Frontline Fellowship Inc. v. Bhd. Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | CIV-21-357-PRW |
| Parties | FRONTLINE FELLOWSHIP, INC. D/B/A FRONTLINE CHURCH, Plaintiff, v. BROTHERHOOD MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
FRONTLINE FELLOWSHIP, INC. D/B/A FRONTLINE CHURCH, Plaintiff,
v.
BROTHERHOOD MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
No. CIV-21-357-PRW
United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
November 10, 2022
ORDER
PATRICK R. WYRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendant Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 44). For the reasons that follow, the Motion (Dkt. 44) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED.
Background
This case concerns the denial of coverage under a commercial property insurance policy issued by Defendant Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company to Plaintiff Frontline Fellowship, Inc.[1]Following a hailstorm on March 23, 2019, Frontline filed a claim for coverage under its policy with Brotherhood, alleging physical damage sustained by its property in Edmond, Oklahoma.[2] After an initial investigation, Brotherhood denied
coverage for the damage, claiming that any damage caused by the storm was less than the applicable policy deductible.
In response, Frontline hired an engineer to inspect the property. The engineer produced a report, which Frontline submitted to Brotherhood in attempt to get Brotherhood to reassess its coverage determination. Brotherhood then hired its own engineer to inspect the property, and after the completion of that inspection, Brotherhood once again denied coverage on the basis that any damage caused by the storm was less than the applicable policy deductible.
Frontline then filed this lawsuit. Only one claim remains in the case: Frontline alleges that Brotherhood breached its insurance contract with Frontline by improperly denying policy benefits.[3]According to Frontline, a proper assessment of the damage to its property from the storm would result in a finding of damage exceeding the policy deductible and require Brotherhood to pay out benefits under the policy. By failing to pay out those benefits after a demand for payment, Frontline argues, Brotherhood breached its insurance contract with Frontline.
After the parties engaged in discovery, Brotherhood filed this motion for summary judgment. As relevant here, Brotherhood argues that Frontline has failed to point to any evidence establishing that the damage to Frontline's property exceeds the policy's deductible. The policy, Brotherhood argues, permits two types of cash recoveries. The first is Replacement Cost Value. But to recover the Replacement Cost Value, Brotherhood
argues that the insured party must have actually repaired or replaced the property damaged. According to Brotherhood, if the inured fails to meet this prerequisite, the insured is limited to the second type of recovery: Actual Cash Value.
With this policy framework in mind, Brotherhood maintains that Frontline cannot recover Replacement Cost Value because it has failed to repair or replace the damaged property. So, Frontline would be limited to recovering Actual Cash Value. And this, according to Brotherhood, dooms Frontline's breach of contract claim. Although Frontline has pointed to evidence of the Replacement Cost Value exceeding the policy's deductible, Brotherhood argues that there is no evidence of what the Actual Cash Value would be. And without such evidence, Brotherhood argues, Frontline cannot establish that the loss exceeded the policy's deductible, cannot prove an essential element of its breach of contract claim, and its claim therefore fails as a matter of law.[4]
Legal Standard
Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires “[t]he court [to] grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” In deciding whether summary judgment is proper, the Court does not weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter asserted, but instead determines only whether there is a genuine dispute
for trial before the fact-finder.[5]The movant bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine, material dispute and an entitlement to judgment.[6]A fact is “material” if, under the substantive law, it is essential to the proper disposition of the claim.[7]A dispute is “genuine” if there is sufficient evidence on each side so that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue either way.[8]
If the movant carries its initial burden, the nonmovant must then assert that a material fact is genuinely disputed and must support the assertion by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials”; by “showing that the materials cited [in the movant's motion] do not establish the absence . . . of a genuine dispute”; or by showing that the movant “cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.”[9] The nonmovant does not meet its burden by “simply show[ing] there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts”[10]or theorizing a plausible scenario in support of its claims. Instead, “the relevant inquiry is whether the evidence presents a sufficient
disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.”[11]
When, as here, the nonmoving party has the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial, the moving party “has both the initial burden of production on a motion for summary judgment and the burden of establishing that summary judgment is appropriate as a matter of law.”[12]“The moving party may carry its initial burden either by producing affirmative evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim, or by showing that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence to carry its burden of persuasion at trial.”[13]“Once the moving party points out the absence of evidence to create a ‘genuine issue' of a ‘material fact' on which the non-moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, . . . [t]he non-moving party must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.”[14]
Discussion
To prevail on its breach of contract claim, Frontline must prove at trial that (1) a contract was formed, (2) there was a breach of that contract, and (3) damages resulted from
the breach.[15]In this context, to prove that Brotherhood breached the insurance contract, Frontline must prove at trial that the recoverable value of damage to its property exceeded the policy deductible. At this stage, the question is whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to any element of Frontline's breach of contract claim. Where a party has failed to introduce evidence as to an essential element of its claim, summary judgment is appropriate.[16]
As explained above, Brotherhood claims that Frontline cannot recover Replacement Cost Value, has not created a genuine dispute of material fact that the Actual Cash Value exceeded the policy's deductible, and has therefore failed to introduce evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute of fact as to an essential element of its claim. To determine whether summary judgment is appropriate, the Court must first interpret the recovery provisions at issue and then determine whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Brotherhood breached those provisions.
Under Oklahoma law, “[i]nsurance policies are contracts interpreted as a matter of law.”[17] Both the insurer and insured are “bound by policy terms,” and “[w]hen policy provisions are unambiguous and clear, the employed language is accorded its ordinary,
plain meaning[.]”[18]The policy must also be “read as a whole, giving the words and terms their ordinary meaning, enforcing each part thereof.”[19]
Under its plain and unambiguous language, the policy at issue here covers “direct physical loss to covered property . . . caused by a covered peril.”[20] However, the policy does not require Brotherhood...
To continue reading
Request your trial