Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

de Laurentis v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n – Case Brief Summary (Texas)

In de Laurentis v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 162 S.W.3d 714 (Tex. App.--Houston 14th Dist. 2005, pet. denied), the Court considered whether mold damage to a house was covered under a homeowner's policy. 162 S.W.3d at 721.

The insurance company argued that mold was not a covered peril under the "named-perils policy."

The Court agreed with the homeowner that the mold damage was caused by a water leak, which was a covered peril under the policy. Id. at 724-25.

The Court explained that "a physical loss includes the natural consequences of the named peril" and consequently the mold "damage could be a physical loss covered under the . . . policy." Id. at 723, 725.