Prinicpiles of insurance proximity cause
Download as PPTX, PDF
2 likes519 views
This document discusses proximate cause based on a case law definition and example. Proximate cause is defined as the active cause that sets in motion a series of events leading to a loss without an intervening independent force. In the example of a house fire caused by toasted leaving on a grill, the potential proximate causes are identified as either the ignition of the toast or tea towels, as they fit the definition of being the closest causes without an intervening independent force. Other considerations note that the proximate cause need not be the immediately preceding cause, and can be earlier in the chain of causation leading to the loss.
Prinicpiles of insurance proximity cause
- 2. PROXIMATE CAUSE DEFINITION Proximate cause was defined in the case of Pawsey v Scottish Union & National Insurance Company (1908) as: the active and efficient cause that sets in motion a train of events which brings about a result, without the intervention of any force started and working actively from a new and independent source.
- 3. EXAMPLE Jim, a guitar player in a local band, plays at a gig on a Sunday evening. The gig goes well and an encore is demanded by the crowd. The encore is played but as a result Jim finishes later that he expected and misses the train home. Jim then has to take a bus home and does not get to bed until 01:30 am. In the morning he oversleeps due to tiredness and because he had forgotten to put his alarm on. Jim is now in a hurry and quickly makes his breakfast, including toast which he puts under the grill. The postman then arrives and rings the bell (Jim has normally left long before the postman arrives.) The postman engages in a long conversation
- 4. THE CAUSE OF THE LOSS COULD BE: 1. Playing at the gig 2. The fact the encore was demanded 3. Missing the train home 4. Going to bed late 5. Omitting to set the alarm 6. The arrival of the postman 7. The long conversation with the postman 8. The ignition of the toast 9. The ignition of the tea towels.
- 5. Referring back to the definition in Pawsey v Scottish Union (1908), we have to find the active efficient cause that sets in motion the chain of events. Arguably, playing the gig (1) set in motion the chain of events. Playing a gig is not normally an insured peril and so if that was determined to be the proximate cause there would be no cover for the damage to the table.
- 6. However, the definition in Pawsey v Scottish Union (1908) goes on without the intervention of any force acting independently from a new and independent force. All causes from 2 to 7 are new forces acting independently from new and independent forces so we can forget all prior causes in the chain. The ignition of the toast (8) and the ignition of the tea towels (9) are the closest causes and therefore appear to fit most comfortably with our definition in Pawsey v
- 7. The decision now is whether the ignition of the toast and tea towels constitutes fire as meant by the Policy and, if yes, whether there are any relevant exclusions. (The definition of fire will be discussed later in the course but it can be noted that the fire peril has
- 8. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS It is important to note that the proximate cause need not be the cause immediately before the loss or damage occurs. The last cause could simply be a link in the chain connecting the event with the proximate cause. For example, a fire might cause a water pipe to burst. Despite the resultant loss being water damage, the fire would