Last Friday, Texas’ highest court unanimously endorsed lower court and federal court decisions giving effect to anti-concurrent causation (ACC) clauses and held that such provisions bar coverage where a combination of an excluded peril and an included peril operate together to cause the loss. In JAW The Pointe, LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2015 WL 1870054, 2015 Tex. LEXIS 343 (Tex., Apr. 24, 2015), that meant that the insured could not recover where flood and wind damage triggered the enforcement of city ordinances even though the covered wind damage component was arguably sufficient in and of itself to cause the loss. The policyholder owned The Pointe Apartments – a complex in Galveston, Texas that was heavily damaged when Hurricane Ike…
Blog Archives
Texas Supreme Court Enforces Anti-Concurrent Causation, Bars Coverage Where Wind and Flood Combine to Cause the Loss
Tagged with: Demolition and Increased Cost of Construction, Texas
Posted in Anti-Concurrent Causation, Causation, Flood, Hurricane, Hurricane Ike, Ordinance or Law, Windstorm
Posted in Anti-Concurrent Causation, Causation, Flood, Hurricane, Hurricane Ike, Ordinance or Law, Windstorm
Texas Limits Scope of Anti-Technicality Statute and Material Breach Doctrine in Vacancy Clause Case
Last week, the Texas Supreme Court handed down an opinion that involved two unique (and somewhat troublesome) creatures of state law – the so-called “anti-technicality” statute and the material breach doctrine – and in Greene v. Farmer’s Ins. Exc., 2014 WL 4252271, 2014 Tex. LEXIS 758 (Tex., Aug. 29, 2014), it effectively limited the scope of both. The court thereby gave effect to a provision in a homeowners policy that suspended coverage if a dwelling was allowed to remain vacant for more than sixty days. The case arose after Lewayne Greene moved into a retirement community, vacating her home in Irving, Texas and placing the structure on the market. She notified her insurer of the move, but she did not…
Tagged with: Anti-Technicality, Material Breach, Texas
Posted in Causation, Fire, Prejudice, Vacant or Unoccupied
Posted in Causation, Fire, Prejudice, Vacant or Unoccupied
Texas Court Lays Out a Useful Roadmap of the Defenses to a Hailstorm Claim
Hailstorm claims for damage to roofs often involve belated notification that an already old or damaged structure has been further compromised. In a recent Texas case, the court provided a primer for carriers confronting such claims, addressing a trifecta of defenses available – lack of causation, late notice, and prejudice. The case is Hamilton Properties v. American Insurance Company, 2014 WL 3055801, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91882 (N.D.Tex., July 7, 2014). Plaintiff Hamilton Properties acquired the Dallas Plaza Hotel in 2006 and mothballed the structure in February of 2009. The hotel was insured by American Insurance Company (AIC) from February through September of 2009. In 2012, the policyholder notified AIC that it was making claim for roof and water damage…
Florida, Georgia and Texas Appraisal Update: Is Causation A Coverage Question For The Court or A Damages Question for The Panel?
In most jurisdictions, underlying coverage issues must be resolved prior to invoking appraisal in a first-party property claim. The question of what constitutes a coverage issue (typically reserved for a court’s judicial determination) and what constitutes a damage issue (appropriate for an appraisal panel’s consideration), however, is not always readily apparent. A routine subject of this particular appraisal debate is whether causation is a coverage or a damages inquiry, and recent decisions under Florida, Georgia and Texas law are evident of two things: (1) the determination of the issue is, in large part, factually dependent; but (2) the debate is far from over. In a recent appellate decision, Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Denetrescu, 2014 WL 1225124, — So.3d —…
Tagged with: Florida, Georgia, Texas
Posted in Arbitration and Appraisal, Causation, Preservation and Protection, Wear and Tear
Posted in Arbitration and Appraisal, Causation, Preservation and Protection, Wear and Tear
Under Texas Law, The Policyholder’s Rights to Recover For A Loss Are Not Necessarily Extinguished By A Subsequent Foreclosure
On November 27, 2013, an intermediate level Texas court handed down an opinion addressing the extent to which a policyholder’s claims for a covered loss survive foreclosure. Peacock Hospitality, Inc. v. Association Casualty Ins. Co., 2013 WL 6188597 (Tex.App. San Antonio) arose after the policyholder Peacock Hospitality (“Peacock”) made claim against its property insurance carrier, Association Casualty Insurance Company (“Association Casualty”), for water damage from frozen pipes at a Holiday Inn. The loss occurred on January 9, 2010. The policyholder had gone into default on its mortgage several months earlier, and the mortgagee (the “Bank”) sent Peacock a notice of acceleration and foreclosure on January 28th. On February 11th, Association Casualty tendered a check made payable to Peacock and the Bank…
