The Texas Supreme Court has upheld a mold exclusion in a homeowner's policy, despite a policyholder's contention that an ambiguity arose from the claimed conflict between the exclusion and the policy's ensuing loss provision.

On a certified question from the US Court of Appeals for the Fifty Circuit, the state Supreme Court declared 7-2 in Fiess -v- State Farm Lloyds that Section I-Exclusions, part !(f) of the HO-B prescribed by the Texas Department of Insurance excluded coverage for mold damage, even though it arose from water damage that was otherwise covered.

Writing for the majority, Justice Brister stated: “the question in this case is not whether insurers should provide mold coverage in Texas, a public policy question beyond our jurisdiction as a court. The question instead is whether the language in an insurance policy provides such coverage, no more and no less.”