First United Pentecostal Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Co

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana
DecidedSeptember 8, 2023
Docket2:21-cv-04014
StatusUnknown

This text of First United Pentecostal Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Co (First United Pentecostal Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Co) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
First United Pentecostal Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Co, (W.D. La. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

FIRST UNITED PENTECOSTAL CASE NO. 2:21-CV-04014 CHURCH

VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE CO MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY

TRIAL OPINION

The trial of this matter commenced on August 16, 2023, and ended August 18, 2023. Post-trial briefs were ordered and have now been submitted. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, First United Pentecostal Church (hereinafter referred to as “First United” or the “Church”) owns property in DeQuincy, Louisiana. On or about August 27, 2020, Hurricane Laura made landfall and on October 9, 2020, Hurricane Delta made landfall near Lake Charles, Louisiana causing damage to the Church’s property. The property consisted of: (1) the main sanctuary or New Church;1 (2) the Old Church;2 (3) the T.D. Cardwell Family Life Center (Family Life Center);3 and (4) the bus barn. Defendant Church Mutual Insurance Company (“Church Mutual”) insured the properties during the relevant time period. The Policy included policy limits as follows: (1) main sanctuary or New Church for $2,750,000.00, (2) Old Church for $1,360,000.00,

1 The New Church is sometimes referred to as Building #1 or the Sanctuary. 2 The Old Church consisted of Building #2 (East Wing Sunday School), Building #3 (Old Sanctuary), and Building #4 (West Wing Sunday School). 3 The Family Life Center is sometimes referred to as Building #5. (3) the Family Life Center for $720,000.00, and (4) the bus barn for $60,000.00.4 The Policy contains a 2% deductible as to each building.

THE DISPUTE First United contends that Church Mutual owes it additional funds for covered losses under the Policy that were unpaid. First United is seeking statutory penalties, attorney fees, and costs pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statutes 22:1892 and 22:1973 for Church Mutual’s bad faith handling of its claim and failure to make timely payments for covered losses.

TRIAL TESTIMONY Lynn Renlund Ms. Renlund is the designated corporate representative for Church Mutual. She testified about the claims file and Church Mutual policy. She became involved in the case about one month prior to her deposition on July 25, 2023. Ms. Renlund is a licensed

Louisiana adjuster and is familiar with policy and claims handling procedure. Ms. Renlund testified that Church Mutual has an affirmative duty to adjust claims fairly and promptly and make a reasonable effort to settle the claim as well as provide coverage. Additionally, she testified that the insurance company should interpret its policy to provide coverage rather than deny coverage. She testified that satisfactory proof

of loss triggers the time period in which the Insurer is to make payment. Ms. Renlund explained that satisfactory proof of loss is flexible and can be many things – an adjuster’s inspection, and/or receipt of an adjuster’s report or estimate, invoices, or photographs.

4 At the trial, Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew any claims it may have had for the bus barn. Ms. Renlund agreed that the Insurer must pay the undisputed amount of loss within 30 days and failure to do so is arbitrary and capricious conduct. She testified that

the Church Mutual desk adjusters were Nikki Gerdes and Christopher Vander Pluym, and Tony Bunn was the Church Mutual field adjuster who inspected the Church’s properties on October 12, 2020.5 Ms. Renlund indicated that it appeared that the desk adjuster erred in scheduling an inspection, thus, Church Mutual failed to inspect the property prior to Hurricane Delta making landfall. The Court notes that Church Mutual did not call these three adjusters as witnesses at the trial.

Through Ms. Renlund’s testimony and documents admitted at trial, the Court learned that Mr. Bunn recommended an undisputed payment of $169,592.87 on November 20, 2020. Ms. Renlund testified that as of the date of trial, Church Mutual had made only 2 payments, the first on January 14, 2021, for $166,090.81 and the second payment on March 4, 2021, for $25,741.47. The Claim notes reflect that on October 15,

2020, a recommendation of $25,000 advance payment for tarping and other expense, however Church Mutual did not pay the advance payment despite the recommendation.6 First United provided Church Mutual its expert reports authored by Kermith Sonnier and Robert Wright on May 29, 2023. Ms. Renlund testified that Church Mutual retained Lori Cox, to inspect and assess

the Church’s damages. In her report, Ms. Cox reported that Mr. Bunn missed items in his adjustment and additional money was owed; Ms. Renlund acknowledged that Church

5 Plaintiff’s exhibit 1, 566-567. 6 Plaintiff’s exhibit 2, p. 11. Mutual owed additional funds, but that additional amounts were never paid. She explained that Church Mutual failed to pay the additional amount because it felt that it

was necessary to inspect the roof to determine if the interior damage was caused by wind damage to the roof. Church Mutual waited almost 3 years after Hurricane Laura to make that roof inspection, despite the fact that the Claim Notes reflect that First United made the claim on September 7, 2020. The Claim Notes indicate that Church Mutual would not pay for the roof damage because it was only cosmetic and not functional damage, despite the fact that Church

Mutual had not yet inspected the roof and the first report did not indicate that the roof damage was cosmetic. In an email from Gerdes to Susan Wood of Sedgwick, Gerdes mentions the many coverage details and roof exclusion and advises that she wants an adjuster to review the claim very “cautiously.” At this point in time, Gerdes had not seen an inspection report.

The Claims Note reflect a conversation between Gerdes and Pastor Jackson. The Notes indicate that Pastor Jackson was frustrated with Church Mutual’s handling of the 2017 tornado claim and again Gerdes mentions the exclusion for cosmetic damage regarding the Hurricane damage. The Claim Notes do not document any assurance of providing coverage.

The September 8, 2020 Claim Notes suggest that Rimkus Engineering would need to get involved to determine functional damage and distinguish prior tornado damage versus hurricane damage. On September 9, 2020, the Church secretary started sending Church Mutual photographs of the damage with descriptions of the documented damage.7 A Letter dated September 13, 2020, authored by Gerdes,8 to First United indicates

that the claim is being investigated, and that a delay in reporting could potentially affect coverage. The letter also advised First United that it had a duty to mitigate the Church’s damage and failure to do so could affect coverage. Ms. Renlund agreed with counsel for Plaintiff that the very first payment was late and in violation of Louisiana law.

On October 13, 2020, Mr. Bunn sent Church Mutual a status report, which indicated that the Old Church9 had significant damage to all slopes of the roof requiring roof replacement. There was also evidence of wind damage and water damage throughout the building due to roof damage, which included interior damage to the walls, ceilings, drywall and ceiling tiles throughout the building as a result of the rood damage.

Mr. Bunn reported damage to the Family life Center such as bowed exterior metal walls. He also noted damage to the new main sanctuary evidenced by the separation of roofing panels, displacement of insulation, interior water intrusion, damage to the steeple and steeple windows. Ms. Renlund testified that she just learned from an engineer and two experts who

inspected the building in 2023, that there was no tarping on the new sanctuary roof where panels were lifted. She also admitted that payment to First United for tarping was late.

7 Plaintiff’s exhibit 1. 8 Plaintiff’s exhibit 1, p. 21.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

French v. Allstate Indemnity Co.
637 F.3d 571 (Fifth Circuit, 2011)
Grilletta v. Lexington Insurance
558 F.3d 359 (Fifth Circuit, 2009)
Sher v. Lafayette Ins. Co.
973 So. 2d 39 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
First United Pentecostal Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Co, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-united-pentecostal-church-v-church-mutual-insurance-co-lawd-2023.