Which doctrine addresses coverage when two independent concurrent causes exist, with one excluded by the policy and one covered?

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

Answer: (A)

When two independent perils act at the same time to cause a loss and one is excluded by the policy while the other would be covered, the situation is governed by the concurrent causation doctrine. This principle looks at how the loss would have occurred if only the covered cause existed versus how it occurred with both causes present. If the covered cause alone would have produced the loss, the claim is typically covered despite the presence of the excluded cause. If the loss would not have happened without the excluded cause, coverage may be denied because the excluded peril effectively caused the loss.

This differs from the but-for rule, which focuses on causation in a strict “but for” sense, and from the foreseeability rule, which concerns proximate cause and foreseeability. An intervening act refers to a new, separate cause that breaks the chain of events, not the situation where two independent concurrent causes exist together.