The immediate cause the last link in the chain, the nearest in time but not necessarily the nearest in efficiency. The nearest in efficiency is the proximate cause of a loss.
***
Same as Proximate Cause.
Tag: RAW
Causal relation requirements
Proof required by law in some states to show that the facts misrepresented in an insurance application were related to the loss insured against.
Causation
In a workers’ compensation case, an alleged physical, chemical, or biological factor that contributed to the incidence or happening of a medical condition.
Cause of action
The fact or combination of facts giving rise to a right of legal action.
***
A statement in a lawsuit of a claim against the defendant. A multiple cause of action suit may seek damages for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, trespass, assault, battery, and breach of contract.
Cause of Loss
A major term used in insurance is Cause of Loss (also called a Peril). Insurance coverage responds when a loss results from a cause of loss identified in an insurance contract. Examples of causes of loss are fire, windstorm, operation of a motor vehicle, burglary, acts of negligence, accident and sickness and other conditions that can cause a loss. Sometimes the cause of loss is called an Act of God, particularly when it is an unusual and unexpected, perhaps even a catastrophic happening.
***
The claims are payable under Insurance policies if they arise out of events which are proximately caused by the insured perils. In other words the proximate cause of the event has to be peril covered by the Policy, so as to constitute a valid claim. Proximate cause has been defined as “the active, efficient cause that sets in motion without the intervention of any force started and working actively from a new and independent source.” Single Cause : If the loss is brought about by a single cause, which is an insured peril, obviously this is the proximate cause and thus there is a liability under the Policy. As for example, a ship caught in heavy weather and sinks along with the cargo. The resultant loss is payable as the proximate cause is a peril of the sea covered under the marine Insurance Policy. Concurrent Causes : If there are concurrent causes, as long as no excepted perils are involved, the loss is recoverable, provided one of the causes is an insured peril However, if excepted perils are involved and the consequent losses can be separated, there is liability for those caused by the insured peril. but if it is not possible to s separate the effects of one from the other, there is no liability at all.C.C.E.F. : Customer Centralized Examination Facility.
Cause of loss form
A form attached to a commercial policy that lists specific causes of loss to be covered by that policy.
Causes of loss
The perils that can bring about or trigger loss or damage. Can be direct (the action immediately precedes the loss) or indirect (part of an uninterrupted chain of events leading to the loss).
Causes of loss forms
The reference is commonly to property insurance contracts and the form in question details those perils to which the coverage will respond. Though any property insurance contract must name the perils it intends to cover, for example, crop hail, earthquake, or perils of transit, the most commonly used general forms are the basic and broad named perils forms and the special form. In contrast to the named perils forms, that list specific perils for coverage, the special form contract covers simply risk of direct physical loss and relies on exclusions to delimit and define the coverage.
Causes-of-loss Form
Form added to commercial property insurance policy that indicates the causes of loss that are covered. There are four causes-of-loss forms: basic, broad, special, and earthquake.
Caveat emptor
Common law rule meaning ‘let the buyer beware. The principle is that the buyer of goods had the opportunity to satisfy himself as to the suitability of the article and therefore no liability attaches to the vendor. However, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 provides a measure of ‘buyer’ protection and the Defective Premises Act 1972, s.3, abolishes caveat emptor in claims based on a vendor’s negligence in certain building work done pre-sale or preletting of property. Insurance contracts are subject to utmost good faith and not caveat emptor. The FSA calls upon the seller of financial products to give ‘best advice’.
***
In ordinary contracts the rule, “Caveat Emptor” (let the Buyer beware) prevails. That is, the seller is honest and does not deliberately misled the buyer and it is the responsibility of the buyer to examine, select and buy the goods; and in case of any defects of the goods purchased, the seller is not responsible.