Wind vs. Water Causation & Anti-Concurrent Causation Rules - All 50 States + DC
Purpose: Reference table for concurrent causation doctrines, anti-concurrent causation (ACC) clause enforceability, and burden of proof in wind vs. water damage disputes.
Last Updated: August 2026 (verified against statutes and reported decisions)
Sources: State statutes and reported decisions (linked per row), Florida OIR reporting, IRMI, United Policyholders
Overview
The Core Problem: Hurricanes cause damage through both wind (typically covered) and flood/storm surge (often excluded). When damage results from multiple causes, who bears the loss?
Anti-Concurrent Causation (ACC) Clauses: Policy language stating that if an excluded peril (flood) and covered peril (wind) combine to cause damage, there is no coverage for any of the damage—even the portion caused by wind alone.
Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine: The opposite approach—coverage exists if a covered peril was the dominant and efficient cause of the loss, even if an excluded peril contributed.
Verification: Each row of the master table was checked against the cited statute or reported decision where one could be located. Rows for 5 jurisdictions could not be confirmed or refuted from any located authority and are marked NOT VERIFIED: Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Vermont. (Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia were subsequently verified or partially verified; see their rows.) Those rows carry forward the prior generic entry ("Case-by-case / Generally Yes") as an inference only and should not be treated as verified. Where a source is labeled "(not confirmed from text)," the citation was located but the opinion text was not independently read (secondary source, blocked database, or captcha).
Key Legal Doctrines
1. Anti-Concurrent Causation (ACC)
Standard ISO policy language:
"We do not insure for loss...caused directly or indirectly by...[excluded perils]. Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss."
Effect: If flood (excluded) and wind (covered) both cause damage, the ACC clause can eliminate coverage for the entire loss.
2. Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine
Principle: Coverage exists if the dominant and efficient cause of the loss was a covered peril, even if an excluded peril also contributed.
Effect: If wind was the predominant cause, coverage exists for the wind damage even if flood also contributed.
3. Concurrent Causation Doctrine
Principle: When two independent perils (one covered, one excluded) cause damage simultaneously, the loss is apportioned—covered peril damage is paid, excluded peril damage is not. Florida adopted this doctrine for converging independent perils in Sebo v. American Home Assurance Co., 208 So. 3d 694 (Fla. 2016).
State Approaches to Concurrent Causation
| State | Approach | ACC Clauses Enforced? | Dominant Doctrine / Leading Authority | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | ACC Enforced (federal courts applying AL law) | Yes | Contract enforcement; Preis v. Lexington Ins. Co., 508 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (S.D. Ala. 2007), aff'd 279 F. App'x 940 (11th Cir. 2008); no Ala. Sup. Ct. ACC decision located | case.law (not confirmed from text) |
| Alaska | ACC Enforced | Yes (Alaska Sup. Ct.) | Contract enforcement; State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Bongen, 925 P.2d 1042 (Alaska 1996) ("an insurer may expressly preclude coverage when damage ... is caused by both a covered and an excluded risk"; court expressly reserved whether EPC applies absent such policy language) | case.law |
| Arizona | ACC Enforced | Yes | Contract enforcement; Millar v. State Farm, 167 Ariz. 93 (App. 1990) (AZ has never adopted EPC) | case.law |
| Arkansas | ACC Enforced (federal court applying AR law) | Yes | Contract enforcement; Hudson Enters. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, No. 4:15-cv-12 (E.D. Ark. 2016); no Ark. Sup. Ct. ACC ruling located | PICL blog (not confirmed from text) |
| California | Efficient Proximate Cause (statutory) | NO (to extent conflicting with § 530) | EPC codified, Ins. Code §§ 530, 532; Sabella v. Wisler (1963); Garvey v. State Farm (1989); Howell v. State Farm (1990); Julian v. Hartford (2005) | CA Legislature |
| Colorado | ACC/contributory language enforced | Yes | Contract enforcement; Kane v. Royal Ins. Co., 768 P.2d 678 (Colo. 1989) (EPC "must yield" to policy language) | case.law |
| Connecticut | Case-by-case | Generally Yes | Contract enforcement; Dalmac Realty v. Scottsdale Ins., No. 3:24-cv-00942 (D. Conn. 2025); no Conn. Sup. Ct. ACC ruling located | PICL blog (not confirmed from text) |
| Delaware | ACC applied (trial court) | Generally Yes (Del. Super.) | Monzo v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., C.A. No. K18C-11-003 NEP (Del. Super. Mar. 18 & May 13, 2020) (ACC clause "even if another peril or event contributed concurrently or in any sequence" applied to bar recovery), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 249 A.3d 106 (Del. 2021) (Sup. Ct. treatment of ACC clause not confirmed from text) | vLex |
| District of Columbia | Proximate-cause "usual rule" (case-by-case) | Not decided | Ordinary proximate-cause rule governs coverage (Unkelsbee v. Homestead Fire Ins. Co., 41 A.2d 168 (D.C. 1945)); Quadrangle Dev. Corp. v. Hartford Ins. Co., 645 A.2d 1074 (D.C. 1994) contrasted an ACC-worded exclusion group with a plain one but did not rule on ACC enforceability | case.law |
| Florida | Concurrent cause doctrine (absent ACC language); ACC clauses enforceable | Yes | Sebo v. American Home Assurance Co., 208 So. 3d 694 (Fla. 2016) (CCD for converging independent perils; EPC rejected; no ACC clause at issue) | case.law |
| Georgia | EPC applied absent ACC language; ACC enforceability unsettled | Not confirmed | EPC — Burgess v. Allstate, 334 F. Supp. 2d 1351 (N.D. Ga. 2003); Bennett Int'l Grp. v. Allied World (N.D. Ga. 2023); no GA appellate ACC-enforcement decision located | PICL blog (not confirmed from text) |
| Hawaii | Case-by-case | Generally Yes | NOT VERIFIED — Contract enforcement (inferred); No Hawaii appellate ACC/EPC ruling located; Tiki's Grill & Bar v. DTRIC, 157 Haw. 473, 580 P.3d 653 (App. 2025) quotes an ACC lead-in but remanded on fact issues | vLex (not confirmed from text) |
| Idaho | Case-by-case | Generally Yes | NOT VERIFIED — Contract enforcement (inferred); Lead: ABK, LLC v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 166 Idaho 92, 454 P.3d 1175 (2019) (issue framed as whether the district court erred in declining an EPC analysis under a water exclusion with ACC lead-in; holding not read) | vLex (not confirmed from text) |
| Illinois | ACC Enforced (as written); public-policy challenge left open | Yes | Bozek v. Erie Ins. Grp., 2015 IL App (2d) 150155 | Ill. Courts |
| Indiana | EPC reasoning adopted; ACC-worded exclusion enforced | Yes (Ind. Ct. App.) | Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Evansville Vanderburgh Pub. Library, 860 N.E.2d 636 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) ("persuaded by the analysis and reasoning of efficient proximate cause rule"; exclusion applying "regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently, or in any sequence" barred coverage where the EPC was an excluded peril); see Assoc. Aviation Underwriters v. George Koch Sons, 712 N.E.2d 1071 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) | case.law |
| Iowa | ACC Enforced | Yes | Amish Connection v. State Farm, 861 N.W.2d 230 (Iowa 2015); Am. Family v. Corrigan, 697 N.W.2d 108 (Iowa 2005) | case.law |
| Kansas | Proximate / efficient cause rule | Not decided | "Kansas has applied a proximate cause or efficient cause rule to determine whether a loss is covered" — Allen v. Marysville Mut. Ins. Co., 404 P.3d 368 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017) (unpublished), citing Casualty Co. v. Power Co., 99 Kan. 563, 162 P. 313 (1917); no Kansas appellate ACC ruling located | vLex search (not confirmed from text) |
| Kentucky | Case-by-case | Generally Yes | NOT VERIFIED — Contract enforcement (inferred); Lead: Reynolds v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 233 S.W.3d 197 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007) (mold exclusion with "regardless of any other cause ... concurrently or in any sequence" lead-in; holding not read) | vLex (not confirmed from text) |
| Louisiana | ACC Enforced | Yes | Contract enforcement; Bilbe v. Belsom, 530 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2008); Stewart Enters. v. RSUI, 614 F.3d 117 (5th Cir. 2010); In re Katrina Canal Breaches, 495 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007) (federal, not La. Sup. Ct.) | vLex (not confirmed from text) |
| Maine | Case-by-case | Yes | Contract enforcement; Bibeau v. Concord Gen. Mut., 2021 ME 4, 244 A.3d 712 | vLex |
| Maryland | Case-by-case | Generally Yes | Contract enforcement; Bao v. Liberty Mut., 535 F. Supp. 2d 532 (D. Md. 2008); no Md. appellate ACC holding located | vLex (not confirmed from text) |
| Massachusetts | Case-by-case | Yes | EPC ("train of events") absent ACC — Jussim v. Mass. Bay Ins., 415 Mass. 24 (1993); ACC enforced — Boazova v. Safety Ins., 462 Mass. 346 (2012) | vLex |
| Michigan | Case-by-case | Generally Yes | Contract enforcement; Iroquois on the Beach v. Gen. Star, 550 F.3d 585 (6th Cir. 2008) (predicting MI law) | vLex (not confirmed from text) |
| Minnesota | Efficient Proximate Cause (default) | Unsettled in state courts | EPC — Henning Nelson Constr. v. Fireman's Fund, 383 N.W.2d 645 (Minn. 1986); applied in Friedberg v. Chubb, 691 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2012) | vLex (not confirmed from text) |
| Mississippi | ACC Enforced (truly concurrent perils only) | Yes, as construed by Corban | Contract enforcement; Leonard v. Nationwide, 499 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 2007); Corban v. USAA, 20 So. 3d 601 (Miss. 2009) (ACC inapplicable to sequential wind-then-surge damage) | 5th Cir. |
| Missouri | Case-by-case | Yes | Contract enforcement; Messina v. Shelter Ins., 585 S.W.3d 839 (Mo. App. 2019) | vLex (not confirmed from text) |
| Montana | EPC default; ACC Enforced | Yes (Mont. Sup. Ct. applied ACC-worded exclusion; D. Mont.) | EPC: Park Saddle Horse Co. v. Royal Indem. Co., 81 Mont. 99 (1927); Parker v. Safeco Ins. Co., 2016 MT 173, 384 Mont. 125 (earth-movement exclusion with "regardless of any other cause ... concurrently or in any sequence" lead-in enforced); Oltz v. Safeco, 306 F. Supp. 3d 1243 (D. Mont. 2018) ("Montana law does not prohibit anti-concurrent cause clauses") | case.law; vLex (Oltz) |
| Nebraska | Efficient Proximate Cause | Not decided | EPC: "the proximate cause to which the loss is to be attributed is the dominant, the efficient one that sets the other causes in operation" — Curtis O. Griess & Sons v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 247 Neb. 526, 528 N.W.2d 329 (1995); no Neb. appellate ACC ruling located | case.law |
| Nevada | Efficient Proximate Cause (adopted 2011) | Unresolved by Nev. Sup. Ct.; enforced in Schroeder v. State Farm, 770 F. Supp. 558 (D. Nev. 1991) | EPC — Fourth Street Place v. Travelers, 127 Nev. 957, 270 P.3d 1235 (2011) | vLex (not confirmed from text) |
| New Hampshire | Case-by-case | Yes | Contract enforcement; Bates v. Phenix Mut. Fire Ins., 156 N.H. 719 (2008) | vLex |
| New Jersey | Case-by-case | Generally Yes | Contract enforcement; Simonetti v. Selective Ins., 372 N.J. Super. 421 (App. Div. 2004) is a causation remand, not a clean ACC-enforcement holding; Assurance Co. v. Jay-Mar, 38 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D.N.J. 1999) not independently verified | vLex (not confirmed from text) |
| New Mexico | Case-by-case (federal courts only) | Unsettled | No N.M. appellate ACC ruling located; Winters v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 4 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (D.N.M. 1998) (ACC lead-in does not broaden "earth movement" beyond natural events per United Nuclear v. Allendale, 103 N.M. 480 (1985)); Naabani Twin Stars v. Travelers, 497 F. Supp. 3d 1011 (D.N.M. 2020) (ACC provision discussed; not confirmed from text) | case.law |
| New York | Case-by-case | Generally Yes | Contract enforcement; ACC limited to a single loss caused by combined perils — Valle v. N.Y. Prop. Ins. Underwriting Ass'n, 2016 NY Slip Op 30751(U); absent ACC, Album Realty v. Am. Home, 80 N.Y.2d 1008 (1992) | vLex (not confirmed from text) |
| North Carolina | Case-by-case | Unresolved by NC appellate courts | Concurrent-cause rule favoring coverage absent ACC — Erie Ins. Exch. v. Bledsoe, 141 N.C. App. 331 (2000); no NC ACC-enforcement decision located | vLex (not confirmed from text) |
| North Dakota | Efficient Proximate Cause | NO | EPC codified, N.D.C.C. §§ 26.1-32-01 to -03; Western Nat'l Mut. v. Univ. of N.D., 2002 ND 63, 643 N.W.2d 4 | Casemine |
| Ohio | ACC Enforced | Yes (Ohio Ct. App.) | Hartman v. Erie Ins. Co., 2017-Ohio-668, 85 N.E.3d 454 (6th Dist.) ¶44 ("Because there was an anti-concurrent causation clause ... coverage was excluded when there was more than one cause for the loss and one of the causes was an excluded cause"), following Front Row Theatre v. Am. Mfrs. Mut., 18 F.3d 1343 (6th Cir. 1994) (Ohio law) | Ohio Sup. Ct. (PDF) |
| Oklahoma | EPC default; ACC Enforced | Yes (Okla. Civ. App.) | EPC recognized (Shirey v. Tri-State Ins. Co., 1954 OK 214) but ACC lead-in "clearly and unambiguously avoids application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine": Duensing v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2006 OK CIV APP 15, 131 P.3d 127, ¶21 | case.law |
| Oregon | Efficient Proximate Cause | Unsettled | EPC applied and causation sent to jury despite a "Concurrent Causation - Exclusion Endorsement": Naumes, Inc. v. Landmark Ins. Co., 119 Or. App. 79, 849 P.2d 554 (1993) (citing Gowans, 260 Or. 618 (1971)); no Or. Sup. Ct. ACC ruling located | case.law |
| Pennsylvania | Case-by-case | Generally Yes (limited) | Lead-in effective where exclusion applies "in its entirety ... even if other events contributed": Spece v. Erie Ins. Group, 850 A.2d 679, 684 (Pa. Super. 2004); EPC inapplicable against lead-in: T.H.E. Ins. Co. v. Charles Boyer Children's Trust, 455 F. Supp. 2d 284 (M.D. Pa. 2006); but ACC unenforceable against an endorsement affirmatively granting coverage for added premium: Bishops, Inc. v. Penn Nat'l Ins., 984 A.2d 982 (Pa. Super. 2009); no Pa. Sup. Ct. decision | Spece; Bishops |
| Rhode Island | Case-by-case | Generally Yes | NOT VERIFIED — Contract enforcement (inferred); Only trial-level COVID decision located (Atwells Realty v. Scottsdale, 2021 WL 2396584 (R.I. Super.)); ACC holding not read | vLex (not confirmed from text) |
| South Carolina | ACC Enforced | Yes (S.C. Sup. Ct.) | "[N]either doctrine applies since the policy contains an anti-concurrent causation clause": S.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Durham, 380 S.C. 506, 671 S.E.2d 610 (2009) | case.law |
| South Dakota | EPC (state); ACC Enforced (federal) | Generally Yes (federal only) | S.D. Sup. Ct. recognizes EPC (Lummel, 50 S.D. 502 (1926); Cain v. Fortis, 2005 SD 39) but has not ruled on ACC; D.S.D. predicted enforcement: Swenson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 891 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1110 (D.S.D. 2012) | case.law |
| Tennessee | Concurrent-cause doctrine (state); ACC Enforced (federal) | Generally Yes (federal district only) | Tenn. Sup. Ct. concurrent causation doctrine (Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watts, 811 S.W.2d 883 (Tenn. 1991), no ACC clause); ACC lead-in applied over Watts: Hardy & Kelly LLC v. QBE Ins. Corp., No. 3-11-0155 (M.D. Tenn. May 16, 2012) | vLex (partially read) |
| Texas | ACC Enforced | Yes | Contract enforcement; JAW The Pointe v. Lexington Ins., 460 S.W.3d 597 (Tex. 2015); Wallis v. USAA, 2 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. App. 1999) | Casemine |
| Utah | ACC Enforced | Yes | Contract enforcement; Alf v. State Farm, 850 P.2d 1272 (Utah 1993) (EPC "must yield" to policy wording) | Casemine |
| Vermont | Case-by-case | Generally Yes | NOT VERIFIED — Contract enforcement (inferred); No Vermont EPC/ACC decision located (Huntington Ingalls v. Ace Am., 2022 VT 45, is a COVID physical-loss case) | — |
| Virginia | Case-by-case | Unsettled | No Va. Sup. Ct. ACC ruling located; Elegant Massage, LLC v. State Farm, 506 F. Supp. 3d 360, 378 (E.D. Va. 2020) (ACC clause "is not a recognized or settled doctrine in the Court's jurisdiction") (quoted in Carilion Clinic v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., W.D. Va.) | vLex (Carilion) (not confirmed from text) |
| Washington | Efficient Proximate Cause | NO (where covered peril is the EPC) | EPC adopted by courts: Graham v. PEMCO, 98 Wn.2d 533 (1983); Safeco v. Hirschmann, 112 Wn.2d 411 (1989); Vision One v. Phila. Indem., 174 Wn.2d 501 (2012) | Casemine |
| West Virginia | Efficient Proximate Cause | NO (lead-in construed against insurer) | EPC adopted: Murray v. State Farm, 203 W. Va. 477, 509 S.E.2d 1 (1998) | Casemine |
| Wisconsin | ACC Enforced | Yes (Wis. Ct. App.) | ACC provision "plainly excludes coverage if an excluded risk causes the loss regardless of the contributing causes": Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schmitz, 2010 WI App 157, 793 N.W.2d 111 | vLex |
| Wyoming | ACC Enforced | Yes (Wyo. Sup. Ct.) | Coverage reversed for surface water entering through hail-broken windows under lead-in "regardless of ... whether other causes acted concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded event": State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Paulson, 756 P.2d 764 (Wyo. 1988) | case.law |
States That Reject ACC Clauses
These states apply the Efficient Proximate Cause doctrine and do NOT enforce ACC clauses to the extent the clause would deny coverage when a covered peril is the efficient proximate cause:
| State | Authority | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| California | Ins. Code §§ 530, 532 (statutory); Howell v. State Farm, 218 Cal.App.3d 1446 (1990); Julian v. Hartford Underwriters, 35 Cal.4th 747 (2005) | EPC is statutory; exclusions that deny coverage when a covered peril is the EPC are unenforceable (Howell). Julian nuance: insurers MAY exclude a specific peril acting within the causal chain without violating § 530 |
| North Dakota | N.D.C.C. §§ 26.1-32-01 to -03 (statutory); Western Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. v. Univ. of N.D., 2002 ND 63, 643 N.W.2d 4 | Statutes codify EPC; insurer "may not contractually preclude coverage when the efficient proximate cause of a loss is a covered peril" — "regardless of any other cause" clause unenforceable |
| Washington | Judicial (no RCW codifies EPC): Safeco Ins. Co. v. Hirschmann, 112 Wn.2d 411 (1989); Vision One, LLC v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., 174 Wn.2d 501 (2012) | Coverage exists if the EPC is a covered peril "regardless of insurance policy language excluding coverage for losses caused by subsequent events occurring alone or in any sequence with a covered peril" (Hirschmann). Vision One leaves open language denying coverage when an EXCLUDED peril initiates the chain |
| West Virginia | Murray v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 203 W. Va. 477, 509 S.E.2d 1 (1998) | Loss covered if covered risk was the EPC; ACC lead-in "conflicts with the reasonable expectations of the parties" and is construed to deny coverage only when the excluded risk is the EPC |
EPC / Concurrent-Cause Default States Where ACC Enforceability Is Unsettled
| State | Default Doctrine | ACC Status |
|---|---|---|
| Florida | Concurrent cause doctrine (Sebo, Fla. 2016) | ACC clauses enforceable (lower/federal courts); Sebo involved no ACC clause |
| Georgia | EPC in federal courts applying GA law (Burgess, N.D. Ga. 2003) | Not confirmed — no GA appellate ACC-enforcement decision located |
| Minnesota | EPC (Henning Nelson, Minn. 1986) | Unsettled in state courts |
| Nevada | EPC (Fourth Street Place, Nev. 2011) | Unresolved by Nev. Sup. Ct.; enforced by D. Nev. (Schroeder, 1991) |
| North Carolina | Concurrent-cause rule favoring coverage (Bledsoe, N.C. App. 2000) | Unresolved by NC appellate courts |
| Massachusetts | EPC "train of events" (Jussim, Mass. 1993) | ACC clauses enforced and displace EPC (Boazova, Mass. 2012) |
| Oregon | EPC (Naumes, Or. App. 1993; Gowans, Or. 1971) | Unsettled — Naumes applied EPC despite a concurrent-causation exclusion endorsement; no Or. Sup. Ct. ACC ruling |
| South Dakota | EPC (Lummel, S.D. 1926; Cain, S.D. 2005) | Not decided by S.D. Sup. Ct.; enforced by D.S.D. (Swenson, 2012) |
| Tennessee | Concurrent-cause doctrine (Watts, Tenn. 1991, liability policy) | Not decided by Tenn. appellate courts; enforced by M.D. Tenn. (Hardy & Kelly, 2012) |
| District of Columbia | Ordinary proximate-cause "usual rule" (Unkelsbee, D.C. 1945; Quadrangle, D.C. 1994) | Not decided by D.C. Court of Appeals |
| Kansas | Proximate / efficient cause rule (Casualty Co. v. Power Co., Kan. 1917; Allen v. Marysville Mut., Kan. App. 2017) | Not decided by Kansas appellate courts |
| Nebraska | EPC (Curtis O. Griess & Sons, Neb. 1995) | Not decided by Neb. Sup. Ct. |
| New Mexico | No state appellate rule; federal courts case-by-case (Winters, D.N.M. 1998 limited ACC lead-in) | Unsettled |
| Virginia | No Va. Sup. Ct. rule | Unsettled — Elegant Massage (E.D. Va. 2020) called ACC "not a recognized or settled doctrine" |
States Where ACC Clauses Are Enforced (verified from cited authority)
| Level of Authority | States |
|---|---|
| "Yes" — state high court or intermediate appellate court | Alaska (Bongen), Arizona (Millar), Colorado (Kane), Illinois (Bozek), Indiana (Evansville Vanderburgh, Ct. App.), Iowa (Amish Connection), Maine (Bibeau), Massachusetts (Boazova), Mississippi (Corban, limited to truly concurrent perils), Missouri (Messina), Montana (Parker; Oltz, D. Mont.), New Hampshire (Bates), Ohio (Hartman, 6th Dist.), Oklahoma (Duensing, Civ. App.), Pennsylvania (Spece, Super. Ct.; limited by Bishops where an endorsement affirmatively grants coverage), South Carolina (Durham), Texas (JAW The Pointe), Utah (Alf), Wisconsin (Schmitz, Ct. App.), Wyoming (Paulson) |
| "Yes" — federal courts applying state law only | Alabama (Preis), Arkansas (Hudson Enters.), Louisiana (Bilbe, Stewart Enters.), South Dakota (Swenson), Tennessee (Hardy & Kelly) |
| "Yes" — ACC enforceable, but leading state case is not an ACC case | Florida (Sebo is a concurrent-cause case; ACC enforcement rests on lower/federal courts) |
| "Generally Yes" — federal or trial-level authority only | Connecticut, Delaware (Monzo, Del. Super.), Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York |
| Not verified (inferred "Generally Yes" only) | Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Vermont |
California Rule (Most Protective)
California Insurance Code § 530 (verbatim):
"An insurer is liable for a loss of which a peril insured against was the proximate cause, although a peril not contemplated by the contract may have been a remote cause of the loss; but he is not liable for a loss of which the peril insured against was only a remote cause."
Section 532 (harmonized with § 530 per Sabella v. Wisler, 59 Cal.2d 21 (1963)) provides that where a peril is specially excepted, a loss which would not have occurred but for that excepted peril is not covered even though the immediate cause was a peril not excepted.
Effect: If wind (covered) was the efficient proximate cause, coverage exists even if flood (excluded) contributed. Under Howell v. State Farm (1990), an exclusion that would deny coverage when a covered peril is the efficient proximate cause is unenforceable. Limit: under Julian v. Hartford Underwriters (2005), an insurer may exclude a specific risk that acts within the causal chain (there, rain-induced landslide) without violating § 530; ACC language is therefore not automatically void in California—it is unenforceable only to the extent it conflicts with the § 530 EPC rule.
Burden of Proof
Who Must Prove What?
| Element | Who Proves | Standard |
|---|---|---|
| Loss Occurred | Policyholder | Preponderance |
| Covered Peril Caused Loss | Policyholder | Preponderance |
| Exclusion Applies | Insurer | Preponderance |
| Exception to Exclusion | Policyholder | Preponderance |
Hurricane Claim Burden of Proof
| State | Burden | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Florida | Policyholder proves wind damage; Insurer proves flood exclusion | Consistent with Sebo; the Feb 2025 OIR memo does not address burden allocation in its verified text |
| Louisiana | Policyholder proves covered loss | Insurer must prove exclusion (5th Cir. authority) |
| Mississippi | Policyholder proves covered peril; insurer proves exclusion | Leonard v. Nationwide (5th Cir. 2007); Corban (Miss. 2009): wind loss vests when it occurs, before surge |
| Texas | Policyholder proves covered loss; insurer proves exclusion (JAW The Pointe) | Under Texas concurrent-causes doctrine (Wallis; Lyons v. Millers), the insured must segregate and prove the amount attributable solely to the covered peril |
| Most States | Policyholder proves covered peril; Insurer proves exclusion | Standard allocation; state-specific primary sources not checked outside FL, IA, CO, MS, TX |
Florida - February 2025 OIR Memorandum
In late February 2025 (reported February 24, 2025), the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation issued a memorandum on wind vs. water claims following Hurricanes Helene and Milton, directed at NFIP write-your-own carriers.
Confirmed Points
- Concurrent Causation Warning: The memo states that concurrent-causation/ACC language "is not a mechanism to handle claims poorly," and that improper denials "will result in administrative action and restitution."
- Data Demand: Carriers were required to submit claims data by March 6, 2025.
Not Confirmed from the Primary Document
- The specific February 20, 2025 issuance date.
- The "mindful of and apply" Valued Policy Law (F.S. § 627.702) language.
- The point that full policy limits apply under VPL if wind alone "would have caused" a total loss.
The memo was not located on the floir.gov informational-memoranda index; the points above come from secondary reporting and should be treated as unverified quotations until the primary document is obtained.
Practical Effect
Insurers cannot rely on concurrent-causation language as a shortcut for denying hurricane claims; each claim still requires analysis of what damage wind caused and, where VPL may apply, whether a total-loss analysis is required.
Texas - ACC Enforcement
The Texas Supreme Court has confirmed ACC enforcement in JAW The Pointe, L.L.C. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 460 S.W.3d 597 (Tex. 2015):
Holding
- ACC clause plus flood exclusion "exclude from coverage any damage caused by a combination of wind and water" (agreeing with the 5th Circuit's Leonard line)
- Insurer bears the burden on the exclusion ("Lexington sustained its burden")
- Under the Texas concurrent-causes doctrine (Wallis v. USAA, 2 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. App. 1999)), the insured must segregate and prove the portion of loss attributable solely to the covered peril
Lesson
In ACC enforcement states, the exclusionary language and its breadth are critical. If ACC language is broad, even minor contribution by an excluded peril can eliminate coverage for indivisible damage. (A previously cited August 2025 Texas federal decision was not verified in this review and has been removed.)
Analyzing Wind vs. Water Claims
Step 1: Review Policy Language
| Check For | Importance |
|---|---|
| ACC Clause | Does policy have anti-concurrent causation language? |
| Flood Exclusion | How is flood/storm surge defined? |
| Wind Coverage | Is wind covered? Any wind exclusions? |
| VPL State | Does Valued Policy Law apply? |
Step 2: Identify State Law
| Determination | Effect |
|---|---|
| EPC / ACC-Rejecting State (CA, ND, WA, WV) | ACC clause unenforceable where a covered peril is the EPC; focus on dominant cause |
| EPC or Concurrent-Cause Default, ACC Unsettled (FL, GA, MN, NV, NC) | Default doctrine favors coverage absent ACC language; check whether the policy has ACC language and how local courts treat it |
| ACC Enforcement State | ACC clause likely enforced; concurrent damage may be excluded (MS, NY: only truly concurrent/indivisible damage) |
| Not Verified State | Treat as open; research current authority before relying on the table |
Step 3: Document Causation
| Evidence | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Timeline | When did wind vs. water damage occur? |
| Damage Patterns | Wind damage is typically above waterline |
| Engineering Reports | Expert analysis of causation |
| Weather Data | Storm surge timing vs. wind intensity |
| Photographs | Before/during/after documentation |
Step 4: Apply Burden of Proof
| Party | Burden |
|---|---|
| Policyholder | Prove wind caused damage |
| Insurer | Prove flood exclusion applies |
Damage Pattern Analysis
Typical Wind Damage Indicators
| Indicator | Description |
|---|---|
| Roof Damage | Shingles lifted, decking exposed, structural damage |
| Siding Damage | Blown off, impact damage from debris |
| Window/Door Damage | Blown in, pressure differential |
| Interior Water Damage | Water intrusion through compromised envelope |
| Debris Impact | Trees, projectiles striking building |
| Above Flood Line | Damage above observable water marks |
Typical Flood/Storm Surge Indicators
| Indicator | Description |
|---|---|
| Water Lines | Visible marks showing water height |
| Foundation Damage | Scouring, erosion, displacement |
| Lower Level Damage | Contents displacement, mud/debris deposits |
| Mold Patterns | Starting at floor level, moving up |
| HVAC Damage | Ground-level equipment destroyed |
Mixed Damage Scenarios
| Scenario | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Wind opens roof, rain enters | Generally covered (rain through wind-created opening) |
| Storm surge floods first floor | Typically excluded flood damage |
| Wind blows out windows, surge floods | Must separate and analyze each; sequential damage may escape ACC (Corban, Valle) |
| Building collapses from combined forces | Most disputed; ACC may apply |
Key Takeaways
- Policy Language First: Read the ACC clause and exclusions carefully
- State Law Matters: CA, ND, WA, WV reject ACC where a covered peril is the EPC; enforcement is verified in AZ, CO, IL, IA, ME, MA, MO, MS, NH, TX, UT (state courts) and AL, AR, LA (federal courts); many states remain unverified
- Florida: Sebo applies the concurrent cause doctrine absent ACC language; the Feb 2025 OIR memo warns that ACC language "is not a mechanism to handle claims poorly"
- Burden Allocation: Policyholder proves covered cause; insurer proves exclusion; Texas insureds must also segregate covered from excluded loss
- Document Everything: Photographs, expert reports, weather data critical
- Damage Patterns: Physical evidence helps establish causation; sequence matters in MS and NY
- Total Loss Claims: VPL states may require full payment—verify the VPL/ACC interaction under current state guidance
Common Disputes & Arguments
| Issue | Policyholder Argument | Insurer Argument |
|---|---|---|
| Total Loss | Wind would have caused total loss; VPL applies | Flood contributed; concurrent causation |
| Causation | Wind was dominant/efficient cause | Flood exclusion applies; ACC bars recovery |
| Apportionment | Pay for wind damage; exclude only flood | Cannot apportion; ACC excludes all |
| Timing | Wind damage occurred before flooding | Damage occurred concurrently |
| ACC Validity | ACC clause is unconscionable/ambiguous | ACC clause is valid contract term |
This table is for reference purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. State laws and case law evolve; verify current requirements before relying on this information.