Robichaux v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co.
2011 Miss. LEXIS 600
| Miss. | 2011Background
- Robichauxs’ home was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina; they sued Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. and Fletcher Insurance in Jackson County, Mississippi for, among other things, indemnity and damages under their homeowners policy.
- Nationwide denied coverage, attributing loss to flood/surge and relying on flood exclusion and anti-concurrent causation language.
- Robichauxs had a separate flood policy under the National Flood Insurance Program which paid flood damages to dwelling and contents.
- Nationwide later reassessed and tendered partial payments for dwelling and other structures, which were not cashed by Robichauxs.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Nationwide and Fletcher on grounds related to causation and coverage under the ACC and flood exclusion; the Robichauxs appealed.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed in part, remanding issues related to wind damage prior to storm surge and potential wind damage to other structures and personal property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the ACC and weather exclusions create ambiguity when read with the hurricane endorsement? | Robichauxes contend ACC plus hurricane endorsement is ambiguous. | Nationwide and Fletcher argue policy unambiguous; no wind damages left uncompensated. | No ambiguity; ACC construed against insured. |
| Who bears burden of proof on causation for excluded perils under an all-risk policy? | Robichauxes argue insured bears burden to show wind caused loss; ACC issues for wind. | Insurer bears burden to prove excluded peril caused loss. | Court reiterates insurer must prove exclusion; remand on wind as proximate cause. |
| Whether the ACC applies where wind damage occurred prior to storm surge destruction | Wind damage occurred before surge, creating triable issue. | Destruction primarily due to flood surges; ACC should apply only if concurrent damages. | Corban v. USAA controls; genuine issues of wind damage prior to surge exist; remand. |
| Did Robichauxs’ flood proceeds foreclose recovery under Coverage A or C? | Full flood proceeds do not preclude all potential wind-related coverage. | Flood recovery precludes double recovery for same loss. | Remand on Coverage A and C for wind damage pre-surge; double recovery analysis ongoing. |
| Is Fletcher Insurance liable for misrepresentation in advising coverage? | Robichauxes relied on agent’s representations about coverage. | Policy language unambiguous; knowledge imputed; no liability on agent. | Summary judgment for Fletcher affirmed; agent not liable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Corban v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 20 So.3d 601 (Miss. 2009) (ACC clause governs only when covered and excluded concomitantly converge; not applicable if damage is to be caused by a single perils.)
- Mladineo v. Schmidt, 52 So.3d 1154 (Miss. 2010) (Agent duty to exercise reasonable care; imputed knowledge of policy; misrepresentation can create triable issues.)
- City of Jackson v. Estate of Stewart ex rel. Womack, 908 So.2d 703 (Miss. 2005) (No double recovery for same harm; but issues of compensation are facts for trial.)
- Atlas Roofing Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Robinson & Julienne, Inc., 279 So.2d 625 (Miss. 1973) (Policy knowledge imputed to insured; reading policy informs coverage.)
- Regency Nissan, Inc. v. Jenkins, 678 So.2d 95 (Miss. 1995) (Individual value testimony admissible for property value.)
- Lewis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 730 So.2d 65 (Miss. 1998) (Ambiguity resolved in insured’s favor when policy is unclear.)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garriga, 636 So.2d 658 (Miss. 1994) (Insurance coverage language interpreted liberally in favor of insured.)
- Brown v. Credit Center, Inc., 444 So.2d 358 (Miss. 1983) (Summary judgment standards and deference to material facts.)