Introduction
1. The Policy Language: “Occurrence” and the Section I Deductible
Most Texas HO-3 homeowners policies define an occurrence as:
“an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” —Texas HO-3 Form, USAA.HO-3RTX.07.08, Definition of Occurrence.
This definition explicitly groups together:
continuous exposure
repeated exposure
substantially the same harmful conditions
Golf balls repeatedly leaving the same tee box or fairway and impacting the same roof slope are “repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.”
The Deductible Is Applied Per Loss (Per Occurrence)
Texas HO-3 forms also state:
“We will pay only that part of the total of all loss payable under Section I that exceeds the deductible amount shown in the Declarations.” —Texas HO-3 Form, Section I – Conditions, Deductible clause.
This language means:
the deductible applies once per covered loss, not per incident
insurers must first determine whether the roof damage is one loss or multiple losses
Nothing in the policy requires the deductible to reset for each roof impact. To the contrary, the policy’s own aggregation clause (“continuous or repeated exposure”) is designed to combine these impacts into a single occurrence.
2. Texas Uses the “Cause Test” to Count Occurrences
Texas courts consistently apply the cause test (also called the causation rule):
The number of occurrences is determined by the number of causes of the injury, not the number of injurious effects.
Here are the leading cases:
Maurice Pincoffs Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 447 F.2d 204, 206–07 (5th Cir. 1971)
The seminal Texas case adopting the cause test.
Courts look to the underlying cause, not the number of injuries.
H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. 150 F.3d 526, 531–32 (5th Cir. 1998)
Reaffirmed Texas’s cause test.
Multiple assaults were multiple occurrences because each assault was aseparate immediate cause.
Negligent supervision was not the cause; the assaults were.
Foust v. Ranger Ins. Co. 975 S.W.2d 329, 332–33 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. denied)
Herbicide overspray over a large area was one occurrence because there was a single spraying operation—a single continuous cause.
Lafarge Corp. v. Hartford Cas. Co. 61 F.3d 389, 395–97 (5th Cir. 1995)
A continuous emission causing widespread dust damage was one occurrence.
Matador Petroleum Corp. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co. 174 F.3d 653, 657–58 (5th Cir. 1999)
A continuous release of oil and gas was treated asone occurrence.
Key Takeaway Under Texas Law
If one continuous hazard produces multiple injuries, Texas courts treat the entire series as one occurrence. Repeated golf-ball impacts from the same hole, creating the same hazard, causing damage to the same roof are, functionally, one continuing cause.
3. Cases Supporting “Continuous or Repeated Exposure” as One Occurrence
Several Texas courts recognize that an occurrence includes ongoing harmful conditions and repeated exposures.
Dorchester Dev. Corp. v. Safeco Ins. Co. 737 S.W.2d 380, 383 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987, no writ)
“Occurrence” includes continuous or repeated exposure to conditions.
Ongoing water intrusion fit the definition.
Pilgrim Enters., Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co. 24 S.W.3d 488, 501 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.)
Applied the same “continuous or repeated exposure” language.
Reinforced that repeated exposure may be aggregated into one occurrence.
Lennar Corp. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. 200 S.W.3d 651, 673–76 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied)
Recognized that ongoing construction-defect damages occur over time but may fall under one occurrence if caused by a single continuous condition.
Analogy to Golf-Ball Strikes
one source
one mechanism
repeated exposure
continuing damage over time
Thus, courts already accept the legal framework needed for golf-ball roof damage to be treated as one occurrence.
4. Distinguishing the Few Cases That Favor Multiple Occurrences
Insurers often cite cases involving clearly separate causes. They are distinguishable.
Goose Creek Consol. ISD v. Continental Casualty Co. 658 S.W.2d 338, 340–41 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no writ)
Two fires at different locations = two occurrences.
H.E. Butt Grocery (above)
Each assault was its own cause, so multiple occurrences.
U.E. Texas One-Barrington, Ltd. v. General Star Indem. Co. 332 F.3d 274, 276–78 (5th Cir. 2003)
Separate plumbing leaks in different structures were separate occurrences.
Why These Are Not Like Golf-Ball Roof Damage
Different buildings
Different causes
Different times
Different mechanisms
Golf-ball roof cases involve:
one location
one hazard
one line of play
one mechanism of impact
one policy period
Thus, the insurer’s “multiple occurrences” cases do not apply.
5. Applying Texas Law to Golf-Ball Roof Damage
The cause is the continuing hazard created by the golf course layout, not each golfer's swing.
The ongoing condition is:
a tee box oriented toward your home
a fairway aligned in a way that sends mishits toward your roof
predictable flight paths creating ongoing exposure
This is exactly the type of repeated exposure Texas HO-3 policies group into one occurrence.
The Homeowner’s Argument
The policy defines occurrence to include “continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.”
My roof experienced repeated exposure to golf balls from the same hole.
Texas counts occurrences by cause, not by impact.
The cause is one continuing hazard.
Therefore, all damage within the policy year is one covered loss subject to one deductible.
6. Practical Steps One Might Use When Filing the Claim
Document the Pattern
Photograph clusters of impacts.
Collect golf balls (logos help tie them to the course).
Keep a log of when you hear/see impacts.
Note the consistent direction of flight.
File One Claim for the Policy Year
Tell the carrier:
you discovered cumulative damage
impacts came from one continuing hazard
policy language groups this exposure into a single occurrence
Use an Expert
Have a roofer or engineer confirm:
the impacts came from a consistent direction
impacts were caused by high-velocity projectiles
damage is consistent with repeated golf-ball strikes
the damage is functional, not merely cosmetic
7. Conclusion
Under Texas law and Texas HO-3 policy language, repeated golf-ball strikes are very often one occurrence, not many. Texas courts focus on the cause, and a home repeatedly struck because of its position next to a golf hole is experiencing one continuous hazard.
For many homeowners, this means:
one deductible
one claim
coverage for the full roof damage discovered during the policy period
If your insurance company is trying to classify each golf-ball strike as a separate deductible event, you may have strong grounds to challenge that decision.
Need Help With a Texas Homeowners Claim?
If you’re dealing with repeated golf-ball damage—or any roof or property claim, my office can help you understand your rights, challenge improper deductible stacking, and force carriers to follow Texas law and the policy language they wrote.
Schedule a consultation today.
