Key Facts
- •In 1942, a 1000Kg unexploded WWII bomb was dropped in Exeter during a Luftwaffe raid.
- •In 2021, the bomb was discovered during construction work and a controlled detonation was carried out.
- •The detonation caused damage to the University of Exeter's halls of residence.
- •The University's insurance policy contained a war exclusion clause.
- •The insurer denied the claim, arguing the damage was 'occasioned by war'.
Legal Principles
Proximate cause in insurance means the dominant, effective, or efficient cause of the loss, not necessarily the last in time.
Brian Leighton (Garages) Ltd v Allianz Insurance PLC [2023] EWCA Civ 8 at [27]
The 'but for' test is not always helpful in determining causation, as it can be over-inclusive.
Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd [2021] UK SC 1 [2021] AC 649
If a loss is due to multiple causes, one insured and one excluded, the exclusion will generally prevail if the causes are of approximately equal efficiency.
Wayne Tank & Pump Co. Ltd v Employers Liability Incorporation Ltd [1974] QB 57
Human actions are not generally regarded as negativing causal connection, provided they were not wholly unreasonable or erratic.
Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd [2021] UK SC 1 [2021] AC 649
In concurrent cause scenarios, the 'inevitability' test considers whether the initial event led inexorably to the loss through ordinary events, or if a subsequent abnormal event broke the causal connection.
Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd [2021] UK SC 1 [2021] AC 649
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal held that the dropping of the bomb was a concurrent proximate cause of the damage, of approximately equal efficacy to the controlled detonation. Since the dropping of the bomb was an act of war, and the war exclusion clause applied, the claim was denied.