Insurers often believe that once they determine damages fall below the deductible, the claim is effectively over. Policyholders hear the phrase “below the deductible” and feel defeated. But a recent federal court ruling out of Oklahoma is a reminder that this phrase is not a magic wand that makes disputes disappear.

In Vermillion v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 1 the insurer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the policyholders’ breach of contract claim failed as a matter of law. The defense leaned heavily on a familiar strategy. The insureds did not designate an expert, could not prove hail damage to the shingles, and therefore could not establish a covered loss during the policy period.

That argument did not carry the day. What is striking about the court’s ruling is not that the policyholders won on a full roof replacement theory. They did not. In fact, the judge expressly rejected the policyholders’ attempt to rely on their public adjuster’s testimony as a substitute for properly disclosed expert opinions. The court agreed with the insurer on that point and made clear that expert disclosure rules still matter when public adjusters provide opinion testimony.

State Farm lost its motion for summary judgment because the court focused on something insurers too often gloss over. Once an insurer admits covered damage, it must fully and properly pay for that damage. The court accepted State Farm’s own position that certain roof components, such as valley metal and pipe jacks, were damaged by a covered storm. The insurer’s estimate placed those repairs below the deductible. But the policyholders introduced contractor testimony showing that you cannot replace those components without removing and replacing the surrounding shingles and underlayment. Those additional, necessary repairs were not included in State Farm’s estimate. That distinction mattered.

The court held that a reasonable jury could conclude that State Farm failed to pay what it owed even under its own coverage determination. In other words, the dispute was not about whether hail damaged the shingles. It was about whether the insurer’s estimate fully accounted for what it takes to complete the covered repairs it already acknowledged.

This is an important lesson. A below-deductible estimate only works if the estimate is complete. If required work is omitted, the deductible defense collapses.

Equally important is how the court handled testimony. The judge allowed the roofing contractor’s testimony about repair methodology as lay opinion because it was based on personal inspection and trade experience. The contractor was not testifying about meteorology or causation. He was explaining how roofs are repaired in the real world. That was enough to create a genuine issue of material fact.

At the same time, the court drew a firm line with the public adjuster’s testimony. Opinions based on industry experience, photographs, and inferences about hail damage crossed into expert territory. Those opinions were excluded because the rules were not followed. The policyholders survived summary judgment despite that failure, not because it did not matter.

Insurers cannot defeat breach of contract claims merely by saying “below the deductible” if their own estimates leave out work that must be performed to repair admitted damage. Policyholders, public adjusters, and contractors should pay close attention to scope, sequencing, and construction realities. Coverage disputes are often won or lost on estimating details, not abstract policy language.

The policyholders survived here, but did so narrowly. The court expressly invited them to seek leave to designate experts. Without doing so, their case remains vulnerable. Rules of procedure are not technicalities; they shape outcomes.

I have long said that insurance claims are won by understanding both the policy and the practical realities of repair. This ruling reinforces that principle. Estimating is not clerical. It is a coverage decision. And when insurers get it wrong, juries are entitled to hear why.

Thought For The Day:

“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”
— Oscar Wilde

1 Vermillion v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No CIV-24-1066-D (W.D. Okla. Jan. 29, 2026).