The insured’s declare for injury to the property’s electrical tools and energy loss after a wind and rain storm was not lined as a result of coverage’s anti-concurrent causation clause. Allah-Pak Properties, LLC v. Century Surety Co., No. 2:23-CV-00301, Order (S.D. Texas Aug. 8, 2025).
Throughout a storm, water seeped into the insured’s property’s utility room, inflicting injury to electrical tools and energy loss. The insured notified its insurer, Century Surety Firm. An engineer employed by Century inspected and located that water intruded {the electrical} tools within the electrical room via roof mounted conduit fittings and related roof penetrations. Additional, the foundation trigger for the water intrusion was improper upkeep practices. The inspector additionally decided that the roof injury resulted from a extreme windstorm adopted by a heavy rainstorm that brought on water to enter via the roof and injury {the electrical} panels. The possible reason for the breaks within the seal was the wind inflicting the wires to swing, imposing lateral strain onto the conduit pipes which broke the seal.
Century denied protection, stating that ongoing water intrusion and lack of roof upkeep brought on the injury.
The insured filed go well with alleging, amongst different issues, breach of contract. Century moved for abstract judgment.
The courtroom famous that the important information weren’t in dispute. The insured conceded that wind broken the roof, which allowed water to intrude into {the electrical} room. Such damages weren’t lined beneath the coverage’s Wind or Hailstorm Exclusion.
The insured, nevertheless, argued there have been different potential causes, such because the failure of the circuit breakers to journey and the extended publicity to excessive humidity, in an try and argue the exclusion didn’t apply.
The Wind or Hailstorm Exclusion, nevertheless, included an anti-concurrent causation clause. The coverage didn’t cowl injury that was “brought on immediately or not directly by windstorm or hail, no matter some other trigger or occasion that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss or injury.” Due to this fact, if a windstorm immediately brought on injury or if a windstorm not directly brought on injury, then the injury fell throughout the exclusion. The coverage unambiguously excluded protection for injury attributable to windstorm or hail, even when one other occasion contributed concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded injury. Right here, the events agreed that someplace within the chain of causation, {the electrical} panel’s injury resulted from a windstorm.
Due to this fact, Century met its burden to indicate that there was no real dispute of fabric proven fact that the exclusion utilized. Century’s movement for abstract judgment was granted.
