‘Stricken to Be Reset’: The Hursh Hearing Is Off, Homeowners Agree to Hold Rulings to Dec. 3, and $27,250 in Proposed State Farm ‘Rewards’

Oklahoma County and Comanche County, Oklahoma — November 11, 2026 · The Hail Files, Part 19

It was the hearing that could have narrowed the case before a jury ever heard it. On November 13, Oklahoma County District Judge Amy Palumbo was set to hear State Farm’s request to throw out the Hursh homeowners’ bad-faith, punitive-damages and constructive-fraud claims before trial. Three days before, a single docket entry struck it: the hearing “IS STRICKEN TO BE RESET.” The entry gives no reason and no new date.

Four days before that entry, a footnote on the first page of a homeowners’ brief had disclosed something the docket does not mention: “Pursuant to the parties agreement of which this Court is aware, Plaintiffs agree to hold a ruling on this issue and all others until December 3, 2026.” December 3 is four days before the trial is set to begin. The footnote does not say what the agreement is, and the docket entry does not mention it.

Three days after the footnote, on November 9, the same homeowners filed a response, 71 pages with exhibits, part of it under seal and part of it blacked out, about money. They told the court that two State Farm employees proposed $27,250 in rewards in November 2021 for members of the committee behind the company’s Fire Model Enhancement, the wind and hail claims program at the center of the Oklahoma lawsuits, and they asked the judge to make State Farm put a witness under oath about those rewards before the November 19 pretrial conference. State Farm says it “does not compensate its employees based on claim outcomes or payments to insureds.”

The same day, in the companion case in Comanche County, State Farm asked Judge Grant Sheperd to keep cameras out of the West v. State Farm trial. Its reasons: “approximately 300” pending Oklahoma homeowners’ cases against it, a State Farm employee it says has already been targeted online, and homeowners’ lawyers it says “are actively litigating the disputed evidence in the press.”

Here is what the five new filings and the docket say, what they don’t say, and what happens next. All five are in The Hail Files archive, complete and as filed (links below).

What happened to the November 13 hearing?

The court struck it. A docket entry dated November 10, 2026 reads, in full:

“HEARING ON DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S PARTIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT / WELTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT / DEFENDANT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL AND CORRECTED NOTICES OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY ON STATE FARM’S EXECUTIVES KNOWLEDGE OF BAD FAITH TATICS AND OUTCOME BASED CLAIMS HANDLING SET 11/13/2026 IS STRICKEN TO BE RESET. HEARING ON DEFENDANT STATE FARM AND CASUALTYCOMPANY’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING SET 11/13/2026 IS STRICKEN, MOTION WITHDRAWN”

Three motions lost their hearing date:

• State Farm’s motion for partial summary judgment, amended October 19, which asks the court to rule before trial for State Farm on the homeowners’ claims for bad faith, punitive damages and constructive fraud or negligent misrepresentation, leaving their breach-of-contract claim. State Farm argues that discovery shows the case “reduces to a weak breach of contract claim about the extent of hail damage” (Part 13).
• The agent defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed October 15 by the State Farm agent and his agency, who are also sued.
• State Farm’s motion to strike the homeowners’ notices of supplemental authority, filed October 19, which asks for at least its attorneys’ fees as a sanction (more on it below).

A fourth motion that State Farm’s October 22 notice of hearing had set for the same morning, State Farm’s motion for a protective order to block the “rewards” deposition, is not named in the entry, and the docket’s list of scheduled events, as saved November 11, shows no hearing for it on any date. State Farm’s motion to disqualify Judge Palumbo, also noticed for that morning, was withdrawn November 3 (Part 18).

The homeowners’ responses to the two summary-judgment motions were due November 2; an October 30 order allowed them 35 pages each. As of the November 11 docket read, neither response appears in the docket text.

As of that read, no docket entry changes the pretrial conference, set for November 19 at 1:30 p.m., or the seven-day jury trial, set to begin December 7 at 9 a.m. The docket’s list of events still shows both. It also still showed the three struck motions for November 13, so that list is not always current.

What is the December 3 agreement?

The public filings do not say. The only mention in the public filings and the docket text is footnote 1 of the homeowners’ November 6 response to State Farm’s motion to strike their notices, filed at 3:54 p.m.:

“Pursuant to the parties agreement of which this Court is aware, Plaintiffs agree to hold a ruling on this issue and all others until December 3, 2026.”

That is all it says. It does not name the parties to the agreement, describe its terms or say why December 3 was chosen. The footnote is attached to the sentence asking the court to deny State Farm’s motion to strike, so “this issue” appears to be that motion; “and all others” is not defined. The rest of the ten-page response does not return to it. The November 10 docket entry striking the hearing does not mention it either, and the homeowners’ November 9 brief, filed three days after the footnote, argues that “trial is approaching quickly” and asks for the “rewards” deposition before the pretrial conference.

December 3 is a Thursday, four days before the trial date. Whether the agreement explains the struck hearing, and what it means for the trial, the filings do not say, and this report does not guess.

What are State Farm’s FME “rewards”?

They are rewards that, according to the homeowners, two State Farm employees recommended for the people who designed and ran its Fire Model Enhancement, a wind and hail claims initiative that State Farm calls a “quality initiative.” State Farm’s motion calls them “purported employee bonuses and rewards.” The homeowners allege it was a scheme to reduce what State Farm paid on roof claims, and State Farm denies that.

The fight began with a deposition notice. On October 12 the homeowners noticed a new deposition of a State Farm corporate representative on 13 topics about rewards connected to the FME, citing November 24, 2021 State Farm communications titled “FME – Wind/Hail and Water – Our Reward Recommendations” and a line from them: “we looked to align higher rewards in that space” (Part 14). State Farm moved on October 20 to quash the notice and for a protective order.

The homeowners’ November 9 response puts a dollar figure on it. It says:

• The subject: the 13 topics concern “the rewards State Farm paid to the people who built and ran the Fire Model Enhancement (‘FME’) Scheme, and the metrics those rewards tracked.” “Paid” and “Scheme” are the homeowners’ words.
• The amount: “In November 2021,” two State Farm employees “proposed $27,250 in rewards to FME committee members.” The brief quotes their explanation and an executive’s reply, but those quotations are blacked out in the public copy.
• The reach: “The reward table lists more than thirty recipients across the wind/hail and water projects,” the brief says, and it argues the table shows “FME rewards reaching field management.”
• The Hursh claim: one recipient, a “Project Committee Member” on the FME water project, previously served as section manager to the team manager over the Hurshes’ 2023 claim, according to the brief, which cites that team manager’s deposition. It says the team manager “receives an annual bonus of up to 16 percent of his salary and does not know the criteria on which it is based.”

The homeowners set those documents against the sworn testimony of State Farm’s corporate designee, Wayne Stewart. According to the brief, he was asked at his September 29, 2026 deposition whether “rewarding adjusters based on payouts or quotas would be inappropriate,” and answered: “That would be inappropriate, and that is not a practice that we have.” In the public copy that answer is blacked out on the brief’s first page and printed on its fourth page and in Exhibit 2, the deposition excerpt. The homeowners say the deposition they want “tests that sworn corporate position against the documents.”

The brief also quotes State Farm documents that the court made public on September 28, among them:

• a June 2021 Fire Claim Quality plan that reports “Measurement and monitoring is in place at the team and individual level” and, the brief says, counts a drop in the “Total Roof to Partial Roof Replacement” ratio from 4.1 to 2.3 as a “quality indicator[] trending positively”;
• 2023 monthly goals, as the brief describes them, to reduce the “Percentage Roof Replacement Overturn” from a 4.41% baseline to 3.75%;
• a January 12, 2022 email in which, the brief says, one State Farm employee asked “can we change ‘Reduce’ to ‘Target'” because “the lawyers would caution us on how others might use the terms out of context.”

The homeowners argue that rewards keyed to the program’s “lift,” and whether the people and the unit that decided their claim were measured the same way, bear on their bad-faith claim and on punitive damages, which Oklahoma juries weigh in part by “the number and level of employees involved.”

What does State Farm say about the rewards?

That the deposition is improper and the premise is wrong. State Farm’s October 20 motion, filed the day the deposition was noticed to begin, says (Part 14 covered it in detail):

• No such pay: “State Farm does not compensate its employees based on claim outcomes or payments to insureds.”
• Not this claim: “none of the individuals who handled Plaintiffs’ claim were involved with the FME or received any FME-related rewards.”
• Not this program: it calls the FME a “quality initiative that Plaintiffs pejoratively characterize as a corporate plan to pre-deny wind/hail claims.”
• No permission: Oklahoma law requires leave of court, absent the parties’ written stipulation, to depose someone who “already has been deposed in the case,” and two State Farm corporate representatives have already testified for eleven hours on thirty topics, State Farm says.
• Harassment: it calls the notice the homeowners’ “latest attempt to harass, intimidate, and needlessly burden” State Farm, and asks for a stay until it “has exhausted its appellate remedies.”

As of the November 11 docket read, no State Farm reply to the homeowners’ November 9 response appears in the docket text.

How do the homeowners answer State Farm?

Point by point. These are the homeowners’ arguments:

• No evidence: “State Farm offers no affidavit, no declaration, and no evidence of burden.” Quoting the Oklahoma Supreme Court, they say “unsworn statements of counsel in a motion do not constitute evidence,” and they note that six days before filing its motion, State Farm supported a different request “with an eight-page sworn declaration.”
• The court already ordered more corporate testimony: on October 1 the court ordered that State Farm’s other corporate representative “must testify as a corporate representative in a non-evasive manner.” She was the designee on an earlier compensation topic, and she “gave no testimony on compensation, bonuses, or rewards,” the brief says. To the extent leave is needed, they ask for it now, because a separate motion “would only delay the case further.”
• Another court allowed similar discovery: they cite a May 12, 2026 federal ruling in Barlow v. State Farm (W.D. Okla.), which found that “information showing that State Farm tracked the implementation and effectiveness of the alleged scheme is within the scope of discovery.”
• A changed quotation: State Farm quoted a federal decision from California, United States v. HVI Cat Canyon, as saying “Because § 3230(C)(5) places substantial responsibilities and burdens on the responding corporate party . . . .” “The opinion says ‘Rule 30(b)(6),’ not ‘§ 3230(C)(5),'” the homeowners write; § 3230(C)(5) is Oklahoma’s version of that federal rule. “State Farm altered the quotation without brackets.”
• The records: Topic 13 asks where the reward records are kept and whether they were preserved; the brief cites the October 1 minute, in which the court wrote that it “has been presented with evidence of white box redactions, no meta data, no privilege log, and others.”
• No stay: “Trial is quickly approaching. A stay of that scope would deny the discovery entirely.”

They ask the court to deny State Farm’s motion, grant leave if leave is required under 12 O.S. § 3230(A)(2), order State Farm to produce prepared witnesses on all 13 topics and the requested documents, deny the stay, and award the homeowners their expenses.

What is sealed, and what is public?

The full response is sealed; a redacted copy is public. On November 9 Judge Palumbo signed an order granting the homeowners’ “Unopposed Application for Leave to File Under Seal,” finding it “necessary in the interests of justice to permit the filing of the requested materials under seal,” and adding: “A redacted version of the same filing may be filed publicly in this matter.” The redacted version is the 71-page copy in the archive. Four of its 13 exhibits are filed under seal, among them the reward emails.

The homeowners’ application says the response relies on documents and deposition testimony State Farm has designated confidential, and that in filing under seal they “do not concede and/or admit” that the material is confidential. They reserve the right to challenge every designation.

Why does State Farm oppose cameras at the West trial?

Because of the other cases, it says. The Lawton Constitution asked Judge Sheperd on October 13 for permission to photograph, record and broadcast the public parts of the West v. State Farm jury trial, now set for February 1, 2027, with no coverage of jurors or jury selection. In a response filed November 9 at 10:41 a.m., 46 pages with exhibits, State Farm asks the court to deny the application and keep Local Rule 25’s prohibition on cameras, recording devices and broadcasting equipment in the courtroom “through the resolution of this case.” These are State Farm’s arguments:

• Future juries: West is “one of approximately 300 pending Oklahoma homeowners’ cases against State Farm,” and “More than 30 of the over 300 pending Oklahoma homeowners’ cases against State Farm are set for trial in the next six to eight months.” Broadcasting one trial, it says, would expose prospective jurors in the others to the same witnesses and disputed documents. It quotes Judge Palumbo calling Hursh “the actual tip of the spear.”
• Witnesses: publicity “has already led to personal attacks on a State Farm employee who is expected to testify at trial,” a claims manager it says was the subject of an August 2026 post on X. “While no physical threats have occurred,” it says, broadcasting her testimony would add to the exposure.
• The press: it says the homeowners’ lawyers “are actively litigating the disputed evidence in the press,” citing reports by NBC News, KFOR and The Oklahoman, and that the 2021 “Senior Executive Offsite” memo known as Exhibit 133 “was disseminated to at least one reporter before it appeared on the court docket.” It names no reporter or outlet for that.
• Objections: “Should the Court grant the Application in any part, State Farm will object and expects many other witnesses will object too,” and a broadcast “that shows only Plaintiffs’ witnesses and lawyer arguments would distort, not inform, the public’s understanding of these proceedings.”

State Farm says the press and public would remain free to attend and report. As of the November 11 docket read, no response from the homeowners or the newspaper appears in the West docket. The application is set for hearing November 19, according to an earlier State Farm motion that gives no time. The newspaper’s application is in the archive.

What did the homeowners say about State Farm’s motion to strike their notices?

That it is “the wrong vehicle.” State Farm’s October 19 motion targets the homeowners’ September 28 and 30 notices on “State Farm’s executives’ knowledge of bad faith tactics and outcome-based claim handling,” which attach two State Farm documents the court de-designated September 28 (Part 9). It says calling them notices of supplemental authority “is itself a materially false statement to the Court,” and asks for at least its attorneys’ fees.

The homeowners’ November 6 response asks the court to deny the motion in full, for three reasons, all theirs:

• Oklahoma’s pleading code lets a court strike only “from any pleading any insufficient defense,” and a notice is not a pleading; State Farm, they say, relied instead on federal local rules and a federal agency regulation “that do not apply in this Court.”
• The court’s September 28 minute, which made the two documents public, is the supplemental authority. One of them, they say, pairs “outcome-based claim handling” with “Expense / Efficiency Aspirations” of “$218M – $300M.”
• State Farm’s complaint about the public refiling of once-sealed material “is a collateral attack on the Court’s order.”

They also argue State Farm has repeatedly told the court its executives lack knowledge of the practices at issue, quoting its earlier argument that “Ms. Ress has no unique knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ insurance claims,” and that one of the public documents names executive Kathy Ress among the “Exec leads” on work with Accenture. The response is the one that carries the December 3 footnote.

What happens next?

• Not yet scheduled: a new date for the struck summary-judgment hearing; a ruling on the “rewards” deposition; rulings on State Farm’s motions to strike in Hursh and West; action by the Oklahoma Supreme Court on the writ application State Farm says it filed October 27.
• November 19: in West, the camera application, which a State Farm motion says is set for hearing that day (no time given); other West motions are docketed for 10 a.m.
• November 19, 1:30 p.m.: the Hursh pretrial conference.
• December 3: the date in the homeowners’ footnote.
• December 7, 9 a.m.: the Hursh jury trial is set to begin; in Norman, the hearing on State Farm’s motion to disqualify Whitten Burrage, the firm representing the State in the attorney general’s case and the Hurshes in theirs.
• December 10, 10 a.m.: the West homeowners’ motion to enforce the order for State Farm’s CEO’s deposition.
• February 1, 2027: the West trial.

Trial Watch tracks every date across the three cases, and Trial Watch Live will carry each hearing and trial day.

What is the timeline?

• September 28 and 30, 2026: The homeowners file their notices with two newly public State Farm documents.
• September 29, 2026: State Farm’s corporate designee testifies about rewarding adjusters.
• October 12, 2026: The homeowners notice the “rewards” deposition on 13 topics.
• October 13, 2026: The Lawton Constitution asks to cover the West trial with cameras.
• October 19, 2026: State Farm moves to strike the notices and asks for fees.
• October 20, 2026: State Farm moves to block the “rewards” deposition.
• October 22, 2026: State Farm’s notice sets four motions for November 13.
• November 3, 2026: State Farm withdraws its motion to disqualify Judge Palumbo.
• November 6, 2026: The homeowners answer the motion to strike; footnote 1 sets out the December 3 hold.
• November 9, 2026: The homeowners’ “rewards” response, sealed and redacted; the sealing order; State Farm’s opposition to cameras in West.
• November 10, 2026: The November 13 hearing is struck, to be reset.

What does this mean for Oklahoma homeowners and contractors?

The calendar to December 7 now has gaps where hearings used to be. The summary-judgment hearing, which could have narrowed the claims a jury will hear, has no date, and the homeowners’ agreement to hold rulings until December 3, under an agreement of the parties whose terms are not public, appears in the public filings only in a footnote. As of the November 11 docket read, no filing or docket entry changes the December 7 trial date.

The “rewards” fight goes to whether and how State Farm measured and rewarded the people behind its wind and hail claims program, a question that, if a court allows the deposition, would be answered under oath by State Farm itself. For homeowners with a denied or reduced roof claim, the filings are worth reading in full, along with State Farm’s side. Every document named here is linked below.

Read the documents

The homeowners’ November 9 response on the “rewards” deposition (public redacted copy, 71 pages) · The homeowners’ November 6 response, with the December 3 footnote (10 pages) · State Farm’s November 9 response opposing cameras in West (46 pages) · The November 9 order granting leave to file under seal · The homeowners’ application to file under seal · State Farm’s October 20 motion to block the deposition · State Farm’s October 19 motion to strike the notices · The homeowners’ September 28 notice · State Farm’s October 22 notice of hearing · The Lawton Constitution‘s application · Search the full archive · Get an email when new documents are filed

More from The Hail Files: Part 18: ‘A Façade’ · Part 17: ‘Tip of the Spear’ · Part 14: ‘Higher Rewards’ · Part 13: summary judgment · Part 9: the documents made public · The trial guide

Frequently asked questions