Warning! You are currently not signed in. Any products you have purchased will not be displayed until you Sign In

"but for" test

In first-party property cases involving multiple perils, courts use the "but for" test to determine whether a given peril is a cause-in-fact of the loss. To do that, courts conduct a "thought experiment" and imagine what would happen if one of the perils did not occur. If the loss would have happened anyway with or without the occurrence of the removed peril, then the removed peril fails the "but for" test. What that means is that the removed peril is not really a cause-in-fact of the loss, so it cannot be selected as the proximate cause. See also Proximate cause.


Links for IRMI Online Subscribers Only: CPI IV.J; CRM VII.N; TRR 2/1999

Navigation

Social Media