Main Menu
Related Practices

Texas Supreme Court Holds that Tornadoes are Considered Windstorms When “Windstorm” is Undefined in a Homeowners Policy

The Zelle Lonestar Lowdown
February 27, 2026

by Katherine Jakeway

On February 13th, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion in Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exch. v. Jeff Mankoff and Staci Mankoff, holding that the term “windstorm,” when undefined in a homeowners insurance policy is not ambiguous, and that its ordinary meaning encompasses a tornado.

This case centered around a 2019 tornado that damaged the Mankoff home, which was covered by a homeowners policy issued by Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange (“PURE”). The Mankoffs submitted a claim under the policy and were paid only a portion of their claim because of the high deductible. PURE asserted that because a tornado qualifies as a windstorm, the claim was subject to the policy’s “Windstorm or Hail Deductible,” which was significantly higher than the policy’s general deductible. The Mankoffs then sued for breach of contract, alleging that a tornado is a peril separate and distinct from a “windstorm”, an undefined term in the policy.

At the trial court level, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment with their respective wind arguments. The trial court granted PURE’s summary judgment motion, denied the Mankoffs’ motion, and rendered a take-nothing judgment against the Mankoffs. But on appeal, the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed and rendered judgment for the Mankoffs. That court concluded that the deductible at issue was ambiguous because the term “windstorm” was undefined and subject to more than one reasonable meaning. Therefore, the court rejected PURE’s argument that the plain meaning of “windstorm” includes a tornado.

To clarify these issues, the Texas Supreme Court first examined whether the term “windstorm” was ambiguous. To ascertain the term’s plain meaning, the Court first looked to dictionary definitions, and then to the term’s usage in statutes, case law, and other authorities. After considering the Merriam-Webster and Webster’s New World College Dictionary definitions, the Court found:

The common thread running through dictionary definitions of “windstorm” is a storm with violent, strong winds but little or no precipitation. See City of Fort Worth v. Pridgen, 653 S.W.3d 176, 184 (Tex. 2022). A tornado falls within these definitional boundaries. Dictionaries consistently define a “tornado” as a violent and destructive movement of wind.

Therefore, the Court determined that 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.”

Moreover, the Court found that the use of the term “windstorm” in statutes and case law do not call the dictionary definitions into question. First, the terms “windstorm” or “tornado” are undefined in the Texas Insurance Code and Texas Property Code and were not considered instructive on the determination of the ordinary meaning of “windstorm.” Moreover, the Court found that Texas case law was no more instructive to the meaning of “windstorm,” as “no Texas court has determined the ordinary meaning of “windstorm” as a matter of law.” The Court determined that none of the authorities cited by the Mankoffs indicated that a tornado is somehow not a windstorm in and of itself. Rather, the Court concluded that “not all windstorms contain tornadoes, but all tornadoes are windstorms, regardless of whether the broader weather event includes precipitation.”

Given this reasoning, the Texas Supreme Court found that the “Windstorm or Hail” deductible applied to the Mankoffs’ claim, as the deductible unambiguously applies to damage caused by a tornado. Therefore, the Court unanimously reversed the Dallas Court of Appeals judgment and reinstated the trial court’s summary judgment for PURE.

_________________________________

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm or its clients. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Back to Page