Insured Survives Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case

Tred R. Eyerly | Insurance Law Hawaii

   The insurer’s motion to exclude expert testimony and for summary judgment in a cases involving collapse was denied. Firehouse Church Ministries v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53959 (D. Miss. March 25, 2022).

    A roof truss, a framework supporting the roof, collapsed in the church. The cause was either deterioration over time or a nearby tornado. The Church claimed that before the tornado passed, the church was clean and in orderly condition. When inspected after the tornado, there was debris and wreckage, including tin, insulation dust, plaster, and ceiling tile, on the floor. 

    The Church had a contractor, Gregory Blanchard, inspect. He added posts to support the truss and made other repairs, but informed the Church that the damage was worse than expected and it could not be easily repaired. 

    The Church filed a claim with Church Mutual Insurance Company (CMIC). An inspector, Jason Grover, was hired by CMIC. He reported the wind during the tornado was not sufficient to cause the damage. Instead, the damage was caused by a progressive failure of the main center roof truss and the supporting wall. Based on Grover’s findings, CMIC denied the claim. The Church then hired another inspector, Nathan Carter, who issued an expert report. Carter determined that the tornado was the only logical cause of the damage. 

    The Church sued, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. CMIC moved to exclude Carter as an expert and for summary judgment. 

    CMIC argued that Carter’s opinions were unreliable. He testified that he had dealt with “quite a few” tornados during his engineering career. He relied on public data from NOAA and is experience and education to determine wind speed. The court found that CMIC’s objections went to the weight and credibility of Carter’s testimony rather than its admissibility. His opinions were based on data, education, experience, and personal observation of the property. Therefore, his testimony was reliable and CMIC’s motion to exclude was denied.

    The court also denied CMIC’s motion for summary judgment. Grover had concluded that the roof truss failed due to long-term deterioration. The Church, on the other hand, relied on Carters’ opinions and conclusions. The court found that genuine issue of material facts existed as to whether CMIC breached the policy. The expert reports supplied differing opinions about what caused the truss to collapse – a material fact needed to decide whether coverage was warranted. A reasonable jury could decide that the roof truss failed due to the tornado and find for the Church as the nonmoving party. 

    Finally, the court granted CMIC’s motion for partial summary judgment on the bad faith claim. The court determined that CMIC had an arguable basis to deny payment due to its engineer’s conclusion that long-term deterioration of the roof truss damaged the building. The record reflected that CMIC realistically evaluated the claim despite the Church’s argument to the contrary.  CMIC acted on a reasonable belief that there was no coverage because the tornado did not proximately damage the property. 

When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 888.684.8305, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: