Opinion ID: 1435238
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

Text: The Tuepkers argue that the ACC Clause is not enforceable because it conflicts with the efficient proximate cause doctrine. The district court agreed to the extent of refusing to apply that clause when it might deny coverage that would have been allowed under the efficient proximate cause doctrine. Under that doctrine, when a loss is caused by the combination of both covered and excluded perils, the loss is fully covered by the insurance policy if the covered risk proximately caused the loss. See Leonard, 499 F.3d at 432. Under this doctrine, if a policy covers wind damage but excludes water damage, the insured may recover for damages if it can show that the wind (the covered peril) proximately or efficiently caused the loss, notwithstanding that there were other excluded causes contributing to that loss like flooding. Id. (citing Lititz Mut. Ins. Co. v. Boatner, 254 So.2d 765, 767 (Miss.1971)). Mississippi courts have yet to indicate whether a homeowner's insurance policy may preclude recovery for damages resulting from the concurrent action of wind and water in a hurricane. Id. at 431. However, in Leonard, we made an  Erie guess as to how the Mississippi Supreme Court would rule on the issue. Id. The efficient proximate cause doctrine is the default causation rule in Mississippi regarding damages caused concurrently by a covered and an excluded peril under an insurance policy. Id. However, Leonard concludes that ACC Clauses are enforceable under Mississippi law, and that they circumvent the efficient proximate cause doctrine. See id. at 436 ([W]e conclude that use of an ACC clause to supplant the default causation regime is not forbidden by Mississippi caselaw . . ., statutory law, or public policy.). [10] Therefore, under Leonard, which binds us, and with which we in any event agree, the ACC Clause in State Farm's policy overrides the efficient proximate cause doctrine. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's holding that the ACC Clause in the State Farm policy is invalid to the extent that it conflicts with the efficient proximate cause doctrine.