What is an anti-concurrent causation clause in property insurance?
An anti-concurrent causation clause says that if an excluded cause contributes to a loss in any sequence, the entire loss is excluded, even where a covered cause contributed too. It is the language behind most wind-versus-water denials. Without it, Florida applies the concurrent cause doctrine and the loss can be covered.
| The trigger words | Directly or indirectly, in any sequence, regardless of any other cause contributing concurrently |
|---|---|
| Florida default rule | Concurrent cause doctrine, Sebo v. American Home Assurance Co., Fla. Sup. Ct. SC14-897, December 1, 2016 |
| Why the clause exists | Sebo applied the doctrine because the exclusion relied on carried no anti-concurrent language |
| Where it bites | Wind plus surge, wind plus flood, storm damage plus pre-existing wear |
| First question to ask | Does the exclusion the letter actually cited contain the language, or is the carrier assuming it |
What an anti-concurrent causation clause actually means
An all-risk property policy covers everything it does not exclude, which makes causation the whole game whenever two things damage a house at once. A hurricane produces that situation by design: wind takes the roof while storm surge takes the ground floor, and both happen inside an hour.
Anti-concurrent causation language is the carrier's answer to it. The clause sits at the head of the exclusion block and says the listed causes are excluded whether they act directly or indirectly, in any sequence, and regardless of whether any other cause contributes concurrently. Read literally, one drop of excluded water anywhere in the chain removes the entire loss from coverage, including the wind damage.
Florida law without that language runs the other way. In Sebo v. American Home Assurance Co., decided December 1, 2016, the Florida Supreme Court held that when independent perils converge and no single cause can be called the proximate cause, the concurrent cause doctrine applies and the loss is covered under an all-risk policy even though one of the causes is excluded. The court pointed out that the insurer had written anti-concurrent language into other sections of the same policy and not into the exclusion it was relying on.
What an anti-concurrent causation clause does to a hurricane claim
Never accept the clause on the carrier's say-so. Pull the policy, find the exclusion the denial letter actually cited, and read the paragraph directly above it.
If the language is not there, Sebo is the framework, and a loss with two independent causes can be covered even though one of them is excluded.
If the language is there, move to separation. The clause excludes a loss caused by the combination; it does not exclude damage the excluded peril never touched. Roof, windows, and second-floor interiors are frequently wind-only damage in a house whose ground floor flooded, and each gets its own scope, its own photographs, and its own line items.
Document the sequence. Time-stamped photographs, NOAA wind and surge data for the address, and an independent causation opinion are what turn a two-peril storm into two separable claims.
Run the two policies as two claims. Flood and homeowners use different forms, different deadlines, and different adjusters, and a denial on one side is not evidence about the other. The surge versus flood playbook is the sequence.
Concurrent cause doctrine
The rule in some jurisdictions that a loss is covered when a covered peril and an excluded peril each independently contribute, unless an anti-concurrent causation clause displaces it. Which rule applies is a question of state law and policy wording.
Ensuing loss
An exception that restores coverage for damage that follows an excluded cause, for example water damage that follows an excluded faulty repair. Narrow, heavily litigated, and often the only way back into coverage.
Storm surge
Ocean water pushed inland by a storm's wind and pressure. It is water damage from flooding for insurance purposes, so it falls to flood coverage and not to the homeowners policy, no matter that wind caused it.
Surface water
Water spread across the ground from rain or runoff before it reaches a channel or a body of water. Homeowners policies exclude it inside the water damage exclusion, which is why it is the phrase carriers use to move interior damage out of a wind claim.
Every term on a denial letter is defined in the glossary.
- Sebo v. American Home Assurance Co., Fla. Sup. Ct. No. SC14-897, decided December 1, 2016 (concurrent cause doctrine) · caselaw.findlaw.com ↗
- Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i) (unfair claim settlement practices; misrepresenting policy provisions) · flsenate.gov ↗
Statute summaries as of August 2026, simplified; verify against current statute. Not legal advice; consult an attorney about your specific claim.
The word on the letter is not the last word.
Send the denial letter, the estimate, or the assessment notice. You will get a straight read on whether the provision the carrier applied actually does what the letter says it does.
HURRICANELAW.PRO A comprehensive property-insurance claim resource for policyholders: denied and underpaid claims, coverage and bad-faith law, storm dossiers, carrier profiles, city guides, and the complete claims playbook. Florida and South Carolina.
▸ SEE THE FULL SITE MAP → ▸ KNOWLEDGE MAP: EVERY ENTITY AND SOURCE →Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Coverage summaries, policy-language quotations, dollar figures, deadlines, and chart examples throughout this site are general information based on typical or standard policy forms and are illustrative only: they are not a quote, a guarantee of coverage, or a promise of any outcome. Every insurance policy is different: your own policy, endorsements, and state law control, so read your policy and confirm current statutes. Weather imagery courtesy of NOAA, the National Hurricane Center, and the National Weather Service. Nothing on this site is legal advice; consult an attorney about your specific claim.
HurricaneLaw.Pro is attorney advertising paid for by Halversen Law, LLC. Responsible attorney: Brent Halversen, 496 Bramson Court, Suite 100, Mount Pleasant, SC 29464. Operated by LARGE LLC, which is not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal advice.
Halversen Law pays for this advertisement. It is a property-insurance law firm licensed in South Carolina and Florida and reviews every case-review submission.