• Key point. Under the general rule, members of an unincorporated church cannot sue their church for injuries they sustain on church premises or in the course of church activities.

• Key point. A few courts have recognized an exception to the general rule that members of an unincorporated church cannot sue their church for injuries occurring on church premises or in the course of church activities. Under this exception, members are permitted to sue the church if (1) the church has an existence separate from its members, and (2) the members do not exercise control over the operations of the church.

• Key point. Church board members are not liable for the obligations and actions of their church solely on the basis of their status as board members.

An Indiana court recognized an exception to the general rule that members of an unincorporated church cannot sue their church for injuries they suffer on church premises or during church activities. A church member (the “victim”) attended a large church with approximately 3,800 members, including 9 trustees. The victim was injured when she slipped and fell on ice and snow that had accumulated on the church’s parking lot. She sued her church and board of trustees claiming that they had been negligent in failing to inspect and maintain the parking lot, failing to discover the dangerous condition, failing to remove the ice and snow, and failing to warn her of the danger. The church argued that the victim, as a member of an unincorporated church, could not maintain a lawsuit against her church. A trial court agreed, and dismissed the lawsuit against both the church and trustees. The victim appealed.

The church

The appeals court first addressed the question of whether or not the member of an unincorporated church can sue the church for injuries occurring on church premises. The court acknowledged that “as a general rule, a member of an unincorporated association cannot sue the association for the tortious acts of one or more of its members.” The court explained the justification for this rule as follows:

The theory of the general rule is that the members of an unincorporated association are engaged in a joint enterprise. The negligence of each member in the prosecution of that enterprise is imputable to each and every other member so that the member who has suffered damages through the tortious conduct of another member of the association may not recover from the association for such damage. It would be akin to the person suing himself as each member becomes both a principal and an agent as to all other members for the actions of the group itself.

The court claimed that an “exception” to the general rule has been recognized in some states under the following circumstances: (1) the unincorporated association has a legal existence separate from its members, and (2) the members do not exercise control over the operations of the association. It referred to cases in California, Delaware, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas that have recognized this exception. The exception recognizes that the general rule is “inherently unfair to the injured member of the unincorporated association” and “unnecessarily limits the availability of insurance which most, if not all, unincorporated associations maintain.”

The court made the interesting argument that application of the general rule (members cannot sue unincorporated churches) may discourage persons from becoming church members:

In addition, we note that the general rule as currently applied in Indiana discourages persons from becoming members of unincorporated associations. For example, a person who is a frequent visitor at [a church] may recover from the church if he or she is injured while attending services. However, once that frequent visitor becomes a member of the church, he or she gives up all protection from the church’s tortious acts. Persons who wish to remain protected, therefore, are discouraged from joining churches. Our decisions applying the general rule have sanctioned this result, one with which, given the well—established separation between church and state, we are increasingly uncomfortable.

The court concluded that the exception to the general rule should apply in this case:

Here, the evidence designated to the trial court reveals that [the church] is a 3,800 member Methodist church located in Indianapolis, Indiana. [It] employs many people, including, among others, several pastors, a business administrator, a maintenance supervisor and a large custodial staff. Additionally [it] is governed by a board of nine trustees, each with a different area of responsibility. The trustees are not elected by the general congregation; rather, they are nominated and approved by various groups within the church. Finally, [the church] operates pursuant to a uniform set of bylaws entitled The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church. None of this evidence indicates that church members are involved in the church’s decision—making or even in choosing the decisionmakers. Instead, the record supports a conclusion that [the church] is much like a corporation, which exists perpetually and independently regardless of its individual members. In light of these facts, we conclude that the reasons supporting the general rule, including the prevention of collusive lawsuits and the avoidance of suits by a member against herself, do not apply in this case.

The board of trustees

The victim insisted that the trustees were responsible for the maintenance of the church property and had a legal duty to make the parking lot reasonably safe. She claimed that their negligent failure to do so caused her injuries. The court disagreed. It emphasized that “a corporate officer, director or employee is not personally liable for the torts of a corporation merely because of his office. Some additional connection with the tort is required.” The court continued:

Here [the victim’s] claim against the trustees is predicated on their general duty to maintain the church property. However [she] does not allege, nor does the record show, that any of the trustees was responsible for clearing the parking lot or warning patrons of the dangerous conditions. To the contrary, the record reveals that [the church] contracted with a snow removal service for ice and snow removal. Thus, we cannot say that the trustees had sufficient connection with the failure to remove the ice and snow to give rise to individual liability.

Application. What is the relevance of this case to your church? Consider the following:

If your church is unincorporated, then members may not be able to sue the church for injuries they suffer on church premises or during church activities. This should not be viewed as an “advantage” of unincorporated status, for three reasons. First, as noted in this case, some courts have recognized an exception to the “general rule” and allowed members to sue unincorporated associations under some circumstances. Second, members of unincorporated churches may face personal liability for the actions of other members in the course of church activities. This risk far exceeds any “benefit” to the church in being immune from lawsuits by members. Third, most churches have obtained liability insurance. As a result, insurance proceeds are available to compensate members for injuries that occur on church premises. It would indeed come as a shock to most members of unincorporated churches to discover that their church insurance policy will not cover them if they are injured as a result of their church’s negligence. That may be “good news” to the church leadership, but it will be very difficult to accept if you break your leg on church premises and incur thousands of dollars in medical bills.

The court ruled that members of unincorporated churches can sue their church if (1) the church has a legal existence separate from its members, and (2) the members do not exercise control over the operations of the church. The court referred to rulings in California, Delaware, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas that have recognized this exception to the general rule. It is possible that courts in other states will reach a similar conclusion. The court suggested that it will be easier for larger churches to qualify for this exception since they often have “a hierarchy of structure that drastically alters the relationship of membership to the association and the control that a member has in its affairs.” On the other hand, smaller churches may not qualify for the exception to the general rule. The court referred to a 1988 ruling in which the state supreme court held that a member of a small unincorporated church who had been injured when he fell off a ladder while assisting in repairing the church’s roof could not sue the church. Calvary Baptist Church v. Joseph, 522 N.E.2d 371 (Ind. 1988).

Finally, it is also important to note that the court refused to allow the victim to sue the members of the board of trustees. The court recognized that board members are not automatically responsible for the liabilities and obligations of their church. Rather, there must be a “sufficient connection” between the board members and whatever caused an injury. This standard was not met in this case. Hanson v. St. Luke’s United Methodist Church, 682 N.E.2d 1314 (Ind. App. 1997). [ Unincorporated Associations]

© Copyright 1998 by Church Law & Tax Report. All rights reserved. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is provided with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. Church Law & Tax Report, PO Box 1098, Matthews, NC 28106. Reference Code: m77 m58 m86 c0298