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.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
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 ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
Habeas Corpus Petition Granted
Post 5483
Posted on September 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Over Staying Visa & Charge of Insurance Fraud Still Entitled to Habeas Relief and a Bond Hearing
In Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo v. Warden, Glades County Detention Center et al., No. 2:26-cv-02322-SPC-NPM, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (August 26, 2026) Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the government’s response and Palomino-Crespo’s reply.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Palomino-Crespo is a native and citizen of Colombia who lawfully entered the United States on a B-2 non-immigrant visa on February 24, 2017. He resides in Miami, Florida with his wife and two minor children, owns and operates a residential restoration and remodeling business, and files U.S. tax returns.
On June 4, 2026, the State of Florida charged Palomino-Crespo with insurance fraud.
Palomino-Crespo claimeds he did not meet the requirements for mandatory detention under § ...
