John N. Ellison, Richard P. Lewis Jr. and Lauren A. Angelucci of Reed Smith review three distinct yet related positions that policyholders whose properties were damaged by water may be able to pursue: that the wind that forced the water to inundate the property was the actual cause of the loss, that their policy does not specifically include the phrase "storm surge" in the definition of flood, and that, if wind is not accepted as the sole cause, it at least partially caused the loss under a concurrent causation analysis.
Insurance After Sandy: Seeking Coverage in Face of Flood Exclusions
New York Law Journal
April 2, 2013
This content is now available at LexisNexis®.
The ALM® and LexisNexis® Content Alliance
LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM’s legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM’s content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM’s other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.
ALM’s content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.
If you are not currently a LexisNexis subscriber, contact 1-800-227-4908 to find out more or click here to have a customer representative contact you directly.