The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has had a busy month handing down rulings in Hurricane Katrina insurance coverage cases, issuing its fifth decision on Thursday in a Hurricane Katrina coverage case.

This time, the issue centered around an insurer's anti-concurrent clause in the case of Paul and Julie Leonard v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., (Nos. 06-61130 & 06-61131, 5th Cir.), on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

The appeals panel, consisting of Chief Judge Edith H. Jones and Circuit Judges Thomas M. Reavley and Jerry E. Smith, affirmed U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr.’s ruling and subsequent judgment but found flaws in his reasoning regarding the anti-concurrent clause.

The panel said the anti-concurrent clause is not ambiguous, noting that it unambiguously excludes coverage for water damage even if another peril, such as wind, "contributed concurrently or in any sequence to cause the loss."

"The only species of damage covered under the policy is damage caused exclusively by wind. But if wind and water synergistically caused the same damage, such damage is excluded. Thus, the Leonards' money judgment was based on their roof damages solely caused by wind. Contrary to the court's damage matrix, however, had they also proved that a portion of their property damage was caused by the concurrent or sequential action of water — or any number of other enumerated water-borne perils — the policy clearly disallows recovery," the panel said.

Many wonder what the impact of the panel's decision will be on homeowners' wind vs. water claims that are still pending in Louisiana and Mississippi. Is this decision the final word on the issue? If so, how will homeowners' pending claims and lawsuits be affected by this ruling?