Insurance Coverage: Applying the Concurrent Proximate Cause Rule to Losses Due to Excluded Acts

The concurrent proximate cause rule states that coverage exists if any covered cause leads to a covered loss. That excluded causes contributed to the loss is not relevant.

But a claim that at first glance appears to be excluded may quickly pivot into a covered claim. After the insurer denies coverage for a loss that is ostensibly the result of an excluded cause, the injured party may file suit against the insured--or sometimes against a different insured--recasting the excluded cause as some form of negligence, for example, failure to provide adequate security, negligent supervision, or negligent training.

In deciding whether the concurrent proximate cause rule has been triggered, courts have labored to articulate a precise formulation for a test. Some analyze the relationship between the loss, the excluded cause, and the potentially covered cause differently. In some states, concurring causes must be independent and distinct from each other for the rule to apply. Others have focused on whether the covered cause is dependent on the excluded cause for success.

Listen as this experienced panel reviews how to defend against the concurrent proximate cause rule and the related issues of attorney involvement in claims investigation and coverage decisions.