1

IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO

CIVIL DIVISION

CHARLES A. WALDREN *

848 Riverview Terrace #308 Case No.____________________

Dayton, OH 45402 *

Plaintiff, *

–vs– *

COMPLAINT – BREACH OF

ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND * CONTRACT, BAD FAITH,

PROPERTY INSURANCE UNJUST ENRICHMENT,

COMPANY * PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE 

75 Executive Parkway AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY 

Hudson, OH 44237 * DUTY, AND DECLARATORY

JUDGMENT; WITH JURY 

and * DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON

EVRON COLHOUN *

7200 North Main Street

Dayton, OH 45415 *

Defendants. *

_______________________________________________________

NOW COMES Plaintiff Charles A. Waldren, by and through counsel, and hereby 

states the following for his Complaint against Defendants:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff Charles A. Waldren currently resides at 848 Riverview Terrace #308, 

Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio.

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:30:15 PM

CASE NUMBER: 2017 CV 04415 Docket ID: 31363379

GREGORY A BRUSH

CLERK OF COURTS MONTGOMERY COUNTY OHIO

Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 1 of 54 PAGEID #: 220
2

2. Defendant Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company (hereinafter 

referred to as “Allstate”) is a part of a multi-billion dollar corporation, with offices 

throughout Ohio including 75 Executive Parkway, Hudson, Ohio 44237 and is 

authorized to sell insurance products and conduct business in Montgomery

County, Ohio.

3. Defendant Evron Colhoun (hereinafter referred to as “Colhoun”) is a captive 

Allstate insurance agent with a principal place of business located at 7200 North 

Main Street, Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio. 

4. On October 15, 2016 a fire occurred in a dwelling located at 135 Stainton Avenue, 

Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio, 45403.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS

5. At the time of the fire and at all times relevant to this litigation, the 135 Stainton 

Avenue property was owned by Plaintiff Charles A. Waldren. Plaintiff originally 

purchased the property on July 5, 2016. The purchase of the property included a 

residential mortgage through Fifth Third Bancorp. 

6. At the time of the fire and at all times relevant to this litigation, the 135 Stainton 

Avenue property was a covered property through an Allstate House and Home

Policy of insurance issued by Allstate and procured by Colhoun. Plaintiff was a

named insured on the aforesaid policy of insurance.

7. Plaintiff obtained the insurance policy referenced above through Allstate agent 

Colhoun. Plaintiff had utilized Colhoun for his insurance needs and Colhoun was 

made aware of Plaintiff’s intentions with respect to purchasing and residing at 

the 135 Stainton Avenue property around the time he purchased it.

8. A copy of the Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company policy (Policy 

#992575586) is attached hereto as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.

9. As originally issued, Policy #992575586 had higher limits of liability than those 

set forth in Exhibit 1. The higher limits of liability were in place with respect to 

the policy on the date of the subject fire. 

10. The Allstate policy is described as a House and Home policy and includes up to 

$139,265 in “Dwelling Protection.” The policy contains $13,927 limits for “Other 

Structures Protection” as well as $104,449 limits for “Personal Property

Protection” as well as $13,927 in additional living expense coverage. The policy 

has a $1,000 deductible applicable to all perils.

11. Plaintiff paid $607.82 in premiums to Allstate and Colhoun for the coverage 

provided by the policy to be operative from October 14, 2016 to October 14, 2017. 

Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 2 of 54 PAGEID #: 221
3

12. The fire, which occurred on October 15, 2016, resulted in damage to the dwelling 

and its contents. The fire caused damage totaling in excess of $25,000.00. The 

fire also made 135 Stainton Avenue uninhabitable and required Plaintiff to find 

another place to live.

13. Plaintiff submitted a valid claim for the damage caused by the fire at his property 

to Allstate.

14. Allstate denied Plaintiff’s claim “for all purposes”. The denial letter for the claim 

is attached as Exhibit 2 and is dated April 19, 2017. It claims that:

Based on the investigation we conclude that you had the means, 

motive, and opportunity to be involved in the intentional setting of 

the subject fire. Further, we conclude that you concealed material 

information and made material misrepresentations during the 

claim investigation. These actions are in violation of the terms and 

conditions of your insurance policy. As such, Allstate is denying 

coverage for all purposes under the “intentional acts” and 

“misrepresentations, concealment, or fraud” provisions of your 

policy.

15. Plaintiff did not set the subject fire.

16. Plaintiff was not involved in intentionally setting the subject fire.

17. The Dayton Fire Department, which investigated the subject loss, determined 

that the fire occurred as a result of an unattended lit candle, which

unintentionally and accidentally resulted in the fire.

18. Plaintiff did not misrepresent, conceal, or commit fraud with respect to the 

information provided to Allstate in its investigation of this fire and in fact, the 

information Plaintiff provided has been corroborated by the investigation of the 

Dayton Fire Department. A copy of the Dayton Fire Department’s Incident

Report is attached as Exhibit 3.

19. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff’s claim in this matter has been denied due 

to discrepancies with respect to binding the policy, such discrepancies are the 

result of improper conduct on the part of Mr. Colhoun.

20.Contrary to the provisions of its policy as applied to the facts of this case, Allstate 

has refused to pay for any of the damage caused in the subject fire. Allstate has 

further failed to provide copies of recorded statements taken from the insured in 

its investigation of the subject fire and has also refused to provide the 

investigative report of fire cause and origin investigator Brent Schockman upon 

which it claims to rely to assert a denial in this case.

Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 3 of 54 PAGEID #: 222
4

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract)

21. Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein each and every preceding paragraph as 

if fully rewritten.

22.At all times pertinent hereto, Allstate provided coverage for the fire loss, which

occurred on October 15, 2016 at 135 Stainton Avenue, Dayton, Montgomery

County, Ohio. 

23.Allstate has denied coverage for and refuses to satisfy its contractual obligations 

with respect to paying for the loss in this case.

24.Allstate’s decision to refuse to fulfill its contractual obligations constitutes a 

breach of the insurance contract between it and it’s insured, Charles A. Waldren.

25.Consistent with the terms of the Allstate policy, Plaintiff provided Allstate with 

timely notice of the loss and otherwise complied with all relevant and applicable 

terms and conditions of the policy including fully cooperating with Allstate’s 

investigation of the loss.

26.Allstate may have breached other policy provisions. 

27. Allstate’s breach of contract directly and proximately caused damages to Plaintiff

in an amount in excess of $25,000.00.

 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendant Allstate in 

the amount in excess of $25,000, including compensatory damages, prejudgment 

interest and costs.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Bad Faith)

28.Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein each and every preceding paragraph as 

if fully rewritten.

29.The relationship between Allstate and its insured, Charles A. Waldren, mandates 

that Allstate act in good faith with respect to its handling, investigation and 

payment of claims submitted by Plaintiff.

30.Allstate has refused to provide coverage and/or refuses to pay monies pursuant to 

its contractual obligations with respect to the fire loss, which occurred on October 

15, 2016 at 135 Stainton Avenue, Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio.

31. Allstate acted in bad faith in that it failed to provide payment for reasonable and 

appropriate alternative living accommodations for Plaintiff after the claim was 

submitted, failed to conduct a thorough and appropriate cause and origin 

Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 4 of 54 PAGEID #: 223
5

investigation for the subject fire, ignored the determinations of the impartial 

Dayton Fire Department investigation of the subject fire, refused to provide its 

insured with transcripts of recorded statements which the insured provided as 

part of his cooperation with the investigation, constructively refused to provide 

its insured with the fire cause and origin report which Mr. Schockman generated 

and upon which it relied upon in order to deny the claim, and wrongfully 

cancelled Plaintiff’s insurance policy. 

32.Allstate may have committed bad faith with respect to its handling, investigation, 

or payment of this claim in other ways.

33.Allstate had no lawful basis to fail to provide coverage and/or refuse to pay the 

amounts of property damage, contents damage, alternative living expense 

coverage and potentially other coverages caused by the covered fire. 

34.Allstate had no reasonable justification for its refusal to pay and had no 

reasonable justification for its failure to determine that its refusal to pay had no 

lawful basis.

35.Allstate’s bad faith with respect to the handling of payment of the claim 

submitted by the Plaintiff directly and proximately caused damages to him in an 

amount in excess of $25,000.00. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendant Allstate in 

the amount in excess of $25,000, including compensatory and punitive damages, 

prejudgment interest, attorney’s fees and costs.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unjust Enrichment)

36.Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein each and every preceding paragraph as 

if fully rewritten.

37. Plaintiff conferred a benefit upon Allstate by paying his policy premiums for the 

stated coverage provided for 135 Stainton Avenue as provided in the Allstate

policy.

38.Allstate has retained the benefit which the Plaintiff conferred upon it by virtue of 

refusing to pay for the fire loss which occurred on October 15, 2016 and which 

was covered by the Allstate policy.

39.Allstate has further unjustifiably and without reasonable basis canceled Plaintiff’s 

policy on the subject property and has not refunded the premium Plaintiff paid 

for that coverage.

40.Allstate’s unjustified cancellation of the policy has the potential to jeopardize the 

terms of the mortgage obtained by Plaintiff on the property.

Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 5 of 54 PAGEID #: 224
6

41. Under the circumstances, it would be unjust and inequitable for Allstate to retain 

any value from such benefit without paying for it.

42.As a result Allstate owes Plaintiff an amount in excess of $25,000.00.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendant Allstate in an 

amount in excess of $25,000, including compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, 

and costs.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Professional Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty)

43.Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein each and every preceding paragraph as 

if fully rewritten.

44.Based upon the insurance agent/customer relationship between Plaintiff and 

Evron Colhoun, Mr. Colhoun assumed a fiduciary obligation to Plaintiff with 

respect to managing risk, providing an appropriate insurance policy with 

appropriate policy limits and correctly completing the application and 

supplemental materials with respect to the insurance obtained for 135 Stainton 

Avenue. Allstate characterized Colhoun to Plaintiff as someone who could “assist 

customers with their insurance decision making process by providing customers 

with information and high quality service.”

45.In regard to the 135 Stainton Avenue property, Colhoun was aware of the factual 

circumstances of Plaintiff at the time of his purchase of the property and efforts 

to obtain insurance consistent with that purchase. To the extent that any of 

Plaintiff’s conduct in procuring the insurance is alleged by Allstate to be a 

misrepresentation of information associated with the application or procurement 

of the insurance that results in a denial of coverage by Allstate or reduction in the 

amount of insurance coverage available for coverage, Colhoun’s conduct was 

negligent, intentional and/or otherwise wrongful.

46.Colhoun’s conduct breached his duty to and fiduciary obligation towards the 

Plaintiff and failed to satisfy his professional standard of care as prescribed by 

Ohio Statutory and Common Law. 

47. Colhoun’s conduct directly and proximately caused damages to the Plaintiff in an 

amount in excess of $25,000.00.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendant Colhoun in 

an amount in excess of $25,000, including compensatory damages, prejudgment 

interest, and costs.

Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 6 of 54 PAGEID #: 225
7

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Declaratory Judgment)

48.Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein each and every preceding paragraph as 

if fully rewritten.

49.Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code §2721.01 et seq. Plaintiff requests a Declaratory 

Judgment from this Court with regard to the rights and obligations as between 

Allstate and Plaintiff with respect to Allstate policy #992575586 as it pertains to 

the dwelling coverage, contents coverage, and alternative living expense coverage 

provided for the fire loss which occurred on October 15, 2016. 

50.In particular, Plaintiff requests this Court declare that the Allstate policy provides 

coverage under all of the aforementioned coverages to Plaintiff with respect to the

October 15, 2016 fire loss at 135 Stainton Avenue, Dayton, Montgomery County, 

Ohio and that the coverage limits available are $139,265 in “Dwelling Protection”,

$13,927 in “Other Structures Protection”, $104,449 in “Personal Property 

Protection”, as well as $13,927 in additional living expense coverage. .

51. Plaintiff reserves the right to request additional declarations of Allstate’s rights 

and obligations as appropriate. 

52.Further, Plaintiff requests that this Court declare that Allstate is obligated to pay 

the Plaintiff pursuant to the dwelling coverage, contents coverage and ALE an 

amount in excess of $25,000.00 and costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands judgment against Defendant Allstate in 

the amount in excess of $25,000, including compensatory damages, prejudgment 

interest, and costs.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ P. Christian Nordstrom 

P. Christian Nordstrom (#0065439)

Pyper & Nordstrom, LLC

7601 Paragon Road, Suite 301

Dayton, OH 45459

(Tel.) 937-610-1990

(Fax) 937-610-1991

Email: pcnordstrom@panlawyers.com

Attorney for Plaintiff Charles A. Waldren

Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 7 of 54 PAGEID #: 226
8

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury for each and every issue raised herein and 

throughout the course of this litigation.

/s/ P. Christian Nordstrom 

P. Christian Nordstrom (0065439)

Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 8 of 54 PAGEID #: 227
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 9 of 54 PAGEID #: 228
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 10 of 54 PAGEID #: 229
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 11 of 54 PAGEID #: 230
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 12 of 54 PAGEID #: 231
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 13 of 54 PAGEID #: 232
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 14 of 54 PAGEID #: 233
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 15 of 54 PAGEID #: 234
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 16 of 54 PAGEID #: 235
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 17 of 54 PAGEID #: 236
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 18 of 54 PAGEID #: 237
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 19 of 54 PAGEID #: 238
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 20 of 54 PAGEID #: 239
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 21 of 54 PAGEID #: 240
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 22 of 54 PAGEID #: 241
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 23 of 54 PAGEID #: 242
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 24 of 54 PAGEID #: 243
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 25 of 54 PAGEID #: 244
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 26 of 54 PAGEID #: 245
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 27 of 54 PAGEID #: 246
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 28 of 54 PAGEID #: 247
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 29 of 54 PAGEID #: 248
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 30 of 54 PAGEID #: 249
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 31 of 54 PAGEID #: 250
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 32 of 54 PAGEID #: 251
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 33 of 54 PAGEID #: 252
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 34 of 54 PAGEID #: 253
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 35 of 54 PAGEID #: 254
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 36 of 54 PAGEID #: 255
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 37 of 54 PAGEID #: 256
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 38 of 54 PAGEID #: 257
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 39 of 54 PAGEID #: 258
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 40 of 54 PAGEID #: 259
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 41 of 54 PAGEID #: 260
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 42 of 54 PAGEID #: 261
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 43 of 54 PAGEID #: 262
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 44 of 54 PAGEID #: 263
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 45 of 54 PAGEID #: 264
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 46 of 54 PAGEID #: 265
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 47 of 54 PAGEID #: 266
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 48 of 54 PAGEID #: 267
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 49 of 54 PAGEID #: 268
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 50 of 54 PAGEID #: 269
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 51 of 54 PAGEID #: 270
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 52 of 54 PAGEID #: 271
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 53 of 54 PAGEID #: 272
Case: 3:18-cv-00290-WHR Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/24/18 Page: 54 of 54 PAGEID #: 273