Chauvin vs. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al.

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.”