Posted On: March 29, 2007, 12:53 pm CDT

Posted By: Mark

No need for you to interpret the concurrent causation language???

Do you have the desire or ability to think for yourself? Just because Judge Senter is a judge, does that mean he is infallible? Will you believe anything that people in power will tell you?

While I respect Judge Senter and the task he has ahead of him, he misunderstands the application of the anti-concurrent causation clause, and has based rulings on his misunderstanding. Of course, what he knows and I do not, is how the laws of Mississippi apply to the anti-concurrent causation clause. I do know that the policy was approved by the Mississippi insurance department.

The anti-concurrent causation language does NOT mean that if flood waters "touch" a house otherwise covered damage is now not covered. It means that specific damage caused by wind AND flood is not covered. If the storm surge did not damage the roof, but the wind did, the roof damage is covered.

Example 1: Wind blows shingles off your roof, and the storm surge rises into your home five feet high, but does not reach the roof. The house is not washed away. Roof damage is covered and the interior flood damage is not.

Example 2: Wind blows shingles off your roof, and the storm surge destroys your entire home leaving nothing but a pile of ruble. The roof has now been damaged by wind and flood. That's "concurrent causation", and, with a properly worded "Anti-concurrent causation" clause, it is not covered. None of it is covered.

Now comes the law suit. The court must review the case, apply the law, and render an opinion. Just because the opinion came from a judge or jury, doesn't make it right.