The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon church, is seeking coverage from its insurers after it settled a lawsuit brought by multiple sexual abuse victims by one of its members.
The church argued its case in front of a three-judge panel in the 10th Circuit on Wednesday, accusing its insurers of picking and choosing when they must pay claims in a “heads-I-win-tails-you-lose” situation.
“This case is fundamentally about the interpretation of insurance policy language,” said Haley Krug, an attorney with Kirton McConkie representing the church.
The church says the insurance companies should consolidate the multiple sexual abuse incidents as a single occurrence, rather than separate incidents. It argues this is already part of the insurers’ policies.
And secondly, it’s incredibly revealing that the Church is so concerned about the level of sexual abuse cases, that they’ve taken out specific insurance.
The National Union Fire Insurance Company and ACE Property & Casualty Company denied coverage for the sex abuse settlement because, they argue, the abuse was not one single incident but a series of incidents with different times, places and victims. Further, they claim the church was aware of these incidents and chose not to act.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I've been working on several matters involving sexual abuse and insurance coverage. (None involving the church.) Here's the deal -- the same term of art (generally, "occurrence") is used to determine how many deductibles apply and how many policy limits are available. The church almost certainly has insurance that kicks in after it has paid a large self-insured retention. There will be more coverage available if there are more occurrences and so fewer self-insured retentions. If the church's insurance had only a small deductible, it would want there to be multiple occurrences to make multiple policy limits available. The decision for which side to take is purely mercenary -- the insurer takes whichever position will result in the smallest payout, and the insured takes the opposite position.
The case law is all over the map on this issue.
The policies at issue are not necessarily limited to sex abuse. While coverage for the abuser is generally excluded because sex abuse isn't accidental, a typical general liability policy will provide coverage for an employer or institution. It's typical for a large entity like the church to self-insure its first layer of exposure and then purchase excess or umbrella insurance to cover big-dollar exposure. I would not conclude from the information in the article that the church has a special concern about legal exposure for sex abuse cases.
ETA: in case anyone is interested, here is the brief filed by ACE. The ACE policy is an umbrella policy that sits over a retained limit and is not a specialized policy that covers only abuse. (See link in Tom's post below.)
he/him
“I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time so that my children can live in peace.” — Thomas Paine
There is a deep irony here. Smith organized his religious movement in part as a rejection of what he saw as the wealthy, status-driven, institutional religion of his day. Yet over time, the modern Church has evolved into the very type of religious institution he reacted against. It increasingly mirrors the imagery of the “great and spacious building” described in early Mormon thought with its symbols of wealth, prestige, hierarchy, and separation from ordinary people with leadership in their ivory towers hiding behind lawyers, bankers and anonymous spokespersons.
I've been working on several matters involving sexual abuse and insurance coverage. (None involving the church.) Here's the deal -- the same term of art (generally, "occurrence") is used to determine how many deductibles apply and how many policy limits are available. The church almost certainly has insurance that kicks in after it has paid a large self-insured retention. There will be more coverage available if there are more occurrences and so fewer self-insured retentions. If the church's insurance had only a small deductible, it would want there to be multiple occurrences to make multiple policy limits available. The decision for which side to take is purely mercenary -- the insurer takes whichever position will result in the smallest payout, and the insured takes the opposite position.
The case law is all over the map on this issue.
The policies at issue are not necessarily limited to sex abuse. While coverage for the abuser is generally excluded because sex abuse isn't accidental, a typical general liability policy will provide coverage for an employer or institution. It's typical for a large entity like the church to self-insure its first layer of exposure and then purchase excess or umbrella insurance to cover big-dollar exposure. I would not conclude from the information in the article that the church has a special concern about legal exposure for sex abuse cases.
ETA: in case anyone is interested, here is the brief filed by ACE. The ACE policy is an umbrella policy that sits over a retained limit and is not a specialized policy that covers only abuse.https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-conte ... -brief.pdf
I've been working on several matters involving sexual abuse and insurance coverage. (None involving the church.) Here's the deal -- the same term of art (generally, "occurrence") is used to determine how many deductibles apply and how many policy limits are available. The church almost certainly has insurance that kicks in after it has paid a large self-insured retention. There will be more coverage available if there are more occurrences and so fewer self-insured retentions. If the church's insurance had only a small deductible, it would want there to be multiple occurrences to make multiple policy limits available. The decision for which side to take is purely mercenary -- the insurer takes whichever position will result in the smallest payout, and the insured takes the opposite position.
The case law is all over the map on this issue.
The policies at issue are not necessarily limited to sex abuse. While coverage for the abuser is generally excluded because sex abuse isn't accidental, a typical general liability policy will provide coverage for an employer or institution. It's typical for a large entity like the church to self-insure its first layer of exposure and then purchase excess or umbrella insurance to cover big-dollar exposure. I would not conclude from the information in the article that the church has a special concern about legal exposure for sex abuse cases.
ETA: in case anyone is interested, here is the brief filed by ACE. The ACE policy is an umbrella policy that sits over a retained limit and is not a specialized policy that covers only abuse.https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-conte ... -brief.pdf
