LDS Church sues insurance providers

[JustAnAustralian]

Church is asking for a jury trial (docket item 10 on courtlistener_

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60625770/church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-the-v-national-union-fire/

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm happy to admit that I am out of my wheelhouse here, but the foregoing quotes seem to indicate that the insurance policies do cover settlements, including situations where "the Suit is groundless, false, or fraudulent."

What am I missing here?

It is possible that the issue is the part that you quoted here - (my emphasis added):

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

The National Union Policy provides that National Union has:  

the right and duty to defend any Suit against the Insured that seeks damages for Bodily Injury . . . covered by this policy, even if the Suit is groundless, false, or fraudulent...

I alluded to this principle in my example from my brother's experience. If I had to guess, this issue may be involved. The Church seems to be claiming that the insurance company refused to defend the Church in this case (which sought damages for bodily injury). And in doing so, they accepted the obligation to pay. I would guess that the insurance company has taken a different view of this issue.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

(I lean towards she knew

So sick if she did…(thinking out loud as no one can answer but her probably) did she convince herself that this last time would for sure be the last time each time she got a clue it was still happening or was she acting like her son’s procurer…because it is hard to see more or less knowingly giving kids into the custody of an abuser as anything but that.  I hope if she confessed or if there was enough evidence (even if not for legal purposes) she knew, that she got her membership pulled and had to go through counseling for abusers, etc and showed massive signs of sincere repentance before it was reinstated.

PS:  it occurs to me the above could be interpreted as she knew about accusations, but refused to believe them…my opinion of her behaviour might change to just stupid (it could ruin her son’s future if false accusations became well known as might happen with gossip if he continued to be around kids, even if he was innocent) or something less kind depending on how hard she had to work to remain oblivious to the actual abuse (so she could be confident to deny it was the truth).

Edited July 29, 2023 by Calm

[webbles]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

So sick if she did…(thinking out loud as no one can answer but her probably) did she convince herself that this last time would for sure be the last time each time she got a clue it was still happening or was she acting like her son’s procurer…because it is hard to see more or less knowingly giving kids into the custody of an abuser as anything but that.  I hope if she confessed or if there was enough evidence (even if not for legal purposes) she knew, that she got her membership pulled and had to go through counseling for abusers, etc and showed massive signs of sincere repentance before it was reinstated.

PS:  it occurs to me the above could be interpreted as she knew about accusations, but refused to believe them…my opinion of her behaviour might change to just stupid (it could ruin her son’s future if false accusations became well known as might happen with gossip if he continued to be around kids, even if he was innocent) or something less kind depending on how hard she had to work to remain oblivious to the actual abuse (so she could be confident to deny it was the truth).

He was convicted as a youth of some sort of sexual abuse against a female classmate (groping over the clothes without consent).  She probably knew of that.  That was in Utah and before they moved to West Virginia.  While in West Virginia, there was at least one incident where he did the same thing with a young woman at church and she (the mother) asked the girl if she was ok (indicating that she knew of the incident).  And then there was something where he was caught in bed with a sister.  He was 18 by then and around then, he was banned from home.  So quite a few situations where he acted very inappropriately with girls.  But they all were with girls closer to his age (12+) so I could see her thinking that he had a problem with girls but it wasn't child abuse, just "normal" teenage stuff.

In case you haven't read much on it, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/wv-supreme-court-of-appeals/1864900.html is an appeal during the civil case and it goes over a bunch of the allegations.  The lower court had ruled some summary judgments in the church's favor and the appeal court overturned it.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

He was convicted as a youth of some sort of sexual abuse against a female classmate (groping over the clothes without consent).  She probably knew of that.  That was in Utah and before they moved to West Virginia.  While in West Virginia, there was at least one incident where he did the same thing with a young woman at church and she (the mother) asked the girl if she was ok (indicating that she knew of the incident).  And then there was something where he was caught in bed with a sister.  He was 18 by then and around then, he was banned from home.  So quite a few situations where he acted very inappropriately with girls.  But they all were with girls closer to his age (12+) so I could see her thinking that he had a problem with girls but it wasn't child abuse, just "normal" teenage stuff.

In case you haven't read much on it, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/wv-supreme-court-of-appeals/1864900.html is an appeal during the civil case and it goes over a bunch of the allegations.  The lower court had ruled some summary judgments in the church's favor and the appeal court overturned it.

I have read the details in the past, but my memory is mush at times.  Thanks for the link.

[Dario_M]

7 hours ago, webbles said:

This case is an interesting one because it was a bishop's counselor that recommended the mother to go to the police and report the perpetrator.  But, there is also a possibility that another mother went to a different bishop and was told to that the bishop would take care of it (in the civil trial, there was testimony for and against this).  There was also the fact that the perpetrator's mother was the Relief Society president and volunteered him as a babysitter to young children.  She may or may not have known (I lean towards she knew).

He could have done something more then only recommended the mother to go to the police in my opinion. He could have reported this matter to the police himself. You just don't let this happen. You do something about it. And it doesn't really matter wich roll the perpetrator had within our church if i may be so free to say this. 

7 hours ago, webbles said:

I'm glad that the bishop's counselor did do the right thing. 

I'm actually not really agree with that. But that may be allready clear i'm sure you would understand. 

7 hours ago, webbles said:

It triggered the perpetrator to be brought home from his mission and for evidence to be found that convicted him to decades in jail. 

Good. 

7 hours ago, webbles said:

I'm saddened, though, that there was a chance that he could have been caught earlier and people either turned a blind eye to it or didn't believe it. 

And i think that's also a little part of the problem. If people (who knews this) would be faster with reacting properly on the situation and reporting it faster to the police the perpretrator would allready be in jail also faster. The longer people allow this to happen. The more dammage get done to an innocent child. 

7 hours ago, webbles said:

I hope we are getting to the point that if there is any inclination of child abuse, we go to the police first and let them investigate.  I'm ok with the clergy-penitent privilege, but anything outside of that should be reported.

I don't know what the clergy-penitent means. ? 

But anyway.. i find that a problem like this should be reported immediately. With hurry. Oh my... what kind of world are we living in. 

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, Analytics said:

I think you are exaggerating here. In the vast majority of cases, insurance companies make good-faith efforts to adjudicate fairly. But you might find poetic justice in the fact that reinsurance companies "refuse to pay out" extraordinarily frequently too. Those disputes are almost always handled behind closed doors in arbitration, and you might be surprised how big of an industry reinsurance arbitration actually is.

 

You've had much better luck with insurance claims than I have!

My latest experience was just a few weeks ago.  My son rolled his car on the interstate when he fell asleep and bounced off of the median.  The state sent the cost of the repair to his insurance and the insurance claim guy called me to tell me that they wouldn't pay it because we had cancelled the insurance one hour before the accident (which happened at 1:40 in the morning) occurred.  He didn't question how insurance would be cancelled at 12:40 a.m. or why someone would do that. He just argued that his hands were tied.

Thank goodness we dug up the email that had the date and time of cancellation on it (which was a day later, because the car had been totalled).  Too often insurance feels like a legal scam.

[smac97]

On 7/28/2023 at 4:17 PM, Analytics said:

Quote

And again, settlements pretty much always include "No Admission" provisions.

I know that. But it doesn't change the fact that the insurance policy only covers things for which the insured really is liable.

The policy appears to require the insurer to pay amounts owed by way of settlement.  

On 7/28/2023 at 4:17 PM, Analytics said:

Quote

Quote

I'd be interested in how the actual insurance policy defines the capitalized word "Occurrence." 

The Church is free to argue that there wasn't an Occurrence, or that there was no Bodily Injury,

My point is that the Church doesn't seem to need to "argue" these things, and that it has not done so.

My point is that it is implicitly doing so in the context of this litigation.

Nope.  That is not how settlement works.  If I agree to settle a legal dispute, and if that settlement includes a "No Admission of Liability" provision, then a bystander cannot come along and say that my payment of that settlement is an "implicit" admission of liability, or that the claim is legitimate.

The same reasoning applies to the policy itself, which is obligated to pay out regardless of the merits of the legal claim ("The National Union Policy provides that National Union has:  the right and duty to defend any Suit against the Insured that seeks damages for Bodily Injury . . . covered by this policy, even if the Suit is groundless, false, or fraudulent...").

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited August 1, 2023 by smac97

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The policy appears to require the insurer to pay amounts owed by way of settlement.  

There are limitations in the policy—the contract doesn’t merely say they are required to pay any and all settlements that the Church negotiates with or without the consent of the insurer. There is more to it than that.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  That is not how settlement work.  If I agree to settle a legal dispute, and if that settlement includes a "No Admission of Liability" provision, then a bystander cannot come along and say that my payment of that settlement is an "implicit" admission of liability, or that the claim is legitimate.

I’m not talking about how settlements work—I’m talking about how liability insurance works. If someone claims to be entitled to a liability insurance claim, that implicitly implies liability.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The same reasoning applies to the policy itself, which is obligated to pay out regardless of the merits of the legal claim ("The National Union Policy provides that National Union has:  the right and duty to defend any Suit against the Insured that seeks damages for Bodily Injury . . . covered by this policy, even if the Suit is groundless, false, or fraudulent...").

You are conflating two things. The obligation to provide a legal defense is different than the obligation to pay the settlement. I haven’t seen the insurers’ response to this, but I would guess they are going to dispute the church’s assertion that the Suit was for Bodily Injury. I suspect they are going to have some good reasons for their decision to deny this claim—after all, it is much cheaper to just pay the claim than to drag it out in a losing lawsuit. The church might ultimately prevail, but it won’t be a slam dunk.

I’m guessing that if the Suit wasn’t seeking damages for Bodily Injury, then the policies don’t have to provide a legal defense or pay the settlement. I’d have to read the actual insurance policy to form a real opinion on this.

[Thinking]

On 7/29/2023 at 10:43 AM, bluebell said:

You've had much better luck with insurance claims than I have!

My latest experience was just a few weeks ago.  My son rolled his car on the interstate when he fell asleep and bounced off of the median.  The state sent the cost of the repair to his insurance and the insurance claim guy called me to tell me that they wouldn't pay it because we had cancelled the insurance one hour before the accident (which happened at 1:40 in the morning) occurred.  He didn't question how insurance would be cancelled at 12:40 a.m. or why someone would do that. He just argued that his hands were tied.

Thank goodness we dug up the email that had the date and time of cancellation on it (which was a day later, because the car had been totalled).  Too often insurance feels like a legal scam.

I'm glad you saved the email.

[Analytics]

On 7/29/2023 at 11:43 AM, bluebell said:

You've had much better luck with insurance claims than I have!

My latest experience was just a few weeks ago.  My son rolled his car on the interstate when he fell asleep and bounced off of the median.  The state sent the cost of the repair to his insurance and the insurance claim guy called me to tell me that they wouldn't pay it because we had cancelled the insurance one hour before the accident (which happened at 1:40 in the morning) occurred.  He didn't question how insurance would be cancelled at 12:40 a.m. or why someone would do that. He just argued that his hands were tied.

Thank goodness we dug up the email that had the date and time of cancellation on it (which was a day later, because the car had been totalled).  Too often insurance feels like a legal scam.

I’m glad your son is safe (and that the cancelation date of his insurance wasn’t a day later!).

[LoudmouthMormon]

On 7/28/2023 at 4:32 PM, webbles said:

I hope we are getting to the point that if there is any inclination of child abuse, we go to the police first and let them investigate.  I'm ok with the clergy-penitent privilege, but anything outside of that should be reported.

This church has been at that point for a while.  For example, the leader training started in 2019 for all adults who interact with children as part of their calling: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-launches-protection-training-leaders-children-and-youth

Quote

When inappropriate behavior or abuse happens, you should act promptly to protect the child or youth.

U.S. and Canada

If you learn of abuse, you should immediately contact legal authorities. You should also counsel with your bishop or stake president, who will call the abuse help line for guidance in helping victims and meeting reporting requirements.

Priorities are pretty dang clear - cops first, no exceptions.  Bishop or SP come next.   Cops first.  Not bishop first.  The wording is quite intentional and clear.

[JAHS]

50 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

This church has been at that point for a while.  For example, the leader training started in 2019 for all adults who interact with children as part of their calling: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-launches-protection-training-leaders-children-and-youth

Priorities are pretty dang clear - cops first, no exceptions.  Bishop or SP come next.   Cops first.  Not bishop first.  The wording is quite intentional and clear.

The leaders might be trained but I don't think all parents will know this.  If it's a fellow church member that is accused, a parent's first action may be to report it to the Bishop.
 

[Amulek]

4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The leaders might be trained but I don't think all parents will know this.  If it's a fellow church member that is accused, a parent's first action may be to report it to the Bishop.

The youth protection training is required for everyone who works with youth in any capacity. Per the Church's website, this includes:

•     Stake and district presidencies, bishoprics, and branch presidencies.
•     High councilors.
•     Stake, district, ward, and branch Primary, Young Men, Young Women, Sunday School, and Relief Society presidencies; elders quorum presidencies.
•     Secretaries, teachers, advisers, camp leaders, activity day leaders, music leaders, pianists, and others serving in positions in the Primary, Young Women, and Young Men organizations.
•     Teachers of youth Sunday School and seminary classes.

Now, maybe when we lived in Utah there would have been some gaps (especially among some of the older members), but I can't think of any ward I've lived in out in the real world where that list wouldn't have encompassed nearly the entire active adult population.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Amulek said:

The youth protection training is required for everyone who works with youth in any capacity. Per the Church's website, this includes:

•     Stake and district presidencies, bishoprics, and branch presidencies.
•     High councilors.
•     Stake, district, ward, and branch Primary, Young Men, Young Women, Sunday School, and Relief Society presidencies; elders quorum presidencies.
•     Secretaries, teachers, advisers, camp leaders, activity day leaders, music leaders, pianists, and others serving in positions in the Primary, Young Women, and Young Men organizations.
•     Teachers of youth Sunday School and seminary classes.

Now, maybe when we lived in Utah there would have been some gaps (especially among some of the older members), but I can't think of any ward I've lived in out in the real world where that list wouldn't have encompassed nearly the entire active adult population.

The church needs to do better at making sure people take the training when called into those callings.  We still have members who haven't taken it after more than 6 months, but from what I can see we are trying to make sure it happens (some members just won't do it even after multiple requests).  I guess we'll see if those people are actually released.  So far they haven't been and their presidents just keep asking them to take the training. 

I've heard from one member in a different state though that they have primary teachers who haven't ever been asked to take it.

I don't think anyone is trying to be negligent or make it easy for kids to be hurt, and most member are pretty rule-abiding, so there has to be something else that is keeping this from being a priority for some.  I'm wondering if the lack of concern comes from members not really seeing the training as actually doing much besides providing liability.  Though it says it takes 30 minutes (if I'm remembering correctly), you can actually get it done in much less (like less than 10).  I've heard more than one member refer to it as pretty worthless.  

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

This church has been at that point for a while.  For example, the leader training started in 2019 for all adults who interact with children as part of their calling: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-launches-protection-training-leaders-children-and-youth

Priorities are pretty dang clear - cops first, no exceptions.  Bishop or SP come next.   Cops first.  Not bishop first.  The wording is quite intentional and clear.

This couldn't be any plainer, I hope it happens sooner than later. We need to not try and sympathize with the abuser any longer. Victim first, victim first!

[LoudmouthMormon]

30 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The leaders might be trained but I don't think all parents will know this.  If it's a fellow church member that is accused, a parent's first action may be to report it to the Bishop.
 

Groups of humans will always have a percentage that screws up, or misses, or poorly follows, or outright ignores, good ideas forever.  The trick is for folks in charge to have that percentage be as small as possible, always shrinking if possible.

I remember in college in the '90's, doing a report on spousal abuse.  The notion that a husband could rape a wife as hotly, HOTLY contested by most people I could find to talk to.  Including the church people.  Strong arguments against, was the norm.  Fast forward ~35 years, and you can still find people in 2023 America who don't believe the notion, but they're now a tiny minority, immediately shamed by their surrounding cultures, both secular and religious.

[LoudmouthMormon]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think anyone is trying to be negligent or make it easy for kids to be hurt, and most member are pretty rule-abiding, so there has to be something else that is keeping this from being a priority for some.  I'm wondering if the lack of concern comes from members not really seeing the training as actually doing much besides providing liability.  Though it says it takes 30 minutes (if I'm remembering correctly), you can actually get it done in much less (like less than 10).  I've heard more than one member refer to it as pretty worthless. 

Reasons ppl don't do training like this:
- They lose the email
- They're busy
- They are already good people who know all this, and don't need to be treated like they're bad people who need to be educated
- They don't wanna click some stupid link and read for 20 minutes
- They're overly politicized and think it's a plot
- They're old and don't do links or computers
- They have a genetic marker that puts them in physical pain when they waste time (I'm exaggerating, but if you listen to some of the whiners, they'll tell you otherwise.)

 I've been a clerk a long time, on my 4th bishop.  It can be like PULLING TEETH to get a bishopric to watch the stupid 30 minute finance training video.  

 

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Reasons ppl don't do training like this:
- They lose the email
- They're busy
- They are already good people who know all this, and don't need to be treated like they're bad people who need to be educated
- They don't wanna click some stupid link and read for 20 minutes
- They're overly politicized and think it's a plot
- They're old and don't do links or computers
- They have a genetic marker that puts them in physical pain when they waste time (I'm exaggerating, but if you listen to some of the whiners, they'll tell you otherwise.)

 I've been a clerk a long time, on my 4th bishop.  It can be like PULLING TEETH to get a bishopric to watch the stupid 30 minute finance training video.  

 

I believe it. A lot of members don’t take the training seriously. 

[Amulek]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church needs to do better at making sure people take the training when called into those callings.  We still have members who haven't taken it after more than 6 months, but from what I can see we are trying to make sure it happens (some members just won't do it even after multiple requests).  I guess we'll see if those people are actually released.  So far they haven't been and their presidents just keep asking them to take the training. 

I've heard from one member in a different state though that they have primary teachers who haven't ever been asked to take it.

I was serving in the bishopric when this policy came into effect and it was most definitely mandatory in our ward. We did have to send our Ward Clerk with laptop and hotspot in hand to one older couple's house due to them having issues with their lds.org account, but that was the only real problem we had. Well, that and (for a brief period of time) remembering to tell people it was required whenever we extended callings to new people serving in the relevant positions, but after one or two forgettings - and subsequent callbacks - we were able to adjust and remember just fine.

 

Quote

I don't think anyone is trying to be negligent or make it easy for kids to be hurt, and most member are pretty rule-abiding, so there has to be something else that is keeping this from being a priority for some. 

For most, I think it's just something new that they have never had to do before, so they don't pay much attention to it and tend to forget about it. And I personally think that's okay...to a point, but if someone has gone well over a month without taking the training then it's probably time for the Bishop to call them in and have a talk about it. And if they willfully refuse to take the training then you can use that opportunity to extend their release during the same visit.

 

Quote

I'm wondering if the lack of concern comes from members not really seeing the training as actually doing much besides providing liability. Though it says it takes 30 minutes (if I'm remembering correctly), you can actually get it done in much less (like less than 10).  I've heard more than one member refer to it as pretty worthless.  

Well, I kind of agree with them on that front. Personally, I think the training is pretty worthless - not to mention boring. I see it's value as being more of an attempt to get people (collectively) to keep something at the forefront of their minds. And I can accept that it may take a bit for that to sink in. Though, honestly, I think it's really more for the older generation who needs a perspective shift - the younger generation(s) seem to be more plugged in to that way of thinking by default.

 

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Well, I kind of agree with them on that front. Personally, I think the training is pretty worthless - not to mention boring. I see it's value as being more of an attempt to get people (collectively) to keep something at the forefront of their minds. And I can accept that it may take a bit for that to sink in. Though, honestly, I think it's really more for the older generation who needs a perspective shift - the younger generation(s) seem to be more plugged in to that way of thinking by default.

 

I agree as well.  It's a little bit of a joke.  And I think you only have to do it every three years so ten minutes thinking about something every three years probably isn't going to accomplish much.  But it's better than nothing.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Well, in my ward, I probably know two dozen people uncomfortable with calling the cops if something bad happens at church.  Priesthood authority is the ultimate authority, and all that.

[HappyJackWagon]

On 7/27/2023 at 7:48 PM, JAHS said:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has filed a lawsuit against its insurance providers, demanding they cover the costs of a child sexual abuse lawsuit settlement.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, seeks to compel National Union Insurance and ACE Property & Casualty Co. to cover the financial settlement terms of a 2013 child sexual abuse case in West Virginia. In that litigation, the Church was sued by unnamed plaintiffs over allegations that the faith "negligently caused their abuse and resulting physical and emotional harm by failing to report a reasonable suspicion of child sexual abuse as required by West Virginia law, failing to properly supervise and train clergy, allowing the minor plaintiffs to come into contact with their abuser, failing to warn the minor plaintiffs and their parents, and otherwise failing to protect the plaintiffs from foreseeable harm.
According to this new lawsuit, the Church alleges it went to its insurers to have the settlement costs covered under its umbrella liability policies. But the insurers have rebuffed it, basically arguing the Church has not met the threshold to qualify for coverage and should dip into its own pockets to cover the costs.

"The Church has not established exhaustion of the National Union Umbrella Policy’s Retained Limit, which is a condition precedent to coverage," attorneys for that company wrote in a motion for summary judgment. "In the alternative, National Union moves this Court to enter summary judgment in its favor on the grounds that the Church is estopped from seeking defense and indemnity for the lawsuit, and that its settlement of the lawsuit breached the National Union Umbrella Policy’s voluntary payments provision, which is an additional bar to indemnity."

LDS Church sues insurance providers over sex abuse settlement costs

I thought the Church was self-insured. 

The case originated in 2013. It settled in 2018. In 2023 the church is suing its insurance carrier to pay damages.

My questions is about payment of the settlement (and I apologize if this is a stupid question)-  Would the church have already paid the settlement to the claimants and are therefore looking to be reimbursed, OR or the sxual abuse victims still awaiting payment on their settlement?

[JAHS]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The case originated in 2013. It settled in 2018. In 2023 the church is suing its insurance carrier to pay damages.

My questions is about payment of the settlement (and I apologize if this is a stupid question)-  Would the church have already paid the settlement to the claimants and are therefore looking to be reimbursed, OR or the sxual abuse victims still awaiting payment on their settlement?

It appears that the Church is seeking for reimbursement for money already paid out.

[Duncan]

One thing about those training videos isn't, for me, so much the video but teachers get substitutes for primary and youth classes, who is to say these subs have had the training?