[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Tuesday upheld language used in homeowner insurance policies [opinion, PDF] by State Farm Fire and Casualty, overturning a district court ruling that the policy language was ambiguous and consequently unenforceable. The three-judge circuit panel held that the policy's anti-concurrent causation clause

clearly state[s] that excluded losses – here, any loss which would not have occurred in the absence of one or more of the excluded events – will not be covered even if a nonexcluded event or peril acts "concurrently or in any sequence" with the excluded event to cause the loss in question. Thus … the ACC Clause in State Farm's policy is not ambiguous, and should be enforced under Mississippi law.

The ruling came in a lawsuit brought against State Farm [corporate website] by John and Claire Tuepker, State Farm policyholders whose home was destroyed in 2005 by Hurricane Katrina [JURIST news archive].

The Fifth Circuit followed precedent set forth in a case against Nationwide Insurance [corporate website] decided in August, in which the circuit court ruled that policy language was not "ambiguous" [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] about whether damage caused by combinations of wind and water is covered under a policy that only lists one of the two. AP has more.