Title

Wind Versus Water: Why 'Proximate Cause' Should Help, Not Hurt, Policyholders Who Seek Coverage for Hurricane Claims

Abstract

“Wind Versus Water: Why ‘Proximate Cause’ Should Help, Not Hurt, Policyholders Who Seek Coverage for Hurricane Claims” examines the clash between the “efficient proximate cause” doctrine of insurance law, which holds that coverage exists if the dominant cause of a loss is a covered peril, with the now-ubiquitous “anti-concurrent causation clauses” added to homeowners’ and business insurance policies, which exclude coverage for damages caused by a named event (such as flood) “regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.” The article reviews various state laws and court rulings that have placed some restraint on insurance companies’ drive to evade coverage for disasters by multiplying exclusions and construing those exclusions as broadly as possible.

Disciplines

Insurance Law

Date of this Version

November 2005