To shed a little light on insurance coverage issues that most likely will arise in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, we are revisiting two homeowners cases from the 1960s that were litigated following Hurricane Betsy.

 In a Louisiana case, Morehead v. Allstate Ins. Co., 406 F.2d 122 (5th Cir. 1969), the court found that a house was destroyed by flood and not windstorm.

 Arthur Morehead's frame dwelling was destroyed in Hurricane Betsy. He contended that windstorm, a covered peril, was the cause of his loss. His insurer, Allstate, pointed to a policy exclusion that stated that the insurer would not pay for "loss caused by, resulting from, contributed to or aggravated by…flood, surface water, waves, tidal water or tidal wave, overflow of streams or other bodies of water" to deny the claim. HO 00 03 10 00.]

 Following eyewitness and expert testimony, the court found that "the loss was occasioned by the house having floated from its piers and later having settled on the ground; that there was no evidence that the structure was damaged by wind; that the loss, therefore, was not due to one of the perils insured against."

 In the Mississippi case Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J. v. Schulte, 200 So.2d 440 (Miss. 1967), the Mississippi Supreme Court found that an insured's loss was caused solely by windstorm.

 The Schultes owned a home in Waveland, Mississippi, in an area lower than the surrounding area. On the day that Hurricane Betsy struck, between 11:00 and 11:30 p.m., a noise was heard that was "described by several witnesses as 'like a freight train' or 'like a water spout' or a 'roaring noise' or a 'terrible howl' or 'sort of like a train rolling in.'"

 The Shultes' home was completely destroyed , with its roof landing about two blocks away. The Shultes' insurer, Firemen's, claimed that the roof and other items from the Shultes' home had floated two blocks by water, and were excluded from coverage under the following exclusionary language: "This Company shall not be liable for loss caused by, resulting from, contributed to or aggravated by any of the following…(a) flood, surface water, waves, tidal water or tidal wave, overflow of streams or other bodies of water, or spray from any of the foregoing, all whether driven by wind or not." HO 00 03 10 00.]

 However, witnesses at houses two blocks away from the Shultes testified that there was no water on the street until after midnight. Some of the Shultes' belongings were found in places where water had not gone. And, many of the buildings in the area had obvious windstorm damage.

 The jury in the circuit court trial found for the Schultes, "finding that the loss was a 'direct loss by windstorm' and that the loss was not caused by, did not result from, nor was contributed to, nor aggravated by water, whether driven by wind or not."

 The supreme court held that evidence supported the jury's finding that the loss's sole cause was windstorm.

This premium content is locked for FC&S Coverage Interpretation Subscribers

Enjoy unlimited access to the trusted solution for successful interpretation and analyses of complex insurance policies.

  • Quality content from industry experts with over 60 years insurance experience, combined
  • Customizable alerts of changes in relevant policies and trends
  • Search and navigate Q&As to find answers to your specific questions
  • Filter by article, discussion, analysis and more to find the exact information you’re looking for
  • Continually updated to bring you the latest reports, trending topics, and coverage analysis