The courts have taken different views on anti-concurrent causation clauses. (Photo: iStock)

The concurrent cause rule basically holds that if two or more events cause a loss, with one being excluded under the policy terms and the other(s) being covered, the policy should provide coverage for the loss.

As discussed in Davidson Hotel Co. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., 136 F. Supp. 2d 901 (2001), this rule allows for coverage “where the loss is essentially caused by an insured peril with the contribution of an excluded peril merely as part of a chain of events leading to the loss.” The thinking behind this ruling and other concurrent causation cases is that the cause of loss that is not excluded caused damage to the insured’s property in one way or another, so the property coverage form must pay for the loss.

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


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

Already have an account?


© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.



Join PropertyCasualty360

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

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

Already have an account? Sign In Now
Join PropertyCasualty360

Copyright © 2024 ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.