The owner of a go-cart track and golf cart sales operation experienced a water damage loss as the result of a flood. The loss occurred when a vandal(s) removed sandbags and dirt from a nearby levee, causing the levee to flood the surrounding area.

The property owner submitted a claim to the commercial property insurer who subsequently denied coverage based upon the policy's flood/water damage exclusion. In the ensuing legal suit, the district court ruled in favor of the insurer stating that the flood/water damage exclusion was unambiguous, and there was no coverage.

The insured appealed the decision on the grounds that the proximate cause of loss was not flood but rather vandalism, and vandalism is a covered peril, thus the policy should respond.

The decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri affirmed the decision of the district court in favor of the insurer on the basis that the policy language was clear in its' language in the flood water damage exclusion which in effect stated that there was no coverage for flood, "whether caused directly or indirectly by the following. Such loss or damage is excluded regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss."

(TNT Speed & Sport Center, Inc. d.b.a. TNT Golf Cars & Utility Systems, Appellant v. American States Ins. CO., Appellee. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. 8^th Cir. No. 96-2303. May 27, 1997. CCH 1997 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 6136.)