This month sees another interesting case on proximate cause.
The case of concerned a bomb which had been discovered in 2021 during building works. The bomb had initially been dropped by hostile German forces in 1942. The bomb was analysed and discovered to have degraded to such an extent that the only viable option was for it be detonated on site.
The detonation resulted in damage to buildings in the vicinity owned by the University of Exeter (鈥渢he University鈥). The University sought an indemnity under its buildings and business interruption policies.
Insurers declined cover on the basis that the cause, or in the alternative the proximate cause of the damage (and subsequent interruption) was the act of the bomb being dropped and that, as such the war exclusion in the policy would apply. The University asserted that the proximate cause of the damage was the destruction of the bomb and that the war exclusion could never have intended to exclude the consequences of historic wars.
Judgment
The Court agreed with the insurers that the proximate cause of the damage was indeed war and that the policy exclusion applied.
In reaching this decision, the Court re-emphasised previous case law that confirmed that causation is to be considered on a 鈥榥et鈥 and not a 鈥榣inear鈥 basis because causal factors 鈥榤ay converge from all directions鈥 rather than occurring in a convenient and linear way. In the words of the judgment, it is the 鈥榗haracter of those events rather than the chronological order鈥 that determines the proximate cause.
Contents
- The Word, March 2023
- Assigning your contracts – a timely reminder
- Climate risk capital – a warning to insurers from the Bank of England
- Increase to FOS limits
- Parametric policies – the future of insurance?
- Increase in the cost of data breaches reaches a five-year high for businesses, report says
- A rise in strikes, riots and civil commotion set to test businesses