Insurers have won the latest battle at the Texas Supreme Court in the ongoing war between insurance companies and policyholders.

In their complaint in Fiess, et al. v. State Farm Lloyds, the plaintiffs alleged that their homeowners’ policy contains seemingly contradictory clauses concerning mold damage. In one section, the policy states that it does not cover a “loss caused by mold.” But in another section, the policy says it does cover an “ensuing loss” caused by “water damage.”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]