## Facts

- Joseph F. Ebert owned a small frame camp in Louisiana marshland near Lake Catherine, elevated on pilings above an artificial dirt mound.
- Ebert purchased a windstorm policy from Pacific National Fire Insurance Company covering “direct loss by wind,” while excluding loss caused directly or indirectly by “tidal wave, high water, [or] flood.”
- In 1947, a hurricane struck the area with strong winds, heavy rain, and rising water in the marsh.
- During the storm, the camp was displaced from its pilings and later suffered extensive damage after coming to rest in floodwaters.
- Ebert presented eyewitness testimony that wind blew the camp off its foundation before water reached the level of the foundation/pilings.
- Testimony about water height at the relevant time placed it below the camp’s elevated floor level, and there was no proof that a tidal wave struck the property.
- The insurer denied liability, contending the loss was caused by excluded flood or high water; the trial court dismissed Ebert’s claim.

## Issues

1. Whether a windstorm policy covering direct wind loss, but excluding flood/high-water loss, provides coverage when wind dislodges the structure and water later contributes to the damage.
2. Whether the insured presented sufficient proof that wind was the efficient, proximate cause of the loss rather than an excluded water-related peril.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and rendered judgment for Ebert.
- The court found wind to be the dominant, efficient proximate cause of the loss because the camp was blown from its supports before water rose to a causative level.
- The court held that subsequent involvement of water did not defeat coverage where water was not the primary cause of the structural failure.
- The insurer was held liable for the policy amount, with interest and costs as awarded by the appellate judgment.

## Legal Principles

- In windstorm policies, “direct loss by wind” is construed in terms of proximate cause, not merely the last event in the causal chain.
- Where covered wind is the efficient proximate cause of the loss, coverage is not barred solely because excluded high water or flood later contributes to the damage.
- Flood/high-water exclusions preclude recovery when excluded water is the efficient proximate cause of the loss, even if wind is also present.
- Causation is a factual determination resolved from the sequence of events and credible testimony as to what displaced or destroyed the insured property.

## Conclusion

The court held that the policy covered the hurricane loss because wind, not excluded flood or high water, was the efficient proximate cause of the camp being blown from its pilings, and later water effects did not negate coverage.


Ebert v. Pac. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 40 So. 2d 40 (La. Ct. App. 1949)