Hawkins et al v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SCOTT HAWKINS and CORTNI
HAWKINS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY
INSURANCE COMPANY; JIM
SHORTRIDGE AGENCY; and JAMES
SHORTRIDGE, JR.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-25-849-D
(Remanded 	to 	Cleveland
County District Court, Case
No. CJ-2025-1110)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand to State Court [Doc. No. 16].
Defendant 	filed 	Defendant Allstate 	Vehicle 	and 	Property 	Insurance’s 	Response 	to
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 18], to which Plaintiffs replied [Doc. No. 19]. The
matter is fully briefed and at issue.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs own property located in Cleveland County, Oklahoma, which was insured
under an Allstate policy. Plaintiffs purchased their home in 2016. In conjunction with this
purchase, Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with Scot Stephens Allstate Insurance
Agency for Scot Stephens to procure an Allstate insurance policy for Plaintiffs. In 2019,
Jason Braine Allstate Agency became Plaintiffs’ agent, and in 2022 James Shortridge
became Plaintiffs’ agent. James Shortridge procured a renewal of Plaintiffs’ policy.
Case 5:25-cv-00849-D Document 20 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 10

2
The property was damaged by a storm on or about July 9, 2023. Plaintiffs filed this
action in state court on July 7, 2025, alleging that Allstate wrongfully denied Plaintiffs’
insurance claim for the damage. In addition to their claims against Allstate, Plaintiffs
asserted claims against James Shortridge and Jim Shortridge Agency (JSA) for breach of
contract, and constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs also asserted a
claim for negligent procurement against JSA.
Allstate timely removed the case to this Court on July 31, 2025. In its notice of
removal, Allstate alleges that complete diversity exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and the
amount in controversy exceeds the threshold for diversity jurisdiction [Doc. No. 1].
Although James Shortridge and JSA are non-diverse parties, Allstate contends that James
Shortridge and JSA were fraudulently joined by Plaintiffs to defeat diversity jurisdiction.
On August 28, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the present motion to remand, arguing that
Allstate cannot meet its “heavy burden” to show fraudulent joinder.
STANDARD OF DECISION
Subject matter jurisdiction over this case turns on the issue of fraudulent joinder.
“To establish fraudulent joinder, the removing party must demonstrate either: (1) actual
fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts, or (2) inability of the plaintiff to establish a
cause of action against the non-diverse party in state court.” Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d
980, 988 (10th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation omitted). As the removing party, Allstate
must establish that federal jurisdiction exists. See McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947,
955 (10th Cir. 2008).
Case 5:25-cv-00849-D Document 20 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 10

3
“Removal statutes are to be strictly construed, and all doubts are to be resolved
against removal.” Fajen v. Found. Rsrv. Ins. Co., 683 F.2d 331, 333 (10th Cir. 1982)
(internal citation omitted). To satisfy the “heavy burden” on the party asserting fraudulent
joinder, Allstate must show under the “actual fraud” prong that Plaintiffs essentially “lied
in the pleadings.” Sanelli v. Farmers Ins. Co., No. CIV-23-263-SLP, 2023 WL 3775177,
at *2 (W.D. Okla. June 2, 2023) (quotation omitted). Under the “inability to establish a
cause of action” prong, Allstate must show that there is no possibility that Plaintiffs would
be able to establish a cause of action against the purportedly fraudulently joined parties in
state court. See Montano v. Allstate Indem., No. 99-2225, 2000 WL 525592, at *1 (10th
Cir. Apr. 14, 2000) (unpublished)1 (quotations and citation omitted); Brazell v. Waite, 525
F. App’x 878, 881 (10th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted) (“[T]he removing party must show
that the plaintiff has ‘no cause of action’ against the fraudulently joined defendant.”).
“[U]pon 	specific 	allegations 	of 	fraudulent 	joinder 	the 	court 	may 	pierce 	the
pleadings, . . . consider the entire record, and determine the basis of joinder by any means
available.” Dodd v. Fawcett Publ’ns, Inc., 329 F.2d 82, 85 (10th Cir. 1964) (citations
omitted); see also Smoot v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. R.R. Co., 378 F.2d 879, 881-82
(10th Cir. 1967). The nonliability of a defendant alleged to have been fraudulently joined
must be “established with complete certainty.” Smoot, 378 F.2d at 882; Dodd, 329 F.2d at
85. “This standard is more exacting than that for dismissing a claim under F ED . R. CIV . P.
1 Unpublished opinions are cited pursuant to F ED . R. A PP . P. 32.1(a) and 10th Cir. R.
32.1(A).
Case 5:25-cv-00849-D Document 20 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 10

4
12(b)(6).” Montano, 2000 WL 525592, at *2. “[A]ll factual and legal issues must be
resolved in favor of the plaintiff.” Dutcher, 733 F.3d at 988.
PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS
On July 9, 2023, Plaintiffs’ property was damaged in a storm [Doc. No. 1-1, Pet.,
¶ 52]. Plaintiffs timely filed an insurance claim for the damage. Id. ¶ 54. At all relevant
times, Plaintiffs’ property was covered by a policy with Allstate. Id. ¶¶ 16-20. James
Shortridge facilitated the renewal of the Allstate policy for Plaintiffs. Id. ¶ 45.
In 2022, JSA became Plaintiffs’ Allstate agent. Id. ¶ 20. Plaintiffs requested from
JSA, through James Shortridge, insurance “coverage for their [h]ome that would fully
replace their home in the event of a loss, including losses sustained from wind and hail.”
Id. ¶ 23. Specifically, Plaintiffs “requested 100% replacement cost coverage.” Id. JSA,
through James Shortridge, “specifically represented to the Plaintiffs that he would procure
coverage that would fully replace the roof in the event of damage caused by a storm, minus
the deductible, and that the Plaintiffs would have nothing to worry about.” Id. ¶ 24. In
procuring the policy, JSA “calculated the replacement costs of the Plaintiffs’ [h]ome,
taking into consideration the [h]ome’s characteristics and any pre-existing damage to the
[h]ome, including the roof.” Id. ¶ 40. JSA renewed the home insurance policy “[w]ithout
doing any real inspection of the nature or condition of the [h]ome.” Id. ¶ 45.
Following Plaintiffs’ submission of the insurance claim, Allstate had its National
Catastrophe Team inspect Plaintiffs’ roof and detached structures. Id. ¶ 58. Allstate
prepared an estimate for the cost to repair the damage to Plaintiffs’ property. Id. ¶ 60.
Allstate estimated the replacement cost value to be $558.99 which did not meet the
Case 5:25-cv-00849-D Document 20 Filed 01/26/26 Page 4 of 10

5
deductible. Id. Plaintiffs then hired a third-party roofing company to conduct another
inspection of their home. Id. ¶ 63. In conducting its inspection, the roofing company
provided the Plaintiffs an estimate of $65,291.37 to repair their home. Id. ¶ 66. Plaintiffs
provided this second estimate to Allstate who then sent another roof inspector to conduct
yet another inspection. Id. ¶¶ 66-67. Although this inspector stated to Plaintiffs that there
was damage to Plaintiffs’ roof, an Allstate adjuster called Plaintiffs and told them that there
was “additional damage but all the damage observed to the roof was wear and tear.” Id.
¶ 72.
For Plaintiffs’ negligent procurement claim against JSA, Plaintiffs allege that JSA
“was fully aware of Defendant Allstate’s use of the wear-and-tear exclusion to deny
damage properly covered under the policy’s wind and hail damage” and failed to disclose
this to Plaintiffs. Id. ¶¶ 98-99. Further, Plaintiffs allege that JSA failed to tell Plaintiffs that
“their [h]ome suffered from wear and tear, and instead of reducing, denying, or cancelling
coverage, [JSA] kept renewing the Plaintiffs’ policy, raising the value of the [h]ome,
resulting in increased premiums and profits to [JSA].” Id. ¶ 102.
DISCUSSION
I. 	Inability to State Cause of Action—Negligent Procurement
Under Oklahoma law, “[a]n agent has the duty to act in good faith and use
reasonable care, skill[,] and diligence in the procurement of insurance and an agent is liable
to the insured if, by the agent’s fault, insurance is not procured as promised and the insured
suffers a loss.” Kutz v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2008 OK CIV APP 60, ¶ 16, 189 P.3d
740, 744-45 (citation omitted). To that end, agents must “offer coverage mandated by law
Case 5:25-cv-00849-D Document 20 Filed 01/26/26 Page 5 of 10

6
and coverage for needs that are disclosed by the insureds.” Rotan v. Farmers Ins. Grp. of
Cos., Inc., 2004 OK CIV APP 11, ¶ 3, 83 P.3d 894, 895.
Upon careful consideration of the record, the Court finds that Allstate has not met
its heavy burden to show—with complete certainty—that Plaintiffs cannot state a negligent
procurement claim against JSA in state court.2 See Oliver v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,
765 F.Supp.3d 1244, 1250-51 (W.D. Okla. 2025) (remanding case involving negligent
procurement claim where the plaintiff alleged in part that “State Farm’s denial was contrary
to the [agents’] representations that all underwriting requirements had been met and that
there were no preexisting issues with the roof that would limit or restrict coverage”); see
also Ross v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-23-189-JD, 2024 WL 1092540, at *2-3
(W.D. Okla. Mar. 13, 2024) (remanding case involving negligent procurement claim where
the insurance agent allegedly told the insured that their home was in good condition,
without preexisting issues, despite State Farm later denying the insured’s claim on that
basis); see also Kyger v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 649 F.Supp.3d 1200, 1206 (W.D.
Okla. 2022) (remanding negligent procurement claim where the plaintiff alleged that “she
requested from [her agent] ‘full replacement cost coverage for her roof’ which was not
procured as promised, . . . that [the agent] represented that ‘there was nothing about the
condition of the roof that would preclude full replacement,’” and that the agent’s
2 Given this determination, the Court need not address Plaintiffs’ breach of contract, and
constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims against James Shortridge and
JSA. See Nerad v. AstraZeneca Pharms., Inc., 203 F. App’x 911, 913 (10th Cir. 2006)
(unpublished) (citation omitted) (explaining that a fraudulent joinder analysis turns on
“whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the plaintiff might succeed in at least one
claim against the non-diverse defendant”).
Case 5:25-cv-00849-D Document 20 Filed 01/26/26 Page 6 of 10

7
representation was “inconsistent with State Farm’s denial of her claim because the hail
damage ‘[did] not penetrate the shingle mat’”).
Allstate cites to this Court’s decision, Rain Drop Found., Inc. v. State Farm Fire &
Casualty Co., No. CIV-24-1101-D, 2025 WL 582562 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 21, 2025). In Rain
Drop, the Court in part based its denial of remand on actual fraud in the plaintiff’s
allegations. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that its agent represented that damaged
shingles would be replaced in conformance with the manufacturing specifications and
“further 	explained 	this 	was 	true 	because 	the 	[p]olicy 	term, 	‘similar 	construction’
guaranteed replacement with identical or near identical equivalents of quality.” Id. at *1.
However, the term “similar construction” did not appear in the plaintiff’s policy, “lending
credence to the possibility that there [was] no good faith basis by which to allege” that the
agent had represented or explained “similar construction.” Id. at 3. In further finding that
the 	agent 	could 	not 	be 	liable 	for 	negligent 	procurement 	of 	insurance, 	the 	Court
distinguished Rain Drop from other cases in which it was alleged that 1) the insurer denied
the claim in part due to pre-existing damage; and 2) the “insurance agent had allegedly
underwritten the . . . polic[y] and may have, through negligence or constructive fraud,
failed to communicate the consequences of the preexisting damage.” Id. at *4.3
3 This case is also distinguishable from the Court’s recent order in Stone v. State Farm Fire
& Casualty Co., No. CIV-25-7-D, 2025 WL 3090772 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 20, 2025), as the
Court based its denial of remand, in part, on the plaintiff’s misrepresentation that State
Farm failed to inspect the property in the underwriting process, when it did inspect the
property. Id. at 6-7. Additionally, the Court based its denial of remand, in part, on the
plaintiff’s misrepresentation that the defendants made fraudulent representations when the
policy was renewed, even though the policy was automatically renewed, and one of the
Case 5:25-cv-00849-D Document 20 Filed 01/26/26 Page 7 of 10

8
Rather, this case is more like the Court’s decision in Pruitt v. State Farm Fire &
Casualty Co., No. CIV-25-43-D, 2025 WL 1030353 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 7, 2025). In Pruitt,
the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand and based its determination largely on
the plaintiff’s assertion that State Farm’s denial was in reliance on pre-existing damage and
the defendant’s negligent performance of his procurement duties. Id. at *4.
Plaintiffs contend that pre-existing damage was the basis for Allstate’s policy denial
and, further, that JSA was negligent in performing its procurement duties. Thus, the Court
finds that this case is less analogous to Rain Drop, and more analogous to Pruitt, Kyger,
and 	Oliver, cited 	above. Upon 	careful 	consideration 	of Plaintiffs’ allegations, and
construing fact issues in favor of Plaintiffs, the Court finds Allstate has failed to show with
complete certainty that Plaintiffs cannot establish a negligent procurement claim against
JSA in state court. Accordingly, Allstate has not met its “heavy burden” to establish
fraudulent joinder.
II. 	Actual Fraud in the Pleading of Jurisdictional Facts
As stated above, to show actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts
“basically requires a showing that plaintiff lied in the pleadings.” Sanelli, 2023 WL
3775177, at *2 (quotation omitted). In its notice of removal, Allstate contends that
Plaintiffs have engaged in fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts. In support, Allstate
primarily argues that Plaintiffs’ counsel have brought an increasing number of cases against
defendants was not involved in any of the relevant renewals. Id. at 9. Such is not the case
here.
Case 5:25-cv-00849-D Document 20 Filed 01/26/26 Page 8 of 10

9
Allstate and other insurers based on identical underwriting failures, and that this is
indicative of fraud.
As Allstate is likely aware, several judges in this district have found that allegations
of cookie-cutter complaints are, alone, insufficient to establish fraudulent joinder. See
Norman v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV-24-1132-R, 2025 WL 342871, at *4 (W.D.
Okla. Jan. 30, 2025) (“[T]he Court is not persuaded that the similarity in the allegations or
the number of cases filed by [p]laintiffs’ counsel is necessarily suggestive of fraud in this
action. Moreover, as [p]laintiffs note, the [p]etition alleges that the agents are an essential
component of State Farm’s scheme to wrongfully deny claims, and some similarity in
statements or conduct is therefore conceivable.”); Stacy v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., et
al., No. CIV-22-883-PRW, 2023 WL 11915451, at * 2 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 29, 2023) (granting
remand in the face of an “apparent pattern of ‘cookie-cutter’ petitions”); Rain Drop Found.,
Inc., 2025 WL 582562, at *5 (“The Court is not persuaded that the sheer quantity of similar
claims alleged against insurance agents is enough to satisfy the high burden necessary to
prove fraudulent joinder.”); Martin v. Allstate Vehicle and Prop., Ins. Co., No. CIV-23-739-
SLP, 2024 WL 3510301, at *2 (W.D. Okla. July 23, 2024) (“[T]his Court, and multiple
other federal district courts within the state of Oklahoma have rejected claims of fraudulent
joinder on substantially similar allegations made in support of virtually identical claims for
relief.”).
Upon consideration, the Court finds that Allstate has not met its high burden to show
actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts based on the growing number of similar
allegations against Allstate and other insurers. Accordingly, the Court finds that Allstate
Case 5:25-cv-00849-D Document 20 Filed 01/26/26 Page 9 of 10

10
has insufficiently demonstrated actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts for
purposes of fraudulent joinder.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that Defendant Allstate Vehicle and
Property Insurance Company has not established fraudulent joinder, and this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand to State
Court [Doc. No. 16] is GRANTED, and the case is REMANDED to the District Court of
Cleveland County, Oklahoma. The Clerk of Court shall mail a certified copy of this Order
to the clerk of the District Court of Cleveland County. Each side shall bear their own
attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses incurred as a result of the removal and remand. Based
on the remand, the Court does not decide Defendants El Elyon, Inc.’s and James
Shortridge, Jr.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Brief in Support [Doc. No.
15] and leaves that motion for the state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of January, 2026.
TIMOTHY 	. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00849-D Document 20 Filed 01/26/26 Page 10 of 10