The Church sued its own insurers, to cover the cost of sex abuse claims, and lost.

[I Have Questions]

The Church sued its own insurance providers, National Union Insurance and ACE Property & Casualty Co., demanding it cover the cost of settlements tied to a West Virginia lawsuit over sexual abuse.

The conclusion is damning and finds the Church failed in both its duty of care and also its contractual obligation under the insurance contract.

In a ruling handed down earlier this month and obtained by FOX 13 News, U.S. District Court Judge Tena Campbell sided with the insurance companies. The ruling itself was redacted when it came to details of the Church's settlement with the West Virginia families, but it is believed to be for millions of dollars.

“Once the Church had knowledge that Mr. Jensen posed a risk of abuse to Church members, the Church had a duty to its members to prevent the abuse. The Church had multiple opportunities to act and failed to do so," she wrote.

Judge Campbell ruled that the insurance companies "did not owe the Church a duty to defend or indemnify under any implicated policy."

"As a result, National Union and ACE did not breach their contractual obligations to the Church under any policy or the implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing inherent in the contracts they entered into with the Church," she wrote.

The Church is seeking to make everyone but themselves accountable for the cost of its own failings. I’m glad they’ve been slapped down this time.

How much of the widows mite is being spent on efforts to cover up Sexual Abuse in the Church? The members deserve to know.

Judy Larson, a board member of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, a support group for victims of clergy abuse, said the ruling is significant.

"They’re being called to account. They’re having to take responsibility for their actions," she said Friday.

Larson said Judge Campbell's ruling on who is required to provide coverage may have implications for future lawsuits against faith groups over sexual abuse. She also said other survivors of sexual abuse will see it as empowering.

"Too many times, there are rulings for the powerful and the victims, the survivors, they’re not powerful. All we have is our voice. This is going to amplify the voice for survivors, for sure," she said.

I hope she’s right.

[drumdude]

This is exactly how a church that worships mammon would act.

[sock puppet]

In essence, the ruling is that the LDS Church knew and yet did not take adequate remedial and preventive steps to protect children from sexual abuse. So, remind me, how is it a good environment and context in which to raise children?

[I Have Questions]

In essence, the ruling is that the LDS Church knew and yet did not take adequate remedial and preventive steps to protect children from sexual abuse.

That’s how I read it too. It shines a light on the Church’s own statement (which has since been redacted from the website) about how it handles child protection matters…some excerpts:

“No religious organization has done more” to prevent and respond to abuse.
“The Church’s approach is the gold standard.”
“While clergy-abuse cases continue to grab headlines, the Church has had almost no child abuse problems with its clergy.”

Clearly, and obviously, the Church was deliberately lying about this problem. The Church still deludes members into thinking the Church doesn’t have a problem.

[Moksha]

The insurance companies expected more than the church desperately trying to cover it up and then wanting reimbursement after the cover-up failed and was exposed.

[sock puppet]

The issue addressed by U.S. District Judge Campbell in her April 3, 2025 decision was what constituted a separate 'occurrence' under the insurance policies held by the LDS Church. The LDS Church sought to have all instances of the young man (Michael Jensen) offered up as a baby sitter by the bishop to members to be one occurrence, one lapse of supervision, i.e., one occurrence. That way, the LDS Church would only have to satisfy one "retained limit" (similar to a deductible) before the insurers had to step up and begin paying. "The insurers argue that Mr. Jensen’s abuse of each minor plaintiff between 2007 and 2012 was a separate occurrence."

Judge Campbell ruled basically that each household constituted a separate occurrence. "the court finds that a separate occurrence arose every time Mr. Jensen abused separate children at separate times and in separate places." Here are observations by Judge Campbell that the LDS Church can be most proud of:

The Church argues that there is only one occurrence at issue here—namely, the Church’s negligence, which lasted several years, and for which the Church paid a settlement of to a number of children and their families.

The judge tables out instances from 2006, 2007, 2008, 2011 and 2012, each involving different victims.

"Although the court agrees with the Church that its negligence was the source of that loss, an admission or finding that the Church was negligent towards one child is not an admission or finding that the Church was negligent towards other children—the facts establishing the Church’s negligence are specific to each child."

"the children in this case were injured over several years, in different locations, and under different circumstances. The facts that establish whether the Church’s negligence was a cause of each child’s abuse are unique to each individual. Under the Church’s interpretation of “occurrence,” Mr. Jensen is akin to a bad driver whom the Church negligently hired and who injured multiple people in a single crash. But Mr. Jensen’s yearslong pattern of abuse of multiple children—and the warnings the Church received about that abuse—is more analogous to a bad driver who was negligently allowed back on the road over and over, despite repeated accidents."

"But this presumption can be overcome where the overarching negligence is more akin to negligent hiring. Here, where the Church received multiple warnings about the danger posed by Mr. Jensen, that presumption is not overcome."

"[T]here was essentially a new act of licensing every time Mr. Jensen was referred for babysitting services to a new family. The court finds that the Church’s negligence was ongoing and specific to each victim because the Church knew about Mr. Jensen’s abuse and failed to act throughout each of the incidents."

"Here, the court focuses on the facts that led to the Church’s liability—liability that depends on both the Church’s knowledge and inaction and Mr. Jensen’s specific acts of abuse. If the Church had not been negligent, it would not have been required to pay any settlement amounts. And if Mr. Jensen had not committed the abuse, there would have been no damage to begin with. It is the combination of these factors that caused the Church’s liability, not the Church’s negligence or Mr. Jensen’s actions alone."

"Once the Church had knowledge that Mr. Jensen posed a risk of abuse to Church members, the Church had a duty to its members to prevent the abuse. The Church had multiple opportunities to act and failed to do so."

Interesting that it takes a judge to point this out to the leaders of God's one and only true church on earth, the one led by 15 "prophets, seers and revelators".

Now, I'm sure the likes of MG 2.0 will try to excoriate me for pointing this out, while he defends an organization that teaches, such as by Prophet-in-waiting Dallin Oaks, that the members should not speak ill of the Lord's anointed even when they are wrong. So, if I was in that Virginia ward and I knew of Bro. Jensen's sexual molestation of kids he was babysitting, I should just sit idly by and not warn Sister Jones to not let Bro. Jensen babysit her kids because the bishop, wrong as he was, had suggested the baby sitting arrangement. Far be it for an obedient member to point out to Sister Jones that the bishop is wrong and knowingly recommending a pedophile to members for their babysitting needs.

[sock puppet]

MG 2.0: Have you gotten past this one too? Obviously your church leaders haven't. In their love of money and wanting the insurers to have to pay after the LDS Church bore just one retained limit, those leaders initiated this lawsuit, stirring up this situation. It is those leaders love of money that stirs this up, putting it back in the news and for the victims, interrupting and setting back any healing that comes with time. All for their love of filthy lucre. Now, MG 2.0, bow your head, say "yes" and do what they tell ya.

[malkie]

Might some of the arguemnts on this topic depend on how "clergy" is defined in the church?

General Authorities (and perhaps other high-ranking officials) are entitled to a "parsonage or clergy allowance" (https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php? ... type=CMSID) but local leaders such as bishops & stake presidents do not receive such funds.

So it may be that the statement “While clergy-abuse cases continue to grab headlines, the Church has had almost no child abuse problems with its clergy.” (my bolding) refers strictly to a small subset of officials, and thus may actually be true.

[MG 2.0]

MG 2.0: Have you gotten past this one too? Obviously your church leaders haven't. In their love of money and wanting the insurers to have to pay after the LDS Church bore just one retained limit, those leaders initiated this lawsuit, stirring up this situation. It is those leaders love of money that stirs this up, putting it back in the news and for the victims, interrupting and setting back any healing that comes with time. All for their love of filthy lucre. Now, MG 2.0, bow your head, say "yes" and do what they tell ya.

This is a problem. One that needs to be fixed. I disagree that it's all about "love of filthy lucre."

https://floodlit.org/

Local leaders to often are dismissing the reports they receive as hearsay, minimizing the seriousness (attributing it to issues like pornography rather than abuse), and then failing to act on allegations.

Again, it needs attention and needs to be fixed. Too many people are being hurt.

Regards,
MG

[sock puppet]

MG 2.0: Have you gotten past this one too? Obviously your church leaders haven't. In their love of money and wanting the insurers to have to pay after the LDS Church bore just one retained limit, those leaders initiated this lawsuit, stirring up this situation. It is those leaders love of money that stirs this up, putting it back in the news and for the victims, interrupting and setting back any healing that comes with time. All for their love of filthy lucre. Now, MG 2.0, bow your head, say "yes" and do what they tell ya.

This is a problem. One that needs to be fixed. I disagree that it's all about "love of filthy lucre."

https://floodlit.org/

Local leaders to often are dismissing the reports they receive as hearsay, minimizing the seriousness (attributing it to issues like pornography rather than abuse), and then failing to act on allegations.

Again, it needs attention and needs to be fixed. Too many people are being hurt.

Regards,
MG

Aren't the local leaders called through inspiration from God? And then receive inspiration in how to discharge their calling?