Insurer pays $44K to Art Center for alleged sorority damages
Parkersburg, West Viriginia. – A West Virginia insurer planned to issue a check Monday (June 14) on a claim a Parkersburg arts facility filed in connection with alleged heavy vandalism during an Ohio University sorority formal March 6.
Though other media outlets in the area have been reporting that the check had previously been issued, Diane Holley-Brown, director of communication for the West Virginia Department of Administration, said Monday morning that the check for more than $44,000 was just being issued that day.
Holley-Brown’s agency oversees the insurer, the West Virginia Board of Risk and Insurance Management (BRIM), which insures state agencies and non-profits such as the Parkersburg Art Center.
The insurance claim was in connection with some $46,795 in damages that the Art Center claimed were caused by Pi Beta Phi sorority sisters and their dates during their March 6 winter formal in the facility’s ballroom. (Minus the $2,500 deductible, the check came to $44,295.50)
The Art Center’s director and her husband, an attorney who represents the facility, charged that partiers at the formal engaged in public sex, damaged a hardwood floor by spilling alcohol and dancing on it, and destroyed a carpet that cost $30,000 to replace, among other damages.
An insurance adjustor who confirmed the damages after inspecting the Art Center more than a month after the winter formal listed vandalism as the cause.
The Pi Beta Phis’ local and national sororities strongly denied causing the damages or engaging in public sex acts, and Ohio University Judiciaries, in a hearing on Friday, appeared to support their denials. When compared to the severity of the allegations, the sorority chapter received a slap on the wrist – one year’s probation and $290 in ordered restitution.
In an interview Saturday in which he reported the results of the hearing, OU Dean of Students Ryan Lombardi suggested that the university was highly skeptical of the Art Center’s version of the events of March 6.
“It seems that the picture that was painted and alleged in the letter (of complaint, from Art Center Director Abby Hayhurst) was an exaggeration of what actually took place,” Lombardi said.
Informed of OU’s doubts about the alleged damages, Holley-Brown, speaking for BRIM, said Monday that “there never have been any second thoughts” about paying the claim, based on the significant gap between the Art Center and sorority’s accounts of the March 6 Pi Beta Phi formal. “The Parkersburg Art Center is insured under BRIM,” she said. “They obviously suffered damages and, as their insurer, BRIM is responsible for paying for those damages included in its claim.”
Asked about potential litigation against the sorority or its insurer, Holley-Brown said it’s too early to talk about possible litigation. “BRIM continues active communication with all parties involved. They are corresponding with the sorority’s insurer, CNA insurance, to resolve this matter.”
The way it works, she explained, is that BRIM insures the Art Center for its “first-party claim” for the damages. The facts surrounding the amount of the damages are not in question (“the damages are legitimate”), she added. “BRIM pays for the damages and then pursues recovery from the insurer of the sorority.”
As a result, it appears that the issue of whether the sorority actually caused $46,000 in damages will be hashed out between the insurance companies.
Wendy Drochelman, director of marketing and communications, for Pi Beta Phi’s national office, issued a statement Monday afternoon stating support for the chapter’s response to OU’s disciplinary charges, as well as OU’s findings in the matter. “The chapter will work collaboratively with Ohio University in honoring its community service requirements and university warning status for the following year,” she said.
After Friday’s hearing, Dean of Students Lombardi raised questions about the Art Center’s allegations of vandalism, asking why it took nearly a month to report the incident to police. He also said the evidence presented by the Art Center wasn’t substantive or persuasive.
OU Director of Judiciaries Jim Sand said Monday that two people gave statements on behalf of the Art Center during Friday’s hearing, the facility coordinator and a private caterer. Both were present at the March 6 formal.
Sand didn’t say whether the two corroborated the dramatic accounts of a wild, sex and alcohol-crazed party, as described by the center’s director and her husband.
Related posts:
- The Drawing Center Appoints New Curator Claire Gilman
- Exhibition in Germany Pays Homage to Private Collectors
- California Attorney General Supports Claim for Art Seized in WWII
- Director Paul Schrader Donates Collection to Harry Ransom Center
- Stanford’s Cantor Arts Center to Show Artist’s Close Studies of Nature
