## Facts

- Homeowners Magruder S. Corban and Margaret Corban owned a residence in Long Beach, Mississippi insured by USAA under a homeowner’s policy covering wind damage but excluding flood/water damage; they also had a separate flood policy.
- Hurricane Katrina struck on August 29, 2005, producing high winds and storm surge that physically damaged the home.
- USAA investigated, including adjuster inspections and an engineering review focused on whether losses were caused by wind versus flood.
- USAA concluded most damage resulted from flooding/storm surge and denied payment for those losses under the homeowner’s policy based on the policy’s water-damage exclusion.
- The homeowner’s policy also contained an anticoncurrent-causation (ACC) clause excluding loss caused directly or indirectly by an excluded peril, even if a covered peril contributed “concurrently or in any sequence.”

## Issues

1. Whether storm surge constitutes excluded “water damage” (flood/surface water) under the homeowner’s policy.
2. Whether the ACC clause eliminates coverage for wind damage when wind and excluded water damage both occur during the same event.
3. Whether enforcement of the water-damage exclusion and ACC clause to bar wind coverage in mixed wind/water losses is permissible under Mississippi law.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s partial summary judgment for USAA and remanded.
- The court agreed storm surge is a form of flood/surface water within the policy’s water-damage exclusion, so purely surge-caused damage is excluded.
- The court rejected construing the ACC clause to bar all recovery whenever wind and water both contributed; wind coverage is not negated merely because excluded water damage also occurred.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings, including determining and allocating which portions of the loss were caused by covered wind versus excluded water.

## Legal Principles

- Storm surge may be treated as excluded flood/surface water within a homeowner’s water-damage exclusion when the policy so defines “water damage.”
- An ACC clause does not convert a covered peril into an excluded peril; it cannot be applied to defeat coverage for separable, provable damage caused by a covered peril (wind) simply because excluded water damage also contributed at some point.
- Insurance policies are construed as a whole; ambiguous terms and exclusions are construed against the insurer and in favor of the insured’s reasonable expectations.
- In mixed-peril property losses, coverage depends on factual causation and allocation: the insured may recover for distinct wind-caused damage, while damage attributable to excluded water is not covered under the homeowner’s policy.

## Conclusion

The court held that storm surge is excluded water damage under the homeowner’s policy, but the ACC clause cannot be used to deny coverage for separable wind damage; factfinding is required to allocate covered wind losses from excluded water losses.


Corban v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 20 So. 3d 601 (Miss. 2009)