Here's a copy of the Aiken pretrial order. - Insurance Coverage Blog

Rimkus and Jordan also adopt by reference contested issues of law as set out by USAA.
By Defendant USAA Casualty Company:
1. Whether Plaintiffs have sufficient evidence to prove entitlement to further
payment of insurance benefits under the dwelling, appurtenant structure, contents,
and additional living expense provisions of their homeowners policy.
2. Whether plaintiffs bear the burden of proof under the contents (named peril)
portion of their policy to prove that contents (other than those already paid for by
USAA CIC) were damaged by wind, as well as the type and dollar amount of that
damage?
3. Whether Plaintiffs can recover under the contents replacement cost provisions of
their policy when they have not repaired, replaced, or restored the contents of the
house.
4. Whether Plaintiffs can recover insurance benefits under their HO-125
endorsement when they have not replaced the house?
5. The effect of the Fifth Circuit’s decisions in Leonard v. Nationwide and Tuepker
v. State Farm regarding anti-concurrent clauses on the plaintiffs’ claims and,
particularly, their contents claim.
6. Whether Plaintiffs have judicially admitted storm surge damage to their house in
at least the amount of flood insurance benefits accepted, and whether Plaintiffs
can introduce evidence and argument contrary to that judicial admission.
7. Whether Buente v. Allstate and other decisions mean, as a matter of law, that
USAA CIC had a duty to pay homeowners policy limits for wind damage upon
-23-