A federal district court in Oklahoma rejected a property owner's suit against an insurer for damage to its property because the owner was no longer a named insured at the time of its loss. Audacity Church v. Church Mutual Ins. Co., No. 21-cv-215-CVE-SH, 2022 WL 196282 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 21, 2022).
An insurer issued a policy to a church board, which originally identified "Audacity Church" as a covered property under the policy. The board later removed Audacity Church as a covered property, and the insurer returned the premium related to Audacity Church's coverage. Months later, however, the board sought to reinstate Audacity Church as a covered property under the policy, and the board paid the requisite premium. Then, at the board's request, Audacity Church was again removed from the policy and the insurer again returned the relevant premium. When Audacity Church later submitted a property damage claim, the insurer denied coverage, and Audacity Church sued for breach of contract and bad faith.
The district court emphasized that at all relevant times, the named insured remained the board, noting too that all communications with Audacity Church identified the board as the named insured. Audacity Church, however, argued for coverage based on its supposed reliance on the insurer's misrepresentations. Despite producing evidence suggesting confusion between the board and Audacity Church as to coverage, the district court nonetheless determined there was no genuine dispute that Audacity Church's property was not covered under the board's policy at the time of the loss. Rather, the court found that the evidence clearly demonstrated that the board, rather than Audacity Church, was empowered to determine whether Audacity Church was a covered property, and that Audacity Church was not a named insured at the time of its loss.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
