Lakhasly

1.These cases support the notion that the proximate cause is the predominant factor in determining liability, even if subsequent covered events contribute to the loss.- Pan American World Airways Inc v The Aetna Casualty and Surety Co (505 F.2d 989): In this case, the court ruled that the insurance company was not liable for losses resulting from hijacking, as it was considered an act of war, thus excluded from coverage.- Therefore, the proximate cause of the damage is the bombing, an excluded peril under the "warlike operations" clause. #### 3. Liability of the Insurance Company

Given that the proximate cause of the loss was a bombing raid, which falls under the "warlike operations" exclusion, the insurance company should not be held liable.Relevant Legal Precedents

Several legal precedents and case laws are pertinent in such cases:

• Leyland Shipping Co Ltd v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd [1918] AC 350: This case established that the proximate cause is not necessarily the last event before the loss but the dominant cause.If the proximate cause is an excluded peril, the insurer is generally not liable, even if subsequent events leading to the loss are covered perils.The policy explicitly excludes coverage for losses resulting from war or warlike operations.Determining the Proximate Cause of the Loss

In this scenario, the sequence of events began with a bombing raid by enemy aircraft.#### 2.#### 4.#### 5.

1. Principle of Proximate Cause in Insurance Law

The principle of proximate cause is fundamental in insurance law. It refers to the primary cause that sets off a chain of events leading to the loss. For an insurer to be liable, the proximate cause of the damage must be a peril covered by the policy. If the proximate cause is an excluded peril, the insurer is generally not liable, even if subsequent events leading to the loss are covered perils.

2. Determining the Proximate Cause of the Loss

In this scenario, the sequence of events began with a bombing raid by enemy aircraft. The bomb caused an explosion, which in turn ignited a fire that destroyed the warehouse. The proximate cause of the loss is critical here:

• The bomb, an act of war, directly caused the explosion and subsequent fire.


• Therefore, the proximate cause of the damage is the bombing, an excluded peril under the "warlike operations" clause.

3. Liability of the Insurance Company

Given that the proximate cause of the loss was a bombing raid, which falls under the "warlike operations" exclusion, the insurance company should not be held liable. The policy explicitly excludes coverage for losses resulting from war or warlike operations. Hence, despite the immediate damage being caused by fire, the chain of causation leads back to the excluded peril.

4. Relevant Legal Precedents

Several legal precedents and case laws are pertinent in such cases:

• 
  Leyland Shipping Co Ltd v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd [1918] AC 350: This case established that the proximate cause is not necessarily the last event before the loss but the dominant cause. Here, a ship damaged by a torpedo later sank due to a storm, but the torpedo was held as the proximate cause.


• 
  Pan American World Airways Inc v The Aetna Casualty and Surety Co (505 F.2d 989): In this case, the court ruled that the insurance company was not liable for losses resulting from hijacking, as it was considered an act of war, thus excluded from coverage.

These cases support the notion that the proximate cause is the predominant factor in determining liability, even if subsequent covered events contribute to the loss.

5. Policy Revision and Clarification

To avoid ambiguity in future situations, the insurance policy could be revised as follows:

• 
  Clearer Definition of Exclusions: Define "warlike operations" explicitly, including examples such as bombings, missile strikes, and other acts of war.


• 
  Sequential Damage Clauses: Include clauses that address losses resulting from sequential events, where an excluded peril initiates a chain of covered events.


• 
  Concurrent Causation Provisions: Clearly state how losses involving multiple causes (one excluded and one covered) will be handled, possibly incorporating a detailed explanation of how proximate cause will be determined.