The insured’s declare for harm to the property’s electrical tools and energy loss after a wind and rain storm was not coated 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 harm 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 basis trigger for the water intrusion was improper upkeep practices. The inspector additionally decided that the roof harm resulted from a extreme windstorm adopted by a heavy rainstorm that brought about water to enter via the roof and harm {the electrical} panels. The seemingly 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 about the harm.
The insured filed swimsuit alleging, amongst different issues, breach of contract. Century moved for abstract judgment.
The courtroom famous that the important details 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 coated below 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 harm that was “brought about 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.” Due to this fact, if a windstorm instantly brought about harm or if a windstorm not directly brought about harm, then the harm fell inside the exclusion. The coverage unambiguously excluded protection for harm brought on by windstorm or hail, even when one other occasion contributed concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded harm. Right here, the events agreed that someplace within the chain of causation, {the electrical} panel’s harm 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.
