If Left Undefined in the Policy, the Term “Windstorm” is Ambiguous
By Ramy P. Elmasri and Erin K. Ruthford
In Mankoff v. Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exch., the 5th District Texas Court of Appeals, Dallas reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the Insurer finding the term “windstorm” ambiguous.
The Insureds filed a claim for damages to their home after a tornado and accompanying two-minute rainstorm. The Insurer paid a portion of the claim maintaining the tornado qualified as a windstorm and was therefore subject to the Policy’s 2% “Windstorm or Hail Deductible”. The policy included a base deductible of $25,000, which was waived for covered losses other than those caused by windstorm, hail, or earthquake. The Insureds filed suit against PURE to recover the deductible. Each party moved for summary judgment and the trial court ruled in favor of the Insurer.
On appeal the appellate court reversed summary judgment in favor of the Insurer reasoning the policy did not define windstorm and interpreted the term according to its ordinary, commonsense meaning. The appellate court considering the authorities presented by both parties reasonable but conflicting, thus creating an ambiguity. The appellate court noted that because the ambiguous term appears in an exclusionary provision, the court must adopt the interpretation put forth by the insured so long as it is reasonable and reversed the trial court’s ruling in favor of the Insureds.
The case is Mankoff v. Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exch., No. 05-22-00963-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 594, at *1-20 (Dallas [5th Dist.] January 29, 2024).
Ramy P. Elmasri
Private: Erin K. Rutherford