Posted On: August 8, 2007, 3:40 pm CDT

Posted By: adjusterjoe

The concurrent causation clause was struck down due to being ambiguous and against public policy. To deny something which is clearly covered in one section (wind) which is impossible to be independently discerned from another peril, just b/c the second event occurs, is fraudulent and a weak attempt to get out of contractual obligations. These are claims that other companies have paid for years and is against public policy. State Farm knew the concurrent causation clause was not enforceable, if litigated, but chose to do so anyway. Take this scenario. A dwelling has wind damage today and before the adjuster can get out, tonite the house falls into a sinkhole. Under the theory of concurrent causation, the claim would be denied in all states but FLA and CALIF. (Feel free to correct me if there are otehr states where sinkholes are possibly covered).