Concurrent Causation in Texas Property Claims
When covered and non-covered perils combine to cause a single loss, Texas puts the burden on the policyholder to separate what is covered. Here's how that plays out.
Texas follows the doctrine of concurrent causation. When a loss results from a combination of a covered peril (say, wind) and an excluded peril (say, flood or long-term wear), the policyholder bears the burden of segregating the damage attributable to the covered cause. See, e.g., JAW The Pointe, L.L.C. v. Lexington Insurance Co., 460 S.W.3d 597 (Tex. 2015).
In practice, this is where hurricane and hail claims often get underpaid. A carrier will attribute damage to 'wear and tear,' 'pre-existing conditions,' or 'flood' — all commonly excluded — and offer only what it concedes is wind. Without a detailed, line-item scope that separates covered from excluded causes, the policyholder has little to push back with.
This is exactly the work a competent public adjuster and a qualified estimator do together: walk the loss with the burden of causation in mind, document each damaged element, and attribute repair costs to the specific peril responsible. Photographs, moisture readings, drone imagery, weather data, and detailed room-by-room Xactimate estimates are the raw material of a concurrent-causation argument.
If your claim has been reduced or denied based on wear-and-tear, flood, or 'pre-existing' language, don't assume the carrier's allocation is correct. Send us the estimate and the denial and we'll tell you whether the causation split is defensible.
Citation: JAW The Pointe, L.L.C. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 460 S.W.3d 597 (Tex. 2015).