Mississippi Supreme Court Rules for Homeowners in Katrina Wind v. Water Case
A unanimous Mississippi Supreme Court ruled for the homeowners today in the most watched case before the Court in recent memory. Here is the Court's opinion in Corban v. USAA. Justice Randolph wrote the Court's opinion, which is not surprising to people who saw the oral argument. Justice Randolph was active in the oral argument and openly critical of some of the insurance company arguments.
Although not a party, Nationwide appeared in the case and argued at the hearing. Nationwide's theory was that if hurricane winds blows the home from the Coast all the way up to Wiggins, but 8 hours later a storm surge reaches where the home used to be, then there is no insurance coverage. The Court rejected this bad argument.
The Court found that all water damage, including storm surge, is excluded. All wind damage is covered. The plaintiff must show that there was an accidental physical loss. Once the plaintiff meets his/her burden, the insurance company has the burden to prove that the damage was caused by the storm surge to the exclusion of wind. If the plaintiff can prove evidence of wind damage before the surge arrived, then the plaintiff is on good shape. The plaintiff has the burden of proof to establish that there was wind damage for contents. In an earlier version of this post I erroneously stated that the plaintiff had the burden for everything.
This was a big win for the Corbans, led by attorney Judy Guice of Biloxi. The Court should be credited for reaching a unanimous decision, since such decisions often carry more weight than split decisions.
Correct me if I am wrong but from how I read the opinion the homeowner only has the initial burden to show that there was a loss, which is easy. Then the burden shifts to the insurer to prove the loss fell under an exclusion i.e. water.
I reread the portion of the opinion which stated the plaintiff had the burden to prove wind damage but I think that part of the opinion was limited to claims filed under Coverage C (Personal Property) of the policy. Am I right on this based on your reading?
Your reading is correct. I read the opinion too quickly and missed this distinction. I have tried to correct the post and hopefully have it right now. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Guess this means Randolph has declared his intent to run for Governor as Haley's successor.