On December 9, 2025, the Fifth Circuit reinstated a jury verdict rejecting a homeowners’ policy drug exclusion, reviving coverage in a catastrophic injury case.
The case stems from a July 2019 incident at the Houston-area home of Ryan Zinkweg, whose parents were insured by Occidental Fire & Casualty Company of North Carolina. After Zinkweg and his friend, Christoffer Cox, took what they believed were LSD tablets (Cox also took what he believed to be one THC gummy), Cox fell from a knee‑high bed onto a carpeted floor, striking his head on a nightstand. Zinkweg did not immediately call 911, believing Cox’s condition was drug-related and concerned about getting caught. He phoned a sober friend, Sammy Azhar; together they moved Cox on to the bed without stabilizing his neck or spine. Cox is now a quadriplegic.
Occidental sought a declaration that no coverage was owed under the policy’s controlled‑substance exclusion, which removes liability for bodily injury or property damage “arising out of” the use of controlled substances, including LSD and marijuana. The parties resolved the state tort suit and narrowed the federal case to a single question for the jury: whether Cox’s injuries arose out of the use by any person of a controlled substance. The jury answered no. The district court later granted Occidental’s renewed Rule 50(b) motion, concluding the LSD use was at least a but‑for cause of a lengthy delay in medical treatment that contributed to Cox’s final injury.
Writing for the panel, Judge Dana M. Douglas reversed. Applying Texas law that reads “arising out of” broadly while giving deference to jury verdicts, the court held the record allowed jurors to find the pivotal cause of Cox’s final injury was the way he was moved without spinal stabilization, not necessarily the drug use hours earlier. One of the boys who moved Cox was sober; there was conflicting testimony about the other’s impairment; and the Coxes’ expert said he was not aware of any specific LSD or marijuana that caused Cox to fall or suffer injury. Both medical experts agreed Cox’s ultimate condition – bilateral jumped facets – is typically associated with high‑energy flexion mechanisms, and the Coxes’ expert viewed a two‑foot bed fall as extremely unlikely to cause that injury on its own.
Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez concurred in part and dissented in part. She would have affirmed the district court, reasoning that the undisputed evidence showed LSD use was at least a but‑for cause of the treatment delay, which the Coxes’ expert identified as an aggravating factor.
The panel’s decision reinstates the jury’s finding that the controlled‑substance exclusion did not apply under this homeowners policy, consistent with the parties’ settlement framework.
Bottom line for insurers: the panel reinstated the jury’s finding that the controlled‑substance exclusion did not apply, clearing the way for indemnity under the settlement terms. For claims and underwriting teams, the ruling underscores how causation can break the link between drug use and injury when intervening acts – particularly how an injured person is handled – become the focal point at trial. It also highlights the importance of precise exclusion language and careful expert development when exclusions hinge on “arising out of” causation.
