Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Defeats Coverage

    The insured's claim for damage to the property's electrical equipment and power loss after a wind and rain storm was not covered due to the policy'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).

    During a storm, water seeped into the insured's property's utility room, causing damage to electrical equipment and power loss. The insured notified its insurer, Century Surety Company. An engineer hired by Century inspected and found that water intruded the electrical equipment in the electrical room through roof mounted conduit fittings and associated roof penetrations. Further, the root cause for the water intrusion was improper maintenance practices. The inspector also determined that the roof damage resulted from a severe windstorm followed by a heavy rainstorm that caused water to enter through the roof and damage the electrical panels. The likely cause of the breaks in the seal was the wind causing the wires to swing, imposing lateral pressure onto the conduit pipes which broke the seal. 

    Century denied coverage, stating that ongoing water intrusion and lack of roof maintenance caused the damage.

    The insured filed suit alleging, among other things, breach of contract. Century moved for summary judgment.

    The court noted that the essential facts were not in dispute. The insured conceded that wind damaged the roof, which allowed water to intrude into the electrical room. Such damages were not covered under the policy's Wind or Hailstorm Exclusion. 

    The insured, however, argued there were other potential causes, such as the failure of the circuit breakers to trip and the prolonged exposure to high humidity, in an attempt to argue the exclusion did not apply. 

    The Wind or Hailstorm Exclusion, however, included an anti-concurrent causation clause. The policy did not cover damage that was "caused directly or indirectly by windstorm or hail, regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss or damage." Therefore, if a windstorm directly caused damage or if a windstorm indirectly caused damage, then the damage fell within the exclusion. The policy unambiguously excluded coverage for damage caused by windstorm or hail, even if another event contributed concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded damage. Here, the parties agreed that somewhere in the chain of causation, the electrical panel's damage resulted from a windstorm. 

    Therefore, Century met its burden to show that there was no genuine dispute of material fact that the exclusion applied. Century's motion for summary judgment was granted.