Canvassing both case law and scholarly authority, the court determined that the anti-concurrent cause (ACC) provision barred coverage for loss caused by Tropical Storm Irene. Lombardi v. Universal N. Am Ins. Co., 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 138 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 21, 2015). 

   Tropical Storm Irene caused the insured's home to shift and move from its concrete pier foundation. The house later had to be demolished. 

   The insurer's expert concluded that the house was removed from the foundation by storm surge and not by wind. The damage caused by wind was limited to 24 feet of trim missing from the roof and about 70 square feet of shingles that were blown away. The insured's expert concluded the house was removed from its foundation due to a combination of wind and water forces. The insured's expert reported that "the water wave action most probably caused most damage to the dwelling support pilings, with wind conditions contributing to the wave action."

   The policy's ACC provision read,

1. We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.

    a. Water Damage, meaning

        (1) Flood, surface water, waves, tidal water. . . whether or not driven by wind.

   The insurer invoked this provision and declined coverage for all but $2,218.82 for the damaged roof shingles and trim on the roof. 

   The insured filed a complaint requesting a declaratory judgment that the ACC provision was void and unenforceable, against public policy, and unconscionable. The insured moved for summary judgment. Panning various authorities, the court noted that the ACC provision was included in policies to circumvent the efficient cause doctrine developed by the courts in property loss cases. Invalidating the ACC provision would decrease the insurer's ability to spread financial risk of the hazard over a larger number of purchasers.

   The court did not find the ACC provision ambiguous. The insured's ambiguity argument was an attempt to resurrect the public policy and seek enforcement of the efficient cause position, but was contrary to the clear purpose of the ACC provision. Therefore, the insured's motion for summary judgment as to the ACC provision was denied.