A current case has thought of whether or not property harm attributable to the managed detonation of a World Conflict II bomb was “occasioned by conflict”. If it was, the harm could be excluded from cowl by the operation of a conflict exclusion clause below a property harm and enterprise interruption coverage (the Coverage).
In Allianz Insurance coverage Plc v The College of Exeter [2023] EWHC 630 (TCC), the Excessive Courtroom held that the insurer was entitled to a declaration that the insured’s declare for harm and different losses was not coated by the Coverage on account of the truth that the proximate explanation for the harm was the dropping of the bomb round 80 years in the past, not the managed detonation in 2021. The case is a helpful illustration of how the Courts method the identification of a proximate trigger.
That is the second case this yr to think about the problem of proximate trigger within the context of a coverage exclusion. See our article on Brian Leighton (Garages) Restricted v Allianz Insurance coverage Plc [2023] EWHC 1150 Civ 8 the place (in contrast to within the case right here) the events have been agreed as to the proximate trigger however have been in dispute as as to if a coverage exclusion displaced the proximate trigger presumption, particularly that an insurer is just accountable for losses proximately attributable to a peril coated by the coverage.
BACKGROUND
An unexploded German bomb dropped in Exeter in 1942 was unearthed throughout constructing works in February 2021. Bomb disposal consultants have been referred to as in and decided that it couldn’t be safely eliminated however wanted to be disposed of by managed detonation. Regardless of the adoption of security measures, the detonation of the bomb induced harm to among the insured’s buildings within the instant neighborhood.
The insured notified a declare below the Coverage in respect of bodily harm to pupil halls of residence and enterprise interruption in reference to the momentary re-housing of scholars. The insurer declined the declare on the premise that any loss or harm suffered fell throughout the scope of the conflict exclusion clause, being loss and harm “occasioned by conflict”. The conflict exclusion (the Exclusion) learn:
“Conflict... Loss, destruction, harm, dying, harm, disablement or legal responsibility or any consequential loss occasioned by conflict, invasion, acts of overseas enemy, hostilities (whether or not conflict be declared or not), civil conflict, revolt, revolution, riot or army or usurped energy.”
The one concern to be decided was whether or not the loss and harm claimed by the insured was “occasioned by conflict”. If it was, the declare was excluded. If it was not, the declare would fall for canopy throughout the phrases of the Coverage. The central query for the Courtroom was to ascertain the “proximate trigger” of the loss.
Allianz’s major case was that the proximate explanation for the loss was the dropping of the bomb. That act was accepted to be an act of conflict and so, on their case, there was no cowl. Alternatively, Allianz submitted that if the dropping of the bomb was “a” not “the” proximate explanation for the loss, then even when there have been different proximate causes, the Exclusion would nonetheless apply by operation of the concurrent causes rule. This states that the place there are concurrent proximate causes, one insured in opposition to, the opposite excluded, the exclusion applies (as per Wayne Tank and Pump v Employers Legal responsibility Assurance Corp. [1974] QB 57).
In distinction, the insured argued that the proximate explanation for the loss was the deliberate act of the bomb disposal workforce in detonating the bomb, not the dropping of the bomb 80 years earlier. This submission relied on the language used within the Coverage, an argument that the events couldn’t have supposed that the Exclusion would apply to historic wars and the relevance and objective of the Exclusion. The insured additionally denied that this was a concurrent causes case however that if it was, the concurrent causes rule was ousted by the phrases of the Coverage. The insured additionally sought to depend on the contra proferentem rule.
DECISION
Making use of the steerage set out in FCA v Arch [2021] UKSC 1, Chook J re-affirmed that the take a look at of “proximate trigger” is a matter of judgment primarily based on frequent sense slightly than over-analysis. It was open to him to conclude that both one or different of the dropping of the bomb and the detonation of the bomb was “the” sole proximate trigger or every was “a” proximate trigger. No different potential “proximate trigger” was proposed.
Proximate trigger
In looking for to determine the proximate trigger on this case, Chook J thought of numerous authorities together with the Courtroom of Enchantment’s determination in Reischer v Borwick [1894] and the well-known Home of Lords determination in Leyland Transport v Norwich Union [1918]. These authorities clarify that the proximate trigger needn’t be the trigger which stands closest in time to the loss and that, when endeavor a causal evaluation, human actions are successfully ignored offered they aren’t unreasonable or erratic.
Chook J concluded that if the affordable human act of detonating the bomb was ignored on this case, the dropping of the bomb was the proximate explanation for the loss. He additionally analysed the place otherwise – as Lord Shaw had recommended in Leyland – as a “internet of causation” and regarded on the “influences, forces and occasions” which converged on the level of loss. His conclusion on this evaluation was the identical – the dropping of the bomb was the proximate (that means dominant or environment friendly) explanation for the loss.
Concurrent causes
Chook J was happy that if the dropping of the bomb was not “the” proximate trigger, it was “a” proximate trigger. It adopted that by operation of the concurrent proximate causes rule the Exclusion utilized.
The choose didn’t settle for the insured’s additional argument that, as some exclusion clauses within the Coverage expressly referred to the concurrent clauses rule however the Exclusion didn’t, the events will need to have supposed the rule to not apply to the Exclusion.
The insured sought to depend on the next wording as being specific reference to the concurrent causes rule:
“…no matter another trigger or occasion contributing concurrently or in another sequence to [such act of Terrorism/the loss of damage]”
The choose disagreed that this wording was an expression of the concurrent causes rule. In his view, these phrases clarified the place if the loss and harm had a couple of trigger and one trigger was oblique (or non-proximate) while the opposite was direct (or proximate).
Contra proferentem
Lastly, the insured argued that the contra proferentem precept of building meant that any ambiguity within the building of the Exclusion needs to be resolved in opposition to the insurer. Chook J rejected this for 2 causes.
First, there was no apparent ambiguity within the building of the Exclusion. The shortage of certainty arose from deciding how the Exclusion needs to be utilized, not from the interpretation of the clause itself. In truth, the events had agreed on the correct interpretation of the Exclusion clause. Secondly, the contra proferentem rule utilized solely to contractual phrases which exempt a celebration from legal responsibility which absent the exclusion would come up. Right here, as in Brian Leighton v Allianz Insurance coverage no legal responsibility arose if the Exclusion utilized. The construction of the final insuring clause within the Coverage made the exclusions a part of the definition of the scope of canopy, not exemptions from cowl which might in any other case exist.
COMMENT
The judgment is a sensible instance of the appliance of the steerage laid down in Arch when assessing the proximate explanation for a loss. It affirms that point just isn’t probably the most related issue and the chronological order of occasions just isn’t determinative in establishing the proximate trigger.
The case additionally reaffirms that the proximate trigger evaluation stays a matter of judgment primarily based on frequent sense slightly than over-analysis. On this case, the presence of the bomb led to each the necessity for the detonation and the inevitability of the harm and so, as a matter of frequent sense, the dropping of the bomb and its consequent presence on the web site, was the proximate explanation for the harm.
The choose has subsequently denied the insured’s enchantment however has invited the insured to use on to the Courtroom of Enchantment for permission to problem his determination.
