value of the policy. La Rev. Stat. § 22:695. A literal reading of this clause can support plaintiffs’ assertions that the statute requires insurers to pay any amount of covered loss at the full value of the policy. However, the language also admits of another interpretation. The statute can be read to require that the total loss also be a covered loss in order for the VPL to apply. This reading is equally consistent with the surrounding language and does not strain the language of the statute. Thus, “total loss” and “covered loss” would not be construed as separate events, but rather as different descriptions of a single event with two crucial characteristics, i.e., that the loss be both total and covered. See Turk v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 2006 WL 1635677 (W.D.La.2006) (<HOLDING>). The statute is thus not as transparent as
holding that the vpl requires an insurer to pay the full value of the policy only when a covered peril causes a total loss 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 an insurer need not comply with the vpl with respect to the nonfire perils covered by the policy holding that causation is a coverage question for the court when an insurer wholly denies that there is a covered loss and an amountofloss question for the appraisal panel when an insurer admits that there is a covered loss the amount of which is disputed holding that if the insurer has any liability at all to the owner for a building damaged by a covered peril and deemed a total loss that liability is for the face amount of the policy citation omitted emphasis in original