Barlow et al v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
HEIDI BARLOW and DOUG BARLOW, )
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-44-R
)
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY 	)
COMPANY, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration requesting the Court
reconsider its Order [Doc. No. 32] denying remand. The motion is fully briefed [Doc. Nos.
34, 38] and at issue.
“Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in
the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005,
1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted); see also Ankeney v. Zavaras, 524 F. App'x 454,
458 (10th Cir. 2013) (applying same standard to reconsideration of interlocutory order).
Reconsideration “is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s
position, or the controlling law,” but “is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed
or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.” Id. (citations omitted).
Stated another way, a motion for reconsideration “is not a second chance for the losing
party to make its strongest case or to dress up arguments that previously failed.” Voelkel v.
General Motors Corp., 846 F.Supp. 1482, 1483 (D. Kan. 1994) (citation omitted).
Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document 40 Filed 07/02/25 Page 1 of 5

2
In its prior order, the Court found that Plaintiffs had not stated a possibly viable
claim for negligent procurement of insurance or constructive fraud/negligent
misrepresentation against their insurance agent and the agent was therefore a fraudulently
joined defendant whose citizenship could be disregarded for the purposes of establishing
diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs contend that the Court made multiple errors in reaching
this conclusion.
First, Plaintiffs argue that the Court erroneously found that Plaintiffs were primarily
relying on implied representations that insurance agents make when they bind or sell a
policy when, in fact, the Petition pleaded specific misrepresentations by the insurance
agent. The Court is not persuaded that it misconstrued Plaintiffs’ allegations. The Petition
alleges that “Defendants’ representations and/or material omissions” are “inherent to the
act of procuring, binding, and renewing coverage” and that the agent “inherently
conveyed” information about the coverage limits and property condition “by virtue of the
act of procuring the Policy.” See Doc. No. 1-2 ¶¶ 19, 25, 36. Plaintiffs point to allegations
stating that “Defendants misrepresented” the property’s condition, the coverage, or the
satisfaction of underwriting guidelines. Pet. ¶ 73. However, as noted in the Court’s prior
order, other than an alleged assurance that Plaintiffs would receive a replacement cost
policy that “afforded them the best coverage they could get with State Farm,” Plaintiffs
have not identified any specific statements by the agent concerning the property’s condition
or State Farm’s claims handling. Moreover, State Farm’s Notice of Removal and Response
to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand both relied on the absence of affirmative statements by the
agent to support their fraudulent joinder argument. See Doc. No. 1 ¶ 29, 32, 34, 36; Doc.
Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document 40 Filed 07/02/25 Page 2 of 5

3
No. 21 at 1, 6-8. Plaintiffs did not dispute this characterization in their Motion to Remand
or Reply brief and instead repeatedly described the agent as making “inherent” or “implied”
representations. Plaintiffs’ belated attempt to recharacterize their allegations or bolster their
argument does not support reconsideration.
But regardless, the alleged misrepresentations have no causal connection to
Plaintiffs’ damages and therefore cannot support a claim against the agent. State Farm
issued Plaintiffs a replacement cost value policy that provided coverage for wind and hail
damage. Thus, any alleged representations about the property’s eligibility for replacement
cost coverage, satisfaction of the underwriting guidelines, or coverage values were either
true or not the cause of Plaintiffs’ damage
Second, Plaintiffs argue that the Court overlooked allegations regarding State
Farm’s pre-existing damage denial and erroneously concluded that a pre-existing condition
did not negate or limit coverage for the roof. The Court did not overlook this argument, it
simply disagreed with Plaintiff’s position. Plaintiffs’ requested a replacement cost value
policy that provided coverage for wind and hail damage and that is what they received.
Plaintiffs have not alleged or identified any pre-existing condition or defect that limited the
coverage for wind and hail damage to the property. State Farm’s allegedly incorrect
determination that some of the claimed damage is attributable to a non-covered peril or
was not caused by storm damage does not mean the coverage is negated. The dispute here
concerns State Farm’s interpretation of the policy and its claims handling practices, not the
agent’s actions during the procurement stage.
Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document 40 Filed 07/02/25 Page 3 of 5

4
Plaintiffs’ final argument is that the Court erred in its analysis because Plaintiffs
made a specific request for a full replacement cost policy. This argument misses the point
entirely. The Court acknowledged that Plaintiffs made a specific request for a replacement
cost policy and, in fact, received a replacement cost policy. However, Plaintiffs also alleged
that they requested “full coverage” on the roof. See Pet. ¶ 25. The Court therefore noted
that this sort of “general request[] for ‘full coverage’ or ‘adequate protection’” does not,
under Oklahoma law, expand an agent’s duties with respect to the procurement of
insurance. Rotan v. Farmers Ins. Grp. of Companies, Inc., 83 P.3d 894, 895 (Okla. Civ.
App. 2004). Although a specific request for a replacement cost policy might support a
claim for negligent procurement if an agent fails to actually procure a replacement cost
policy, Plaintiffs indisputably received a replacement cost policy that covers weather
related damage. Plaintiffs have not identified any clear error or explained how the agent’s
procurement of the policy was negligent or fraudulent.
The Court is not persuaded that it misapprehended Plaintiffs’ position or that there
is any clear error in need of correction. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration
is DENIED.
There is, however, one additional item that needs to be addressed. Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Reconsideration includes a request to conduct jurisdictional discovery, without any
citation to authority or argument in support of their request. This perfunctory request is not
sufficient to warrant jurisdictional discovery and is therefore denied. After filing their
motion, Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted an email to the Court which included a letter
requesting the opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery and a set of proposed
Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document 40 Filed 07/02/25 Page 4 of 5

5
discovery requests. The letter was also sent to the Court via certified mail. The Court does
not typically accept letters as pleadings (particularly in counseled cases) and any future
requests for relief must be formatted as a motion consistent with Local Civil Rule 7.1.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of July, 2025.
Case 5:25-cv-00044-R Document 40 Filed 07/02/25 Page 5 of 5