The policy's anti-concurrent causation clause blocked coverage for damage to the home caused by wind and flood. Clarke v. Travco Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104267 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2015).

   The insured's home was located about twenty feet from the Hudson River. Hurricane Sandy caused the river to rise, creating damage to the insured's home. The insured did not have flood insurance. During the storm, water flooded the lower level of the house to a level of about four feet. Further, a wooden dock from another property, approximately fifteen feet by ten feet, entered the property and came to rest within the lower level. 

   The insured submitted a claim under his homeowner's policy to Travco Insurance Company. An investigator concluded that the cause of damage to the home was flood/water. The claim was denied.

   The insured sued and Travco moved for summary judgment. The court granted Travco's motion for summary judgment. The insured failed to demonstrate any genuine issues of material fact. The facts showed that a dock, floating on top of water, was pushed by wind into the lower level of the home. The insured sought to differentiate damage to the property caused by the dock from damage caused by flood waters. The insured argued that the damage done by the dock was caused solely by wind and therefore fell outside the provision excluding water damage from coverage.

   But the exclusion in the policy did not cover "any direct or indirect loss or damage caused by, resulting from, contributing to or aggravated by any of these excluded perils." The policy then had an anti-concurrent causation clause stating that "loss from any of [the listed perils] is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss." One of the excluded perils was water damage, which included flood. 

   While it was possible that the dock may have been driven into the property by wind, it was clear from the record that the dock was driven into the house because it had been floating on, and was also driven by, water. Even if wind were the main cause, the water upon which the dock was resting at least indirectly caused or aggravated the damage to the insured's property. The anti-concurrent causation clause meant that where a loss resulted from multiple contributing causes, coverage was excluded if the insurer could demonstrate that any of the concurrent or contributing causes were excluded by the policy.