CHURCH SECURITY + PROPERTY PRESERVATION

 

On days when your facilities aren’t in use, it’s easy to default to an “out of sight, out of mind” mindset. But there’s a lot of risk involved in getting too comfortable.
Here, two church insurance experts discuss the biggest exposures for unoccupied church buildings — and how to mitigate those risks.

---

Church Executive: In your experience, are most church leaders aware of their biggest exposures when facilities aren’t in use?

Mike Nester: Somewhat, but I think their generosity can blind them to certain areas of concern. For example, here at Philadelphia Insurance Companies (PHLY), we’ve received hundreds of property claims — to the tune of millions of dollars — related to burglary, vandalism and arson over the past few years.

    A lot of these claims stem from allowing people experiencing homelessness to stay on- premises. While it may fit the mission of the church to help these individuals, churches need to do it the right way by setting them up with appropriate shelters.

Many times, as homeless people staying on church property get more comfortable, they bring in heat sources. So, fires are one potential issue. Safety concerns for church visitors, staff and members are another.

Andy Shockey: To Mike’s point, churches tend to be a bit more reactive than proactive when it comes to their facilities’ exposures. For instance, it might take graffiti showing up on the property for a church to realize that individuals are looking at the building from a different angle rather than as a friend to the community.

The summary point is that the Church can remain a welcoming environment and, at the same time, deter unwelcome activity. The doors need to remain locked, but that doesn’t mean they can’t allow people inside in a welcoming manner.

If this isn’t done correctly — as Mike pointed out — then a total fire loss could result. Well, if that happens, the church doesn’t even have a kitchen for its food pantry, right?

We’re simply suggesting that churches strike a balance. They can have it both ways.

CE: What are some of the best no-cost ways to deter unwelcome activity on an unoccupied church campus?

Nester: I’ll defer to Andy’s recommendation, here: have a relationship with local police and fire departments. Ask them to check on the premises. They understand that although churches are a central part of the community, there might be stretches where a church has a service on Sunday and then  nothing planned until Wednesday night.

Short of that, churches can ask volunteers to just walk around the premises on the days when the church isn’t occupied.

Shockey: Right. And I’ll take it a step further: whoever is checking on the property should switch up their routine to get a different perspective. Maybe they park at the very last stall at the edge of the lot and walk in from there. They need to view the property from a different path; take their blinders off. I know it’s hard to think with criminal intent — it’s unnatural for a lot of people — but it’s necessary.

Also, make sure that it’s not convenient to access the roof. Based on what we’ve seen, the roof is an attractive place for mischievous actors. It gets them out of sight and out of mind, which can lead to significant damage. In my career, I’ve called on more than one church where unauthorized activity was discovered on the roof, and it’s alarming.

Beyond this, churches must pay attention to other areas of potential concealment — shrubbery, for instance, is one area that provides additional time and opportunity to be doing unwelcome things and remain out of sight.

The same is true of basement window wells. I’ve seen a number of  nice coverings that provide the required fire and emergency egress but also serve to protect those spaces from out-of-sight activity.

CE: Likewise, are there low-cost recommendations to help prevent unwelcome activity?

Shockey: Sure, a little bit goes a long way when it comes to property maintenance. When a property looks like it’s cared for, it also usually translates to, OK, this place is being watched, making it a more difficult target. I’m talking about lawn care, shrubbery, weeds, mulch on the playground — smaller things say a lot.

Also, lighting. A lot can be done here; several options operate on WiFi, like cameras and timers for lights, and door access points. Again, these all serve as deterrents.

Your church doesn’t need to look like Fort Knox, but it shouldn’t present itself as an easy target either.

Nester: I’ll add an idea: signage in the church parking lot. This is another low-cost deterrent. Sometimes nearby businesses use church parking lots without a contract in place, leaving the church on the hook for mishaps — we’ve seen some claims from that, in fact. Sometimes it’s as simple as a trip-and-fall from a member of the other organization, but the church pays for it.

CE: Tell me about PHLY’s new partnership with Ting. What is it, and why does it make sense for churches with a parsonage?

Shockey: This is a relatively new partnership for Philadelphia Insurance Companies that mitigates electrical and fire exposures within the church market. Ting is a simple technology that looks like a nightlight; it plugs into an outlet within the home — or in this case, the parsonage — and operates on WiFi. It takes less than a minute to set up and pair to a mobile app. After about a week, it ‘learns’ the building’s system. After that, it serves to detect differences in the voltage that could give rise to a critical incident and, ultimately, a fire.

Think about an overloaded outlet as an example; that’s going to generate heat — and a fire, if it’s not cared for quickly. Ting detects that situation and provides a notification to the person with the app.

Given the severity of church fires, PHLY has decided to make Ting available at no cost to our church clients with property coverage on their parsonages. It’s designed for a single-phase electrical system — in other words, a single-family home. So, we’re not talking about the church building right now.

CE: Have you seen a “success” with this technology yet?

Shockey: We have. One of our policyholders received a critical alert from Ting that an outlet in the home was failing. It was replaced quickly and without incident. Otherwise, that client wouldn’t have been able to see what was going on behind the walls or behind the electrical panel.

This service even comes with up to $1,000 for labor to help diagnose a hazard identified by the Ting device. Here again, we’re paying for that on behalf of our clients with property coverage. It’s so important; when you think about the range of alerts that you can get — from something like a failing outlet up to an imminent fire hazard — it’s critical to remedy the problem quickly, carefully and professionally.

For our property coverage policyholders, we’re also absorbing the entire cost of the device and monitoring / support service. The only part the client pays for is WiFi.

CE: Is there anything else to add related to church security and property preservation?

Shockey: Yes; if it has been a year or more since you’ve discussed your business, personal property or building limits with your insurance agent, have that discussion. Just request a meeting with your agent and apprise him or her of any changes. Or maybe just check in with your agent about your comfort level with the values that are on the policy.

This is especially important given the rising cost of building materials. Think of the Los Angeles wildfires, for example. If a building is destroyed, an insurance carrier needs to replace it with like-quality materials in a prompt and fair manner. If the cost of plywood has tripled — and labor costs have risen, too — it creates the potential to be underinsured.

Nester: I agree with Andy. In fact, I’ve seen firsthand the consequences of this reassessment not happening. You need to make sure that your building isn’t undervalued every year.

— Reporting by RaeAnn Slaybaugh