(1) The cause having the most significant impact in bringing about the loss
under a first-party property insurance policy, when two or more independent
perils operate at the same time (i.e., concurrently) to produce a loss. Courts
employ a set of proximate cause rules to resolve causation disputes when a
property policy states that it covers or excludes losses "caused by"
a peril and there is more than one peril at work in a fact pattern. Under
common law, whether the policy provides coverage depends on which peril is
chosen as the proximate cause. If the peril selected as the proximate cause is
covered, courts consider the loss to have been caused by the covered peril and
will hold that the loss is covered. If the peril selected as the proximate
cause is uncovered or excluded, courts consider the loss to have been caused by
the uncovered or excluded peril and will hold that the loss is not
covered. (2) As a principle of tort law, proximate cause refers to a doctrine
by which a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's actions set in motion
a relatively short chain of events that could have reasonably been anticipated
to lead to the plaintiff's damages. If the defendant's actions were
"proximate" or close enough in the chain of causation to have
foreseeably led to the plaintiff's damages, courts will impose liability.
Otherwise, if the defendant's actions set in motion a long, bizarre chain
of events that could not have reasonably been foreseen to lead to the
plaintiff's damages, courts will not impose liability. In tort law,
multiple actions by one or more defendants that are a substantial factor in
producing the loss can qualify as proximate causes.