Kathmandu School of Law Review

P-ISSN : 2091-2110, E-ISSN : 2773-8159, DOI : 10.46985, Publisher : Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal
Annual flagship journal of Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal

Volume 4, Issue 1, 2014
Articles

The Rule of Causa Proxima as a Principle of Insurance

PDF
  • Manjeet Kumar Sahu
Manjeet Kumar Sahu
4th Year Law Student, University of Petroleum & Energy Studies, Dehradun
Bio

Published 2014-04-30

Keywords

  • No Keywords.

How to Cite

Sahu, M. K. . (2014). The Rule of Causa Proxima as a Principle of Insurance. Kathmandu School of Law Review, 4(1), 154–163. Retrieved from https://kslreview.org/index.php/kslr/article/view/189

Abstract

The rule of Causa promixa (proximate cause) is derived from a latin phrase causa proxima non remota spectator (the immediate, and not the remote cause is to be considered). This article highlights the significance of the rule of causa proxima which is a key principle of insurance and is concerned with how the loss or damage actually occurred and whether it is indeed a result of an insured peril. It primarily discusses about the emphasis laid on the test of proximate cause in Insurance Law, in order to identify the causation of the loss or damage. It makes an effort to substantiate the subject matter by looking into the trends of interpretation of the rule, including in countries like the United Kingdom, the United States, India and Canada.

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. C.L. Tyagi & Madhu Tyagi, Insurance Law and Practice, Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi, 2007, p. 2.
  2. See J.V.N Jaiswal, Law of Insurance, 1st edn, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 2008.
  3. Nimish Patanakar, ‘Re insurance and Double insurance’, Scribd available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/59335976/Re-Insurance-Double-Insurance, accessed on 15 October 2014.
  4. M/S.Skypak Service Specialities Ltd. v M/S.Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd, Madras High Court, India, Cross-Appeal SR. no.74864/1991, decided on 9 July 2008; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Patna High Court, India, 2000 ACJ 343; Ralli Brothers v. Perumal, Madras High Court, India, 57 MLJ 88.
  5. See Ex. Sepoy Hayat Mohammed v. Union of India &Ors., Delhi High Court, India, 138 (2007) DLT 539, decided on 11 January 2007, para. 16.
  6. C. Sivadasan v. The New India Assurance Co., Kerela High Court, India, A.S. no. 647 of 1994, decided on 25 March 2011.
  7. See Susan Hodges, Law of Marine Insurance, 1st edn, Cavendish Publishing Ltd., London, 1996, p.158.
  8. Trinder, Anderson & Co. v. Thomes& Mersey Marine Insurance Co , Queen’s Bench, the United Kingdom, (1898) 2 QB 114, p.124.
  9. Re: Rabenfels, Stoomvart ... vs Unknown, Calcutta High Court, India, AIR 1930 Cal 97, para. 9; See Kotaro Fujimoto, ‘A Tendency of Arguments on the Principle of Causa Proxima’, vol. 10, no. 2, The Annals of the Hitosubashi Academy 158, 1959, pp.158-170.
  10. S.K Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, National Consumer Disputes Redressal, India, Lord Shaw’s Observation, III (2004) CPJ 74 NC.
  11. Yorkshire Dale Steamship Company Ltd. v. Minister of War Transport, HL, the United Kingdom, [1942] AC 691.
  12. S.K. Exports (n 13).
  13. Leyland Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Norwich Union Fire Society Ltd., HL, the United Kingdom, [1918] AC 350.
  14. Pink v. Fleming, Queen’s Bench, the United Kingdom, (1890) 25 QBD 396.
  15. Reischer v. Borwick, Queen’s Bench, the United Kingdom, (1894) 2 QB 548.
  16. Hodges(n 8), p. 158.
  17. Leyland Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Norwich Union Fire Insurance Ltd, HL, the United Kingdom, (1918) AC 350, p. 368.
  18. Pawsey & Company v. Scottish Union and National Insurance Co, The Times, 17 October 1908.
  19. Coxe v. Employers Liabilities Assurance Corporation, King’s Bench, the United Kingdom, [1916] 2 KB 629.
  20. Kajima Daewoo Joint Venture v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd , Uttaranchal State Commission, India, (2005) 1 CPJ 534.
  21. Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters, ‘The Principles of Insurance: Proximate’, CILA, p. 48 available at http://www.cila.co.uk/files/Certificate/Chapter%208.pdf, accessed on 22 April 2014.
  22. See Rob Merkin & Jenny Steele, Insurance and the Law of Obligations, Oxford University Press, Croydon, 2013, pp. 45-46.
  23. Jaiswal (n 3), p. 85.
  24. Harris v. Poland, the United Kingdom, (1941) 1 All ER 204.
  25. Spaight v. Tedcastle, HL, the United Kingdom, [1881] 6 A.C. 217 , p. 219.
  26. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd. v. Loach, HL, the United Kingdom, [1916] 1 A.C. 719, p.727.
  27. Remote cause is defined as ‘when an initiating peril and the chain of events it sets in motion is broken by a new and independent peril (an intervening cause), the initiating peril becomes a remote cause of loss and not a dominant cause of loss. In re Estate of Heckman, Colorado State of Appeals, 39 P.3d 1228 (Colo. App. 2001).
  28. Nani Bala Sen v. Auckland Jute Co. Ltd., Calcutta High Court, India, (1925) ILR 52 Cal 602, para. 12.
  29. Canevada Country Communities v. Gan Canada Insurance Co, Court of Appeals for British Columbia, Canada, 1999 BCCA 339, para. 27.
  30. Global Process Systems v. Syarikat Takaful, Supreme Court, the United Kingdom, 2010 (3) All ER 248.
  31. Ibid.
  32. Morsden v. City and County Assurance Company, the Court of Common Pleas, the United Kingdom, (1850) LR 1 CP 232
  33. Harris v. Poland (n 25).
  34. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vivek Cold Storage, National Commission, India, II (1999) CPJ 26 (NC).
  35. Reischer v. Borwick, Queen’s Bench, the United Kingdom, (1894) 2 QB 548, p. 552.
  36. Unless the policy otherwise provides, the insurer is not liable for ordinary wear and tear, ordinary leakage and breakage, inherent vice or nature of the subject-matter insured, or for any loss proximately caused by rats or vermin, or for any injury to machinery not proximately caused by maritime perils. Marine Insurance Act, 1963, India, s. 55(c).
  37. C.C.R. Fishing Ltd. v. British Reserve Insurance Co, Supreme Court, Canada, (1990) 1 SCR 814.
  38. Taylor v.Dunbar, Court of Common Pleas, the United Kingdom, LR 4 CP 206.
  39. Hamilton Fraser & Co. v. Pandrof& Co, the United Kingdom, (1887) 12 App Cas 518.
  40. C. Sivadasan v. The New India Assurance Co (n 7).

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.