Opinion ID: 3167998
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State Farm

Text: ¶5. The interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law. Corban v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 20 So. 3d 601, 609 (Miss. 2009) (citations omitted). Insurance policies are interpreted and construed liberally in favor of the insured. J & W Foods Corp. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 723 So. 2d 550, 552 (Miss. 1998). If the words of an insurance policy are clear and unambiguous, they must be interpreted as written. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Martin, 998 So. 2d 956, 963 (Miss. 2008). ¶6. Porter had an all-risk homeowner’s insurance policy with State Farm, which covered all risks except those specifically excluded under the policy. See Jeffrey Jackson, Mississippi Insurance Law and Practice § 15:17 (2014). Porter contends that State Farm denied her claim in bad faith, arguing that the barge was the true cause of the destruction of her home and, because loss from debris is not specifically excluded in her insurance policy, State Farm should have covered the loss. However, Porter’s insurance policy clearly stated: We do not insure under any coverage for any loss which would not have occurred in the absence of one or more of the following excluded events. . . . Water Damage, meaning: (1) flood, surface water, waves, tidal water, tsunami, seiche, overflow of a body of water, or spray from any of these, all whether driven by wind or not. . . . 4 The insurance policy additionally excluded “loss resulting directly or indirectly from windstorm or hail.” ¶7. In Corban, the homeowner’s insurance policy excluded loss caused directly or indirectly by water damage but covered loss caused by wind damage. Corban, 20 So. 3d 601, 616 (Miss. 2009). Hurricane Katrina damaged the insured’s home, and the insurance company denied coverage because the policy excluded damage caused by flood and because the policy contained an anticoncurrent cause (ACC) clause which excluded loss caused directly or indirectly by flood, “regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.” Id. at 612. This Court found that “wind damage that precedes the arrival of the storm surge and damage that happens after the storm surge arrives are separate losses from separate causes. . . .” Id. at 617 (quoting Dickinson v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2008 WL 1913957,  (S.D. Miss. April 25, 2008)). The wind damage, a covered loss, was not caused directly or indirectly by the storm surge; therefore, this Court remanded the case to allow a jury to determine which losses were caused by wind and which losses were caused by flood. Id. ¶8. The instant case is distinguishable. Under Porter’s policy, State Farm excluded from coverage both loss caused by wind damage and loss caused by water damage. Although Porter’s policy does include an ACC clause, the policy first unambiguously states that any loss that would not have occurred absent water damage is not covered. Porter argues that the expert affidavit she produced specifically states that the home was destroyed by the barge and not by any other means. Yet the barge, without any other means, could not have allided with 5 Porter’s home. It is illogical to interpret the language “we do not insure under any coverage for any loss which would not have occurred in the absence of . . . [w]ater damage” to mean that debris in a storm surge, which indisputably is an uncovered loss, would be covered when water caused the debris to allide with the property. (Emphasis added.) Loss from waterborne debris cannot occur in the absence of water. ¶9. Further, the insurance policy’s ACC clause states, “[w]e do not insure for such loss regardless of: . . . whether other causes acted concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded event to produce the loss. . . .” Unlike the wind damage in Corban, the barge did not act independently to cause loss, but instead operated in conjunction with the storm surge to damage Porter’s home. The application of the ACC clause does not provide a genuine issue of fact. ¶10. Porter additionally argues that there is ambiguity because the policy covers loss from impact by a vehicle, and that the barge became a vehicle when it broke free from its moorings. This provision, under coverage for personal property, expressly states that vehicles are insured, “except as provided in Section 1 - Losses Not Insured.” Section 1 excludes from coverage loss that would not have occurred in the absence of water. The plain language of the policy states that loss which would not have occurred in the absence of water damage is not covered. Even in construing the language in favor of Porter, this is not ambiguous. The barge was not an independent cause but worked in conjunction with the storm surge to allide with Porter’s home, and the loss of the property would not have occurred absent water damage. Thus, the loss unambiguously was not covered under Porter’s all-risk policy, and 6 this issue cannot survive summary judgment.