REQUEST A CONSULTATION

ALL FIELDS REQUIRED

Schedule a consultation today with us, we will get in touch with you as soon as possible.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Federal Court in New York rules that Water Damage Exclusion and Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Barred Coverage for Sandy Claim

The Southern District of New York in Clarke v. Travco Insurance Company  found that where a dock was driven into the plaintiff’s home by a combination of wind and water that the insurance policies water exclusion and Anti-Concurrent Causation exclusions barred coverage.  In so finding the Court held:

There is no dispute that water was involved in the dock’s movement. Even if wind were the main cause, it is indisputable that the water upon which the dock was resting at least indirectly caused or aggravated the damage to Plaintiff’s property. Further, the language of the anti-concurrent causation clause means that “where a loss results from multiple contributing causes, coverage is excluded if the insurer can demonstrate that any of the concurrent or contributing causes are excluded by the policy.” ABI Asset Corp. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. 96-CV-2067 (AGS), 1997 WL 724568, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 1997) (emphasis in original). Ultimately, it is clear that even if wind was a contributing cause and/or the dock was in some way “driven by wind,” the exclusion still applies and thus bars Plaintiff from recovering under the Policy for the damage to his property…Read more…

Rosa M. Feeney, Esq.

rmfeeney@LewisJohs.com

Alert Categories