Earlier this year, I reported on a striking jury verdict against Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company in a dispute brought by Green Acres Baptist Church in Brotherhood Mutual Hit With $35 Million Punitive Award on Roof Damage Claim. The jury awarded the church nearly $5 million in contract damages and a staggering $35 million in punitive damages for alleged bad faith. It was the kind of decision that made headlines in the insurance industry, as it suggested a strong rebuke of Brotherhood’s claims handling.
But trials are not the end of the story. Post-trial motions and judicial review can significantly change the outcome, and that is precisely what has happened here.
Following the verdict, Brotherhood moved for judgment as a matter of law. The federal trial court carefully reviewed the evidence presented to the jury and concluded that Green Acres had not met its burden of proof. 1 The court emphasized that replacement cost benefits under the policy were not owed because the church had not actually repaired or replaced certain properties, and that no competent evidence was offered regarding actual cash value for those items. In the absence of such proof, the court determined there was no evidentiary basis to support either the contract damages or the punitive damages the jury awarded.
I have recently and repeatedly noted the need for policyholders to present actual cash value evidence in many jurisdictions. I suggest that property loss practitioners representing policyholders read When Proof of Value Sinks a Claim: Actual Cash Value Matters.
The judge therefore set aside the verdict in its entirety, entering a “take-nothing” judgment in Brotherhood’s favor. The court also conditionally granted Brotherhood’s request for a new trial, should its ruling later be overturned on appeal.
Green Acres sought to alter or amend that decision, but the court denied the motion. 2 In its recent order, the court explained that the plaintiffs had not presented new evidence, nor had there been any change in governing law. Instead, the arguments raised simply rehashed positions the court had already considered and rejected. The bottom line is that Brotherhood Mutual is now the winner of this trial.
This case is a reminder to everyone in the insurance and restoration fields that while jury verdicts may grab attention, they remain subject to legal scrutiny. The procedural steps after trial can entirely reshape the outcome. Policyholder advocates must keep this in mind when assessing litigation strategy and managing client expectations.
Now, the matter will probably be appealed. The trial court judge already anticipated that the matter might be returned for a new trial, as noted in his award. I will try to keep up with future developments of this very interesting case.
Thought For The Day
“Start where you are. Use what you have. Do what you can.”
—Arthur Ashe
2 Green Acres Baptist Church v. Brotherhood Mut. Ins. Co., No. 6:23-CV-556 (E.D. Tex. July 3, 2025).
1 Green Acres Baptist Church v. Brotherhood Mut. Ins. Co., No. 6:23-CV-556 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2025).