Storm & Wind

Anti-Concurrent Causation (ACC)

Policy language that can deny an entire loss when a covered and an excluded peril act together.

Last reviewed July 2026 against primary sources.

Key points

  • ACC lets an insurer deny an entire loss when a covered peril (such as wind) and an excluded peril (such as flood or storm surge) combine to cause the same damage.
  • Flood and storm surge are excluded from standard Florida homeowners policies and require separate NFIP flood coverage administered by FEMA.
  • The dispute almost always comes down to causation: what the wind damaged before any water arrived, documented and separated from flood damage.
  • ACC is a contract clause, not a statute; its exact wording controls, so read the policy language rather than trusting the carrier's characterization.
  • A wind claim and an NFIP flood claim can both apply to one storm event; pursuing both, with clear allocation, protects against total denial under ACC.

What it means

Anti-Concurrent Causation (ACC) is a contract provision found in most Florida property insurance policies that governs what happens when two or more perils act together to cause a single loss. When a covered peril and an excluded peril combine, or occur in sequence, to produce the same damage, an ACC clause allows the insurer to deny the entire loss, not just the portion attributable to the excluded peril. The clause typically appears in the policy's exclusions section and uses language stating that certain losses are not covered regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.

The clause exists because insurers price and reserve for specific, defined risks. Flood, storm surge, and rising water are treated as a separate risk category that standard homeowners policies do not cover. Flood coverage in the United States is generally provided through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and must be purchased as a separate policy. Because a single hurricane can produce both wind damage (a covered peril) and flood or storm-surge damage (an excluded peril) to the same structure, insurers use ACC language to draw a firm line: if an excluded cause is part of the causal chain, the exclusion controls the outcome, even where a covered cause also contributed.

In practice, ACC turns causation into the central battleground of a Florida storm claim. If a roof is torn open by wind and the interior is then soaked by wind-driven rain, the loss is generally within coverage. But if the same home is also inundated by storm surge, the carrier may invoke the ACC clause to argue that flood, an excluded peril acting concurrently, defeats coverage for the combined damage. The homeowner's recovery can then depend entirely on proving which damage the wind caused before any water intrusion, and separating it cleanly from anything the flood touched.

It is important to understand what ACC is not. It is a policy term, not a Florida statute, and its enforceability and reach depend on the exact wording of the policy and how a court reads it. Florida is not a pure concurrent-causation state by statute, so the specific ACC language in the contract carries real weight. This makes reading the actual policy, rather than relying on the adjuster's summary, essential before conceding that a loss is excluded.

In practice

On a real Florida hurricane claim, ACC most often surfaces after a coastal or low-lying home takes both wind and water damage. The carrier's field adjuster inspects, notes evidence of standing water or a surge line, and the file is routed toward an ACC-based denial or a sharply reduced payment. The burden then shifts to the policyholder to show what the wind did independently: roof coverings lifted, openings created, and interior damage that occurred from wind and wind-driven rain before any flooding entered the structure. Photographs, weather and tide data, and a methodical room-by-room damage allocation are what turn a blanket denial into a defensible wind claim.

A common pitfall is treating one storm as one claim. Wind is covered by the homeowners policy; flood is covered only by a separate NFIP policy. Homeowners who carry both should generally open both claims, because allocating damage between the two carriers is often the only path to a full recovery and prevents the wind insurer from using flood as a total ACC defense. Carrier tactics to watch for include over-attributing interior damage to surge, leaning on a single surge waterline photo to exclude damage well above it, and issuing early low estimates before the full extent of wind damage is documented.

Because ACC turns on the precise policy wording and on causation evidence, timing and documentation matter. Florida law also imposes a presuit step: under Florida Statute 627.70152, a policyholder must serve a written notice of intent to initiate litigation on the Department of Financial Services at least 10 business days before filing suit under a property policy, and the insurer must respond in writing within 10 business days after receiving the notice. Preserving evidence early, before repairs erase the wind-versus-water picture, keeps that later leverage intact.

Real scenarios

Coastal home: wind first, then surge

A hurricane strips shingles and opens the roof of a beachfront home, and wind-driven rain damages the second-floor interior. Hours later, a six-foot storm surge floods the ground floor. The homeowners insurer invokes ACC and denies the whole claim, citing flood. By documenting the roof breach and upper-floor water staining above the surge line, the homeowner establishes an example of roughly $70,000 in wind-caused damage that predates the flooding, while the ground-floor flood loss is pursued separately under the NFIP policy.

Total denial reversed by allocation

An inland home near a canal suffers both wind damage to the roof and a few inches of rising water in the garage and one bedroom. The carrier applies the ACC clause to deny the entire loss. Because the wind and flood damage occupy clearly different areas of the house, the claim is re-presented with a room-by-room allocation showing that the roof, attic, and living areas were damaged by wind alone. The wind portion, in this example estimated near $40,000, is recovered on the homeowners policy; the limited water intrusion is handled as a separate flood claim.

No flood policy, all-in on wind

A homeowner without NFIP coverage sees a hurricane damage both the roof and, through minor surge, the ground-floor flooring. The insurer points to the surge and uses ACC to deny everything. With no flood policy to fall back on, the entire recovery depends on isolating the wind damage. Detailed proof that the roof and interior were compromised by wind before water entered supports a wind claim of about $55,000 in this illustration, even though the flooring loss remains uncovered.

Related guide: Hurricane Damage Claims in South Florida

Official sources

General guidance only, not legal advice. Statutes and codes change; verify against the current source.

Anti-Concurrent Causation (ACC) FAQs

If your policy contains an anti-concurrent causation clause, the insurer may attempt to deny the entire loss when an excluded peril such as flood combines with a covered peril such as wind. Whether that denial holds up depends on the exact policy wording and on the causation evidence. Damage you can prove was caused by wind independently, before any water arrived, is what supports coverage despite an ACC argument.

Not sure how this affects your claim?

Foremost Public Adjusters has recovered millions for policyholders across South Florida. If your claim was denied, delayed, or underpaid, we will review it for free. No recovery, no fee.