A storm rolls through your job site. Wind tears at the framing while runoff floods the excavation. Days later, your insurer denies the whole builder’s risk claim because of one clause buried in the policy.
What an anti-concurrent causation clause does
An anti-concurrent causation (ACC) clause targets losses with more than one cause. It says an excluded peril, such as flooding, bars coverage even when a covered peril, such as wind, contributed. The clause can apply whether the perils strike at the same time or in sequence.
The stakes for a developer are high. One excluded factor in the chain of events could erase coverage for the entire loss. That risk makes ACC language one of the most important provisions to review before construction begins.
How California courts treat these clauses
California limits ACC clauses more than most states. Under California Insurance Code § 530, an insurer may be liable when a covered peril proximately causes the loss. This can hold true even if an excluded peril played a remote role.
Courts apply this rule through the efficient proximate cause doctrine. They identify the predominant cause of the loss rather than every contributing factor. If that predominant cause is covered, the claim may be payable. ACC clauses that try to override this statute are generally unenforceable in California.
Steps developers can take
You can protect your position by reviewing key policy features early. Here’s what you can do:
- Exclusion wording: Watch for phrases like “regardless of any other cause or event”.
- Ensuing loss provisions: Damage from a covered peril that follows an excluded one may still be payable.
- Policy form type: All-risk forms cover most physical loss, while named-peril forms cover only listed events.
- California endorsements: Insurers sometimes revise standard wording for projects in this state.
Each provision can shift risk among the owner, the contractor and the carrier.
Keeping multi-cause claims alive
ACC clauses give insurers a tool to deny losses with mixed causes. California law blunts that tool by focusing on the predominant cause under § 530. Knowing this rule could preserve coverage your project depends on. Reviewing construction and development issues before a loss can strengthen your position. If your claim involves contested causes or disputed policy language, an insurance recovery attorney may help you weigh your options.