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.