Jaw the Pointe, L.L.C. v. Lexington Insurance Company, 460 S.W.3d 597

JAW The Pointe, L.L.C. (insured) purchased an apartment complex in Galveston, TX, before Hurricane Ike caused substantial damage.
Lexington Insurance provided the primary coverage layer with a $25 million per-occurrence limit; Nations managed the overall policies for multiple complexes.
City of Galveston ordinances required elevation or demolition for areas deemed substantially damaged, which could be triggered by combined wind and flood damage.
The City determined The Pointe was substantially damaged (50%+ of market value) and required ordinance-compliant rebuilding, including elevation, based on a mixed wind/flood loss.
Lexington paid wind-damage claims but denied coverage for costs to demolish/rebuild and other ordinance-compliance expenses, arguing flood exclusion and anti-concurrent-causation clause.
JAW sued Lexington for breach of contract and statutory bad-faith claims; the trial court granted summary judgment on depletion/exclusion issues, leaving statutory claims to trial, which the jury partly favored JAW before appellate reversal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether O&L and DICC endorsements cover ordinance/land-use costs.	Endorsements modify coverage to include ordinance-enforcement costs.	Endorsements apply only when a covered loss triggers the ordinance enforcement.	Endorsements do not provide coverage because the enforcement was caused by a combination of wind and flood.
Whether the anti-concurrent-causation clause excludes ordinance costs when a covered and excluded peril jointly cause the loss.	Wind independently triggered the ordinance, so coverage should apply.	Clause excludes any loss caused directly/indirectly by flood, regardless of wind’s involvement.	Clause excludes ordinance costs since wind and flood jointly caused the enforcement.
Whether the city’s substantial-damage determination was based on wind alone or on the combined wind+flood damage for ordinance enforcement.	Evidence shows wind was sufficient to trigger enforcement independently.	City relied on permit/appraisal data that aggregated wind and flood damage.	Evidence shows city relied on the combined wind and flood damage; coverage barred by anti-concurrent-causation clause.

Gilbert Tex. Constr., L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 327 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. 2010) (interpretation of policy terms; default to coverage where ambiguity is not present)
Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 242 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2007) (interpretation of standard-form policies and coverage congruence)
Republic Ins. Co. v. Stoker, 903 S.W.2d 338 (Tex. 1995) (bad-faith claims require breach of contract or extreme conduct)
Liberty Nat. Fire Ins. Co. v. Akin, 927 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. 1996) (interpretation and ambiguity standards for insurance contracts)
Ulico Cas. Co. v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 262 S.W.3d 773 (Tex. 2008) (burden of proof and exclusion/coverage framework in policy disputes)
Gilbert Tex. Constr., L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 327 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. 2010) (ambiguous policy language and interpretation rules)
Guar. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. North River Ins. Co., 909 F.2d 133 (5th Cir. 1990) (concurrent vs. independent causation in mixed-peril losses)