Insurer Questions Coverage for Jilted Football Player’s Engagement Ring

By | July 11, 2011

A jilted professional football player has filed a lawsuit to compel the safe return of the $76,000 engagement ring he offered in a marriage proposal-by-mail.

An insurance company investigation determined the bauble was in the possession of the wide receiver’s would-be father-in-law.

Dallas Cowboy Roy Williams Jr. proposed marriage to former beauty queen Brooke Daniels, in a mailed package shipped to her just before St. Valentine’s Day of 2011.

In an affidavit, Williams said he mailed the engagement ring, a taped message asking for her hand, $5,000 for expenses, and some family gifts.

But the 2009 Miss Texas allegedly spurned the mail offer, and kept the ring and cash, court papers indicate.

With Williams said he made persistent requests to Daniels to return the ring. After about six weeks, Daniels reportedly said she had lost the ring.

Williams subsequently reported the loss to his property insurer, State Farm County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas, which investigated the loss claim.

In a letter dated May 18, a State Farm County Mutual claims representative wrote that the “alleged mysterious disappearance of the engagement ring did not occur.”

The perfunctory company letter disclosed that the ring “is currently” held by Michael Daniels, his ex-girlfriend’s father, amid uncertainty whether the ring was a gift or whether it was a conditional upon acceptance of marriage.

“This is a matter not defined as a covered loss under your Personal Articles Policy,” Claim Representative Joe Lewis’s noted closed.

Williams filed a civil action June 30 against Daniels and her father, in the 70th District Court in Odessa.

He is asking the court to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent the defendants from selling, destroying, removing or harming the ring or reducing its value.

A hearing on the request for a restraining order is set for July 15 at 1:30 p.m., before Judge Denn Whalen, presiding judge for the city’s municipal court.

Topics Carriers

Was this article valuable?

Here are more articles you may enjoy.

Latest Comments

  • August 4, 2011 at 2:11 pm
    Ralph Kramden says:
    she's a user AND a taker.
  • July 15, 2011 at 1:16 pm
    Richard Hancock says:
    If the facts are as the article states it is clearly a case for the courts to decide and a case of bad judgement on the part of Mr. Williams. You are not starting off a marria... read more
  • July 13, 2011 at 5:32 pm
    Larry Weymouth says:
    As a jewelry replacement vendor for over 25 yrs, I have never had an insurance co. pay a claim for an engagement ring that was not returned when the engagement was called off.... read more

Add a CommentSee All Comments (18)Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features