CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER!
NEW DEVELOPMENTS
IN THE CHURCH INSURANCE CASE
The strange case of the Church Insurance Company of Vermont just gets stranger all the time. On June 21, I posted an article, "What's Going on with the Church Insurance Company?" Find it here . I noted then that TECSC had filed a "Complaint" against the CIC-VT, in U.S. District Court, on 11 June. On June 14, CIC-VT filed a complaint in the same court asking the judge to rule on its rights and duties in reagrds to the church parties in SC.
According to its corporate charter, the CIC-VT provides insurance coverage for the various entities of the Episcopal Church as a "captive" company.
Today we learned that yesterday, TECSC filed a new Memorandum in the federal court asking the judge to dismiss and deny the various motions that CIC-VT has entered in the court since its 14th of June Complaint (for a total of 4 motions, the Complaint and three subsequent motions for joinder and consolidation on July 5-6, 2019). Find TECSC's July 18 Memorandum here .
Be sure to read the informative summary of yesterday's Memorandum in TECSC's press release, found here .
TECSC's July 18 Memorandum contains explosive news. We learned that right after the schism, in 2013, some of the parishes that purported to leave the Episcopal Church made insurance claims, for legal expenses, to the CIC-VT (even though they claimed to be non-Episcopal Church parishes). At first, CIC-VT denied their claims. Then, in 2015, the disaffiliated parishes sued CIC-VT in federal court for breach of contract and bad faith. CIC-VT responded in court, on August 10, 2015, that "only affiliates of The Episcopal Church are eligible for coverage from CIC-VT." (p. 1). Strangely enough, CIC-VT chose not to seek a declaratory judgment from the court, but to make a settlement with the disaffiliated congregations which were suing the Company. Thus, the two sides made "Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice," in the federal court, on Nov. 11, 2015. Apparently this was a confidential agreement and the terms have not been revealed. I assume that, if this case proceeds, we will discover the facts hidden in this peculiar non-disclosure agreement.
At this point we have far more questions than answers. We need to know: Why did CIC-VT not plead for declaratory judgment? Why did CIC-VT agree to a settlement? How much did CIC-VT agree to pay each congregation and for how long? Why is CIC-VT now asking the federal judge to tell the Company what its policies and procedures should be? How can the CIC-VT continue in flagrant violation of its corporate charter which requires it to cover only Episcopal Church entities? How can CIC-VT justify paying both sides of the same legal war? If CIC-VT entered into a legal agreement with the disaffiliated parishes, how can TECSC undo such an agreement? In other words, how can TECSC stop CIC-VT from paying money to the breakaways? Is it possible that the disaffiliated congregations can be required to reimburse the Company for moneys wrongfully paid to them?
It seems to me this has the potential for becoming a scandal within the Church Insurance Company if it is true that it violated its own policies and made a legal agreement to continue that long term. At the very least, there should be an investigation into how and why the Company made payments to non-Episcopal Church entities.
If the declared purpose of the Church Insurance Company is to help the Episcopal Church, it is going about it in a bizarre way in South Carolina. TEC is locked in a hard legal war in SC and has been for six and a half years. Although the state supreme court recognized that TEC owns 29 of the 36 parishes in question, the war is far from over. There are probably years to go and millions yet to spend before peace is declared. While CIC-VT is supposed to be helping TEC, it is actually making it harder by aiding and abetting the opposition. This needs to stop.
According to its corporate charter, the CIC-VT provides insurance coverage for the various entities of the Episcopal Church as a "captive" company.
Today we learned that yesterday, TECSC filed a new Memorandum in the federal court asking the judge to dismiss and deny the various motions that CIC-VT has entered in the court since its 14th of June Complaint (for a total of 4 motions, the Complaint and three subsequent motions for joinder and consolidation on July 5-6, 2019). Find TECSC's July 18 Memorandum here .
Be sure to read the informative summary of yesterday's Memorandum in TECSC's press release, found here .
TECSC's July 18 Memorandum contains explosive news. We learned that right after the schism, in 2013, some of the parishes that purported to leave the Episcopal Church made insurance claims, for legal expenses, to the CIC-VT (even though they claimed to be non-Episcopal Church parishes). At first, CIC-VT denied their claims. Then, in 2015, the disaffiliated parishes sued CIC-VT in federal court for breach of contract and bad faith. CIC-VT responded in court, on August 10, 2015, that "only affiliates of The Episcopal Church are eligible for coverage from CIC-VT." (p. 1). Strangely enough, CIC-VT chose not to seek a declaratory judgment from the court, but to make a settlement with the disaffiliated congregations which were suing the Company. Thus, the two sides made "Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice," in the federal court, on Nov. 11, 2015. Apparently this was a confidential agreement and the terms have not been revealed. I assume that, if this case proceeds, we will discover the facts hidden in this peculiar non-disclosure agreement.
At this point we have far more questions than answers. We need to know: Why did CIC-VT not plead for declaratory judgment? Why did CIC-VT agree to a settlement? How much did CIC-VT agree to pay each congregation and for how long? Why is CIC-VT now asking the federal judge to tell the Company what its policies and procedures should be? How can the CIC-VT continue in flagrant violation of its corporate charter which requires it to cover only Episcopal Church entities? How can CIC-VT justify paying both sides of the same legal war? If CIC-VT entered into a legal agreement with the disaffiliated parishes, how can TECSC undo such an agreement? In other words, how can TECSC stop CIC-VT from paying money to the breakaways? Is it possible that the disaffiliated congregations can be required to reimburse the Company for moneys wrongfully paid to them?
It seems to me this has the potential for becoming a scandal within the Church Insurance Company if it is true that it violated its own policies and made a legal agreement to continue that long term. At the very least, there should be an investigation into how and why the Company made payments to non-Episcopal Church entities.
If the declared purpose of the Church Insurance Company is to help the Episcopal Church, it is going about it in a bizarre way in South Carolina. TEC is locked in a hard legal war in SC and has been for six and a half years. Although the state supreme court recognized that TEC owns 29 of the 36 parishes in question, the war is far from over. There are probably years to go and millions yet to spend before peace is declared. While CIC-VT is supposed to be helping TEC, it is actually making it harder by aiding and abetting the opposition. This needs to stop.
