When courts analyze windstorm exclusions, the outcomes usually activate how broad the exclusionary language is and whether or not the insurer included anti-concurrent causation language within the coverage. A latest federal courtroom choice from Texas is a textbook instance of how these provisions can wipe out protection when wind performs any position within the loss, even when it isn’t the only real trigger. 1 Public adjusters and unbiased adjusters who work with wind and water claims want to know how this ruling unfolded as a result of it exhibits how simply a declare might be misplaced if the wind exclusion applies and no ensuing loss argument is preserved.
The case concerned Allah-Pak Properties, which owned a business retail middle in Corpus Christi. In April 2022, a windstorm broken the property’s roof. 4 months later, a heavy rainstorm hit, and water entered the constructing by way of roof penetrations, damaging {the electrical} panel and different programs. The insured submitted a declare that included roof repairs, substitute of {the electrical} panel, and different prices.
The insurer, Century Surety Firm, denied protection for many of the declare primarily based on an endorsement cited because the coverage’s “Windstorm or Hail Exclusion.” The events ultimately narrowed their dispute to at least one situation: whether or not {the electrical} panel injury was excluded.
The exclusionary language within the coverage learn as follows:
We is not going to pay for loss or injury:
1. Induced immediately or not directly by Windstorm or Hail, no matter another trigger or occasion that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss or injury; or
2. Brought on by rain, water, snow, sand or mud, whether or not pushed by wind or not, if that loss or injury wouldn’t have occurred however for the windstorm or hail.
The insured conceded that the roof injury from the April windstorm was excluded however argued that {the electrical} panel loss was really brought on by a failure of the circuit breakers and excessive humidity, not by the windstorm. The insured took the place that the exclusion ought to apply provided that wind was the only real reason behind {the electrical} panel injury. The insurer countered that the language clearly excluded injury when wind performed any position, whether or not immediately or not directly, and no matter another causes.
The courtroom sided with the insurer. It famous that the coverage contained an anti-concurrent causation clause, which meant that even partial contribution by wind to the injury triggered the exclusion. Importantly, the courtroom identified that the policyholder didn’t make any argument that an ensuing loss, which might have been lined, resulted from the water. As an alternative, the policyholder’s personal skilled defined that the wind not directly precipitated injury to the conduits, which allowed water to penetrate the roof and attain {the electrical} room. As a result of wind was within the chain of causation, the exclusion utilized.
In its reasoning, the courtroom emphasised that Texas regulation permits insurers to contract out of the Texas common-law guidelines on concurrent causation once they use clear language like this. The coverage didn’t require that wind be the only real or direct reason behind the injury, solely that wind be a trigger, direct or oblique, no matter different contributing occasions. The policyholder’s concession that wind broken the roof and the skilled’s testimony linking that injury to the eventual water intrusion sealed the destiny of the declare. With no proof or argument of an relevant exception to convey protection again, the courtroom granted abstract judgment for the insurer.
For adjusters, this choice is a reminder to rigorously assessment endorsements with wind exclusions and anti-concurrent causation clauses early within the declare investigation. When the policyholder’s personal consultants acknowledge that wind is a part of the chain of causation, the declare is in danger until there’s a viable ensuing loss concept or different exception that may be documented and superior.
This Texas case adopted extra conventional strategies of exclusionary interpretation, that are widespread in most jurisdictions aside from Texas. There are some Texas circumstances that require the policyholder to show that the loss is roofed and never excluded, putting each burdens on the policyholder. This case acknowledged that shifting burdens could apply, though ruling that the insurer proved the exclusion and that the policyholder didn’t show a lined exception.
Thought For The Day
“The reply, my buddy, is blowin’ within the wind.”
—Bob Dylan
1 Allah-Pak Properties v. Century Surety Co., No. 2:23-cv-00301 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2025). See additionally, Century Surety’s Movement for Abstract Judgment, and Allah-Pak’s Temporary in Opposition to Movement for Abstract Judgment.
