Texas Court Upholds Flood Exclusion


The Texas Court of Appeals recently examined the breadth of a flood exclusion contained in a homeowners’ insurance policy.  In George v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 07-12-00465-cv, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 5356 (Tex. App. Ct. May 19, 2014), State Farm insured Matthew George’s property, which was located near a drainage ditch.  Prior to a rain storm, an unidentified third party placed large cylinders across the top of the drainage ditch.  During the rain storm, the cylinders “dammed the ditch” and caused water from the ditch to overflow onto George’s property, causing approximately $46,000.00 in damage.

The State Farm Policy issued to George was subject to an exclusion barring coverage for “flood, surface waters, waves, tidal waters, overflow of a body of water, or spray from any of these, whether or not driven by wind.”  George argued that the water that entered his property was neither “flood water” nor an “overflow of a body of water” because the water was diverted from the ditch onto his property through the actions of a third party.

The court upheld the policy’s flood exclusion.  The court initially looked to the plain meaning of the word “flood” by examining the word’s definition in the Merriam Webster Dictionary: “a rising and overflowing of a body of water” or “overwhelming quantity or volume.”  The court went on to reason that rainwater rising and escaping from the banks of a ditch constructed to hold water satisfies the plain meaning definition of “flood.”  Though the water overflow was small, the court recognized that nothing in the insurance agreement specified that escaping water had to cover a certain area before it could be deemed a flood.

The insured attempted to argue that the flood exclusion should not apply because the overflow was facilitated by the presence of obstructions across the top of the ditch.  The court dispelled that argument by citing to policy language preceding the flood exclusion indicating that flood losses are excluded “regardless” of “the cause of the excluded event.”  The court similarly dismissed arguments by the insured that the State Farm Policy was ambiguous and that application of the flood exclusion was contrary to the intent of the parties.


Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.