Post 5024<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\nSee the full video at https:\/\/rumble.com\/v6qtw4u-whos-on-first-insureds-and-insurers-burden-on-causation.html<\/a> and at https:\/\/youtu.be\/Cecp7iFBWKo<\/a><\/p>\nInsured Must Prove Actual Loss Causing Peril to Claim on Named Peril Policy<\/span> <\/strong><\/h3>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/zalma.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/BURDENOFPROOF.png?resize=379%2C214\")
In\u00a0Mark Alan Barger, Jr.; Margie Barger v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company,<\/em> No. 24-60178, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (March 7, 2025) the difference between the burden of proof needed for an \u201call risk\u201d coverage and named peril coverage.<\/p>\nMark Alan Barger, Jr., and Margie Barger (\u201cthe Bargers\u201d) appealed the district court\u2019s grant of summary judgment in favor of their homeowners\u2019 insurer, State Farm. The Bargers contended that the district court, in evaluating their insurance claim, erroneously assigned them the burden of proving that a specified \u201cnamed peril,\u201d or \u201ccovered event,\u201d caused damage to their roof and necessitated its replacement.<\/p>\n
FACTS<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\nIn June 2021, a storm in Greenwood, Mississippi, caused significant rainfall, leading to rainwater leaking through the Bargers\u2019 roof and interior ceilings, causing damage to multiple rooms in their house. State Farm refused to cover the cost of replacing the entire roof, concluding that only nine wind-damaged shingles and a small area of roofing membrane were covered by the policy. The Bargers eventually paid for a new roof in March 2022 and subsequently sued State Farm for breach of contract.<\/p>\n
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm, reasoning that the Bargers failed to prove that a covered event caused the additional damage.<\/p>\n
ANALYSIS<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\nUnder Mississippi law, when an insured makes a claim under an \u201call-risk\u201d coverage the insured (the Bargers) only needed to prove that an \u201caccidental direct physical loss\u201d occurred to their dwelling. Once established, the burden shifted to the insurer (State Farm) to prove that a policy exclusion applied.<\/p>\n
State Farm maintained that the district court\u2019s reference to Coverage B, rather than Coverage A, had no impact on the application of the burden of proof and was nothing more than a clerical error [that] did not affect the outcome of the case and should be disregarded as harmless.<\/p>\n
The language of the \u201cCoverage A-Dwelling\u201d section of the Bargers\u2019 State Farm policy unquestionably provided \u201call-risk\u201d coverage, whereas the \u201cCoverage B- Personal Property\u201d section only covered property loss caused by certain specified perils the \u201cnamed perils\u201d coverage of \u201cCoverage C-Personal Property.\u201d\u00a0 The Bargers were required to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the \u201cdirect physical loss\u201d to the property described in Coverage C was caused by wind.<\/p>\n
The Fifth Circuit was convinced that the district court improperly allocated the burden of proof regarding causation to the Bargers, rather than to State Farm. The Fifth Circuit was not convinced that the error had no impact on the district court\u2019s summary judgment decision and, therefore, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court\u2019s summary judgment ruling, vacated the dismissal of the Bargers\u2019 breach of contract claim, and remanded the case for further proceedings.<\/p>\n
The State Farm policy contained two different types of coverage: (1) an all risk policy for the structure and (2) a named peril coverage for the contents. The District Court erroneously applied the named peril coverage to the entire claim when it should have applied the \u201call risk\u201d requirements to structure and named peril requirements to the contents. The Bargers fulfilled the all risk requirement but may not have fulfilled the named peril requirement for loss to their contents so the court reversed and returned the case to the District Court to rule on both aspects of the policy.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/zalma.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/BZTHEA.png?resize=300%2C282\")
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.<\/p>\n
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.<\/p>\n
Subscribe to my substack at https:\/\/barryzalma.substack.com\/subscribe<\/a><\/p>\nGo to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https:\/\/www.newsbreak.com\/@c\/1653419?s=01;<\/a> Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https:\/\/rumble.com\/account\/content?type=all;<\/a> Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg<\/a><\/p>\nGo to the Insurance Claims Library \u2013 https:\/\/lnkd.in\/gwEYk<\/a><\/p>\n\nLike this:<\/h3>\n
Insured Must Prove Actual Loss Causing Peril to Claim on Named Peril Policy<\/span> <\/strong><\/h3>\nIn\u00a0Mark Alan Barger, Jr.; Margie Barger v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company,<\/em> No. 24-60178, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (March 7, 2025) the difference between the burden of proof needed for an \u201call risk\u201d coverage and named peril coverage.<\/p>\nMark Alan Barger, Jr., and Margie Barger (\u201cthe Bargers\u201d) appealed the district court\u2019s grant of summary judgment in favor of their homeowners\u2019 insurer, State Farm. The Bargers contended that the district court, in evaluating their insurance claim, erroneously assigned them the burden of proving that a specified \u201cnamed peril,\u201d or \u201ccovered event,\u201d caused damage to their roof and necessitated its replacement.<\/p>\n
FACTS<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\nIn June 2021, a storm in Greenwood, Mississippi, caused significant rainfall, leading to rainwater leaking through the Bargers\u2019 roof and interior ceilings, causing damage to multiple rooms in their house. State Farm refused to cover the cost of replacing the entire roof, concluding that only nine wind-damaged shingles and a small area of roofing membrane were covered by the policy. The Bargers eventually paid for a new roof in March 2022 and subsequently sued State Farm for breach of contract.<\/p>\n
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm, reasoning that the Bargers failed to prove that a covered event caused the additional damage.<\/p>\n
ANALYSIS<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\nUnder Mississippi law, when an insured makes a claim under an \u201call-risk\u201d coverage the insured (the Bargers) only needed to prove that an \u201caccidental direct physical loss\u201d occurred to their dwelling. Once established, the burden shifted to the insurer (State Farm) to prove that a policy exclusion applied.<\/p>\n
State Farm maintained that the district court\u2019s reference to Coverage B, rather than Coverage A, had no impact on the application of the burden of proof and was nothing more than a clerical error [that] did not affect the outcome of the case and should be disregarded as harmless.<\/p>\n
The language of the \u201cCoverage A-Dwelling\u201d section of the Bargers\u2019 State Farm policy unquestionably provided \u201call-risk\u201d coverage, whereas the \u201cCoverage B- Personal Property\u201d section only covered property loss caused by certain specified perils the \u201cnamed perils\u201d coverage of \u201cCoverage C-Personal Property.\u201d\u00a0 The Bargers were required to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the \u201cdirect physical loss\u201d to the property described in Coverage C was caused by wind.<\/p>\n
The Fifth Circuit was convinced that the district court improperly allocated the burden of proof regarding causation to the Bargers, rather than to State Farm. The Fifth Circuit was not convinced that the error had no impact on the district court\u2019s summary judgment decision and, therefore, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court\u2019s summary judgment ruling, vacated the dismissal of the Bargers\u2019 breach of contract claim, and remanded the case for further proceedings.<\/p>\n
The State Farm policy contained two different types of coverage: (1) an all risk policy for the structure and (2) a named peril coverage for the contents. The District Court erroneously applied the named peril coverage to the entire claim when it should have applied the \u201call risk\u201d requirements to structure and named peril requirements to the contents. The Bargers fulfilled the all risk requirement but may not have fulfilled the named peril requirement for loss to their contents so the court reversed and returned the case to the District Court to rule on both aspects of the policy.<\/p>\n
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.<\/p>\n
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.<\/p>\n
Subscribe to my substack at https:\/\/barryzalma.substack.com\/subscribe<\/a><\/p>\nGo to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https:\/\/www.newsbreak.com\/@c\/1653419?s=01;<\/a> Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https:\/\/rumble.com\/account\/content?type=all;<\/a> Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg<\/a><\/p>\nGo to the Insurance Claims Library \u2013 https:\/\/lnkd.in\/gwEYk<\/a><\/p>\n\nLike this:<\/h3>\n
In\u00a0Mark Alan Barger, Jr.; Margie Barger v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company,<\/em> No. 24-60178, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (March 7, 2025) the difference between the burden of proof needed for an \u201call risk\u201d coverage and named peril coverage.<\/p>\nMark Alan Barger, Jr., and Margie Barger (\u201cthe Bargers\u201d) appealed the district court\u2019s grant of summary judgment in favor of their homeowners\u2019 insurer, State Farm. The Bargers contended that the district court, in evaluating their insurance claim, erroneously assigned them the burden of proving that a specified \u201cnamed peril,\u201d or \u201ccovered event,\u201d caused damage to their roof and necessitated its replacement.<\/p>\n
FACTS<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\nIn June 2021, a storm in Greenwood, Mississippi, caused significant rainfall, leading to rainwater leaking through the Bargers\u2019 roof and interior ceilings, causing damage to multiple rooms in their house. State Farm refused to cover the cost of replacing the entire roof, concluding that only nine wind-damaged shingles and a small area of roofing membrane were covered by the policy. The Bargers eventually paid for a new roof in March 2022 and subsequently sued State Farm for breach of contract.<\/p>\n
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm, reasoning that the Bargers failed to prove that a covered event caused the additional damage.<\/p>\n
ANALYSIS<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\nUnder Mississippi law, when an insured makes a claim under an \u201call-risk\u201d coverage the insured (the Bargers) only needed to prove that an \u201caccidental direct physical loss\u201d occurred to their dwelling. Once established, the burden shifted to the insurer (State Farm) to prove that a policy exclusion applied.<\/p>\n
State Farm maintained that the district court\u2019s reference to Coverage B, rather than Coverage A, had no impact on the application of the burden of proof and was nothing more than a clerical error [that] did not affect the outcome of the case and should be disregarded as harmless.<\/p>\n
The language of the \u201cCoverage A-Dwelling\u201d section of the Bargers\u2019 State Farm policy unquestionably provided \u201call-risk\u201d coverage, whereas the \u201cCoverage B- Personal Property\u201d section only covered property loss caused by certain specified perils the \u201cnamed perils\u201d coverage of \u201cCoverage C-Personal Property.\u201d\u00a0 The Bargers were required to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the \u201cdirect physical loss\u201d to the property described in Coverage C was caused by wind.<\/p>\n
The Fifth Circuit was convinced that the district court improperly allocated the burden of proof regarding causation to the Bargers, rather than to State Farm. The Fifth Circuit was not convinced that the error had no impact on the district court\u2019s summary judgment decision and, therefore, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court\u2019s summary judgment ruling, vacated the dismissal of the Bargers\u2019 breach of contract claim, and remanded the case for further proceedings.<\/p>\n
The State Farm policy contained two different types of coverage: (1) an all risk policy for the structure and (2) a named peril coverage for the contents. The District Court erroneously applied the named peril coverage to the entire claim when it should have applied the \u201call risk\u201d requirements to structure and named peril requirements to the contents. The Bargers fulfilled the all risk requirement but may not have fulfilled the named peril requirement for loss to their contents so the court reversed and returned the case to the District Court to rule on both aspects of the policy.<\/p>\n
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.<\/p>\n
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.<\/p>\n
Subscribe to my substack at https:\/\/barryzalma.substack.com\/subscribe<\/a><\/p>\nGo to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https:\/\/www.newsbreak.com\/@c\/1653419?s=01;<\/a> Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https:\/\/rumble.com\/account\/content?type=all;<\/a> Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg<\/a><\/p>\nGo to the Insurance Claims Library \u2013 https:\/\/lnkd.in\/gwEYk<\/a><\/p>\n\nLike this:<\/h3>\n
Under Mississippi law, when an insured makes a claim under an \u201call-risk\u201d coverage the insured (the Bargers) only needed to prove that an \u201caccidental direct physical loss\u201d occurred to their dwelling. Once established, the burden shifted to the insurer (State Farm) to prove that a policy exclusion applied.<\/p>\n
State Farm maintained that the district court\u2019s reference to Coverage B, rather than Coverage A, had no impact on the application of the burden of proof and was nothing more than a clerical error [that] did not affect the outcome of the case and should be disregarded as harmless.<\/p>\n
The language of the \u201cCoverage A-Dwelling\u201d section of the Bargers\u2019 State Farm policy unquestionably provided \u201call-risk\u201d coverage, whereas the \u201cCoverage B- Personal Property\u201d section only covered property loss caused by certain specified perils the \u201cnamed perils\u201d coverage of \u201cCoverage C-Personal Property.\u201d\u00a0 The Bargers were required to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the \u201cdirect physical loss\u201d to the property described in Coverage C was caused by wind.<\/p>\n
The Fifth Circuit was convinced that the district court improperly allocated the burden of proof regarding causation to the Bargers, rather than to State Farm. The Fifth Circuit was not convinced that the error had no impact on the district court\u2019s summary judgment decision and, therefore, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court\u2019s summary judgment ruling, vacated the dismissal of the Bargers\u2019 breach of contract claim, and remanded the case for further proceedings.<\/p>\n
The State Farm policy contained two different types of coverage: (1) an all risk policy for the structure and (2) a named peril coverage for the contents. The District Court erroneously applied the named peril coverage to the entire claim when it should have applied the \u201call risk\u201d requirements to structure and named peril requirements to the contents. The Bargers fulfilled the all risk requirement but may not have fulfilled the named peril requirement for loss to their contents so the court reversed and returned the case to the District Court to rule on both aspects of the policy.<\/p>\n
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.<\/p>\n
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.<\/p>\n
Subscribe to my substack at https:\/\/barryzalma.substack.com\/subscribe<\/a><\/p>\n Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https:\/\/www.newsbreak.com\/@c\/1653419?s=01;<\/a> Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https:\/\/rumble.com\/account\/content?type=all;<\/a> Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg<\/a><\/p>\n Go to the Insurance Claims Library \u2013 https:\/\/lnkd.in\/gwEYk<\/a><\/p>\nLike this:<\/h3>\n