Posted On: January 12, 2007, 2:51 pm CST

Posted By: Mark

The judge's ruling in this case hangs on his misunderstanding of the Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause. This clause is not intended to, nor is it use to deny coverage for a wind damaged roof when one inch of water floods the home. The wind damaged roof is covered, the flooded carpet is not. The Judge's opinion is that the anti-concurrent causation clause is used to exclude coverage for the wind damaged roof, also. He is wrong.

When you have a widow broken by flying debris (wind damage) but the storm surge rolls in and floods the house to the roofline, there is no longer coverage for the broken window. Why? Because when I get to the house after the storm has passed and it is clearly evident that storm surge flooded the house to the roofline, there is no possible way to determine what happened to that window. I don't care if the insured was standing in the front yard and video taped the whole hurricane, even the tree limb breaking the window, when the surge rolls in, it ain't covered.

To avoid the "he said it was wind, she said it was water" and all the litigation that always went along with it, policies were revised to include anti-concurrent causation clauses. It does not matter if a tornado or gale force winds blew the Broussard's house down, when the storm surge washed it all into a pile in the back yard, it was no longer a covered loss.

You think you have it tough now, just wait until you can't get insurance, or a home loan! Good-bye Mississippi!