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 court docket determination from Texas is a textbook instance of how these provisions can wipe out protection when wind performs any function within the loss, even when it’s not the only trigger. 1 Public adjusters and impartial adjusters who work with wind and water claims want to grasp how this ruling unfolded as a result of it reveals how simply a declare will be misplaced if the wind exclusion applies and no ensuing loss argument is preserved.
The case concerned Allah-Pak Properties, which owned a industrial 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 means of roof penetrations, damaging {the electrical} panel and different techniques. 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 based mostly on an endorsement cited because the coverage’s “Windstorm or Hail Exclusion.” The events finally narrowed their dispute to at least one concern: whether or not {the electrical} panel harm was excluded.
The exclusionary language within the coverage learn as follows:
We won’t pay for loss or harm:
1. Prompted instantly or not directly by Windstorm or Hail, no matter every other trigger or occasion that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss or harm; or
2. Brought on by rain, water, snow, sand or mud, whether or not pushed by wind or not, if that loss or harm wouldn’t have occurred however for the windstorm or hail.
The insured conceded that the roof harm from the April windstorm was excluded however argued that {the electrical} panel loss was really attributable to 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 reason for {the electrical} panel harm. The insurer countered that the language clearly excluded harm when wind performed any function, whether or not instantly or not directly, and no matter every other causes.
The court docket 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 harm triggered the exclusion. Importantly, the court docket 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 knowledgeable defined that the wind not directly brought on harm 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 court docket emphasised that Texas legislation permits insurers to contract out of the Texas common-law guidelines on concurrent causation after they use clear language like this. The coverage didn’t require that wind be the only or direct reason for the harm, 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 knowledgeable’s testimony linking that harm to the eventual water intrusion sealed the destiny of the declare. With no proof or argument of an relevant exception to deliver protection again, the court docket granted abstract judgment for the insurer.
For adjusters, this determination 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 instances that require the policyholder to show that the loss is roofed and never excluded, inserting 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 did not 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 Transient in Opposition to Movement for Abstract Judgment.
