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
Read...Related Headlines
- Fifth Circuit hears arguments in Leonard v. Nationwide Katrina appealposted 161 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Is anti-concurrent cause language 'unethical'?posted 154 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- A last word this week on In Re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigationposted 162 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 162 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
Abracadabra: anti-concurrent cause and the search for 'illusory' insurance coverage
posted 79 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Anti-concurrent cause language articleposted 159 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- More on Northrop Grumman v. Factory Mutualposted 158 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
Colorado Court of Appeals: anti-concurrent cause provision bars coverage where covered snow combined with uncovereposted 109 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Yet more anti-concurrent cause misunderstandingposted 156 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog