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 235 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Is anti-concurrent cause language 'unethical'?posted 227 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- A last word this week on In Re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigationposted 235 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 235 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
Abracadabra: anti-concurrent cause and the search for 'illusory' insurance coverage
posted 152 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Anti-concurrent cause language articleposted 232 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- More on Northrop Grumman v. Factory Mutualposted 231 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
Colorado Court of Appeals: anti-concurrent cause provision bars coverage where covered snow combined with uncovereposted 183 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Nationwide v. Leonard: Fifth Circuit upholds anti-concurrent cause provision as unambiguousposted 231 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog