Amicus Library

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 anti-concurrent causation language upon which State Farm relied in connection with its interpretation has already been deemed ambiguous as a matter of law by another Federal Court addressing similar arguments raised by State Farm. Tuepker, 2006 WL 1442489 at * 5.Interpretation of water damage exclusions in property policies and Louisiana’s “Valued Policy Law.”