There are insurance cases about plumbing, and then there are insurance cases about promises. Cooper v. State Farm 1 is the latter. The coverage dispute turns on the origin of sewage in a Mississippi home. But beneath the surface lies a deeper issue. What happens when a State Farm adjuster walks through a catastrophe, directs demolition, signals coverage, and then the company later says the exclusion controls? State Farm argues that policyholders cannot trust what its field claims adjusters tell them.
Ronald and Shirley Cooper returned home from choir practice to find raw sewage flowing through much of their first floor. They did what policyholders are told to do. They mitigated. They called the plumber. They called the insurer. State Farm sent a field adjuster who reviewed the policy, walked room to room, pointed out what needed to be removed, and, according to the Coopers and their contractor, approved significant demolition. Later, after plumbing opinions were gathered, the insurer concluded that the sewage originated from the City’s pressurized main line and therefore fell under a capped Back-Up of Sewer or Drain endorsement rather than full dwelling coverage.
The Fifth Circuit majority treated the case as a straightforward application of an unambiguous exclusion. The policy excluded sewage from outside the residence premises plumbing system. The insurer presented expert testimony explaining that no fixtures were running, the system was pressurized, and the cracked union allowed city sewage to flow backward into the home. The insureds, the court concluded, failed to present admissible expert evidence to create a genuine dispute about source. Summary judgment followed.
On the agency issue, the majority held that an adjuster cannot override unambiguous policy language. Mississippi law imputes constructive knowledge of the policy to the insured. If the exclusion clearly bars coverage, reliance on contrary representations is unreasonable as a matter of law. The majority opinion essentially ruled that confusion, frustration, and even initial misstatements do not create coverage where none exists.
Judge Oldham dissented. He focused on chronology and authority. The insurer bears the burden of proving an exclusion. If the adjuster did not know the sewage source at the time he directed demolition and indicated coverage, how could he have invoked the exclusion? The dissent rejected the idea that this was about rewriting the contract. Instead, he framed the case as one of apparent authority and reliance. State Farm sent a representative to the home, clothed him with the authority to adjust the loss, and the insureds acted accordingly. According to the dissent, that is a jury question.
Both opinions have merit. The majority is basic contract orthodoxy, where exclusions mean what they say. Courts are reluctant to allow estoppel to expand coverage beyond clear terms. But the dissent asks a harder question for claims professionals. It raises the issue of what policyholders are supposed to do in the moment. Live in sewage while the causation investigation unfolds? Ignore an adjuster’s direction and fail to cooperate? Tear out only what they can afford?
This case has some lessons for property claims handlers and claims management. The first practical pointer is to separate scope from coverage. It is entirely appropriate to identify damaged materials and discuss mitigation steps. It is dangerous to state or imply that those items are covered before the causation analysis is complete. If coverage hinges on technical origin, say so explicitly and document it. A clear statement that coverage remains under investigation is not hostility; it is professionalism. Second, if an exclusion depends on expert causation, explain that and obtain that expert input promptly before making definitive coverage representations. Third, if claims management does not trust its field adjusters, at least train field adjusters to avoid casual phrases such as “this will be covered” unless the company is prepared to stand by that statement. In catastrophic situations, words matter.
State Farm made the argument that its customers should not trust what its field adjuster says. For policyholders with State Farm, this should be remembered at the time of renewal and at the point of a claim. Nobody forced State Farm to take this public position, but it did so. People should remember what State Farm publicly states in legal pleadings to avoid paying its customers, as opposed to what it promises on the internet and television when advertising its “good neighbor” claims service.
Policyholders and public insurance adjusters also have lessons here. The first is to request written clarification of coverage positions as early as possible. If an adjuster approves demolition or directs removal of high-value items, confirm that instruction in writing. If the cause of loss is in dispute, retain your own qualified expert promptly. Courts will not allow speculation to defeat summary judgment. Technical causation requires a technical rebuttal. Finally, understand the interplay between primary coverage and endorsements. If a loss might fall within a capped endorsement, you must gather evidence quickly to establish the broader grant of coverage.
For public adjusters, this case reinforces the importance of documentation. Photograph conditions before and after mitigation. Preserve damaged components when feasible. Obtain plumbing or engineering opinions early. If the insurer later shifts its coverage rationale, you will need a factual record that goes beyond recollections of what was said in the kitchen or hallway during the first walk-through.
At its core, Cooper is about the promise of insurance in the middle of a mess no homeowner should endure. Mississippi courts will enforce clear exclusions. But they will also scrutinize how insurers act through their agents. The safest path for everyone is clarity. Clarity about causation. Clarity about coverage. Clarity about authority.
Insurance is not merely a contract printed on paper. After a loss, it is a process carried out by people in real homes during real crises. How those people speak and act can determine whether a dispute resolves at adjustment or escalates to court.
Thought For The Day
“Mississippi is a state of mind.”
— William Faulkner
1 Cooper v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 24-60466, — F.4th —, 2026 WL 388715 (5th Cir. Feb. 12, 2026). See also, Plaintiff and Defendant appellate briefs.
