anti-concurrent causation

Many insurance policies include exclusions that are modified by endorsement. An analysis of the specific language in both the exclusionary provision and the modifying endorsement are critical in determining whether a peril is excluded by the policy.

Evonthe Hayes v. Southern Fidelity Insurance Company, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14692 (E.D. La. October 15, 2014)

In Fidelity Co-Operative Bank v. Nova Cas. Co., 726 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2013), the First Circuit addressed what can happen when a variety of inter-related perils converge to create one loss under a policy with numerous amendatory endorsements that differ substantially from the typical commercial property policy. The insured in this case

In Stor/Gard, Inc. v. Strathmore Ins. Co., No. 12-1650, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11015 (1st Cir. May 31, 2013), the First Circuit rejected the notion that a 2% contribution to a loss could be a “cause” of the loss. Defendant Strathmore Insurance Company (“Strathmore”) insured Plaintiff SGI, which owned property with self-storage warehouses, and