The debate over wind-versus-water homeowner claims is not quite as cut and dried thanks to a ruling last month by the Mississippi Supreme Court in a Hurricane Katrina case.
The decision by the court in Corban vs. USAA means that wind damage from hurricanes might still be covered even if excluded flood damage caused by a wind-blown storm surge is also present. The suit was filed by the Corban family following USAA's rejection of their claim for damage to their Long Beach, Miss., home during Hurricane Katrina.
The state's highest court concluded that in an earlier ruling on the claim, a federal circuit court "did not err in ruling that 'storm surge' is included in the 'water damage' exclusion. However, the circuit court erred in holding that the anti-concurrent-causation (ACC) clause is applicable in the case sub judice," meaning in this particular instance.
Therefore, the high court determined, the circuit court order granting partial summary judgment to USAA and denying partial summary judgment to the Corbans regarding the ACC clause and storm surge issues is "affirmed in part and reversed in part. This case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
This means a jury will be asked to decide how much damage was caused by wind rather than excluded water perils, and determine exactly what USAA owes. Insurance Information Institute President Robert P. Hartwig told National Underwriter in an e-mail that the decision "introduces uncertainty into an issue that virtually all had believed had been settled once and for all by the federal courts."
He added that "if insurers are now going to be held responsible for damage they believed — and the 5th Circuit believed — was excluded, there are obvious cost consequences. The inconsistency in the decisions between the state and federal courts will at some point need to be resolved."
However, USAA Representative Paul Berry told the Biloxi Sun Herald the carrier was "pleased" with the state Supreme Court decision.
"The court confirmed USAA's approach to handling Katrina claims in Mississippi is correct," Berry was quoted as stating. "Although other insurers may have taken different approaches, USAA has always paid for damage solely caused by wind. We are also pleased the court confirmed USAA's position and decades of insurance law that damage caused by storm surge is not covered."
The newspaper reported that Berry said USAA believes its policies cover wind damage when homes also are subjected to tidal surge.
The American Insurance Association (AIA) also reacted positively to the news. AIA said the decision "confirms that the water damage exclusion and anti-concurrent causation clause — two key issues in Hurricane Katrina litigation — are valid provisions of the insurance contract and will continue to be important to insurers in adjusting wind-versus-water claims."
James Whittle, AIA's assistant general counsel, went on to say that "first, and most importantly, the Corban decision reaffirms the longstanding flood exclusion provision found in most homeowners' insurance policies, that expressly excludes coverage for hurricane-driven water (or storm surge)."
He added that "the water damage or flood exclusion has now withstood every post-Katrina court challenge, and remains a part of regulator-approved insurance contracts throughout the country."
He also said that "the court upheld the use of the ACC clause that was at issue before the court. With this ruling, the court has provided meaningful guidance to consumers and insurers. Nothing in this decision changes the important role that insurers play in recovery by adjusting claims according to their contracts with policyholders."
Sam Friedman is editor-in-chief at National Underwriter, P&C, a member of Summit Business Media's P&C Magazine Group, which includes Claims Magazine.
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.