Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause
Chauvin vs. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al.
Year: 2005
Court: U.S. District Court, Louisiana Eastern District
Case Number: Civil Action 05-6454 c/w 06-0177
Issue:
  • Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause
  • Katrina
  • Value Policy Law
State:
  • Louisiana

The Court must reject State Farm’s untenable and unsupported suggested interpretation of the VPL which, in effect, seeks to render the VPL inapplicable to situations where a covered peril and a non-covered peril were each involved in the total loss to a covered property. The…
Berthelot et al. vs. Boh Brothers Construction Co. L.L.C. et al
Year: 2006
Court: U.S. District Court, Louisiana Eastern District
Case Number: 05-4182 section "K"(2)
Issue:
  • Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause
State:
  • Louisiana

The anti-concurrent causation language upon which Defendants rely has already been deemed ambiguous as a matter of law by another Federal Court addressing similar arguments raised by Defendants. Tuepker v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2006 WL 1442489 (S. D. Miss.). Furthermore, Defendants’ position…
Corban v. United Services Automobile Association a/k/a USAA Insurance Agency
Year: 2007
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Case Number: 2008-M-645
Issue:
  • Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause
  • Katrina
State:
  • Mississippi

Interlocutory Appeal. Addresses numerous issues: 1). In an “all risk” policy, once the insured proves that “a direct physical loss” was sustained, the insurer has the burden of proof to establish what portion of the “direct physical loss” was caused by a specifically excluded event…
Tuepker, John and Clare vs. State Farm Fire and Casualty
Year: 2007
Court: U.S. District Court, Mississippi Southern District
Case Number: 06-61075 and 06-61076
Issue:
  • Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause
  • Katrina
State:
  • Mississippi

Katrina case involving the “anti-concurrent clause” language in a State Farm policy and the burden of proof regarding exclusions. UP requested that the Court uphold the District Court’s opinion finding that the “anti-concurent causation” lead-in clause does not preclude coverage and imposing the burden on…