Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Wind-vs.-water.JPGWhat are the ethical implications of the controversial concurrent causation clause in property policies, which critics contend unfairly leaves those victimized by covered wind and uncovered flood losses potentially devoid of insurance, but which carriers say quite properly protects them against paying for uninsured damages? That’s the question our ethics columnist, Peter R. Kensicki, put to NU’s readers. Read on for highlights and insights on the passionate responses.

Peter Kensicki is a professor of insurance at Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond, Ky., as well as a member of the Ethics Committee of the CPCU Society in Malvern, Pa. He poses ethical queries to NU’s readers every quarter, and this is the report he wrote for our Jan. 14 edition. Feel free to weigh in with your own views on the matter.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free
PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader.


  • All PropertyCasualty360.com news coverage, best practices, and in-depth analysis.
  • Educational webcasts, resources from industry leaders, and informative newsletters.
  • Other award-winning websites including BenefitsPRO.com and ThinkAdvisor.com.

Already have an account?


Join PropertyCasualty360

Don’t miss crucial news and insights you need to make informed decisions for your P&C insurance business. Join PropertyCasualty360.com now!

  • Unlimited access to PropertyCasualty360.com - your roadmap to thriving in a disrupted environment
  • Access to other award-winning ALM websites including BenefitsPRO.com, ThinkAdvisor.com and Law.com
  • Exclusive discounts on PropertyCasualty360, National Underwriter, Claims and ALM events

Already have an account? Sign In Now
Join PropertyCasualty360

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.