Opinion ID: 60392
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Personal Property Named Peril Coverage

Text: We reverse the district court's grant of JMOL with regard to the Broussards' named peril personal property coverage. The district court erred when it found that the destruction of the Broussards' personal property by Hurricane Katrina was sufficient to establish the separate assertion that the property was destroyed by windstorm, a named peril under the Broussards' personal property coverage. Lunday v. Lititz Mutual Insurance Co. considered damage sustained by a Mississippi home during Hurricane Camille and held that, under named peril coverage, the burden of proof was on the [insured] to prove that the damages sustained were covered by the peril insured against, that is, by direct action of the wind. 276 So.2d 696, 699 (Miss.1973). Although there was no question that the insured property was destroyed during Hurricane Camille, the Lunday court did not find that this automatically established that it was damaged by wind. Id. Likewise, a stipulation that the Broussards' personal property was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina is insufficient to establish that it was destroyed by a windstorm, since Hurricane Katrina unleashed both wind and water forces. Accordingly, we reverse the grant of JMOL with regard to the Broussards' personal property claim and remand to permit the Broussards to carry their burden of proving that the personal property was destroyed by a peril covered under their policy.