Opinion ID: 1435238
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Water Damage Exclusion

Text: State Farm urges this court to affirm the district court's conclusion that the Water Damage Exclusion is valid under Mississippi law and that it includes losses attributable to storm surge. The Tuepkers argue that damages caused by storm surge are not excluded from coverage by the Water Damage Exclusion. The Water Damage Exclusion states that water damage includes damages caused by, among other things, flood, waves, tidal water, and overflow of a body of water, all whether driven by wind or not. These words accurately describe the influx of water into the Tuepkers' home that was caused by the Katrina storm surge. Furthermore, courts have held that similarly worded water damage exclusions apply to flooding that occurs during a hurricane. See In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 214 (5th Cir.2007) (concluding that under Louisiana law, similar water damage exclusions in insurance policies are unambiguous and that flooding resulting from the damage to the levees during Hurricane Katrina fits squarely within the generally prevailing meaning of the term `flood,' and is, thus, excluded from coverage by the policies); Bilbe v. Belsom & State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., No. 06-7596, slip op. at 4, 2007 WL 2042437 (E.D.La. July 12, 2007) (finding that under Louisiana law, the State Farm ACC Clause and Water Damage Exclusion at issue in this case are unambiguous and that water damage caused by the inundation of the plaintiff's home from tidal water from Lake Pontchartrain is water damage within the meaning of State Farm's policy exclusion). [5] In interpreting an almost identical water damage exclusion and applying Mississippi law, [6] this court has found that storm surge is little more than a synonym for a `tidal wave' or wind-driven flood, both of which are perils excluded by the State Farm policy. Leonard, 499 F.3d at 437. In Leonard, we concluded that the lack of a specific reference to a storm surge in the water damage exclusion did not render the policy ambiguous or allow the insured party to recover for losses caused by the storm surge associated with Hurricane Katrina. Id. at 435. Our opinion in Leonard specifically relied on the Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation opinion and on the district court's opinion here for the holding that the Katrina storm surge was unambiguously excluded water damage. [7] We conclude that under Mississippi law, the Water Damage Exclusion is valid and that the storm surge that damaged the Tuepkers' home is a peril that is unambiguously excluded from coverage under State Farm's policy. Therefore, we affirm the district court's ruling on this issue.