Opinion ID: 60392
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Policy Terms

Text: The district court found that punitive damages were warranted in part because State Farm continued to urge an interpretation of its anti-concurrent cause clause that would entitle it to collect premiums from policyholders for what amounts to no coverage if even a small part of a loss was due to water. State Farm argues on appeal that it did not rely on the ACC clause to deny coverage to the Broussards. Even if the district court is correct and the ACC clause played a role in State Farm's treatment of the Broussards' claim, this is not a basis for a punitive damages instruction. In Leonard v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., this Court held that an ACC clause similar to that relied upon by State Farm is valid and enforceable under Mississippi law. 499 F.3d 419, 430, 435 (5th Cir.2007); accord Tuepker, 507 F.3d at 354 ( Leonard governs this case, and compels the conclusion that the ACC Clause in State Farm's policy is not ambiguous, and should be enforced under Mississippi law.). State Farm cannot be liable for punitive damages solely for relying on a legally valid and enforceable clause in its insurance contract.