Last month the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the undefined term “windstorm,” as used in a Texas homeowners’ policy, is unambiguous and includes a tornado. Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange v. Mankoff, No. 24-0132, __ S.W.3d ___ (Tex., Feb. 13, 2026) (not yet released for publication). Therefore, the policy’s windstorm and hail deductible applied to the loss.
The Mankoffs’ home suffered damage in the 2019 tornado that raced through the heart of Dallas. They made a claim under their homeowners’ policy. The insurer made only a partial payment, advising that the tornado qualified as a “windstorm” and, thus, the claim was subject to the policy’s $87,156 “Windstorm or Hail Deductible.”
This provision stated: “In the event of direct physical loss to property covered under this policy caused directly or indirectly by windstorm or hail, the Windstorm or Hail deductible listed on your Declarations is the amount of the covered loss for dwelling, other structures and contents that you will pay.” The policy did not define “windstorm.”
The insureds sued for breach of contract but the trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer. The insureds appealed, and a divided Dallas Court of Appeals reversed. The Texas Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstating the trial court’s judgment in favor of the insurer.
The Court examined the policy’s plain language, applying long-standing principles of contract interpretation. The Court looked at multiple dictionary definitions of windstorm, finding them “markedly consistent” and having a “common thread”: a windstorm is a storm marked by high or violent winds but with little or no precipitation.
The Court also examined various statutes using the term windstorm. It found that none of the provisions indicated that the Legislature understood “windstorm” to exclude a tornado. The Court examined several state and federal cases cited by the parties and concluded that courts and parties over the years have viewed tornadoes as windstorms.
The insureds even offered an expert meteorologist’s opinion that a windstorm is distinct from a tornado. The Court, however, determined that the insureds are not parties who agreed to a technical meteorological meaning to control the undefined term; thus, the expert’s opinion provided little guidance, if any, in determining the term’s ordinary meaning. But, even considering the opinion, the expert’s definition of “windstorm” was consistent with the common thread identified across dictionaries and did not exclude a tornado.
The Court acknowledged:
Undoubtedly, some tornadoes occur amidst broader weather events that may not be classified as windstorms because of significant precipitation. However, the classification of the accompanying weather event in which a tornado forms has no bearing on whether the tornado itself is a windstorm. Rather, a tornado is merely one of multiple elements that may or may not be part of a particular weather event. A tornado is a windstorm in and of itself, and this is true regardless of whether it is a subset of a broader storm involving precipitation. Stated another way, a weather event may not qualify as a windstorm depending on the amount of precipitation involved, but that has no effect on the fact that, based on the ordinary meanings of the terms, a tornado is always a windstorm.
Ultimately, the Court held that all authorities indicate the obvious: not all windstorms contain tornadoes, but all tornadoes are windstorms, regardless of whether the broader weather event includes precipitation. Therefore, the common, ordinary meaning of “windstorm” in an insurance policy unambiguously includes a tornado. For the Mankoffs, this meant the windstorm and hail deductible applied and the insurer was not liable for any additional payment.
The insureds have received an extension of time through March 30, 2026, to file a motion for rehearing of the opinion.