A legal doctrine stating that if a loss can be attributed to two or more independent concurrent causes—one or more excluded by the policy and one covered—then the policy covers the loss

• A. Concurrent causation
• B. Foreseeability rule
• C. But-for rule
• D. Intervening act

Answer: (A)

When a loss results from two independent causes that occur at the same time, and one of those causes is excluded by the policy while the other is covered, coverage under the concurrent causation doctrine applies. The idea is that the damage is not caused solely by the excluded peril; a covered peril also contributed, so the loss falls within the policy’s protection. This prevents insurers from avoiding payment merely because an excluded peril was present alongside a covered one. It’s a practical rule for real-world losses where multiple factors overlap. Note that some jurisdictions rely on the efficient proximate cause rule instead, which would look at which cause is the dominant driver of the loss; under that approach, if the dominant cause is excluded, the claim could be denied. But with concurrent causation, the presence of a covered contributing cause generally leads to coverage.