In evaluating proximate causation in policy disputes, which doctrine states that coverage may apply when two independent concurrent causes exist, one excluded and one covered?

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

Answer: (C)

Concurrent causation is the idea that when two independent causes act at the same time to produce a loss—one covered by the policy and one excluded—the policy may still respond because the covered cause was a substantial factor in causing the loss. The excluded cause isn’t treated as the sole reason for the loss, so coverage can apply depending on the policy language and jurisdiction. The other options describe different ideas: the but-for rule looks at what would happen if a specific cause were absent, which doesn’t fit simultaneous causes; an intervening act is a later event that breaks the causal chain; and a statute isn’t a causation doctrine used to resolve these policy disputes.