JURIST - Paper Chase: US appeals court finds Nationwide policy clause unambiguous in Katrina case

[JURIST] A panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] ruled Thursday that the language used in policies by Nationwide Insurance [corporate website] was not "ambiguous" [opinion, PDF] about whether damage caused by combinations of wind and water is covered under a policy that only lists one of the two. Although Nationwide defeated a lawsuit [ruling, PDF; order and judgment, PDF; JURIST report] brought by Pascagoula Mississippi homeowners Paul and Julie Leonard alleging that Nationwide should pay for water damage to their homes from Hurricane Katrina [JURIST news archive], the insurance company pursued an appeal to clarify that the "anti-concurrent causation provision" was unambiguous. The distinction was important as ambiguous terms in insurance policies are normally resolved in favor of the policyholder, and the clause could become important in a number of other pending cases involving the company.

A lawyer representing the Leonards, as well as a number of other policyholders, told AP the couple will appeal, even though the decision's effect is limited because most of the cases involve damage "caused exclusively by wind before any water arrived." AP has more.

For a one-stop snapshot of the latest legal news that matters, with breaking documents, new legal videos, live law-related webcasts, commentary by expert law professors and more - all updated through the day in real time, with no ads and no registration barriers - visit JURIST's homepage and check back often...