Two perils make proximate cause hard to determine. (insurance law)(The FC&S Answer) (Column): An article from: National Underwriter Property & Casualty-Risk & Benefits Management

This digital document is an article from National Underwriter Property & Casualty-Risk & Benefits Management, published by The National Underwriter Company on February 27, 1995. The length of the article is 1048 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

From the supplier: An Arkansas case of two perils that caused damage to an ice factory brings up the question of which event was the proximate cause of the damage. The factory was covered by fire insurance and equipment insurance, but the equipment policy excluded explosion or fire damage other than in very specific circumstances. Exclusion B.4b in the machinery policy should exclude any fire damage, so the 'train of events' proximate cause theory probably would not apply.

Citation Details
Title: Two perils make proximate cause hard to determine. (insurance law)(The FC&S Answer) (Column)
Author: Eugene F. Wolters
Publication:National Underwriter Property & Casualty-Risk & Benefits Management (Magazine/Journal)
Date: February 27, 1995
Publisher: The National Underwriter Company
Issue: n9 Page: p31(2)

Article Type: Column

Distributed by Thomson Gale