023 impact gaps for PNT. ° After this Phase — we will do a checkpoint with the full group to confirm completion and progress from Phase | and Phase II above (date/time below in yellow highlight). Check Point # 1 — Call with Quality Pillar and VPO Sponsor — 9/8 (12:30 pm CST) Phase Ill — Taking Opportunity Sizing to > Solutions — What are we going to do? ° So at this Phase each CM now knows what we are doing currently (Phase |). CM will have also completed Opportunity Sizing (Phase II). So now, what is our plan and which tactics will we use to address the peril opportunity we have sized? ° Each CM Pillar should begin forming solutions on the identified opportunity and finalizing the Glidepaths working with Data Analytics. This juncture is also pulling together the final outcomes on action items from the 8/23 email from VPO Christensen. ° 9/19/2023 Staying with the XM audit rule example from Phase II above — an action in this Phase may be clearly outlining how the XM audit rule will used — point forward by our leaders. ° After this Phase — we are going to do another full checkpoint with the group to check status (date/time below in yellow highlight). Check Point # 2 — Call with Quality Pillar and VPO S onsor — 9/19 (12:30 pn Phase IV — Finalizing Material (Prior to September Executive Quality Meeting) ° Status At this juncture —- each CM/Peril has completed their Opportunity Sizing assessment and framed final recommendations on the Opportunities for the peril. e CMs will have also progressed the action items from VPO Christensen’s 8/23 email to the point of conclusion and/or progressed forward enough to have substantive update. ° CM will have also met with Data Analytics to finalize visuals for each peril. ° 9/25/2023 Quality Pillar CMs will work with VPOs for peril specific scrimmages in this final Phase. Jordan J. Coad, CPCU®, CLU® Claims Manager — P&C Claims Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00090125"}, {"d": 123, "p": 71, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. fe 1OC- State Farm Insurance Companies Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00090126"}, {"d": 123, "p": 72, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. From: Sent: To: cc: BCC: Subject: Attachments: Scott Welsh [/O=STATEFARM/OU=EXTERNAL (FYDIBOHF25SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=5D99B0B083AF4638BBA0385827DECFB9] 10/14/2021 4:45:22 PM Tom Moss [tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com] Angela Null [angela.null.ga2z@statefarm.com] Scott Welsh [scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com]; Tom Moss [tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com]; Angela Null [angela.null.ga2z@statefarm.com] RE: Agent Tracy Blair Haus Summary: Reputation image001.jpg; image002.png; image003.png; image004.png; image005.png; image006.png Thank you Tom for sharing. Let me know when you all have a chance to connect with Renee — If possible | would like to attend, please send me the invite. Is José in the loop on the file review and invited to the call? We will need Renee's leadership to participate in that review. Thanks again Tom for sharing and please let me know how | can help. From: Tom Moss <tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 7:53 AM To: Scott Welsh <scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com> Cc: Angela Null <angela.null.ga2z@statefarm.com> Subject: FW: Agent Tracy Blair Haus Summary: Reputation FYI From: Renee Bass-Taylor Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 9:19 PM To: Bill Fanelli <bill.fanelli.bkx7 @statefarm.com>; Tom Moss <tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com>; Angela Null <angela.null.ga2z@statefarm.com> Ce: Renee Bass-Taylor <renee.bass-taylor.a9la@statefarm.com> Subject: Agent Tracy Blair Haus Summary: Reputation Tom and Angela, I’Il look for time to connect this week for more context. From: Kathy Ress Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 8:07 PM To: Renee Bass-Taylor <renee.bass-taylor.a91la@statefarm.com> Cc: Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8i@statefarm.com> Subject: FW: Agent Tracy Blair Haus Summary: Reputation | know you have an action plan. let's move forward on what we have noted to get in touch with the roofer and the agents file reviews. We can loop then on overall findings and next steps. Thank you! Kathy 3096629496 Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00004147"}, {"d": 123, "p": 73, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. From: Kathy Ress <kathy ress. he8}@siatefann.com> Date: Wednesday, Oct 13, 2021, 7:34 PM To: Wensley J Herbert <wensicy.j.berbert.c | Sb@statet: Cc: Shyama N Terry <shyam: <kathy.ress .heSi@stutefiarm.con Subject: Agent Tracy Blair Haus Summary: Reputation u.com>, Dan Krause <dan.krause.crgb@ m>, Paul Odland <paul.odland.guS8a@istate ParTn.com> ann.com>, Kathy Ress Wensley and Dan, We had a positive visit with Tracy on Tuesday, 10/12/21, to gain more insights into her perspective. Per Wensley’s request, outlined a summary and next steps. VPA Paul Odland, Fire Claim Manager Renee BassTaylor, Estimatics Claim Manager Jeremy Bryan and I met with Trac e e to discuss both ai fire concerns. er gr f hig Ss d General Themes e Auto Claims: Timely communication from Auto claim segments e Auto Claims: Time to resolve auto estimate differences from Non-Program Shop estimates is impacting the customer’s rental benefit e Fire Claims: Perception State Farm is not writing accurate estimates as we are writing estimates to repair roofs instead of replacing Discussion e Auto: Timely Communication from Auto segments o Extended hold times with auto claim segments; Auto Click to Chat does not seem to be actually solving issues and have to call to resolve o Claim handlers generally are not making decision to move the claim forward and have to get team managers involved to resolve simple issues o Example: Agero did not pick up a vehicle. Called into auto claims and waited 5 days for a return call. e Auto: Time to resolve auto estimate differences from Non-Program Shop estimates is impacting the customer’s rental benefit o Since Parts Trader came about, body shops saying difficult to work with State Farm due to the administrative work to agree upon an accurate estimate and time to rewrite estimates o Customers selecting Non Program Shops as program shops are backed up, especially related to supply issues o Parts Trader delaying delivery of parts o Claim handling delays adding many days to repair due to indecisions on estimates from non-program shops = 10-15 days to resolve between State Farm on rcsolution of the NPS estimate = Two claim handlers told the agent what coverage to sell to provide a greater benefit since rental benefits are running out o Claim handlers are not calling the shops to address the differences, instead putting it on the customer to resolve o Advised lack of confidence in inspectors (REIAP vendors) “like Allstate” uses in place of an adjuster; no concems when claim adjuster actually inspects Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00004148"}, {"d": 123, "p": 74, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. ° Next Steps e Auto o I will visit with Estimatics and the Auto Property segment VPOs on the issues raised by Tracy to address root cause and take necessary action o An auto claim manager will reach out to VPA Paul Odland and Tracy to close the loop e Fire: o A Claim Consultant and Fire Proximity Section Manager will reach out to the roofer shared by Tracy to obtain his perception of the repair issues from a roofing contractor perspective o Claim Manager Renee Bass-Taylor is obtaining the 10 claims Tracy mentioned she reviewed; additionally we are reviewing five open claims involving wind/hail for root causes. We will then loop back with Tracy on overall claim handling. o Claim Manager Renee Bass-Taylor will review claim feedback and observations from the file reviews with Fire In Office claim managers and calibrate on application of Kentucky regulation specific to Reasonable Consistent Appearance. o Increase observations of communication with agent and customer about the damage evaluation and reconciliation process. ® Are we explaining what is impacting the claim decision and payment or just making adjustments? * Help agents understand reasons why a supplement may be warranted and the process we have in place to step through. o Ata broader level, Consulting Services will facilitate a targeted file review on roof claims with appraisals and engineers to identify any trends. We appreciate the opportunity to visit with Tracy with the support of Paul. Kathy FOR INTERNAL STATE FARM USE ONLY Contains information that may not be disclosed outside State Farm without authorization From: Dan Krause Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 2:25 PM To: Michael Tipsord <michael.tipsord.cdrf@statefarm.com>; Rand Harbert <rand.harbert.hey8@statefarm.com>; Jon Farney <jon.farney.gais@statefarm.com> Cc: Wensley J Herbert <wensley.j.herbert.cl8b@statefarm.com> Subject: FW: Reputation | will work with Wensley to respond to Tracy. From: Tracy Blair Haus Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 3:14 PM To: Michael Tipsord <michael.tipsord.cdrf@statefarm.com>; Rand Harbert <rand.harbert.hey8@statefarm.com>; Dan Krause <dan.krause.crgb@statefarm.com>; Jon Farney <jon.farney.gals@statefarm.com> Subject: Reputation Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00004149"}, {"d": 123, "p": 75, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hello amazing leadership! ! send this email with the upmost respect for all of you. For a long time we have heard from the top how important it is to keep our #1 position. While being #1 carries a lot of weight, having a bad reputation when it comes to delivering on the promise is not worth that #1 position. | would take system outages, higher rates any day over giving bad service at claim time. We are a big busine: The C reputation of State of p of a lot of little businesses and we “w grow by having good reparations case in ees tt s o ge Farm. Even when we have raised rates and nore” is not the case ight now evel ja eS ie my 20 years | have NEVER had to worry about een uncompetitive, | always knew even if customers were paying more to be with us, we would come through at claim time! #ClaimTimelsGameTime | have heard for years now about Allstate’s declining reputation when it comes to claims. | have taken so many of their customers all while paying more to be with us in most cases. SSaMRIC iceaatiae mail 2 he | have been involved in many agent discussions, email grove etc. about fire claims problems, and specially Roofing issues. | had faith that you lly were care and that you kne' leaders and claims team managers that are on the ground that its really For the last 6 months the roofing claim problems have grown. | received an email that you all were doing the following — 1) Minimize # of people who touch an account. Home especially. 2) Inspection will be customer's choice up front (how would you like us to handle this— face to face or virtual) 3) Simplify language when talking to customers (no insurance lingo) 4) Proactively personally contact customer and contractor 5) Phone call to agent when there's a negative claim decision or problematic situation. 6) Empathy, empathy, empathy. 'y appraiset and who bleeds State Farm aga om EDS gen walk e stage at need a drastic change before it's too late! Is it really wor when it comes to delivering great service. ing called out ti . The above 6 items are not enough. We ion to say we are #1 in the ranks but not #1 TBH Tracy B. Haus State Farm Insurance Agency 11501 Main Street Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00004150"}, {"d": 123, "p": 76, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Louisville, KY 40243 502-244-0271 Main 502-244-9495 Main Fax www.tracyhaus.com & ° Statefarm If this communication is securities related, see the additionai disclosures. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00004151"}, {"d": 123, "p": 77, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. From: Sent: To: Subject: Debbie Myers [debbie.myers.ptb8@statefarm.com] 4/26/2021 9:03:03 PM Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com]; Dana Jokerst [dana.jokerst.pmhi@statefarm.com] FW: Market Area Claims (MAC) Partnership Skype Tuesday-Please reply by Monday From: Jennifer Chandler Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 8:26 AM To: Debbie Myers <debbie.myers.ptb8@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Market Area Claims (MAC) Partnership Skype Tuesday-Please reply by Monday Hi Debbie Happy Friday! © From what I can gather, there seems to be a running theme around the things causing frustrations with Fire Claims and based on the agenda, it appears we are going to address those. 100% giving grace on all of us with the last 13 months, we are all burnt out and not at our best as often as we'd like. | try to remind the agents on the regular that while they've been in offices in a relatively normal environment our peers in claims and UW have been working from home 100% of the time and that is harder on them then the agents/TMs think it is. That being said, here is my 2 cents. a, Adjuster responsiveness/ownership of claim/communications to customer and agent. p. Leadership seems to drive the reply/response ini hours that has taken day/weeks prior. ve found on the ones | have to get involved in that if the rep had communicated what they we waiting on (response/info from vendor, etc) AND was proactive in following up on that needed information, the issues would have been resolved in a few days and never elevated. 2. IMO when claims makes a mistake, it takes far too much effort to get it rectified. The agents (and SLs) are having to drive it too far up the chain too often. c. | understand no one wants to make a mistake...and it’s even more difficult to admit/own it but we can’t be in the position of using our lack of willingness to admit an error was made override doing the right thing for the customer. And rectifying it as quickly as possible. 1; | will give kudas to the leadership that ends up jumping in to resolve however. I've experienced that when it gets to the point of recognition of the error, they step up big time. It just takes far too long to get there and is an uphill battle every time. leadership needs to clearly Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00049741"}, {"d": 123, "p": 78, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. d. The calls they held for SL/VPAs needs to be done for agents. And claims leadership needs to take the heat for it and answer the questions that arise. Leaving it to SLs to deliver that message is going to make it worse because we are not the decision makers and frankly...don’t know enough about roof claims in general. Happy to partner on the message/delivery and helping agents work through their emotions about it but we shouldn’t be thrown in as the expert or the go between on delivery. That's all | have for now. Hopefully it’s helpful. Have a wonderful weekend! Jennifer Chandler, Sales Leader Tri-States Territory From: Debbie Myers Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 4:37 PM To: Thuyvu Ho <thuyvu.ho.medk@statefarm.com>; Christine Cline <christine.cline.cz52@statefarm.com>; Paul Nguyen <paul. nguyen.m4j2@statefarm.com>; Jodie Boytos <jodie.boytos.ib2h@statefarm.com>; Jennifer Chandler <jennifer.chandler.izwn@statefarm.com>; Tom Dutoit <tom.dutolt.gcvi@statefarm.com> Cc: Dana Jokerst <dana.jokerst.pmhi@statefarm.com>; Ni landuc Subject: Market Area Claims (MAC) Partnership Skype Tuesday-Please reply by ifenciay Good afternoon team, We look forward to meeting with each of you via Skype next Tuesday, April 27th from 12:30-1:30 PST. Each of you were carefully selected as leaders who have a track record of collaboration and the ability to be influential and highly effective thought partners. In the spirit of redundancy (Nicole sent out the following info on our calendar invite) the purpose of this partnership is to gain additional effective alignment with market area leaders as enterprise and claim priorities are executed. ° Creating an understanding of our Fire Claims focus in alignment with Enterprise priorities and growing State Farm. ° Provide insights into our Fire Claims progress in the areas of service, quality and efficiency. The agenda will include the following topics: ° MAC Partnership Overview ° Claim Expectations & Service Level Objectives + ating claim concerns ° Vendor Program Overview ° Market Area Hot Topics Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00049742"}, {"d": 123, "p": 79, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. With that in mind we would like to solicit any questions/comments/concerns/insights you may have in advance of our Skype meeting. . Feel free to reply to all by Monday. Thank you in advance, Debbie Debbie Myers, CLU, LUTCE, FSS Agency Field Leadership State Farm ® Santa Clarita/Antelope Valley Sales Territory Cell (805) 610-8905 debbie.myers.ptb8 @statefarm.com Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00049743"}, {"d": 123, "p": 80, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. From: Sent: To: Tom Moss [/O=STATEFARM/OU=HOME/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=C4SG] 2/17/2021 1:14:57 PM David Chikahisa [david.chikahisa.bn72@statefarm.com]; Eric R Daly [eric.r.daly.cdzo@statefarm.com]; Nick Meehan [nick.meehan.jfd7@statefarm.com]; Eric Lambert [eric.lambert.goaa@statefarm.com]; Windy Clark [windy.clark.gzbt@statefarm.com]; Bill Lingenfelter [bill.lingenfelter.hx3v@statefarm.com]; Tim Northquist {tim.northquist.cz3u@statefarm.com]; Cindy Betz [cindy.betz.cr23@statefarm.com]; Lisa O'Toole [lisa.otoole.gp0b@statefarm.com]; James Talley [james.talley.|7mm@statefarm.com] Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com] cc: BCC: Tom Moss [tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com]; David Chikahisa [david.chikahisa.bn72@statefarm.com]; Eric R Daly [eric.r.daly.cdzo@statefarm.com]; Nick Meehan [nick.meehan.jfd7 @statefarm.com]; Eric Lambert [eric.lambert.goaa@statefarm.com]; Bill Lingenfelter [bill.lingenfelter.hx3v@statefarm.com]; Tim Northquist [tim.northquist.cz3u@statefarm.com]; James Talley [james.talley.|7mm@statefarm.com]; Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.lok2@ statefarm.com] Draft - work in progress - topics - agency call, 2021 Quality Plan - wind hail Subject: Good morning ail, Seeger ante At as e March 1 1-2pm ° March 3 8-9am ° March 3 3-4pm ° March 4 2-3pm ° March 5 9-10am ° March 10 1lam-noon e March 10 2-3pm The outline of our presentation is as follows: 1; Set up — Conversations from last year Zz Topics to be discussed a. ECR Vendor Performance Discussion b. : Inspection Options 3. Closing — wrap up » Handling Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00025903"}, {"d": 123, "p": 81, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Conversations we had with you last year (David) ° What we heard ° Empathy ° Professionalism e Responsiveness ° Technical ° Settlements/replacement costs ° What we are doing ECR Vendor Performance (John - Taylor) Vendor strategy/performance ° Recurring meeting with firms/firm leadership ° Accountability/Expectations ° Customer experience e Service level objectives ° Cadence of appointments e Responsiveness ° Accuracy/Quality ° Training e Productivity Inspection Options Virtual inspections e While Covid challenged us, it also brought about new opportunities and efficiencies — namely our push towards adopting virtual inspections ° When we receive a loss our goal is to always attempt to resolve the claim virtually first ° Phone scope ° cx ° Face Time ° Google Duo ° We also use these options for reinspections and/or with vendors too ° If we can’t use a virtual option for a part or all of the claim we then conduct a physical inspection; always adhering to social distancing Other inspection options ° Roof/Exterior Inspection Assist Program How the program works: Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00025904"}, {"d": 123, "p": 82, "t": "West, ° Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Once an assignment is sent, the vendor will provide an inspection technician ° The inspection technician will inspect, diagram, photograph, and scope damages to the roof and exterior elevations of a building. e The claim specialist will use the scope to prepare an estimate and conclude the claim with the insured. ° Both vendors are available 7 days per week ° Both vendors have inspection technicians to cover all zip codes currently in Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, and New Mexico e Once the assignment is made, the vendor will make voice to voice contact with the customer ° They will attempt phone contact within 24 hours or receiving the completed inspection on line assist form. ° days. The service level for the typical REIAP assignment for submission of the form to receiving the report is 3 -5 This could be impacted by weather or the customer’s schedule. ° Customers do not have to be present for the inspection ° Both vendors will complete inspections with contractors ° If the customer needs to reschedule an appointment, they can contact Hancock or Seek Now directly ° The report written will be submitted to State Farm within 24 hours of inspection Vendors ° Hancock Claims Consultants e Seek Now REIAP is a tool to help assist our claim handlers in the adjustment of roof and exterior structural damage when a scope is needed ° The program may be used when our customer declines the offer for an eligible voluntary CSP or RSP assignment or when CSP or RSP is not available in the customers area ° It may also be used when CSP or RSP is not available in the customer’s area REIAP Eligible claims If time allows ° Claims with or without a Claim Group ° Homeowners, Manufactured Home, and Rental Dwelling policies e Initial inspections on new claims e Severity 2 or 3 losses only e Claims assigned to Fire Proximity REIAP is not eligible for: ° Unresolved questions regarding coverage or causation ° Additional inspections ° Interior damage ° Severity 1 uninhabitable claims e Flood claims Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00025905"}, {"d": 123, "p": 83, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. ° BUSD claims e Claims involving boat docks ° ECR’s are not permitted to use this program SFPSP - Roofing Services Program (RSP) ee ° and (CSP) The Why? oy e Both programs are voluntary customer choice program using independent Network Service Providers (CNSP) who have entered into a contract with State Farm® concerning the services to be provided. Benefits are: ° Both are consistent with Our Commitment to Our Policyholders. ° Contractor Network contractors general ° Roofing roofing who Network contractors Service Providers (CNSPs) who can assist with identifying can provide an estimate and complete building repairs Service who can guaranteed Providers provide for an (RNSPs) who can assist with estimate and complete roofing 5 years by your chosen identifying repairs and and selecting selecting provider ° Workmanship ° The program inevitably helps enhance efficiency in Fire Claims handling. ° Eligible For CSP ° Determined by claim handlers; ° Covered cause of loss ° Structural in nature e Contractor/service provider available ° Hail claims not eligible unless noted by Consulting Services ° Eligible for RSP ° Determined by claim handlers: e Covered cause of loss ° Structural in nature specifically to the roofing material ° There must be a roofing contractor/service provider available e Roofing only wind damage claims where there must be evidence of actual wind damage to the roofing. ° Claims involving roof only damage by a covered peril other than hail (also includes repair or replacement of the following structural items: gutters, soffit, fascia, siding and window screens) ° How can Agency Leadership Assist e Encourage agency partners to direct customers to https://www.statefarm.com/ which has resources available these network service providers ° https://www.statefarm.com/claims/claims-help/home-and-property/premier-service Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00025906"}, {"d": 123, "p": 84, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Wind and Hail Claim Handling Roof claims present unique challenge e Customers rarely get on their roofs ° Rely on information received from others, including us Our inspection process/methodology (theme - building confidence in our work) ° Our call of damage/no damage ° Tools we use —i.e. AccuWeather ° Training of our workforce ° Annual refresher course(s) ° ECHP for each event e Orientations for each event e Resources — composition roof brochure — updating/contemporizing, should be ready in March 2021 e Inspection Process -Our call of damage/no damage--- Inspection Methodology training. Focus on what is and is not damage and document. a. is guided by our Guidelines and Ground collateral damage- from the ground up to the roof. b. Roof inspection- look for areas where we know roof is more susceptible to damage: soft damage, then test square. Valley and ridge cap and c. Vent spatter-guide us on if the hail was hard or soft e Staff and ECR's will make photos externally viewable after inspections to agents and policyholders. ° Damage ID — show photos of conditions often found on roofing ° Thermal expansion e Blistering ° Curling ° Cracking ° Zippering e Slipping ° Installation marks ° Footfall ° Excessive granule loss ° Tools we use — i.e. AccuWeather- wind and hail. Reports d. Composition roof brochure --Evaluating-Composition-Roofing-Brochure-English.pdf (st8fm.com) — contemporizing and update will be published in near future e. Wood roof brochure --wood-roof-brochure.pdf (st8fm.com) £. Composition Roof and Wood Roof Brochures are State Farm.com g. On ABS system. Put link to meeting invite move into wind/hail season. e Link to ABS, Services: Weather & Catastrophe left side--- Choosing Roofing Contractor Tool. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order ABS Services: Weather & Catastrophe (statefarm.org) On the WEST00025907"}, {"d": 123, "p": 85, "t": "e i West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Additional inspections ° When should these be completed? Roofer inspections prior to a claim being submitted to State Farm ° Impact of agents requesting a roofer inspect prior to submitting claim . Impact of roofer inspection ° Positive ° May help our customer confirm if there is damage ° Negative ° Roofers skills and knowledge are often are related to the installation of a roof and not to the causation of damages to roofing materials ° If the inspection by a claim handler does not find any covered damage; however, the roofer stated there was damage, the customer may be become frustrated ° How Can Agency Leadership Assist ° Continue to support claims ° Encourage agency partners to not send request the customer have a roofer inspect before turning in the claim. Please submit the claim and allow Claims to inspect the property and determine if there is damage froma covered loss. RCB timelines ° Discuss new infographic that has been developed, when it will be sent ° Timelines for RCBs ° How to get RCBs ° Communication (depends on jurisdiction) Roof Surfaces Payment Schedule Endorsement Roof Surfaces Payment Schedule Endorsement Why: Making you aware of this important endorsement that impacts the way we handle wind/hail claims if they have the endorsement. How can agency leadership help? Please just be aware of this endorsement and reach out to local claims leadership if you have any questions. ° We wanted you to be aware of an important endorsement that can be added to Homeowners Policies in certain states. The Roof Surfaces Payment Schedule Endorsement (RSPS) became available starting in July 15, 2020. Based on the age and roof type, the RSPS provides a specified loss settlement when roof surfaces are damaged by windstorm and/or hail. The premium is lower but the older the roof, the less the customer will recoup if a claim is filed for Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00025908 |"}, {"d": 123, "p": 86, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. wind/hail. Thanks for letting us share this new endorsement to you. If you have any questions, please contact local claims leadership. We will share the job aid Roof Surfaces Payment Schedule Endorsement (RSPS) job aid with you in the follow up correspondence we send to this group. Email — claim specific emails and risk (Tom) ° Statement of Policy ° Email captured ° Search of emails in litigation matters e Risk of message content to be taken out of context Closing — wrap up Next steps: | will schedule a call later this week with the team to discuss Lisa and | will work together to create a PowerPoint deck ° Slide — limited information (visual cues — not a lot of content in the slide) ° Speakers notes would include bullets from this document For internal State Farm use only. Contains CONFIDENTIAL information which may not be disclosed without express written authorization Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00025909"}, {"d": 123, "p": 87, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. From: Sent: Nicole Manduca [/O=STATEFARM/OU=HOME/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=LOK2] 8/19/2021 12:57:44 AM To: Gwen Hodgson [gwen.hodgson.|pb5@statefarm.com] BCC: Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com]; Gwen Hodgson [gwen.hodgson.|pbS @statefarm.com] RE: 35-B445-SP5: Agent Complaint: Claim concern Subject: Perfect — thank you. From: Gwen Hodgson Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 5:52 PM To: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: 35-B445-5P5: Agent Complaint: Claim concern Yes ma’am reviewed today and have on the calendar for next follow up Friday. Sent with BlackBerry Work (www.blackberry.com) From: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com> Date: Wednesday, Aug 18, 2021, 6:57 PM To: Gwen Hodgson <gwen.hodgson.Ipb5@statefarm.com> Subject: FW: 35-B445-5P5: Agent Complaint: Claim concern Gwen — making sure this is on your radar for a response next Tuesday, 8/24. From: Kathy Ress Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:28 PM To: Gwen Hodgson <gwen.hodgson.|lpb5 @statefarm.com> Ce: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: 35-B445-5P5: Agent Complaint: Claim concern Thanks Gwen. I’ll calendar 2 weeks for an update. From: Gwen Hodgson Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 7:28 PM To: Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8j@statefarm.com> Ce: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com> _ Subject: RE: 35-B445-5P5: Agent Complaint: Claim concern Nidipsnaemscncei _ oe Kathy, Since our last response Eber! ECR VM Brandon Becker has made multiple contact attempts with the contractor and kept the insured and agent’s office apprised of our efforts to ensure the similar products recommended by Jeld-Wen (JeldWen W-2500 series (Standard) in Brilliant White) has been utilized to achieve a reasonably consistent appearance. ECR Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00019312"}, {"d": 123, "p": 88, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. VM Becker and | have reviewed the claim and are committed to daily follow up to drive the claim te conclusion. | will maintain an SM calendar to ensure continuing action occurs. The contractor at this time has not responded with what Jeld-Wen products they have used in the documentation provided contending a reasonably consistent appearance cannot be achieved. Our efforts to obtain this information will continue and we will keep the insured and agent’s office up to date on all communication. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like any additional information. Gwen Hodgson, CPCU, CLU, ChFC Claim Section Manager WCCS IO — Hail Reconciliation Unit w: m: 972-657-1824 309-532-4930 ipbS« << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> From: Kathy Ress Sent: Saturday, August 7, 2021 9:39 PM To: Gwen Hodgson <gwen.hodgson.lpb5 @statefarm.com> Cc: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2 @statefarm.com>; Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8i@statefarm.com> Subject: 35-B445-5P5: Agent Complaint: Claim concern Hi Gwen, Would appreciate an update specific to resolution on Tuesday. I note we’ve left messages for the contractor and spoke to the insured, with a follow up date on Monday. A brief update on resolution with next steps and timeline is appreciate to ensure we monitor this claim to conclusion. Thanks, Kathy From: Gwen Hodgson Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 8:08 PM To: Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8j@statefarm.com> Ce: Nicole Manduca <nicole. manduca.lok2@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Agent Complaint: Claim concern Kathy, There was actually quite a bit of contact between August 2020 and July 2021 which | have captured below. There were definitely opportunities for follow up with the contractor, insured and agent throughout that timeframe. | have also updated the vendor name throughout the summary. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00019313"}, {"d": 123, "p": 89, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Please let me know if there is any additional clarity | can provide or follow up. Thank you and have a great evening. Gwen Hodgson, CPCU, CLU, ChFC Claim Section Manager WCCS IO — Hail Reconciliation Unit w: m: r 972-657-1824 309-532-4930 odes { << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> From: Kathy Ress Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 5:46 PM To: Gwen Hodgson <gwen.hodgson.lpb5 @statefarm.com> Ce: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca lok2 @statefarm.com>; Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.heSi@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Agent Complaint: Claim concern Gwen, Would you provide timeline when the service gaps occurred? What has our handling been in 2021, as appears no activity since Aug 2020 to July 2021. Trying to understand if these are recurring gaps or recent gaps with our Call to Action. When you update the summary please provide the name of the vendor. A review of the claim file identified the following service gaps: ° Lack of verbal communication between State Farm Claims, the agent’s office, and the insured. Status follow-ups to the insured after conversations with the contractor regarding sash and window replacement findings were needed. Follow up with agent’s office to provide status and difficulty working with the contractor were needed. Thanks! Kathy From: Gwen Hodgson Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 4:48 PM To: Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he&}@statefarm.com> Ce: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.Jok2@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Agent Complaint: Claim concern Kathy, Please find our response to the agent concerns: Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00019314"}, {"d": 123, "p": 90, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Outline Customer/Agent Concern and Resolution with the Customer/Agent . Contractor Feazel Inc. contacted State Farm and advised that the windows on the front and rear elevations of the Loeser’s home have sustained damages. The original manufacturer of the windows is no longer in busincss and the contractor has adviscd that like kind and quality replacements do not exist. EBERL ECR Vendor Manager Brandon Becker had contacted the manufacturer that bought out the original window manufacturer and has determined the make and model of the windows to be replaced to provide for a uniform appearance. This was communicated to the Insured and Contractor. ° The original inspection of October 8, 2019 did not find damages to the windows and settlement was provided for the roof and gutters on the home. All repairs to the roof and gutters were completed and all RCB’s were released per a certificate of completion dated November 7, 2019. On August 10, 2020 the contractor submitted photos of window damage. An additional inspection was completed on August 17, 2020 and no storm related damages were found to the windows. Additional communication with the contractor and insured disputing the determination on the windows throughout September 2020 resulted in the hiring of an engineer October 15, 2020 to evaluate the windows. The engineer inspection occurred November 10, 2020. The engineer’s report, received December 3, 2020 identified six cosmetically damaged windows on the South and North elevations and replacement of the window sashes was recommended. The Engineer report provided manufacturer and installer information for the sashes. The State Farm estimate was updated to reflect 6 sash replacements per the Engineers report and evaluation of proper repair. These results were reviewed with the agent’s office on December 7, 2020 and with the insured on December 9, 2020, due to the insured’s availability. On January 14, 2021 we received a contractor’s estimate to replace all windows in the home due to unavailability of original or LKQ replacement. We contacted the contractor and left a message for the insured outlining the repair options and vendors identified within the engincer’s report. On February 1+ and F ebruary 9\" we received calls from the contractor requesting status. We reiterated the repair options and vendors identified within the engincer’s report and explained followed up with the insured again on February 9, 2020 to advise of same. The contractor submitted another follow up request on February 15, 2021, it was reviewed February 18, 2021 and while previous activity was referenced no additional action was taken to respond to this most recent request. The agent contacted HRU on February 19, 2021 and we reviewed our handling with him from the time the engineer was retained to current date. The contractor argued he would not warranty the repair or the quality of the work. After advising the contractor we owe to repair hail damage, he agreed to obtain quotes from the two companies identified within the engineer’s report. The agent contacted HRU again on February 24, 2021 advising the contractor is telling the insured SF is difficult to get ahold of and is trying to make SF look bad. We reviewed our 2021 communications will the agent. On February 27, 2021 we received mail from the contractor indicating one vendor did not have NFRC certification, stating that is an Ohio code requirement. The contractor asked if we would like the insured to install windows that don’t meet code. An email was sent to the agent and the insured that same day advising the documentation the contractor has provided addresses one of the companies referenced in the engineer’s report but it does not appear availability from the other company has been researched. While awaiting additional information from the second company research of the code referenced by the contractor was conducted, including follow up with the Franklin County Building Department, that revealed that code applied to new construction only. We spoke with the insured on March 11, 2021 to advise of our findings related to the code issue. We had left a message for the contractor as well but at the insured’s request we provided this information to the contractor in writing with a cc to the insured. On March 26, 2021 we reviewed correspondence from the contractor which once again indicated use of the recommended product did not meet code requirements. A response was emailed to the contractor again stating our research indicated that code applied to new construction only. The insured and agent were cc’d on that email. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00019315"}, {"d": 123, "p": 91, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. On March 31, 2021 we received and email from the contractor disputing the applicability of the code, the was reviewed by a CNC ECR in WCCS Stewardship April 14, 2021. The prior activity was referenced in the file note but no action was taken to contact the contractor, insured or the agent. On April 16, 2021 the contractor called into HRU advising the window companies will not do the recommended repair and other window installers have also indicated they will not just replace the sashes. The contractor was asked to provide documentation as to why the sash repair was not possible. On April 20, 2021 the contractor sent in an email indicated the window manufacturer specifically states they do not attempt to match double hung dimensions and the contractor feels this would create a guaranteed mismatch. This email was reviewed on April 22, 2021, attempts to reach the contractor’s office were unsuccessful and files notes indicate no voicemail option was available. The CS indicated a calendar was set for next day follow up but the next claim activity was not seen until a calendar review occurred on May 6, 2021. No action was taken at that time and the claim was reclosed in error. On May 14, 2021 the contractor called back in indicating the replacement sash would not match. The CS inquired as to whether the contractor was aware of what the replacement sash height would be to determine if there would be a matching issue. The contractor did not know that and advised he would proceed with repair of one window to see if it would match. The claim remained closed. On June 24, 2021 the agent contacted HRU asking when we spoke to the insured last and requested a manager. That same day the agent was contacted by Eberl ECR VM Brandon Becker. The agent advised the sash repair would not provide a reasonably consistent appearance and the windows should be replaced. The contractor indicated one vendor would require a minimum purchase and the insured indicated when the second vendor came to the home they misidentified the windows as vinyl and stated they could not install the sashes. The agent requested Eber! ECR VM Becker review the file and join a conference call with the contractor and insured on June 28, 2021 to discuss the matter in more detail. During the call the contractor advised they received confirmation from the first vendor that they could not match double hung window sashes, Eberl ECR VM Becker was able to confirm this with the vendor and agreed to replace the six damaged windows. The contractor indicated the window glaze would likely not match the existing windows. The contractor then asked what window would be of like kind and quality. Eberl ECR VM Becker suggested Jeld-Wen as the manufacturer who bought out the original manufacturer but the insured and the contractor would need to research like kind and quality and appearance to go with the existing windows. The contractor expressed agreement and the conference ended. The SF estimate was revised and a supplemental payment for the window replacement was issued July 1, 2021. On July 8, 2021 Eberl ECR VM Becker spoke w/ the agent who advised the contractor and insured are stating the windows do not provide a reasonable appearance per OH code. Photos were requested for evaluation. On July 12, 2021 the agent and Eberl ECR VM Becker reviewed the photos which reflected an off white Jeld-Wen window with grid, next to the existing bright white non-grid window. Eberl ECR VM Becker contacted Jeld-Wen to find out if something similar to the original window was available in profile and color. The Jeld-Wen W-2500 series in Brilliant White was provided. Eberl ECR VM Becker sent an email to the insured contractor and agent on July 14, 2021 providing this information. The contractor then provided what appeared to be similar photographs of Jeld-Wen windows but are of a different profile and color to advise that a reasonably consistent appearance cannot be achieved. e The agent’s primary concern is the number of people involved in the handling of the claim. He felt it was confusing for the customer, conveyed a lack of authority and did not aid in moving the claim forward. He had very positive feedback on Eberl ECR VM Brandon Becker’s intervention and involvement in the claim. SM Hodgson reviewed the agent’s concerns and advised Eberl ECR VM Becker would shepherd the claim to conclusion. Eberl ECR VM Becker has made contact with the insured and the contractor and is actively working to confirm the recommended window has been used for replacement prior to reviewing for reasonably consistent appearance. Identify Leadership Findings and Service Gaps with our handling A review of the claim file identified the following service gaps: Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00019316"}, {"d": 123, "p": 92, "t": "West, ° Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Inaccurate information advising the Ph must provide a written request for an engineer inspection by Auto Assist handlers, Pilot and Alacrity ECRs no longer in HRU delayed retention of the engineer through the month of September 2020. A HRU TM reviewed the file October 9, 2020 and approved the hiring of an engineer. ° Lack of verbal communication between State Farm Claims, the agent’s office, and the insured. Status follow-ups to the insured after conversations with the contractor regarding sash and window replacement findings were needed. Follow up with agent’s office to provide status and difficulty working with the contractor were needed. ° HRU representative in August 2021 advised the insured that we did not have the contractor’s contact information on file which caused an unsatisfactory reaction from the insured. The contractor information was readily available in the file notes and documents on file. Discuss Action Taken to Address Findings/Service Gaps and Prevent Future Occurrences . This claim cxample was handled by multiple in-office, deployed, and proximity handlers, specific specialists will be provided feedback on their handling of the claim. Further, HRU leadership will review this topic in this week’s huddle to cascade to all HRU handlers. e The claim handler who failed to locate the contractor contact information has been provided feedback and coaching on investigating claims and review of claim files. The specialist’s manager has been provided feedback to continue the development of the specialist. Indicate any history of performance issues for involved claim handlers. not, how are we addressing. If so, how are we addressing. If ° No history of performance issues for the immediate claim handlers. This claim example is being reviewed with those handlers. ° HRU leadership will continue our Call to Action plan and communicate the need for prompt and accurate customer contacts through EOM activities and individualized coaching as necessary. Gwen Hodgson, CPCU, CLU, ChFC Claim Section Manager WCCS IO - Hail Reconciliation Unit w: 972-657-1824 m: 309-532-4930 gwen bodgson ipbi astatefarin.com << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00019317"}, {"d": 123, "p": 93, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. From: Kathy Ress Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:50 AM To: Gwen Hodgson <gwen.hodgson.|Ipb5 @statefarm.com> Cc: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca Jok2@statefarm.com>; Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8i@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Agent Complaint: Claim concern Got a note from Wensley. We’ll need you to call the agent first as comments he’s been bounced around. an Thank you for the call. | am logging off. —— | have several other pre travel/vacation items to get to this afternoon. However, this claim remains a top priority for me - and seeing this gets the right level of attention and resolve. My cell: 614.769.1660. An unknown number calling will likely go straight to vm...but | will call whomever back. Welcome to initiate via text to me also. Thank you again for engaging. From: Gwen Hodgson Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:46 AM To: Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8j@statefarm.com> Ce: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.Jok2@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Agent Complaint: Claim concern We will take care of it, thank you. Gwen Hodgson, CPCU, CLU, ChFC Claim Section Manager WCCS IO — Hail Reconciliation Unit w: 972-657-1824 m: 309-532-4930 gwen. bodyson ipbS << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> From: Kathy Ress Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:43 AM To: Gwen Hodgson <gwen.hodgson.Ipb5 @statefarm.com> Ce: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2 @statefarm.com>; Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8i@statefarm.com> Subject: Agent Complaint: Claim concern Importance: High Gwen, Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00019318"}, {"d": 123, "p": 94, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Please see the executive complaint from the agent. Please have a leader reach out to the agent and customer to see what we need to resolve. I’d appreciate the summary in standard format by EOD Wed. It appears there has been some interaction with the agent. Wensley is reaching out to the agent to let him know one of our leaders will be in contact in the next couple of hours. Kathy From: Kathy Ress Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:35 AM To: Wensley J Herbert <wensley.j.herbert.ci 8b @statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Claim concern This is actively being handling in HRU under CM Nicole Manduca with the contractor. Appcars “matching” windows yet just a brief review. Will get a summary back on our handling. From: Wensley J Herbert Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:30 AM To: Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8j@statefarm.com> Subject: FW: Claim concern Importance: High Can you please look this one up? Thanks | will call him and let him know we are reviewing it and someone will reach out Ww From: Robert Yi Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:27 AM To: Wensley J Herbert <wensley.j.herbert.cl8b@statefarm.com> Cc: Beth Lamb <beth.lamb.amqr@statefarm.com> Subject: FW: Claim concern Importance: High See Chris’s request for an OVP to contact the agent. Beth will let you know. Beth is checking to see if we had a previous complaint on this claim. = Robert From: Beth Lamb Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:22 AM To: Robert Yi <rebert.vi.caga@statefarm.com> Cc: Beth Lamb <beth.lamb.amaqr@statefarm.com> Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00019319"}, {"d": 123, "p": 95, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Subject: |: Claim concern Importance: High Ni: Edward A Loeser CL#: 35-B445-5P5 DOL: 9-01-2019 (Cat) VPO: K Ress From: Chris Schell Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 12:18:05 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) To: Robert Yi Subject: FW: Claim concern | think Chad sent this in some time ago. Could we get an OVP to call him and work to get back on the rails? Thanks From: Chad Harris Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:15 AM To: Chris Schell <chris.schell.gxn0@statefarm.com> Ce: Chad Harris <chad. harris leOx@statefarm.com> Subject: Claim concern Importance: High Hi Chris, | hope my memo finds you well. | wish | was emailing you under different circumstances. | am emailing you because | know you (and more importantly, | believe you to be a person who cares)...and based on your current position, | believe this is information a person in your position needs to know. Re: Homeowner Claim number: 35B4455P5 Date of Loss: 9.1.2019 (Hail CAT claim) claim has been on-going for almost one year) e Inspection date: 8.17.2020 (this This should be a Department of Insurance Complaint (due to the delays in resolving this claim) e Perhaps a customer complaint to the Mike Tipsord (due to our dysfunctional processes, delays and poor communication with the insured) e The insured is beyond frustrated with SF claims; their processes, lack of communication and personnel. on what I’ve personally witnessed and experienced, the insured has every right to be frustrated. ° | have been pulled into this claim by the insured and the contractor. leadership personnel to no avail. Based | have attempted to talk with multiple e We have people handling claims that are not SF employees (outside contractors)...who apparently lack the authority to make a decision or solve problems when they occur. Deployed vs. employed processes do not communicate well. ° Finding and identifying a leadership person to talk with...and have them make decisions is almost impossible (to date, it has been impossible) ° Yesterday 8/2/21, | once again reached out to claims leadership due to more errors...only to watch as it was passed down from one person to another and to another. This is terribly embarrassing for State Farm...and me, as the local agent. Our claims processes need to be reviewed...as they are not working for the customer or the agent. JD Power customer claims satisfaction scores have been telling us — Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00019320"}, {"d": 123, "p": 96, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al what agents are experiencing with more and more regularity. Agents need to know who the appropriate leadership personnel are to make decisions. Right now — that is next to impossible. There appears to be zero accountability within the claims system. No ownership. No accountability. The team environment is failing us and the insured. People simply pass things down to a person who otherwise lacks the authority to make a decision...and the claim stalls, or a new person picks it up and the processes begins again...with no better result. My ask: This claim needs leadership involvement (not passing it down, again). The leadership person needs to be someone with the authority to review the concerns and make a decision. | am also requesting to have a conversation with said claims leadership — as to avoid add'l mistakes. The claim file and notes appear to be incomplete. My second ask: This claim should be put into the “process excellence” type file for process review. When we perform poorly — we should take the time to learn from our mistakes and improve our processes. This claim highlights all the current dysfunction within our SF claims operations and processes. Our insured deserves better service than what they are currently receiving from State Farm claims. This claim needs to be resolved without further delay. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. P.S. 1am leaving for vacation this afternoon. My cell is 614.769.1660. Thank you. Respectfully, Chad Haris, rbgeut << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> Chad Harris State Farm Agency 6151 Avery Rd. Ste A Dublin, Ohio 43016 P. 614.889.2778 | F. 614.212.4461 chad@chadharrisinsurance.com www.chodharisinsurance.com NMLS # 2052343 If this communication is securities related, click here for additional disclosures. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00019321"}, {"d": 123, "p": 97, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, » i From: Kathy Ress [/O=STATEFARM/OU=HOME/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=HE8J] Sent: To: ce: 10/28/2021 2:48:13 AM Tyler Deneault [tyler.deneault.htjp@statefarm.com] Tyrone Smith [tyrone.smith.aS7w@statefarm.com]; Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com]; Alicia W Gardner [alicia.w.gardner.cjb8@statefarm.com]; Thad Holman [thad.hoiman.c99n@statefarm.com]; Rob Stewart et al. [rob.stewart.ckf7 @statefarm.com]; Alec Hagan [alec.hagan.lejd@statefarm.com]; Erin Pander {erin.pander.sttq@statefarm.com]; Shyama N Terry [shyama.n.terry.bqbj@statefarm.com]; Kathy Ress [kathy.ress.he8j@statefarm.com]; Gregory E Jones [gregory.e.jones.gzwh@statefarm.com]; John Christensen [john.christensen.ghu1@statefarm.com] E BCC: E Tyler Deneault [tyler.deneault.htjp@statefarm.com]; Tyrone Smith [tyrone.smith.aS7w@statefarm.com]; Nicole Manduca [nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com]; Rob Stewart [rob.stewart.ckf7@statefarm.com]; Alec Hagan [alec.hagan.lejd@ statefarm.com]; Erin Pander [erin.pander.sttq@statefarm.com]; Gregory E Jones [gregory. e.jones.gzwh @statefarm.com]; John Christensen [john.christensen.ghu1@statefarm.com] Subject: to catch up with you to discuss hi etail. I’ve provi ed a brief summary below. Attempted contact has been made with agent on two occasions s without a return call. We were advised by his staff he will be available tomorrow. TM Bill Matchett will contact Robert to share the results of our claim review and establish a plan to notify our policyholders. We engaged Consulting Services in the review of the claim handling. Kathy & Tyrone The information below should not be forwarded to the agent as considered proprictary and is documentation retained in the claim file. Customer/Agent Concern and Resolution in Progress Agent Robert Gamer contacted Agency Leadership to express the following concerns about the handling of the Fryan claim: . State Farm recommended roof repair instead of full replacement ° Lack of, or poor communication by Claims e Delays in estimates ° Amount of involvement required by agent to facilitate the claim. The claim was originally inspected on May 10, 2021 by Hancock Claims Consultants. Hail damage was noted to the front slope (12 damaged shingles/SQ), right slope (8 damaged shingles/SQ), and left slope (9 damaged shingles/SQ). Damage was also noted to roof accessories and some aluminum gutters, but no other damage was noted to house elevations. The contractor immediately disagreed with the findings. A $1,487.75 payment was issued on May 12, 2021 which included replacing 14 SQ of roofing on 3 slopes. The file reflects several issues brought up in subsequent conversations including, HOA by-law requirements, line-of-sight determination, issues with matching the existing shingles, and questions of whether the shingles were repairable. A second inspection by an External Claim Resource was completed on August 2, 2021. Based on this inspection, the estimate scope was maintained, but the square count was increased. A $1,179.61 supplement was issued on August 9, 2021. Review of the file indicates that, based on the initial inspection report, the estimate should have been to replace the roof due to the amount of damage in the test squares on three of the 4 directional slopes. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00094354"}, {"d": 123, "p": 98, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Discuss Action Taken/In Progress The contractor’s estimate has been reviewed, and is reasonable in both scope and price; as such, we will accept it to move forward with an appropriate settlement. In addition, a supplement will be estimated for additional aluminum gutters. Our intent is to collaborate with the agent to determine the best approach to take for a service recovery. We have attempted to contact the agent but his staff indicated that he was unavailable, and despite a specific message regarding the topic of the call, he has not yet returned out calls. We will attempt to reach him again tomorrow. We are addressing the individuals and vendor involved in the claim handling in concert with Consulting Services and the Vendor Management Office. FOR INTERNAL STATE FARM USE ONLY Contains information that may not be disclosed outside State Farm without authorization From: Kathy Ress Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 10:33 AM To: Tyler Deneault <tyler.deneault.htip@statefarm.com> Cc: Tyrone Smith <tyrone.smith.a57w@statefarm.com>; Nicole Manduca <nicole. manduca.lok? @statefarm.com>; Alicia W Gardner <alicia.w.gardner.cjb8@ statefarm.com>; Thad Holman <thad.holman.c99n@statefarm.com>; Rob Stewart <rob.stewart.ckf7 @statefarm.com>; Alec Hagan <alec.hagan.lejd@statefarm.com>; Erin Pander <erin.pander.sttq@statefarm.com>; Shyama N Terry <shyama.n.terry.bqbj@statefarm.com>; Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8j@statefarm.com> Subject: FW: repercussions of a roof repair Thank you Tyler. Fe - ee Also including our Proximity and Deployed handled in our Hail CMs to partner with Nicole on the review. Kathy and Tyrone From: Tyler Deneault Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 5:00 PM To: Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8j@statefarm.com>; Tyrone Smith <tyrone.smith.a57w@statefarm.com> Cc: Rob Stewart <rob.stewart.ckf7 @statefarm.com>; Alec Hagan <alec.hagan.lejd@statefarm.com>; Erin Pander Subject: FW: repercussions of a roof repair Good afternoon Kathy & Tyrone, Please see the email below from agent Robert Garner. Attached in the email, you will also find a letter from the insured. Can you please have someone on your team looking into this file and follow up with the agent? Also, can you please keep me in the loop on the findings and conversation with the agent? Thank you in advance and as always we appreciate the partnership! Tyler Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00094355"}, {"d": 123, "p": 99, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. From: Tyler Deneault Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 5:47 PM To: Robert Garner robert.garner.r5d3@ statefarm.com Cc: Rob Stewart rob.stewart.ckf7 @statefarm.com; Alec Hagan alec.hagan.lejd@statefarm.com; Jason Guilliams jason. guilliams.j39y@statefarm.com Subject: RE: repercussions of a roof repair Thank you for reaching out Robert and our sincere apologies for your frustrations around this customers. | will reach out to our executive claims partners to review this file decision and overall customer experience during the handling of this claim. As you know, each claim is handled on it’s own merit, however | will ask that we review the entire file. Thank you, Robert! Tyler From: Robert Garner <robert.garner.15d3@statefarm.com> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 4:10 PM To: Rob Stewart <rob.stewart.ckf7 @statefarm.com>; Alec Hagan <alec.hagan.lejid@statefarm.com>; Tyler Deneault <tyle = REGS ot « al Sar Jason Guilliams <jason.guilliams.j39y@statefarm.com> Subje ofa roof repair Leadership whom | respect, In addition to this, | have spent countless hours on this claim because of lack of poor communication. State Farm claims was not returning calls from the contractor nor insured, delayed estimates that were not done until | call and get involved, re-inspections and escalations. | would do this for any client, but this client in particular is a large client with multiple lines. His father is someone | have been working on for 2 years in regards to a very large IPS case. | have also received multiple referrals of friends. << File: Scan.pdf >> Thank you Robert Garner — CLU®, ChFC®, RICP®, President Garner Ins and Fin Svcs Inc 3644 Erie Ave, SW Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00094356"}, {"d": 123, "p": 100, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Massillon, OH 44646 Phone: 330-834-3276 Fax: 330-834-3275 e-mail: Robert@RobertGarnerinsurance.com www.RobertGarnerInsurance.com << OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> if this communication is securities related, click here for additional disclosures. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00094357"}, {"d": 123, "p": 101, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Document Produced in Native Format Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00016953"}, {"d": 123, "p": 102, "t": "WELCOME/CONTEXT Wensley Thanks for joining today. In 2020, we experienced a most unique year...where we collectively overcame some of the most difficult challenges we’ve faced organizationally and in society. e State Farm faced a historical catastrophe season with Severe Weather Outbreaks in the spring, a series of back-to-back Midwestern wind and tropical events, record-breaking wildfires, and a distribution of claims across more states at e the same time than we’ve previously faced. Internal and external resources available for field claim handling needs significantly contracted due to the risk of COVID as the pandemic spread across the world."}, {"d": 123, "p": 103, "t": "Our non-weather related claims also increased over prior years, partially related to an increase in claims for business interruption related to the pandemic, some related to riots and civil unrest, and an increase in customers spending more time in the home. Our 2020 Fire Claims quality plans also triggered an unanticipated response where fulfilling Our Soluleusatelns to Our Policyholder di pectat ra ts. V ul ig. We need to build the foundation of a postive working relationship for all Our success. <Pivot to John> John To ensure we start 2021 in alignment with enterprise priorities, understanding tactics we deployed in 2020 and are pulling through in 2021, we want to move forward with greater collaboration and proactive communication in 2021. We want to grow together by taking what we learned in 2020, and using it as a catalyst in 2021. We each have leaders who are new to their roles and some who have been leading for many years. Partnering our leadership teams together will drive greater awareness and understanding, and building mutual trust and relationships to drive improved"}, {"d": 123, "p": 104, "t": "outcomes. In order to grow State Farm, our products have to be priced competitively. As our claim teams focus on improving our overall accuracy of payment, we have quality tactics that have improved our ability to investigate, identify damage related to a covered loss, explain what damage that is and is not covered to our customers, and Pay What we Owe to fulfill Our Commitment to Our Policyholders. Yet we must do this timely, professionally and in a way that provides a positive customer experience. We asked Kathy Ress on behalf of all our Fire Claims Executives to enhance our approach in working together so we grow together."}, {"d": 123, "p": 105, "t": "Seeds of a Partnership | e \\) Reflections & Feedback a “ “Communication Strategy Growth \\ eee \\ Bares Outcomes Kathy Thank the VPAs for their candor and partnership in 2020, and helping drive conversations between our Claim Managers and Sales Leaders to align in the most challenging times. These conversations enabled actions to have a market area perspective, yet also was a healthy exchange where we learned from each other. As we thought about the how to we improve, we realized it was critical we approach this opportunity as one ~ team, to be aligned and proactive. My outreach to several of our Market Area VPA peers for Sales Leader partnership was met with absolute enthusiasm. Today, representatives of the working group of claims leaders and Sales Leaders will kick off our year and our monthly"}, {"d": 123, "p": 106, "t": "approach to communications. They will have an ask of VPAs and Sales Leaders to engage throughout the year and drive proactive partnerships where transparency will drive greater results. The overall strategy ensures we improve the customer experience, drive high quality conversations between claims and agency, and accelerate transformation in expectations that aligns with our Enterprise priorities, including how our claims model and our claim handling is adjusting to our priorities. In future collaborative sessions, we'll go into detail with VPAs and Sales Leaders with specific tactics against issues that arose last year as we will face the reality of leading in 2021 coming off an incredibly unique year. Today is a start of our new journey where monthly building blocks will support service to our customers through enhanced virtual and vendor claim handling approaches, reducing the tension points between agents and claims, and be sure our expectations of each other and with our agents are in alignment."}, {"d": 123, "p": 107, "t": "P&C Claims Strategy Map Create a culture of Operational Excellence. People: Create a performance and process-driven organization, Processes: Build scale and modernize processes, Technology: Accelerate technology delivery Vision Mission Strategic Objective exp —— Sa a Se Se enero, sate 1S On Cota etn ln tt cane at Sl Fume san P KATHY ° ° Click One Our 2021 Claims Strategy Map is the guidepost to our vision of “Being the industry leader at helping people recover from the unexpected” and our mission of “Upholding our Commitment to our Policyholders” . ° * Click Two Our Strategic Objectives drill down to reveal we are focused on our accuracy while at the same time we are providing a differentiated customer experience AND a continue to work on being price-competitive through our transformation efforts. ° Click Three _ ©The rest of the map is bucketed into smaller, more tactical priorities and goals that reinforce that the work we align to supports our objectives under our pillars of Customer, Employee, Accuracy and Efficiency, and Technology. I’Il now turn over to the team: ¢ Wed & Fri Ami Kuhlman, a sales leader in the South Central Market Area"}, {"d": 123, "p": 108, "t": "Fri Beatrice Lee, a Fire claims manager for Fire In Office teams ¢ Wed Juan Parilo, a Fire claims manager for our Fire Proximity Weather & Catastrophe team They represent several Sales Leaders and other Fire and AWC claims leaders on the workgroup."}, {"d": 123, "p": 109, "t": "©) 2021 Objectives = a Business Objectives | Communication Objectives ° Alignment ¢ Proactive ¢ Transparency ¢ Collaborative ° Agent Impact ° Inclusive Re ronwresnns stare FUSE Om Cote tomaten Pt may ee condeSt Fem were wernt BEA/JUAN Business Objectives e Create understanding of the alignment between Fire/AWC Claims priorities and Enterprise priorities, and how each assist in growing State Farm. ° ° Provide insights and transparency into our Fire/AWC Claims progress in the areas of service, quality and efficiency. Anticipate the impact to the agent and their role in supporting our Enterprise priorities. Communication Objectives ° Build proactive communication approaches that educate Market Area leaders and agents on claim handling processes and philosophy ¢ Promote transparency, collaboration and unity in identifying ° service gaps and communicating solutions Develop inclusive communication paths so the appropriate"}, {"d": 123, "p": 110, "t": "market area and Fire/AWC Claims leaders can better anticipate incoming agent and customer questions"}, {"d": 123, "p": 111, "t": "ei BT1 Joint Ownershi bi sapeey Claims / Agency Executive The Customer Claims Associates Sales Leaders Claims Leaders B. einewernmnisions: woe AMI Every level of Claims and Market Area employee and agents — all of us - are accountable for providing a Remarkable customer experience. For this reason, everyone will have certain tactics that will assist with execution of the plan. It is a mindset that needs to begin with setting expectations at the executive level. How will this happen? Through a joint marketing partnership approach in our two areas Claims and Market Area executives will: ° Focus on building stronger relationships with executive peer group ° Set leadership expectations to have more proactive and consistent check-ins with their peers to collectively execute upon Enterprise goals and Fire Claims strategies."}, {"d": 123, "p": 112, "t": "Our Claims leaders will focus on: Alignment Collaboration, and Creating understanding ° Claims Managers and Section Managers support our shared marketing approach by joining VPA calls on a quarterly basis and holding weather preparedness sessions for relevant updates, demonstrate technology and proactively address potential claims iSSUeS. The frequency of calls could increase as need dictates; e.g. weather. ° Claims also supports transparency in sharing reports, service level data between Claims and Agency— important to cascade these to ALL Agency leaders ° Claims associates will also be part of our strategy and conduct regular agent visits or phone calls when appropriate"}, {"d": 123, "p": 113, "t": "Slide 1 BT1 Working on reducing bullets Betsy Taylor; 1/26/2021 1:25:00 PM"}, {"d": 123, "p": 114, "t": "Communication Approach 2021 Bhs 6 ea occas oer ag Tactics Operational Health / Awareness Being There for our Customers and Agents ees rover ‘ BEA/JUAN The tactics we are building out meet several high level purposes identified collectively by Fire Claims leaders and Sales Leaders: e Education —- We ° Operational Status communications — The tactics we share are meant to instill transparency and confidence into the Claims process. We will share reports that identify weather spikes, service levels, status on adoption of new tools like Fire Chat, etc. Please share these with your leadership team to increase understanding. ° Being There for our Customers (and agents) - We will be touching base proactively and in different ways to increase understanding of claim decisions, or following up on status with when vendors are used. One example is to have claim handlers reach out via phone versus email when there are service related questions or issues. Many times issues are escalated to mid/upper leaders when they don’t need to be. We want to help. Faster to start with the Claim Owner and work collaboratively— not all things need to be escalated. Holding decision"}, {"d": 123, "p": 115, "t": "rT TT makers accountable for turn around times."}, {"d": 123, "p": 116, "t": "Market Area Claims (MAC) Partnership Feedback @ 6 months our Bi-Monthly Outcomes AMI The formation of an Agency/Claims Partnership in each Market Area was suggested by a group of Sales Leaders for the purposes of identifying topics that would be helpful in supporting our Enterprise goals and providing feedback on discuss ways to strengthen the partnership, improve the customer experience and support our Enterprise growth initiative. This is an added tactic we would like to introduce in 2021. This partnership also addresses trending issues, obtains general Agent/customer feedback, explains new claim model, processes and programs, review mechanisms for elevating concerns, introduce new technology, share areas of focus and provide seasonally specific information. Here’s how it works..."}, {"d": 123, "p": 117, "t": "Organization and Representation — Each Market Area (6) has their own MAC Partnership made up of a Sales Leader aligned with each VPA of Sales (6-9), a Fire Prox SM (1), a Deployed/AWC SM (1), an HStew/Team Managed SM(1), a Deployed/AWC CM (1) and a Fire Prox/Inoffice CM (1). An Agency lead and a Claims lead will be identified within each Council. This responsibility may be rotated for each meeting. All Councils would have a manageable 11-14 members. Meeting cadence — 1 hour virtual meetings would occur bi-monthly. Consistent enterprise themes with input from our working group will be mixed with more regionally specific items. Topic solicitation would occur 2 weeks beforehand with an agenda sent 3 days prior to the scheduled meeting. Each Council will leverage One Note for recording meeting minutes and storing/sharing information. Quarterly report outs would occur to the appropriate Agency VPA’s and Claims VPO’s."}, {"d": 123, "p": 118, "t": "Monitor'— Short EUC survey every 6 month to gather feedback and determine if the Council is adding value, identify deficiencies and request recommendations for future improvement. Meeting Expectations - Sales and Claims Leaders will communicate takeaways including commitments with their peers, agents VPAs and claims workforce VPOs."}, {"d": 123, "p": 119, "t": "Coming in February & March February “* MAC Partnership «+ Biweekly Fire Weather Service Level Reporting «* Claims Messaging Platform “ Wind/Hail Claim March Quality “ Weather Weather Preparedness Preparedness (cont.) “Reflector article BEA/JUAN ° — Here’s a sample of what tactics we are working on for this month and then we will transition to how you can support the execution February e Market Area Claims Partnership kick off meetings will begin (Topic: Virtual First and Vendor solutions; Claims Accuracy) ¢ We will also continue to be transparent with your leadership team. As we share proactive claims service level status memo, we ask that you share these with your Sales Leaders ° e We will also continue to send our bi-monthly Claims Messaging Platform that can also be cascaded to the Sales Leader level In February, we’d like to begin a regular cadence of Claims leaders attending VPA/SL huddles ind/Hail Claim Qual"}, {"d": 123, "p": 120, "t": "° And finally we will begin our cadence of Weather Preparedness calls with VPAs, SLs and eventually agents. These calls will begin in our wind/hail prone Market Areas and then continue for the next several months. These are educational opportunities for your leaders and agents — all with the common goal of helping people recover from the unexpected....together, as one State Farm team. We will continue these preparedness meetings in March, and will also release a Reflector article that highlights several agents who are embracing virtual claim handling and collaborating with the Claims workforce to serve customers."}, {"d": 123, "p": 121, "t": "The Ask... ¢ Your Support * Sales Leaders to serve on MAC Partnership * Collaboration and Transparency hn BR aR asec rindi ont creme j AMI Now that you’ve heard what is planned for February, we’d like to ask you to own this strategy together as #oneteam to grow State Farm. What does this mean for you? (your role as an Agency Exec) 1. First and foremost, we need Your Support! ° We need every VPA/Sales Leader to understand the expectation of including their assigned Claims liaison in their huddles on at least a quarterly basis. (more frequently during weather events) Claims leaders will review discussions and outcomes from the market area they support to narrow their focus on topics that will be meaningful to address during the meeting ¢_We also need your help.in setting expectations that specific claims questions and service recovery issues should be addressed first with the claim owner for faster resolution. Claims leaders set service level objectives for claim owners to meet. If their response is slower than anticipated, claims leaders will become involved 2. Secondly, we’d like assistance in the identification of SLs for the Market Area Claims Partnership members for each Market Area. We have prepared a memo that will be sent to VPAs shortly. We’d appreciate your support in getting this"}, {"d": 123, "p": 122, "t": "idea that was originally brought forward through your Sales Leaders to fruition. 3. And lastly, we know this effort takes all of us to serve customers in the way that demonstrates we are united in our desire to live our mission. We do this through meaningful conversations and by offering transparency into how we collectively serve customers. Claims is committed to feeding Agency leadership information that we can use to support increased understanding of the claims process. We ask that you share information (for example Claims bi-weekly service level reports) with Sales Leaders so we can help each other more effectively. Thanks for your time today. With that, | will turn it back over to Kathy to wrap up."}, {"d": 123, "p": 123, "t": "Kathy — Thank you. | know we are better for 2020 and certainly have built stronger ties focused on the same outcomes. We look forward to getting into deeper conversations with our new approach to communication. 10"}, {"d": 123, "p": 124, "t": "West, State Farm® OVP Herbert — Quarterly Business Review (Fire Weather Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al DRAFT & AWC) — April 2021 Trends identified in this document may be due to multiple variables. They are provided to help identify potential root causes for study and action | Quality: Improve Claim Handling Accuracy Results o YTD April Fire Finding Frequency for Fire Weather was 6.82%, better than the target of 7.8%; ECR Vendor Finding Frequency was 8.24%, down from 4Q20 at 8.71%. o YTD April FED% for Fire Weather was 4.06% compared to 4Q20 3.13%; ECR FED% was 5.73% compared to 4Q20 4.71%. Tactics going well Wind/Hail Quality Claim Handling sessions with Fire Claim Leaders and Market Area Leadership. o o o 2021 Market Area & Fire Claims (MAC) Partnership where we align on enterprise priorities and build a cooperative one team approach. Execution of Fire Claims Quality plan tactics focused on damage causation, scoping roof repair/replace, and estimate reconciliation. Leaders leveraging Reinspection Results available at each level of leadership and by ECR Vendor to identify specific gaps and take action based on trends. Roof claim handling guidelines integrated into onboarding, assessments and claim file reviews. HAAG Hail/Wind Refresher Training and Roof Skills Assessment enhancing technical skills in handling to roof damage claims to fulfill Our Commitment to Our Policyholders. oo co Tactics in progress to improve performance © Wind/Hail Quality Claim Handling calibration sessions with Fire Claim Specialists with focus on operational guidelines on scoping and evaluating roof repair/replace; use of Wind Repair v. Replace Comparison worksheet. o TMintervention in small hail/light wind to evaluate total roof replacement estimates prior to claim settlement, and deeper calibration with claim leaders based on trends using Advanced Analytics QlikSense Dashboard. o Estimating Job Aid - Laminate Shingle Measurements to assist claim handlers in their reconciliation and resolution of differences with roofing contractors on ability to repair shingles. o In Office team managers completing Estimate Writing Assessment to identify gaps and provide targeted training, to enable greater coaching to 10 claim handlers. © Conduct pricing components refresher on proper estimate line items owed/not owed based on standard practices. o AWC: Testing reinspection program for virtual inspections to implement in partnership with Consulting Services to measure AED. [ Customer: Deliver a Remarkable Claim Experience and Improve Customer Satisfaction Results o Overall Fire claim satisfaction (OSAT) in Fire Weather Ops rebounded in 4Q, with Jan 21 at 86%. OSAT for Fire overall. AWC OSAT trends at record highs 89% (Dec 2020) in 4Q, and the Jan monthly result was the highest looking back 6 months at 93%. o Fire Weather & AWC operations are maintaining overall health; at times of significant catastrophe volatility, customer facing health recovers within the week, and overall health returns in 2 weeks per recovery plans. o Virtual First and Vendor Network Inspection Solutions - WCCS Stewardship Closed Claims with Non-Proximity inspection at 45.9% YTD, SFPSP at 8.1% YTD, activated 52% of ClaimX Live sessions and 61% of File Request activations for past 8 weeks. AWC 96% virtual insp. fe} Tactics going well o Phone Message prioritization to return customer calls within SLO. o Use of 2021 ‘Inspection — No Estimate’ tool to monitor and identify gaps in estimate completion service levels and proactively update customers where estimate service levels will not be met. o Increased adoption in sn customers in virtual and vendor tools with the December implementation of the Fire Inspection Options Tool. o Enhance lendor Pei ance Management approach. ooo 0000 Tactics in progress to improve performance Refreshing approach to framing fire claim process & next steps to simplify the experience for the customer. Enhanced performance visibility into individual management of claim handler voicemail. Spring test of ‘Field Inspection Scheduling’ for hail customers at time of Quality First Contact to set the customer at ease. Call Recording Management tools to implement following moratorium lift for Direct Dialed lines for ease of leadership observation. Testing ClaimXperience Live Sessions with auto catastrophe customers to speed cycle times. Fire property photos to load viewable for customer and agent viewing on Claims/Agency Hubs. Op Model project focused on modemizing the ECR Vendor Performance Management System to include customer service metrics. Last updated - STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Disk Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order f now ‘| WEST00004173"}, {"d": 123, "p": 125, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, State Farm® OVP Herbert — Quarterly Business Review (Fire Weather & AWC) — April 2021 et al. DRAFT Trends identified in this document may be due to multiple variables. They are provided to help identify potential root causes for study and action. [ Employee: Develop Our People and Increase Employee Engagement \"| Results o Q1 2021 the EEI target was met in AWC In-Office; AWC Deployed and Fire Weather In-Office are close to target. o Q12021 Leader result (4.3) for Inclusion exceeded the goal of 4.0; Diversity result was 3.9. o Over 200 claim leaders engaged in how to facilitate Small Group D&I Conversations; most claim leaders participated in 1Q Small Group Conversations for Fire Weather & AWC leaders. O° Tactics going well o Deep and broad engagement in small group conversations and create safe environments to do same; all level of leadership engaged in a broad operational approach and individual conversations with teams. © #wwgwg leadership dialogue sessions to align on purpose, inspire action, and take ownership of areas to improve; engagement cadence includes quarterly ‘town hall’ sessions with claim team members to connect, align and check in on mindsets. © Identification of diverse candidates to place into pipeline opportunities. Development plans for all MGS leaders in alignment with Korn Ferry Talent Strategy. © Connecting with In Office and Deployed claim team members through use of Where We Go, We Grow newsletter, ongoing personal recognition of personal services, and use of Our Rewards. Tactics in progress to improve performance © 2Q Small Group D&l Conversations available in May for all claim team members, facilitated by Fire Weather & AWC leaders. o Kom Ferry Talent Development mapping underway for MG2-4 leaders who engaged in the KFALP. o World Cafes engage claim team members to target improvement opportunities, engage in solutions and execute to action plans. o Modemized Leadership Operational Playbooks to deepen operational management skills for operations of various size. [ Expense: Drive Improvement in Operational Expense and Claim Handling Capabilities | Results © 2020 Budgeted ECR Expense was $61.14M. Normalized April 21 YTD ECR expenses are $ 57.22M, demonstrating running on target. ECR budget estimates are based on a normalized year of demand. © Non-normalized extemal fire labor expense is above April 21 budget by 148% ($90.59M) related to 2021's extraordinary demand and the carryover of 2020 claim pendings into Apr 21 (15.8 ppts. higher than norm). April 21 YTD is the highest year in claim demand since 2012, with demand 47% greater than 2020, 31% above the 5-year average, and 45% above the 10-year average. A $9.8M residual of 2020 ECR expense paid in 2021. o Normalized April 21 productivity places claim received per performer productivity up 14.4% over the 2018-19 norm for all Fire Weather performers (12.0 to 13.7); intemals up 11.0 to 12.6 and externals up 13.3 to 15.1. Non-normalized Fire Weather combined claims received per performer is down in April 21YTD (47.5 to 42.0) related to performers assigned to handle extraordinary 2020 carryover pendings. o Normalizing April 21 pendings places pendings per performer up 15% over the 2018-19 norm for all Fire Weather performers (25.9 to 29.8); Internals up 23.8 to 28.1 and Externals up 28.6 to 33. Non-normalized Fire Weather combined pendings per performer is down in April 21 (27.8 to 25). o AWC lO claims received per performer productivity is down -8.7% YOY (17.2 to 15.7). NOTE: In 2020, Express resources were not tracked in 2020. AWC Deployed Virtual inspection productivity is up 19% from YE 2020 of 2.6 to 3.1; onsite inspections up from 3.6 to 5.3 (47%). April 21 auto catastrophe claim demand running 12% YOY, yet most demand reported in the month of April. Tactics going well © Productivity is improving due to virtual CH capabilities, vendor network solutions, and the inspection & scoping vendors; virtual inspections enable a claim handler to conduct inspections at the same time as Quality First Contacts for eligible losses, and speeds resolution of the loss. © Internal resource sharing into Fire Weather & AWC from other claim segments has reduced labor costs by external value of $10.3M Apr YTD. o _ Data-driven rigor on the resource release process consistent with the resource modeling and deployment process. 0000 Tactics in progress to improve performance o Targeted upskilling of In Office claim teams to speed estimate writing as more estimates being handled from the desktop. o Root cause analysis identified specific people and process opportunities to increase virtual & vendor inspections optimal for desktop adjusting. o Refreshing initial claim handling by Deployed resources to shift work to vendor networks for eligible hail losses and increase inventories; Fire Inspections Options Tool being updated with hail criteria and prioritization of virtual and vendor network solutions before field inspection. ECR Vendor Manager Role test underway at estimated value $8-14M per year in reduced ECR backfills in place of using claim team leads. VMSO & Consulting Services to build CPS & RPS capacity in hail prone geo territories based on historical claim demand. ET dropping New Mail bundling solution to collapse 10 New Mail Tasks to one for every uploaded photo (ECRM, Claims Hub, and ECA). 2021 Roadmap projects underway to reduce cost includes: 1) solution to route hail to In Office claim handlers (lowest cost labor), 2) ‘No equipment” solution for extemal staff augmentation, and 3) ECR Vendor Estimate Assignment Only test to price the inspection and estimate service at a competitive per claim rate. Last updated ® STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Ey SubG! s 4 Basis Only Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order 2|P a WEST00004174"}, {"d": 123, "p": 126, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al From: Sent: To: BCC: HOME CLMS-CCGDEMAND [/O=STATEFARM/OU=EXTERNAL (FYDIBOHF25SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=5B66771ABB8141BCAADDA75FDC0041CB] 4/22/2020 9:20:21 PM Undisclosed recipients: Tony Duddleston [tony.duddleston.gq2c@statefarm.com]; Sandra Hughes [sandra.hughes.czgs@statefarm.com]; Brad Beach [brad.beach.h7yk@statefarm.com]; Robin Fontenot [robin.fontenot.bg7p@statefarm.com]; Rachael McAllister [rachael.mcallister.k6rr@statefarm.com]; HOME CLMS-CCGDEMAND [home.clmsccgdemand.312008 @statefarm.com); Christopher Long [christopher.long.styk@statefarm.com]; Nathaniel Douglass [nathaniel.douglass.mj3v@statefarm.com]; Kathleen Richardson [kathleen.richardson.ehnS@statefarm.com]; greg meir [greg.mier.bgvi@statefarm.com]; Ethan Vanderlugt [ethan.vanderlugt.csa9 @statefarm.com]; gail quinn [gail.faucheaux.bhy1@statefarm.com]; Nicole Forziati [nicole.forziati.gvec@statefarm.com]; Matt Paul [matt.paul.g24x@statefarm.com]; Leonard L Kaigler [leonard.I.kaigler.cimt@statefarm.com]; mark cockerham [mark.cockerham.inpr@statefarm.com]; Doug Graff [doug.graff.gtn|@statefarm.com]; stephanie henderson [brad. parker.bkqi@statefarm.com]; Rob Tierney [rob.tierney.heps@statefarm.com]; Doug Cook [doug.cook.gdty@statefarm.com]; Valeria Brown [valeria.brown.u4nn@statefarm.com]; Steve Crow [steve.crow.b3lx@statefarm.com]; Mark Bussan [mark.bussan.pkg8@statefarm.com]; Fred Cheek [fred.cheek.b3gx@statefarm.com]; Steven Hickey [steven.hickey.nzw1@statefarm.com]; Phil Ford [phil.ford.bb74@statefarm.com]; nathan pattison [nathan.pattison.smvm@statefarm.com]; margarete winland [margarete.winland. bkir@statefarm.com]; Melissa Grimmett [melissa.grimmett.ghi1@statefarm.com]; Eric Simpson [eric.simpson.fbbh@statefarm.com]; David B Cook [david.b.cook.czis@statefarm.com]; Michell Dallal [michell.dallal.b3id@statefarm.com]; Michael Carter [michael.carter.hf72@statefarm.com]; Melissa Christie Morales [melissa.christiemorales.grhx@statefarm.com]; Michele Russo [michele.russo.ckw2@statefarm.com]; Michael Pellegrini [michael.pellegrini.pcpm@statefarm.com]; Bob Stockton [bob.stockton.b3hr@statefarm.com]; Ronny Bryant [ronny.bryant.bst3 @statefarm.com]; Floyd Morris [floyd.morris.b3gp@statefarm.com]; x02john brobston [john.brobston.bugq@statefarm.com]; Terry Cavnar [terry.cavnar.b3ha@statefarm.com]; Gary Vogel [gary.vogel.b3ly@statefarm.com]; Rebecca Carville [(rebecca.carville.qku5@statefarm.com]; Jeff Mercado [jeff.mercado.nokb@statefarm.com]; Robert Long [robert.long.bt9r@statefarm.com]; Rand Harbert [rand.harbert.hey8@statefarm.com]; Schuyler Schupbach [schuyler.schupbach.iOhs@statefarm.com]; paul baxter [paul .baxter.js84@statefarm.com]; Nicki Millan [nicki.millan.c4m3 @statefarm.com]; Susan Maynard [susan.maynard.bh2m@statefarm.com]; Kristi Reed [kristi.rudin.p5jn@statefarm.com]; Kortni Hudson [kortni.hudson.p9rv@statefarm.com]; Don Carpenter [don.carpenter-jr.b3g8@statefarm.com]; Taylor Van Loon [taylor.vanloon.ufi8@statefarm.com]; Duane Cory [duane.cory.b3mk@statefarm.com]; Jim Moratto [jim.moratto.gpad@statefarm.com]; David Caparelli [david.caparelli.ckvq@statefarm.com]; Dennis R Chaumont [dennis.r.chaumont.b3fo@statefarm.com]; Jackson Moore [jackson.moore.uumq@statefarm.com]; Greg S Mcllvoy [greg.s.mcilvoy.b3kw@statefarm.com]; reggie gallant [reggie.gallant.gz8g@statefarm.com]; sue murray [sue.murray.ap2v@statefarm.com]; Don Creel [don.creel.b3gy@statefarm.com); Wensley J Herbert [wensley,j.herbert.cl8b@statefarm.com]; Douglas Prather [douglas.prather.iw60@statefarm.com]; Dara Powell [dara.powell.|jre@statefarm.com]; Robert Moore [robert.moore.kevg@statefarm.com]; Paul Ehrhard [paul.ehrhard.bohv@statefarm.com]; john raub [john.raube.gznj@statefarm.com]; Philip Hebel [philip.hebel.ur37 @statefarm.com]; Robin Wood [robin.wood.jpmu@statefarm.com]; Greg Cassidy [greg.cassidy.cfaz@statefarm.com]; Scott Welsh [scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com]; Clarence Zitterkob [clarence.zitterkob.b3kd@statefarm.com]; John Macmillan [john.macmillan.go8n@statefarm.com]; Ed Mondragon [ed.mondragon.goxs@statefarm.com]; dany myers [danylle.myers.yy9d@statefarm.com]; Clarence Hughes [clarence.hughes.myi5 @statefarm.com]; Angela Null [angela.null.ga2z@statefarm.com]; Bob Mitchell [bob.mitchell.lght@statefarm.com]; kimberly white [kimberly.white.ccve@statefarm.com]; statefarm comjennifer.hall {jennifer.hall.br3n@statefarm.com]; harris ecinomou [harris.economou.bjsk@statefarm.com]; Greg Brown [greg.brown.b2yg@statefarm.com]; Lindsey Webb [lindsey.webb.i9g7@statefarm.com]; Paula Bush [paula.bush.b3jq@statefarm.com]; Ralph Compton [ralph.compton.b3i7@statefarm.com]; Kami Hill [kami.johnson.ywOn@statefarm.com]; jerry black [jerry.black.b3mq@statefarm.com]; Matthew Parola {matthew.parola.nzjn@statefarm.com]; Jim Evans [jim.evans.b3iq@statefarm.com]; gray griffith [gary.griffith.b3jh@statefarm.com]; Bryan Leonard [bryan.leonard.dp7y@statefarm.com]; Daphne Outerbridge Louie [daphne.o.louie.gryi@statefarm.com]; Lee McFarland [lee.mcfarland.uuo8@statefarm.com]; Jacqueline C Nivet [jacqueline.c.nivet.glhy@statefarm.com]; Jeff Sasser [jeff.sasser.gccu@statefarm.com]; Nancy Kurtenbach [nancy.kurtenbach.|6nv@statefarm.com]; stephanie mollica [stephanie.mollica.ch3s@statefarm.com]; tiara tucker [tiara.tucker.spav@statefarm.com]; Jamie Beadle [jamie.beadle.gkgg@statefarm.com]; shyama n.terry [shyama.n.terry.bqbj@statefarm.com]; Kent Gering [kent.gering.b3ks@statefarm.com]; John Christensen [john.christensen.ghu1@statefarm.com]; Travis Hansen [travis.hansen.f868@statefarm.com]; Jim Foxhall Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00097684"}, {"d": 123, "p": 127, "t": "oe West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Gim.foxhall.bhhx@statefarm.com]; Heather Nawolski [heather.nawolski.hcu5@statefarm.com]; jason billington [jason.billington.rp92@statefarm.com]; heather young [heather.ladd.iya7@statefarm.com]; Ami Kuhlman [ami.kuhIman.pcck@statefarm.com]; Robert Franks [robert.franks.rta4@statefarm.com]; Monique James [monique.james.gtgq@statefarm.com]; john adams [john.adams.b2w9 @statefarm.com]; Annette Sanders [annette.sanders.ccr2@statefarm.com]; www bill.wells bill. wells.bvgr@statefarm.com]; Trent Dellinger [trent.dellinger.clsc@statefarm.com]; Gary Baumwart [gary.baumwart.b3kk@statefarm.com]; rubin pinto [ruben.pinto.p300@statefarm.com]; Rob Parent [rob.parent.hdoo@statefarm.com]; Lewis Eady [lewis.eady.b2yo@statefarm.com]; Melissa Nurczyk [melissa.kern.gu0f@statefarm.com]; Todd Hoyt [todd.hoyt.gsf6@statefarm.com]; Kristyn Cook [kristyn.cook-turner.itmO@statefarm.com]; Wendy Mazza [wendy.mazza.c9s2@statefarm.com]; Ann Bandy {ann.bandy.b3g2@statefarm.com]; Tom Moss [tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com]; Kathy Broussard [kathy.broussard.brly@statefarm.com]; Nicole L Smith [nicole.|.smith.ggnk@statefarm.com]; David Leathery [david.leathery.gygo@statefarm.com]; Kelly Sell [kelly.sell.clve@statefarm.com]; Megan Perganson [megan.perganson.mkf8@statefarm.com]; toni jenkins [toni.jenkins.cexq@statefarm.com]; Odessa Scott [odessa.scott.knqO@statefarm.com]; Jill Kelly [jill kelly.bq89@statefarm.com]; Leigh Cripe [leigh.cripe.II7u@statefarm.com]; Diane Roberson [diane.roberson.gw6y@statefarm.com]; Wayne Stewart [wayne.stewart.bhz1@statefarm.com]; Michael Arnold [michael.arnold.bjhs@statefarm.com]; robert yi [robert.yi.caqa@statefarm.com]; Janelle L Pughsley {janelle.!.pughsley.gay4 @statefarm.com]; Cathy Warren [cathy.warren.b3g4@statefarm.com]; Doug Williams [doug. williams.c2ot@statefarm.com]; Blackie Gibson [blackie.gibson.b3h8 @statefarm.com]; Brianna Lay [brianna.siscoe.wocd@statefarm.com]; Victoria Jankowski [victoria.jankowski.gsfq@statefarm.com]; Adrianne Eddins [adrianne.eddins.gc79 @statefarm.com]; Kelly Evans [kelly.evans.stdz@statefarm.com]; kevin petereson [kevin.peterson.bcxv@statefarm.com]; Steve Meulemans [steve.meulemans.gorz@statefarm.com]; Brian Beers [brian.beers.gg9t@statefarm.com]; renee langdon [renee.langdon.hx9w@statefarm.com]; Cheryl Schaefer [cheryl.schaefer.Irkt@statefarm.com]; Allison Cooper [allison.cooper.hfqb@statefarm.com]; dan kinney [dan.kinney.bi0e@statefarm.com]; Michele Bennington [michele.bennington.bo8i@statefarm.com]; Gregory E Jones [gregory.e.jones.gzwh @statefarm.com]; vince watson [vince.watson.c12x@statefarm.com]; Victor Terry [victor.terry.hdp2@statefarm.com]; tom sullivent [tom.sullivent.b3lg@statefarm.com]; Jaclyn Byers [jaclyn.byers.qwau @statefarm.com]; Brianne Jones [brianne.jones.siut@statefarm.com]; Michael T Keating [michael.t.keating.ggrp@statefarm.com]; Kate Sylvester [kate.sylvester.r1n9 @statefarm.com]; Brad Rushton [brad.rushton.b92n@statefarm.com]; Joshua Branum [joshua.branum.kg74@statefarm.com]; Carmelo Alvarez [carmelo.alvarez.czer@statefarm.com]; Bill Leming [bill.leming.b3hO@statefarm.com]; Chris Schell [chris.schell.gxnO@statefarm.com]; Walter Phillips [walter.phillips.gg6|@statefarm.com]; tia lindell {eileen.flynn.bsfx@statefarm.com]; Jason Matzke [jason.matzke.povz@statefarm.com]; Tyrone Smith [tyrone.smith.a57w@statefarm.com]; Chris Evans [chris.evans.calb@statefarm.com]; Amy Chacon [amy.chacon.p4cj@statefarm.com]; karl brondell [karl.m.brondell.alfw@statefarm.com]; jon giddings [jon.giddings.b2mp@statefarm.com]; Travis Paul [travis.paul.drku@statefarm.com]; tom stidham [tom.stidham.b3if@statefarm.com]; jeremy duley [jeremy.duley.pnp1@statefarm.com]; Keith Androff [keith.androff.a9m6@statefarm.com]; Jannis Taylor {jan.nichols.t63x@statefarm.com]; Fran Corrales-Drone [fran.corrales-drone.cuwc@statefarm.com]; Dan Riddle [dan.riddle.u8bq@statefarm.com]; maryb mooney [mary.b.mooney.cwx8@statefarm.com]; Larry Strauss [larry.strauss.b3k|@statefarm.com]; Jerel Wright [jerel.wright.b3jk@statefarm.com]; mel braden [mel.braden.b3le@statefarm.com]; Buddy McCarty [buddy.mccarty.b3mu@statefarm.com]; Tina Richardson [tina.richardson.qlgr@statefarm.com]; Steve Bennett [steve.bennett.clcj@statefarm.com]; Robert E Owens [robert.e.owens.bmdv@statefarm.com]; Beverly Taylor [beverly.taylor.b3kn@statefarm.com]; Kevin Roman [kevin.roman.c9iu@statefarm.com]; uliann richter [juliann.klokkenga.bte8 @statefarm.com)]; jeff shay {jeff.shay.a68x@statefarm.com]; Paul Smith [paul.smith.chtb@statefarm.com]; brent wroten [brent.wroten.band@statefarm.com]; Michael Lennon [michael.lennon.cql8@statefarm.com]; ohn burns [john.burns.g38r@statefarm.com]; Carol Waldron [carol.waldron.bipO@statefarm.com]; Albert Cortez [albert.cortez.jrlo@statefarm.com]; Linda Harper [linda.harper.bjdl@statefarm.com]; jim doyle [jim.doyle.kxed@statefarm.com]; Lisa Sommer [lisa.sommer.|5si@statefarm.com]; Arvid Bean [arvid.bean.b2zs@statefarm.com]; Kathy Ress [kathy.ress.he8j@statefarm.com]; peter strahlendorf [peter.strahlendorf.sm31@statefarm.com]; Melanie Holtan [melanie.holtan.g7bh@statefarm.com]; Robert Mayrose {robert.mayrose.gnut@statefarm.com]; Mary Kaye Bennett [mary.k.bennett.gryj@statefarm.com]; Brad Thomas [brad.thomas.b2uj@statefarm.com]; erin miller [erin.miller.sx61@ statefarm.com]; Tom Wells [tom.wells.gc2h@statefarm.com]; David Grissett [david.grissett.b27v@statefarm.com]; Daphine Willingham [daphine.willingham.|dg6@ statefarm.com]; Michael T Payne [michael.t.payne.clsn@statefarm.com]; Kristal King {kristal.king.ch20@statefarm.com]; clarence holley [clarence.holley.sh90@statefarm.com]; Bill Roundtree [bill.roundtree.gOss@statefarm.com]; Catrena Smith [catrena.smith.sdgu@statefarm.com]; Patrick Miller [patrick.miller.hoz1@statefarm.com]; Bill McComb Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00097685"}, {"d": 123, "p": 128, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. [bill mccomb.b3h6@statefarm.com]; Kimberly Sterling [kimberly.sterling.gdpd@statefarm.com]; natalie taddeucci {natalie.mccuen.fsea@statefarm.com]; Mike Muecke [mike.muecke.b3g9@statefarm.com]; Deanna Glover [deanna.glover.a79a@statefarm.com]; Lori Herrling [lori.herrling.grOm@statefarm.com]; spencer baker [spencer.baker.|pky@statefarm.com]; Joey Reina [joey.reina.ccls@statefarm.com]; Dick Coates [dick.coates.b3ji@statefarm.com)]; randy bittle [randy.bittle.b2w|@statefarm.com]; Sheryl Mandeville [sheryl.mandeville.bzSc@statefarm.com]; Brian Maxwell [brian.maxwell.cz61@statefarm.com]; Bertha Cochran [bertha.cochran.pi6q@statefarm.com]; Kati Faletti [kati faletti.cg3r@statefarm.com]; Nicole Purdue [nicole.purdue.spnn@statefarm.com]; melissa sebesta [melissa.sebesta.fh70@statefarm.com]; Jimmy Hillis {jimmy.hillis.b3jb@statefarm.com]; phillip hawkins [phillip.hawkins.ctjl@statefarm.com]; Terry Brown [terry.brown.b3ih@statefarm.com]; Jonna Robinson [jonna.robinson.i8vi@statefarm.com]; Kevin Wishard [kevin.wishard.hlye@statefarm.com]; Josh Monk [josh.monk.pxeg@statefarm.com]; jonathon edmonson [jonathan.edmonson.j30a@statefarm.com]; scott holt [scott.a.holt.cess@statefarm.com]; Christine Rodriguez [christine.rodriguez.izco@statefarm.com]; sackelly bever [kelly.bever.a7xs@statefarm.com]; Aaron Thomas [aaron.thomas.snwv@statefarm.com]; Robert Vardeman [robert.vardeman.b3ib@statefarm.com]; sandra.hughes.czgs@statefarm.com; robin.fontenot.bg7p@statefarm.com; rachael.mcallister.k6rr@statefarm.com; christopher.long.styk@statefarm.com; nathaniel.douglass.mj3v@statefarm.com; ethan.vanderlugt.csa9@statefarm.com; nicole.forziati.gvec@statefarm.com; leonard.|.kaigler.cimt@statefarm.com; doug.graff.gtn!@statefarm.com; rob.tierney.heps@statefarm.com; fred.cheek.b3gx@statefarm.com; melissa.grimmett.ghi1 @statefarm.com; david.b.cook.czis@statefarm.com; michell.dallal.b3id@statefarm.com; michael.carter.hf72@statefarm.com; melissa.christiemorales.grhx@statefarm.com; michele.russo.ckw2@statefarm.com; michael.pellegrini.pcpm@statefarm.com; ronny.bryant.bst3 @statefarm.com; floyd.morris.b3gp@statefarm.com; gary.vogel.b3ly@statefarm.com; jeff.mercado.nokb@statefarm.com; robert.long.bt9r@statefarm.com; rand.harbert.hey8@statefarm.com; schuyler.schupbach.iOhs@ statefarm.com; nicki.millan.cém3@statefarm.com; susan.maynard.bh2m @statefarm.com; kortni.hudson.p9rv@statefarm.com; taylor.vanloon.ufi8@statefarm.com; duane.cory.b3mk@statefarm.com; david.caparelli.ckvq@statefarm.com; dennis.r.chaumont.b3fo@statefarm.com; greg.s.mcilvoy.b3kw@statefarm.com; don.creel.b3gy@statefarm.com; wensley.j.herbert.ci8b@statefarm.com; douglas.prather.iw60@statefarm.com; robert.moore.kevg@statefarm.com; paul.ehrhard.bohv@statefarm.com; philip.hebel.ur37@statefarm.com; robin.wood.jpmu@statefarm.com; scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com; clarence.zitterkob.b3kd@statefarm.com; john.macmillan.go8n@statefarm.com; angela.null.ga2z@statefarm.com; bob.mitchell.lght@statefarm.com; greg.brown.b2yg@statefarm.com; lindsey.webb.i9g7 @statefarm.com; paula.bush.b3jq@statefarm.com; matthew.parola.nzjn@statefarm.com; jim.evans.b3iq@statefarm.com; bryan.leonard.dp7y@statefarm.com; daphne.o. louie.gryi@statefarm.com; jamie.beadle.gkgg@ statefarm.com; john.christensen.ghu1@statefarm.com; heather.nawolski.hcuS@statefarm.com; ami.kuhiman.pcck@statefarm.com; monique.james.gtgq@statefarm.com; annette.sanders.ccr2 @statefarm.com; trent.dellinger.clsc@statefarm.com; gary.baumwart.b3kk@statefarm.com; rob.parent.hdoo@statefarm.com; melissa.kern.gu0f@statefarm.com; wendy.mazza.c9s2@statefarm.com; ann.bandy.b3g2@statefarm.com; tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com; kathy.broussard.brly@statefarm.com; nicole.|.smith.ggnk@statefarm.com; david.leathery.gygo@statefarm.com; kelly.sell.clve@statefarm.com; megan.perganson.mkf8@statefarm.com; jill.kelly.bq89 @statefarm.com; leigh.cripe.|I7u@statefarm.com; diane.roberson.gw6y@statefarm.com; wayne.stewart.bhz1@statefarm.com; michael.arnold.bjhs@statefarm.com; janelle.|.pughsley.gay4@statefarm.com; blackie.gibson.b3h8@statefarm.com; victoria jankowski.gsfq@statefarm.com; adrianne.eddins.gc79@statefarm.com; kelly.evans.stdz@statefarm.com; steve.meulemans.gorz@statefarm.com; brian.beers.gg9t@statefarm.com; cheryl.schaefer.Irkt@statefarm.com; allison.cooper.hfqb@statefarm.com; michele.bennington.bo8i@statefarm.com; gregory.e.jones.gzwh@statefarm.com; jaclyn.byers.qwau@statefarm.com; brianne.jones.siut@statefarm.com; michael.t.keating.ggrp@statefarm.com; brad.rushton.b92n@statefarm.com; carmelo.alvarez.czer@statefarm.com; chris.schell.gxnO@statefarm.com; walter.phillips.gg6l@statefarm.com; jason.matzke.povz@statefarm.com; tyrone.smith.aS7w@statefarm.com; chris.evans.calb @statefarm.com; keith.androff.aIm6@statefarm.com; jan.nichols.t63x@statefarm.com; fran.corrales-drone.cuwc@statefarm.com; dan.riddle.u8bq@statefarm.com; larry.strauss.b3kl@statefarm.com; jerel.wright.b3jk@statefarm.com; steve.bennett.clcj@statefarm.com; robert.e.owens.bmdv@statefarm.com; beverly.taylor.b3kn@statefarm.com; kevin.roman.c9iu@statefarm.com; paul.smith.chtb@statefarm.com; carol.waldron.bipO@statefarm.com; albert.cortez.jrlo@statefarm.com; linda.harper.bjdl|@statefarm.com; lisa.sommer.|5si@statefarm.com; arvid.bean.b2zs@statefarm.com; melanie.holtan.g7bh@statefarm.com; robert.mayrose.gnut@statefarm.com; mary.k.bennett.gryj@statefarm.com; brad.thomas.b2uj@statefarm.com; david.grissett.b27v@statefarm.com; daphine.willingham.ldg6@statefarm.com; michael.t.payne.clsn@statefarm.com; kristal.king.ch2o@statefarm.com; bill.roundtree.gOss @statefarm.com; patrick.miller.hoz1 @statefarm.com; kimberly.sterling.gdpd@statefarm.com; deanna.glover.a79a@statefarm.com; lori.herrling.grOm @statefarm.com; joey.reina.ccl5 @statefarm.com; sheryl.mandeville.bzS5c@statefarm.com; Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00097686"}, {"d": 123, "p": 129, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, Subject: brian.maxwell.cz61@statefarm.com; bertha.cochran.pi6q@statefarm.com; kati.faletti.cg3r@statefarm.com; nicole.purdue.spnn@statefarm.com; jimmy.hillis.b3jb@statefarm.com; jonna.robinson.i8vi@statefarm.com; josh.monk.pxeg @statefarm.com; christine.rodriguez.izco@statefarm.com; aaron.thomas.snwv@statefarm.com Notice of Agency Conference Call - Oklahoma Subject: Notice of Agency Conference Call — Oklahoma et al. To: From: What Ami Kuhlman, Sales Leader — South Central Market Area Vince Watson, Demand Coordinator — Central Coordination Group yo Action requested Please plan to attend an Agency Conference Call via Skype Meeting: AbD TO YOUR CALENDAR — Agency Conference Call — Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Central Time (CT). Add the appointment to your calendar by clicking the aforementioned link. The calendar invite includes a link to the online meeting, as well as dial-in information. Additional details e Agents, sales leaders, agency administration leaders, and agency field specialist managers in impacted areas are encouraged to attend this meeting. e Demand Coordination and various subject matter experts will provide an update to the response regarding Auto Catastrophe Claim Group 72 and Fire Catastrophe Claim Group HP in Oklahoma. © The call will take place on April 23, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. CT. e To join the audio portion of the Online Meeting using Skype, select the “Use Skype’ option, or you can dial in and enter the conference ID number. o 855-633-0176 o Conference ID: 76662461 Joining Audio e The preferred method for listening to the call is to use the audio within the Skype Online Meeting. o When joining the meeting online using the Skype option, please verify your line is muted by checking your microphone icon. When prompted, you can toggle between mute and unmute by clicking the microphone icon. e When dialing in to join the audio portion of the meeting, please remember to mute and unmute your device by hitting *6. There may be a 10-15 second delay. o Please do not place the call on hold while connected to the meeting. e Please do not join the audio via Skype and also dial in via the above phone number and conference ID. Use only one or the other. If you have questions Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00097687"}, {"d": 123, "p": 130, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Please contact your sales leader. C: Rand Harbert; Kristyn Cook-Turner; Chris Schell; Paul Smith; South Central Market Area Executive Team; Robert Yi; John Burns; Wensley J Herbert; Michele Russo; Operations Vice Presidents — P&C Claims; John Christensen; Wendy Mazza; Kathy Ress; Tyrone Smith; Vice Presidents Operations — P&C Claims; South Central Market Area Agency Administration Leaders; Assistant Vice President - P&C Claims; P&C Claims Directors; Claim Consultants; John MacMillan; Oklahoma Sales Leaders; South Central Market Area Agency Field Specialist Function Managers; South Central Market Area Agency Field Specialist - Managers; Taylor Van Loon; Lisa Sommer; Central Coordination Group; South Central Market Area Communication Specialists FOR INTERNAL STATE FARM USE ONLY Contains information that may not be disclosed outside State Farm without authorization. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00097688"}, {"d": 123, "p": 131, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, From: Sent: To: cc: BCC: Subject: et al. Tom Moss [/O=STATEFARM/OU=HOME/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=C4SG] 3/21/2020 3:40:33 AM Melissa Grimmett [melissa.grimmett.ghi1@statefarm.com]; Brad Rushton [brad.rushton.b92n @statefarm.com] Scott Welsh [scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com]; Tanya E Potts [tanya.e.potts.gqhu@statefarm.com] Tom Moss [tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com]; Melissa Grimmett [melissa.grimmett.ghil@statefarm.com]; Brad Rushton [brad.rushton.b92n@statefarm.com]; Scott Welsh [scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com]; Tanya E Potts [tanya.e.potts.gqhu@statefarm.com] RE: Update: Haag Wind and Hail Videos Updated with hyperlinks to OGs From: Tom Moss Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 10:37 PM To: Melissa Grimmett <melissa.grimmett.ghil @statefarm.com>; Brad Rushton <brad.rushton.b92n@statefarm.com> Cc: Scott Welsh <scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com>; Tanya E Potts <tanya.e.potts.gqhu@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Update: Haag Wind and Hail Videos Importance: High Hello Melissa, | have updated the memo with my thoughts. Brad — thoughts? Tom March XX, 2020 Subject: HAAG Education Presents — Hail and Wind Damage Assessment Video Series To: Claims Managers — P&C Claims — distribution list needed Claims Training & Consulting? Yes orno? From: Yes, | think this should come from Training (you) and Consulting Services, either Brad as technical consultant or me as | have the wind/hail focus What you should know Claims Fania walked wih Haag Education to develop a hail and wind damage assessment e-learning/informational video series in preparation for the 2020 storm season. This “just in time” informational video series supports the plan’s continued focus on quality claim handling and fundamentals accountability. As provided within the plan, the video series should be scheduled and completed, as capacity and service goals allow. Action Required The Haag Education Hail and Wind Damage Assessment Video Series is available in MyBlock (Course XXXXXxX) and is recommended to be completed by Fire claim handlers in our in-office, Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00073884"}, {"d": 123, "p": 132, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. deployed and proximity locations as capacity and other priorities allow. Consideration should be given to have handlers complete the e-learni g video series located in hail prone locations, and those most T a, for example, initially. << OLE Object: Microsoft Word Document >> Additional details e Included with the attachment above are the chapter/segments included in the video series. ° The video series from start to finish, if viewed in its entirety, is approximately 5.5 hours in length. ° ls this mandatory? | think we say all should attend but not mark as mandatory, in the event that someone fails to attend and then we have the document that states it is mandatory. e Should there be a “mark complete” requirement at the completion of the video series? Yes, | would like a way to track that it has been completed. If you have questions If you have questions, please reach out to your Consultant or Claims Training (link in Mel's ID for Claims Training). Kelly Bever, VPO — P&C Claims Wendy Mazza, VPO — P&C Claims Cc: Kathy Ress, VPO — P&C Claims Tyrone Smith, VPO — P&C Claims Greg Jones, VPO — P&C Claims (Check to make sure all VPO’s are included) From: Melissa Grimmett Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 7:38 AM To: Tom Moss <torm.moss.c4sg @statefarm.com>; Brad Rushton <brad.rushton.b92n@statefarm.com> Cc: Scott Welsh <scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com>; Tanya E Potts <tanya.e.potts.gqhu @statefarm.com> Subject: FW: Update: Haag Wind and Hail Videos Importance: High Good morning. Heard from HAAG. There is no script and they will work on one. Tanya provides details below. Since it might take them a while to do this, we have a handful of analysts in-house transcribing. It might take us a few days, but we will work through it and send to you for review once completed. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00073885"}, {"d": 123, "p": 133, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al es Action — in the meantime, can you take a look at the communication below and add in your edits from a Consulting perspective? Hoping once the transcript is complete, we can move quickly to communicate. Special thanks to Tanya and her team for keeping this moving. From: Tanya E Potts Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 8:35 PM To: Melissa Grimmett <melissa.grimmett.ghi1@statefarm.com> Cc: Sharonna Owens <sharonna.owens.isur@statefarm.com>; Tina Kohn <tina.kohn.|2su@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Update: Haag Wind and Hail Videos Update: Good News ° HAAG agreed to provide a script. ® The turnaround to receive the script is - best case one week and worst case two weeks or more if staffing/capacity becomes impacted for the transcription services vendor Haag contracts with. Once Kevin knows the timeframe he will share with us. ° Discussed next steps with Tina and we decided to proceed with having analysts and any LDF with some capacity along with myself to transcribe the videos to expedite the publishing. ° There are six analysts and myself currently transcribing. Tricia Carter has taken the lead on this and has organized and provided the transcription and publishing assignments out to those assisting. (Tricia has been very helpful and informative throughout the process.) ° The teamwork shown in an effort to complete this video publishing and script creation effort has been outstanding ~ specifically the leadership and guidance provided by Tina throughout. (I sincerely appreciate you Tina — thank you for your willingness to support this effort.} ° Depending on additional LDF/analyst capacity we may be able to secure, we will continue to keep the pace to get the scripts transcribed and videos published. Jerry is looking for a person to deploy to assist us. ° | will update once the video publishing has been completed. Pending ° Memo editing — review of message points with Consulting Services if warranted ° Video message points discussed and documented within a separate document? Or a general message regarding State Farm perspective? e Once published, submit MyBlock form to set up Course and imbed training course information in Announcement Haag Wind and Hail Assessment Videos March XX, 2020 Subject: Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order HAAG Education Presents — Hail and Wind Damage Assessment Video Series WEST00073886"}, {"d": 123, "p": 134, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Claims Managers — P&C Claims — distribution list To: needed From: Claims Training & Consulting? Yes or no? What you should know The 2020 Fire Property Claims Quality Plan, released in early February, 2020, references material being delivered by Haag Education sometime in Q1 of 2020. Claims training worked with Haag Education to develop a hail and wind damage assessment e-learning/informational video series in preparation for the 2020 storm season. This ‘just in time” informational video series supports the plan’s continued focus on quality claim handling and fundamentals accountability. As provided within the plan, the video series should be scheduled and completed, as capacity and service goals allow. Action Required The Haag Education Hail and Wind Damage Assessment Video Series is available in MyBlock (Course XXXXXX) and is recommended to be completed by Fire claim handlers in our in-office, deployed and proximity locations as capacity and other priorities allow. Consideration should be given to have handlers complete the e-learning video series located in hail prone locations, and those most likely to respond to weather events in Texas and Oklahoma, for example, initially. The information provided by Haag does lend an engineering perspective in some instances and not an insurance coverage/damage perspective. While their perspective is not inaccurate, it is not State Farm’s understanding and should be noted in advance of viewing the videos. To help with communicating this to your leadership teams, we have identified a few examples to refer to specifically in your communications. Please do not forward the attachment. << OLE Object: Microsoft Word Document >> Additional details ° e length. Included with the attachment above are the chapter/segments included in the video series. The video series from start to finish, if viewed in its entirety, is approximately 5.5 hours in ° Is this mandatory? Should there be a “mark complete” video series? requirement at the completion of the If you have questions lf you have questions, please reach out to your Consultant or Claims Training (link in Mel’s ID for Claims Training). Kelly Bever, VPO — P&C Claims C: Wendy Mazza, VPO — P&C Claims . Kathy Ress, VPO — P&C Claims Tyrone Smith, VPO — P&C Claims (Check to make sure all VPO’s are included) Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00073887"}, {"d": 123, "p": 135, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et. al. v. SFF&CC, et. al. OG 75-160. Wind/Hail Rooting Guidelines OPERATION GUIDE DATE 04-18-2018 GENERAL CLASSIFICATION |Iclaim Practices Fire SUBJECT NUMBER Wind/Hail 75-160 Roofing Guidelines Table of Contents |. PURPOSE Il. INVESTIGATION/INSPECTION GUIDELINES A. When to Inspect B. Prior to the Inspection C. What to Inspect D. Inspection Safety E. Photographs G. Measurements ith ADJUSTMENT GUIDELINES A. Repairvs. Replace B. Footfall— Vi. ROOFING LOCATOR SERVICE Vil. USE OF EXPERTS/ENGINEERS Vill. SUBROGATION (ROOF) IX. CODING x. PRIOR DAMAGE — ROOF A. Prior Roof Claim. No Repairs Completed & Pot tg Roo rs Cl. on Roo eee eos, Tetoff Not ane sak HOSIERGAR00002581PROD WESTNEI00016421PROD"}, {"d": 123, "p": 136, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et. al. v. SFF&CC, et. al. OG 75-160, Wind/Hail Roofing Guidelines Xl. XIl. Xill ROOF WARRANTIES XIV. BUILDING CODE/ORDINANCE AND LAW XV. COMMUNICATION WITH THE POLICYHOLDER XVI. ADDITIONAL INSPECTION GUIDELINES XVII. APPRAISAL/ADR/ARBITRATION PURPOSE This Operation Guide provides guidelines for handling roof claims consistent with and the Compliance Statement. In general, the guidance provided is applicable to all policy forms unless otherwise indicated in the Operation Guide. Review the policy form and/or endorsement(s) to confirm the specific contract language and/or limits which are applicable to an individual claim. If a policy provision or application is more restrictive than the law of the jurisdiction, then the law of the jurisdiction will apply. Also, there may be situations where the Enterprise position is broader than the law of the jurisdiction. In such situations, you should follow the Enterprise position. If policy wording in the jurisdiction conflicts with any of these guidelines or in case of unusual claim situations, contact claim management. Top of Page INVESTIGATION/NSPECTION GUIDELINES A. When to inspect Wind: Wind claims involving minor damage may be handled by phone. A field inspection may be necessary when damage is reported to multiple slopes, interior damage or when the age and condition of the roof would make the roof more susceptible to damage. Hail: A field inspection should be completed on all claims reported with potential hail damage. When it is determined that a field inspection is appropriate; losses involving roofs should include an on-roof inspection where safe and practical to do so. Removal of snow and ice from roofs to allow for an inspection: Refer to 75-20, OG Water Damage Losses Section Vill. Winter Weather Claims Involving Ice Dams or Weight of Ice, Snow or Sleet Ice F. Removal of Snow and Ice from Roofs and Gutters or guidance. If it is necessary to meet with a contractor, arrange to meet at the insured's risk. Travel to the location in the company-provided transportation. B. Prior to the Inspection Prior to the inspection, obtain information from the policyholder related to the type of damage he or she may have noted to the exterior, interior, or other building structures or appurtenances. If roof damage is reported, inquire as to the type of roof surface, age and if the home is a one or two-story structure. When interior damage is reported, clarify the extent of damage, for instance if the damage is to one or multiple rooms. Weather information: When inspecting wind/hail claims, having information about the weather event can be valuable. Information which may be available includes, but is not limited to, the direction of the storm, size of hail, wind speed and amount of rainfall. This information can be obtained in various ways including weather service websites and conversations with the policyholder. Review the policy information and loss history as outlined in 75-01, OG First Party Claim Handling requirements. Refer to: Quality First Contact Guide - Fire C. What to Inspect Exterior: Inspect exterior property and note findings during the inspection. Walk completely around the risk, noting damage to any and all portions of the building, as well as any outbuildings, fences, gutters, decks, air conditioning HOSIERGAR00002582PROD WESTNEI00016422PROD"}, {"d": 123, "p": 137, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Hosier, Gary, et. al. v. SFF&CC, et. al. OG 75-160, Wind/Hail Roofing Guidelines condensing units and other structures or appurtenances. Evaluate damage or lack of damage to covered property during the inspection. Document the claim file appropriately. Interior: When interior damage is noted, inspect the interior to evaluate if the damage is related to any damage to the roof surface. Ask the policyholder when the damage was first noticed and if there is damage to one or multiple rooms. Inspect all areas of damage. Evaluate damage or lack of damage to covered property during the inspection. Document the claim file appropriately. Roof: Initially, inspect the overall roof to establish its general condition and extent of damage. Consider the type of storm, direction of the wind/hail, and the size/shape of the hailstones in that area. Inspecting other items such as gutters, vents, skylights, decks, outbuildings, air conditioning condensing units, and fences may assist in establishing if the roof may have sustained damage. If the roofing is deteriorated, but no damage due to a covered peril is noted, determine if the roof can be walked on without causing substantial damage. In rare situations, the most appropriate course of action is to examine and photograph the roof from several points around the perimeter without actually walking on the roof. Questions should be reviewed with management. During the inspection, when safe and practical to do so, document the approximate age, condition of roof materials, evidence of roofing underlayment such as felt or self-adhered waterproof membrane (commonly referred to as ice and water shield) , the number of layers, pitch of the slopes as well as the type of roof surface. Resources available to assist in identifying the type of roof surface may include: = The Roofing Locator Service is a tool that can assist with shingle identification for all types of roof surfaces. Refer to Section Vil. Roofing Locator Service. = The policyholder may be able to provide information that may assist with the identification of the type of roof surface. For instance building records, repair receipts. D. Inspection Safety At any phase of a claim investigation, circumstances may arise that make the inspection/nvestigation unsafe or unreasonable. This can include times when an individual is creating a distraction which creates an unsafe situation or makes completion of a thorough and complete inspection not possible. When such situations arise: = In accordance with Workplace Security Policy take safety measures to prevent a threat or violent act from being carried out. = If safe to do so, advise the insured: = You will be unable to complete the inspection/investigation, and = Will return or continue when the circumstances giving rise to the situation have been remedied, and = The inspection may be done safely without interruption Advise your management immediately when these situations arise and report any workplace violence threats by: = Filling out the Threat Report Checklist located in SFNet, State Farm Forms, under Administrative Services, in the Security folder, or = Call the Threat response Hotline, available 24 hours a day at (309) 766-0911. E. Photographs Photographs should give a clear indication of the extent of damage involved or lack of damage. The photographs should reflect the basis of the adjustment and support the decisions made. Judgment should be exercised to determine which photographs are appropriate for documenting the claim file. The following are the type of roofing photos that may be secured and documented in the claim file when safe and practical to do so: = Risk photo = Overview photos of the entire slopes which depict the number and type of vents on the roof surface = Overview and close up photos of every test square when applicable HOSIERGAR00002583PROD WESTNEI00016423PROD"}, {"d": 123, "p": 138, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et. al. v. SFF&CC, et. al. OG 75-160, Wind/Hail Roofing Guidelines = Close up photos clearly depicting damage or lack of damage = Close-up photos to document and depict the type of roof materials and condition of the roof = Photos depicting the number of layers on the roof surface and roof accessories (for example - vents, flashing, gutters, skylights, valleys, solar panels) = Take photos to document any interior damage and undamaged areas pertinent to the claim presented Refer to: OG 75-01, First Party Claims Guidelines & Requirements, Section Ill. D. 8. Photographs. F. Test Squares Test squares should be used when inspecting all types of roof surfaces to evaluate damage resulting from hail when safe and practical to do so. Test squares are not necessary for claims involving wind damage only, since wind damage is generally apparent and not always evenly distributed over the roof. On hail claims, test squares are usually made on a 10x10 area. Mark with a chalk/lumber crayon a 100 square foot sample area (or test square) that is representative of the damage or lack of damage found on that slope. Mark and count the number of damaged shingles within the test square. Damage is determined by the number of damaged shingles, not individual tabs. On flat roof surfaces mark and count a representative sample of the damage found within the sample area. Hail damage on a roof can vary from slope to slope, depending on the pitch and condition of each slope and the direction of the hail. Complete test squares on an appropriate number of slopes to evaluate the damage to the entire roof. In cases where the slopes have similar damage, complete a test square for each direction. In cases where the damage varies or directional test squares are not indicative of the overall roof, complete additional test squares where needed. Test squares are not needed in situations where the inspection indicates no hail damage exists or a total loss from heavy hail damage applies. In these situations, the damage, or lack thereof, should be apparent from the initial inspection, and documented by photographs and claim file notes. G. Measurements When an inspection is appropriate and it is safe and practical to do so, measure as accurately as possible and document the measurements in the claim file as follows: a Itis preferable that diagrams be completed using the Sketch function within Xactimate. When Sketch is used, itis not necessary to create both a handwritten diagram and sketch. = If any covered damage to the roof surface is noted, the entire roof should be measured and documented in the claim file. = Aerial Measurement Services (AMS) may be used on an individual claim to provide a diagram and measurements of the roof system. The report may be ordered before the inspection to aid in the measurements of the roof system. Refer to: Section||. Investigation/Inspection Guidelines H. Refer to: 75-07 OG Structural Loss Claim Handling Section II. Structural Loss Claim Handling Procedures D. Investigation of Structural Losses 3. Diagrams/Measurements H. Diagrams/Sketch When an inspection is appropriate and covered damage is noted, a diagram of the entire roof surface should be completed if it is safe and practical to do so. The claim file or diagram should show the following: = Accurate measurements of the entire roof and the computations used to establish the square footage of the damaged areas. If the Xactimate program is used to calculate the damaged area or roof surface, it is not necessary to reflect the computations separately in the claim file. = The location of damage and test squares should be indicated on the diagram, Roofing Scope Sheet, Sketch, or noted in the file through the scope notes or file notes. Other appurtenances may be indicated on the diagram or Sketch or noted in the file through the scope notes or file notes. HOSIERGAR00002584PROD WESTNEI00016424PROD"}, {"d": 123, "p": 139, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et. al. v. SFF&CC, et. al. ra OG 75-160, Wind/Hail Roofing Guidelines |. Aerial Measurement Services Aerial Measurement Services (AMS) may be used on an individual claim to provide a diagram and measurements of the roof system. AMS is not used to determine the scope of damage and does not replace the physical inspection of the property. When AMS is used, the claim handler should receive a copy of the AMS report prior to the inspection. During the inspection the claim handler should complete the following: 1. Verify that the AMS report provided is for the correct property. 2. Claim handler should review aerial measurement report and compare it to visual observation of roof. If these visual observations create questions with respect to accuracy of measurements contained in vendor report, claim handler must measure the pitch and eave length of the predominate slope and compare these measurements to the vendor report. If the measurements do not agree with the measurements provided in the AMS report, the claim handler should proceed with manually measuring the entire roof. The AMS help desk should be notified that the measurements were corrected on the AMS report 3. Ifo questions/concerns arise from visual inspections of aerial measurements report and roof, claim handler may handle the loss relying upon the report. The claim handler should document the file indicating the AMS measurements were used or the roof was re-measured. J. Other Appurtenances Roof vents, skylights, gutters, downspouts, drip edge, metal valleys, flashing, patio covers, satellites, a/c condensing units and solar panels may also have sustained wind or hail damage. The gauge or thickness of the metal/aluminum or plastic materials varies from product to product making some more or less susceptible to damage. Note any damage observed to these appurtenances during the inspection as this may provide information about the size and type of damage and will help the claim handler properly account for these items when preparing the estimate. Other appurtenances are but one piece of the investigation process in assessing whether or not wind or hail damage exists to the roof system. Keep in mind these items can be damaged by many things, including fallen trees, property debris, installation, or in some cases, footfall. Solar panels: Solar panels located on the roof should be inspected as they may have sustained wind or hail damage. While completing the inspection document the location, type of materials used (if known), and extent of damage observed. The solar panels may need to be removed and reset to allow for repairs/replacement of the roof system. Additional investigation may be needed to evaluate the type of materials, extent of damage and appropriate repairs to the solar panel. Appropriate caution should be used when inspecting solar panels as these panels may be energized. Patio Covers: During the investigation of patio covers, examine the patio cover for a covered loss. On those claims where a covered loss exists the following information may be noted, the number of posts, special trim pieces, how the cover is attached to the structure, any special cover and if known, who installed the cover. Top of Page Ill. ADJUSTMENT GUIDELINES A. Repair vs. Replace When determining whether a roof or slope should be repaired or replaced, compare the cost to repair actual damage caused by a covered peril to the cost to remove and replace the area damaged by a covered peril. For composition roofs, the cost to repair is compared to the cost to remove and replace a one-story, walk-on pitch roof. For other shingle/shake roofs, the cost to repair is compared to the cost to remove and replace the shingles/shakes of a onestory, walk-on pitch roof. When the cost to repair actual damage to a composition roof or slope approaches or exceeds 50% of the cost to remove and replace the damaged area, determine whether the slope should be replaced or repaired. The same applies to other shingle/shake roof surfaces which are not composition, when the cost to repair the roof approaches or exceeds 80% of the cost to remove and replace the slope. The following may be used to determine repair vs. replace for shingled/shake roofs of any type. This would not be HOSIERGAR00002585PROD WESTNEI00016425PROD"}, {"d": 123, "p": 140, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et. al. v. SFF&CC, et. al. OG 75-160, Wind/Hail Rooting Guidelines appropriate for other types of roof surfaces. If the damage found in the test square approaches or exceeds the total number of damaged shingles per square identified by the repair vs. replace calculations, consider all roofing guidelines to determine if replacement is appropriate. Damage is determined by the number of damaged shingles, not individual tabs. This analysis should be completed on a slope by slope basis. The repair vs. replace calculation is systematically created within Xactimate. The results of the calculation are based on the price list selected for each specific estimate. The chart can be accessed by following these steps in each estimate: 1. Click Project tab 2. Select Tools 3. Click Roof Slope Total vs Repair Once you locate the applicable roofing type in the chart, the number in the Value column reflects the number of damaged shingles per square to consider when deciding whether to repair or replace a damaged slope, or the entire roof. The repair vs. replace analysis outlined above should be used when adjusting hail losses where the damage is found randomly across the slope(s). This is not usually the case with wind damage, which is often confined to a certain area of the slope(s). In such cases, the use of test squares and the above calculations are not appropriate. Instead, consider the extent and location of the damage, along with all roofing guidelines, in determining whether repair or replacement of the slope is warranted. In some situations it may be appropriate to replace the shingles on an undamaged slope based on the total area of roof being replaced or other factors used to evaluate the claim. In these situations, document the file as to the reasons for the action taken on that claim. Badly deteriorated roofs can present problems when repairing since replacing the damaged shingles/shakes may involve replacing some adjacent shingles/shakes. Because of the poor condition of the existing roofing, the roofer may damage two or three shingles/shakes for each one to be replaced. This is applicable to all types of roof surfaces. The repair factor analysis may be applicable to all types of roof surfaces, other than composition, where test squares are completed. When evaluating if a roofing surface is repairable for all shingle/shake type roof surfaces, other than composition roof surfaces, the following steps are recommended: 1. Select a test square for the slope, and mark and count the damaged shingles/shakes. 2. Apply the following damage repair factors based on the general roof condition. Depreciation should align with the damage repair factor. 0% to 50% worn = factor of 1.0 50% to 75% wor = factor of 1.5 75% + worn = factor of 2.0 Aslope that is 75 percent worn with 20 destroyed shingles/shakes found in the test square is figured as follows: 20 shingles/shakes multiplied by 2.0 = 40 shingles/shakes, Multiply 40 shingles/shakes by the cost to teplace a single shingle/shake. If it approaches or exceeds 80 percent of the cost'to remove and replace a square of shingles/shakes consider all factors and determine whether repair or replacement is appropriate. In all cases and for all types of roof surfaces consider factors such as the age and condition of the existing roofing, type of roofing, and feasibility of repairs when determining whether to repair or replace a slope. Document the basis of the decision in the claim file with good photographs, diagrams, and file notes. B. Footfall Footfall may occur to all types of roof surfaces. This damage can be caused by walking on the shingle/shake or other type of roof surface. This damage may appear as cracks, splits, broken corners or tears on the shingle/shake or roof surface. Consider limiting the number of inspections to reduce the amount of footfall damage. HOSIERGAR00002586PROD WESTNEI00016426PROD"}, {"d": 123, "p": 141, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et. al. v. SFF&CC, et. al. OG 75-160, Wind/Hail Roofing Guidelines Damage caused by footfall during a claim handlers’ inspection is included in our adjustment. Add the number of shingles damaged by footfall to the number of shingles damaged by an insured peril and then calculate the total number of shingles damaged per square by applying the appropriate repair factor. Footfall damage is subject to the policy deductible except where there is no damage except for the footfall damage by the claim handler. In this circumstance the insured is reimbursed without taking a deductible. There is no specific exclusion for footfall damage, and this is covered absent intentional damage done by or at the direction of the insured. Additional investigation may be needed to determine the number of occurrences and date(s) of loss. Advise the insured that the more people that walk on the roof, the more damage that will occur, and advise of their responsibility to mitigate further damage. In cases where substantial repair or replacement is necessary due solely to footfall, consult with management. ©. Compaston Roos ccs oa amage from hail, wind, normal Seige weathering, and defects expan may be observed rece to a composition roof surface. Ona composition roof surface, this could include bruising, fractures, punctures or excessive granular loss. Bruising: On composition roofing, a bruise appears as a circular scar usually the size of the hailstones, or larger. It appears as a shaded or slightly darkened area on the shingle with some granular loss frequently present. A bruise is created when a hailstone strikes the surface of a shingle, crushing the paper or fiberglass mat, leaving a dent or \"bruise.\" A bruise, although difficult to detect at times, does not appear as severe damage but affects the longevity of the shingle. As a result, bruises cause premature deterioration and weathering, eventually resulting in a hole in the shingle. One bruise on a shingle surface is sufficient to consider that shingle damaged. In many cases, careful inspection is required to detect such \"bruises.\" Fractures/Punctures: A hail impact which causes a crack or a puncture through the mat affects the water shedding ability of the shingle and is considered damage. Fractures. and punctures may be difficult to detect and an examination of the back side of the shingle may be necessary to detect fractures and punctures. Cracked, Checked, Split, Chipped, or Broken Shingles: Normal weathering of composition shingles is often evidenced by cracked, split, or checked surfaces between three and five inches from the shingle's bottom edge. This area of the shingle is vulnerable to horizontal cracking and checking as a result of moisture runoff from the overlapping shingle above. Usually, the seal tab of this shingle is intact. Damage in this area of the shingle lacking the discernible, circular or semi-circular impact mark or bruise is unlikely to have been damaged resulting from hail. Wind seldom causes such damage if there is no other evidence of wind damage. Similarly, the three exposed edges of the shingle are often \"scuffed\" or damaged during the shingle’s original application or due-to deterioration. This damage, when lacking the presence of a discernible circular or semi-circular impact mark, is typically the result of deterioration and not caused by hail damage. Splices: A splice occurs during the manufacturing process of a shingle when the continuous roll of matting material ends and new roll beginnings. These rolls are spliced together at this point to allow continuous production of the shingles. Curling or cupping: Sometimes composition roof shingles can show curling or cupping. Curling or cupping may be a result of age or wear and tear, including improper roof ventilation and prolonged sun exposure. Shingles that are curled may appear concave in their center with the comers and possibly the edges of the shingle curled downward, or have a raised edge mostly along two sides of the shingle, but sometimes even along the edge. Granular Loss: Granular loss occurs naturally and is inherent to composition roofing products as a result of weathering. The general rule is we-will not pay for granular loss, since it does not affect the watertight integrity of the roof. Granules serve two main functions on asphalt roofing, block ultraviolet light from the asphalt and provide color to the roof, During manufacturing of the shingles, excess granules are applied and the granules that are not embedded in the asphalt will naturally fall off. Severe granule loss could be an indication of a defective shingle. Granular loss is typically part of the natural aging process or may be the result of a manufacturing defect. Hail can cause actual damage to composition roofing in conjunction with heavy granular loss. Where there is excessive granular loss accompanying actual roof damage caused by hail, and it affects the integrity and utility of the roof, consider payment for granular loss. Review these types of losses with claim management. Wind: Wind damage to asphalt shingles occurs when a portion of the shingle is blown off the roof, or the shingle is HOSIERGAR00002587PROD WESTNEI00016427PROD"}, {"d": 123, "p": 142, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et. al. v. SFF&CC, et. al. OG 75-160, Wind/Hail Roofing Guidelines bent backwards and a fracture forms through the matting material. If the wind caused the seals to break, it may require hand sealing. Unsealed shingles: Most composition shingles are manufactured with a heat activated sealant strip, which bonds the shingles together once applied to the roof and exposed to sufficient heat. At times, the bond between courses may become less flexible and break. This breakage may be due to a number of factors, such as cold weather, footfall, improper adherence of the original sealant, or wind. It is important to note any unsealed shingles that may be observed during the inspection. The claim handler should consider whether the breakage of the bond was caused by accidental direct physical loss, which may include, looking for evidence of tearing on the shingle below or by observing residue underneath the shingle from the sealant. Refer to: Section IV. Roofing Estimatics - O. Sealing of Shingles. Heat Blisters: Heat blisters are small bubbles or crater-like holes that are generally less than 1/2\" in diameter. Heat blisters result from a manufacturing defect during the production of the shingle and are not damage caused by hail. Mere exposure to normal elements can open blisters. In the absence of any other evidence of direct damage froma covered peril to the roof, broken heat blisters alone are not considered evidence of covered damage. Consider payment for this damage if the heat blister(s) were broken by hailstone impact. D. Wood Roofs Damage occurs to wood roof coverings when water shedding ability or the life expectancy of the material is reduced. Damage from hail, wind, normal weathering and defects may be observed to a wood roof surface. Marks/scratches: Wood shingles/shakes that show only surface marks or scratches are not considered damage requiring repair/replacement of the shake/shingle. This does not affect the intended purpose of the wood shingles/shakes and disappears with weathering. Splits: A wood shingle/shake is damaged only when the hailstone causes it to split and compromises its watertight integrity. This split typically offers a contrast in the colors or appearance of the shingle. The area newly exposed to the weather elements by the impact is generally unaffected by the weather and appears new and/or appears fresh since it has not been exposed to elements which alter the color of the wood such as rain, debris, and/or ultraviolet rays of the sun. This is in contrast to the weathered shakes/shingles which are greyer or more weathered in appearance since they have been exposed to elements such as rain, debris and/or ultraviolet rays of the sun. One of the main indicators of hail damage to a wood shake/shingle roof is splits in the roofing which may be affiliated with an impact mark. Splits resulting from hail will typically show the color of fresh wood. Weather splits may demonstrate an inverted \"v\" pattern which may be an indication that the split has developed over a period of time from normal weathering. Cupping, curling, cracking: Cupping, curling and cracking is a natural aging process of a wood roof and is generally not considered accidental direct physical loss. Wind: Wind damage to a wood shake/shingle occurs when a portion of the shake/shingle is blown off the roof. E. Tile Roofs Damage occurs to tile roof coverings when the water shedding ability or life expectancy of the material is reduced. Damage from hail, wind, normal weathering, and defects may be observed to a tile roof surface. Chips and Cracks: Chips and cracks resulting from a hail stone impact would be considered damage resulting from hail. Chipping and cracking may also occur during the manufacturing or installation process which may not be covered damage. Holes: When a hole is created in a tile from a hail stone, the underside of the tile will show chipping to the tile around the diameter of the hole. This chipping will be directed toward the roof surface. Corner Cracking: A crack observed in the bottom right corner of one or more tiles is typically a result of an installation defect or normal wear and tear due to natural cracking which may occur in a weak area of the tile. Corner cracking of this nature is typically not a result of wind or hail damage. Spalling/Flaking: Spalling and flaking is typically caused by weathering and impurities in the tile that experience a different thermal expansion or water absorption than the material around the impurity. Spalling and flaking of this nature is typically not a result of wind or hail damage. Loose Tiles: Loose tiles may result from wind damage or when the system used to fasten the tiles fails. The claim HOSIERGAR00002588PROD WESTNEI00016428PROD"}, {"d": 123, "p": 143, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et. al. v. SFF&CC, et. al. OG 75-160, Wind/Hail Roofing Guidelines handler should carefully inspect the roof to determine if the loose tile(s) were caused by wind or were a result of normal wear and tear or an installation defect. Efflorescence: This is the natural process of soluble salts which were dissolved by water and were left behind on the top of the tiles when the water evaporated. Efflorescence is typically not a result of wind or hail damage. Installation Techniques: Tiles can be installed using several different attachment methods. These methods may affect the reparability of the roof. Some of these methods would include screw down, nail down and foam adhesive or mortar applications. The attachment method should be considered when evaluating the reparability of the tile roof. F. Metal Roofs Metal roofs can be damaged by wind or hail. The same adjustment procedures should be followed when estimating damage. It is important to note that some policies may have the exclusionary endorsement for cosmetic loss to the metal roof coverings caused by hail. Claim handlers should check the policy endorsements to verify if this exclusionary endorsement is applicable. If the endorsement is applicable, we would only pay for a loss caused by hail that allows the penetration of water through the metal roof covering or that result in the failure of the metal roof covering to perform its intended function of keeping out the elements over an extended period of time. When this endorsement is applicable it also extends to all flashings. G. Substitution of Roofing Materials - (Policyholder request) If the insured chooses to substitute a composition roof for an existing wood roof, prepare an estimate for the damage to the existing wood roof and issue an actual cash value (ACV) payment. Issue replacement cost benefits for the substitute materials up to the cost of repairing/replacing the existing roof. Release the replacement cost benefits in accordance with 75-51 OG Replacement Cost &€* Building Section IV Explanation of Replacement Cost to the Insured. Pay the ACV of the damage to the existing roof. When substituting roofing materials (for example, replacing a wood roof with a composition roof), consider the type of decking required to make the substitution. Most wood roofs are installed over spaced decking, which will not accommodate composition shingles. Determine whether to install sheet decking in such cases based on the costs involved on a replacement basis. If it costs more to install sheet decking with composition shingles than it would cost to simply repair/replace the existing wood roof, then we will pay to repair/replace with wood shingles/shakes subject to the replacement cost provisions of the loss settlement conditions of the policy. If the alternate cost of composition shingles and sheet decking are less than or equal to the replacement of the wood roof, we would agree to the alternate method. In all cases, the insured must agree to the alternate method. If a substitution is required because of building ordinances or laws, follow the procedure outlined in the above paragraphs. If the policy has a Building Ordinance or Law Endorsement, coverage may be provided for the improvements made necessary by the ordinance and/or law. Review of the Building Ordinance and Law coverage is Tecommended for coverage analysis as well as any other term, conditions, and limits of the policy/endorsement contract. Refer to 75-107 OG Optional Policy Provisions Section V. H. Mechanical Damage Mechanical damages are the result of human activity, and can be broken down into two separate categories: 1. Accidental Mechanical Damages 2. Intentionally Inflicted Mechanical Damages Accidental mechanical damages may be caused by careless handling of materials, use of tools or objects that cause damage to the roof surface during the course of installation or repair, repairing roof mounted mechanical systems, trees or vegetation which are too close to the home, and foot traffic. For instance some types of accidental damage to roofing shingles are footfall, knife cuts, golf balls, nail holes from toe boards, shipping and handling and dragging equipment. Intentionally inflicted mechanical damage means that the damage was purposely done and was not accidental in nature. Typically, the distribution of this damage is not random in nature, and a pattern may be observed. Some types of items that can be used to cause intentionally inflicted mechanical damages to roofing include, hand tools, coins, fingers, rocks and golf balls. (This is not all inclusive) HOSIERGAR00002589PROD WESTNEI00016429PROD"}, {"d": 123, "p": 144, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et. al. v. SFF&CC, et. al. OG 75-160, Wind/Hail Roofing Guidelines At times, mechanical damage of this type will crush granules, and these crushed granules cannot be seen until washed away from rain and the wind. When investigating mechanical damage, additional information to gather and document during the inspection includes but is not limited to the following. Is the distribution of the hail damage random? Is the size of the impacts random? ls there damage on the other areas of the dwelling? Is there damage to other houses in the area? Was the insured home during the storm? When did the insured first become aware of the damage? Who was on the roof or property prior to our inspection? Did the insured come home to a flyer/estimate that was not requested? If, during the course of your investigation of the roofing system, you suspect the damage to be intentionally inflicted, contact management for directions on how to proceed and reference the following job aid: Roofing Claims Investigation - Mechanical Damage Identified |. Roof Decking Wind or hail damage may result in accidental direct physical loss to the roof decking surface which may be covered. Hail damage may be observed when the size and impact of the hailstone penetrates the decking creating damage. Wind damage may be observed when the wind causes all or a portion of the decking to be removed or unattached from the building structure. Pre-existing wear, tear, deterioration or rot to a decking surface may also be observed. This type of damage to the decking is typically not covered. If in the course of removing/repairing the shingles unavoidable damage is caused to the decking surface, an allowance to repair the damaged decking surface may be included as part of the covered damage. These claims should be reviewed individually with consideration of building codes, statutes or regulations which may apply. Questions should be reviewed with management. J. Composition Roofing Installed Over Wood Shake/Shingle Decking Surface Wind/hail damage may occur to a roof surface which is a composition roof installed over a wood shake/shingle decking surface. Evaluate the extent of damage and reparability as outlined in Section Ill. Adjustment Guidelines A, Repairs vs. Replace. When there is covered damage to a composition over wood/shake shingle decking surface which can be repaired, the claim handler should estimate to repair the damaged shingles. Questions may arise as to whether or not the wood/shake shingle surface currently serving as the decking should be included as part of the repair. This should be evaluated individually on each claim by considering the following: 1. Ifthe composition shingles can be repaired without impacting the integrity of the wood/shake shingle decking surface, no additional allowance is necessary for the wood shingle/shake shingle decking. 2. Ifin the course of removing/repairing the composition shingles unavoidable damage is caused to the wood shingle/shake decking surface, an allowance to repair the damaged decking surface may be included as part of the covered damage. 3. Wind or hail damage to the wood/shake shingle decking surface may be covered. When there is covered damage to a composition over wood shake/shingle decking surface which requires replacement of the roof, estimate for the removal of both the composition shingles and wood/shake shingle decking surface. The replacement estimate should include replacement of wood sheet decking and one layer of composition shingles. Overlays on a roof with a composition roof installed over a wood shingle/shake decking surface are not recommended. Installation of a composition roof over a wood shake/shingle deck may result in a greater susceptibility to future damage. These claims should be reviewed individually with consideration of building codes, statutes or regulations which may apply. Questions should be reviewed with management. HOSIERGAR00002590PROD WESTNEI00016430PROD"}, {"d": 123, "p": 145, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et. al. v. SFF&CC, et. al. OG 75-160, Wind/Hail Roofing Guidelines Top of Page IV. ROOFING ESTIMATICS Explain the estimate to the insured, and give a copy of the estimate to the insured. Explain any replacement cost available to the insured after repairs are completed. A. Waste and Rounding Waste may include: scrap, ridge cap, starter row, and valley overlap. Ridge or starter row material replacement may be estimated separately when the ridge or starter row is a different material than the roof (for example, tile ridge cap on a composition shingle roof) or the ridge is the only part of the roof that is damaged. If estimating ridge cap and/or starter row as separate items, consider an adjustment of the waste percentage used in calculating the roofing quantity. Prior to applying a waster factor, review the Xactimate roofing code to determine if waste is already included in the unit price. If waste is not included and when estimating the replacement of a single slope or an entire roof, use the following guidelines in the waste calculation: Flat roof Use 5% Gable roof Use 10% Hip roof Use 15% After waste is added, round up to the next appropriate bundle. If waste is included in the unit price, use the actual square footage of the area being replaced without rounding to the nearest bundle or square. Tear off or removal should not have waste included in the calculation. B. Split Coding When replacing a roof, always split code the activity. This means using the Xactimate \"-\" and \"+\" activity codes for remove and replace instead of \"&\". This is so the removal amount can be properly estimated without waste included, and the replacement amount estimated including waste. C. Steep Charge Use steep charges when the slope of the roof is 7/12 or greater. Include this charge only on those slopes or areas that require the additional amount. According to the Xactimate price list, this is an additional charge for “lost labor productivity on a steep roof, due to working with roof jacks, additional toe board installation, and additional safety precautions.\" The remove \"-\" activity steep charge is applied to the measurement of the area to tear-off (without waste). The replace \"+\" activity steep charge is applied to the total number of squares to install (with waste). Pay this charge up front in the ACV payment. D. Two-Story Charge A two-story charge should be included for every two-story roof slope. According to the Xactimate price list, this is an additional charge for \"additional labor charge for lost productivity on a high roof (2stories or greater), due to accessibility and extra safety precautions.\" A roof, or section of a roof, is considered two stories or greater about grade at the eve. Include this charge only on those slopes or areas that require this additional charge. The remove \"-\" activity two-story charge is applied to the measurement of the area to tear-off (without waste). The replace \"+\" activity two-story charge is applied to the total number of squares to install (with waste). Pay this charge up front in the ACV payment. E. Accessibility When there is limited accessibility to the insured location or roof, an additional labor charge to hand carry materials may be warranted. The same holds true for removal charges where accessibility is limited and causes a problem in the removal of debris from the insured location. F. Roof Openings Address large openings in roof structures, such as skylights, in the estimate. Consider the damage caused to these items when removing the roof shingles/shakes. HOSIERGAR00002591PROD WESTNEI00016431PROD"}, {"d": 123, "p": 146, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Hosier, Gary, et. al. v. SFF&CC, et. al. OG 75-160, Wind/Hail Roofing Guidelines G. Other Appurtenances Roof Vents: When a roof is damaged by a covered loss, the vents may or may not have sustained damage. A structure can have several different types of vents that could be affected by damage differently, so evaluate each vent separately, and estimate accordingly. When estimating to remove/replace roofing, Xactimate pricing includes sufficient labor to manipulate or work around undamaged roof vents without causing damage to them; therefore, replacing or detaching/resetting roof vents solely because the roof is being replaced is generally not necessary. If estimating to remove and replace composition shingles on an entire roof or slope that contains vents (turtle, ridge, or turbine) that are also being replaced, it is not necessary to separately estimate the removal of these types of existing roof vents. These types of roof vents are fastened in much the same way as the shingles and are normally removed along with and at the same as the shingles. Xactimate pricing includes sufficient labor to remove these types of roof vents as the shingles are being removed. Therefore, a separate removal activity is not necessary. Evaluate each situation based on the individual circumstances. Drip Edge and/or Flashing: When a roof is damaged by a covered loss, the drip edge and/or flashing may or may not have sustained damage. When estimating to remove/replace roofing, Xactimate pricing includes sufficient labor to manipulate or work around undamaged drip edge and/or flashing without causing damage to it; therefore, replacing drip edge and/or flashing solely because the roof is being replaced is generally not necessary. Consideration may need to be given based on how the drip edge was installed relative to the installation of any roofing underlayment. Typically, roofing underlayment, which would include felt or self-adhered waterproof membrane, is installed under the drip edge along the rake of a roof and over the drip edge along the eaves. Evaluate each situation based on the individual circumstances. Skylights: When evaluating damage to skylights, examine the unit for covered damage. Units with insulated glass may fog as a result of the natural aging process. As with roof vents, it is generally not necessary to detach/reset or Teplace undamaged units because Xactimate roof pricing includes sufficient labor to manipulate or work around them. Photovoltaic Cells: Handle the repair or replacement of roofing products around, beneath, or incorporated with photovoltaic cells on a case-by-case bases. Remember that these cells can be energized so extreme caution is required during the inspection. If damage is noted to the photovoltaic system, specific information is needed such as: The manufacturer's name System size physical dimensions System output in volts and amps If the system is integrated into the roofing product or is it separated from the product Does the insured own the system, or does another entity own the system If damage is noted to the surrounding roof covering, but not to the photovoltaic system, a qualified contractor may be able to detach reset a photovoltaic system that is not integrated into the roof product. Solar Water Heater: Handle the repair or replacement of shingles around or beneath solar water heaters mounted on ‘a roof on a case-by-case basis. Many factors come into play when determining when to detach and reset a solar water heater. If the legs are tall enough, there should be enough room to work under the panels: only requiring detaching a leg when necessary. Other situations may dictate the removal of the solar water heater to complete the roof repair/replacement. The system may need to be drained and capped then later recharged and put back into service. If the panels need to be detached and reset, recommend the policyholder use qualified trades person to properly handle the solar water heater. Solar Panels: Handle the repair or replacement of shingles around or beneath solar panels mounted on a roof ona case-by-case basis. Many factors come into play when determining when to detach and reset the solar panels. If the legs are tall enough, there should be enough room to work under the panels; only requiring detaching a leg when necessary. Other situations may dictate the removal of the panels to complete the roof repair/replacement. If the panels need to be detached and reset, recommend the policyholder use qualified trades person to properly handle the solar panels. H. Valleys Additional material may be required for a properly constructed valley. Common valley construction techniques include open valleys, closed valleys and weaved valleys. Typically, valleys have additional material which sheds water. This material could include roofing underlayment (including felt or self-adhered waterproof membrane valley HOSIERGAR00002592PROD WESTNEI00016432PROD"}, {"d": 123, "p": 147, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Hosier, Gary, et. al. v. SFF&CC, et. al. OG 75-160, Wind/Hail Roofing Guidelines metal, and/or 90lb roll roofing material). Careful inspection is needed to determine what material is used in the construction of the valley. Be sure to understand what is included in the appropriate Xactimate line item entry when completing or reconciling the estimate. . Starter strips Starter strips are a specialty roofing product which assist in securing the butt edge of a roofing product to the roof plane and provide double layer coverage along the eave. When estimating, the waste percentage may include sufficient product which can be used for starter strips. If estimating starter strip as a separate item, consider an adjustment of the waste percentage used in calculating the roofing quantity. J. Hip and Ridge Caps Hip and ridge caps are specialty products designed to cover the area of a roof where two roof planes meet. When estimating, the waste percentage may include sufficient product which can be used for hip and ridge caps. If estimating hip and ridge caps as a separate item, consider an adjustment of the waste percentage used in calculating the roofing quantity K. Self-Adhered Waterproof Membrane (commonly known as Ice and Water Shield) Self-adhered waterproof membrane is designed to help prevent damage resulting from ice damming. This product may be required by building codes. When this product is required, the product should extend over the roof decking from the lowest edge of the roof surface to a point specified by the building code. If a roof has a self-adhered waterproof membrane and that area is damaged by a covered loss, then the estimate should include the cost to replace the self-adhered waterproof membrane. Because of the self-adhering aspect of this product, it may be difficult to remove the selfadhered waterproof membrane during tear off of the roof and removal of the self-adhered waterproof membrane could cause the decking to delaminate, which could require replacement of the deck. Most manufacturers and building codes will allow for more than one layer of self-adhered waterproof membrane. If multiple layers of self-adhered waterproof membrane are not allowed, it may be necessary to remove and replace the affected roof deck to facilitate the repairs. Contact your management or Locator Services for additional information. L. Overhead and Profit Refer to: OG 75-07, Structural Loss Claim Handling - Section ||. Structural Loss Claim Handling Procedures E. Evaluation of Structural Losses 2. Complete Estimate f. Overhead and Profit M. Depreciation Roofing is a depreciable building item. As such, roof claims may often involve replacement cost benefits due to the betterment involved in the replacement of some or the entire roof. Handle replacement cost benefits according to the guidelines set forth in OG 75-50, Betterment, Depreciation, and Actual Cash Value, and OG 75-51, Replacement Cost - Building. N. Roofing Product Limited or No availability - Refer to: Section XV. Roofing products - limited or no availability. O. Sealing of shingles When a determination has been made that the unsealed shingles are a result of a covered loss, an estimate should be obtained from a contractor to manually seal the tabs. Many manufacturers have guidelines for the best method to fe-seal unsealed shingles. Handle each claim that involves unsealed shingles on a case-by-case basis. V. TEAR-OFF Overlay of new composition roofing over an existing composition roof is a method of repair which may be allowed in some areas, however it is our company philosophy and guidelines to tear-off all layers when estimating to replace a roof surface. When the reasonable repair requires replacement of the roof or a portion of the roof, tear-off of all roofing layers should be estimated without a deduction for depreciation and included as part of the ACV settlement on roof or slope replacement claims in all geographic areas. HOSIERGAR00002593PROD WESTNEI00016433PROD"}, {"d": 123, "p": 148, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et. al. v. SFF&CC, et. al. OG 75-160, Wind/Hail Roofing Guidelines When multiple layers of roofing are present, all roofing layers should be estimated for removal. When tear-off was paid on a previous claim and the policyholder chose to overlay the roof, Refer to: 75-160 OG XI. Prior Damage - Roof Top of Page Vi. ROOFING LOCATOR SERVICE The Roofing Locator Service (RLS) and Siding Locator Service (SLS) are web-based search tools designed to assist claims associates by providing a resource for identifying siding and roofing products. Refer to: Locator Services Top of Page VIL. USE OF EXPERTS/ENGINEERS Occasionally, State Farm® will seek the assistance of a roofing expert or an engineer to help determine the cause of loss, conduct damage and failure analysis, and/or evaluate reparability issues. At all times, the decision of how to resolve a claim rests with State Farm and must be based on all of the facts of the claim. Guidelines for the use of engineers are outlined in OG 70-96, Use of Engineering Firms in the Handling of First Party Property Claims or OG 70-94 Use of Independent NonEngineering Experts in the Handling of First Party Claims. Top of Page Vill. SUBROGATION (ROOF) Covered roof damage may result in a subrogation opportunity. Information that is needed to support a successful roof investigation for subrogation includes, but may not be limited to, the identification of the type of roofing system and products involved, documentation of the roof condition, and damage and preservation of any evidence which may be needed to support a subrogation claim. A qualified roofing engineer/consultant may be needed to evaluate the condition of the roof and to preserve evidence. Most information needed to investigate subrogation potential comes from places other than the roof structure itself. The homeowner or business owner may be a good source for records on the roofing system. If not, also consider the architect, roofing consultant, or roofing contractor as they may have the documents we need for our subrogation. These documents often confirm the product type used, roof design, and manner of construction. The Statute of Limitations sets a maximum time period in which to file a claim or lawsuit. The Statute of Repose may preclude a claim or suit against a group or class of people (such as product designers, architects, or builders) after a certain time period of the product's life or completion. Claim handlers should review both the Statute of Limitations and any applicable Statute of Repose. Refer to: 75-54, OG Subrogation Refer to: State Codes, Laws, and Statutes Top of Page . CODING Claim management and claim handlers are responsible for accurate loss and payment coding. COL codes, comment codes and descriptors are located in 74-04, OG Payments and Coding and the Fire Loss Coding Manual. Top of Page . PRIOR DAMAGE - ROOF Generally, damages which have been paid in a prior claim settlement by State Farm, but were not repaired or replaced after the first loss, would not be recoverable again if there was subsequent damage to the same property. In the course of investigating, evaluating, and settling a current roof claim, it is important to review the insureds claim history. The following section provides guidance for wind and hail loss roof scenarios involving prior damage. HOSIERGAR00002594PROD WESTNEI00016434PROD"}, {"d": 123, "p": 149, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et. al. v. SFF&CC, et. al. OG 75-160. Wind/Hail Roofing Guidelines A. Prior Roof Claim, No Repairs Completed If the insured has not repaired the covered roof damages from a prior claim and has a new claim involving the same roof damage from the prior claim, handle the new claim in the following manner: = Adjust the loss as a separate event, subject to the policy deductible. = Prepare an estimate for all roof damages resulting from the current loss using the price list for the current date of loss. This may include the same roof damage estimated on a prior claim that was not replaced or repaired. = Apply depreciation, if applicable. The age and condition of the damaged property, including prior roof damage, should be considered in determining the actual cash value of the current loss. = Subtract the deductible for the new claim. = Deduct prior payments for the roof damage that was not replaced or repaired. = e Do not deduct amounts that were estimated for the roof, but were at or below the deductible. Pay the insured any difference. o Ifthe ACV payment of the roof replacement exceeds the ACV payment to replace the roof on the prior loss, issue a draft to the policyholder for the difference between the ACV payment for the roof on the prior loss and the ACV payment for the roof on the current loss. © = If the ACV payment of the roof replacement on the new loss is the same or less than the ACV payment amount to replace the roof on the prior loss, no additional ACV payment is due. Provide the insured with an Explanation of Building Replacement Cost Benefits based on the new loss, if applicable. Example: Previous hail damage, paid to repair, repairs not completed, new loss results in total loss to roof. A policyholder sustains hail damage to the roof in July 2015. The claim handler inspects the damage and estimates to repair two shingles per square for a repair of $1500. After subtracting the $1,000 deductible, a payment of $500 was made for the first claim. The customer did not repair the damage. In April, 2016, the policyholder files a new hail claim in which the roof is determined to be a total loss. In this case adjust the claim as follows: = Adjust the loss as a separate event, subject to the policy deductible. = Prepare an estimate to remove and replace the entire roof based on the price list for the April 2016 date of loss, = Apply depreciation, if applicable. The age and condition of the-damaged property, including prior roof damage, should be considered in determining the actual cash value of the current loss. Subtract the deductible applicable to the new claim. Subtract the prior payment of $500. Pay the insured the difference for the new claim. An explanation of replacement cost benefits, if applicable should be issued for the recoverable amount on the current loss. B. Prior Roof Claim, Roof Replaced, Tear-off Not Completed When a slope or roof has previous damage that we estimated to remove and replace the roof surface, however the insured replaced the roof or slope, but did not tear-off the damaged roof surface handle the new claim in the following manner: s Adjust the loss as a separate event, subject to the policy deductible. a If there is new damage to the roof surface, requiring replacement of the same slope or the total roof, estimate to remove all layers of the roof and to replace the roof surface, = Apply depreciation, if applicable. The age and condition of the damaged property, including prior roof damage, should be considered in determining the actual cash value of the current loss. a Subtract the deductible for the new claim. = Deduct prior payments for tear off not completed. = Pay the insured any difference. o Ifthe ACV payment of the roof replacement exceeds the ACV payment to replace the roof on the prior loss, issue a draft to the policyholder for the difference between the ACV payment for the roof‘on the prior loss and the ACV payment for the roof on the current loss. © Ifthe ACV payment of the roof replacement on the new loss is the same or less than the ACV payment amount to replace the roof on the prior loss, no additional ACV payment is due. = Provide the insured with an Explanation of Building Replacement Cost Benefits based on the new loss, if applicable. HOSIERGAR00002595PROD WESTNEI00016435PROD"}, {"d": 123, "p": 150, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et. al. v. SFF&CC, et. al. OG 75-160. Wind/Hail Roofing Guidelines C. Prior Roof Claim, Damage Not Repaired, New Loss After Replacement Cost Benefits Expired Prior roof claim, damage not repaired and a new loss occurs after the time period to present a claim for Replacement Cost benefits for the prior loss has expired. If there is new damage to the roof surface which, independent of the damage from the prior loss requires total replacement of the roof surface adjust the claim as follows: = Adjust the loss as a separate event, subject to the policy deductible. = = = = a Prepare an estimate for all roof damages resulting from the current loss using the price list for the current date of loss. This may include the same roof damage estimated on a prior claim that was not replaced or repaired. Apply depreciation, if applicable. The age and condition of the damaged property, including prior roof damage, should be considered in determining the actual cash value of the current loss. Subtract the deductible for the new claim. Deduct prior payments for the roof damage that was not replaced or repaired. ¢ Do not deduct amounts that were estimated for the roof, but were at or below the deductible. Pay the insured any difference. © If the ACV payment of the roof replacement exceeds the ACV payment to replace the roof on the prior loss, issue a draft to the policyholder for the difference between the ACV payment for the roof on the prior loss and the ACV payment for the roof on the current loss. o Ifthe ACV payment of the roof replacement on the new loss is the same or less than the ACV payment amount to replace the roof on the prior loss, no additional ACV payment is due. = Provide the insured with an Explanation of Building Replacement Cost Benefits based on the new loss, if applicable. Example: Prior roof claim, damage not repaired, new loss occurs after the time period to present Replacement Cost benefits claim has expired. A policyholder sustains damage to the roof in July 2012, which rendered the roof a total loss. In July 2012 an estimate was written to replace the roof for $7000.00. After applicable depreciation and the $1,000 policy deductible, the claim handler made an ACV payment of $4000.00. The customer did not complete repairs of the roof. In April, 2015, a new hail storm damaged the roof. It was determined that the new damage was distinguishable from the old damage and would total the roof. The estimate for the roof replacement with current roof prices was $7,500.00. After appropriate depreciation is applied, the current deductible and the prior payment of $4000.00 should be subtracted from the loss. The insured should be paid the difference, if any, for the new claim. A new explanation of replacement cost benefits should be issued for the recoverable amount, if applicable, D. Prior Roof Claim, Damage Not Repaired, New Loss Before Replacement Cost Benefits Expired Prior roof claim, roof/slope was a total loss, and damage not repaired. A new loss occurs before the time period to present a claim for replacement cost benefits for the prior loss has expired. In this situation, if there is new damage to the roof surface which, independent of the damage from the prior loss requires total replacement of the roof surface, the claim should be adjusted in the same manner as noted in C. above. Prior roof claim, rooffslope was a total loss, and damage not repaired. In the event the new damage does not require replacement of the same slope or roof surface, advise the insured of same. If the roof surface is replaced, a claim for replacement cost benefits can be presented within the appropriate time period based on the prior claim's date of loss and applicable policy provisions. E. Prior Roof Claim, Damage Not Repaired, Insured took Reasonable Steps to Mitigate and Arrange for Repairs Prior roof claim, damage not repaired, but the insured took reasonable steps to mitigate the damages and arrange for repairs. If the damage to the roof has not been repaired, but the insured took reasonable steps to mitigate the damages and arrange for repairs, handle the loss under the priar claim. Some of the factors to consider when determining if the insured took reasonable steps include: = Time between the initial and subsequent loss = Resources available to complete the repairs following the initial loss If the insured fails to take reasonable steps to mitigate the damages and arrange for repairs, a subsequent event would be a separate claim. Evaluate each claim individually on its own merits. HOSIERGAR00002596PROD WESTNEI00016436PROD"}, {"d": 123, "p": 151, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et. al. v. SFF&CC, et. al. OG 75-160, Wind/Hail Roofing Guidelines Example: Wind damage to roof, followed by interior damage resulting from a subsequent loss prior to repairs being completed. In July 2016 a windstorm ripped offa portion of the roof. In September 2016 a new storm causes additional water damage to drywall because the roof was not yet repaired. In this circumstance if the insured took reasonable steps to mitigate the damages and arrange for repairs, handle the September 2016 water loss under the July 2016 claim. The insured has a prior roof claim for wind damage, which we estimated to repair. Prior to the repairs being completed, another storm occurs resulting in new damage which totals the roof. Reasonable steps the insured may have taken to mitigate damages or arrange for repairs would not have prevented the second loss from occurring. It is for this reason, this loss would be handled as a separate claim. Example: Wind damage to roof in July 2015, we estimated to repair the roof for $2000. After applying the $1000 deductible we issue a payment for $1000. Prior to the repairs being completed another storm in September 2015 results in new hail damage which totals the roof. We prepare an estimate to remove and replace the roof for $10,000. In this circumstance adjust the claim as follows: = Adjust the loss as a separate event, subject to the policy deductible. = Prepare an estimate for all roof damages resulting from the current loss using the price list for the current date of loss. This may include the same roof damage estimated on a prior claim that was not replaced or repaired. = Apply depreciation, if applicable. The age and condition of the damaged property, including prior toof damage, should be considered in determining the actual cash value of the current loss. = Subtract the deductible for the new claim. = Deduct prior payments for the roof damage that was-not replaced or repaired. e Do not deduct amounts that were estimated for the roof, but were at or below the deductible. = Pay the insured any difference. © Ifthe ACV payment of the roof replacement exceeds the ACV payment to replace the roof on the prior loss, issue a draft to the policyholder for the difference between the ACV payment for the roof on the prior loss and the ACV payment for the roof on the current loss. o Ifthe ACV payment of the roof replacement on the new loss is the same or less than the ACV payment amount to replace the roof on the prior loss, no additional ACV payment is due. © Provide the insured with an Explanation of Building Replacement Cost Benefits based on the.new loss, if applicable. F. Prior roof claim, damage was fully repaired, but the insured spent less than was estimated to repair, (and the repair was structurally proper): = Adjust the second loss as a separate event. a Do not deduct the payment from the prior loss. G. Prior roof loss, insured did not present claim or the prior claim was less than the deductible: If the insured did not make a claim for the prior damage or the prior claim was less than the deductible, do not reduce the new loss by the amount of the prior loss. Example: A policyholder sustains hail damage to the roof in July, 2015. The claim handler inspects the damage and estimates to repair two shingles per square for a total estimate of $700. The policyholder has a $1,000 deductible and the claim is closed without payment. In April 2016, the policyholder files a new hail claim which totals the roof. The total roof estimate is $5,000 after applying applicable depreciation. In this case, subtract the $1,000 deductible from the new claim estimate of $5,000 and pay the customer $4,000. There is no offset for the July 2007 claim because no payment was made. An explanation of replacement cost benefits if applicable should be issued for the recoverable amount. Each claim needs to be handled on its own merits and management should be involved in situations needing additional resolution. HOSIERGAR00002587PROD WESTNEI00016437PROD"}, {"d": 123, "p": 152, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et. al. v. SFF&CC, et. al. OG 75-160, Wind/Hail Roofing Guidelines Top of Page Xl. MATCHING - UNDAMAGED EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS Refer to: OG 75-100, Claim Application - First Party Section III. B. Matching Top of Page Xll. ROOFING PRODUCTS - LIMITED OR NO AVAILABILITY During the course of an investigation, damaged roofing products which have limited or no availability can be encountered. Suitable replacement products can be determined by reviewing product design characteristics such as; appearance, warranty, and composition of the product along with the performance standards as outlined in the applicable building code. Characteristics like these will help identify a replacement product which is of like kind and quality. Locator Services is a resource to assist in determining the availability of a roofing product in a specific location and identifying an appropriate replacement roofing product. Decisions regarding appropriate replacement roofing products should be reviewed with input from local claim management. Refer to: 75-100, OG Ill. B. Matching - UNDAMAGED EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS Top of Page Xlll. ROOF WARRANTIES Many roof installations are accompanied by a written warranty issued by the shingle manufacturer. Some roofs are stated to be impact resistant, others have wind speed warranties. Some contractors issue written warranties covering their work for a period of time. It is important to ask the insured for a copy of any warranty they may have on their roof to support our investigation as it relates to potential subrogation efforts. The Locator Services or T.1.P.P. may also be a resource in locating manufacturer's warranty information. Roof warranty claims may be presented for consideration along with a claim for potential roof damage. The Homeowners policy provides coverage for Accidental Direct Physical Loss (ADPL) for property described in Coverage A - Dwelling, except as provided in Section | - Losses Not Insured. ADPL does not include a claim for a voided warranty. Review each claim based on the individual facts and circumstances. Questions should be reviewed with claim management. Top of Page XIV. BUILDING CODE/ORDINANCE AND LAW Our obligation is to replace the damaged property in accordance with the Loss Settlement Provisions. If certain repairs, replacements or construction techniques are required to comply with the state law or local ordinance, the insured is responsible for the difference in the cost. Payment should be limited to the portion of loss covered by the policy contract. We will not pay for increased costs resulting from enforcement of any ordinance or law except as provided in Option OL or another policy endorsement. Refer to: 75-107 OG Optional Coverages - Section IV - Option OL Building ordinance or law questions should be referred to claim management. Building codes and their effect on claims adjusting procedures should be researched. Refer to: 75-51, OG Replacement Cost 4€* Building, OG 75-105, Claim Interpretations - Losses Not Insured Top of Page XV. COMMUNICATION WITH THE POLICYHOLDER Review the scope of the loss in person or by telephone; provide the insured with a copy of the Xactimate estimate, Structural Damage Claim Policy and Explanation of Building Replacement Cost Benefits Form if replacement cost benefits are available. An Explanation of Building Replacement Cost Benefits Form is generally not required on repairable items. However, complete an Explanation of Building Replacement Cost Benefits Form when total replacement of a slope or the roof is made on an ACV basis. Include replacement of other depreciable items (for example, siding, painting) on the Explanation of Building Replacement Cost Benefits Form. HOSIERGAR00002598PROD WESTNEI00016438PROD"}, {"d": 123, "p": 153, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et. al. v. SFF&CC, et. al. OG 75-160, Wind/Hail Roofing Guidelines eT = oa A When the inspection indicates there is no damage/partial damage to the roof surface itself, this information should be communicated to the insured. When making a payment for partial damages to a roof, it is important to document all damage as well as areas where no accidental direct physical loss is found. Discuss the scope of the roof damage, or lack of damage with the insured, with an explanation of coverage. Top of Page XVI. ADDITIONAL INSPECTION GUIDELINES Refer to: OG 75-01, First Party Claim Handling Procedures - E. Additional Inspection Guidelines. Top of Page XVII. APPRAISAL/ADR/ARBITRATION Based on the facts and circumstances of an individual roof claim appraisal, ADR or arbitration may be an appropriate method of claim resolution. Claim management should be involved when appraisal, arbitration or ADR is considered. Refer to: OG 75-09, Appraisal, OG 70-25, Alternative Dispute Resolution and/or OG 70-80, Arbitration Top of Page STATE FARM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION - Distribution on a Business Need to Know Basis Only - HOSIERGAR00002599PROD WESTNEI00016439PROD"}, {"d": 123, "p": 154, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. From: Pete McArdle [/OU=VIRTUAL/CN=CACE] Sent: To: 3/3/2021 2:56:28 PM Eileen Colbert [eileen.colbert.gitd@statefarm.com]; Gwen Hodgson [gwen.hodgson.|pb5 @statefarm.com]; Katina Butler [katina.butler.gmih@statefarm.com] Eileen Colbert [eileen.colbert.gitd@statefarm.com]; Gwen Hodgson [gwen.hodgson.|pb5 @statefarm.com]; Katina Butler [katina.butler.gmih@statefarm.com] RE: Fire Claims 2021 Quality Plan BCC: Subject: Looks good Eileen, | think 2 hours 15 minutes should do it. From: Eileen Colbert Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 8:55 AM To: Gwen Hodgson <gwen.hodgson.|pb5@statefarm.com>; Katina Butler <katina.butler.gmih@statefarm.com>; Pete McArdle <pete.mcardle.cace@statefarm.com> Ce: Eileen Colbert <eileen.colbert.gitd@statefarm.com> Subject: FW: Fire Claims 2021 Quality Plan Are you all good with these segments as our plan? ° mins. Chapter 1 (1 hour, 28 mins) + Chapter 2, Segment 1 (22 mins) + Chapter 2, Segment 3 (12 mins). Total of 2 hrs, 2 so, how much time do we need ESS&P to schedule per person? Is 2 hrs, 15 mins enough? 2 hrs, 30 mins? I'll get a note to Allen when | hear back from you so we can start scheduling. I'll also mention at huddle today. We should probably also get a memo to the TMs this afternoon recapping which segments of the refresher are required to forward to their teams if one of you don’t mind taking the lead on that. Thanks. From: Eileen Colbert Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 9:41 AM To: Tom Moss <tom.mass.c4sg @statefarm.com>; Bill Lingenfelter <bill lingenfelter.hx3v@statefarm.com> Cc: Eileen Colbert <eileen.colbert.gitd@statefarm.com>; Gwen Hodgson <gwen.hodgson.lpbS@statefarm.com>; Katina Butler <katina.butler.gmih@statefarm.com>; Pete McArdle <pete.mcardle.cace@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Fire Claims 2021 Quality Plan Hi Tom Thanks much for tracking this down for us! 'm also pleased to see you prioritize me over Bill......! concur it should ALWAYS be that way, and it speaks to your high level of intellect. © From: Tom Moss Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00035083"}, {"d": 123, "p": 155, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 9:17 AM To: Bill Lingenfelter <bill lingenfelter hx3v@statefarm.com>; Eileen Colbert <eileen,colbert.gitd@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Fire Claims 2021 Quality Plan i did it for Eileen Bill © Hope you both are having a good day. From: Bill Lingenfelter Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2021 8:14 AM To: Tom Moss <tom.moss.c4se@statefarm.com>; Eileen Colbert <eileen.colbert.gitd@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Fire Claims 2021 Quality Plan Thank you Tom!! From: Tom Moss Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2021 9:12 AM To: Bill Lingenfelter <bill Jingenfelter.hx3v@statefarm.com>; Eileen Colbert <eileen.calbert .gitd@statefarm.com> Subject: FW: Fire Claims 2021 Quality Plan Updated to 7 segments of Haag Training. From: Tanya E Potts Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2021 8:05 AM To: Tom Moss <tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm,com>; Heather Hanselka <heather.hanselka.29ai@statefarm.com> Cc: Tanya E Potts <tanya.e.potts.eqhu@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Fire Claims 2021 Quality Plan Tom — The update to seven segments was completed yesterday afternoon. The instructions were also updated to read 7 segments completed will complete the requirement. To date 1007 completions of the refresher training are recorded and an additional 30 are in progress and will likely be moved to completing the requirement with the change to 7 segments. Further clarification on why 11 segments were used to fulfill the two hour requirement were shared with me yesterday. e If the shortest segments are selected, 11 segments were required to get to 1:58 minutes. ° As you shared yesterday, seven segments completed in Chapters one and two only require seven segments be completed to meet the requirement as there are several 20 minute or longer segments. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00035084"}, {"d": 123, "p": 156, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. ° Chapter three and four have several shorter segments between 6 and 12 minutes in length and the shortest seven segments are 1:04. The next four shortest segments provide an additional 54 minutes to be two minutes shy of the requirement. e 'f any additional message points or updates to the requirements are necessary, please let me know? If you would like an updated memo sent, | will get one back to you teday. Thank you, Tanya From: Tom Moss Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 11:29 AM To: Tanya E Potts <tanya.e.potts.gghu@statefarm.com>; Heather Hanselka <heather.hanselka.g9ai@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Fire Claims 2021 Quality Plan Excellent — thank you From: Tanya E Potts Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2021 11:24 AM To: Tom Moss <tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com>; Heather Hanselka <heather.hanselka.g9aj@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Fire Claims 2021 Quality Plan Tom — i have asked the HR&D group to re-evaluate that and will follow up as soon as | hear back from them. Thanks, Tanya From: Tom Moss Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 11:12 AM To: Tanya E Potts <tanya.e.potts.gqhu@statefarm.com>; Heather Hanselka <heather.hanselka.g9ai@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Fire Claims 2021 Quality Plan Thanks Tanya, ! reviewed the length of the segments and many of the segments are 20+ minutes long. | think that completing 7 segments would guarantee 2 hours, even if the user choose all the shortest segments. | can go back through the length of each of the segments and confirm, but | believe | am correct. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00035085"}, {"d": 123, "p": 157, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Tom From: Tanya E Potts Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2021 11:09 AM To: Tom Moss <tor:.moss.c4se @statefarm.com>; Heather Hanselka <heather.hanselka.g9aj@statefarm.com> Cc: Tanya E Potts <tanya.e.potts.zahu@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Fire Claims 2021 Quality Plan Hi Tom — In order to get accurate/clean reporting in MyBlock — that would recognize the 2 hour completion requirement, the HR&D MyBlock team ran algorithms using all of the segments that averaged the need to complete 11 segments to get two hours of the HAAG training completed. ! hope my explanation makes sense, but | can get additional detail if you would like? Thanks, Tanya From: Tom Moss Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 10:43 AM To: Tanya E Potts <tanya.e.potts. gghu@statefarm.com>; Heather Hanselka <heather.hanselka.g9ai@statefarm.com> Subject: FW: Fire Claims 2021 Quality Plan Importance: High Good morning, lam in classes all week and do not have time to join a quick call to discuss. The quality plan for 2021 requires 2 hours of Haag Training. or 2 hours? ilsegments Does the Haag Refresher Training require them to complete Tom From: Eileen Colbert Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2021 10:40 AM To: Pete McArdle <pete.mcardle.cace @statefarm.com>; Katina Butler <katina.butler.gmih@statefarm.com>; Gwen Hodgson <gwen.hodgson.{pb5 @ statefarm.com>; Tom Moss <tom.moss.c4sg @statefarm.com> Cc: Eileen Colbert <eileen.colbert.gitd@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Fire Claims 2021 Quality Plan Importance: High This is what | am seeing in the quality plan pertaining to a minimum of 2 hours of refresher training, which doesn't align with the Refresher course details in MyBlock which indicates 11 segments need to be completed. Wind/Hail Losses Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00035086"}, {"d": 123, "p": 158, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Tom ~ will you please weigh-in on the expectation for HRU. Are we needing to complete a minimum of 2 hours (please see highlighted note below a suggested selection of 6 segments totaling 2 hrs, 2 mins) or complete 11 segments? If we do need to complete 11 segments, including Chapter 4 and 7 of the most applicable segments in Chapter 2, the total time is appx. 3 hrs, 26 mins. for 250+ handlers. Thanks. From: Pete McArdle Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 11:09 AM To: Katina Butler <katina. butler.gmih@statefarm.com>; Eileen Colbert <eilleen.colbert.gitd Hodgson <gwen.hodgson.Ipb5@statefarm.com> @statefarm.com>; Gwen Subject: RE: Fire Claims 2021 Quality Plan Agree, we haven’t done anything to schedule the refresher to this point. From: Katina Butler Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 10:05 AM To: Eileen Colbert <cileen.colbert.gitd @statefarm.com>; Gwen Hodgson <gwen.hodgson.ipb5@statefarm.com>; Pete McArdle <pete.mcardle.cace@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: Fire Claims 2021 Quality Plan J agree we can review on call today. I believe we have to complete 1] parts for the refresher. From: Eileen Colbert Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 10:32 AM To: Gwen Hodgson <gwen.hodgson.lpb5 @statefarm.com>; Katina Butler <katina.butler.gmih@statefarm.com>; Pete McArdle <pete.mcardie.cace@statefarm.com> Cc: Eileen Colbert eileen.colbert.gitd@statefarm.com Subject: FW: Fire Claims 2021 Quality Plan Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00035087"}, {"d": 123, "p": 159, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Oops.....| missed getting this on the calendar. in the call. Anyone else contact ESS&P te get it scheduled? if not, we can review today We also need to figure out 2 hrs worth of training. Perhaps Chapter 1 (1 hour, 28 mins) + Chapter 2, Segment 1 (22 mins) + Chapter 2, Segment 3 (12 mins)? From: Nicole Manduca Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 7:25 PM To: Bill Escott <bijl.escott.bfs6@statefarm.com>; Eileen Colbert <eileen.colbert.gitd@statefarm.com>; Gwen Hodgson <gwen. hodgson. IpbS @statefarm.com>; Katina Butler <katina.butler.gmih@statefarm.com>; Laura E Mize <laura.e.mize.ihth@statefarm.com>; Pete McArdle <pete.mcardie.cace@statefarm.com>; Scott Steele <scott steele. h7j0@statefarm.com>; Stacey Janssen <stacey.jianssen.iOpk@ statefarm.com> Subject: FW: Fire Claims 2021 Quality Plan Friendly reminder — the HAAG Refresher Training should be completed by the end ofQ1 (per P&C). From: Julie Jarnagin On Behalf Of Scott Welsh Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 7:53 AM To: DL-PC-CLMS-AllFire-SMs <DL-PC-CLMS-AllFire-SMs. DLGOGO@internal.statefarm.com>; DL-PC-CLMS-AllFire-CMs <DLPC-CLMS-AllFire-CMs. DLNMAG@internal.statefarm.com>; DL-PC-CLMS-CS-Consultants-Fire <DL-PC-CLMS-CSConsultants-Fire.DL252!@internal.statefarm.com> Cc: Kathy Ress <kathy.ress.he8i@statefarm.com>; Wendy Mazza <wendy.mazza.c9s2@statefarm.com>; Gregory E Jones <gregory.e.jones.gzwh@statefarm.com>; Tyrone Smith <tyrone.smith.a57w@statefarm.com>; Scott Welsh <scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com>; Brad Rushton <brad.rushton.b92n@statefarm.com> Subject: Fire Claims 2021 Quality Plan December 23, 2020 Subject: To: Fire Claims 2021 Quality Plan Fire Claims Section Managers Fire Claim Managers Fire Property Claim Consultants From: Fire Claims 2021 Planning Committee Thank you for our discussion on the 2021 planning process and the updates to Fire Focus recommendations for the new year. The following documents are resources for use in further development of each section's specific tactics. Claim managers, in partnership with consulting services, will be working with section managers to provide guidance on how the plan will be implemented within each division/section and monitored throughout the year. 2021 Fire Claims Quality Plan Fire Claims Quality 2021 Plan -- presentation Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00035088"}, {"d": 123, "p": 160, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Please consider inviting your Claim Manager and Fire Claim Consultant if you are discussing the plan or setting expectations with your team. If you have questions Contact your Consultant or Claim Manager. C: Fire Claim VPOs, Scott Welsh, Brad Rushton FOR INTERNAL STATE FARM USE ONLY Contains information that may not be disclosed outside State Farm without authorization Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00035089"}, {"d": 123, "p": 161, "t": "al West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al From: Sent: To: BCC: Subject: Scott Welsh [/O=STATEFARM/OU=EXTERNAL (FYDIBOHF25SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=5D99B0OB083AF4638BBA0385827DECFB9] 1/29/2021 11:04:22 PM Tom Moss [tom.moss.c4sg @statefarm.com] Scott Welsh [scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com]; Tom Moss [tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com] RE: HAAG video series Thank you for sharing Tom — What a great way to track engagement/progress on learning. From: Tom Moss Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 4:29 PM To: Tanya E Potts <tanya.e.potts.gqhu@statefarm.com>; Marie Dyer <marie.dyer.gmxb@statefarm.com> >; Heather Hanselka <heather.hanselka.g9aj@statefarm.com>; Scott Welsh <scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: HAAG video series This sounds like an amazing solution. Thank you. Tuesday works great for us. Tom From: Tanya E Potts Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 2:00 PM To: Tom Moss <tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com>; Marie Dyer <marie.dyer.grnxb@statefarm.com> Cc: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.Jok2@statefarm.com>; Heather Hanselka <heather. hanselka.g9aj@statefarm.com>; Tanya E Potts <tanya.e.potts.gqghu@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: HAAG video series Would it be possible to complete our work up of this visual to share for further clarification and provide to you by Tuesday? If you do require a response sooner and/or have questions, please let me know. Thank you, Tanya From: Tom Moss Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 1:30 PM To: Marie Dyer <marie.dyer.zmxb @statefarm.com>; Tanya E Potts <tanya.e.potts.sqhu@statefarm.com> Cc: Nicole Manduca <nicole. manduca lok2 @statefarm.com>; Heather Hanselka Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00112655"}, {"d": 123, "p": 162, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. <heather hanselka.g9aj@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: HAAG video series Can we track the chapters that each learner completes? From: Marie Dyer Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 1:19 PM To: Tom Moss <tom.moss.c4sg @statefarm.com>; Tanya E Potts <tanya.e.potts.gghu@statefarm.com> Cc: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduce Jok2@statefarm.com>; Heather Hanselka <heather.hanselka.g9aj@statefarm.com>; Marie Dyer <marie.dyer.gmxb@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: HAAG video series Tom, | will have a new curriculum built for 2021 Refresher HAAG training. You can then communicate a deadline for learners to complete, and run a My Block report of completers and non-completers. Let me know which training you would like to include in the new refresher curriculum — one chapter, two chapters, or any combination for the 2 hours you are trying to hit. Thank you, Marie From: Tom Moss Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 1:12 PM To: Tanya E Potts <tanya.e.potts.gqhu@statefarm.com> Ce: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.Jok2 @statefarm.com>; Heather Hanselka <heather. hanselka.g9aj@statefarm.com>; Marie Dyer <marie.dyer.gmxb@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: HAAG video series Awesome. So how will we know when they have completed 2 hours of training? to specifically assign segments for them to review? Can we run a report? Or do we need Tom From: Tanya E Potts Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 12:47 PM To: Tom Moss <tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com> Cc: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.Jok2@statefarm.com>; Heather Hanselka <heather.hanselka.g9aj@statefarm.com>; Marie Dyer <marie.dyer.gmxb@statefarm.com>; Tanya E Potts <tanya.e.potts. gqhu@statefarm.com> Subject: RE: HAAG video series Good Afternoon ~ After discussing with my master curriculum creator, Marie, we can do what is requested below or any combination of the Haag video series as a refresher for 2021. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00112656"}, {"d": 123, "p": 163, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. We would still keep the original series published as is for all “new to role learners” and anyone who was interested in or needed to take the entire series. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss further? Thank you, Tanya and Marie From: Heather Hanselka Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 11:31 AM To: Tom Moss <tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com>; Tanya E Potts <tanya.e.potts.gqghu@statefarm.com> Ce: Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2 @statefarm.com> Subject: FW: HAAG video series Hi- lam bringing Tanya into this as her team will be working with L&D and she can make sure it meets your needs for reporting. I like the idea of having specific segments in and calling it a refresher but Tanya has some options for you. Will we be able to track when they have completed 2 hours of the training? Or, should just add certain segments of the training under the 2021 HAAG Education Hail & Wind Assessment Video Series? Specifically, Chapter 1 - Hail and Wind Basics (4 segments and is ~ 1 hour and 28 minutes) and Chapter 2 - Composition Shingles (9 segments and is ~ 2 hours and 33 minutes.) If we add specific segments, we may want to call it 2021 HAAG Education Hail & Wind Assessment Video Series — Refresher. wie 22s EAE) lee (EAMES pvesvone to Tom Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00112657"}, {"d": 123, "p": 164, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. From: Sent: To: ce: BCC: Subject: Scott Welsh [/O=STATEFARM/OU=EXTERNAL (FYDIBOHF25SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=5D99BOB083AF4638BBA0385827DECFB9] 2/3/2022 4:49:58 PM Tom Moss [tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com] Walter Phillips [walter.phillips.gg6l@statefarm.com]; Gregory E Jones [gregory.e.jones.gzwh@statefarm.com] Scott Welsh [scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com]; Tom Moss [tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com]; Walter Phillips [walter.phillips.gg6|@statefarm.com)]; Gregory E Jones [gregory.e.jones.gzwh@statefarm.com] RE: Wind Hail Claim Handling Sessions Thank you Tom, Appreciate you taking the lead in getting this training developed, presenters identified and set on the calendar. Well done sir. Scott From: Tom Moss Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2022 10:35 AM To: John Thoma <john.thoma.jp2f@statefarm.com>; Tim Northquist <tim.northquist.cz3u@statefarm.com>; Adrian Mack <adrian.mack.h39|@statefarm.com>; Kevin Brotherton <kevin.brotherton.h50r@statefarm.com>; Jared Runnels <jared.runnels.juu8 @statefarm.com>; Clint Mahan <clint.mahan.pgrb@statefarm.com> Cc: Tom Moss <tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com>; Walter Phillips <walter.phillips.gg6|@statefarm.com>; Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2@statefarm.com>; Tammy M Davidson <tammy.m.davidson.a55w@statefarm.com>; John Broadway <john.broadway.|wnj@statefarm.com>; Scott Welsh <scott.welsh.cx30@statefarm.com> Subject: Wind Hail Claim Handling Sessions Good morning all and thank you for your willingness to help present this year. You will be receiving a series of invitations from Tammy Davidson for the 2022 Wind Hail Clairn Handling Sessions for the times shown below. If you have a conflict with one of the meetings, others can jump in and cover your topic, so no worries, we will just need to communicate as a team. | will set a call for early next week for the presenters to visit and talk through the agenda. We will not have a PowerPoint presentation. Each of you will have a file(s) to review with the attendees and discuss your observations. Kevin, we would love for you to bring in a file review on how we effectively used NearMap and perhaps a file where we missed the opportunity. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00016926"}, {"d": 123, "p": 165, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Adrian, you crushed the discussion last year on a wear/tear example and we would love for you to cover this topic again. Tim, we discussed having you show a hail file with good photos of hail, including collateral that supported a diligent investigation and then bring up a file where we paid for hail damage but the file documentation needed was not present. Otto, we discussed having you show a wind file with good photos of wind that supported a diligent investigation and then bring up a file where we paid for wind damage but the file documentation needed was not present. Clint will present an example of widespread scattered wind damage where the calculations did not hit 50% in the wind repair ~ replace calculator but the decision to replace the slope was warranted. Jared has a few topics to cover on reparability, including potential over manipulation of shingles by contractors. From: John Broadway Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2022 10:05 AM To: Anthony Richardson <anthony.richardson.hmad@statefarm.com>; Clint Mahan <clint. mahan.pgrb@statefarm.com>; Greg Robinson <greg.robinson.J420@statefarm.com>; Jared Runnels <jared.runnels juu8@statefarrn.com>; Jason Payne <jason.payne.i953 @statefarm.com>; Jessica Rich <jessica.rich.p2ki@statefarm.com>; John Broadway <john. broadway. lwnj@statefarm.com>; Nicole Manduca <nicole.manduca.lok2 @statefarm.com>; Tanya E Potts <tanya.e.potts. sqhu@statefarm.cam>; Tom Moss <tom.moss.c4sg@statefarm.com> Subject: FW: Wind Hail Claim Handling Sessions Working Copy of review session communications. February 8, 2021 Subject: To: Wind Hail Claim Handling Sessions Fire Section Managers - Proximity Fire Section Managers - WCCS Deployed Fire Section Managers - Hail Reconciliation Unit Fire Section Managers - WCCS Fire Section Managers - BCFR From: Stewardship P&C Fire Claim Consultants What you should know In alignment with Qur Commitment to Our Policyholders, P&C Claims Strategy Map, and 2022 Fire Claims Quality Plan_, Consulting Services has partnered with Execution leadership to facilitate sessions where we will review common claim handling. wind and hail loss scenarios and existing resources to provide guidance on wind and hail What You Need to Do All Fire Claim Section Managers, Team Managers and Fire Claim Specialists in our WCCS Stewardship, WCCS Deployed, Hail Reconciliation Unit, Boat Commercial Farm Ranch and Fire Proximity segments should attend one of the following eight sessions as your schedule permits. Please note that the same information will be shared during each session. Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00016927"}, {"d": 123, "p": 166, "t": "West, Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al Please cascade this information to your team members. Wind Loss Sessions [Date time (CS) Session #1 February 15, 2022 2:00 — 4:00 PM Add invite February 17, 2022 2:00 — 4:00 PM Add invite 11:00 AM — 1:00 PM Add invite February 24, 2022 2:00 — 4:00 PM Add invite March 1, 2022 11:00 AM — 1:00 PM Add invite March 3, 2022 11:00 AM — 1:00 PM Add invite Session #7 March 7, 2022 1:00 — 3:00 PM Add invite Session #8 March 9, 2022 1:00 — 3:00 PM Add invite Session #2 February 22, 2022 Session #3 Session #4 Session #5 Session #6 Additional Details For any questions regarding the sessions, please contact Nicole Manduca. C: Kathy Ress, Tyrone Smith, Scott Welsh, P&C Claim Fire Consultants, P&C Claim Fire Claim Managers, Walter Phillips, Derek Miller, Adrian Mack, John Thoma, Kevin Brotherton, Clint Mahan, Jared Runnels, Tim Northquist FOR INTERNAL STATE FARM USE ONLY Contains information that may not be disclosed outside State Farm without authorization Confidential Produced Pursuant to Protective Order WEST00016928"}, {"d": 123, "p": 167, "t": "art: West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Fire Model Enhancement — Water & Wind/Hail CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000121"}, {"d": 123, "p": 168, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Water — Overview Enterprise - Coverage - Scope Water Specialized Team New Items Scaled - Skill Development - Estimatics - Front end handling - Reconciliation - Targeted Development Management Reviews | - Updated QFC - Cabinet and Wood Began Dec. _|- Skills Review and | Template Flooring Focus Initiated Jan. - Estimatics Resource Guide 1 iteration Apr. Br. rer nreas store ruse our nn i Fam CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 HOSIERGAR0074406PROD.0001_Exh. 13 WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000122"}, {"d": 123, "p": 169, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Water — Next Steps Lessons Learned o Coverage and Scope opportunities o Timing of Management Reviews Additional Testing in Progress o SFPSP with HO-6 Claims o Estimatics and Reconciliation strategies with Fire Proximity Future Updates/Deliverables o Florida Vendor Test o Increase and Enhancements to Accelerated Management Reviews Bho, ror ress 21178 11 vst on, crt nematode Sa Fa bet stren CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER A HOSIERGAR0074406PROD.0002_Exh. 13 WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000123"}, {"d": 123, "p": 170, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Water — Measurements Accelerated Management Reviews Fire Water Coverage R 3 a& 48s 1313 7 Ss DEC20 JAN21 FEB21 g5 MAR21 APR21 means re 1593 g § 1845 Worked 1227 1493 g sae 9 MAY20 JUN20 Cis) mit Tasks 1814 & Ey te AUG20 SEOT 2020 OCT20 NOV20 MAY21 *note, March and April 2021 figures approximate & srarerim cst ony or CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 4 HOSIERGAR0074406PROD.0003_Exh. 13 WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000124"}, {"d": 123, "p": 171, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Wind/Hail — Initial Analysis & Prioritized Tactics i Claim Handling Hygiene : : Il Hail (s & Light Se 1”) i Wind i HYPOTHESIS i a METRIC ————— es (FRR) on Severity 3 Wind : damages (50 mph or less) Hail Unnecessary foot : fiscal rejacenen ong hal__ FRR) on Seve 3 Hal ‘% Full Roof Replacement ‘damages (1” hail or smaller) BASELINE 63% INDUSTRY BEST j 90% 5-10% fi 510% Wind (2 50 * Data Set Analysis: Texas, All Wind/Hall Losses (Cat and Non-Caf), 2017-2019 mph) * Baseline. Analysis of 3-year data validated FRR were paid at 63% trequency for Severity 3 Wind and 90% frequency for Severity 3 Hail + Early Team Manager Involvement bs ne Casa engage Team Manager review on cae erie ocoemnmnds il pe Perret Depry perl daar ie Wind/Hail Kick Off in Expansion to Texas Dallas County, TX June December 7, 2020 26, 2020 FOR INTERNAL STATE FARR UBE ONLY. : nay nate Expansion to all States December 17, 2020 st CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER HOSIERGARO074406PROD.0004_Exh. 13 WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000125"}, {"d": 123, "p": 172, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Wind/Hail — Playbook Fundamentals Live Plays | + TM reviews on roof + Roof Skills Review replacement recommendations (< + HAAG Refresher 1”, 2 50 mph, and Age & Condition) + Wind Loss Overview * on Enhanced emphasis Claim Handling + Wind Evaluation Sheet + Artof the Gyalene oneeeaton + Use of Structured 7 Phrases to measure + Fire Data Accuracy i Dashboard ele allen | Calibration * Age & Condition reviews in all states + ITEL vendor solution for shingle identification / availability + EagleView Connect Explorer + Policy Endorsement + Weekly Monitoring & Surveying + Targeted Reinspections FOR TERNAL aTATE PAL USE OMY. tte tute are CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER HOSIERGARO074406PROD.0005_Exh. 13 WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000126"}, {"d": 123, "p": 173, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Wind/Hail — February 2021 vs June 2021 AccuWeather QFC +1SO Scope Sheet Phrase Usage % Documented % Documented % 3% Yo ww | 9% — ‘asx) | AccuWeather A (er) ‘ess | _ QFC+ISO Documented % | | Phrase Usage % i = || bers ) Scope Sheet Documented % ) j [ | ] |w Full Roof Replace TM Review Approval %@ { Wind Omty — | Wind & Hal j | Hall Onty | | ' Lins et ony) oeetes | 80.9%) 73.8%) 54.8% | BEd> 427%| 45.8%) 49.3% | | . A3% rome | ‘Small Hail Only | | | | 3.0% sone 35% Lome | 41% ae ae CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER HOSIERGARO074406PROD.0006_Exh. 13 WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000127"}, {"d": 123, "p": 174, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Wind/Hail Total Roof to Partial Roof Replacement Ratio 2 downey View 1 Counts by Orp-Last Sos / AccaWeathes Pease Tre. EE QFCCinim lnlermation jl Pement Trending | mr tmndon Cott | £1 Fl pte astSee i) FRGLining Last Weeds [FRR Phrase Teng | becedatcescatereseiatD |@ TRY/PRAURR Payment Courts, @ TRI PRR Ratio FOR ITTERNAL STATE FARRA USE ONLY. CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER HOSIERGAR0074406PROD.0007_Exh. 13 WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000128"}, {"d": 123, "p": 175, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Wind/Hail — Continuous Improvement * Wind/nail peril NPI increased +$1.49B (+45.9%) YOY yet decreased -$74.0M (-1.5%) in the past three months. Jurisdictions with YOY increases greater than +$90M were Louisiana, lowa, Alabama, Texas, and Georgia; Colorado experienced the largest decrease (-$110.9M). Pending counts decreased YOY (-16,108) yet increased in the past *Our quality focus and claim handling are guided by and in Support of Our Commitment to Our Policyholders three months (+6,212). Total Homeowners Wind/Hail Peril (including Catastrophe) Trends by Jurisdiction S717.O% +4,139.8%| Oxtahoma ‘Missouri Colorado Tennessee Florida som | sieza 30% | s1798 27% | $1655 20% | s1e04 26% | $1855 STATE FARM USE ONLY | +se7 | $124 | $1144 | $243 | $16.0 «38% 9 65% 409% 192% 115% +893.9% 200% | -an7% 120% | 27.9% 403% | 440% reaa% | 322% +eam | 31% cute +1,128.6%| 11.5% 8.2% -as6% | -52: +34.5% -77% | +165% CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 142% | -10% 200% | +199% 054% | 218.8% 184% | 430.8% 332% | -108% 04.8% 27.8% 602% 648% 384% | | | | | 60.0% 822% -186% 613% 139% 13.6% 09.3% -57.6% — -11.6% 122.6% HOSIERGAR0074406PROD.0008_Exh. 13 WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000129"}, {"d": 123, "p": 176, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Wind/Hail — Law of Recency HY INDUSTRY Unnecessary roof replacement on fight hail damages (1\" hail or smaller) [FOR ITTERNAL STATE FARRA USE ONLY, CONFIDENTIAL - PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER HOSIERGAR0074406PROD.0009_ Exh. 13 WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000130"}, {"d": 123, "p": 177, "t": "West. Neil, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Hosier, Gary, et al. v. SFF&CC, et al. Questions? HOSIERGARO074406PROD.0010_Exh. 13 WEST-RFP44- Sub. Prod.000131"}, {"d": 123, "p": 178, "t": "Name of Project Summary Description ‘Owning Area Work Initiation Approved Status Project Phase Anticipated Project Estimated Strategy Map Desired Start Completion Outcome Date Date |intiative: Work Segmentation an 312] Stewardshi une Ru) - ActualStart Completi Date on Date Created Project Status |connected with Fire Design work for timing. |consideration: Weather & Catastrophe Jand next steps as pertains to Reconzilation claim Services (WCCS} Deployed, Fire- [Unit design. in-Office, Fire-Proximity 12/7/2023 CM: Test remains in progress, Jother Organizational Planned to end 12/23/2023, Data analysis in limpacts:Enterprise Technology, JProgressto inform recommendation and a Ore/Aa, |The Hai Reconciliation Unt (HRU) is current 2 team managed lervironment. To address operational challenges with inventory management file ownership of HRU ctaias wil be tested, along with a reserve unk. The reserve unit addresses some of the common stewardship challenges of overflow cali and absence coverages. The hypothesis: Redesigning HRU wall enable greater operational efficiencies, improve caim quality, increase employee engagement, and castomer post Monthly Status 12/23/23. Data gathering and analysis In Progress esting Reduce lOperating expensepr [claim 8/28/2023] 11/2/2023 CM Tests in progress, expected |to last 90 days, ending approximately 12/24/2023 Resuits are being monitored . ve improvements to claim closing, task ‘and DID: are being seen intially. two-week pause on claims to the test ]was implemente to address the intial dlntlux restraints. Could be owned by CPE or Jot reassigned claims, which was ~4,200 vs. JPOST. Might be a good ft with other the projected ~3,700. Five Redesign work, but resources and [sequencin wil be a factor pickedg up by CP. Fotowing up wth Mike K. to | _3/31/2024]deter how this compares minein___ [10/2/2023 CM: Test launched on 9/23 with 6/27/2023 13:87 Jon Track"}, {"d": 123, "p": 179, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF NEIL & LACY WEST, ) Com mene CoutOMA Plaintiffs. ) Office of the Cours Clerk v. ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) AUG 20 2026 STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY, _) By, & NANCY HOLCOMB INSURANCE ) Beputy-—— AGENCY, INC ) Defendants. ) COURT ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ VARIOUS MOTIONS FILED ON JULY 7\", 2026 th NOW on this AO day of August, 2026 the Court, after hearing argument from counsel and reviewing all of the relevant pleadings GRANTS IN PART the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike State Farm’s blanket Confidentiality Assertion; GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion to De- Designate Documents Produced and DENIES the Motion to Lift the Protective Order, subject to the conditions set forth below. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On May 21, 2026, the Court entered the Protective Order governing the treatment of confidential material produced in discovery in this action. 2. The Protective Order permits a party to designate material “Confidential” only “after a bona fide determination made in good faith that the material is in fact trade secret or other confidential information as defined in paragraph 3.” 3. Paragraph 3 of the Protective Order limits “Confidential” information to three enumerated categories: (a) “trade secret,” which “shall have the same meaning as in 78 O.S. §86(4)”; (b) “confidential research, development or commercial information,” meaning “information that is maintained in secrecy from third parties and which a party in good |"}, {"d": 123, "p": 180, "t": "“personal confidential information,” meaning “a person’s social security number, medical records, bank records, personnel records and tax information.” Paragraph 3(a)(ii) of the Protective Order expressly provides that “trade secret’ shall explicitly not include any aspects of the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim as first-party insureds, including but not limited to attempts to lower indemnity payments on Plaintiffs’ claim, including the total roof replacement requested, and anything regarding denying or partially denying Plaintiffs’ claim.” Paragraph 4 of the Protective Order establishes the procedure for challenging a designation and allocates the burden of proof. It provides that a designation shall not “create a presumption the document is, in fact, confidential or a trade secret entitled to protection,” and that “[t]the burden of establishing that a document or testimony contains trade secret or personal confidential information and is entitled to the protection of this Protective Order shall remain on the party making the designation.” In response to the Court’s order granting Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, State Farm produced a large volume of documents. Plaintiffs represent that the production exceeds 800,000 pages and that State Farm designated every page “Confidential.” State Farm represents that it produced “nearly 800,000 documents (millions of pages),” that it “has not designated all documents confidential,” and that over 600,000 of the produced documents were reproduced from other litigation in which they are subject to confidentiality provisions of settlement agreements and/or protective orders entered by other courts. State Farm contends that not all documents turned over in discovery were labeled “confidential”."}, {"d": 123, "p": 181, "t": "Plaintiffs objected to State Farm’s designations, and State Farm declined to withdraw them. The parties disagree as to whether or not the “challenge” procedure outlined in paragraph 4 of the Protective Order has been complied with. Regardless, the parties have failed to resolve the dispute informally. The documents Plaintiffs specifically identify as improperly designated concern State Farm’s internal “FME” and “Wind/Hail” initiatives, tracking of roof replacements and indemnity savings, and managerial-approval requirements for full roof replacements. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. Governing standard and allocation of the burden 9. A protective order in Oklahoma issues under 12 O.S. §3226(C)(1), which authorizes the Court, “for good cause shown,” to enter an order protecting a party “from annoyance, harassment, embarrassment, oppression or undue delay, burden or expense,” including an order “that a trade secret or other confidential research, development or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way.” (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 3226) 10. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that §3226(C) shifts the burden of showing ‘good cause’ to the party who opposes discovery. (YWCA of Oklahoma City v. Melson, 1997 OK 81, 944 P.2d 304) The burden of showing good cause “is statutorily placed on the party objecting to discovery and is part of that party’s motion for a protective order.” (Crest Infiniti, 11, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, 174 P.3d 996) The Protective Order codifies this same allocation: designation creates no presumption of confidentiality, and"}, {"d": 123, "p": 182, "t": "the burden of establishing that material is entitled to protection “shall remain on the party making the designation.” A party does not carry that burden with conclusory or blanket assertions. In (Crest Infiniti, U1, LP vy. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, 174 P.3d 996), the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that “blanket statements” were insufficient and that the party seeking protection “must show more than these blanket statements to satisfy their burden for a protective order.” (Crest Infiniti, I, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, 174 P.3d 996) B. Blanket designations. 12. Plaintiffs have raised the issue as to State Farm’s blanket confidentiality designations. Under both Oklahoma law and Paragraph 4 of the Protective Order, the burden now rests on State Farm to justify, on a document or category basis, the confidentiality of the material it has designated. A designation applied uniformly to every page of the production, without regard to content, does not satisfy that burden. C. Trade secret and confidential commercial information 13. The Protective Order adopts the statutory definition of “trade secret” in 78 O.S. §86(4): information that “derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use,” and “is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 78, § 86) 14. Under Oklahoma law, protectable trade secrets and confidential information “must be the particular secrets of the [proprietor] as distinguished from the general secrets of the"}, {"d": 123, "p": 183, "t": "trade,” must possess “a substantial element of secrecy,” and must “contain elements which are unique and, not generally known or used in the trade.” (Cent. Plastics Co. v. Goodson, 1975 OK 71, 537 P.2d 330) “Matters of public knowledge in an industry cannot be appropriated by one as [its] secret.” (Cent. Plastics Co. v. Goodson, 1975 OK 71, 537 P.2d 330) Applying §86(4), the Tenth Circuit has confirmed that the proponent must show the information is not readily ascertainable and provide evidence that it “conferred some type of competitive advantage or economic value”; generalized and conclusory evidence will not suffice. (Double Eagle Alloys, Inc. v. Hooper, 134 F.4th 1078 (10th Cir, 2025)) 15. To restrict disclosure of trade secret or “other confidential research, development, or commercial information,” the proponent “must ‘first establish that the information sought is a trade secret [or other confidential research, development, or commercial information]’ and then ’demonstrate that its disclosure might be harmful,” by “a particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.” (Video Gaming Techs., Inc. v. Castle Hill Studios LLC, No. 17-CV-454-GKF-JFJ, 2019 WL 2514705 (N.D. Okla. June 18, 2019) 16. An insurer’s internal claims-handling policies, procedures, and business strategies are not automatically protectable. Internal corporate documents do not automatically merit protective orders, and a protective order does not exist to prevent “negative publicity” or reputational injury; such material qualifies as confidential commercial information only when the proponent couples it with a particularized showing of competitive harm. (Video Gaming Techs., Inc. v. Castle Hill Studios LLC, No. 17-CV-454-GKF-JFJ, 2019 WL 2514705 (N.D. Okla. June 18, 2019))"}, {"d": 123, "p": 184, "t": "7 17. Independent of these authorities, Paragraph 3(a)(ii) of the Protective Order removes from the “trade secret” category any aspects of the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim as first-party insureds, including attempts to lower indemnity payments on Plaintiffs’ claim, the total roof replacement requested, and anything regarding denying or partially denying Plaintiffs’ claim. Documents falling within Paragraph 3(a)(ii) are, by the terms the parties agreed to, not trade secrets and may not be designated Confidential on that basis. D. Confidentiality of discovery is distinct from sealing of court records. 18. The Court agrees with State Farm that the standard governing confidentiality designations of discovery material differs from the standard governing the sealing of records filed with the Court. Under Oklahoma law, “discovery documents produced in private litigation are not public records and would not, under the Open Records Act, otherwise be available for public inspection and copying, unless the documents are filed of record or admitted into evidence.” (Good v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2023 OK CIV APP 28, 536 P.3d 961) 19, When material is filed with the Court, however, it becomes subject to the presumption of public access, and sealing is governed by the Oklahoma Open Records Act. (Mitchell v. Mitchell, 2021 OK CIV APP 17, 491 P.3d_ 759) Court records are public unless a statute requires confidentiality, and the Court “may seal a record or portion of a record only ifa compelling privacy interest exists which outweighs the public’s interest in the record.” A sealing order must be public and must (1) make findings of fact, (2) state conclusions of law specific enough to reveal the legal basis for sealing, (3) use “the least restrictive means for achieving confidentiality,” and (4) be “narrowly tailored so that only the portions of the record subject to confidentiality are sealed and the remainder of the record 6"}, {"d": 123, "p": 185, "t": "is kept open.” (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 51, § 244.30) Any order removing material from the public record must also contain a statement that removal “is necessary in the interests of justice” and a “specific identification of the material” withheld. (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 51, § 24A.29 ) Strict compliance with these requirements “is mandatory in all cases.” (Good vy. Farmers Ins. Co., 2023 OK CIV APP 28, 536 P.3d 961) The “interests of justice” finding is “a very high standard for good reason and is required in every case,” and speculative harm will not support closure. (Good y. Farmers Ins. Co., 2023 OK CIV APP 28, 536 P.3d 961; Nichols v. Jackson, 2001 OK CR 35, 38 P.3d 228) 20. This distinction cuts both ways. It defeats Plaintiffs’ contention that the presumption of public access to court records, standing alone, requires the wholesale de-designation of unfiled discovery. It equally defeats State Farm’s suggestion that the good-faith designation standard excuses it from justifying challenged designations: the challenge procedure in Paragraph 4 and 12 O.S. §3226(C), not the sealing statutes, supply the standard, and under that standard the burden of justification remains on State Farm. (YWCA of Oklahoma City v. Melson, 1997 OK 81, 944 P.2d 304) IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that State Farm’s blanket designation of its entire production as “Confidential” is STRICKEN. A uniform, undifferentiated designation applied to every page of the production does not reflect the “bona fide determination made in good faith” that Paragraph 1 of the Protective Order requires, and it does not satisfy State Farm’s burden under 12 O.S. §3226(C) and Paragraph 4 of the Protective Order. (YWCA of Oklahoma City y. Melson, 1997 OK 81, 944 P.2d 304; State ex rel. Oklahoma State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision v. Rivero, 2021 OK 31, 489 P.3d 36."}, {"d": 123, "p": 186, "t": "Further, the Court finds that Exhibit numbers:_2-7, 9, 11, 12, 14-16, 24, 26-38, 40-42 and 44- 45 identified in Plaintiff's Reply, filed on August 6\", 2026 shall be de-designated and removed from the protective order as the exhibits identified above do not contain any protected information as outlined in the protective order. Further, the exhibits listed above shall be treated like normal documents exchanged in the course of discovery. Re-designation on a particularized basis. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, State Farm shall review its production and re-designate as “Confidential” only those documents, or portions of documents, that it has determined in good faith fall within one of the three categories defined in Paragraph 3 of the Protective Order. For each document or reasonably defined category of documents it re-designates, State Farm shall identify the applicable Paragraph 3 category. Any document not re-designated within that period shall no longer be subject to the Protective Order and is DE-DESIGNATED, consistent with Paragraph 4 of the Protective Order. First-party claim-handling materials. Consistent with Paragraph 3(a)(ii) of the Protective Order, any document concerning the handling of Plaintiffs’ own claim as first-party insureds — including attempts to lower indemnity payments on Plaintiffs’ claim, the total roof replacement requested, and the denial or partial denial of Plaintiffs’ claim — may not be designated “Confidential” as a “trade secret” and is DE-DESIGNATED to the extent so designated on that basis. Burden on any maintained designation. For any designation State Farm maintains and Plaintiffs continue to challenge, State Farm bears the burden of establishing, by a particular and specific demonstration of fact, that the material falls within a Paragraph 3 category and that its disclosure would cause a cognizable competitive or other legally protectable harm. 8"}, {"d": 123, "p": 187, "t": "Documents subject to other courts’ orders. In its re-designation, State Farm shall separately identify any documents it contends remain confidential solely by reason of a protective order or settlement agreement entered in other litigation. The de-designation directed by this Order does not, of its own force, disturb a confidentiality obligation independently imposed by another court; any dispute regarding such documents shall be addressed under the Paragraph 4 procedure with reference to the terms and jurisdiction of the order said to govern them. Meet and confer/further challenges. The parties SHALL PERSON AND IN GOOD FAITH MEET AND CONFER IN regarding any designations that remain in dispute following State Farm’s re-designation, in accordance with Paragraph 4 of the Protective Order. Any designation the parties cannot resolve shal] be submitted to the Court for determination, at which time the burden of justifying the designation shall rest on State Farm. The Court further admonishes the parties that future discovery disputes could result in attorney fees, sanctions or the appointment of a discovery master. The Protective Order remains in effect. Plaintiffs’ request to lift or dissolve the Protective Order in its entirety is DENIED. The Protective Order was entered on the parties’ agreement and provides an orderly mechanism, in Paragraph 4, for resolving the very dispute presented here; the appropriate remedy for over-designation is application of that mechanism and the de-designation directed above, not wholesale dissolution. Except as modified by this Order, the Protective Order remains in full force and effect. Sealing of court records. Plaintiffs’ request for a prospective order prohibiting all future under-seal filings absent a particularized showing of harm is DENIED. Nothing in this Order relieves any party of the obligation to satisfy 51 O.S. §§24A.29 and 24A.30 before any material is filed under seal or removed from the public record. Any request to seal a filed record shall be 9"}, {"d": 123, "p": 188, "t": "made by motion, shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis under the compelling-privacyinterest standard, and shall be granted only upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, leastrestrictive-means, and narrow-tailoring requirements those statutes impose. (Good v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2023 OK CIV APP 28, 536 P.3d 961) th IT IS SO ORDERED this 0 JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT day of August, 2026. COURT *CLERK TO MAIL A COPY OF THIS ORDER TO ALL PARTIES AND FILE A CERTIFICATE OF MAILING* 10"}, {"d": 123, "p": 189, "t": "IN JOHN ADAIR, THE DISTRICT STATE COURT OF OKLAHOMA OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY PLAINTIFF, CASE NO. CJ-2023-6121 CASE NO. CJ-2024-7630 CASE NO. CJ-2024-7828 Vs. STATE FARM FIRE and CASUALTY COMPANY and TIM CUSTER INSURANCE AGENCY INC., DEFENDANTS. JACOB COX, PLAINTIFF, vs. STATE FARM FIRE and CASUALTY COMPANY and ELIZABETH GALLERY, DEFENDANTS. CHRISTOPHER PRUITT, PLAINTIFF, vs. STATE FARM FIRE COMPANY and JIM and CASUALTY MOORE, DEFENDANTS. x * & ee TRANSCRIPT HAD ON BEFORE THE THE by: Karen L. Official Martin, CSR Court Reporter 321 Avenue, Park Oklahoma City, DISTRICT OF 9TH PROCEEDINGS DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 HONORABLE C. BRENT DISHMAN DISTRICT JUDGE i Reported eR a a a a a ad - OFFICIAL #315 Oklahoma COURT OF 73102 OKLAHOMA TRANSCRIPT"}, {"d": 123, "p": 190, "t": "12 likely be of benefit trying to rephrase to -- appoint whether a it discovery master outweighs the -- I'm burden or to the expense. MS. WHITTEN: as well, Your Honor. plaintiffs are willing to burden special discovery consolidate these THE 10 idea of what Plaintiffs three cases for Well, explicitly burden Court may -- -- where this case article from Oklahoma THE COURT: give is Like I think we're early Ls discovery is just an issue, but is it heading 16 situation where State Farm is going to say 17 road and then I'm going to have to Judge, may 19) THE COURT: 20 MR. DELIGANS: 24 started, 22 this 23 judicial 24 of 25 you know, pending the in You efficiency, big picture now, of I because Watch, that's in case this say into \"no\" do and a or this put up later? something? may. You why front a headed, interesting. DELIGANS: to -- 14 MR. separate inclined me you 18 stated economy. 13 blocks bear three not judicial Judge, 12 of is -- case tell willing me DELIGANS: this the this MR. me bear if 11 gave have masters COURT: this We are know, why me. you now The efficiency asked when reason of the when there's is we not all for efficiency, parties, efficiency litigants. I don't DISTRICT know COURT OF the other OKLAHOMA lawyers. - OFFICIAL I know Lance TRANSCRIPT and"}, {"d": 123, "p": 191, "t": "31 ruling. this I have bunch of enough good to make lawyers a decision, arguing in to grant the prefer it but I've enjoyed of me. It's discovery master front nice. Okay. part of master the I'm motion. over all going I would three not going to consolidate, to consolidate is because going many differences 10 defendant. All LA different. So L2 that. when you those if name there's I the situations well, Judge -- think going I'll DELIGANS: 14 THE COURT: 15 Consolidation denied. 16 Yes, 17 MR. DELIGANS: 18 Can we the parties generally have to how hearing's gone, you As picking know, 20 you can tell So there are discovery to master agents be have Thank a this THE COURT: 22 MR. DELIGANS: 23 THE COURT: 24 MR. DELIGANS: too as a factually leave it at granted. you. timeframe far as on Yes, sir. 30 days Does I the work would -- OKLAHOMA - I discovery agree a know on things. -- discovery for would master? master? everybody? prefer two weeks. DISTRICT I'm sir. 21 25 reason just MR. You discovery the individual are -- and 13 19 one cases. I'm not be COURT OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT If"}, {"d": 123, "p": 192, "t": "I) a e NEAR l FILED IN DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA JAN 1 6 2024 DALE NIDA and SHERRI NIDA, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, and SHERYL MANDEVILLE, Defendants. RICK COURTWARKKEN cht ) ) ) Case No. CJ-2020-4453 ) Judge: Hon. Aletia H. Timmons ) ) ) ) 106 DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR REASSIGNMENT AND CONSOLIDATION 4887-0347-0238, v. 2"}, {"d": 123, "p": 193, "t": "Counsel for Plaintiffs in this action (“Nida”) has sought out and pursued litigation not just against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) but also nine separate agents across nine cases against whom they make individual fraud allegations, all of which they now seek to consolidate for discovery in this Court.! Consolidation should be denied because Plaintiffs have not met—and cannot meet—the burden placed on them to demonstrate that: (1) consolidation will benefit judicial economy without causing delay, undue expense, prejudice, or confusion; and (2) sufficient common questions of law or fact exist, particularly as to the agents sued in each case. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Consolidation of the cases urged herein is not permitted because the issues are neither identical issues as required by Local Rule 9 nor common as required by 12 O.S. § 2018. But the Court need not even get to that substantive prong of the analysis, because Plaintiffs are not simply asking the Court to combine the causes of action against State Farm, but nine separate causes of action against the agent Defendants arising from entirely different and unique facts. Further, the cases are of varying ages and in different litigation postures governed by different discovery orders. The disparity among the cases both factually and procedurally negates any perceived efficiency and reveals the delay, confusion, and prejudice to the individual agent Defendants, State Farm, and the judicial system that will result. To facilitate the Court’s comparison of the different procedural postures and discovery status of each case, State Farm has prepared the chart attached hereto as EXHIBIT 1. (See Procedural Posture Chart, EXHIBIT 1.) In summary, these nine Consolidation Cases were filed over ' Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate seeks consolidation of discovery only, but Plaintiffs suggest they may later seek consolidation of trials. State Farm equally objects to consolidation of trials but reserves its specific separate objections until such request is made. ? The nine cases are identified in Plaintiff's Motion and in the charts attached hereto as EXHIBIT 1 and EXHIBIT 2 and are referred to as a group herein as the “Consolidation Cases.” 4887-0347-0238, v. 2"}, {"d": 123, "p": 194, "t": "the course of more than two years and vary widely as to the amount of discovery completed. For example, Nida, arises from a hail claim made more than four years ago and has been on file since September 2020, while Fletcher still has pending motions to dismiss with answers not yet due. Likewise, in Nida, Hosier, and Kyger, extensive institutional discovery has already occurred, while initial discovery requests have not even been served in Fletcher. As to most of the others, they are in varying stages of non-“native” document production made subject to protective orders entered by the judges in those cases with greater protections than have been ordered in the cases before this Court. Each of the cases where discovery has taken place have different discovery rulings by different judges that would need to be addressed one by one and reconciled in a consolidation by this Court that would take extensive motion practice as well as hearings. Given the different procedural postures of these cases and Plaintiffs’ unexplained delay in moving for consolidation, granting Plaintiffs’ Motion would be prejudicial to the Defendants, delay efficient and prompt adjudication of cases that does not benefit any party, and benefits only Plaintiffs’ Counsel. The absence of a “common question of law or fact” also negates consolidation. 12 O.S. § 2018(C). Indeed, those making the rules for this Court chose to allow consolidation only if the issues are “identical,” Oklahoma County R. 9. The questions of law and fact in these nine cases are neither identical nor common enough to satisfy the prerequisite for consolidation. To further facilitate the Court’s comparison of the facts of each case, State Farm has prepared a second chart attached hereto as EXHIBIT 2. (See Factual Summary Chart, EXHIBIT 2.) Critically, these cases include not just State Farm, but nine individual agents who had no part in the claim determination for which State Farm is sued. The agents are instead sued under negligent procurement and fraud theories, the outcomes of which will turn entirely on what each Plaintiff said to his or her respective agent and what his or her agent said to each Plaintiff, Indeed, 4887-0347-0238, v. 2"}, {"d": 123, "p": 195, "t": "the agent issues veer entirely into policy issuance and underwriting questions and are not at all about the claim handling for which Plaintiffs pursue institutional discovery from State Farm. Some of the conversations on which the Plaintiffs sue agents occurred close to 20 years ago. Plaintiffs sued these agents because they are resident defendants and thus destroy diversity jurisdiction. Having done that, Counsel cannot simply ignore them when seeking consolidation. As to the claims against State Farm, the Consolidation Cases involve nine different disputes about whether nine different houses were damaged by nine different weather events and to what degree. All nine have different dates of loss, ranging from October 6, 2019, in Nida to October 14, 2021, in Kelly, implicating differences in training and claim handling procedures. The nine properties are located across seven towns, nearly half of which are not even in Oklahoma county. As to Plaintiffs theme that State Farm enforced a scheme for denying hail claims, the hail determinations in Christy, Kelly, and Fletcher were made by third-party inspectors not trained by State Farm or bound by its operational guidelines, and McDow involved an extemal claims resource adjuster who was also not trained by State Farm. In addition to the third-party inspectors, more than 20 different State Farm adjusters were involved, meaning training material produced in one case may not be relevant to another. Further, there were 13 different contractors. Fletcher and Christy involve rental policies rather than homeowner policies. Because the facts specific to each claim vary, the claim decisions also vary: only one claim was denied; State Farm made payments in four cases; and in three cases, although damage was identified, payments were not made because the estimated cost of repairs fell below the total deductible and depreciation. Plaintiffs' Counsel's attempt to create the impression of commonality, through cookie- cutter allegations of bad faith and nearly identical, and often inapplicable, discovery requests, does not substitute for the commonality required for consolidation under Oklahoma law and the rules 4887-0347-0238, v. 2"}, {"d": 123, "p": 196, "t": "of this Court. Consequently, State Farm objects to consolidation of discovery in these nine Consolidation Cases, and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate should be denied. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY A Party Moving for Consolidation Has the Burden of Demonstrating: (1) Consolidation Will Benefit Judicial Economy Without Causing Delay, Undue Expense, Prejudice, Or Confusion; and (2) Sufficient Common Questions of Law or Fact Exist. Courts, including federal courts interpreting the equivalent Federal Rule 42,° are uniformly in agreement that a party moving for consolidation has the burden of demonstrating that: (1) consolidation will benefit judicial economy without causing delay, undue expense, prejudice, or confusion; and (2) sufficient common questions of law or fact exist. See, e.g., Ulibarri v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 303 F.R.D. 402, 404 (D.N.M. 2014) (“The party moving for consolidation bears the burden of proving that consolidation is desirable”); Blagg v. Line, 09-CV-0703, 2012 WL 90439, at *1 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 11, 2012) (“The party requesting consolidation bears the burden to show judicial economy is not outweighed by the possibility of delay or prejudice to the opposing party”); see also 9A Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2383, n. 16 (3d ed. 2023) (compiling cases regarding the burden of proof for consolidation motions). I. JUDICIAL ECONOMY WILL NOT BE SERVED BY CONSOLIDATION WHICH CREATE DELAY, CONFUSION, AND UNFAIR PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANTS. WILL INSTEAD The point of consolidation is to create judicial economy if it can be done without delay confusion or undue prejudice to the objecting parties. Thus, even if sufficient common questions 3 The Committee Comment to Section 2018 explicitly confirms the intent to conform Section 2018 to Rule 42: “Subsections C [Consolidation] and D of Section 2018 are identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 except that the reference to the Seventh Amendment has been deleted from subsection D.” (emphasis added). As such, Oklahoma courts consistently look to the federal consolidation rules for guidance. See, e.g., A-Plus Janitorial & Carpet Cleaning v. Employers’ Workers’ Comp. Ass’n, 1997 OK 37, { 23, 0.42, 936 P.2d 916, 927, n.42 (Relying on federal precedent while affirming that “[t]he terms of 12 O.S. § 2018(C) and (D) are identical to Federal Rule 42, Fed. R. Civ. P.”). 4887-0347-0238, v. 2"}, {"d": 123, "p": 197, "t": "of law or fact exist (and here they do not), the key question is whether consolidation will improve judicial economy, and consolidation should be denied if delay, undue expense, prejudice, or confusion will result. See, e.g., Exch. Tr. Co. v. Palmer, 1933 OK 210, 163 Okla. 33, 20 P.2d 897, 899 (“We believe that wide discretion should be allowed a trial court in the consolidation of actions, but believe that consolidation is improper where the issues are unduly complicated thereby. The purpose of consolidation should be to simplify the work of the trial court as far as possible”) (emphasis added); Barcelo v. Brown, 78 F.R.D. 531, 536 (D.P.R. 1978) (“The paramount objective of consolidation is the accomplishment of great convenience and economy in the administration of justice”); State v. One Thousand Two Hundred Sixty-Seven Dollars, 2006 OK 15, 4 15, n. 19. 131 P.3d 116, 122 n. 19 (finding that a court abuses its discretion in consolidating cases if a “substantial right of a party has been prejudiced by the consolidation”) (citing Appeal of Nat'l Bank of Commerce of Tulsa, 1957 OK 203, 4 13, 316 P.2d 175, 179). Indeed, consolidation of cases “is neither mandatory nor a matter of right.” One Thousand, 2006 OK 15, 4 15 (citing Jewell v. Huddleston, 1961 OK 119, § 26, 362 P.2d 103, 106). A. Consolidation will not serve judicial efficiency, because the cases are in different procedural postures as a result of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s delay in seeking consolidation. Consolidation is especially disfavored where the cases to be consolidated are in different procedural postures. See, e.g., Servants of Paraclete, Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 866 F. Supp. 1560, 1573 (D.N.M. 1994) (“Federal courts have declined to consolidate cases involving common questions of law or fact where the cases were at different stages of preparedness for trial and where consolidation would delay the case ready for disposition”). As a recent case from a court in the 10th Circuit explained while denying a motion for consolidation: This matter has progressed for more than two years, discovery is complete or nearly there, and the Court has resolved numerous dispositive motions. On the other hand, Case No. 21-cv-01821 was filed two years later, on July 2, 2021, and only one motion has been filed, a motion to strike affirmative defenses, which has yet to be 4887-0347-0238, v. 2"}, {"d": 123, "p": 198, "t": "resolved. Given that these matters are in such different procedural postures, the Court finds that judicial efficiency would not be served by consolidation and that consolidation would not result in a more expeditious or efficient resolution of the parties’ claims and defenses. Overhead Sols., Inc. v. Al Garage Door Serv., L.L.C., No. 19-CV-01741, 2021 WL 4145999, at *4 (emphasis added).* Moreover, denial of consolidation is particularly appropriate where the party seeking consolidation delayed moving for consolidation. See, e.g., Watkinson v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 585 F. Supp. 879, 883 (E.D. Pa. 1984) (denying a motion for consolidation where “Plaintiff offer[ed] no explanation for why he has waited one and one-half years to bring Super Fresh into the present action”); Petromanagement Corp. v. Acme-Thomas Joint Venture, 835 F.2d 1329. 1334 (10th Cir. 1988) (denying a motion for consolidation where the motion was raised “more than fifteen months after filing the initial complaint”).> Here, each of the Consolidation Cases are in different procedural postures as illustrated in EXHIBIT 1. The oldest, Nida, has been filed since November 2020 and the most recent, Fletcher, is pending a ruling on motions to dismiss, with no answers on file or discovery requests issued. Although McDow, Sexton, and Shira, have been on file longer than Kyger, significantly more discovery has been completed in Kyger, because Plaintiffs’ Counsel have chosen to advance discovery in the three cases pending before this Court, Nida, Hosier, and Kyger, while only sporadically pursuing the others. As a result, extensive institutional discovery has been requested and objected to in this Court but not pursued in the other cases. However, as to most of the others, each Judge has entered an umbrella protective order under which document production is ongoing 4 See also Ulibarri, 303 F.R.D. at 404 (denying a motion for consolidation on the grounds that “the Sage—Allison case [wa]s in a completely different procedural posture from the cases of Ulibarri and Plotner’). 5 See also 9A Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2383, n. 11 (3d ed. 2023) (compiling cases regarding denial of consolidation motions due to differing procedural postures). 4887-0347-0238, v. 2"}, {"d": 123, "p": 199, "t": "and none have ordered “all native” production as directed by this Court in Kyger nor entered and ESI Protocol that governs the discovery and productions in Hosier. These procedural disparities are of Plaintiffs’ making as evidenced by the above choices and the fact that Plaintiffs’ Counsel delayed requesting consolidation for so long. Seven of the cases, Nida, Hosier, McDow, Sexton, Shira, Kyger, and Christy have been on file for 39, 32, 20, 17, 16, and 15 months respectively. Fletcher is in its early stages but only because Plaintiff first filed it on March 17, 2022, did not serve it and so dismissed it on January 25, 2023, refiled it on March 17, 2023, and then still did not serve it until after the second 180 days to serve expired. Yet, all indicators are that Plaintiffs have intended to attempt consolidation for well more than a year because four of the nine cases involve houses, insureds and agents far removed from Oklahoma County and which would be more conveniently and logically pursued in their home county. ° Plaintiffs have used that time to create discovery disputes as grounds for consolidation by serving the same discovery across its favored cases and then blaming State Farm for inefficiencies when it employs the Discovery Code to object. (See Mot. to Consolidate, p. 12.) The duplicate notices to depose Section Manager Sharon Arnold (who had no direct involvement in any claim) were issued simultaneously in five of their favored cases, some on back-to-back days with as little as 10 days’ notice and no advance effort at agreement on dates. This was not a legitimate request for discovery. It was designed to inflict maximum inconvenience on State Farm and Ms. Arnold, to create the precise duplicative motion practice that it evoked, and to create the illusion that consolidation was necessary. If Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s concerns for judicial economy and efficiency ® Sexton relates to an insured, a house, and an insurance agent located in Woodward County, more than 100 miles northwest of Oklahoma City. Shira, Christy, and Fletcher relate to insureds, houses, and insurance agents located in Rogers, Tulsa, and Creek Counties, more than 100 miles northeast of Oklahoma City. 4887-0347-0238, v. 2"}, {"d": 123, "p": 200, "t": "were sincere, they would have deposed Ms. Arnold once in a single case to investigate whether she was in fact a managing agent as alleged and whether her testimony supported their institutional theories against State Farm, creating a factual record to present courts to consider whether her deposition should be taken or shared in other cases. These stratagems of selective advancement and delay should not now be used as a ground for consolidation. Consolidation at this stage would require this Court to undertake a lengthy process of addressing the inconsistencies and unique procedural aspects of each case and reconcile each one of them for consolidation that effectively may reverse the Courts’ pre-consolidation discovery orders, and upend work by both parties and the Courts in other cases. Further, as to cases like Nida, Hosier, and Kyger, where the institutional discovery topics are well advanced, inserting the cases where Plaintiffs have delayed strategically would only slow resolution of those cases, in the face of a frequent argument by Plaintiff to this Court that State Farm’s discovery delays are prejudicing resolution of their clients’ roof claims. That argument is alone negated by the record showing how long these attempted consolidated cases have been on file without advancement and how long Plaintiffs’ waited to serve them. Taking them at their word that what they want is swift resolution for their clients, consolidating nine different cases is not the way to achieve it. Setting discovery deadlines and a concrete trial date for each case would more effectively accomplish the goal of efficiency. It also creates unfair prejudice for the agent Defendants and Stare Farm as expanded upon below. As such, consolidation will raise more issues and will not serve the goal of judicial efficiency or result in a more expeditious disposition of the Consolidation Cases. B. Confusion resulting from consolidation will prejudice Defendants, particularly the agents, where critical facts are not shared among the Consolidation Cases. There is a great risk of confusion, whether in discovery or at trial, when evidence is not commonly relevant to ail the actions. See, e.g., Flintkote Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 73 F.R.D. 4887-0347-0238, v. 2"}, {"d": 123, "p": 201, "t": "463, 465 confusion” (S.D.N.Y. 1977) generated by (“[T]he possible prejudice conflation of evidence to defendant “outweighs the due to the likelihood benefit of any of possible convenience or economy to be obtained from consolidation.”); see also Thomas v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc., 2004 OK 82, J 26, 102 P.3d 133, 140 (emphasizing the potential for confusion in simultaneously addressing liability arising from a non-delegable duty and liability of a third party). Plaintiffs’ Counsel already tend to conflate both the bad faith issues in one case with the bad faith issues in every other case, and the bad faith theories against State Farm with negligence theories against the defendant agents. The unfair prejudice resulting from confusion is why consolidation is not permitted in cases that do not involve common questions of law and fact. For State Farm’s fact witnesses who were involved in the subject claims, consolidation increases the likelihood they will be examined about training materials, claim handling manuals, facts of loss, or claims decisions that have nothing to do with claims they handled, lengthening the depositions and the cases. The prejudice from these tactics is not hypothetical. Plaintiffs’ Counsel already employ these strategies with documents they have obtained from other cases. By blurring the lines between each case, even in discovery, consolidation creates the appearance that the reasons for each Plaintiffs’ dissatisfaction with the handling of their own claim is somehow related to the others. Not only is this factually incorrect, but as a matter of due process, State Farm and each of the nine agent Defendants must have the cases against them decided on their own merits without the confusion created by Plaintiffs’ efforts to unite their distinct claims in a common suit. This is precisely the mandate of the Oklahoma Supreme Court which has held repeatedly that the determination of whether an insurer has violated the duty of good faith and fair dealing is highly particularized and based on the facts and circumstances of each unique claim. See, e.g., Badillo v. Mid Century Ins. Co., 2005 OK 48, 4 25, 121 P.3d 1080, 1093. 4887-0347-0238, v. 2"}, {"d": 123, "p": 202, "t": "| Ten C. Consolidation will result in more burdensome and less efficient and discovery. First, consolidation creates a risk that the Court will permit a much broader scope of institutional discovery under a consolidated discovery scheme than would have been permitted if the discovery needs of each case were decided on their own merits. Plaintiffs suggest lack of consolidation will result in inconsistent rulings with respect to their use of identical institutional discovery requests. Just because Plaintiffs’ Counsel recycles the same discovery request in every case, irrespective of the differences from one claim to the next, does not mean any and all institutional discovery is relevant or proportional to the needs of each and every case. See 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(1)(a). When the facts and circumstances at issue in each case vary, as they do in the Consolidation Cases, the courts’ discovery decisions with respect to relevance and proportionality, and whether to allow or prohibit discovery, should also vary. However, if these cases are consolidated, it suggests proportionality should be determined, not based on the facts nor needs of the individual case as it should be, but based on the exaggerated weight of the consolidated claims. Presumably, that is Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s goal in seeking consolidation, in which case discovery would not be more efficient, only broader and more burdensome to Defendants. Second, Consolidation also creates undue burden on witnesses preparing for depositions. Even without consolidation, State Farm knows from experience that Plaintiffs’ Counsel frequently question its witnesses regarding documents or testimony irrelevant to the insurance claim to which the witness is testifying with the goal of using out of context testimony to benefit one of their many other cases against State Farm. Consolidation seemingly validates this dubious strategy and forces corporate representatives and fact witnesses to prepare to testify to fact patterns in nine cases which very likely have no applicability in the case in which he/she is actually a witness. For example, a corporate witness testifying to training of claims personnel would be required to prepare for questions about different training undergone by the more than 20 different 4887-0347-0238, v. 2"}, {"d": 123, "p": 203, "t": "claims personnel involved in the Consolidation Cases, whose training will differ based on their respective dates of employment and the date of loss for the claim at issue. Similarly, a corporate witness testifying to claim handling procedures will have to prepare to testify to claim procedures in effect ranging procedures from October 6, 2019, in Nida, change, to October 14, 2021, in Kelly. Training and and each case should be examined based on those in effect during the timeframe at issue in each case and for example training made available in October 2021 may be relevant to Kelly but has not relevance to the Nida claim. Consolidation will make it nine times more challenging for a corporate representative to testify on topics related to nine separate insurance claims spanning a period of more than two years. Even with exhaustive preparation, attempting to meet those expansive demands is near impossible and certain to lead to more discovery disputes. I. THE CONSOLIDATION CASES ARE NEITHER COMMON IN FACTS NOR LAW. Consolidation of cases that do not involve “a common question of law or fact,” 12 O.S. § 2018(C), is statutorily impermissible. One Thousand, 2006 OK 15, 15 (‘The terms of [Section] 2018(C) provide for consolidation of pending actions that deal with common questions of law or fact.”) (emphasis in original). Local Rule 9 provides stricter language restricting consolidation to “cases involving identical issues[.]” Oklahoma County R. 9. Only if a court finds that the prerequisite commonality exists does the court “ha[ve] broad discretion in performing its task of orderly processing of litigation to allow (or to refuse) consolidation of proceedings for trial and disposition.” One Thousand, 2006 OK 15, ¥ 15, 131 P.3d at 122.7 7 See also Thomas, 2004 OK 82, { 26 (“A trial court has broad discretion in consolidating proceedings .. . when they involve common questions of law or fact’) (emphasis added). Contrary to Plaintiffs’ arguments that the Court’s discretion is “full,” judicial discretion is not unbounded and a finding of common issues of law, common issues of fact, or both, is a necessary prerequisite for exercise of that discretion. See generally 8 James W. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice - Civil 4887-0347-0238, v. 2"}, {"d": 123, "p": 204, "t": "As abundant case law demonstrates, “common questions of fact or law” require more than a joint defendant and similar types of allegations. See, e.g., Servants of Paraclete, 866 F. Supp. at 1572 (denying a motion for consolidation where the actions involved “several separate factual issues, parties, and legal questions”); Flintkote, 73 F.R.D. at 465 (denying a motion for consolidation and holding that “the mere fact that two cases assert similar theories of recovery does not constitute a common question of law so as to warrant consolidation”). In most situations a common transaction involving the same individuals is necessary. See, e.g., Redcorn, Jr. v. Knox, 2014 OK CIV APP 109, 7 19, 345 P.3d 392, 397 (finding that consolidation was not an abuse of discretion where “[t]he cases involve two transactions involving the same individuals and a common core of alleged facts and law”). Even a common transaction may be insufficient if there are only common facts, not common questions of fact. See, e.g., Constr. Res. Corp. v. Cts., Ltd., 1979 OK CIV APP 1, 7 18, 591 P.2d 335, 339 (“In all cases where the transaction is the same there will be peripheral facts in common. If that is all that is required, we do not need the added language. Notably, the statute requires ‘common Questions of fact.’ Where the common facts are not common questions, joinder under [the predecessor statute] is not permitted”). A, The Consolidation Cases lack commonality in questions of law. Critically, Plaintiffs’ Counsel chose to sue a different agent in each case, each of whom are Oklahoma residents and thus who destroy diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ negligence and fraud theories against nine separate agent Defendants assert disparate arising from nine § 42.10 (2023) (“It is an abuse of discretion to consolidate two actions that contain no common issues of law or fact, and the only common factual thread running through such actions is the fact that the same person is the defendant in both the actions.”) 8 See also Puckett v. Cook, 1978 OK 108, 4] 5-6, 18, 586 P.2d 721, 722-23 (finding that consolidation was not an abuse of discretion where the two cases under consideration involved a husband and wife who filed separate cases for injuries resulting from the same bus accident and were represented by the same attorneys and planned to use the same medical witnesses). 4887-0347-0238, v. 2"}, {"d": 123, "p": 205, "t": "different relationships with nine different insureds. These are entirely separate theories of recovery from the breach of contract and bad faith theories alleged against State Farm with respect to its performance of its non-delegable duties under an insurance contract. Indeed, the legal issues in the actions against the agent Defendants are so distinct from those involved in the actions against State Farm arising from its non-delegable duties, (see e.g. See Trinity Baptist Church v. Brotherhood Mut. Baptist Ins. Servs., LLC, 2014 OK 106, J 29, 341 P.3d 75), the agent Defendants should not have been joined in any of the actions against State Farm in the first place. In Thomas, for example, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the district court’s grant of consolidation on a premises liability claim against a store owner, arising from the plaintiff's slip-and-fall on a mat in the store, with a contributory negligence claim for indemnity against the third-party supplier of the mat. See Thomas, 2004 OK 82, 4] 2-4. The Court explained that the claims should be decided separately because the premises liability claim was based upon the store owner’s non-delegable duty to the plaintiff, while the negligence claim against the supplier was based upon a separate duty arising on a contract of indemnity. Jd. at {J 10-11, 15, 26. Even if the Consolidation Cases only involved breach of contract and bad faith theories of recovery against State Farm, argument, these common consolidation would still be improper. Contrary to Plaintiffs theories of recovery do not constitute common questions of law for purposes of consolidation. See Flintkote Co., 73 F.R.D. at 464-65 (“the mere fact that two cases assert similar theories of recovery does not constitute a common question of law so as to warrant consolidation”). Under Plaintiffs’ theory, any case against a specific insurance carrier alleging a policy breach or bad faith would be subject to consolidation. As evidenced by the Oklahoma appellate cases, something more is required. The claims against the agents create questions of law about their alleged duties as insurance agents based on nine separate agent-client relationships, to which State Farm was not a party, based on acts that occurred when the agents first procured or renewed insurance policies. The claims 4887-0347-0238, v. 2"}, {"d": 123, "p": 206, "t": "against State Farm creates questions of law about State Farm’s non-delegable duties under insurance contracts, to which agents are not parties, based on actions that occurred during the separate evaluations of each of the nine claims. Thus, requisite commonality of law does not exist. B. Common theories of recovery do not constitute common questions of fact. The factual difference between the claims against State Farm, between the claims against the different agents, and between the claims against State Farm and the agents are set forth more fully below. But, given the heavy reliance of Plaintiffs on the notion that State Farm has argued and conceded that these cases are the same because of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s strategic use cookiecutter petitions and identical discovery requests, State Farm first shows the court that Plaintiffs cannot create common questions of fact by alleging common theories of recovery. In One Thousand, the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the district court's refusal to consolidate two cases pursuant to Section 2018(C) because the occurrences involved in the cases, while strikingly similar and between identical parties, were distinct—\"two separate claims to money which arose out of discrete events.” 2006 OK 15, J 16; accord Cities Serv. Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 1990 OK CIV APP 19, § 12, 797 P.2d 1009 (holding actions that “do not arise from the Same transaction or occurrence . . . are not properly joined” in rejecting joinder of action brought by plaintiff company against defendant company for termination of merger agreement and action brought by plaintiff company's shareholders against same defendant corporation for breach of tender offer and fraud since plaintiffs “are claiming under different agreements, entered into at different times and between different parties upon different terms and conditions.”). In One Thousand, a claimant sought consolidation of two forfeiture actions in which he sought release of money seized by the State upon his arrest, with another forfeiture action in which he sought release of money seized by the State in a separate arrest. 2006 OK 15, § 4. “In the orderly processing of this litigation the trial court limited itself here to the case before it.” Jd. at J 16. In rejecting the 4887-0347-0238, v. 2"}, {"d": 123, "p": 207, "t": "proposition that the district court erred in refusing to consolidate the actions, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reasoned that “[t]here is here absolutely no showing of some predominant equitable consideration that demands a joint trial of the two separate claims to money which arose out of discrete events.” /d.? Similarly, the court in Flintkote declined to consolidate actions asserting the same theory of recovery, breach of contract, against the same defendant arising out of two different contracts for the design and installation of two different cement plants. The court rejected the plaintiff's contention “that there are common questions of fact” based upon the defendant’s use of “a common process and technology.” 73 F.R.D. 463, 465. It is “the factual issues as framed by the complaint and subsequent proceedings” that are determinative of the issue of consolidation. Jd. The court found “there is practically no overlap” in this regard as to the cases sought to be consolidated. Jd. Here, Plaintiffs conflate common allegations with common facts. If common allegations and discovery requests were the standard, nearly every first-party insurance bad faith lawsuit could be subject to consolidation. State Farm’s arguments about Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s use of cookie-cutter petitions as a basis for removal is precisely the opposite of what Plaintiffs’ Counsel tell this Court. State Farm has consistently argued that it is not believable that every agent sued by Plaintiffs’ Counsel made precisely the same oral misrepresentation using the exact same words to every insured represented by Plaintiffs’ Counsel as they allege in every petition they file. To plead as such is evidence of fraudulent joinder as was recognized by Judge Heaton in the Western District in denying remand ° See also Jewell, 1961 OK 119, 4 26 (affirming district court’s decision not to consolidate different actions arising out of different claims brought against same defendant). 4887-0347-0238, v. 2"}, {"d": 123, "p": 208, "t": "in three of these many cookie-cutter cases alleging fraud against the agents.!° Nonetheless, Plaintiffs’ counsel continue to allege that State Farm and the agent’s objections to these parroted allegations of oral misrepresentations by the agents is a concession to their uniformity when the truth is precisely the opposite. The need to resort to such pretense suggests the absence of a good faith argument for consolidation. C. The Consolidation Cases lack commonality in questions of fact. Even if Plaintiffs’ allegations were based in fact, EXHIBIT 2 demonstrates that the Consolidation Cases involve different agents, different insurance policies, different properties, different roofing materials and appurtenances, different dates of loss, different types of damage, different claim handlers, different claim investigations, and different claim decisions. That the cases sought to be consolidated involve claims against both State Farm and the agent Defendants alone negates the factual commonality necessary for consolidation. The negligence and fraud claims against the agent Defendants arise out of nine different agent-client 10 The Honorable Joe Heaton found the list of false representations contained in Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s “cookie cutter” petitions were lengthy and constituted actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts. (See Baltasar Order at pp. 3-4, EXHIBIT 3) (declining to “play plaintiff's— more accurately plaintiff's counsels’-—game” and finding that, “[p]lainly, many of the central allegations here as to [the agent] not only lack evidentiary support—they are simply false.” “In other circumstances, the court might pursue sanctions against plaintiff s counsel based on the false representations involved.”); (See Goebel Order at p. 5, EXHIBIT 4) (“[T]here are multiple allegations in the petition which are simply false” that cannot adequately be explained away, given “the nature and extent of the false allegations here, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of the same formulaic, cookie-cutter allegations used in this and dozens of other similar cases.”); (See Marino Order at p. 2, EXHIBIT 5) (“[T]he use of substantially identical, cookie-cutter allegations as to the claimed role of local State Farm agents, included in petitions filed in dozens of cases by the same group of lawyers, at the very least raises substantial questions as to whether a good faith basis exists for claims asserted here against the non-diverse agent.”). The Honorable Patrick Wyrick similarly concluded their agent allegations had “no basis in fact.” (See Steinkamp Order, p. 8, fn. 23, EXHIBIT 6.) Even where the Honorable David Russell granted their motion to remand, he still noted his “discomfort with these nearly identical allegations.” (See Shira Order at p. 3, fn. 2, EXHIBIT 7.) 4887-0347-0238, v. 2"}, {"d": 123, "p": 209, "t": "relationships each constituting a separate transaction related to procuring and renewing insurance for each of the nine houses at issue years apart. The focus of these factual inquiries will be the oral and written communications each of the 13 Plaintiffs had with their respective agents, some of which occurred close to 20 years ago. The factual issues involved in Sexton to determine whether Kevin Cansler’s agency in Woodward is liable to Tonya Sexton for negligence and/or fraud with regard to insurance first issued in February 2002 are entirely different from the factual issues involved in Kyger to determine whether Chuck Davis’s agency in Oklahoma City is liable to the Kygers in procuring insurance on their behalf in November 2018, and so it goes for the seven other unique agent-client relationships at issue. And there is, if possible, even less factual commonality as to the claims against the agents and State Farm. State Farm is sued for breach of contract and bad faith for claim decisions in which the agents had no involvement and no control. The agents are not sued, and cannot be liable for, State Farm’s claim decisions. Instead, the agents are sued for alleged statements and actions occurring years earlier based on individual conversations with individual plaintiffs and claims that the agent made misrepresentations about the condition of the house and failed to acquire the right policy. This is an entirely different lawsuit. Even if the Plaintiffs in the Consolidations Cases had only sued State Farm, the rule that cases may not be consolidated absent commonality of fact is not set aside even when the only defendant is an insurance company. A bad faith cause of action is inherently dependent upon the specific factual circumstances of each case. A prima facie element of this theory, which must be proven by the plaintiff, is that the actions of the insurer \"were unreasonable under the circumstances[.}\" Badillo, 2005 OK 48, 4 25 (emphasis added); see, e.g., Duensing v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2006 OK CIV APP requirement that 4887-0347-0238, v. 2 insurer's \"refusal 15, {J 39, 41, 131 P.3d 127, to pay the claim in full\" be 138 (noting elemental \"unreasonable under the"}, {"d": 123, "p": 210, "t": "circumstances\" in finding \"[t]he facts in this case demonstrate only that Insurer's conduct in withholding payment of the claim was reasonable.\"). The reasonableness of State Farm’s conduct must be judged by the factual circumstances unique to each property, each weather event, each item of damage, each repair estimate, each claim investigation, and each claim decision. Courts have declined to consolidate cases brought against an insurer by policyholders asserting denial of claims for benefits under a common line of insurance, on the ground the claims involve different facts. In Holiday v. Progressive Ins. Co., for example, the court refused to consolidate cases brought by multiple insureds against the same insurance company defendant for breach of contract and bad faith in denying claims for personal injury protection benefits, because the cases “arose from different factual circumstances.” 2:21-CV-173, 2021 WL 1753570, at *2 (D. Utah May 4, 2021). “{T]he matters involve two separate insurance policies and two separate car accidents,” thus the plaintiff “has not demonstrated that common facts and law predominate.” Jd. As EXHIBIT 2 demonstrates, the surrounding facts and circumstances involved in the claims against State Farm vary far more than Plaintiffs’ summary would lead the Court to believe. None of the cases involve the same weather event. There are nine different losses ranging from October 6, 2019, in Nida to October 14, 2021, in Kelly, implicating differences in claim handling procedures. The nine properties are located across seven different cities or towns, including as far away from this venue as Woodward, Collinsville, Bristow, and Bixby. While most of the policies are Homeowner policies, Kelly and Fletcher involve Rental Dwelling policies. There are 13 different roofing contractors. Only one case, Christy, involves two engineering firms retained by the Plaintiff and State Farm respectively. Only one case, Nida, involves participation of a public adjuster. The currently known contractual damages alleged vary from $8,670.22 in Kelly to $158,519.45 in Nida. There are about 20 different adjusters involved in handling the nine claims, and the background, experience, and training undergone will vary for each of them. That is 4887-0347-0238, v. 2"}, {"d": 123, "p": 211, "t": "especially true for the cases that involved external adjusters, McDow, Christy, Kelly, and Fletcher, to whom State Farm’s training and guidelines have little relevancy, if any. Nida involves a clay tile roof, which has entirely different criteria for hail damage determination than the others. The age and condition of the roofs range from 3 years to 30 years, which changes the determinations with respect to attributing damage to wear and tear. Three cases involve interior damage, McDow, Sexton, and Kelly. The cases also vary as to claims handling outcome: only Nida was denied entirely; in Hosier, Sexton, Shira, and Kyger, State Farm estimated for hail damage, but no payments were made once depreciation and deductibles were applied; State Farm made payments in McDow, Christy, and Kelly. Because a cause of action for bad faith is inherently case-specific as set forth in Badillo, the Consolidation Cases do not involve common questions of fact. Plaintiffs’ argument that their cases are united by State Farm’s common process for denying hail claims, is no different than the argument rejected in Flintkote. Their argument that the cases are united by State Farm’s denial of claims under a common line of insurance is the same argument rejected in Holiday. Their argument that they claim money from the same Defendant is the same argument rejected in One Thousand. There is no basis for the Court to accept these failed arguments here where the differences in the Consolidation Cases are even greater than the differences that resulted in the rejection of consolidation in One Thousand, Flintkote, and Holiday. Plaintiffs’ Counsel argue consolidation will aid their investigation into State Farm’s alleged “institutional misconduct and its agency force[.]” (Plfts.’ Mot. to Consolidate, p. 4.) For years, Plaintiffs’ Counsel have vigorously pursued discovery across many cases, several not at issue here, in an effort to identify factual support for their institutional allegations. This Court is familiar with three active examples, Nida, Hosier, and Kyger, where extensive motions, hearings, corporate representative depositions, document production, and metadata discovery have taken place to 4887-0347-0238, v. 2"}, {"d": 123, "p": 212, "t": "facilitate Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s investigation. Nonetheless, when required to show the Court that these nine cases have a common question of fact justifying consolidation, Plaintiff's Counsel refer only to the allegations in their petitions and facts unique to each of the nine insurance claims. It is telling that Plaintiffs’ Counsel have not cited a single piece of evidence discovered during the wealth of institutional discovery they have obtained in these cases to support their theory that these nine cases are united by a common institutional scheme. The Court should infer that, despite the depth of discovery in those cases, Plaintiff's Counsel have not uncovered evidence of the institutional misconduct and agency force they allege. The vast majority of admissible evidence necessary to prove Plaintiffs’ causes of action will be case-specific, and it follows that the vast majority of discovery should be equally case-specific. As such, the cases Plaintiffs’ Counsel seek to consolidate plainly do not involve “common question of law or fact” necessary for consolidation under Section 2018(C), let alone “identical issues” necessary for consolidation in this Court pursuant to Rule 9. For this reason, consolidation is prohibited and the Motion should be denied. CONCLUSION For the reasons outlined above, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny the motion for reassignment and consolidation. 4887-0347-0238, v. 2"}, {"d": 123, "p": 213, "t": "Respectfully submitted, Lance E. Leffel, OBA No. 19511 J. Blake Patton, OBA No. 30673 Brian D. Blackstock GABLEGOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 235-5500 (405) 235-2875 (fax) lleffel@gablelaw.com bpatton@gablelaw.com bblackstock@gablelaw.com Attorneys for Defendants, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company and Sheryl Mandeville 4887-0347-0238, v. 2"}, {"d": 123, "p": 214, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING Ido hereby certify that on the 16th day of January 2024, a true, correct, and exact copy of the above and foregoing document was served by placing same in the United States mail, with proper postage thereon duly prepaid, to those parties as listed below: JeffD. Marr, OBA No. 16080 Nick Marr, OBA No. 34284 Carole Dulisse, OBA No. 18047 Ashton Poarch, OBA No. 34308 NIX PATTERSON, LLP 512 Broadway Ave, Suite 200 MARR LAW FIRM 4301 SW Third Street, Suite 110 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73108 (405) 236-8000 Telephone (405) 236-8025 Facsimile jeffdmarr@marrlawfirm.com Oklahoma City, OK 73102 PH: 405-516-7800 FAX: 512-328-5335 cdulisse@marrlawfirm.com nmarr@nixlaw.com apoarch@nixlaw.com and and Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Chad E. Ihrig, OBA No. 19491 NIX PATTERSON, LLP 3600-B N. Capital of Texas Hwy, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78746 J. Revell Parrish, OBA No. 30205 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 516-7800 Telephone cihrig@nixlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs (405) 516-7859 Facsimile rwhitten@whittenburrage.com mburrage@whittenburrage.com rparrish@whittenburrage.com and Jo L. Slama, OBA No. 13426 SLAMA LEGAL GROUP 4301 Southwest Third Street Oklahoma City, OK 73108 and BLA — BRIAN D. BLACKSTOCK 4887-0347-0238, v. 2 ,"}, {"d": 123, "p": 215, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATEOF ORLAROMA JOHN ADAIR, FILED IN DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY Plaintiff JAN 23 202 6 TIGR, WARE WARREN Case No. CL20¢g STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and TIM CUSTER INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., To Hon. Brent Dishman Defendants. DEFENDANT STATE FARM’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL CONSOLIDATION FOR CORPORATE DISCOVERY PURPOSES ONLY PURSUANT TO LOCAL DISTRICT COURT RULE 9 As the Adair Court acknowledged during the January 9 hearing on the Adair, Cox, and Pruitt Plaintiffs’ motion for appointment of discovery master,! those cases involve distinct, casespecific issues—including different agent defendants and individual claims. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs’ counsel—in those three cases, and nineteen others currently pending in this County— have pursued a calculated discovery strategy focused not on State Farm’s handling of any individual claim, but rather the alleged conduct of State Farm at the corporate level to justify identical and egregiously expansive “Corporate Discovery.” In support of this Corporate Discovery, Plaintiffs have propounded nearly identical written discovery (with Adair and Cox being slightly different because earlier served) and deposition notices of identical State Farm corporate representative witnesses on identical topics. For the avoidance of doubt, State Farm ' Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Discovery Master, John Adair v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co, and Tim Custer Ins. Agency, Inc., No. CJ-2023-6121; Pruitt v. State Farm, No. CJ-2024-7828; Cox v. State Farm, CJ-2024-7630 (Dec. 4, 2025)."}, {"d": 123, "p": 216, "t": "believes this Corporate Discovery is irrelevant to each Plaintiffs highly individualized claims. And State Farm agrees with the Adair Court that individual issues pervade the claim-specific discovery. That being said, due to the way Plaintiffs have framed their Corporate Discovery around a purported “scheme,” each of the 22 pending actions against State Farm in this County implicates numerous shared discovery issues. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s hypothesized corporate “scheme” to underpay claims is untethered from the facts of each case. Indeed, Plaintiffs have made no effort, as of yet, to take discovery of the individual claims specialists who evaluated and handled the various plaintiffs’ claims to determine what led to the claim determination. Corporate Discovery—hundreds Rather, Plaintiffs’ counsel has propounded of copied-and-pasted discovery requests for corporate-level documents and multiple deposition notices for the same topics and/or high-ranking executives— with the goal of expanding State Farm’s discovery obligations miles beyond what is relevant and proportional as to the individual claims, such that discovery is cost and time prohibitive. State Farm has, and continues to object to, this outsized discovery. Regardless, State Farm must not be doubly prejudiced by the way such discovery is conducted. Thus, while State Farm maintains its objection to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s calculated attempt to partially consolidate only 3 of 22 separate actions against State Farm in this County, State Farm—as this Court did at the January 9 hearing— acknowledges the significant efficiencies to be gained from a partial consolidation, so long as it is one that comports with the requirements of Oklahoma law. As such, in the interests of judicial efficiency and pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2018(C) and Local District Court Rule 9, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court enter an order consolidating,"}, {"d": 123, "p": 217, "t": "for limited Corporate Discovery purposes only? the following pending actions (the “Consolidation Candidates”) into the lowest-numbered case, Adair: *Adair v. State Farm and Tim Custer Ins. Agency, Inc., Case No. CJ-2023-6121; Adamo v. State Farm and Brittanie Portillo McCoy and Brittanie Portillo Ins. Agency, Inc., Case No. CJ-2025-1844; Black v. State Farm and Randall Young Insurance Agency, Inc., Case No. CJ-2024-7827; Davis v. State Farm, Grant Gingerich, and Grant Gingerich Ins. Agency, Inc., Case No. CJ-2025-2883; Gabel v. State Farm and Bill Kolb, Case No. CJ-2025-1861; *Giertz v. State Farm and Jennifer Lowder Ins. Agency, Inc., Case No. CJ-2025-1132; Hardy v. State Farm, Corbin Cooper, and Lilly June, Inc. d/b/a Corbin Cooper Insurance Agency, Inc,, Case No. CJ-2025-3535; Harris v. State Farm, Curtis L. Davidson and Eric Davidson Agency, LLC, Case No. CJ-2024-8002; Hursh v. State Farm, Mark D. Welty, and Mark D. Welty Ins. Agency, Inc., Case No. CJ-2025-2626; *Jacob Cox vy. State Farm and Elizabeth Gallery, Case No. CJ-2024-7630; Maher v. State Farm and Terry M. Amacher, Case No. CJ-2024-8245; Martin v. State Farm and Bobby Lewis Ins. Agency, Inc., Case No. CJ-2025-2627; Methvin v. State Farm and Kristopher “Nickey” Lee, Case No. CJ-2025-1031; Moong Sian Wong-Faust v. State Farm and Grant Gingerich Ins. Agency, Case No. CJ-2025-1675; Osborn vy, State Farm and Steve Wright, Case No. CJ-2025-1638; *Pruitt v. State Farm and Jim Campos Agency, Inc., Case No. CJ-2024-7828; Riley y. State Farm and Oanh Stanger Insurance Agency, Inc., Case No. CJ-20251328; Stearns v. State Farm and Dennis Chaumont, Case No. CJ-2025-1704; 2 State Farm reserves all rights to oppose any later motion to consolidate these cases for any other purposes, including trial. Cases with an asterisk (*) are already assigned to this Court."}, {"d": 123, "p": 218, "t": "e Walter K. Weber vy. State Farm and Cherie R. Logan, Case No. CJ-2025-2575; e Willard y. State Farm and Rod C. Chew Ins. Agency, Inc., Case No. CJ-2024-7830; ¢ *Coover v. State Farm and Bobby Lewis Insurance Agency, Inc., Case No. CJ-20251302; and e Yost vy. State Farm and Mike Teague, Case No. CJ-2025-2576. In accord with the Court’s Order that the three cases at issue at the January 9 hearing— Adair, Cox and Pruitt—be assigned to a discovery master to deal with the Corporate Discovery motions, and for the same reasons that Plaintiffs’ counsel argued for appointment of a discovery master before the Adair Court, the Consolidation Candidates may also, upon consolidation, be assigned to the same discovery master. Further, to maintain the efficiencies achieved through consolidation, State Farm also asks the Court to establish a procedure (explained further below) for consolidating any other Whitten Burrage cases subsequently filed in or remanded to Oklahoma County after the partial consolidation order is entered. This would apply to cases filed by Whitten Burrage that involve the same allegations as the Consolidation Candidates or seek similarly extensive Corporate Discovery. In support of this motion, State Farm states as follows: BACKGROUND The above-captioned Adair case is the first of 22 separate cases brought by Plaintiffs’ counsel that are currently pending in Oklahoma County with nearly identical Petitions,’ differing 3 The Adair Petition was originally filed by another plaintiffs’ law firm, which later withdrew from the matter and was replaced by Whitten Burrage. For that reason, the allegations in that Petition are not identical to those in the other Consolidation Candidates. But, since Whitten Burrage first appeared in Adair, it has advanced this case in an identical manner to the others in which it is counsel of record. This includes propounding virtually identical written discovery in that case as the other Consolidation Candidates. As such, State Farm maintains that consolidation of Adair, for limited Corporate Discovery purposes described in this Motion, is appropriate. State Farm also notes that the second-lowest-numbered case among the Consolidation Candidates, Cox, is before Judge Dishman."}, {"d": 123, "p": 219, "t": "meaningfully only in a case-specific paragraph (usually 440) and some allegations to avoid State Farm’s removals based on fraudulent joinder. factually distinct, Plaintiffs’ counsel treat them identically, serving slight evolution of While the cases are identical, non-tailored Corporate Discovery in every case, and making identical allegations of a purported corporationwide initiative to underpay claims.’ Plaintiffs’ counsel uses individual policyholders’ claims as a Trojan horse to advance allegations of a so-called “scheme” that—besides being a fiction—have no connection to the distinct policies, losses, properties, and claim handling histories underlying the individual claims. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s gamesmanship is no more clearly demonstrated than in the procedural history of these cases. While Plaintiffs’ counsel sought to consolidate only three cases already before the Adair Court and appoint a discovery master to oversee discovery in that limited set,5 Plaintiffs’ counsel have also: (1) selectively pursued discovery in two later filed and remanded cases before Judge Amy Palumbo, Hursh and Wong-Faust, without secking a discovery master (and used the resulting orders to argue that the same unlimited discovery allowed there should be permitted in all cases), (2) asked for consolidation and a discovery master in these three earlier filed cases when there was only a single discovery motion pending among the three on a different topic based on the Adair Court’s “other obligations outside of his civil docket,” (see Pls.’ Reply at 2), while ignoring Judge Palumbo’s other obligations outside of her civil docket, and (3) not meaningfully pursued or sought to compel discovery in other cases at the time their Motion was * To be clear, State Farm denies the alleged “pattern” of bad faith claims handling and intends to object to the relevance and admissibility of the claimed Corporate Discovery Plaintiffs seek regarding those allegations. 5 At the January 9 hearing, the Adair Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for appointment of a discovery master as to the Adair, Cox, and Pruitt matters. Should the Adair Court grant State Farm’s motion for partial consolidation, State Farm acknowledges that order would apply to all cases consolidated pursuant to this motion."}, {"d": 123, "p": 220, "t": "filed.® This is not a legitimate use of the litigation process. Thus, while the underlying cases are individually unique, Plaintiffs’ uniform Corporate Discovery and selective pursuit of it weighs in favor of consolidating all these cases for Corporate Discovery only. Indeed, this repeated discovery in individual cases has already harmed State Farm. Plaintiffs have recently been serving nearly identical deposition notices for corporate and fact depositions of high-ranking State Farm executives across many of these cases. The corporate deposition notices—which are facially overbroad, with over a hundred irrelevant, mies ond pasted topics—will potentially require State Farm to produce a corporate designee more than twenty times for dozens or even hundreds of hours. In fact, the Court appropriately observed during the January 9 hearing that “consolidation might be useful say if you’re taking a depo of a corporate rep, right. You could cover lots of questions that would cover every case with the one corporate rep as opposed to deposing them 50 however many times, right, and asking the same questions.” (Ex. A at 23:22-24:2). Likewise, several of State Farm’s senior claims personnel, who had no connection to any of the individual claims at issue, may be subject to repeated depositions in multiple cases. And State Farm has already been forced to respond to and answer hundreds of overbroad interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production in these cases, when only 10 of now well over 100 of the discovery requests are claim-specific at all. The rejudice to State Farm’s business operations, legal prey Pp g resources, and internal Pp processes from the § Further, at the January 9 hearing, Plaintiff's Counsel also appeared to suggest that the Adair Case—which it included in its original Motion to Consolidate—was somehow “different” than its other 22 cases. (See Transcript of January 9, 2026 Hearing Before Judge Dishman, attached herein as Exhibit A, at 29:11-12 (“And Adair’s a little different, Your Honor.”)). While the intention behind such a statement can only be surmised, it is confounding given the case was one of three cases that Plaintiffs’ Counsel handpicked for consolidation before this Court due to its similar allegations. (See Pls.’ Mot. at 1)."}, {"d": 123, "p": 221, "t": "indefensibly sweeping and duplicative discovery leaves State Farm little choice but to seek this tailored consolidation to deal with this nearly identical Corporate Discovery, while not also imposing all of the individual issues in each of these cases on the Court. Consolidation of all of the Consolidation Candidates for limited Corporate Discovery purposes will create efficiencies for both the parties and courts. Rather than have Corporate Discovery in these cases pending before seven different judges in this County, the Adair Court would be enabled to oversee Corporate Discovery in all of the cases in a consistent and fair manner, with the aid of a discovery master to adjudicate discovery disputes on a global basis. LEGAL STANDARD “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” 12 O.S. § 2018(C). The parties need not be identical to warrant consolidation, so long as “one or more parties” are common to all cases. L.R. 9. “[Tjhe judge of the division to which the lowest numbered case is assigned may consolidate and reassign all such cases to that assigned judge. Cases will be consolidated to the lowest case number.” Jd. Courts are granted broad discretion to consolidate for purposes of discovery. See, e.g., Argyll Props., LLC v. Rooker, No. CV-2017-0625, 2017 Okla. Dist. LEXIS 12772 (July 10, 2017) (consolidating “for purpose of discovery and motion practice only” and holding that “[a]t the time of pretrial, the matters shall be bifurcated”); Quezada v. Benchmark Logistics, Inc., No. CJ-20127573, 2013 Okla. Dist. LEXIS 5083 (Oct. 1, 2013) (consolidating “for purposes of discovery”)."}, {"d": 123, "p": 222, "t": "ARGUMENT A. Any Consolidation Among Cases Should Not Be for Strategic Purposes, But For All Cases in Accordance with Rule 9. As set forth in State Farm’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of Discovery Master, Plaintiffs’ request that the Court cherry-pick and partially consolidate only three of the Consolidation Candidates is contrary to Local Rule 9 and does not promote judicial economy or create efficiencies for the Court or the parties. Under Rule 9, “[w]henever two or more cases involving identical issues and involving one or more parties common to all cases are pending, the judge of the division to which the lowest numbered case is assigned may consolidate and reassign all such cases to that assigned judge. (emphasis added). Cases will be consolidated to the lowest case number.” Under this unambiguous rule, each of the Consolidation Candidates should be reassigned to and consolidated before the Adair Court, as the Judge assigned to the lowestnumbered case. Plaintiffs, in their motion denied by the Court at the January 9 hearing, attempted to skirt this Rule and the usual practice in Oklahoma by selectively identifying only three cases—Adair v. State Farm, CJ-2023-6121, Pruitt v. State Farm, CJ-2024-7828, and Cox v. State Farm, CJ-2024- 7630—that they contend allege “‘a continuous, systematic, and broad-reaching pattern of bad faith claims.” But Plaintiffs make identical allegations in each of the Consolidation Candidates, so there is no reason to treat them differently. To be clear, State Farm denies the alleged “pattern” of bad faith claims handling, denies that any such theories impacted any of the Consolidation Candidates, and intends to object to the relevance and admissibility of Plaintiffs’ Corporate Discovery. And State Farm does not concede that the cases themselves actually involve “identical issues.” To the contrary, it is Plaintiffs’ improper framing of these cases that serves as the common thread. As Plaintiffs conceded in their"}, {"d": 123, "p": 223, "t": "Motion, “unique discovery” in each of the underlying actions is inevitable because they implicate “individual issues.” (See Pls.’ Mot. at 3-4.; Ex. A at 7:9-11 (“[P]laintiffs agree that there are individual discovery in each of these three cases... .”). Nevertheless, State Farm seeks to mitigate the prejudice and disruption from responding to the same hundreds of discovery requests and subsequent motions to compel, the same overbroad corporate representative notices, and the same deposition notices to dozens of State Farm’s senior personnel. All of these discovery requests (which should in any event not be permitted for lack of relevance and disproportionate burden) are unnecessarily duplicative, expensive, and burdensome for the individuals, State Farm, and the Court. Indeed, to the extent there are disputes regarding the scope of the Corporate Discovery requests, the parties in each of the Consolidation Candidates would be required to brief similar, if not identical, issues before each individual court, duplicating judicial efforts and potentially resulting in different, even contradictory orders. Accordingly, to avoid unnecessary burdens for the parties and more efficiently use court resources, State Farm respectfully requests the Court consolidate the Consolidation Candidates for limited Corporate Discovery purposes only.’ Cf. Blagg v. Line, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101140, at *5 (N.D. Okla. Sep. 23, 2010) (“Consolidation for discovery will promote judicial efficiency and eliminate duplication of discovery and motion practice by the parties. The cases will be consolidated for discovery only, and the Court will consider whether consolidation for trial is appropriate upon the completion of discovery.”). State Farm additionally requests that, once discovery has concluded, the cases be bifurcated for all pretrial and trial purposes to ensure State ? To the extent discovery disputes arise related to unique, claim-specific issues, those disputes would be adjudicated by the original judge assigned to that specific individual action."}, {"d": 123, "p": 224, "t": "Farm can adequately and fulsomely defend each case on its individual facts. State Farm further requests the Court order that, upon conclusion of Corporate Discovery, State Farm have sixty (60) days to file a motion in each of the Consolidation Candidates challenging the relevance and/or admissibility of discovery taken in response to Corporate Discovery requests to ensure State Farm’s relevance and admissibility arguments are preserved. B. State Farm’s Consolidation Proposal Satisfies the Requirements of Local Rule 9 and 12 O.S. § 2018(C). Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2018(C), the Court is empowered to consolidate actions “involving a common question of law or fact” and the Court is given discretion in crafting an appropriate consolidation framework as the statute provides that the Court, “may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” (emphasis added), 12 O.S. § 2018(C) Any such consolidation must also comply with Local District Court Rule 9, which states that “[w]henever two or more cases involving identical issues and involving one or more parties common to all cases are pending, the judge of the division to which the lowest numbered case is assigned may consolidate and reassign all such cases to that assigned judge.” L.R. 9 (emphasis added).® Both Local Rule 9 and 12 O.S. § 2018(C) find their basis in the inherent authority of the Court to administer its docket at its discretion. The Court may therefore use this procedural tool to craft a tailored consolidation order that specifically addresses the “common question[s]” and “identical issues” present in multiple cases. Here, the “identical issues” are of Plaintiffs’ making through the identical and expansive Corporate Discovery relating to the alleged scheme. Under this proposal, this Corporate Discovery ® State Farm’s commitment to following the letter of Oklahoma law on consolidation informed its decision to seek consolidation only for Whitten Burrage-filed cases in Oklahoma County, While similar cases have been brought by other plaintiffs’ counsel in this and other counties, the cases brought by Whitten Burrage involve identical Corporate Discovery requests and allegations related to State Farm’s corporate conduct, as the rules contemplate for consolidation. 10"}, {"d": 123, "p": 225, "t": "would be consolidated, including discovery such as corporate representative depositions that involve allegations made across the enterprise and written discovery that covers these enterprise scheme allegations, contrasted from case-specific discovery requests and depositions of individuals such as agents or claim handlers that are unique to each individual case. Plaintiffs’ far-fetched corporate allegations and corresponding discovery create both a “common question of . . . fact”—whether, in fact, State Farm corporate engaged in a practice of underpaying claims (it did not)—and “involv{e] identical issues” arising out of that core factual contention. Each of the 22 Consolidation Candidates will implicate the examination of identical corporate designees pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3230(C)(5) (and in fact, at least four such depositions have already been noticed by Plaintiffs’ counsel). And each of the Consolidation Candidates will involve identical (because of the way Plaintiffs frame them) discovery requests related to State Farm’s corporate policies and practices. The Adair Court independently acknowledged the inherent inefficiencies in noticing corporate depositions in multiple cases at the January 9 hearing (see Ex. A at 23:22-24:2), underscoring the clear need for crafting a more efficient procedural alternative to address Plaintiffs’ identical Corporate Discovery.? And while consolidation of the additional 19 cases for Corporate Discovery purposes will create an additional caseload for the discovery master, the additional work imposed on this Court is likely to be minimal, since any ° Cf. Huffinan v. United States Steel Corp., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171637, at *26 (S.D. Ill. Sep. 23, 2024) (identifying as a justification for consolidation that plaintiff “has yet to depose a corporate representative ... , which will likely be necessary in both cases” and that “[iJn light of the commonality between these two cases and the involvement of the exact same parties and counsel, it would be a waste of resources—especially judicial resources and the patties’ resources—to proceed separately”); Fernandez v. Aramark Unif. & Career Apparel, LLC, 2025 USS. Dist. LEXIS 29845, at *14 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2025) (granting motion to consolidate with procedures including “[c]oordinated written discovery” and “[a] coordinated set of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics and coordinated 30(b)(6) deposition(s) that can be attended by all plaintiff[s] counsel” because “‘it is likely that there will be duplicative discovery across the cases, which could be made more efficient for the parties and the Court through consolidation”), 1]"}, {"d": 123, "p": 226, "t": "nH aa objections to discovery master decisions are likely to be similar across cases since his or her purview will be limited to enterprise-wide discovery. State Farm’s consolidation proposal will create significant efficiencies for both the parties and the courts, who are now faced with deciding identical discovery issues in nearly two dozen different cases pending before seven different judges in this County. c, The Court Should Also Order a Procedure to Evaluate for Consolidation Any Newly Filed or Remanded Cases. In addition, it would promote judicial efficiencies to create a procedure for potential consolidation of any cases—newly filed in or, if removed, remanded to!” Oklahoma County—for which Plaintiffs’ like allegations and discovery implicate similar issues to the Consolidation Candidates following entry of the consolidation order, These cases—like the nearly two dozen already pending in this County—when brought or joined in by Whitten Burrage will also involve many (or perhaps all) of the same discovery demands, depositions, and disputes regarding the appropriateness of Plaintiffs’ extreme and overbroad discovery requests. Thus, to ensure cases brought or joined in by Whitten Burrage asserting the same allegations or seeking the same Corporate Discovery that are filed in or remanded to Oklahoma County District Courts post-consolidation do not destroy the efficiencies gained by the requested consolidation, State Farm proposes the following procedure: 1. Within forty-five (45) days of service of a petition in this County making the same or substantially similar corporate allegations or seeking the same Corporate Discovery, or—if State Farm exercises its right to remove the case—within fifteen (15) days '0 Presently, there are several cases removed from Oklahoma County District Courts to federal court with pending motions to remand. State Farm may also remove other Oklahoma County cases to federal court, including any newly filed cases. For the avoidance of doubt, State Farm does not waive its right to remove any case to federal court. 12"}, {"d": 123, "p": 227, "t": "after remand to this County of a case making the same or substantially similar corporate allegations or seeking the same Corporate Discovery, State Farm may file an Expedited Motion to Join Consolidation before this Court and a Notice of F iling such Expedited Motion in the individual action; 2. Plaintiffs in those newly served or remanded cases will have 10 days from filing of this Motion and Notice to file an objection in this Court; 3. Upon service of any objection, State Farm will have 10 days to file a response in support of consolidation in line with the consolidation order already before the Court. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court issue an order: granting State Farm’s Motion for Partial Consolidation for Corporate Discovery Purposes only pursuant to Local District Court Rule 9, of all 22 Consolidation Candidates, and creating the procedure set forth above for consolidating future cases by or with Whitten Burrage implicating similar issues that may be filed in or remanded to Oklahoma County District Courts following entry of a consolidation order. 13"}, {"d": 123, "p": 228, "t": "Respectfully submitted, HALL, ESTILL, HARDWICK, GABLE, GOLDEN & NELSON, P.C. Jéttick L-Wrby; OBA No, Christophef Taylof 36876 J. GnaedigOBA No. 33892 R. Bagby, OBA No. 35769 521 East 2™ Street, Suite 1200 Tulsa, OK 74120 Telephone: (918) 594-0400 Facsimile: (918) 594-0505 jirby@hallestill.com cgnaedig@hallestill.com tbagby@hallestill.com and Timila S, Rother, OBA No. 14310 CROWE & DUNLEVY, PC Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7700 Facsimiles: (405) 293-6651 timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY AND TIM CUSTER INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. 14"}, {"d": 123, "p": 229, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 23rd day of January, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served via email and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Ave., Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com R. Ryan Deligans Andrew M. Gunn DURBIN, LARIMORE & BIALICK 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102-2610 rdeligans@dlb.net agunn@dlb.net Joe E. White, Jr. Charles C. Weddle III WHITE & WEDDLE, P.C. 630 N.E. 63rd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 joe@whiteandweddle.com charles@whiteandweddle.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ant 15"}, {"d": 123, "p": 230, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA JOHN ADAIR, ) ) ) Plaintiff, FILED IN DISTRICT COURT ; OKLAHOMA COUNTY Vv. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and TIM CUSTER INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ) Case No. CJ-2023-6121 ) Hon. Brent Dishman ) TOSI ) Defendants. FEB 10 2026 ) 42 ) WARRED aa cae PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO STATE FARM’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL CONSOLIDATION Plaintiff John Adair “(“Plaintiff’) respectfully submits the following Objection and Response to Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s (“State F arm’’) Motion for Partial Consolidation (“Motion”). Not only has State Farm vigorously objected to consolidation of identical matters, but its untimely request is strongly objected to by each individual plaintiff or plaintiffs named in each action, whom have the burden of proof and are the masters of their complaint. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES On January 9, 2026, the parties appeared in front of this Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Special Discovery Master in this case and two others pending in front of this Court wherein Plaintiff made clear that consolidation of the three cases at issue was not the main request, as “plaintiffs are willing to bear the burden of three separate special discovery masters if this Court is not inclined to consolidate.” Ex. 1, 1/9/2026 Hrg. Trns. at 12:6-8. This Court held, “I’m not going to consolidate, and the reason I'm not going to consolidate is because I think there are too many differences when you name the individual agents as a defendant. All those situations are going to be factually different.” Ex. 1, 1/9/2026 Hrg. Trns. at 31:7-11."}, {"d": 123, "p": 231, "t": "Ironically, the last time Plaintiff's counsel moved for consolidation prior to this case was in CJ-2020-4453, wherein State Farm filed a Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Consolidation on January 16, 2024 with the following arguments: Consolidation should be denied because Plaintiffs have not met — and cannot meet — the burden placed on them to demonstrate that: (1) consolidation will benefit judicial economy without causing delay, undue expense, prejudice, or confusion; and (2) sufficient common questions of law or fact exist, particularly as to the agents sued in each case. Consolidation of the cases urged herein is not permitted because the issues are neither identical issues as required by Local Rule 9 nor common as required by 12 O.S. § 2018. But the Court need not even get to that substantive prong of the analysis, because Plaintiffs are not simply asking the Court to combine the causes of action against State Farm, but nine separate causes of action against the agent Defendants arising from entirely different and unique facts. Further, the cases are of varying ages and in different litigation postures governed by different discovery orders. The disparity among the cases both factually and procedurally negates any perceived efficiency and reveals the delay, confusion, and prejudice to the individual agent Defendants, State Farm, and the judicial system that will result. For example, Nida, arises from a hail claim made more than four years ago and has been on file since September 2020, while Fletcher still has pending motions to dismiss with answers not yet due. Likewise, in Nida, Hosier, and Kyger, extensive institutional discovery has already occurred, while initial discovery requests have not even been served in Fletcher. As to most of the others, they are in varying stages of non-\"native\" document production made subject to protective orders entered by the judges in those cases with greater protections than have been ordered in the cases before this Court. Each of the cases where discovery has taken place have different discovery rulings by different judges that would need to be addressed one by one and reconciled in a consolidation by this Court that would take extensive motion practice as well as hearings. Given the different procedural postures of these cases and Plaintiffs’ unexplained delay in moving for consolidation, Defendants, granting Plaintiffs' delay efficient and Motion prompt would be adjudication prejudicial to the of cases that does not benefit any party, and benefits only Plaintiffs' Counsel. Critically, these cases include not just State Farm, but nine individual agents who had no part in the claim determination for which State Farm is sued. The agents are instead sued under negligent procurement and fraud theories, the outcomes of which will turn entirely on what each Plaintiff said to his or her respective agent and what his or her agent said to each Plaintiff. Indeed, the agent issues veer entirely into policy issuance and underwriting questions and"}, {"d": 123, "p": 232, "t": "are not at all about the claim handling for which Plaintiffs pursue institutional discovery from State Farm. As to the claims against State Farm, the Consolidation Cases involve nine different disputes about whether nine different houses were damaged by nine different weather events and to what degree. All nine have different dates of loss, ranging from October 6, 2019, in Nida to October 14, 2021, in Kelly, implicating differences in training and claim handling procedures. The nine properties are located across seven towns, nearly half of which are not even in Oklahoma county. As to Plaintiffs theme that State Farm enforced a scheme for denying hail claims, the hail determinations in Christy, Kelly, and Fletcher were made by thirdparty inspectors not trained by State Farm or bound by its operational guidelines, and McDow involved an external claims resource adjuster who was also not trained by State Farm. In addition to the third-party inspectors, more than 20 different State Farm adjusters were involved, meaning training material produced in one case may not be relevant to another. Further, there were 13 different contractors. Fletcher and Christy involve rental policies rather than homeowner policies. Because the facts specific to each claim vary, the claim decisions also vary: only one claim was denied; State Farm made payments in four cases; and in three cases, although damage was identified, payments were not made because the estimated cost of repairs fell below the total deductible and depreciation. See Ex. 2, 1/16/2024 SF Resp. to Mot. to Consolidate (emphasis added). Despite State Farm strongly objecting to consolidation of identical matters two years ago, State Farm now says the same is proper, without distinguishing any of its previous arguments. For the same reasons above, these cases are not proper to consolidate. STANDARD Oklahoma law requires a common question of law or fact for consolidation, and due to the differences in discovery sets issued, as well as differences in case needs and nuisances in facts, does not support State Farm’s request for consolidation. The absence of a \"common question of law or fact\" also negates consolidation. 12 O.S. § 2018(C). Indeed, those making the rules for this Court chose to allow consolidation only if the issues are \"identical.\" Oklahoma County R. 9. The questions of law and fact in these cases are neither identical nor common enough to satisfy the prerequisite for consolidation."}, {"d": 123, "p": 233, "t": "This is especially true considering State Farm in January of 2024 stated that nearly identical State Farm cases were not proper to consolidate because of the “different procedural postures of these cases and Plaintiffs’ unexplained delay in moving for consolidation, granting Plaintiff's Motion would be prejudicial to the Defendants, delay efficient and prompt adjudication of cases that does not benefit any party, and benefits only Plaintiffs’ Counsel.” See Ex. 2, 1/16/2024 SF Resp. to Mot. to Consolidate at p. 2. Almost two years later, this remains true: State Farm’s unexcused delay in moving to consolidate only after receiving orders it objects with is not proper and does not benefit any party. Plaintiff, as the mater of the complaint and the burden of proof, strongly objects to the consolidation of these matters. Plaintiffs counsel has never had State Farm cases become consolidated at its objection. As such, Plaintiff begs this Court to deny CASES ARE NOT AT SAME DISCOVERY POSTURE The cases State Farm seeks to consolidate are not the same. State Farm couches its request at “corporate discovery” only but as the party with the burden of proof who issues discovery, the discovery requests Plaintiff has issued on corporate discovery blends into individual discovery on the agent. For example, Plaintiff is aware that State Farm provides training videos to agency leadership in Oklahoma, and is seeking discovery on what training each captive agent received, where they received it, and what members of their staff received it. While this discovery is aimed at State Farm’s institutional training of its agents, the discovery responses will differ depending on when the agent began working at State Farm and when the loss occurred. Not only is State Farm’s delay in moving to consolidate these matters confusing, but it appears State Farm is moving to consolidate to prevent further production orders it disagrees with. On January 22, 2026, after the record had ended, Judge Stinson asked counsel for State Farm and Plaintiff about consolidation. Counsel on behalf of State Farm, Ms. Masters, spent several minutes"}, {"d": 123, "p": 234, "t": "explaining that these cases are not proper for consolidation because of their individual fact differences and because the captive agent in these cases are different. See Ex. 3, Sanders Affidavit. This happened one day before State Farm filed this present Motion. Plaintiffagrees with State Farm’s counsel; these cases are not proper for consolidation because they are different and at different stages of litigation. For example, in Hursh v. State Farm, et al., Case No. CJ-2025-2626 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct.). discovery is the furthest along, with the court granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel on November 25, 2025, and denying State Farm’s Motion to Quash five key executives. See Ex. 4, 11/25/2025 JE. Hursh is the only matter where Plaintiff's counsel has moved for these key witnesses. Furthermore, Judge Palumbo has ordered State Farm in Hursh to produce key documents seven days from February 6, 2026. See Ex. 5, Hursh Minute Order. Furthermore, the Oklahoma Attorney General has entered a Petition for Intervention into the Hursh case, and the Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner has given the Oklahoma Attorney General regulatory powers under Title 36 solely"}, {"d": 123, "p": 235, "t": "for the Hursh matter.'! See Ex. 6, AG Pet. for Intervention. See also Ex. 7, Mulready Letter. The Honorable Gentner Drummond Attorney General of Oklahoma 313 N.E. 21st St. Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Dear Attorney General Drummond: I share your vision of doing anything we can within our authority to reduce Oklahoma homeowners’ premiums and ensuring their rights and interests are protected. To this end, I request that you, as Oklahoma’s chief legal officer, partner with my office to continue your investigation, intervention and prosecution in Hursh v. State Farm, et al., CJ-25-2626 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, as well as any appeals or writs related to that action. 1 look forward to hearing from you and advancing our collaborative work in the best interests of the people of Oklahoma. Please ensure your office communicates with my office before adding my name or the Oklahoma Insurance Department to this case as a party. ‘Each of our offices is vested with separate regulatory powers and authority to protect and advance the interests of Oklahomans. Together, we must invoke our individual constitutional and statutory authority to protect Oklahoma insurance consumers and enforce the Oklahoma Insurance Code under title 36 of the Oklahoma Statutes, as well as the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, 15 O.S. §§ 751-764.1, and the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act, 79 O.S. §§ 201- 212. See e.g., Okla. Const. art. VI, §§ 1, 22-23; 36 O.S. §§ 305, 307, 322-323, 332; 74 O.S. § 18b. My office stands ready to collaborate and engage with your office on future efforts to redress and prevent unfair trade and claims handling practices by homeowner’s insurance companies in Oklahoma. In contrast, Young v. State Farm, et al., Case No. CJ-2025-117 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct.) was just remanded from the Western District of Oklahoma and initial discovery has just been served. Not all cases have the same set of discovery issued to State Farm: for example, the discovery set issued in this matter differs in substance from the set issued in Pruitt v. State Farm, et al., Case No. CJ- 2024-7828 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct.). ' Due to the unique issues of the Hursh matter with the Attorney General, Plaintiffs counsel has asked Judge Palumbo to carve out the Hursh matter, to the extent this Court grants consolidation over his objection. Furthermore, Plaintiff suspects the timing of this motion for consolidation, that State Farm only filed this after getting orders it disagrees with from Judge Palumbo, is an attempt to evade production orders in the Hursh matter."}, {"d": 123, "p": 236, "t": "Furthermore, the dates of loss, dates of initial procurement, conversations with captive agents and adjusters, and individual insurance needs will differ from each named plaintiff. Some of these cases deal with a third-party adjuster hired by State Farm, others have State Farm adjusters handling the claim. These properties span across the State of Oklahoma, with causes of loss ranging from wind and hail to tornado or pipe burst damage actions. Oklahoma law is clear that separate claims which arise out of separate events, like these cases which arise from different dates of loss, are not proper to consolidate. See State v. One Thousand Two Hundred Sixty-Seven Dollars, 2006 OK 15, 4 16, 131 P.3d 116 (“There is here absolutely no showing of some predominant equitable consideration that demands a joint trial of the two separate claims to money which arose out of discrete events.”). These cases do not deal with identical issues, as required by the local rule on consolidation. Oklahoma County R. 9. It is clear these cases do not all deal with common questions of fact or law, and are not proper to consolidate. CAPTIVE AGENT DISCOVERY IS UNIQUE TO EACH CLAIM The captive agent in these cases is different and deals with captive agents that run agencies all over Oklahoma. The conversations these agents have with each Plaintiff and the promises made to each Plaintiff differ. The dates these Plaintiffs purchased insurance from these agents differ, as well as the underwriting guidelines in effect at each procurement. For example, Plaintiffs are amending their Petition in Stearns v. State Farm, et al., Case No. CJ-2025-1704 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct.), to reflect their claims against the captive agent, Mr. Dennis Chaumont, to reflect the duties Mr. Chaumont owes as a captive agent who inherited the policy. Furthermore, as of today, this matter is the only case Plaintiff's counsel has wherein the plaintiff has filed a Corporate Representative Notice against the captive agent, Mr. Custer. See Ex. 8, Adair 3230(b)(6) Notice. The Notice has a topic related to training on issues like matching,"}, {"d": 123, "p": 237, "t": "because Mr. Custer specifically promised Mr. Adair that the policy would match his deluxe, hail resistant 50-year shingles. Furthermore, in Black v. State Farm, et al., Case No. CJ-2024-7827 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct.), the parties have worked to set up a deposition of the captive agent in that matter, Randall Young, for March 17, 2026. As such, these cases are not proper to consolidate. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court enter an Order denying Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Motion for Partial Consolidation and for further relief deemed just. Respectfully submitted, Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Hannah E. Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com ~and~ R. Ryan Deligans, OBA #19793 Andrew M. Gunn, OBA #19470 920 North Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73102-2610 Telephone: (405)235-9584 Facsimile: (405)235-0551 rdeligan@dlb.net agunn@dlb.net Attorneys for Plaintiff"}, {"d": 123, "p": 238, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served by regular mail this 10th day of February, 2026, upon: Jerrick L Irby Margo E. Shipley Christopher J. Gnaedig 521 East 2nd Street, Suite 1200 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120 918.594.0400 918.594.0505 (fax) jirby@hallestill.com Neaunad UM Hannah Whitten tton"}, {"d": 123, "p": 239, "t": "From: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 2:33 PM To: Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig@hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby@hallestill.com>; Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; rdeligans@dlb.net <rdeligans@dlb.net>; agunn@dlb.net <agunn@dlb.net> Ce: Laura Williams <lwilliams@hallestill.com>; Gabrielle Hester <ghester@hallestill.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]: RE: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 Counsel, Judge has reviewed the Motion to Consolidate and below is his response. Counsel, Defendant State Farm’s Partial Motion to Consolidate for Corporate Discovery Purposes Only is denied, with respect to written discovery. While the Court is sympathetic to Defendant's"}, {"d": 123, "p": 240, "t": "arguments and understands how such consolidation may create efficiencies for Defendant, the Court is concerned that an order of partial consolidation may make things more difficult for the Court, and create future, unnecessary litigation over what is (or isn’t) “corporate discovery.” The Court also is in agreement with the reasoning of the Attorney General's objection to the motion. My intention is for the discovery master to handle discovery issues to the greatest extent possible, without the Court's intervention. That said, the Court is open to limitations being placed on the length or number of depositions of corporate officers. Please work together to come to an agreement on this issue. If not, please file a motion. If you have any question about my ruling, please set us for a quick status conference at your convenience. CBD CHRISTI ZELIFF BAILIFF HONORABLE C. BRENT DISHMAN DISTRICT JUDGE OKLAHOMA COUNTY COURTHOUSE 321 PARK AVE #315 OKC, OK 73102 405-713-1451 Christina.Zeliff@OSCN.NET PLEASE NOTE: THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL. 12 OS. Sec. 2005. Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail communication and any attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, release, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT ANY DOCUMENTS VIA EMAIL AUTHORIZATION IS GIVEN. UNLESS PRIOR From: Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 12:35 PM To: Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig@hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby@hiallestill.com>; Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; rdeligans@dlb.net; agunn@dlb.net Cc: Laura Williams <Iwilliams@hallestill.com>; Gabrielle Hester <ghester@hallestill.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]: RE: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 Ms. Zeliff — Counsel for Defendant is likewise available April 30 at 10am."}, {"d": 123, "p": 241, "t": "Thanks, Jerrick Irby From: Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 12:01 PM To: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net>; Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig@hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby@hallestill.com>; Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; rdeligans@dlb.net; agunn@dlb.net Ce: Laura Williams <lwilliams@hallestill.com>; Laura Richards <lrichards@hallestill.com> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]: RE: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 This message was sent from outside the organization. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe. Hello, No worries. Plaintiff is available on April 30 at 10 am! Best, Hannah E. Whitten Attorney WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com https://link.edgepilot.com/s/4293b8b4/gJkXHd0-hkK9Sfd3XyASLg?u=http://www.whittenburragelaw.com/ WHITIEN BURRAGE The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work-product. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 8:20 AM To: Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig@hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby@hallestill.com>; Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; rdeligans@dlb.net <rdeligans@dlb.net>; agunn@dlb.net <agunn@dlb.net> Ce: Laura Williams <lwilliams@hallestill.com>; Laura Richards <lrichards@hallestill.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]: RE: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 Counsel, You are currently set for Defendant State Farm’s motion for Partial Consolidation for Corporate Discovery Purposes Only hearing on March 31, 2026, | sincerely apologize but as you may know, Judge is currently on active-duty orders and because of this | have listed dates that he is available for hearings, | have listed them below he will be back in office full time after April 3. Please discuss and let me know"}, {"d": 123, "p": 242, "t": "what date and time work best for your schedule again | apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your flexibility and understanding. At this time your hearing will be stricken to be reset at your request. April 7 @ 10:00 a.m. April 28 @ 10:00 a.m. April 29 @ 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. April 30 @ 10:00 a.m. CARISTI ZELIFF BAILIFF HONORABLE C. BRENT DISHMAN DISTRICT JUDGE OKLAHOMA COUNTY COURTHOUSE 321 PARK AVE #315 OKC, OK 73102 405-713-1451 Christina.Zeliff@OSCN.NET Pa PLEASE NOTE: THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL. 12 O.S. Sec. 2005. Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail communication and any attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, release, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT ANY DOCUMENTS AUTHORIZATION IS GIVEN. VIA EMAIL UNLESS PRIOR From: Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 8:02 AM To: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig @hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby@hallestill.com>; 'rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com' <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com; hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com; rdeligans@dlb.net; agunn@dlb.net Ce: Laura Williams <lwilliams@hallestill.com>; Laura Richards <lrichards@hallestill.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]: RE: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 Thank you. Have a great day! Jerrick From: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 8:01 AM To: Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig@hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby@hallestill.com>; 'rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com' <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com; hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com; rdeligans@dlb.net; agunn@dlb.net Cc: Laura Williams <Iwilliams@hallestill.com>; Laura Richards </richards@hallestill.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]: RE: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121"}, {"d": 123, "p": 243, "t": "This message was sent from outside the organization. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe. Yes that is confirmed. CHRISTI ZELIFF BAILIFF HONORABLE C. BRENT DISHMAN DISTRICT JUDGE OKLAHOMA COUNTY 321 PARK AVE OKC, OK COURTHOUSE #315 73102 405-713-1451 Christina.Zeliff@OSCN.NET at PLEASE NOTE: THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL. 12 OS. Sec. 2005. Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail communication and any attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, release, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT ANY DOCUMENTS VIA EMAIL UNLESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION IS GIVEN. From: Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 7:57 AM To: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig@hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby@hallestill.com>; 'rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com' <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com; hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com; rdeligans@dlb.net; agunn@dlb.net Ce: Laura Williams <Iwilliams@hallestill.com>; Laura Richards <lrichards@hallestill.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]: RE: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 Good morning, Ms. Zeliff — Are we confirmed for January 9, 2026 at 11am? Thanks, Jerrick Irby From: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 1:25 PM To: Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig@hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby@hallestill.com>; 'rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com' <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com; hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com; rdeligans@dlb.net; agunn@dlb.net Ce: Laura Williams <lwilliams@hallestill.com>; Laura Richards <lrichards@hallestill.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]: RE: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 If that is it agreeable | will set aside January 9, 2026 @ 11:00."}, {"d": 123, "p": 244, "t": "This message was sent from outside the organization. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe. CHRISTI ZELIFF BAILIFF HONORABLE C. BRENT DISHMAN DISTRICT JUDGE OKLAHOMA COUNTY 321 PARK AVE OKC, OK COURTHOUSE #315 73102 405-713-1451 Christina.Zeliff@OSCN.NET PLEASE NOTE: THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL. 12 O.S. Sec. 2005. Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail communication and any attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, release, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT ANY DOCUMENTS VIA EMAIL AUTHORIZATION IS GIVEN. UNLESS PRIOR From: Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 10:56 AM To: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig@hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby@hallestill.com>; 'rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com’ <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com; hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com; rdeligans@dlb.net; agunn@dlb.net Ce: Laura Williams <|williams@hallestill.com>; Laura Richards <lrichards@hallestill.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]: RE: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 Ms. Zeliff — Thank you for the quick response. January 9 at 11am works for Defendants. Respectfully, Jerrick Irby From: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 10:08 AM To: Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig@hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby@hallestill.com>; 'rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com' <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com; hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com; rdeligans@dlb.net; agunn@dlb.net Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]: RE: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 This message was sent from outside the organization. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe."}, {"d": 123, "p": 245, "t": "The dates that | can accommodate more than minutes are; 12/12 @ 2:30 (30 minutes — 1 hour) 1/9/26 @ 9:00 a.m. (30 minutes) 1/9/2026 @ 11:00 a.m. (30-45 minutes) If you would prefer another date Judge has made arraignments for Judge Truong to hear any cases that are not available on the dates provided, | would be happy to reach out to see when she could accommodate you as well if you wish. CHRISTI ZELIFF BAILIFF HONORABLE C. BRENT DISHMAN DISTRICT JUDGE OKLAHOMA COUNTY COURTHOUSE 321 PARK AVE #315 OKC, OK 73102 405-713-1451 Christina. Zeliff@OSCN.NET PLEASE NOTE: THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL. 12 O.S. Sec. 2005. Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail communication and any attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, release, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT ANY DOCUMENTS VIA EMAIL UNLESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION IS GIVEN. From: Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 9:26 AM To: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig@hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby@hallestill.com>; 'rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com' <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com; hwhitten @whittenburragelaw.com; jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com; rdeligans@dlb.net; agunn@dlb.net Subject: [EXTERNAL]: RE: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 Ms. Zeliff — Thank you for this update. Respectfully, Jerrick Irby Attorney for Defendants Jerrick Irby Shareholder We will need more than 15 minutes."}, {"d": 123, "p": 246, "t": "T: 918-594-0589 HALL E: jirby@hallestill.com FSTILL ATTORNEYS 521 East 2nd Street Suite 1200 ™“s* AT LAW This e-mail message and any attachment thereto is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the recipient or reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail communication in error, please notify us immediately by sending a reply e-mail message to the sender. Thank you. From: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 10:35 AM To: Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig@hallestill com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby@hallestill.com>; 'rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com' <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com; hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com; rdeligans@dlb.net; agunn@dlb.net Subject: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 This message was sent from outside the organization. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe. Counsel, | sincerely apologize but as you may know Judge is currently on active-duty orders and because of this his schedule is changing often we have finally been able to confirm dates and times that he is available for hearings, | have listed them below. Please discuss and let me know what date and time work best for your schedule again | apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your flexibility and understanding. IF YOU NEED MORE THAN 15 MINUTES, PLEASE ADVISE SOI CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH ALTERNATE TIMES. December 12 _ | January 9 11:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. Limited space | 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. CHRISTI ZELIFF BAILIFF HONORABLE C. BRENT DISHMAN DISTRICT JUDGE OKLAHOMA COUNTY 321 PARK AVE #315 OKC, OK COURTHOUSE 73102 405-713-1451 Christina. Zeliff@OSCN.NET January 22 1:30 p.m. February 13 9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 1:30 p.m. 2:30 p.m. March 13 9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 1:30 p.m. 2:30 p.m. March 26 1:30 p.m. 2:30 p.m."}, {"d": 123, "p": 247, "t": "PLEASE NOTE: THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL. 12 O.S. Sec. 2005. Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail communication and any attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, release, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT ANY DOCUMENTS VIA EMAIL UNLESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION IS GIVEN. CAUTION: This email originated outside of the Oklahoma State Courts Network. Please do not open attachments or click links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Links contained in this email have been replaced by ZixProtect Link Protection. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning. Links contained in this email have been replaced by ZixProtect Link Protection. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning."}, {"d": 123, "p": 248, "t": "From: Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2026 1:16 PM To: Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Timila S. Rother <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com>; Zeliff, Christina <christina.zeliff@oscn.net> Cc: Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com>; Lance Leffel <lance_e_leffel@yahoo.com>; ChristopherJ. Gnaedig <cgnaedig@hallestill.com>; Kayli Price <kprice@whittenburragelaw.com>; Laura Hawkins <lhawkins@whittenburragelaw.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 - Request for Status Conference on Consolidation of Certain Depositions in State Farm Litigation Ms. Zeliff, We respectfully object to a status conference. We have communicated with State Farm that in our view, the court welcomed a status conference if the parties were unable to come to an agreement on the length or number of depositions in the State Farm cases pending in front of Judge Dishman and after State Farm files a new Motion on this. The Court’s ruling verbatim was:"}, {"d": 123, "p": 249, "t": "Defendant State Farm's Partial Motion to Consolidate for Corporate Discovery Purposes Only is denied, with respect to written discovery. While the Court is sympathetic to Defendant's arguments and understands how such consolidation may create efficiencies for Defendant, the Court is concerned that an order of partial consolidation may make things more difficult for the Court, and create future, unnecessary litigation over what is (or isn’t) “corporate discovery.” The Court also is in agreement with the reasoning of the Attorney General’s objection to the motion. My intention is for the discovery master to handle discovery issues to the greatest extent possible, without the Court's intervention. That said, the Court is open to limitations being placed on the length or number of depositions of corporate officers. Please work together to come to an agreement on this issue. If not, please file a motion. If you have any question about my ruling, please set us for a quick status conference at your convenience. (emphasis added) Plaintiffs object to consolidation of any corporate representative deposition or executive deposition across the cases pending in front of Judge Dishman for the same reasons the Court stated in his order: “that an order of partial consolidation may make things more difficult for the Court, and create future, unnecessary litigation over what is (or isn’t) “corporate discovery.” We would ask that the Court post-pone a status conference until State Farm files a Motion and Plaintiffs are able to respond on the merits in writing. We also believe the Court would benefit from seeing the parties’ position in writing before making a ruling on the new request to consolidate. Tks MB From: Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2026 1:06 PM To: Timila S. Rother <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com>; Zeliff, Christina <christina.zeliff@oscn.net> Cc: Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Michael Burrage <mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com>; Lance Leffel <iance_e_leffel@yahoo.com>; ChristopherJ. Gnaedig <cgnaedig@hallestill.com> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 - Request for Status Conference on Consolidation of Certain Depositions in State Farm Litigation Thank you and adding my senior partner, Michael Burrage, to this thread as he was left off. Best, Hannah E. Whitten Attorney WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com"}, {"d": 123, "p": 250, "t": "www.whittenburragelaw.com oo WV T.. WHITTEN BURRAGE The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work-product. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Timila S. Rother <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2026 8:25 AM To: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net> Cc: Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten @whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill. com>; Lance Leffel <lance_e_leffel@yahoo.com>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig@hallestill.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 - Request for Status Conference on Consolidation of Certain Depositions in State Farm Litigation Good Morning, Thank you very much for the update. Timila Om Cc R 2) WwW E DUNLEVY Timila S. Rother | Shareholder/Director gt en? Oy usa J e 20258” Timita Rother: This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or other privileges or protections. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you. From: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2026 8:18 AM To: Timila S. Rother <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com> Cc: Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com>; Lance Leffel <lance_e_leffel@yahoo.com>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig @hallestill.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 - Request for Status Conference on Consolidation of Certain Depositions in State Farm Litigation"}, {"d": 123, "p": 251, "t": "JALERT: Email contains attachments from external sender. Be cautious. Counsel, | have sent the information to Judge and am currently awaiting his response. CHRISTI ZELIFF BAILIFF HONORABLE C. BRENT DISHMAN DISTRICT JUDGE OKLAHOMA COUNTY COURTHOUSE 321 PARK AVE #315 OKC, OK 73102 405-713-1451 Christina. Zeliff@OSCN.NET PLEASE NOTE: THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL. 12 O.S. Sec. 2005. Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail communication and any attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, release, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT ANY DOCUMENTS VIA EMAIL UNLESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION IS GIVEN. From: Timila S. Rother <timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 3:41 PM To: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net> Cc: Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Ryan Deligans <rdeligans@dlb.net>; Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com>; Lance Leffel <Iance_e_leffel@yahoo.com>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig @hallestill.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 - Request for Status Conference on Consolidation of Certain Depositions in State Farm Litigation Ms. Zeliff, In response to the order from Judge Dishman in your below email, would you please convey the below request to Judge Dishman as invited in his Order? Thanks very much and of course let us know if we need to approach this in a different way. — Timila Rother, Counsel for State Farm in Adair matter. Judge Dishman: On May 31, 2026, you provided an email ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate as follows (and it is in the below emails string as well): Counsel, |"}, {"d": 123, "p": 252, "t": "Defendant State Farm’s Partial Motion to Consolidate for Corporate Discovery Purposes Only is denied, with respect to written discovery. While the Court is sympathetic to Defendant's arguments and understands how such consolidation may create efficiencies for Defendant, the Court is concerned that an order of partial consolidation may make things more difficult for the Court, and create future, unnecessary litigation over what is (or isn’t) “corporate discovery.” The Court also is in agreement with the reasoning of the Attorney General's objection to the motion. My intention is for the discovery master to handle discovery issues to the greatest extent possible, without the Court’s intervention. That said, the Court is open to limitations being placed on the length or number of depositions of corporate officers. Please work together to come to an agreement on this issue. If not, please file a motion. /f you have any question about my ruling, please set us for a quick status conference at your convenience. As depositions are being requested, ordered, and/or scheduled across these cases, State Farm has proposed consolidation of certain depositions to which Plaintiffs have objected. Defendants would appreciate a short status conference in person or virtually as the Court thinks appropriate to obtain guidance from the Court as to the intent of your Order after which further conference with counsel for Plaintiffs could be undertaken and then a motion filed if necessary. Thank you. Timila Rother ® | CROWE Timila S. Rother DUNLEVY LexMundi Member Shareholder/Director | 405.235.7757 gh Chambers encom Oy S usa J e208\" This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or other privileges or protections. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Thank you. From: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 2:33 PM To: Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill. com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig @hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby@hallestill.com>; Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders Ce: Laura Williams <lwilliams@hallestill.com>; Gabrielle Hester <ghester @hallestill.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]: RE: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 Counsel,"}, {"d": 123, "p": 253, "t": "This message was sent from outside the organization. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe. Judge has reviewed the Motion to Consolidate and below is his response. Counsel, Defendant State Farm’s Partial Motion to Consolidate for Corporate Discovery Purposes Only is denied, with respect to written discovery. While the Court is sympathetic to Defendant’s arguments and understands how such consolidation may create efficiencies for Defendant, the Court is concerned that an order of partial consolidation may make things more difficult for the Court, and create future, unnecessary litigation over what is (or isn’t) “corporate discovery.” The Court also is in agreement with the reasoning of the Attorney General's objection to the motion. My intention is for the discovery master to handle discovery issues to the greatest extent possible, without the Court's intervention. That said, the Court is open to limitations being placed on the length or number of depositions of corporate officers. Please work together to come to an agreement on this issue. If not, please file a motion. If you have any question about my ruling, please set us for a quick status conference at your convenience. CBD CHRISTI ZELIFF BAILIFF HONORABLE C. BRENT DISHMAN DISTRICT JUDGE OKLAHOMA COUNTY COURTHOUSE 321 PARK AVE #315 OKC, OK 73102 405-713-1451 Christina.Zeliff@OSCN.NET PLEASE NOTE: THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL. 12 O.S. Sec. 2005. Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail communication and any attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, release, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT ANY DOCUMENTS VIA EMAIL UNLESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION IS GIVEN. From: Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 12:35 PM To: Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig@hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby@hallestill.com>; Reggie N. Whitten"}, {"d": 123, "p": 254, "t": "<rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; rdeligans@dlb.net; agunn@dlb.net Cc: Laura Williams <|williams@bhallestill.com>; Gabrielle Hester <ghester@hallestill.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]: RE: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 Ms. Zeliff — Counsel for Defendant is likewise available April 30 at 10am. Thanks, Jerrick Irby From: Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 12:01 PM To: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net>; Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill com>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig@hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby@hallestill.com>; Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com>; rdeligans@dlb.net; agunn@dlb.net Cc: Laura Williams <lwilliams@hallestill.com>; Laura Richards <lrichards@hallestill.com> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]: RE: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 This message was sent from outside the organization. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe. Hello, No worries. Plaintiff is available on April 30 at 10 am! Best, Hannah E. Whitten Attorney WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com https:/Aink.edgepilot.com/s/4293b8b4/gJkXHd0-hkK9Sfd3XyASLg?u=http://www.whittenburragelaw.com/ WHITTEN BURRAGE The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of addressees only. The information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work-product. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify Whitten Burrage immediately at the telephone number listed above. Thank you. From: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 8:20 AM To: Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig@hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby@hallestill.com>; Reggie N. Whitten <rwhitten @whittenburragelaw.com>; Blake Sonne <bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com>; Hannah Whitten <hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; John Sanders <jsanders @whittenburragelaw.com>; rdeligans@dlb.net <rdeligans@dlb.net>; agunn@dlb.net <agunn@dlb.net>"}, {"d": 123, "p": 255, "t": "Ce: Laura Williams <|williams@hallestill.com>; Laura Richards <irichards@hallestill.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]: RE: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 Counsel, You are currently set for Defendant State Farm's motion for Partial Consolidation for Corporate Discovery Purposes Only hearing on March 31, 2026, | sincerely apologize but as you may know, Judge is currently on active-duty orders and because of this | have listed dates that he is available for hearings, | have listed them below he will be back in office full time after April 3. Please discuss and let me know what date and time work best for your schedule again | apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your flexibility and understanding. At this time your hearing will be stricken to be reset at your request. April 7 @ 10:00 a.m. April 28 @ 10:00 a.m. April 29 @ 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. April 30 @ 10:00 a.m. CHRISTI ZELIFF BAILIFF HONORABLE C. BRENT DISHMAN DISTRICT JUDGE OKLAHOMA COUNTY COURTHOUSE 321 PARK AVE #315 OKC, OK 73102 405-713-1451 Christina.Zeliff@OSCN.NET PLEASE NOTE: THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL. 12 O.S. Sec. 2005. Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail communication and any attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, release, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT ANY DOCUMENTS AUTHORIZATION IS GIVEN. VIA EMAIL UNLESS PRIOR From: Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 8:02 AM To: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig@hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby@hallestill.com>; 'rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com' <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com; hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com; rdeligans@dlb.net; agunn@dlb.net Cc: Laura Williams <williams@hallestill.com>; Laura Richards <|richards@hallestill.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]: RE: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 Thank you. Jerrick Have a great day!"}, {"d": 123, "p": 256, "t": "From: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 8:01 AM To: Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com>; ChristopherJ. Gnaedig <cgnaedig @hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby @hallestill. com>; 'rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com' <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com; hwhitten @whittenburragelaw.com; jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com; Cc: Laura Williams <|williams@hallestill.com>; Laura Richards <Irichards@hallestill.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]: RE: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 This message was sent from outside the organization. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe. Yes that is confirmed. CHRISTI ZELIFF BAILIFF HONORABLE C. BRENT DISHMAN DISTRICT JUDGE OKLAHOMA COUNTY COURTHOUSE 321 PARK AVE #315 OKC, OK 73102 405-713-1451 Christina.Zeliff@OSCN.NET PLEASE NOTE: THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL. 12 O.S. Sec. 2005. Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail communication and any attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, release, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT ANY DOCUMENTS VIA EMAIL UNLESS AUTHORIZATION IS GIVEN. PRIOR From: Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 7:57 AM To: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig @hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby@hallestill.com>; 'rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com' <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com; hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com; rdeligans@dlb.net; agunn@dlb.net Ce: Laura Williams <|williams@hallestill.com>; Laura Richards <lrichards@hallestill.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]: RE: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 Good morning, Ms. Zeliff — Are we confirmed for January 9, 2026 at 11am? Thanks, Jerrick Irby"}, {"d": 123, "p": 257, "t": "From: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 1:25 PM To: Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig@hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby@hallestill.com>; 'rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com' <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com; hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com; rdeligans@dlb.net; agunn@dlb.net Ce: Laura Williams <|williams@hallestill.com>; Laura Richards <Irichards@hallestill.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]: RE: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 This message was sent from outside the organization. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe. If that is it agreeable | will set aside January 9, 2026 @ 11:00. CHRISTI ZELIFF BAILIFF HONORABLE C. BRENT DISTRICT JUDGE OKLAHOMA COUNTY 321 PARK AVE #315 OKC, OK DISHMAN COURTHOUSE 73102 405-713-1451 Christina.Zeliff@OSCN.NET PLEASE NOTE: THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL. 12 O.S. Sec. 2005. Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail communication and any attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, release, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT ANY DOCUMENTS VIA EMAIL AUTHORIZATION IS GIVEN. UNLESS PRIOR From: Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 10:56 AM To: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig@hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby@hallestill.com>; 'rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com' <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com; hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com; rdeligans@dlb.net; agunn@dlb.net Ce: Laura Williams <Iwilliams@hallestill.com>; Laura Richards <Irichards@hallestill.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]: RE: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 Ms. Zeliff — Thank you for the quick response. Respectfully, Jerrick Irby January 9 at 11am works for Defendants."}, {"d": 123, "p": 258, "t": "From: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 10:08 AM To: Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill com>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig@hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby @hallestill.com>; 'rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com! <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com; hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com; Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]: RE: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 This message was sent from outside the organization. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe. The dates that | can accommodate more than 12/12 minutes are; @ 2:30 (30 minutes — 1 hour) 1/9/26 @ 9:00 a.m. (30 minutes) 1/9/2026 @ 11:00 a.m. (30-45 minutes) If you would prefer another date Judge has made arraignments for Judge Truong to hear any cases that are not available on the dates provided, | would be happy to reach out to see when she could accommodate you as well if you wish. CHRISTI ZELIFF BAILIFF HONORABLE C. BRENT DISHMAN DISTRICT JUDGE OKLAHOMA COUNTY COURTHOUSE 321 PARK AVE #315 OKC, OK 73102 405-713-1451 Christina. Zeliff@OSCN.NET PLEASE NOTE: THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL. 12 OS. Sec. 2005. Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail communication and any attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, release, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT ANY DOCUMENTS VIA EMAIL UNLESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION IS GIVEN. From: Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 9:26 AM To: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig @hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby@hallestill.com>; 'rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com' <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com; hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com; rdeligans@dlb.net; agunn@dlb.net Subject: [EXTERNAL]: RE: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 Ms. Zeliff —"}, {"d": 123, "p": 259, "t": "Thank you for this update. We will need more than 15 minutes. Respectfully, Jerrick Irby Attorney for Defendants \"28 HALL FSTILL “=e Jerrick Irby Shareholder T: 918-594-0589 E: jirby@hallestill.com 521 East 2nd Street ATTORNEYS AT LAW This e-mail message and any attachment thereto is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the recipient or reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail communication in error, please notify us immediately by sending a reply e-mail message to the sender. Thank you. From: Zeliff, Christina <Christina.Zeliff@oscn.net> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 10:35 AM To: Jerrick Irby <jirby@hallestill.com>; Christopher J. Gnaedig <cgnaedig@hallestill.com>; Taylor Bagby <tbagby@hallestill.com>; 'rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com' <rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com>; bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com; hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com; jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com; rdeligans@dlb.net; agunn@dlb.net Subject: John Adair v. State Farm CJ-2023-6121 This message was sent from outside the organization. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe. Counsel, | sincerely apologize but as you may know Judge is currently on active-duty orders and because of this his schedule is changing often we have finally been able to confirm dates and times that he is available for hearings, | have listed them below. Please discuss and let me know what date and time work best for your schedule again | apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your flexibility and understanding. IF YOU NEED MORE THAN 15 MINUTES, PLEASE ADVISE SO I CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH ALTERNATE TIMES. December 12_| January 9 11:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. Limited space | 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. January 22 1:30 p.m. February 13 9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 1:30 p.m. 2:30 p.m. March 13 9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 1:30 p.m. 2:30 p.m. March 26 1:30 p.m. 2:30 p.m."}, {"d": 123, "p": 260, "t": "CHRISTI ZELIFF BAILIFF HONORABLE C. BRENT DISHMAN DISTRICT JUDGE OKLAHOMA COUNTY COURTHOUSE 321 PARK AVE #315 OKC, OK 73102 405-713-1451 Christina.Zeliff@OSCN.NET Hz PLEASE NOTE: THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL. 12 OS. Sec. 2005. Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail communication and any attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, release, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT ANY DOCUMENTS VIA EMAIL UNLESS PRIOR AUTHORIZATION IS GIVEN. CAUTION: This email originated outside of the Oklahoma State Courts Network. Please do not open attachments or click links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Links contained in this email have been replaced by ZixProtect Link Protection. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning. Links contained in this email have been replaced by ZixProtect Link Protection. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning. CAUTION: This email originated outside of the Oklahoma State Courts Network. Please do not open attachments or click links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe."}, {"d": 123, "p": 261, "t": "FILED IN DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA CounTy DEC 81 2025 STATE OF OKLAHOMA RICK W, COURT Chae ene BILL and LACY HURSH, Plaintiffs, CASE NO. CJ-2025-2626 Ne Hon. Amy Palumbo STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. JOURNAL ENTRY COMES ON for hearing before this Court on the 25 day of November 2025, Plaintiffs Bill and Lacy Hursh’s (“Plaintiffs”) appeared on the following Motions: Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company’s (“State Farm”) Motion to Quash Corporate Representative Notice; State Farm’s Motion to Quash the Deposition Notices of Thomas Moss; State Farm’s Motion to Quash the Deposition Notices of Nicole Manduca; State Farm’s Motion to Quash the Deposition Notices of Scott Welsh; State Farm’s Motion to Quash the Deposition Notices of Wensley Herbert; State Farm’s Motion to Quash the Deposition Notices of Kathy Ress; State Farm’s Motion to Quash the Deposition Notices of Tyrone Smith; State Farm’s Motion to Quash the Deposition Notices of Wendy Mazza; and Defendant Mark D. Welty and Mark D. Welty Insurance Agency, Inc.’s (“Welty”) Motion to Dismiss. The Court, having carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs, hearing arguments of counsel, and consideration of additional materials provided at the hearing, finds and orders as follows:"}, {"d": 123, "p": 262, "t": ". The Court has considered the arguments set forth in the parties’ extensive briefing on these discovery issues, as well as arguments made by counsel at the hearings, and consideration of additional materials provided at the hearing. . The Court has carefully considered and weighed each of the proportionality factors set forth in 12 O.S. § 3226(B) in conjunction with making its rulings as to the relevance and proportionality of each category of discovery at issue in State Farm’s Motion to Quash Corporate Representative Notice as well as State Farm’s seven individual Motion to Quash Deposition Notices, including the importance of the issues at stake in this action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. . Having considered these factors, the Court finds the discovery sought herein is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, including allegations of pattern and practice and the evidence at issue is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and proportional to the needs of the case. . The Court hereby DENIES State Farm’s Motion to Quash Corporate Representative Notice. . The Court hereby DENIES State Farm’s Motion to Quash the Deposition Notices of Thomas Moss. . The Court hereby DENIES State Farm’s Motion to Quash the Deposition Notices of Nicole Manduca. . The Court hereby DENIES State Farm’s Motion to Quash the Deposition Notices of Scott Welsh."}, {"d": 123, "p": 263, "t": "8. The Court hereby DENIES State Farm’s Motion to Quash the Deposition Notices of Wensley Herbert. 9. The Court hereby DENIES State Farm’s Motion to Quash the Deposition Notices of Kathy Ress. 10. State Farm’s Motion to Quash the Deposition Notices of Tyrone Smith and Wendy Mazza is MOOT. a. With respect to Wendy Mazza and Tyrone Smith, Plaintiffs have agreed to issue subpoenas to both, because State Farm claims these individuals are no longer employed by State Farm, and agree to travel to such jurisdiction wherein they reside. 11. The Court hereby DENIES Welty’s Motion to Dismiss. It is THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED. _ APPROVED AS TO FORM: Abbr ww tha Wily pe HONORABLE AMY PALUMBO CEA FIED. © py AR Hannah Whitten, OBA No. 35261 John S. Sanders, OBA No. 34990 Jake Denne, OBA No. 35097 Whitten Burrage 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Office: 405.516.7800 405.516.7859 Facsimile: rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com bsonne@whittenburragelaw.com CG Bee ies Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9376 Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Blake Sonne, OBA No. 20341 Die con : RICK WARREN aati,"}, {"d": 123, "p": 264, "t": "hwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com jsanders@whittenburragelaw.com jdenne@whittenburragelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Left shlyn M. Smith GABLE GOTWALS BOK Park Plaza 499 W. Sheridan Ave., Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 lleffel@gablelaw.com asmith@gablelaw.com Carrie B. McNeer Grant A. Fitz GABLE GOTW ALS 110N. Elgin Avenue Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120-1490 cmeneer@gablelaw.com gfitz@gablelaw.com Attorneys for Defendants State Farm and Defendants Mark D. Welty and Mark D. Welty _ Insurance Agency, Inc."}, {"d": 123, "p": 265, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE STATE OF OKLAHOMA WD el ee Plaint iz aky fr /sharstor OKLAHOMA * rs Comanche Geunt FILED inthe — Attorney for Plaintiff Office of the Court Clerk vs. WL 24 Mino Stat Fara eth od Defendant’ Cy oe, Tote Cppite~ pA Aa: heentes Cluaatin De pos Meth 50 “i co afte Filing ie te th = aN Kons eS Z\\ . : Rese { eae (5 eli. hearty Brg ctw eee 8 Ht cmd don ae Plante, eek ene depirnt ewe Koouleae WHM ET a) Emr Therefore He testimony MWoticet Deport IS ( Civ-25 -44H =< ale 4 4to Berlow vu. cleposing “ese 15 LA? Ste Ferre Bases pitied Sieg oa: So PC +. mal + Hecho, = = Clek 77 -23-26 Evi 25-135 Attorney for Defendant COURTORDER pate:__ COUNTY bh fod her Se tor = fb Gaul Herdsert, Moshe Well we Aenied. nytress Grms A ceca Wai covey a +tooly- eae ean DISTRICT depos A Celermuct SO ORDERED.-&) Claim adja 420 Stee Corporate! Imeropec, Motes Ress, jepucote. thet so"}, {"d": 123, "p": 266, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMANCHE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEIL and LACY WEST, ) ) Plaintiffs, V. FILED DISTRICT COURT COMANCHE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA August 10, 2026 1:18 PM ) ROBERT MORALES, COURT CLERK ) Case Number CJ-2025-135 ) Case No. CJ-2025-135 ) STATE FARM COMPANY AGENCY, FIRE & CASUALTY and NANCY HOLCOMB ) INS. ) INC., ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER CONSOLIDATING THE DEPOSITIONS OF WENSLEY HERBERT, THOMAS MOSS, KATHY RESS, AND SCOTT WELSH AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”), pursuant to 12 O.S. §§ 3226(B)(2)(c), 3226(C), and 3226.1 and 12 O.S. § 2018(C), respectfully moves for entry of a protective order consolidating Plaintiffs’ noticed depositions of State Farm employees Wensley Herbert, Kathy Ress, and Scott Welsh, and retired employee Thomas Moss (collectively, the “State Farm Deponents”) with the pending depositions of those same individuals ordered in Hursh y, State Farm, Case No. CJ-2025-2626 (Okla. Cty.) (herein, “Hursh”).' Plaintiffs in both this case and Hursh (represented by the same counsel) have sought to take the depositions of the State Farm Deponents not because they have knowledge of the specifics of the insurance claim of these Plaintiffs or any other plaintiffs, but because they allegedly have knowledge of State Farm’s Fire Model Enhancement (“FME”) quality initiative. While State Farm objects to the relevance of the ' State Farm also understands that plaintiffs in Wong-Faust v. State Farm, Case No. CJ-2025-1675 (Okla. Cty.) intend to serve deposition notices for the same individuals. To the extent the WongFaust plaintiffs do so, State Farm intends to request consolidation of those depositions as well. 1"}, {"d": 123, "p": 267, "t": "State Farm Deponents’ testimony, to avoid repetitive, inefficient, and burdensome discovery— including undue burdens on Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, Ms. Ress, and Mr. Welsh—State Farm respectfully moves for a protective order consolidating their depositions with the depositions ordered in Hursh. Consolidating the State Farm Deponents’ pending depositions here and in Hursh is consistent with established law and several recent federal decisions in parallel cases against State Farm. In particular, federal courts overseeing nine cases with the same FME allegations have uniformly held that the deposition of Nicole Manduca, a Director in State Farm’s Property & Casualty department, should be consolidated across each of those cases—reasoning that such consolidation is necessary to promote judicial economy and avoid the undue burden that would result from requiring Ms. Manduca to testify repeatedly regarding the same topics in multiple cases. The same reasoning applies here: State Farm requests that this Court follow the example of the federal courts in Barlow, Cisneros, Cook, Dressel, Johnson, Newell, Porter, Stafford, and White, and consolidate the State Farm Deponents’ pending depositions here with their depositions in Hursh. BACKGROUND The central dispute in this case is whether State Farm owes Plaintiffs approximately $50,000 under their insurance policy to replace a roof as a result of a weather event on June 15, 2023. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on February 28, 2025, asserting claims against State Farm for breach of contract and bad faith; claims against agent Nancy Holcomb Insurance Agency for negligent procurement; and claims against all Defendants for constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation. (Pet. {{] 40, 45-79.) Plaintiffs allege that this case involves a plan by State Farm to lower indemnity payments by, inter alia, misattributing roof damage from storms to noncovered “wear and tear” through the FME. (See generally id.) Z"}, {"d": 123, "p": 268, "t": "Plaintiffs have noticed the depositions of high-ranking State Farm employees Mr. Herbert, Ms. Ress, and Mr. Welsh, and retired employee Mr. Moss, to which State Farm objected and moved to quash. In response, Plaintiffs urged that—though none of the State Farm Deponents had any connection to the insurance claim at issue—each of these individuals could provide relevant testimony regarding the FME initiative. (See, e.g., June 26, 2026 West Pls.’ Resp. to State Farm’s Mot. to Quash.) Based on the arguments of counsel relating to FME, on July 23, 2026, the Court denied State Farm’s motion to quash the depositions of the State Farm Deponents. The Hursh case involves damages the Hursh plaintiffs claim to have sustained to their house during weather events on October 4, 2023 and May 21, 2024. The Hursh plaintiffs contend State Farm should have paid approximately $22,000 for alleged roof damage and assert claims against State Farm for breach of contract and bad faith, and against all Defendants for constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation. (See Hursh Pet. {4 40, 45-79.) Just as here, the Hursh plaintiffs allege that their case involves a plan by State Farm to lower indemnity payments by, inter alia, misattributing damage to non-covered “wear and tear.” (See generally id.) The Hursh plaintiffs—represented by Plaintiffs’ counsel—earlier noticed the depositions of several high-ranking State Farm employees, including the State Farm Deponents. State Farm moved to quash the depositions in Hursh, and Plaintiffs’ counsel opposed, contending (just as counsel did here) that while none of the State Farm Deponents was involved in the Hursh’s insurance claim, their depositions were relevant because each was one of the “architects” and “members” of the FME quality initiative. (See, e.g., Nov. 14, 2025 Hursh Pls.’ Consol. Opp. to State Farm’s Mots. to Quash at 2, 12.) State Farm has been directed to produce these four deponents expeditiously and the depositions will commence at the end of August. As previously described in State Farm’s Motions to Quash the Depositions of the State"}, {"d": 123, "p": 269, "t": "Farm Deponents, each is (or, in the case of Mr. Moss, was) a high-ranking State Farm employee, and requiring them to prepare for and sit for a single deposition—let alone multiple depositions— will impose significant burdens on them as individuals and on State Farm as well. There is no reason to require the State Farm Deponents to appear for multiple, 6-hour depositions regarding the same subject matter—i.e., their purported involvement in the FME quality initiative. It is undisputed that none of the State Farm Deponents has specific knowledge regarding the insurance claims of Plaintiffs herein or the Hursh’s. As such, any deposition—conducted by the same counsel in both cases—will be duplicative. The Court, consistent with recent federal court authority consolidating depositions in cases involving the same allegations, should enter a protective order consolidating the depositions of the State Farm Deponents with their depositions in Hursh. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY I. THE COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO CONSOLIDATE DEPONENTS’ DEPOSITIONS WITH THOSE IN HURSH. THE STATE FARM Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 3226(C), the Court “may enter any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, harassment, embarrassment, oppression or undue delay, burden or expense.” 12 O.S. § 3226(C); see also id, at 3226(B)(2)(c) (providing that the Court “shall limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed if it determines that . . . the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by subparagraph a of paragraph | of this subsection”); Farmers Ins. Co. v. Peterson, 2003 OK 99, § 3, 81 P.3d 659, 660 (“Discovery may be limited or denied when discoverable material is sought in an excessively burdensome manner.”); Capitol Records, Inc. v. Foster, No. Civ. 04-1569-W, 2007 WL 9710830, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 10, 2007) (“It is well established that trial courts have broad discretion in issuing protective orders and"}, {"d": 123, "p": 270, "t": "determining what degree of protection is required.”).? Moreover, “[o]n motion or on its own, the court shall limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed if it determines that . . . the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(2)(c)(1); see also Ad Astra Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Heath, No. 18-1145-JWB-ADM, 2019 WL 5864785, at *2 (D. Kan. Nov. 8, 2019) (“The court retains an independent ongoing obligation to assess proportionality.) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendment (stating that courts have a “responsibility to consider the proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving discovery disputes”). Courts also have an obligation to consider proportionality in connection with all discovery. See, e.g., Dodd v. Indian Health Care Res. Ctr. of Tulsa, Inc., No. 24-CV-00327-SH, 2024 WL 4648150, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 1, 2024) (“The proper scope of discovery is that which is both relevant to the claims or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the various factors.”) (emphasis in original); Ad Astra Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Heath, No. 18-1145-JWB-ADM, 2019 WL 5864785, at *2 (D. Kan. Nov. 8, 2019) (“The court retains an independent ongoing obligation to assess proportionality.”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)). Further, and pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2018(C), “when actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it ... may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” > Because “[t]he Oklahoma Discovery Code mirrors the Federal rules,” Meritor, Inc. v. State ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 2019 OK CIV APP 64, § 20 n.15, 451 P.3d 914, 922 n.15, Oklahoma courts often look to “discovery procedures in the federal rules when construing similar language in the Oklahoma Discovery Code.” Crest Infiniti, II, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, 4 2, 174 P.3d 996, 999. See also A-Plus Janitorial & Carpet Cleaning v. Employers’ Workers’ Comp. Ass'n, 1997 OK 37, § 24 n.42, 936 P.2d 916, 928 n.42 (“The terms of 12 0.S.1991 § 2018(C) and (D) are identical to Federal Rule 42, Fed. R. Civ. P..”). 5"}, {"d": 123, "p": 271, "t": "12 OS. § 2018(C); see also Hernandez-Blanco v. Grant, No. CTV-26-278-R, 2026 WL 543769, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 26, 2026) (noting that trial courts have “’broad discretion to decide whether consolidation under [the federal equivalent rule] would be desirable.’”) (quoting 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2383 (3d ed. 2008)). Courts are granted “broad discretion” to consolidate for purposes of discovery. Kent v. City of Oklahoma City, 2020 OK CIV APP 21, § 34, 467 P.3d 726, 734. “Consolidation is a procedural mechanism to enhance the efficiency of judicial process and its economy.” /d. If the court determines that “common questions of law or fact” exist and thus consolidation would “plainly foster judicial economy,” consolidation may be granted. Phillips v. Nat'l Oilwell Varco, LP, 2024 OK CIV APP 4, §§ 26-27, 544 P.3d 980, 989. Pursuant to this authority, courts may order a single consolidated deposition of a witness across multiple cases. See Section II infra. II. COURTS OVERSEEING NINE SIMILAR FEDERAL CASES, RECOGNIZING ANALOGOUS FEDERAL AUTHORITY, HAVE ORDERED CONSOLIDATION OF STATE FARM DEPOSITIONS. This Court is not the first to consider whether to consolidate a deposition of a State Farm corporate witness with the same witness’s deposition in other cases Plaintiffs’ counsel has brought alleging the same purported corporate misconduct. granted State Farm’s motions In nine pending federal cases, courts have for protective orders consolidating the depositions of Nicole Manduca, a Director in State Farm’s Property & Casualty department who was not involved in the individual plaintiffs’ insurance claims but whom plaintiffs alleged was a participant in the FME initiative and an “architect” of the same supposed scheme alleged in this action? See Barlow v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:25-cv-00044-R (W.D. Okla.) (Dkt. No. 97); Cisneros v. State * In particular, each of these nine orders consolidates the deposition of Ms. Manduca with her deposition in a tenth federal case with the same allegations, Wiesman v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:25-cv-00050-JD (W.D. Okla.)."}, {"d": 123, "p": 272, "t": "Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:25-cv-00042-R (W.D. Okla.) (Dkt. No. 77); Cook v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No, 5:25-cv-01098-R (W.D. Okla.) (Dkt. No. 25); Dressel v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:25-cv-00860-HE (W.D. Okla.) (Dkt. No. 46); Johnson v, State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:25-cv-01000-HE (W.D. Okla.) (Dkt. No. 39); Newell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:25-cv-005620-R (W.D. Okla.) (Dkt. No. 54); Porter v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:25cv-00187-R, (W.D. Okla.) (Dkt. No. 81); Stafford v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:25-cv00008-HE (W.D. Okla.) (Dkt. No. 89); White v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:25-cv-00561- HE (W.D. Okla.) (Dkt. No. 39). In granting State Farm’s motions to consolidate Ms. Manduca’s deposition across these cases, the federal courts have recognized—over plaintiffs’ objections—that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) (directly analogous to 12 O.S. § 3226(C)) allows a court to “issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” and that a court “may also, on its own, limit discovery that is unreasonably cumulative, can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive, or that [is] outside the scope of permissible discovery.” See, e.g., Newell, Dkt. No. 54 at 2 (attached as Exhibit 1). As those courts held, “Plaintiffs’ counsel is seeking to depose Ms. Manduca in several cases that contain similar—if not identical—allegations related to State Farm’s alleged company-wide scheme to reduce wind and hail payments,” and “[g]iven the common topics that are likely to be explored, the need to protect the witness from undue burden, and the need to avoid needless duplication, a consolidated deposition is warranted.” See id. at 3. These federal decisions are consistent with an established body of caselaw, from courts across the country, confirming that trial courts have the authority to order consolidated depositions of common witnesses across multiple cases that involve common issues of law or fact—even"}, {"d": 123, "p": 273, "t": "where the cases remain separate for all other aspects of discovery. See, e.g., Rowe v. Heritage Auto. Grp., Inc., No. 5:17-cv-38, 2018 WL 3458356, at *1-2 (D. Vt. July 18, 2018) (granting request to consolidate deposition of common witnesses across cases because “[aJn order which results in one deposition rather than two in cases which share factual and legal elements is a sound exercise of the discretion and responsibility the civil rules extend to trial judges”); Babjak vy. Arcelormittal USA, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-40-IVB-PRC, 2016 WL 4191050, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 9, 2016) (consolidating cases “for a limited purpose—to avoid parallel depositions of fact witnesses”); Hicks v. Grove, No. ELH-12-1422, 2014 WL 768685, at *2 (D. Md. Feb. 25, 2014) (“[T]o save the parties and the witnesses the time and expense of conducting separate depositions, and to avoid establishing the same background facts twice—such as a witness’s personal information, educational background, and employment history—I will require a single deposition of those witnesses with knowledge of facts pertinent to both cases,” but denying motion to consolidate cases in their entirety).* * See also Friends of. Merrymeeting Bay v. Miller Hydro Group, No. 2:11-cv-36-GZS, 2012 WL 458618, at *1 (D. Me. Feb. 9, 2012) (granting motion to allow plaintiffs to present common witness for consolidated deposition to minimize costs and maximize efficiency, “as compared to four completely separate depositions”); cf. J4 Promotions, Inc. v. Splash Dogs, LLC, Nos. 2:09-cv- 136, 2:10-cv-432, 2010 WL 3063217, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug 3, 2010), objections overruled, No. 2:09CV-0136, 2010 WL 4809101 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 18, 2010) (denying motion for consolidation but noting that potential for duplication of depositions of common witnesses with testimony relevant to multiple cases could be addressed through consolidated deposition); Arnold v. City of Columbus, No. 2:08-cv-0031, 2009 WL 10679012, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 23, 2009) (denying motion for consolidation but finding consolidated deposition might be appropriate for common witnesses, such as “if the same investigators have testimony that is relevant to all four cases”); Franklin v, Highland Park Police Officer Hollis Smith, No. 15-12995, 2016 WL 6652744, at *1 (E.D. Mich. July 7, 2016) (explaining that serial depositions of a single witness are disfavored because of the cost and burden, and because they “provide[] the deposing party with an unfair strategic advantage, offering it multiple bites at the apple, each time with better information than the last”); ANN. MANUAL COMPLEX LIT. § 11.45 (4th ed.) (“Depositions . . . tend to be the most costly and time-consuming activity in complex litigation.”). Thus, in related cases “pending before different judges, the judges should attempt to coordinate the depositions of common witnesses[.]” Jd. at § 11.455. Federal courts also routinely prevent multiple depositions of the same witness on the 8"}, {"d": 123, "p": 274, "t": "Oklahoma courts have recognized these same principles. For example, in Paillips v. National Oilwell Varco, LP, 2024 OK CIV APP 4, two plaintiffs filed actions against the same defendant—one in Oklahoma County and the other in Canadian County. Jd. at 3. The trial court consolidated these actions in their entirety, and a plaintiff sought appellate review, arguing that the lower court erred in consolidating plaintiffs’ claims. /d. at 41. The appellate court disagreed, reasoning that “[a] trial court has broad discretion to manage the orderly processing of litigation before it, and its decision whether or not to consolidate proceedings for trial will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” Jd. at § 22. Moreover, the appellate court instructed that “[clonsolidation is a procedural mechanism to enhance the efficiency of judicial process and its economy . . .. Section 2018 provides for consolidation of actions that deal with common questions of law or fact.” Id. at § 26. The case of McSharry v. UnumProvident Corp. is also particularly illustrative of how a court dealing with facts similar to those in this case consolidated depositions to reduce the burden on a deponent facing numerous separate depositions on the same issues. In McSharry, plaintiff, a former UnumProvident employee suing for wrongful termination, alleged that UnumProvident had a practice of denying disability insurance claims. See McSharry v. UnumProvident Corp., No. 0000804 SOM/BMK, 2002 WL 32080544, at *! (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 9, 2002). In addition to administering its own disability insurance benefit policies, UnumProvident also administered policies for other insurers. Jd. Separate from McSharry’s suit, certain insureds sued same topics under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), including where the successive depositions are sought by different plaintiffs. See, e.g., In re Lincoln Nat'l COI Litig., No. 16-cv6605-GJP, 2019 WL 7582770, at *3 (E.D. Pa, July 15, 2019) (consolidated cases); Salt Lake City Corp. v. ERM-W., Inc., No. 2:11-cv-1174-TS-PMW, 2014 WL 6386802, at *4-6 (D. Utah Nov. 14, 2014) (multiparty case); Hunter's Ridge Golf Co., Inc. v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., No. 3:02-cv602-J-25MCR, 2006 WL 8439142, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 2006) (different cases). 9"}, {"d": 123, "p": 275, "t": "UnumProvident and some of the other insurers for which it administered disability policies for denial of disability benefits. /d. McSharry received deposition subpoenas from over twenty of those plaintiffs who sought to depose him about UnumProvident’s corporate policies. /d. Those plaintiffs’ depositions of McSharry were initially scheduled to occur over three non-consecutive days. Id. at *2. Both McSharry and Defendants moved to quash the subpoenas. /d. at *1-2. In opposing the motions to quash, the plaintiff insureds conceded that McSharry had no knowledge of or involvement in their individual claims. Rather, they sought to depose him only about his knowledge of UnumProvident’s corporate policies regarding the review of disability claims. The court found that it would be “untenable” for McSharry to be “subjected to numerous depositions concerning the same subject, i.e., the alleged policies and practices of UnumProvident in reviewing disability claims.” McSharry. Ill. Jd. at *2. Accordingly, the court ordered a consolidated deposition of /d. at *3. THE COURT, CONSISTENT WITH THIS ESTABLISHED AUTHORITY, SHOULD CONSOLIDATE THE STATE FARM DEPONENTS’ DEPOSITIONS WITH THEIR DEPOSITIONS IN HURSH. Just as in Barlow, Cisneros, Cook, Dressel, Johnson, Newell, Porter, Stafford, and White, Plaintiffs’ counsel has sought the depositions of high-ranking State Farm employees in multiple cases alleging the very same purported scheme. Plaintiffs do not—and cannot—allege any facts showing that the State Farm Deponents have unique information regarding the insurance claims at issue. To the contrary, as Plaintiffs here and in Hursh have both argued (repeatedly), Mr. Herbert’s, Mr. Moss’s, Ms. Ress’s, and Mr. Welsh’s testimony, to the extent it is relevant at all, is related solely to their roles in the FME. As the federal court reasoned in Cook when granting State Farm’s request to consolidate Ms. Manduca’s deposition in that case with her deposition in Wiesman, “courts are generally 10"}, {"d": 123, "p": 276, "t": "encouraged to exercise their discretion to limit the cost and duration of discovery and avoid duplicative discovery.” (Exhibit 2, Cook, Dkt. No. 25 at 3 (quoting Rowe, 2018 WL 3458356, at *1).) The Cook court also highlighted its “authority to consolidate proceedings, including for the limited purpose of conducting a deposition of a witness, when those proceedings share common questions of law or fact.” (/d., Cook, Dkt. No. 25 at 3-4 (citing authorities).) Because plaintiffs’ counsel in Cook, who is also Plaintiffs’ counsel in this case, sought “to depose Ms. Manduca in several cases that contain similar, if not identical, allegations related to the [FME]” and could not “genuinely dispute that Ms. Manduca’s deposition would cover the same factual topics or that a consolidated deposition would be more efficient,” the court found consolidation was warranted to protect Ms. Manduca from undue burden and avoid cumulative discovery. (Jd. at 4.) In subsequently ordering consolidation of Ms. Manduca’s deposition in Wiesman with her depositions in Barlow, Porter, and Cisneros, that court applied the same logic. See Barlow, Dkt. 97; Porter, Dkt. 81; Cisneros, Dkt. 77. This reasoning applies with equal force here—where the same counsel represents the plaintiffs here and in Hursh, makes the same broad “scheme” allegations here and in Hursh and seeks depositions of the State Farm Deponents for the same reasons here as in Hursh. Just as in Barlow, Cisneros, Cook, Dressel, Johnson, Newell, Porter, Stafford, and White, questions Plaintiffs pose to the State Farm Deponents will be duplicative of those asked of the deponents in their depositions in Hursh. Just like Ms. Manduca, Mr. Herbert, Ms. Ress, and Mr. Welsh are full-time employees with numerous management-level job duties—and requiring each of them to take time away from their regular assignments to prepare for and sit through multiple depositions will unnecessarily impede their ability to carry out their responsibilities. Moreover, allowing Plaintiffs’ counsel—also counsel to plaintiffs in Hursh—to depose Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, Ms. Ress, and Mr. Welsh multiple times will result in cumulative and duplicative discovery I]"}, {"d": 123, "p": 277, "t": "that is unnecessary and serves no constructive purpose. Accordingly, the Court, consistent with the decisions in Barlow, Cisneros, Cook, Dressel, Johnson, Newell, Porter, Stafford, and White, and established authority both in Oklahoma and across the nation, should enter a protective order consolidating the State Farm Deponents’ depositions in this case with their depositions in Hursh. There is no risk that single consolidated depositions of the State Farm Deponents would create delay, confusion, or prejudice to Plaintiffs or the Hursh plaintiffs. On the contrary, instead of having to schedule multiple depositions and related travel, plaintiffs in both cases could obtain all the information they seek from Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, Ms. Ress, and Mr. Welsh more efficiently in a single deposition. Moreover, there is little risk of confusion because: (1) the same counsel represents plaintiffs in both this case and in Hursh; (2) Plaintiffs here and in Hursh have alleged nearly identical facts and claims; and (3) Plaintiffs here and in Hursh all seek identical information from Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, Ms. Ress, and Mr. Welsh regarding the FME. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ counsel cannot genuinely dispute that the State Farm Deponents’ depositions would cover the same factual topics across both cases, or that consolidated depositions would be more efficient. To the contrary, Plaintiffs’ counsel—following the federal courts uniform rulings overruling plaintiffs’ objections to consolidation—have depositions of Ms. Manduca now agreed to consolidate in other pending federal cases and have expressed interest in consolidating “notices and subpoenas with respect to Ress, Herbert, Mazza, Moss, and others” in federal court. (See Exhibit 3, July 19, 2026 Email from B. Sonne.) There is no rationale for Plaintiffs’ counsel’s refusal to extend this same agreement to cases involving identical allegations now pending in state court. Just as in McSharry, requiring the State Farm Deponents to be “subjected to numerous depositions concerning the same subject, i.e., the alleged policies and practices of” the FME—is, frankly, “untenable.” See McSharry, 2002 WL 32080544, at *2. The 12"}, {"d": 123, "p": 278, "t": "Court should rule in accordance with the federal courts (and Plaintiffs’ counsel’s own expressed agreement to consolidate depositions in federal court) and consolidate the State Farm Deponents’ depositions here with their depositions in Hursh. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, State Farm respectfully requests that the Court enter a protective order consolidating any depositions of Mr. Herbert, Mr. Moss, Ms. Ress, and Mr. Welsh in this case with their ordered deposition in Hursh in light of the common issues of fact and to mitigate the burden on these deponents and State Farm and grant such other rclicf as the Court deems appropriate. Respectfally submi Timila S. Rbther, OBA #14310 Paige A. Masters, OBA #31142 Amanda M. Finch, OBA #34650 CROWE DUNLEVY A Professional Corporation Braniff Building 324 N. Robinson Ave. Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8273 (405) 235-7700 (405) 239-6651 (Facsimile) timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com paige.masters@crowedunlevy.com amanda.finch@crowedunlevy.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY"}, {"d": 123, "p": 279, "t": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the 10th day of August, 2026, the undersigned caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed to: Reggie N. Whitten Michael Burrage Blake Sonne Hannah Whitten John S. Sanders Jake Denne WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Brad W. Burgess Colby A. Stephenson BuRGESS & HIGHTOWER LAW FIRMP 21 NW 4th Street, Suite 201 Lawton, OK 73505 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS | \\ ; Timila S. Rother ‘R | |"}, {"d": 123, "p": 280, "t": "WINRAR 67577 FILED SUPREME COURT STATE OF OKLAHOMA 8x IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA JUN 23 2026 SELDEN JONES TUESDAY, JUNE 23, SoG RK THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO ENTER THE FOLLOWIN G ORDERS OF THE COURT: 123,812 State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. The Honorable Amy Paulumbo: and Billy Hursh, Lacy Hursh, Moong Sian Wong-Faust , Stephen Faust; and State of Oklahoma ex rel. Attorney General Gentn er Drummond, Real Party in Interest Application to assume original jurisdiction is denied. CONCUR: RECUSED: Rowe, C.J., Kuehn, V.C.J., Winchester, Edmondson, Gurich, and Darby, JJ. Combs, Kane, and Jett, JJ. alCHIEF e [have ~\\ JUSTICE"}, {"d": 123, "p": 281, "t": "IN THE DISTRICT COURT STATE BILLY & LACY OF OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY OKLAHOMA HURSH, Plaintiffs, CASE vs. NO. CJ-2025-2626 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; MARK D. WELTY; and MARK D. WELTY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants. 10 Ld kK 12 TRANSCRIPT OF 13 ORDER PLAINTIFFS' 14 MOTION RE: TO COURT'S EXTEND ke ek MOTION HAD 16 OF 17 THE ke CONTINUATION TO SCHEDULING 15 ke ON RENDERING ENFORCE ORDER THE AND 4TH FINAL FARM'S PROCEEDINGS DAY 2026, BEFORE HONORABLE AMY PALUMBO ow ke ok STATE DEADLINES AUGUST, 18 AND OF ot 19 ATTORNEY'S 20 COPY 21 22 Reported by: 23 Tara 24 25 Nixon, 321 Park Oklahoma Oklahoma RPR, CRR, CRC Avenue County Courthouse City, Oklahoma 73102 DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA - OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT"}, {"d": 123, "p": 282, "t": "11 each made that perhaps the Court going to in my jury 11 it by Zoom. 12 that 13 Period. Now 14 Farm's pending LS you 16 date be have and/or I'm what here's Nicole attending I will be do it here in my courtroom room, or I will be parties will learn very that 18 helpful 1g, our first 20 jury trial 21 it 22 fruitful 23 out 24 anticipation, 25 working each case this resolving available now stands State for date Farm in to be able to together to COURT OKLAHOMA OF how keep ensure that - gave I trial a trial date. be date may This Court chose December We before and had we in trial date everyone has that OFFICIAL as a last may, we the as case, Hursh that. chambers, State trial in the address bench, a changing in discussion the trial time. affect you a deserves case. to gave I this quickly deadlines. extend that not I'm going me told have is reason The date. You to motion because in decision or attending Court's the wasting appreciate not do all And iy DISTRICT and deliberation trial on camera, in to welcome is is seal is It they that under out certainly transcript. items instead. 10 a I borne deposition. Manduca's I because requesting them review do She some file to allowed been is Farm State that clear have that of rest the seen not have may know, don't I frustration, of that TRANSCRIPT came while"}, {"d": 123, "p": 283, "t": "12 adequate time to prepare motions, and have this can a a have than in Christmas of this you to. Now, I saw that pretrial or a it, like, a that totals in the 1d what I to see: 12 adequately 13 not want complied with 14 In 15 discuss here 16 missing discovery, Ll? the three 18 on. Everything 19 we mind, & pre, what State for that we family can have is no That's what I'm Burrage has turned do we want list of roughly Farm, later to call witnesses 36. nobody depositions there today; are the and that else three This is can because main document Nicole this is you have topics to the Nida dump, Manduca. Court going to is Those are to focus line after going step in those. As eal learned 22 have 23 Additionally, there 24 unidentified, nationwide, 25 review pertains that their DISTRICT their so that possible 20 it them Hursh year. of prepare discovery. issues address the number prepare hear Whitten a case, capacity peremptory, 10 my and whatever holding over Court resolution resolution their team to there names who COURT OF on are the five State are cannot document lawyers Farm 15 let OKLAHOMA the - I here local signature lawyers, who dump, are have who blocks. unknown, allegedly discovery OFFICIAL a that's TRANSCRIPT second been"}, {"d": 123, "p": 284, "t": "14 continue. State Farm has and march in live why they cannot a had every witness comply, sends the the and, essentially, best, it's just same so cumbersome and so by that lawyers say, in they're doing corporation they million dollars to 12 other 13 the 14 document iS I have that they review their have to review that is, is just their a 11 have to so records, them be spend and again. swayed or then what anda dump. don't know how Farm makes just many millions State 17 Oklahoma County, and just 18 Oklahoma, but be willing 19 if 20 sure that they 221. place that would 22 orders of 23 following: 24 On was I'd important had this originally COURT OF to hired have Court, February from 5th Oklahoma City, from state OKLAHOMA the to posit just from of a guess that they would have made a team and put plan in able to comply with the because orally dollars them, been and of this I is ordered - ordered all in November OFFICIAL a a a And insufficient, 16 DISTRICT twist to chosen entity I here Farm should an what in State I or 25 don't. in explain and company this and burdensome, 10 of they me come it's fact result tell to overbroad, the lawyers to and instead wind opportunity the answer to 14th of TRANSCRIPT 15"}, {"d": 123, "p": 285, "t": "SRca CNIS COURT HAnunuuua rae FILED IN D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA if Case No. , Wel+u WARREN CLE Clave Junie Attorney(s) ,Hontoh forUps Pyne Dela Petitioner Petitioner(s) vs. Gove Fac RICK COURT Pilly a Lacy Hurl 4 AUG 04 2026 Adency CJ = LOG = q646 Lane Leffel , David Hérpe HED IN. Mork Welty T Respondent(s) % COURT MINUTE Date: 3 sisi fin AVAL Judge Am Hearing On: _Plainniter’ Mot to Egor, 4 State Farm's “toto ee Ruling By Court: Coungel fo Wak DUt Clases or WilhESseS Ly be ser Gor Angust 28, Luesed . Tenens ia! he tet Hess, WAC. Those. depositions Cop. 1-3 between or deposit Ce Wie will fare place in Judge On preductra FB, Paluebo'S Cut (oom ar Sep, Am! 1 43 “well AY Mand ua i bh AT Plguit \"Niwhe Changuca and Me. St@wict, are representarres The Comparare for fenton we Che <ame Cowe Wen -bne qbend frame. bul Ove- Lam, vo | PUsSUant ¥o Planbiels 7 Favch Matin 40 Compel, Srare Karma 13 Ordered % Compete All POdvaion and POdvie a prwitegy (at bu September 9, AUK4. Ducsuant yo tre clepositoms Fauing Olace before Set urbe 3, A006: State Facm 19 Ordered {4 enter C1) Compete Pach OM August 15) A0KG ov (Q) allow Until Has, Same Planttfs bs use Pre poduetim 4niS dorUrmets /padverron CASC. Whey Mcur Phare 5 in weer v. SF /CJ~d0a5-135 STAe Form if PRdyced ea a The © JO in"}]}