## Facts

- Erie Insurance Group (Erie) insured Marek and Bozena Bozek’s property, including an in-ground swimming pool, under a homeowners policy.
- The policy covered certain losses, including mechanical breakdown, but excluded losses caused by hydrostatic (water) pressure.
- The policy also contained an anticoncurrent-causation (ACC) clause stating Erie would not pay for loss caused directly or indirectly by an excluded peril, even if another covered peril “contributed concurrently, or in sequence, to the loss.”
- The Bozeks’ pool had a valve intended to relieve underground hydrostatic pressure.
- At some time before a period of unusually heavy rain, the hydrostatic-pressure relief valve failed and did not function.
- Heavy rains later saturated the ground, increasing hydrostatic pressure around the pool.
- With the valve not working, the hydrostatic pressure damaged the pool’s concrete.
- The Bozeks submitted a claim and asserted the loss was covered because it stemmed from the valve’s mechanical failure.
- Erie denied the claim, relying on the hydrostatic-pressure exclusion and the ACC clause.
- The Bozeks sued for coverage, arguing the ACC clause should not apply because the covered valve failure happened before the excluded hydrostatic pressure increased.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Erie, and the Bozeks appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the policy’s ACC clause bars coverage when an excluded peril (hydrostatic pressure) and a covered peril (mechanical failure of the relief valve) both contributed to the pool damage, even if the covered peril occurred first.
2. Whether the insureds’ public-policy challenge to ACC clauses could be considered when it was not adequately developed on appeal.

## Decision

- The Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, affirmed summary judgment for Erie.
- The court held the ACC clause was unambiguous and applied when an excluded peril contributed to the loss, even if a covered peril also contributed, whether “concurrently, or in sequence.”
- The court rejected the Bozeks’ argument that the sequence of events avoided the ACC clause; the clause expressly applies even when causes occur one after another.
- The court treated the public-policy argument as forfeited due to insufficient briefing and did not reach its merits.

## Legal Principles

- Clear and unambiguous insurance policy language is enforced as written.
- An ACC clause that excludes loss caused directly or indirectly by an excluded peril bars coverage when that excluded peril contributes to the loss, even if a covered peril also contributes.
- Language stating excluded loss is not covered even if other events contribute “concurrently, or in sequence” applies to both simultaneous and sequential contributing causes.
- Appellate courts may find an argument forfeited when it is not supported with meaningful legal authority and analysis.

## Conclusion

The court enforced Erie’s ACC clause to deny coverage for damage to the Bozeks’ in-ground pool because hydrostatic pressure—an excluded peril—contributed to the loss, and the clause applied even though the valve’s mechanical failure occurred earlier; the court also declined to address a public-policy attack on ACC clauses because it was inadequately briefed.


Bozek v. Erie Insurance Group, 46 N.E.3d 362 (2015)