One of my friends who follows this stuff more closely than I have been able to do since the Scruggs Supernova happened has been sending me copies of court decisions on property loss causation. This is a subject I take a great deal of interest in, and I'm going to comment on the causation analysis of two recent decisions, one from New Hampshire and one from Vermont.The more recent case is Bates v. Phenix Mutual Fire Ins. Co., a February 13 decision by the New Hampshire Supreme Court. A large rainstorm caused flooding behind a roadway, and a culvert under the road was inadequate to carry relieve the pressure of the built-up water, which burst through the roadway and flooded the policyholder's real and personal property. Although the insured's homeowners policy contained an anti-concu
Related Headlines
- Fifth Circuit hears arguments in Leonard v. Nationwide Katrina appealposted 62 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- In Re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation: More on Fifth Circuit's decision, did the Court hint how it will go on Tuepker?posted 62 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Is anti-concurrent cause language 'unethical'?posted 54 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- A last word this week on In Re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigationposted 62 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Nationwide v. Leonard: Fifth Circuit upholds anti-concurrent cause provision as unambiguousposted 58 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- More on Northrop Grumman v. Factory Mutualposted 58 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Commentary on Fifth Circuit's decision in Tuepker v. State Farmposted 49 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
Colorado Court of Appeals: anti-concurrent cause provision bars coverage where covered snow combined with uncovereposted 10 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Yet more anti-concurrent cause misunderstandingposted 56 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog