The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment to the insurer after agreeing that the policy’s anti-concurrent causation clause barred coverage. Lido Hospitality, Inc. v. AIX Specialty Ins. Co., 2026 Iii. App. Unpub. LEXIS 133 (Ill. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2026).

One of the brick veneer walls of the Lido Motel collapsed during a windstorm. Lido reported the loss it its insurer, AIX. AIX investigated and determined that the brick veneer collapsed due to pervasive wear and tear and corrosion of the underlying infrastructure that secured the veneer- specifically the components that anchored or tied the masonry veneer to the underlying wooden substrate.

AIX denied the claim. The policy provided coverage for windstorm, but contained the following exclusion: “This insurance does not apply to any loss or damage directly or indirectly caused by or resulting from any building damage existing at the time of this policy’s inception.”

Lido filed suit and cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. AIX’s expert opined that the collapse was caused by the combination of the hight wind and corroded anchors, and that the collapse could not have been caused by either factor alone. Lido’s expert opined that the wind was the “main cause” of the collapse, but repeatedly refused to say that the corroded anchors did not also contribute to the collapse. On multiple occasions, he conceded it “was possible” that hte pre-existing damage contributed to the collapse.

The trial court granted summary judgment to AIX, finding “no genuine issue of material fact that the collapse of the wall was, at a minimum, indirectly caused by or resulted from the corroded anchor ties.” Therefore, coverage was excluded.

The appellate court agreed that if the pre-existing corrosion in the anchors even indirectly caused the collapse of the wall, then the exclusion applied and Lido was not entitled to coverage.

Turning to the facts, there was no dispute that the brick wall was built in the 1950s; that the anchors securing the wall were corroded from water damage; that this corrosion was present before the policy was issued; and that there was no evidence that the wall was repaired at any time since it was built.

AIX’s expert was clear that two factors worked in tandem, and that neither factor could have succeeded without the other, to cause the wall’s collapse: the high winds and the corroded anchors. The corroded anchors, alone, did not cause the collapse – they needed the high winds. The high winds, alone, did not cause the collapse – they needed the corroded anchors.

Lido’s expert did not create a triable issue of fact. In his report and durng his deposition, Lido’s expert referred to the windstorm as the “main cause” of the wall’s collapse. Given many opportunities during the deposition, he never ruled out that the corroded anchors were a secondary, indirect cause of the collapse.

Therefore, summary judgment was properly granted to AIX.