After Sandy Anti-Concurrent Causation Clauses Scrutinized

November 20, 2012

  • November 20, 2012 at 6:52 pm
    Don Quixote says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 2

    These clauses were not designed to deny clearly covered claims. They were designed to prevent non-covered claims from being brought into coverage by “creative” lawyers.

    Example: Flood loss destroys basement and 1st floor, but wind takes off a few shingles on the roof. Flood insurance deals with the flood loss, homeowners pays for the shingles.

    Example2: Flood washes away the entire structure. Homeowner and crafty lawyer try to claim wind did it. Who is right? Well, the ACC says both causes contributed so no coverage.

    Both examples reflect how these claims should turn out.

  • November 24, 2012 at 8:41 pm
    Tony says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    I had 6 feet of water in my basement from sewer back up before any flood waters hit the street! How am i denied sewer backup as a partial cause of damage. Bunch of bull

    • December 24, 2012 at 8:42 am
      Miriam says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      I also had sewer back up before the flood and also denied. Do you know what to do?

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *