The Mississippi Supreme Court heard argument in the Corban v. USAA case on June 9, 2009.  This is the first case to be argued before the Mississippi Supreme Court addressing the wind/water issue.  In addition to the Plaintiff homeowners and their insurance company, there were several Amicus Curiae, or friend of the court parties allowed to present argument.  Nationwide Insurance Company sent an attorney from Washington, D.C. to argue on its behalf and Attorney General Jim Hood had counsel there as well.  The case was heard by the full court, rather than the usual panel of three judges.

One of the preliminary issues to be determined is which party has the burden of proving whether the claim is excluded under the insurance policy in effect.  As you know, I have tried and failed for two years to have the burden placed squarely on the shoulders of the insurance industry through legislation.  Apparently, the USAA lawyer came close to ackowledging that his client bore that burden in the Corban case.  However, he argued that when wind and water act concurrently, the claim must be excluded under the anti-concurrent cause exclusion.  I have also filed legislation to have such provisions made illegal by statute, but have been unsuccessful to date.

Brian Martin of Congressman Gene Taylor's office offers an excellent explanation of the tortured logic used by the insurance attorneys in their agrument.  His comments can be found on Slabbed, a great blog on issues affecting Coastal Mississippi:

http://slabbed.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/about-the-video-of-oral-arguments-in-corban-v-usaa/

Keep a close watch for the decision in this case as depending on how it comes out, it will cause many cases to settle.  It will also have a profound effect on how claims are resolved after our next hurricane.