Branson Et Al V. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company

Case Background

Richard and Sameka Branson filed a breach of contract lawsuit against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company following a disagreement on the estimate to be paid under their homeowner’s insurance policy. The insurance lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Mississippi Southern (Northern Jackson). The case was assigned to District Judge Carlton W. Reeves and referred to Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris. [Case number: 3:23cv491]

Cause

Richard and Sameka Branson of Canton, Mississippi, had a homeowner’s insurance policy with State Farm during the relevant period. A storm on May 4, 2021, damaged their roof, and they reported the loss two days later.

State Farm sent an investigator who determined that the damage was minimal, affecting only one shingle and several ridge shingles. The company estimated the loss at $1,958 and issued a payment of $699 after deducting the policy’s deductible.

Dissatisfied, the Bransons obtained their own estimate, which valued the necessary roof replacement at $10,200. However, they did not immediately proceed with repairs. Later, they secured a new estimate of $23,192, which accounted for both the original damage and additional deterioration caused by the delay in repairs.

The Bransons and State Farm could not reach an agreement. As a result, they filed a lawsuit against State Farm in Madison Circuit Court. State Farm later moved the case to federal court.

Damages

Plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract, injuries, emotional distress, hedonic damages, all economical and non-economical damages.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Richard Branson | Sameka Branson
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): John W. Nisbett | Michael A. Heilman
  • Defendant(s): State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Michael F. Myers | Caleb D. Stephenson

Claims

The lawsuit initially claimed that State Farm violated the contract by refusing to cover the full cost of roof repairs. The Plaintiffs also accused State Farm of acting in bad faith and being negligent. They argued that State Farm’s actions justified punitive damages.

Defense

State Farm denied most of the plaintiffs’ claims. It admitted to issuing the policy and coordinating inspections but denied any extra liability. It argued that its actions followed the policy and that the plaintiffs failed to reduce their losses. Moreover, it claimed that awarding punitive damages would violate its constitutional rights. Additionally, it maintained that damage awards for mental distress lacked clear standards and fairness. In summary, State Farm asserted that it acted correctly under the policy and met its obligations. Finally, it reserved the right to add further defenses as the process developed.

Jury Verdict

On December 12, 2024, the jury found that Plaintiffs had successfully proven that there was additional damage to their roof during the policy period which was covered under the policy but not already included in State Farm’s estimate. The jury awarded the Plaintiffs $10,000.

Court Documents:

Documents are available for purchase upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com