damage to its property is covered by an insurance policy. Fiess v. State Farm Lloyds, 392 F.3d 802, 807 (5th Cir.2004). If the insured bears this burden, the insurer has the burden of establishing that the cause of the damage is excluded under the policy. Id. If an insurer establishes that an exclusion applies, the insured has the burden of proving the application of an exception to the exclusion. Id. If covered and non-covered perils combine to create a loss, the insured may recover the amount caused by the covered peril. Id. See also Travelers Indemnity Co. v. McKillip, 469 S.W.2d 160, 162-63 (Tex.1971) (discussing shifting burdens of proof and insured’s need to segregate loss between covered and non-covered perils); Paulson v. Fire Insurance Exchange, 393 S.W.2d 316, 319 (Tex.1965) (<HOLDING>). Without disputing that plaintiffs have met
holding that insured must produce evidence affording a reasonable basis for estimating proportionate part of damage caused by a covered peril holding that insurer owed homeowners full amount of policy when they suffered a total loss in not insignificant part as the result of windstorm damage although an excluded peril water contributed to the damage holding that particular part exclusion barred coverage for damage to entire apartment insured was renovating even though insured was working only on one part of apartment at time of damage holding that an opposer must have a reasonable basis for his belief of damage holding that the vpl requires an insurer to pay the full value of the policy only when a covered peril causes a total loss