When Wind Is in the Chain: How an Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause and No Ensuing Loss Argument Sank a Commercial Windstorm Claim

When courts analyze windstorm exclusions, the results often turn on how broad the exclusionary language is and whether the insurer included anti-concurrent causation language in the policy. A recent federal court decision from Texas is a textbook example of how those provisions can wipe out coverage when wind plays any role in the loss, even if it is not the sole cause. ¹ Public adjusters and independent adjusters who work with wind and water claims need to understand how this ruling unfolded because it shows how easily a claim can be lost if the wind exclusion applies and no ensuing loss argument is preserved.

The case involved Allah-Pak Properties, which owned a commercial retail center in Corpus Christi. In April 2022, a windstorm damaged the property’s roof. Four months later, a heavy rainstorm hit, and water entered the building through roof penetrations, damaging the electrical panel and other systems. The insured submitted a claim that included roof repairs, replacement of the electrical panel, and other costs.

The insurer, Century Surety Company, denied coverage for most of the claim based on an endorsement cited as the policy’s “Windstorm or Hail Exclusion.” The parties eventually narrowed their dispute to one issue: whether the electrical panel damage was excluded.

The exclusionary language in the policy read as follows:

We will not pay for loss or damage:

1. Caused directly or indirectly by Windstorm or Hail, regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss or damage; or
2. Caused by rain, water, snow, sand or dust, whether driven by wind or not, if that loss or damage would not have occurred but for the windstorm or hail.

The insured conceded that the roof damage from the April windstorm was excluded but argued that the electrical panel loss was actually caused by a failure of the circuit breakers and high humidity, not by the windstorm. The insured took the position that the exclusion should apply only if wind was the sole cause of the electrical panel damage. The insurer countered that the language clearly excluded damage when wind played any role, whether directly or indirectly, and regardless of any other causes.

The court sided with the insurer. It noted that the policy contained an anti-concurrent causation clause, which meant that even partial contribution by wind to the damage triggered the exclusion. Importantly, the court pointed out that the policyholder did not make any argument that an ensuing loss, which would have been covered, resulted from the water. Instead, the policyholder’s own expert explained that the wind indirectly caused damage to the conduits, which allowed water to penetrate the roof and reach the electrical room. Because wind was in the chain of causation, the exclusion applied.

In its reasoning, the court emphasized that Texas law allows insurers to contract out of the Texas common-law rules on concurrent causation when they use clear language like this. The policy did not require that wind be the sole or direct cause of the damage, only that wind be a cause, direct or indirect, regardless of other contributing events. The policyholder’s concession that wind damaged the roof and the expert’s testimony linking that damage to the eventual water intrusion sealed the fate of the claim. With no evidence or argument of an applicable exception to bring coverage back, the court granted summary judgment for the insurer.

For adjusters, this decision is a reminder to carefully review endorsements with wind exclusions and anti-concurrent causation clauses early in the claim investigation. When the policyholder’s own experts acknowledge that wind is part of the chain of causation, the claim is at risk unless there is a viable ensuing loss theory or other exception that can be documented and advanced.

This Texas case followed more traditional methods of exclusionary interpretation, which are common in most jurisdictions other than Texas. There are some Texas cases that require the policyholder to prove that the loss is covered and not excluded, placing both burdens on the policyholder. This case recognized that shifting burdens may apply, although ruling that the insurer proved the exclusion and that the policyholder failed to prove a covered exception.

Thought For The Day 

“The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind.” 
—Bob Dylan

¹ Allah-Pak Properties v. Century Surety Co., No. 2:23-cv-00301 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2025). See also, Century Surety’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and Allah-Pak’s Brief in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment.