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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
