The Intricacies Of Proximate Cause: Unraveling Insurance's Complexities

Proximate cause is a key principle in insurance and law, referring to the direct cause of a loss or injury. In insurance, proximate cause is concerned with how the loss or damage occurred to the insured party and whether it resulted from an insured peril. It is a highly relevant principle in the insurance industry as it determines whether coverage applies or if liability can be imposed on the negligent party. For example, in property insurance, if more than one peril contributes to a loss, establishing a proximate cause is crucial to determine coverage. In liability insurance, if the negligent act of a certain party is deemed to be the proximate cause of harm to another party, it serves as a legal basis to hold the former liable.

Proximate cause in property insurance

Proximate cause is a key principle in insurance, helping to determine how a loss or damage occurred and whether it resulted from an insured peril. It is concerned with the reason behind the loss, and whether this is covered by the policy.

In property insurance, establishing a proximate cause is crucial when more than one peril contributes to a loss. For example, a fire insurance policy may specify certain insured perils, some excluded perils, and some covered and uncovered perils. If the proximate cause is determined to be an uncovered peril, the insurer will not pay out.

The proximate cause is the nearest cause, not a remote cause. It is the predominant cause that sets in motion a chain of events producing the loss, which may not be the last event that immediately preceded the loss.

For example, in a recent case, a World War II bomb was detonated in a controlled explosion, causing damage to a university building. The proximate cause was deemed to be the dropping of the bomb, not the detonation, and the damage was therefore excluded from cover by a war exclusion clause.

In another example, a fire in a building caused electrical fluctuations, which in turn caused a refrigerator to break down. The proximate cause was deemed to be 'breakdown' and not 'fire', and the claim was rejected.

Proximate cause is a legal term, and there are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact and proximate (or legal) cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the ''but for' test, which asks whether the result would have happened without the action. Proximate cause is a second test used to determine if an action is close enough to a harm in a 'chain of events' to be legally valid.

Proximate cause in liability insurance

Proximate cause is a key principle in insurance and is central to how loss or damage actually occurs. In law and insurance, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury.

In personal injury cases, proximate cause can be the most difficult issue. The actions of the person who got hurt can sometimes be the cause of their own injuries. For example, a person playing catch has their ball go over a fence into someone else's property. The owner of the property opens the gate, warning the player that the yard is not safe. Ignoring the warning, the player walks onto the grass, cutting their feet on glass. While the property owner knew about the glass, they also warned the player of the danger. In this case, the property owner's actions may not be deemed to have proximately caused the injuries.

In another example, a driver runs a red light and collides with another car, causing injury to the other driver. The driver who ran the red light failed in their duty to obey traffic signals, and their actions directly and proximately caused the injuries of the other driver.

In the context of liability insurance, proximate cause is concerned with how the actual loss or damage happened to the insured party and whether it resulted from an insured peril. It looks at the reason behind the loss and whether it is an insured peril or not. A policy may cover certain perils specifically mentioned therein (known as insured perils), while some perils may be specifically excluded (known as excepted perils), and some may be neither included nor excluded (known as uninsured perils).

The principle of proximate cause is particularly useful when multiple perils are involved simultaneously, some insured, some uninsured, and some accepted. For example, a policy may cover accidental fires but specifically exclude earthquake fires. If an earthquake fire spreads to a neighbouring building and then to the insured building, the proximate cause of the loss is the earthquake fire, and the claim is not payable. However, if the fire's spread is interrupted by a new and independent cause, such as someone lighting a candlestick, the resultant fire shall be accidental, and the claim may be payable.

In cases where there are multiple causes of an accident, or where the actual and proximate causes are different, it can be complicated to determine liability. In such cases, multiple parties may be held responsible and included in a personal injury claim.

Cause-in-fact

In personal injury lawsuits, establishing cause-in-fact is crucial for a successful claim. It requires a clear demonstration that the defendant's actions were not just the direct cause but also sufficiently connected to the injury to warrant legal responsibility.

For example, if a driver runs a red light and hits a pedestrian, the driver's action is the cause-in-fact of the pedestrian's injury, as it is a foreseeable outcome of running a red light. However, if unforeseeable events occur after the driver's action that also contribute to the injury, determining the cause-in-fact can become more complicated.

In summary, cause-in-fact is a necessary component of a personal injury claim, establishing the direct link between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injury.

Concurrent causes

Concurrent causation is a legal doctrine that applies to property insurance and liability insurance. It occurs when a property is damaged by two or more causes, one of which is covered by an insurance policy and the other(s) are not. The events that cause the loss may happen one after the other or simultaneously.

In the early 1980s, lower courts in California applied concurrent causation in several rulings, forcing insurers to pay for property losses caused by perils—such as landslides and floods—that were excluded by their policies. In response, insurers added anti-concurrent causation (ACC) clauses to their policies. An ACC clause is intended to eliminate coverage for any loss that is partially caused by an excluded peril.

However, not all state courts will apply concurrent causation. Instead, they determine which peril was the proximate or predominant cause of a loss.

Sufficient combined causes

In the context of proximate cause in insurance terms, the concept of "sufficient combined causes" refers to situations where an injury or damage results from two or more separate negligent acts, each of which would have been sufficient on its own to cause the harm. In such cases, all negligent actors can be held equally liable for the resulting harm.

For example, consider two campers in different parts of a forest who negligently leave their campfires unattended. A forest fire results, and the same amount of property damage would have occurred even if only one of the campfires had been left unattended. In this scenario, both campers would be held equally liable for all the damage caused by the fire. This principle was established in the United States by the case of Corey v. Havener.

Another example would be a situation where two hunters negligently fire their shotguns in the direction of their guide, and a pellet lodges in the guide's eye. If it is impossible to determine which hunter fired the shot that caused the injury, both hunters can be held liable under the rule established in Summers v. Tice.

In insurance claims, the concept of concurrent causation is relevant when dealing with losses or damages that arise from more than one cause. This often occurs when a property loss is caused by two separate events, one of which is covered by the insurance policy, while the other is not. In such cases, depending on the specific circumstances, the damages from both causes may be covered.

However, many insurance policies today contain anti-concurrent causation (ACC) clauses, which protect the insurer from paying out the same claim multiple times. These clauses can be detrimental to policyholders, especially in cases where a covered peril contributes to the damages along with an excluded peril.

Frequently asked questions