{"id":902317,"date":"2024-02-22T15:52:53","date_gmt":"2024-02-22T22:52:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=902317"},"modified":"2025-12-17T11:29:51","modified_gmt":"2025-12-17T18:29:51","slug":"windstorm-term-found-ambiguous-involving-tornado","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/windstorm-term-found-ambiguous-involving-tornado\/","title":{"rendered":"Court Finds Policy Term, \u201cWindstorm,\u201d to be Ambiguous in Coverage Dispute Involving Tornado"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Paul Ferland and Joshua Tumen | Property Insurance Law Observer<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Mankoff v. Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange<\/em> (2024 WL 322297 (Tex. App.\u2014Dallas Jan. 29, 2024)), the Court determined that the term \u201cwindstorm<\/a>\u201d was ambiguous as utilized in the subject insurance policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The insureds suffered property damage caused by a tornado and subsequently submitted a claim to their insurer.  The insurer paid only a portion of the claim because it maintained that the tornado that struck and damaged the property was a \u201cwindstorm\u201d and, therefore, the claim was subject to the policy\u2019s \u201cWindstorm or Hail Deductible.\u201d  That provision stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5.  Deductible<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unless otherwise noted in this policy, the base deductible or one of the special deductibles shown on your Declarations or by endorsement is the amount of a covered loss you will pay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Windstorm or Hail Deductible<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the event of direct physical loss to property covered under this policy caused directly or indirectly by windstorm or hail, the Windstorm or Hail deductible listed on your Declarations is the amount of the covered loss for dwelling, other structures and contents that you will pay.  The Windstorm or Hail deductible does not apply to coverage under 7. Loss of Use.  The Windstorm or Hail deductible applies regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The policy also included a base deductible which was waived for covered losses other than those caused by a windstorm, hail, or earthquake:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Waiver of Deductible<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For a covered loss caused by a peril other than windstorm or hail or earthquake that is greater than $50,000, we will waive the base deductible.  This waiver of deductible only applies if the base deductible shown on your Declarations is $25,000 or less.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This waiver of deductible does not apply to special deductibles for windstorm or hail or earthquake.  This waiver of deductible also does not apply to a special construction deductible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consequently, the insureds sued to recover the withheld deductible arguing that the tornado that caused the damage was not a windstorm and, as a result, their deductible was waived.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In construing the term \u201cwindstorm,\u201d the Court noted that its primary concern was to ascertain the parties\u2019 intentions as expressed in the policy.  As the policy did not define \u201cwindstorm,\u201d the Court considered its common, ordinary meaning while reading the term \u201cin context and in light of the rules of grammar and common usage.\u201d  This also included the use of dictionaries and its usage in other authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the one hand, in support of their position, the insureds provided the following examples:<\/p>\n\n\n\n