Posted On: February 2, 2007, 11:29 am CST

Posted By: Read The Contract

Actually, State Farm's concurrent causation clause does *not* say that damage from wind is excluded when flood is present, that's the position the company took, but it's not the actual language in their contract. Senter held them to the contract they wrote, not the one they wished they had written.

[QUOTE]
We do not insure under any coverage for any loss which would not have occurred in the absence of one or more of the following excluded events. We do not insure for such loss regardless of:

(a) the cause of the excluded event; or

(b) other causes of the loss; or

(c) whether other causes acted concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded event to produce the loss; or

(d) whether the event occurs suddenly or gradually, involves isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or external forces, or occurs as a result of any combination of these: [Listed Exclusions].
[/QUOTE]


If you had wind damage before the storm surge arrived, you would have had wind damage even if the storm surge never arrived. The wind damage is not a "loss which would not have occurred in the absence of one or more of the following excluded events."

Senter simply upheld the wording of the contract -- the company admitted there was wind damage, and refused to quantify how much damage was wind and how much was water. Senter read the contract, determined wind was covered, and, without adequate evidence in the record to exclude anything as water damage, he had no choice but to interpret any ambiguity in favor of the policyholder.

That's why they got policy limits, because State Farm didn't quantify how much damage was wind and how much damage was water.