PlumBot: Bot: Creating new article from JSON

2026-03-11T04:18:40Z

Bot: Creating new article from JSON

New page

⚖️ '''Anti-concurrent causation clause''' is a [[Definition:Policy language | policy provision]] found in many [[Definition:Property insurance | property]] and [[Definition:Casualty insurance | casualty]] [[Definition:Insurance policy | insurance contracts]] that bars [[Definition:Coverage | coverage]] when a [[Definition:Loss | loss]] results from a combination of covered and excluded [[Definition:Peril | perils]] occurring simultaneously or in sequence. Under this clause, even if one cause of the loss would normally trigger coverage, the presence of an excluded cause — acting concurrently or in any sequence with the covered cause — allows the [[Definition:Insurance carrier | insurer]] to deny the entire [[Definition:Claim | claim]]. The clause is most frequently encountered in [[Definition:Homeowners insurance | homeowners]] and [[Definition:Commercial property insurance | commercial property]] policies, particularly in connection with [[Definition:Flood exclusion | flood]] and [[Definition:Earth movement exclusion | earth movement]] exclusions.

🔧 In practice, the clause typically appears in the exclusions section and is introduced by language such as "We do not cover loss regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss." Consider a hurricane that causes both [[Definition:Wind damage | wind damage]] (covered) and [[Definition:Storm surge | storm surge flooding]] (excluded): an anti-concurrent causation clause empowers the insurer to deny the claim in its entirety because the excluded peril contributed to the outcome, even though wind alone would have been covered. [[Definition:Claims adjuster | Adjusters]] must carefully apply causation analysis, and disputes frequently lead to [[Definition:Litigation | litigation]] where courts examine whether the excluded and covered causes are truly inseparable or whether losses can be apportioned.

🏛️ These clauses remain among the most litigated provisions in insurance law, and their enforceability varies significantly by jurisdiction. Some states have upheld them as valid exercises of an insurer's right to define the scope of coverage, while others — notably following large [[Definition:Catastrophe | catastrophe]] events like Hurricane Katrina — have narrowed their application or imposed requirements for the insurer to prove the excluded peril was the dominant cause. [[Definition:Policyholder | Policyholders]], [[Definition:Insurance broker | brokers]], and [[Definition:Risk manager | risk managers]] should understand these clauses before a loss occurs, as they fundamentally shape what is and is not recoverable under a policy, particularly in regions prone to complex, multi-peril events.

'''Related concepts:'''
{{Div col|colwidth=20em}}
* [[Definition:Concurrent causation]]
* [[Definition:Efficient proximate cause]]
* [[Definition:Exclusion]]
* [[Definition:Property insurance]]
* [[Definition:Policy language]]
* [[Definition:Flood exclusion]]
{{Div col end}}

Definition:Anti-concurrent causation clause - Revision history

PlumBot: Bot: Creating new article from JSON