Quantcast

Court determines insurance policy does not cover damage to church's pipe organ during repairs

ST. LOUIS RECORD

Thursday, November 21, 2024

Court determines insurance policy does not cover damage to church's pipe organ during repairs

Lawsuits
General court 08

shutterstock.com

ST. LOUIS – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri recently granted an insurance company's motion for summary judgment regarding an insurance claim filed by a St. Louis church after its pipe organ was damaged during maintenance work.

In the April 2 filing, U.S. District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig granted GuideOne Mutual Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment in the insurance coverage dispute with Cote Brilliante Presbyterian Church.

The St. Louis-based church carried a property and casualty insurance policy with GuideOne, court filings said. Sometime between 2012 and 2016 the church hired a pipe organ specialist to perform maintenance and during the work the organ was damaged. In February 2018, the church submitted a $700,000 claim for the damage. GuideOne determined the damage was caused during maintenance and denied coverage.

GuideOne then filed a motion seeking a declaration of no coverage, court filings said. 

GuideOne argued that according to policy language, damage sustained in the course of any repair or maintenance work was excluded, including "faulty, defective or inadequate work; design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, compaction or maintenance, both on and off premises," court filings said.

The church then filed a counterclaim contending that based on an exclusion provision within the policy, the claim should be honored. 

The church admitted there was defective work to the pipe organ but contended the policy is ambiguous and coverage should be included because the defective work "created safety hazards in violation of various mechanical and electrical codes and ordinances," court filings said.

In the ruling, Fleissig said, "GuideOne did not undertake to guarantee the work of third-party contractors. There is no ambiguity to be interpreted in the church’s favor in this regard and, therefore, no genuine issue of material fact in dispute. GuideOne is entitled to summary judgment."

More News