Frozen Pipes Not Covered if Thermostat not Set Over 50 Degrees
Post number 5351
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-facts-disputed-summary-judgment-fails-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-vffse and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Proof without Contradiction Needed for Summary Judgment
In Kenneth Taylor v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., Civil Action No. 24-0882, United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division (May 7, 2026) the District Court issued a Memorandum Ruling denying State Farm’s motion for summary judgment (May 7, 2026).
FACTS
State Farm issued a homeowner’s policy to Kenneth Taylor covering a multi-story townhouse in Shreveport, Louisiana. Taylor lived in California during renovations and relied on local contacts to check the property; the parties dispute who had access and how often the home was inspected.
Taylor testified he set the thermostat to roughly 60–65°F before leaving the townhouse about two months before the freeze. Taylor’s handyman, Raymond George, testified he visited “once or twice a week,” ensured the heater worked, and set the thermostat around 60–70°F during winter visits.
After a January 2024 freeze, a pipe burst in the attic and water leaked throughout the townhouse; a neighbor reported water intrusion.
Taylor promptly filed a claim; State Farm inspected within days and denied coverage, asserting Taylor had the thermostat set to “zero” and/or “off,” and that inspection showed a 41°F reading with the system off.
LAW
Summary judgment (Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)):
Granted only if there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; the court views evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and does not weigh credibility at this stage.
Contract interpretation (Louisiana law):
Insurance policies are contracts construed under Louisiana Civil Code principles; clear and unambiguous terms are enforced as written.
Coverage condition for frozen pipes:
Policy excluded frozen-pipe losses unless the insured used “reasonable care to maintain heat” in the building at 55°F or higher.
Bad faith (La. R.S. § 22:1892):
Louisiana imposes a duty of good faith and fair dealing on insurers. La. Stat. Ann. § 22:1892 (“An Insurer.owes its insured a duty of good faith and fair dealing.”). To establish a bad faith claim, the insured “must show that (1) an insurer has received satisfactory proof of loss, (2) the insurer failed to tender payment within thirty days of receipt thereof, and (3) the insurer’s failure to pay is arbitrary, capricious or without probable cause.”
A genuine dispute over coverage generally defeats bad-faith penalties.
DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS
Breach of Contract (Coverage for Frozen Pipe)
The central coverage question was whether Taylor exercised “reasonable care” to keep the townhouse heated at or above 55°F. State Farm argued the condition failed because Taylor had not personally visited for two months, could not specify inspection frequency, and the post-loss condition suggested low temperature and an “off” thermostat.
A genuine dispute exists whether Taylor exercised reasonable care to maintain the townhouse’s heat above 55 degrees. First, Taylor testified that he set the thermostat to a temperature between 60 and 65 degrees before he left the townhouse two months earlier.
BAD FAITH (La. R.S. § 22:1892)
State Farm contended it had a reasonable basis for nonpayment because its investigation allegedly revealed conflicting accounts about property access and because it believed Taylor had the thermostat turned off or set to “zero” before the freeze.
The court found a triable issue on whether State Farm’s denial was supported by probable cause. Evidence, viewed favorably to Taylor, indicated State Farm’s initial denial may have stemmed from a miscommunication. Taylor attempted to correct the record early, provided utility bills showing pre-loss electricity usage, and George reported regular checks and thermostat settings above 55°F.
CONCLUSION
The court denied State Farm’s motion for summary judgment on both the breach-of-contract and bad-faith claims because the record contains genuine disputes of material fact about (1) whether Taylor used reasonable care to maintain heat at or above 55°F and (2) whether State Farm had probable cause for denying payment.
ZALMA OPINION
In my years as a practicing lawyer, before I retired, I filed and won many motions of summary judgment and lost a few. If the facts establish the defense or the allegations without evidentiary dispute the Motion for Summary Judgment would be granted. In this case the evidence showed an dispute that could only be resolved by a trier of fact hearing evidence at trial. State Farm didn’t have the evidence and its motion was properly denied.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
