In this guide
- What the anti-concurrent-causation clause actually says — and what it doesn't
- The carrier arguments that drive most ACC denials in SC
- The legal limits SC courts have recognized on those arguments
- How the wind-driven rain coverage chain often survives an ACC denial
- When the ACC analysis may push toward § 38-59-40 or common-law bad faith
- How Property People Law approaches SC ACC disputes
Key takeaways
- The anti-concurrent-causation clause is policy language that generally says: when an excluded peril contributes to a loss — in any sequence — the entire loss may be excluded regardless of any other cause. Carriers use it as the foundation for most mixed-peril denials.
- The clause has real limits. It generally applies only when the excluded peril actually contributed to the specific damage at issue — not where pure covered-peril damage occurred in isolation before or apart from any excluded peril.
- ACC clause language varies meaningfully across SC carriers. Some clauses are written broadly; others are narrower. The specific clause in your policy controls — generic ACC analysis isn't a substitute for reading what's actually written.
- Common SC carrier arguments — that ACC excludes all damage when flood contributed to any part, that the clause overrides wind-driven rain coverage, that ACC applies even where excluded peril damage occurred only after — each has real limits that courts have recognized.
- At Property People Law, we read SC ACC clauses and identify where the carrier's argument exceeds what the clause actually supports. Our initial review is free; our SC residential and commercial property work is generally on contingency — we only get paid from the recovery, not your pocket.
The anti-concurrent-causation clause is the most consequential piece of policy language most South Carolina property owners have never heard of. It's the foundation for most mixed-peril denials, the language carriers cite when a hurricane or storm brings both covered and excluded perils, and the reason many property owners receive a flat denial on damage that was at least partly caused by a covered peril.
The clause does powerful work for carriers. It also has real limits that aren't always reflected in how denials are written. Understanding what the clause actually says, what carriers commonly argue it means, and where SC courts have drawn limits on those arguments is the foundation for any push-back on an ACC-based denial.
This article walks through the clause itself, the recurring carrier arguments, the legal limits those arguments face, how the wind-driven rain coverage chain often survives an ACC denial, when an aggressive ACC application may push toward § 38-59-40 or common-law bad faith, and how we at Property People Law approach SC ACC disputes. Every policy is different, every claim turns on its own facts.
What the ACC clause actually says — and what it doesn't
Most SC homeowners policies include language broadly similar to: "We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following [excluded perils, including flood, earth movement, etc.]. Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss."
Three things matter about that language. First, it applies to loss caused by the excluded peril — directly or indirectly. The carrier's argument is that any contribution by an excluded peril, in any sequence, excludes the whole loss. Second, it speaks of loss "contributing" to the loss — which is the language courts have parsed when defining how much contribution actually triggers the clause. Third, the clause is generally about coverage exclusions, not about coverage grants. It modifies what's excluded; it doesn't override the underlying coverage for losses that were caused by separate covered perils.
Specific ACC clause language varies across SC carriers. Some clauses are written quite broadly. Others are narrower — limited to specific perils or specific causation language. The general framework is the same across most policies, but the specific words in your policy control.
The carrier arguments that drive most SC ACC denials
Argument one: any flood contribution excludes everything
The most common carrier argument is that because some flooding contributed to some part of the loss, the entire loss falls inside the flood exclusion via ACC. On a property that took wind damage to the roof and then surge or river flooding to the first floor, the carrier may argue ACC excludes all of it — the roof damage included — because flood contributed to the overall loss event.
The limit on this argument is that the clause generally requires the excluded peril to have contributed to the specific damage at issue. Wind damage to a roof that happened hours before any flooding may not be "loss caused by" flooding under any reasonable reading — flood didn't contribute to that specific damage. The roof was damaged before the flood arrived. The ACC clause's contribution requirement may not be satisfied for that piece of the loss.
Argument two: anti-concurrent overrides wind-driven rain coverage
Many SC policies include coverage for interior damage caused by wind-driven rain when wind first created an opening — the wind → opening → rain entry chain. Carriers sometimes argue that ACC overrides this coverage when separate flooding also occurred during the same storm event.
The limit is that the wind-driven rain coverage is a separate covered peril analysis from the flood exclusion. The interior damage from rain entering through a wind-created opening was caused by wind-driven rain — a covered peril — not by flood. Even if flood contributed to other damage on the property, it didn't contribute to the interior damage that came through the roof opening. The chain stands on its own.
Argument three: timing doesn't matter, only contribution
Carriers sometimes argue that the "in any sequence" language in the ACC clause means timing is irrelevant — if flood eventually contributed to anything on the property, ACC excludes everything regardless of when the damage occurred.
The limit is that timing remains relevant to determining whether the excluded peril actually contributed to specific damage. Damage that physically occurred and concluded before the excluded peril arrived may not have been caused by the excluded peril regardless of how the sequence language is parsed. The roof damaged at 11 PM didn't get re-damaged when the river crested at 6 AM the next morning — those are physically separate damage events.
Argument four: anti-concurrent applies to consequential damage
Carriers sometimes try to extend ACC to consequential damages — mold growth from covered water, additional living expenses while displaced, contents damage in storage areas above the flood line. The argument is that because the underlying event included excluded perils, all consequential damage falls inside ACC.
The limit is that consequential damage generally tracks the underlying covered cause. Mold from a covered wind-driven rain event is generally covered. ALE while the property is unlivable due to covered damage is generally covered. Contents above the flood line damaged by covered causes are generally covered. ACC doesn't generally reach consequential damages that flow from covered events.
The legal limits SC courts have recognized
South Carolina case law has developed limits on ACC application over years of mixed-peril litigation. The general principles courts have applied include:
- The clause requires the excluded peril to have actually contributed to the specific damage — not merely to the overall storm event
- Damage that occurred temporally and physically before any excluded peril contributed may not fall inside the clause
- Coverage grants — including wind-driven rain through wind-created openings — generally aren't overridden by ACC where the covered peril was the actual cause of the specific damage
- Ambiguity in ACC language is generally construed against the carrier as the drafter of the policy
- The carrier generally has the burden of proving that the exclusion applies, including ACC application
These principles don't mean every ACC denial is improper. Cases where flood was the actual cause of damage, where the property took primarily excluded-peril damage with only incidental covered-peril contribution, or where the policy language is unusually broad may still produce defensible denials. The point is that ACC isn't a magic word — it has structure and limits, and aggressive ACC denials don't always survive close analysis.
How the wind-driven rain coverage chain often survives an ACC denial
On most SC homeowners policies, interior damage caused by wind-driven rain that entered through openings the wind itself created remains covered even when separate excluded-peril damage occurred elsewhere on the property. The covered chain runs: wind → opening (broken window, missing shingles, blown-off siding) → rain entry → interior damage.
Carriers sometimes deny this coverage by characterizing the interior water as flood, as ground-water seepage, or as something other than wind-driven rain through a wind-created opening. The defense is documenting the chain — establishing that wind created the opening before any flooding occurred, that rain entered through that opening, and that the resulting interior damage flows from that wind-driven rain rather than from a separate excluded source.
On a denied claim where the interior damage is substantial, separating wind-driven rain damage from any concurrent flood damage is often where significant coverage remains available. Even if ground-floor flood damage isn't recoverable, second-floor interior water damage from rain through a wind-damaged roof generally is.
When ACC analysis may push toward § 38-59-40 or common-law bad faith
Most ACC denials are contract disputes. The carrier took a position the property owner disagrees with; whether the position holds up depends on the evidence and the policy language. That's an ordinary breach-of-contract analysis.
Where ACC analysis may push toward the SC bad-faith framework is when the carrier's ACC application is so aggressive that no reasonable reading of the clause supports it. A denial citing ACC for damage that physically occurred before any excluded peril arrived, paired with refusal to investigate the timing, may signal more than disagreement — it may signal the carrier reached for ACC as cover for refusing to pay a claim that should have been covered. The same is true when ACC is applied to consequential damages from covered causes, or when the carrier refuses to acknowledge wind-driven rain coverage that the policy plainly includes.
When the conduct supports it, § 38-59-40 may allow a court to award attorney's fees — capped at one-third of the judgment — on top of the policy benefit, and the common-law bad-faith claim may add consequential and punitive damages. Whether the framework applies depends on what the carrier's file shows about the basis for the denial. See our SC bad-faith pillar for the full framework.
How Property People Law approaches SC ACC disputes
When a SC property owner reaches out about an ACC-based denial, the first conversation is free and the framework is consistent. We read the specific ACC clause in your policy — language varies, and the specific words matter. We map the damage on your property against the ACC contribution requirement. We identify where pure covered-peril damage occurred before any excluded peril contributed, where wind-driven rain coverage stands on its own, where damage above any flood line wasn't caused by excluded perils.
From there we tell you what survives the ACC denial in principle, what evidence is needed to establish the position, and what the realistic path forward looks like. Some ACC denials hold up after analysis. Many don't. The first review tells you which one you're holding.
Our SC residential and commercial property work is generally on contingency — we only get paid from the recovery, not your pocket. Past results in other cases don't guarantee outcomes in any new matter, and every claim turns on its own facts.
